DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV029: ICU-in-a-Box, Autonomous Extracorporeal Multiple-Organ Support Therapies

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV029 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants a single, portable, battery-operated extracorporeal life support device that runs itself: one cannula into a central vein, and from that single access point the machine provides lung support, cardiovascular support, fluid resuscitation, and optionally electrolyte management and medication delivery, autonomously, for days, in a place where no critical care physician exists. The award is $1,500,000 over 24 months with a $500,000 option over 6 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The clinical logic is stated plainly. Severe hemorrhage is the number one cause of preventable combat deaths, followed by airway compromise. Following initial trauma, sepsis and multiple-organ failure predominate. Point of injury care has gotten much better, so more casualties survive the first hour, but in large-scale combat operations and in remote Special Operations settings, access to definitive medical care may not be available for days. More survivors plus fewer evacuation opportunities equals a population of casualties who need ICU-level organ support in a place that has none.

There is one scoping sentence that decides whether your idea fits. Approaches that only enable a user or users to interact with and control multiple different systems, meaning system of systems solutions, are not in scope. The goal is a single, portable device delivering all the desired clinical interventions through a single intravenous cannula. If your concept is an integrated cart of best-in-class modules with a unifying controller, this topic is not for you.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV029

‍ ‍

Title: ICU-in-a-Box: Autonomous Extracorporeal Multiple-Organ Support Therapies

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic solicits Direct to Phase II proposals only

‍ ‍

Technical volume format: White Paper and Slide Deck. The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides

‍ ‍

Base award: $1,500,000

‍ ‍

Base period of performance: 24 months

‍ ‍

Option: $500,000 over 6 months, for a pre-clinical pilot study

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Biotechnology

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Central architectural constraint: a single portable device, one patient-inserted cannula, preferably no larger than 15Fr (5mm), into the internal jugular or femoral vein

‍ ‍

Explicitly out of scope: system of systems solutions, and autonomous cannulation or decision support for cannulation

‍ ‍

Testing basis: large animal model testing, with IACUC and ACURO regulatory timelines built into the milestone schedule

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: autonomous systems, life support systems, resuscitation, trauma, shock, casualties, ARDS, multiple organ failure

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check

‍ ‍

This is a Direct to Phase II topic and DARPA is unusually numeric about what you must already have. Proposers must provide data demonstrating that the following has been achieved to be considered for award: a prototype, portable, battery operated extracorporeal system that can do four things.

‍ ‍

One. Achieve at least 2 L/min of blood flow and lung support, meaning both oxygenation and ventilation.

‍ ‍

Two. Deliver at least 75 mL/min oxygen.

‍ ‍

Three. Exchange at least 40 mL/min carbon dioxide.

‍ ‍

Four. At least one of the following three closed-loop algorithms.

‍ ‍

An algorithm that maintains oxygenation and ventilation within specified ranges for SpO2 and EtCO2 by adjusting combinations of blood flow, sweep gas, and FiO2.

‍ ‍

An algorithm that maintains mean arterial pressure within a specified range using at least one vasopressor and, as needed, fluid resuscitation, preferably blood and alternatively crystalloid.

‍ ‍

An algorithm that controls blood flow, ultrafiltration, and monitoring of an extracorporeal renal replacement or blood purification system for removing potassium.

‍ ‍

Read the fourth requirement carefully

‍ ‍

The first three are hardware performance numbers. The fourth is the one that eliminates most applicants, because it requires that you already have a working closed-loop control algorithm, not a plan for one. Notice that you need only one of the three, and that they are ordered from most to least conventional in this space. The oxygenation and ventilation control algorithm is the most natural for an ECMO or ECCO2R company. The mean arterial pressure algorithm is the most natural for an autonomous resuscitation company, and DARPA cites the Pinsky 2024 porcine work as evidence that class of algorithm exists. The potassium removal algorithm is the most natural for a portable dialysis or blood purification company.

‍ ‍

That structure tells you something about the intended applicant pool. DARPA expects one of three different kinds of company to walk in with one of three different kinds of demonstrated autonomy, and then to build the rest during Phase II. You are not expected to have all three. You are expected to have one, plus the hardware numbers, plus a credible plan to integrate the others.

‍ ‍

The additional documentation asks

‍ ‍

Beyond the four-part gate, DARPA lists specific things your feasibility documentation must address.

‍ ‍

You must describe current O2 transfer and carbon dioxide removal rates that can be achieved by the proposed system. Give real measured numbers, not design targets.

‍ ‍

The proposed system must directly interface with an oxygen source, such as a canister or an oxygen concentrator, to provide oxygenation and carbon dioxide removal to mitigate acidosis and lactate buildup. This is a hard interface requirement. A system that assumes wall gas is not a prolonged field care system.

‍ ‍

Proposals should provide evidence for the maximum duration of support with their proposed system, ideally greater than 72 hours. Note "ideally." Duration is scored but not gated, and 72 hours is the aspiration that reflects the days-long evacuation delay DARPA is designing against.

‍ ‍

Documentation should include, reference, or summarize all relevant information including but not limited to technical reports, test data, prototype designs and models, and performance goals and results.

‍ ‍

Proposers must also describe the potential commercial applications as part of the feasibility substantiation.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop, with large animal model testing, an autonomous, portable extracorporeal life support platform for prolonged field care that integrates resuscitation, cardiovascular and pulmonary support, and optionally electrolyte and medication delivery capabilities.

‍ ‍

The clinical and operational problem

‍ ‍

Severe hemorrhage is the number one cause of preventable combat deaths, followed by airway compromise, with increased artillery, thermobaric and incendiary munitions use potentially increasing lung injury prevalence in future conflicts. Following initial trauma, sepsis and multiple-organ failure predominate.

‍ ‍

Improvements in point of injury care, tourniquets and hemostatic dressings and similar interventions, have significantly increased survival in early trauma phases. Such care is ideally followed by pre-hospital care from trained medical providers during casualty evacuation. However, as reflected by the large-scale combat operations in the Russia-Ukraine war and with Special Operations missions in remote, austere locations, access to definitive medical care may not be available for days, especially in conflict with near-peer adversaries.

‍ ‍

More people surviving early phases of trauma combined with decreased evacuation opportunities highlights a pressing need for solutions that can provide advanced and sustained resuscitative care for the organ failure sequelae of severe trauma, such as hypotension, respiratory failure, and acute renal failure.

‍ ‍

Why DARPA thinks this is now possible

‍ ‍

The topic description contains a compressed technology readiness argument, and it is worth understanding because your proposal should either agree with it or explain where it is wrong.

‍ ‍

A growing body of technical capabilities and supporting literature suggests that by focusing on the key drivers of mortality, advances in autonomous systems across several areas of critical care could be combined into a single ICU-in-a-Box.

‍ ‍

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an alternative to using intubation and mechanical ventilation, under deep sedation, for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Because an ECMO system is essentially just a pump and a membrane lung, it offers a strong opportunity to automate oxygenation support, along with other key combat casualty care needs.

‍ ‍

Current ECMO systems require highly trained operators, largely because of the need to insert large cannulas and the associated thrombotic risks, but recent advances can mitigate these limitations. Assistive insertion devices and ECMO systems with smaller cannulas reduce the difficulty of insertion. Antithrombotic coatings, portable systems, and alternatives to conventional membrane oxygenators reduce thrombotic risk, at least over shorter periods. AI and machine learning advances in general, as well as ECMO management computer models, could support automation.

‍ ‍

Once venous access is established for automated ECMO, it enables additional interventions. Automated algorithms have stabilized mean arterial pressure and heart rate for short periods following severe hemorrhage in porcine models. Renal replacement therapy could mitigate life-threatening electrolyte abnormalities. Extracorporeal blood purification techniques could remove inflammatory mediators, infectious agents, or toxins.

‍ ‍

This SBIR seeks to combine such capabilities into a single, portable, integrated intervention and delivery platform for resuscitation, cardiovascular and lung support. There is additional potential to automate sedation, analgesia, and renal replacement therapies. Although these efforts remain relatively immature, their addition to the integrated system could further extend ICU-level, autonomous extracorporeal life support in the austere and operational setting.

‍ ‍

The argument in one line: the venous access is the expensive part, and once you have paid for it you should get everything through it.

‍ ‍

The scoping constraint that decides eligibility of the concept

‍ ‍

DARPA is interested in novel approaches to develop a fully integrated, portable system that can provide key components of resuscitation during prolonged casualty care.

‍ ‍

Approaches that only enable a user or users to interact with and control multiple different systems, meaning system of systems solutions, are not in scope. The goal is to create a single, portable device that is capable of providing all the desired clinical interventions through a single intravenous cannula inserted into a central vein, internal jugular or femoral.

‍ ‍

Given the ultimate goal to be able to deploy the system in conditions where experienced medical care is not available, a primary goal of this SBIR is to develop and integrate algorithms that enable the system to be autonomous.

‍ ‍

This is the sentence to read twice. A great many credible teams would naturally propose an integrated rack: an ECMO console, an infusion manifold, a hemofilter, and a supervisory controller. That is exactly what DARPA has ruled out. One device. One cannula. All interventions through it.

‍ ‍

The Operating Concept, Which Defines Your Autonomy Requirements

‍ ‍

DARPA lists assumptions and expectations that together describe who is standing next to this machine and what they can and cannot do. This is the most useful part of the topic for scoping your control system.

‍ ‍

Remote monitoring and control are essential to engage remote expert guidance and intervention when the system experiences edge or unanticipated conditions.

‍ ‍

A casualty is cannulated. Autonomous cannulation, or decision support for cannulation, is out of scope.

‍ ‍

Local users will have basic medical training, for example a field medic, and can set up, initiate, and attach the automated system if guided. But once attached, the system should monitor the casualty itself and provide autonomous interventions to sustain mean arterial pressure, oxygenation, and ventilation. It should address alerts and alarms, meaning system functioning, autonomously, or engage a remote expert automatically without local operator intervention.

‍ ‍

In addition to initiation of the device, local caregivers can be assumed to change IV bags after direction, retrieve and attach blood products after direction, and retrieve and attach medication after direction.

‍ ‍

Sufficient displays to provide status information about the patient and the current and past treatments deployed by the system should be included.

‍ ‍

It is also permissible to include a clinical decision support mode that a local operator could respond to in the event a remote expert is unavailable.

‍ ‍

What that operating concept actually implies

‍ ‍

The medic is a pair of hands, not a clinician. Every action the local user performs is prompted by the machine, described in the topic as "after direction." Your interface design problem is therefore instruction generation under stress, not clinical consultation.

‍ ‍

Alarms must be handled without the local operator. This is a strong statement. Conventional ECMO alarm response is the entire justification for a bedside specialist. DARPA is asking you to either resolve the alarm autonomously or escalate to a remote expert automatically, with the medic in neither loop.

‍ ‍

The remote expert is part of the architecture, not a fallback. Remote monitoring and control are called essential, which means bandwidth, latency, degraded-link behavior, and cyber security are design requirements rather than integration details. Note that network connection and cyber security appear explicitly in the SWaP-C3 requirement below.

‍ ‍

The clinical decision support mode is permitted, not required. Offer it as a degraded operating mode for a denied-communications scenario and you address the obvious objection that a comms-dependent life support system is a fragile life support system.

‍ ‍

Required Capabilities

‍ ‍

DARPA lists these as requirements. Treat each as a section heading in your white paper.

‍ ‍

Minimal patient contact and minimal sensing

‍ ‍

The system must be readily deployable with minimal contact points with the patients.

‍ ‍

Sensor packages should be minimized and be easily applied to monitor patient state. Proposals that do not require invasive arterial monitoring are preferred. Proposers must specify what sensors are being recommended, how they are intended to be used in austere and operational military conditions, and how they are providing the system sufficient physiological information to support the autonomy.

‍ ‍

That last clause is the hard one. You are being asked to run closed-loop perfusion pressure control without an arterial line, which is the sensor a modern ICU would use for exactly this purpose. Your proposal has to close that observability gap explicitly: which noninvasive or intracircuit measurements substitute, what the error characteristics are, and how the controller stays safe when the estimate degrades.

‍ ‍

One cannula

‍ ‍

The system may have one patient-inserted cannula, preferably no larger than 15Fr (5mm). Proposers must specify which vessels they intend to use, jugular or femoral.

‍ ‍

Fifteen French for a single-access circuit supporting 2 L/min or more of blood flow is a demanding hydraulic and hemolysis problem, and it is the reason the topic cites the 13Fr versus 15Fr cannula comparison literature. Address recirculation fraction, shear, and hemolysis directly.

‍ ‍

Circuit design, medication delivery, and safety parameters

‍ ‍

The intended circuit design must be provided and include how sufficient blood, fluids, and medications will be effectively delivered.

‍ ‍

Proposals must specifically describe how the proposed solution manages continuous medication delivery, for example sedation and analgesia and vasopressors, and bolus fluids, for example blood or crystalloid, within the integrated circuit.

‍ ‍

Proposers must also specify safety parameters that will be implemented in the integrated system.

‍ ‍

Note "within the integrated circuit." Vasopressors, sedation, and blood products all enter through the same single access. That means your circuit has to handle continuous low-rate infusion and rapid bolus volume in the same plumbing, with the mixing, dosing accuracy, and air management problems that implies.

‍ ‍

SWaP-C3 and the backpack

‍ ‍

As DARPA ultimately envisions a system intended for use in prolonged field care scenarios, proposers must describe the planned size, weight, and power, plus network connection, cyber security, and cost considerations, together abbreviated SWaP-C3, for the system.

‍ ‍

It is anticipated that further system development for miniaturization may occur beyond the scope of this SBIR, but the potential to integrate all the provided components in a portable form factor, for example a M9 backpack, must be demonstrated.

‍ ‍

Read the concession and the requirement together. You do not have to deliver a backpack in 24 months. You do have to demonstrate the potential to get there, which in practice means a component-level mass, volume, and power budget that closes against a stated backpack envelope, plus a bill of materials, which is a named Month 24 deliverable.

‍ ‍

Lung support

‍ ‍

For lung support, the system will be able to provide ECMO functionality for direct oxygen transfer to the blood.

‍ ‍

Preferably, full oxygen support, approximately 250 mL/min, would be achievable. In cases where partial oxygen support is proposed, at least 125 mL/min, proposers can assume that the patient is already intubated for respiratory support. Proposals that integrate with mechanical ventilation when present are preferred.

‍ ‍

In addition to oxygen support, the system should also provide at least 80 mL/min CO2 removal.

‍ ‍

There is a real strategic choice here. Full support at roughly 250 mL/min oxygen is the ambitious path and removes the ventilator from the field equipment set. Partial support at 125 mL/min is permitted, but you then inherit an intubated patient, which reimports the sedation, airway management, and ventilator logistics that the topic's own opening argument was trying to avoid. If you choose partial support, say why, and take the stated preference for ventilator integration seriously.

‍ ‍

Cardiovascular support and the hemorrhage model

‍ ‍

For cardiovascular support, the system must also be able to provide fluid resuscitation as needed.

‍ ‍

It must be capable of maintaining perfusion pressure, not just blood pressure, throughout the validation tests, for example at least 24 hours, and be able to support significant hemorrhagic trauma models, for example a model emulating an uncontrolled bleeding scenario of at least 50 percent of the estimated blood volume over six hours.

‍ ‍

This support can include blood, artificial blood products, freeze dried blood products, and crystalloid.

‍ ‍

When fluid is ineffective at maintaining perfusion pressure, the system should titrate vasopressors to maintain specified mean arterial pressure.

‍ ‍

All interventions must be autonomously controlled by the system.

‍ ‍

The parenthetical "not just blood pressure" is a deliberate clinical distinction and you should honor it. A controller that holds a MAP number while tissue perfusion fails is the classic failure mode of pressure-targeted resuscitation. Explain what your system uses as a perfusion surrogate, whether lactate, mixed venous saturation, urine output, capillary refill, or an intracircuit measure, and how the controller arbitrates between fluid and vasopressor.

‍ ‍

Algorithm development and validation

‍ ‍

Proposers must describe the planned development and validation of the closed-loop auto-titration algorithms for control of the oxygen saturation level.

‍ ‍

Likewise, they must describe the planned development and validation of the fluid resuscitation algorithms, as well as integration of the oxygenation and resuscitation algorithms into the overall system.

‍ ‍

The word "integration" is doing work. Two independently correct controllers, one moving blood flow and sweep gas for gas exchange and one moving volume and vasopressor for pressure, are coupled through the same circuit and the same patient. Increasing blood flow to improve oxygenation changes preload and pressure. Describe the arbitration or supervisory layer, not just the two loops.

‍ ‍

Animal model design

‍ ‍

Proposers must clearly describe the design of all proposed systems and large animal model tests, as well as their relevance to clinically relevant scenarios, such as similarity to human intravascular blood flow, changes in blood oxygenation levels, trauma biomarkers such as lactate, potassium, and pH, thrombotic and hemolysis risk checks, and histological assessments.

‍ ‍

Proposers may choose to utilize existing benchtop hardware and approaches for validation of the system functionality, or, alternatively, respondents may propose the development of iterative or new validation approaches as part of their proposal.

‍ ‍

Optional Capabilities That Strengthen a Proposal

‍ ‍

Additional capabilities of interest include renal replacement therapy and fluid management interventions to treat electrolyte derangements such as hyperkalemia.

‍ ‍

For these, the system would provide basic kidney support via the same circuit that supports oxygenation and fluid resuscitation. This would include providing electrolyte removal and fluid resuscitation to compensate for acute metabolic derangements. This could include filtering the blood to remove small molecules, or other interventions such as absorption, to compensate for cytokines, endotoxins, and similar mediators that can impact sepsis or other inflammatory derangements.

‍ ‍

More specifically the system should be demonstrated to be able to maintain adequate lactate levels, temperature, and pH, approximately within 20 percent of baseline values, for at least a 24-hour period.

‍ ‍

Additional functionality that is not required but is of interest, and would boost the strength of a proposed solution, includes automated sedation and analgesia, and delivery of scheduled medications such as antibiotics or other as-needed medications such as bolus pain control.

‍ ‍

Two notes. First, "via the same circuit" again. The optional capabilities are not bolt-ons, they must live inside the single-access architecture. Second, the temperature target inside the renal and metabolic bullet is easy to miss, and it implies thermal management of an extracorporeal circuit in an austere environment, which is a power budget item.

‍ ‍

The Milestone Schedule, Which Is Effectively a Work Plan

‍ ‍

DARPA specifies interim and end-phase goals for a 24-month base effort followed by a 6-month option, and says responders are strongly encouraged to propose additional interim assessments to further demonstrate progress toward the stated goals.

‍ ‍

Month 1. Report on initial circuit architectures, sensors, algorithms, animal models, development strategy, and timeline.

‍ ‍

Month 3. Interim report on integration of extracorporeal support subsystems, meaning sensor packages, lung and cardiovascular systems, plus any planned optional capabilities such as electrolyte support. Interim report on development of automation algorithms. Report on development of initial ex vivo and computational simulation testing environments.

‍ ‍

Month 6. Report on development strategy for large animal models. Animal models may be used for testing each subsystem separately, at 6 hours for hemorrhage models and 12 hours for other interventions, including regulatory IACUC and ACURO timelines.

‍ ‍

Month 9. Interim report describing performance, ex vivo and simulation, of the prototype system and automation algorithms, and refinements to ex vivo testing environments. Report on regulatory status and approval of large animal models.

‍ ‍

Month 12. Interim report describing performance, ex vivo and simulation, of the prototype system and automation algorithms. Interim report describing development status of large animal models.

‍ ‍

Month 15. Interim report describing in vivo performance of the prototype system in separate animal models. Report on clinical regulatory approval strategy, for example FDA engagements.

‍ ‍

Month 18. Interim report describing in vivo performance of the prototype system in separate animal models. Report on strategy for developing a large animal model that combines assessments for all subsystems, for example a polytrauma model, in order to validate system performance during simultaneous deployment of all automation algorithms, maintaining hemostasis for 24 hours, including regulatory IACUC and ACURO timelines.

‍ ‍

Month 21. Report on regulatory status and approval of the large animal polytrauma model.

‍ ‍

Month 24. Final report summarizing approach, prototype architecture and algorithms, and separate large animal model testing results including thrombotic, hemolysis, and histological assessments as well as efficacy of algorithms in maintaining goal biomarkers such as SpO2, EtCO2, and MAP. Bill of materials for the prototype, plus SWaP-C3 feasibility for future fully portable designs, and use of consumables such as oxygen, fluids, and vasopressors. Report on regulatory development strategy and any FDA engagements. Report on development of the polytrauma model and recommendations for its use in a preclinical study for in vivo assessments of the prototype device, including updated recommendations for a regulatory strategy.

‍ ‍

Option Period 1

‍ ‍

Proposals that respond to Option Period 1 may also include a sequential 6-month option period for a pre-clinical pilot study to demonstrate and validate the functionality of their integrated breadboard system in a large animal model.

‍ ‍

Month 25. Report on regulatory approval status for the 24-hour large animal model that combines all interventions, for example the polytrauma model. Report on experimental testing strategy and timeline.

‍ ‍

Month 28. Interim report describing integration of all prototype subsystems and automation algorithms. Interim report describing in vivo performance of the prototype system in a 24-hour large animal polytrauma model.

‍ ‍

Month 30. Final report documenting final prototype architecture and algorithms, methods, all results, and proposed strategy for a portable form factor compatible with far forward deployment in austere conditions, meaning a SWaP-C3 assessment, and final regulatory status and FDA engagements.

‍ ‍

What the schedule tells you about risk

‍ ‍

The schedule is built around animal regulatory approval, and it appears twice: subsystem models approved by Month 9, and a combined polytrauma model approved by Month 21. That is the schedule's critical path, not the engineering. IACUC plus ACURO review is a multi-month process that you do not control. A proposal that treats these as line items rather than as the dominant schedule risk is not being honest about the plan, and DARPA has told you where to look by writing regulatory timelines into two separate milestones.

‍ ‍

Note also the sequencing logic. Subsystems are validated in separate animal models during the base period. The combined polytrauma model, with all algorithms running simultaneously for 24 hours, is what Option Period 1 buys. So the base period ends with a system that has been proven in pieces, and the option proves it whole. Your Month 24 deliverable set is written accordingly: a bill of materials, a SWaP-C3 feasibility assessment, and a recommendation for the preclinical study rather than the study itself.

‍ ‍

The word "breadboard" in the Option Period 1 description is a deliberate expectation-setter. DARPA is not expecting a packaged product at Month 30.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

This SBIR has potential applicability across DoW and commercial entities.

‍ ‍

Commercial applications include integration of this autonomous extracorporeal support platform into civilian critical care transport, meaning rotor-wing, fixed-wing, and ground ambulance services; rural and community hospital use as a bridge-to-transfer where on-site critical care expertise is unavailable; and mass-casualty or disaster-response settings where trained critical care staff are scarce or evacuation times are long.

‍ ‍

Military and DoW applications include incorporation into Prolonged Casualty Care and equipment sets for Special Operations Forces, forward surgical teams, and casualty evacuation platforms across air, ground, and maritime domains, including uncrewed evacuation systems. This enables extended en-route and prolonged field care for casualties with severe injuries, battle or disease non-battle, in contested or resource-limited operational environments. In these settings, an autonomous, portable extracorporeal life support system will provide options to sustain the force that do not currently exist.

‍ ‍

The civilian case here is stronger than in most DARPA medical topics, because the same staffing shortage exists in the commercial market. ECMO capability is concentrated in a small number of high-volume centers, and the limiting resource is trained perfusion and intensive care staff rather than hardware. A device that reduces operator skill requirements addresses a documented civilian access problem, which is a real Phase III story rather than a courtesy paragraph. The rotor-wing and fixed-wing transport market in particular already pays for portable, battery-operated, oxygen-canister-fed equipment.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

$1,500,000 over a 24 month base, plus a $500,000 option over 6 months, for $2,000,000 across 30 months if the option is exercised.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.

‍ ‍

Be realistic about what $1.5 million buys against this scope. Large animal studies alone, across multiple separate subsystem models with IACUC and ACURO overhead, consume a substantial share. This is a topic where existing hardware, an existing animal facility relationship, and an existing regulatory pathway are worth more than a large engineering team.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

Cost-plus reimbursement requires including your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires including a completed OT using the Model OT for Prototype from the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, with at minimum the color-coded areas completed and redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

For a program with animal regulatory schedule risk outside your control, the choice of contract type is worth real thought rather than defaulting to firm-fixed-price.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. Requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award.

‍ ‍

For this topic, regulatory consulting is the highest-value use of TABA. An autonomous, closed-loop, drug-delivering extracorporeal life support device is a genuinely novel regulatory object, and DARPA has already put FDA engagement strategy into the Month 15 and Month 24 deliverables. Getting experienced device regulatory counsel involved early is directly aligned with a contract requirement.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification, marking, and registrations

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, though the projected requirement for this topic is Level 1. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

This matters more here than on most topics. Medical device companies with working extracorporeal hardware are almost always venture funded, and DARPA's permissive posture keeps that pool eligible.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Note the "non-conforming" language against the scoping constraint. A system of systems proposal is arguably non-conforming with the research objectives of the topic rather than merely weak, which means it may not be evaluated at all.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Twenty of them, the longest reference list in this DARPA release, and they map the proposal you are expected to write.

‍ ‍

The combat casualty care case: Eastridge 2012 on death on the battlefield 2001 to 2011; Remondelli 2023 on casualty care implications of large-scale combat operations; Neff 2013 on extracorporeal organ support following trauma; Chovanes 2012 on the evolution of damage control surgery; Cohen 2012 on hemostatic resuscitation; Kotwal 2016 on the golden hour policy; Keenan and Riesberg 2017 on prolonged field care beyond the golden hour; Epstein 2023 on lessons from the war in Ukraine.

‍ ‍

The ECMO technology case: Geetha 2024, a comprehensive review of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Szentgyorgyi 2025 on the evolution of ECMO and advanced developments; Conrad on the clinical trials of the intravascular oxygenator; Osmani 2026 comparing 13Fr and 15Fr arterial return cannulas for V-A ECMO in ECPR; Combes 2024, the European expert consensus on ECCO2R for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which is the source of the 80 mL/min CO2 removal figure.

‍ ‍

The automation case: Pladet 2023 on clinical decision support for ECMO, subtitled "Will we fly by wire?"; Pinsky 2024 on autonomous precision resuscitation during ground and air transport of an animal hemorrhagic shock model; Brattain 2021 on an AI-enabled, ultrasound-guided handheld robotic device for femoral vascular access; Daga 2026 on closed-loop anesthesia; Nagata 2023 on automated control of propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium versus anesthesiologist management; Aissou 2012 on pupillary reflex measurement for objective analgesia assessment; Wieringa 2025 on portable, wearable, and implantable artificial kidneys.

‍ ‍

Three of these deserve particular attention. Pinsky 2024 is the existence proof for the mean arterial pressure algorithm option in the feasibility gate, and it is an animal transport study, which is close to the operational scenario. Combes 2024 is where the CO2 removal number comes from, so your gas exchange claims should be framed in its terms. Pladet 2023 is the closest thing in the literature to what DARPA is asking for on the control side, and its title question is the one your proposal has to answer.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Base period: 24 months from award

‍ ‍

Option Period 1: 6 additional months if exercised

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Test yourself against the four-part feasibility gate with measured data, not projections: 2 L/min blood flow with oxygenation and ventilation, 75 mL/min oxygen delivery, 40 mL/min CO2 exchange, and at least one working closed-loop algorithm from the three listed. Assemble the technical reports, test data, prototype designs, and performance results that substantiate it. Measure and document your actual maximum duration of support, and note how it compares to the greater-than-72-hour aspiration. Confirm your system interfaces directly with a canister or concentrator oxygen source. Decide jugular versus femoral and fix your cannula size. Line up your large animal facility and start the IACUC conversation now, because approval timelines are the schedule's critical path and appear in two separate milestones. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20 page white paper and 15 slide deck. Lead with the feasibility evidence, then the single-device architecture, then the autonomy and remote expert concept of operations, then the required capabilities in DARPA's own order, then the animal model and regulatory plan. State plainly and early that your solution is a single device through a single cannula, because that is the screening question.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template across 24 months plus the 6 month option. Price large animal studies realistically, including per-study facility cost, veterinary support, IACUC and ACURO administrative burden, and the difference between 6-hour hemorrhage models and 12-hour intervention models. Price disposables, oxygenator and filter development, consumables, and regulatory consulting. Consider whether TABA covers the regulatory work.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page white paper, 15 slide deck, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV029?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV029 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "ICU-in-a-Box: Autonomous Extracorporeal Multiple-Organ Support Therapies," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop, with large animal model testing, an autonomous, portable extracorporeal life support platform for prolonged field care that integrates resuscitation, cardiovascular and pulmonary support, and optionally electrolyte and medication delivery capabilities.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The base award is $1,500,000 over 24 months, with a $500,000 option over 6 months for a pre-clinical pilot study, for a maximum of $2,000,000 across 30 months if the option is exercised. Phase II awardees may also request up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance, which is in addition to the cost ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil. DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. This topic solicits Direct to Phase II proposals only.

‍ ‍

What must my existing prototype already do?

‍ ‍

You must provide data showing a prototype, portable, battery operated extracorporeal system that achieves at least 2 L/min of blood flow with lung support, delivers at least 75 mL/min oxygen, exchanges at least 40 mL/min carbon dioxide, and includes at least one of three closed-loop algorithms: oxygenation and ventilation control within SpO2 and EtCO2 ranges via blood flow, sweep gas, and FiO2; mean arterial pressure maintenance using at least one vasopressor plus fluid as needed; or control of blood flow, ultrafiltration, and monitoring for potassium removal in an extracorporeal renal replacement or blood purification system.

‍ ‍

Do I need all three algorithms?

‍ ‍

No. You need at least one demonstrated. The three options correspond to three different kinds of company, and the expectation is that you bring one demonstrated autonomy capability and build the others during Phase II.

‍ ‍

Is a system of systems approach acceptable?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states that approaches which only enable a user or users to interact with and control multiple different systems, meaning system of systems solutions, are not in scope. The goal is a single, portable device providing all the desired clinical interventions through a single intravenous cannula. Because non-conforming proposals are not evaluated, this is a screening issue rather than a scoring issue.

‍ ‍

How many cannulas can my system use?

‍ ‍

One. The system may have one patient-inserted cannula, preferably no larger than 15Fr (5mm), and proposers must specify whether they intend to use the internal jugular or the femoral vein.

‍ ‍

Is autonomous cannulation part of this topic?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states that a casualty is assumed to be cannulated, and that autonomous cannulation or decision support for cannulation is out of scope.

‍ ‍

What oxygen and CO2 performance does Phase II target?

‍ ‍

Preferably full oxygen support of approximately 250 mL/min. Partial oxygen support of at least 125 mL/min is acceptable, but then you may assume the patient is already intubated for respiratory support, and proposals that integrate with mechanical ventilation when present are preferred. The system should also provide at least 80 mL/min CO2 removal.

‍ ‍

What hemorrhage scenario must the system handle?

‍ ‍

The system must be able to support significant hemorrhagic trauma models, for example a model emulating an uncontrolled bleeding scenario of at least 50 percent of the estimated blood volume over six hours, and must maintain perfusion pressure, not just blood pressure, throughout validation tests of at least 24 hours.

‍ ‍

Can I use an arterial line for monitoring?

‍ ‍

You can, but proposals that do not require invasive arterial monitoring are preferred. Sensor packages should be minimized and easily applied, and you must specify which sensors you recommend, how they work in austere and operational military conditions, and how they provide the system sufficient physiological information to support the autonomy.

‍ ‍

Who operates the system in the field?

‍ ‍

A local user with basic medical training, such as a field medic, who can set up, initiate, and attach the system if guided. After attachment the system monitors the casualty itself and provides autonomous interventions for mean arterial pressure, oxygenation, and ventilation. It must handle alerts and alarms autonomously or engage a remote expert automatically without local operator intervention. Local caregivers can be assumed to change IV bags, retrieve and attach blood products, and retrieve and attach medication, all after direction from the system.

‍ ‍

Is remote connectivity required?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA states that remote monitoring and control are essential to engage remote expert guidance and intervention when the system experiences edge or unanticipated conditions. Network connection and cyber security are also explicit elements of the SWaP-C3 description you must provide. A clinical decision support mode for use when a remote expert is unavailable is permitted.

‍ ‍

Do I have to deliver a backpack-sized system?

‍ ‍

Not within this SBIR. DARPA anticipates that further miniaturization may occur beyond the scope of this effort, but you must demonstrate the potential to integrate all provided components in a portable form factor, for example a M9 backpack, and a SWaP-C3 feasibility assessment plus a bill of materials are Month 24 deliverables.

‍ ‍

What are the optional capabilities?

‍ ‍

Renal replacement therapy and fluid management to treat electrolyte derangements such as hyperkalemia, provided through the same circuit, with demonstrated maintenance of lactate, temperature, and pH within approximately 20 percent of baseline for at least 24 hours. Also of interest, though not required, are automated sedation and analgesia and delivery of scheduled or as-needed medications.

‍ ‍

What animal testing is expected?

‍ ‍

Large animal model testing throughout. During the base period, separate models validate individual subsystems, at 6 hours for hemorrhage models and 12 hours for other interventions. A combined polytrauma model that runs all automation algorithms simultaneously for 24 hours is developed during the base period and executed in Option Period 1. IACUC and ACURO regulatory timelines appear explicitly in the Month 6 and Month 18 milestones.

‍ ‍

What is the biggest schedule risk?

‍ ‍

Animal regulatory approval. DARPA writes IACUC and ACURO timelines into two separate milestones and requires reports on regulatory approval status at Months 9 and 21. Those reviews are not under your control and gate the in vivo work that everything else depends on.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026, with the topic number in the subject line. DARPA maintains a consolidated FAQ document on its Small Business site under the topic number summary.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type: FAR-based firm-fixed-price, FAR-based cost-plus reimbursement, or an Other Transaction for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter, and an Other Transaction requires the completed Model OT and OT Certifications in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory, and templates for both Volume 2 and Volume 3 are attachments on the DARPA Small Business website.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1. Firms engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA more broadly must have CMMC Level 2 certification.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Firms more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 may propose, provided they register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, include the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notify the Contracting Officer if they enter that ownership class after submission but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. Proposals are evaluated individually on their own merit rather than against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiation or resubmission. Proposals that do not comply with the BAA requirements or the research objectives of the topic are non-conforming and are not evaluated.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, granted at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

Civilian critical care transport by rotor-wing, fixed-wing, and ground ambulance; rural and community hospitals as a bridge-to-transfer where on-site critical care expertise is unavailable; and mass-casualty or disaster-response settings where trained critical care staff are scarce or evacuation times are long.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, by October 14, 2026. General DARPA SBIR inquiries and feedback session requests go to sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Answer the single-device question in your first paragraph. The scoping sentence ruling out system of systems solutions is the most consequential line in the topic, and a non-conforming proposal is not evaluated at all. Do not bury the architecture claim on page eight. State on page one that your solution is one portable device delivering all interventions through one cannula, and then prove it with a circuit diagram.

‍ ‍

Pick your feasibility algorithm and lead with the data. You need one of the three closed-loop algorithms demonstrated, and which one you have tells DARPA what kind of company you are. Show the measured performance, the animal or bench conditions, the control bounds, and the failure behavior. Then explain how you extend to the other functions, because that extension is what the $1.5 million buys.

‍ ‍

Solve the observability problem out loud. DARPA prefers no invasive arterial monitoring while requiring closed-loop perfusion pressure control. That tension is the technical heart of the proposal. Name your sensors, state their accuracy under motion, temperature, and hypoperfusion, explain how you estimate perfusion rather than just pressure, and describe controller behavior when the estimate degrades.

‍ ‍

Take "perfusion pressure, not just blood pressure" literally. It is a clinically meaningful distinction and a reviewer with a critical care background will look for it. Explain what surrogate you use, how fluid and vasopressor are arbitrated, and how you avoid the well-known failure of hitting a MAP target while tissue perfusion collapses.

‍ ‍

Describe the supervisory layer, not just the loops. Gas exchange control and hemodynamic control are coupled through one circuit and one patient. Increasing blood flow for oxygenation changes preload. Someone has to arbitrate. DARPA asked specifically about integration of the oxygenation and resuscitation algorithms, and that arbitration logic is the answer.

‍ ‍

Design for the medic who is not a clinician. Every local action in the topic is "after direction." Your interface generates instructions, not consultations. Show what the display says, how the machine asks for a blood product, and what happens when the medic is doing something else.

‍ ‍

Treat the remote expert link as a design requirement and then defeat the obvious objection. Remote monitoring and control are called essential, which invites the question of what happens in a denied-communications environment. The permitted clinical decision support mode is your answer. Build it, describe the degraded operating modes, and specify how long the system can run fully autonomously with no link.

‍ ‍

Put the animal regulatory pathway at the front of your schedule risk discussion. IACUC and ACURO timelines appear in two milestones and approval status reports at Months 9 and 21. If you already have an approved protocol at a facility with a hemorrhagic shock or polytrauma model, that is your single strongest schedule credential. Say so early and name the facility.

‍ ‍

Close the SWaP-C3 budget on paper. You are not required to build a backpack, but you must demonstrate the potential to reach one. A component-level mass, volume, and power table against a stated M9 backpack envelope, plus the bill of materials DARPA wants at Month 24, converts an aspiration into an engineering argument. Do not forget thermal management, since the optional metabolic capability includes maintaining temperature.

‍ ‍

Be honest about hemolysis and thrombosis at 15Fr. Single-access, 2 L/min or more, days of runtime, and a 5 mm cannula is a hard combination, and DARPA cited the cannula comparison and antithrombotic coating literature because it knows. Recirculation fraction, shear, coating strategy, anticoagulation approach in a setting with no laboratory, and the thrombotic and hemolysis risk checks named in the Month 24 deliverable all belong in the white paper.

‍ ‍

Choose full versus partial lung support deliberately and defend it. Partial support at 125 mL/min is allowed but assumes an intubated patient, which reintroduces the ventilator, the sedation, and the airway management that the topic's opening argument was trying to eliminate. If you go partial, explain the tradeoff and show how you integrate with mechanical ventilation, which is the stated preference.

‍ ‍

Add interim assessments. DARPA strongly encourages responders to propose additional interim assessments beyond the listed milestones. Doing so costs you nothing in page count if done well and signals program management maturity on a schedule that has real regulatory uncertainty in it.

‍ ‍

Use the slide deck for the circuit. Fifteen slides is a generous visual allowance next to a 20 page white paper. A single-access circuit that carries blood flow, gas exchange, medication infusion, bolus fluid, and optional filtration is far easier to understand as a diagram than as prose. Spend slides on the circuit schematic, the control architecture, the sensor placement, the SWaP-C3 packaging concept, and the animal test configuration.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV028: TRIAGE-X, Autonomous Casualty Triage and Treatment in Chemically Contaminated Mass Casualty Events

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV028 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants autonomous medical triage systems that recognize chemical toxidromes and physically deliver the corresponding antidote or life-saving intervention. Not recommend it. Deliver it. The award is $1,500,000 over 24 months with a $500,000 option over 6 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The operational logic is the reason this exists. When a mass casualty incident occurs inside a chemically contaminated area, responders cannot enter until the threat is assessed and characterized. To be safe they must don protective equipment first, which delays initial assessment, triage, and treatment. That equipment then imposes a physiological and functional penalty: slower movement, higher energy expenditure, heat stress, impaired respiration, and reduced manual dexterity, all of which further impede the ability to perform life-saving interventions. Meanwhile effective stabilization occurs in the cold zone, after casualties have been decontaminated, compounding the delay to evacuation and definitive care. An autonomous system that performs initial triage and treatment in the hot zone means responders either avoid entry entirely or gain time to don protective equipment.

The feasibility bar is high and specific. DARPA states that Phase I work is expected to have been completed before award, and lists concrete capabilities your existing prototype must already demonstrate, including autonomously finding and localizing casualties to within 2 meters, standoff vital signs assessment, and operating at scale across at least 20 casualties in a single scenario, all supported by a written technical description or published report with data and video.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV028

‍ ‍

Title: TRIAGE-X: Autonomous Casualty Triage and Treatment in Chemically Contaminated Mass Casualty Events

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2)

‍ ‍

Technical volume format: White Paper and Slide Deck. The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides

‍ ‍

Base award: $1,500,000

‍ ‍

Base period of performance: 24 months

‍ ‍

Option: $500,000 over 6 months

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Computing and Software; Biotechnology; Human-Machine Interfaces; Integrated Sensing and Cyber; Trusted AI and Autonomy

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Minimum deliverable: a demonstrated prototype that detects at least two representative chemical toxidromes and applies appropriate initial treatments following human-in-the-loop treatment approval

‍ ‍

Out of scope: identification of the specific chemical agent, and chemical-specific sensors

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: medical triage, mass casualty incidents, autonomous systems, robotics, medical countermeasures, chemical warfare injuries

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check

‍ ‍

DARPA states that Phase I work is expected to have been completed before award. Proposers must submit evidence that their existing prototype can do six things.

‍ ‍

Autonomously find and localize casualties and report their location to within 2 meters.

‍ ‍

Assess trauma patterns and assign a trauma triage category.

‍ ‍

Perform accurate standoff vital-signs assessment, including at minimum heart rate and respiratory rate.

‍ ‍

Operate at scale, defined as at least 20 casualties in a single scenario, performing assessment in under 90 seconds for each casualty, and surveying a 30,000 square foot area without a battery change.

‍ ‍

Operate across diverse, realistic environments: indoor and outdoor, daytime and nighttime, ideally but not required in adverse weather conditions such as rain and smoke.

‍ ‍

Produce a human-interpretable output through a graphical interface that conveys casualty locations and priorities of care.

‍ ‍

Plus a system requirement: the system must be portable, with all components easily transported by a vehicle or drone.

‍ ‍

How the evidence must be presented

‍ ‍

Capability demonstration: a written technical description or published report supported by data and videos demonstrating the prototype performing the capabilities above in the stated environments are required, provided via link.

‍ ‍

Note "provided via link." Your videos are delivered as links rather than embedded files, which means hosting them somewhere durable and accessible to Government reviewers. Check the links work from outside your network and will stay live through the evaluation period, which runs up to 90 days past October 21.

‍ ‍

What this bar actually screens for

‍ ‍

Read the list together and the intended applicant becomes clear: a team that already fields an autonomous casualty search and triage system. The 2 meter localization, the sub-90-second per-casualty assessment, the 20-casualty scale, and the 30,000 square foot single-battery survey are all performance numbers from a working platform, not projections.

‍ ‍

DARPA says so directly elsewhere in the topic. The DARPA Triage Challenge has demonstrated that autonomous air and ground systems, using standoff sensors, can locate casualties, characterize injury patterns, and support triage prioritization in realistic mass casualty incident conditions. Using DARPA Triage Challenge triage support capabilities as a starting point, this solicitation aims to extend capabilities to operating in chemically hazardous environments where injury patterns have distinct signatures or toxidromes.

‍ ‍

If you competed in or built toward the DARPA Triage Challenge, this topic is written for you. If you have not, the honest question is whether you can document all six capabilities with data and video before October 21.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop and demonstrate capability with autonomous medical triage systems to recognize chemical toxidromes and physically deliver the corresponding antidote or life-saving intervention.

‍ ‍

The operational problem

‍ ‍

DARPA seeks innovative approaches to autonomous chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear triage that measurably improve casualty survival and increase the effective capacity of a medical response during CBRN disasters.

‍ ‍

Early situational awareness and timely treatment is a matter of life and death in battlefield and disaster medical triage. Responder vulnerability in hazardous environments caused by CBRN attacks adds significant difficulty to the medical response.

‍ ‍

When a mass casualty incident occurs within a chemically contaminated area, the medical response is hindered by uncertainty while the threat is assessed and characterized. To ensure safety of the responders, they must don protective equipment before entry, delaying initial assessment, triage, and treatment with life-saving interventions.

‍ ‍

Personal protective equipment also imposes a physiological and functional penalty on responders resulting in slower movement, higher energy expenditure, heat stress, impaired respiration, and reduced manual dexterity. These penalties further impede responders' ability to perform life-saving interventions.

‍ ‍

Effective stabilization occurs in the cold zone after casualties have been decontaminated, compounding the delay to evacuation and definitive care.

‍ ‍

Success here extends proven autonomous triage into one of the most challenging settings where human entry is dangerous and delayed, and where early antidote delivery most directly determines casualty survival.

‍ ‍

What the system must do

‍ ‍

Proposed systems should be able to locate and assess casualties for traumatic injuries and chemical toxidromes, generate triage recommendations, and deliver appropriate initial treatments to reverse, stabilize, or prevent the toxic effects of chemicals.

‍ ‍

Solutions should be designed for realistic operational use in difficult terrain under challenging environmental conditions.

‍ ‍

What DARPA deliberately does not prescribe

‍ ‍

DARPA does not prescribe a specific platform, sensor suite, or level of autonomy. Offerors are encouraged to propose the human-machine teaming arrangement that best improves decision quality and casualty outcomes, and to define how their system fails safely when conditions exceed its competence.

‍ ‍

That second clause is unusual and important. Defining how your system fails safely when conditions exceed its competence is a stated requirement. Autonomous systems administering medication in a contaminated environment need explicit competence boundaries and safe behavior at those boundaries. Address it directly rather than treating it as a risk paragraph.

‍ ‍

Approaches should be realistic in scope, repurposed within the period of performance, and grounded in how CBRN mass casualty response actually unfolds.

‍ ‍

At minimum, the effort shall deliver a demonstrated prototype that detects at least two representative chemical toxidromes and applies appropriate initial treatments for the assessed toxidrome following human-in-the-loop treatment approval.

‍ ‍

Two toxidromes minimum. Treatment decisions always made by humans. Those two constraints bound the program.

‍ ‍

Agent identification is explicitly out of scope

‍ ‍

Performers shall develop the capability to assess and treat at least two chemical agent categories from the topic's toxidrome table. Agent detection is out of scope for this effort.

‍ ‍

The requirements table repeats it: identification of the specific chemical agent is out of scope, and chemical-specific sensors are also out of scope.

‍ ‍

This is a significant scoping decision and it should shape your architecture. You are not building a chemical detector. You are building a system that reads the casualty's physical presentation, the toxidrome, and infers the likely agent category from clinical signs. That is a medical inference problem from observable physiology and behavior, not a chemistry problem. Proposals that lean on chemical sensing have misread the topic.

‍ ‍

The Toxidromes and Treatments

‍ ‍

The topic provides three tables. Table 1 defines the target toxidromes, representative agents, physical presentation, and anticipated treatment to demonstrate. Table 2 defines how those toxidromes will be simulated on mannikins for demonstration. Table 3 defines the required technical capabilities.

‍ ‍

Table 1, the five toxidrome categories

‍ ‍

Cholinergic, or nerve-agent, syndrome. Representative agents: sarin, VX, Novichok, organophosphates. Physical presentation: DUMBBELS, meaning diarrhea, urination, miosis or constricted pupils, muscle weakness, bronchospasm, bronchorrhea, bradycardia or decreased heart rate, emesis, lacrimation, salivation and sweating. Anticipated treatment: intramuscular pharmaceutical delivery of simulated antidote, atropine and pralidoxime, plus airway management.

‍ ‍

Blood-agent, or cyanide, syndrome. Representative agents: hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen chloride. Physical presentation: rapid collapse, gasping, tachypnea or fast respiratory rate progressing to apnea or no breathing, altered mental status, seizures, cardiovascular instability with low blood pressure and fast heart rate, skin flushing, central cyanosis, dilated pupils. Anticipated treatment: IV or IO pharmaceutical delivery, such as a cyanokit, plus airway management.

‍ ‍

Pulmonary or choking-agent syndrome. Representative agents: chlorine, phosgene. Physical presentation: cough, dyspnea or difficulty breathing, wheezing, stridor, eye and airway irritation, respiratory distress, delayed pulmonary edema. Anticipated treatment: delivery of bronchodilators plus airway management.

‍ ‍

Vesicant or blister-agent syndrome. Representative agent: sulfur mustard. Physical presentation: blistering skin burns, airway irritation, pain. Anticipated treatment: skin decontamination with removal of substance from exposed skin and clothing, and washing skin or using decontamination cloths, plus airway management.

‍ ‍

Opioid or respiratory-depressant syndrome. Representative agent: fentanyl-type incapacitants. Physical presentation: pinpoint pupils, respiratory depression progressing to apnea, decreased consciousness. Anticipated treatment: intranasal or intramuscular naloxone plus airway management.

‍ ‍

Two footnotes to Table 1 matter. Airway management includes providing supplemental oxygen by mask AND escalating to either non-invasive, meaning bag-valve mask or mechanical, or invasive, meaning endotracheal intubation or surgical airway, ventilation. And the cyanide treatment note specifies that IV or IO delivery includes autonomous placement of an intravenous or intraosseous catheter.

‍ ‍

That last item is worth pausing on. Autonomous placement of an IV or IO catheter is a substantially harder robotic task than an intramuscular injection. If you select the blood-agent category as one of your two, you are committing to autonomous vascular or intraosseous access. Choosing cholinergic and opioid syndromes, both of which use intramuscular or intranasal delivery, is a materially easier engineering path. Choose deliberately and justify the choice.

‍ ‍

Table 2, simulated presentations on mannikins

‍ ‍

Performers will demonstrate their platform's ability to recognize simulated toxidromes in silico, meaning computer-based simulation, and on high-fidelity mannikins with the simulated toxidrome presentations outlined in Table 2.

‍ ‍

The simulated cues are concrete and tell you exactly what your perception system must detect. For cholinergic syndrome: damp or wet clothing around the groin area and on the ground, constricted pupils, coughing sounds, rapid breathing at a rate greater than 30, slow palpable pulses at the wrist and groin at a rate under 40, emesis from the mouth with head turned and vomit on the side of the face and on the ground, and damp "skin" sprayed on with liquid.

‍ ‍

For blood-agent syndrome: coughing sounds, rapid breathing greater than 30, altered mental status or confusion shown as mumbling words and not responding verbally to instructions, flushed red-appearing skin, dilated pupils.

‍ ‍

For pulmonary syndrome: coughing sounds, rapid breathing greater than 30, red or irritated eyes with scleral injection, wheezing on auscultation of lung sounds, cyanosis around the lips.

‍ ‍

For vesicant syndrome: gelatin on skin, skin blisters and burns, coughing sounds, rapid breathing greater than 20.

‍ ‍

For opioid syndrome: constricted pupils, slow breathing at a rate under 10, unconscious and non-responsive.

‍ ‍

Read that list as your sensing requirements specification. Pupillometry, respiratory rate, pulse palpation or standoff equivalent, auscultation, skin color and moisture assessment, blister detection, verbal responsiveness testing, and vomit detection. Several of these require close approach or contact, not just standoff sensing, which interacts with the mobility and manipulation design.

‍ ‍

Table 3, required technical capabilities

‍ ‍

Casualty Assessment. Locate casualty and report clinical signs including hemorrhage, respiratory distress, mental status, pain, emesis, injuries and injury location. Evaluate casualties for chemical toxidromes and assign a probable target agent category from Table 1. Assign triage category, urgent or non-urgent. Identification of the specific chemical agent is out of scope, and chemical-specific sensors are also out of scope.

‍ ‍

Intervention Delivery. The platform must physically administer treatment appropriate to the chosen toxidrome according to Table 1 on a mannikin, and this is marked as required on a mannikin. Final demonstration requires the system payload and automation to administer treatment to at least 5 casualties in succession without battery changes or re-supply, also marked as required on a mannikin.

‍ ‍

That five-casualty-in-succession requirement without battery change or resupply is a hard payload and endurance constraint. It means carrying five doses and the power to deliver them, and it interacts with the 30,000 square foot survey requirement from the feasibility bar.

‍ ‍

Platform, Environment, and Autonomy. Platform-agnostic: autonomous UAV and UGV, and the performer may choose the sensor suite excluding chemical-specific sensors. System must demonstrate safe physical interaction with casualties represented by high-fidelity mannikins. A single robust platform must operate across and transition between realistic environments, meaning difficult terrain, inside and outside of buildings, and potentially subterranean settings, and this is marked as required over real terrain. Dedicated single-environment platforms are not sought.

‍ ‍

That last sentence rules out a design optimized for one setting. One platform, multiple environments, including transitions between them.

‍ ‍

End of Program Demonstration. Detection and assessment may be validated computationally through assessment of a test set of images and videos showing injuries and clinical signs such as respiratory distress, pupillary changes, salivation, sweating, skin changes and blisters. Intervention delivery on multiple casualties must be validated by physical demonstration, marked as required on a mannikin and over real terrain. The essential program output is a validated prototype.

‍ ‍

Note the split: perception can be validated computationally against a test set, but intervention delivery must be physically demonstrated. That is a sensible and demanding division, and it means your budget needs real robotic manipulation development and mannikin testing, not just a vision pipeline.

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Building on the feasibility demonstrated in the documentation above, the Phase II effort will extend their qualified baseline system to assess and treat chemical toxidromes.

‍ ‍

In this effort, performers will develop, integrate, and validate a prototype autonomous chemical casualty triage system and demonstrate it in a relevant environment.

‍ ‍

The system shall identify casualties, assess them for life threatening and other traumatic injuries, assess casualties for chemical toxidromes, and provide relevant physical treatments.

‍ ‍

Requirements: performers shall develop the capability to assess and treat at least two chemical agent categories from Table 1. Agent detection is out of scope for this effort. Treatment recommendations and options for each casualty shall be presented through a graphical interface to responders. Treatment decisions will always be made by humans.

‍ ‍

The human-in-the-loop requirement is stated three separate times in the topic. Whatever autonomy you propose for search, assessment, and navigation, the treatment decision itself is a human decision presented through an interface. Design and describe that interface carefully, because it is the point where an autonomous system hands a life-or-death decision to a person who may be outside the hot zone.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

Military: autonomous triage and toxidrome-directed treatment in chemically contaminated, battlefield environments protects medics from entry and prolongs casualty survival until human care is possible.

‍ ‍

Civilian: similarly, autonomous systems capable of assessing and delivering life sustaining treatments during disaster responses, industrial chemical accidents, hazmat operations, and chemical terror attacks in which fire and EMS response will be delayed provides additional safety for responders and a survival advantage for casualties during public-health emergencies. The autonomous system will perform initial triage and treatment in the hot zone so that responders either avoid entry entirely or gain time to don protective equipment.

‍ ‍

The civilian market here is concrete and reachable. Industrial chemical facilities, hazmat response teams, fire departments in petrochemical corridors, and emergency management agencies all face the same hot-zone entry delay. Opioid and fentanyl-related mass exposure incidents are a further civilian use case that maps directly onto one of the five toxidrome categories.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

$1,500,000 over a 24 month base, plus a $500,000 option over 6 months, for $2,000,000 across 30 months if the option is exercised.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

Cost-plus reimbursement requires including your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires including a completed OT using the Model OT for Prototype from the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, with at minimum the color-coded areas completed and redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. Requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award.

‍ ‍

For this topic, regulatory strategy is worth considering, since a system that autonomously administers medication will eventually face a device and drug-delivery regulatory pathway, and intellectual property protections given the robotics and algorithm content.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification, marking, and registrations

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, and the projected requirement for this topic is Level 2 with self-assessment. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

DARPA's permissive posture matters here, since autonomous robotics companies capable of clearing this feasibility bar are commonly venture-funded.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Six, and the mix tells you what literacy DARPA expects: chemical casualty medicine plus its own prior program.

‍ ‍

Dembek ZF, editor. Medical aspects of biological warfare. Government Printing Office; 2008.

‍ ‍

Ramesh AC, Kumar S. Triage, monitoring, and treatment of mass casualty events involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.

‍ ‍

The DARPA Triage Challenge program summary, at darpa.mil, attachment dtc-challenge-program-summary.pdf dated 2026-05.

‍ ‍

Keating B, Eide KL, Vaag JR, Lund-Kordahl I. Tactical Triage: Adapting Care and Decision-Making for High-Threat Environments.

‍ ‍

U.S. Department of the Air Force (2021). Air force tactics, techniques, and procedures 3-42.32: Installation medical all hazards response, IMAHR.

‍ ‍

Marrs TC. Toxicology of organophosphate nerve agents. Chemical warfare agents: toxicology and treatment. 2007.

‍ ‍

The DARPA Triage Challenge program summary is the most operationally useful of these. It describes the baseline capability DARPA says this topic extends, and it will tell you what the agency already considers demonstrated. Read it before writing, and position your system relative to it explicitly.

‍ ‍

The Marrs organophosphate toxicology chapter and the Dembek volume are the clinical grounding for toxidrome recognition and treatment. The AFTTP 3-42.32 Installation Medical All Hazards Response publication is the doctrine for how the Air Force actually organizes a chemical mass casualty response, which is where your system has to fit.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Base period: 24 months from award

‍ ‍

Option: 6 additional months if exercised

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Assess yourself against the six feasibility capabilities honestly, since Phase I work is expected to have been completed before award. Assemble the written technical description or published report with supporting data and videos, and host the videos at durable links accessible from outside your network. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read the DARPA Triage Challenge program summary and position relative to it. Choose your two toxidrome categories, weighing the intramuscular and intranasal routes against the IV and IO route which requires autonomous catheter placement. Secure access to high-fidelity mannikins and a test environment covering difficult terrain, indoor and outdoor, and ideally subterranean transitions. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20 page white paper and 15 slide deck. Structure around the toxidrome selection and the clinical inference from Table 2 cues, the intervention delivery mechanism, the platform and environment transitions, the human-in-the-loop treatment interface, and the fail-safe behavior when conditions exceed system competence. Use the slide deck for platform imagery, sensing geometry, and demonstration evidence, which is what slides do better than prose.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template across 24 months plus the 6 month option. Price mannikin acquisition or access, drug-delivery payload development, test range or facility access covering multiple environments, and the five-casualty-in-succession endurance testing.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page white paper, 15 slide deck, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template, working video links.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV028?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV028 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "TRIAGE-X: Autonomous Casualty Triage and Treatment in Chemically Contaminated Mass Casualty Events," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate capability with autonomous medical triage systems to recognize chemical toxidromes and physically deliver the corresponding antidote or life-saving intervention.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

$1,500,000 for a 24 month base period, plus a $500,000 option over 6 months, for $2,000,000 across 30 months if the option is exercised. Up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to the cost ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals. Note the separate technical question deadline of October 14, 2026.

‍ ‍

What must my existing prototype already do?

‍ ‍

Six things. Autonomously find and localize casualties and report their location to within 2 meters. Assess trauma patterns and assign a trauma triage category. Perform accurate standoff vital-signs assessment including at minimum heart rate and respiratory rate. Operate at scale, meaning at least 20 casualties in a single scenario, assessment in under 90 seconds per casualty, and surveying a 30,000 square foot area without a battery change. Operate across diverse realistic environments, indoor and outdoor, daytime and nighttime, ideally but not required in rain and smoke. And produce a human-interpretable output through a graphical interface conveying casualty locations and priorities of care. The system must also be portable, with all components easily transported by a vehicle or drone.

‍ ‍

How do I document that?

‍ ‍

A written technical description or published report supported by data and videos demonstrating the prototype performing those capabilities in the stated environments, provided via link. Host the videos somewhere durable and accessible to Government reviewers from outside your network, and make sure the links stay live through the evaluation period, which can run 90 days past the close date.

‍ ‍

Is this topic written for DARPA Triage Challenge participants?

‍ ‍

Effectively yes. The topic states that the DARPA Triage Challenge has demonstrated that autonomous air and ground systems using standoff sensors can locate casualties, characterize injury patterns, and support triage prioritization in realistic mass casualty incident conditions, and that this solicitation uses DTC triage support capabilities as a starting point to extend into chemically hazardous environments. The DTC program summary is one of the six cited references.

‍ ‍

Do I need to detect the chemical agent?

‍ ‍

No, and this is a significant scoping decision. Agent detection is out of scope for this effort. The requirements table states that identification of the specific chemical agent is out of scope and that chemical-specific sensors are also out of scope. You are inferring a probable agent category from the casualty's physical presentation, the toxidrome, not measuring the chemical.

‍ ‍

How many toxidromes must I address?

‍ ‍

At least two chemical agent categories from Table 1. The minimum deliverable is a demonstrated prototype that detects at least two representative chemical toxidromes and applies appropriate initial treatments for the assessed toxidrome following human-in-the-loop treatment approval.

‍ ‍

Which two toxidromes should I choose?

‍ ‍

The choice has large engineering consequences. Cholinergic syndrome uses intramuscular delivery of atropine and pralidoxime. Opioid syndrome uses intranasal or intramuscular naloxone. Pulmonary syndrome uses bronchodilator delivery. Vesicant syndrome uses skin decontamination. But blood-agent, cyanide, syndrome requires IV or IO pharmaceutical delivery, and the table footnote specifies that this includes autonomous placement of an intravenous or intraosseous catheter, which is a substantially harder robotic task. Choosing routes that avoid autonomous vascular access is a materially easier path, and you should justify whichever pair you select.

‍ ‍

What does airway management require?

‍ ‍

Per the Table 1 footnote, airway management includes providing supplemental oxygen by mask AND escalating to either non-invasive, meaning bag-valve mask or mechanical, or invasive, meaning endotracheal intubation or surgical airway, ventilation. Airway management appears as an anticipated treatment for all five toxidrome categories.

‍ ‍

How will toxidrome recognition be demonstrated?

‍ ‍

Performers will demonstrate their platform's ability to recognize simulated toxidromes in silico, meaning computer-based simulation, and on high-fidelity mannikins with the simulated presentations outlined in Table 2. Those simulated cues include damp clothing and ground, constricted or dilated pupils, coughing sounds, specific respiratory rates, slow palpable pulses at wrist and groin, emesis positioned on the face and ground, sprayed liquid simulating damp skin, gelatin simulating blisters, scleral injection, wheezing on auscultation, cyanosis around the lips, and verbal non-responsiveness.

‍ ‍

What sensing does that imply?

‍ ‍

Read Table 2 as your sensing specification. It requires pupillometry, respiratory rate measurement, pulse assessment at the wrist and groin, auscultation of lung sounds, skin color and moisture assessment, blister detection, verbal responsiveness testing, and emesis detection. Several of these require close approach or contact rather than pure standoff sensing, which interacts with your mobility and manipulation design.

‍ ‍

What is the intervention delivery requirement?

‍ ‍

The platform must physically administer treatment appropriate to the chosen toxidrome according to Table 1 on a mannikin. The final demonstration requires the system payload and automation to administer treatment to at least 5 casualties in succession without battery changes or re-supply. Both are marked as required on a mannikin.

‍ ‍

What platform should I propose?

‍ ‍

DARPA is platform-agnostic: autonomous UAV and UGV are both acceptable, and the performer may choose the sensor suite excluding chemical-specific sensors. However, a single robust platform must operate across and transition between realistic environments, meaning difficult terrain, inside and outside of buildings, and potentially subterranean settings, and dedicated single-environment platforms are not sought.

‍ ‍

Who makes the treatment decision?

‍ ‍

A human, always. Treatment recommendations and options for each casualty shall be presented through a graphical interface to responders, and treatment decisions will always be made by humans. The topic states this three separate times. Whatever autonomy you propose for search, assessment, and navigation, the treatment decision is presented to a person.

‍ ‍

What does DARPA say about failure modes?

‍ ‍

Offerors are encouraged to propose the human-machine teaming arrangement that best improves decision quality and casualty outcomes, and to define how their system fails safely when conditions exceed its competence. That second element is a stated expectation, not a risk-section afterthought, and for an autonomous system administering medication it is central.

‍ ‍

How is the end of program demonstration structured?

‍ ‍

Detection and assessment may be validated computationally through assessment of a test set of images and videos showing injuries and clinical signs such as respiratory distress, pupillary changes, salivation, sweating, skin changes and blisters. Intervention delivery on multiple casualties must be validated by physical demonstration, required on a mannikin and over real terrain. The essential program output is a validated prototype.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

This topic uses the White Paper and Slide Deck format. The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for the content of each element and the commercialization strategy.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ, updated until one week before the due date.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

Autonomous systems capable of assessing and delivering life sustaining treatments during disaster responses, industrial chemical accidents, hazmat operations, and chemical terror attacks in which fire and EMS response will be delayed. Industrial chemical facilities, hazmat teams, fire departments in petrochemical corridors, and emergency management agencies all face the same hot-zone entry delay. Opioid and fentanyl mass exposure incidents map directly onto one of the five toxidrome categories and are a further civilian use case.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Check the six feasibility capabilities before anything else. Phase I work is expected to have been completed before award, and the numbers are specific: 2 meter localization, sub-90-second assessment, 20 casualties, 30,000 square feet on one battery. These are measurements from a working system. If you cannot produce data and video for all six, the effort is better spent elsewhere.

‍ ‍

Choose your two toxidromes on engineering grounds, then justify clinically. Autonomous IV or IO catheter placement, required for the cyanide category, is a different order of robotic difficulty from an intramuscular injection or intranasal spray. Cholinergic plus opioid gives you two clinically important categories with tractable delivery routes. If you choose the harder route, explain why your manipulation capability supports it.

‍ ‍

Build the perception case from Table 2, not from generalities. DARPA told you exactly what cues the mannikins will present: pupil size, respiratory rate thresholds, palpable pulse rates, wheezing on auscultation, scleral injection, lip cyanosis, gelatin blisters, sprayed liquid, positioned emesis, verbal non-responsiveness. A proposal that walks those cues and states which sensor and algorithm addresses each is far more persuasive than one describing a general-purpose vision stack.

‍ ‍

Solve the close-approach problem. Several Table 2 cues, notably auscultation and palpable pulse, are not standoff measurements. Your system has to get close enough to contact a casualty in a contaminated environment and do so safely, since safe physical interaction with high-fidelity mannikins is a stated requirement. That is a manipulation and safety problem distinct from search and navigation.

‍ ‍

Take the human-in-the-loop interface seriously as a deliverable. It is mentioned three times, and it is the point where an autonomous system in a hot zone hands a life-or-death decision to a person who may be outside it. Show the interface: what the responder sees, how confidence is expressed, how they approve or decline, and what latency the loop introduces.

‍ ‍

Define competence boundaries and fail-safe behavior explicitly. DARPA asked for it. An autonomous system that misreads a toxidrome and delivers the wrong drug is worse than one that declines and flags for human assessment. Saying where your system stops, and what it does when it stops, is a strength rather than an admission.

‍ ‍

Design one platform for all environments. Difficult terrain, inside and outside buildings, potentially subterranean, with transitions between them, and dedicated single-environment platforms are explicitly not sought. If your strength is one domain, address the transition problem head on rather than hoping it goes unnoticed.

‍ ‍

Budget the five-in-succession endurance requirement. Five treatments delivered without battery change or resupply, on top of a 30,000 square foot survey, is a real payload, power, and consumables engineering problem. Show the budget.

‍ ‍

Read the DARPA Triage Challenge program summary and position against it. It is cited as the baseline this topic extends. Stating clearly what your system already does that DTC demonstrated, and what the chemical extension adds, frames your proposal in the agency's own terms.

‍ ‍

Ground the medicine properly. Use DUMBBELS correctly, get the atropine and pralidoxime pairing right, understand why naloxone is intranasal or intramuscular, and know why vesicant treatment is decontamination rather than an antidote. The cited Marrs organophosphate chapter and Dembek volume are there for a reason, and clinical fluency separates a robotics company that understands the mission from one that has read a summary.

‍ ‍

Use the slide deck for what slides do well. Fifteen slides alongside a 20 page white paper is a generous visual allowance. Platform photographs, sensing geometry diagrams, demonstration stills, and toxidrome cue mappings all communicate faster as images. Do not duplicate the white paper in bullet form.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV027: Casualty Operations and Resource Prediction Software (CORPS)

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV027 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants software that predicts casualty and patient streams following large scale medical emergencies in austere environments, and then projects the lifesaving potential of different response options, with limited or no access to real-time data or communications. The award per the topic index is $750,000 over 12 months with no options. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The problem DARPA describes is a decision-making problem under bad information, not a modeling problem in the abstract. Strategic and operational medical planning happens with time and full situational awareness. Crisis action decisions do not: they must be made in much shorter time frames, using sparse, low-quality situational data that cannot be verified because communications are denied, disrupted, intermittent, and limited in bandwidth. And medical response competes with tactical and logistical demands, so the medical benefit of a response option has to be weighed against what that option costs the mission. Without quantitative metrics for the medical benefit of each option, those lifesaving decisions get made subjectively.

Important scheduling note before you plan anything. The topic index states $750,000 over a 12 month period of performance with no Option 1 or Option 2. The Phase II narrative and milestone tables in the same document describe an 18 month base period plus a 6 month option period, with milestones running through Month 24. Those two statements cannot both be right, and this is the first question to send to DARPA.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV027

‍ ‍

Title: Casualty Operations and Resource Prediction Software (CORPS)

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic is soliciting DP2 proposals only

‍ ‍

Technical volume format: White Paper and Slide Deck. The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides

‍ ‍

Award per the topic index: $750,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance per the topic index: 12 months, with no Option 1 and no Option 2

‍ ‍

Award structure per the topic narrative: an 18 month base period plus a 6 month option period, with milestones through Month 24. This conflicts with the index and needs clarification

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Computing and Software; Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems; Trusted AI and Autonomy

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Minimum technology maturity: offerors should only propose products at or above Technology Readiness Level 2

‍ ‍

Prototype delivery requirement: no less than 4 prototypes supporting different military user evaluations

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: medical response, austere environments, casualty stream predictions, contested logistics, decision aid, automation

‍ ‍

The Schedule Discrepancy You Must Resolve

‍ ‍

This is the single most important administrative item on this topic, and it affects your cost volume, your milestone plan, and your staffing.

‍ ‍

The Current Release Award Structure by Topic table for the White Paper and Slide Deck format lists DPA26BZ06-DV027 with an Award Amount of $750,000, a Period of Performance of 12 months, an Option Amount of N/A, and an Option Period of Performance of N/A.

‍ ‍

The Phase II narrative for the same topic states that the 18-month base period should focus on developing, integrating, and demonstrating the core capabilities of the prototype through measurable milestones and evaluations, and that the 6-month option period should focus on refining the prototype based on user feedback, validating performance in operationally relevant scenarios, and enabling transition. The Phase II Milestones table then runs M1 through M6 across Months 1 to 18, and a Phase II Option Milestones table runs O1 through O3 across Months 19 to 24. A closing paragraph restates the 18 month base and 6 month option split, describing the base as "Develop, Integrate, and Demonstrate" and the option as "Refine, Validate, and Enable Transition."

‍ ‍

Twelve months with no options and eighteen months plus a six month option are not reconcilable. Possible readings include that the index is correct and the milestone tables were carried over from a longer version of the topic, or that the index row is in error and the narrative governs. We cannot tell from the document.

‍ ‍

What to do. Submit this question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, well before the October 14 deadline, and watch the consolidated FAQ. In the meantime, note that DARPA's instructions state that proposals which do not comply with the requirements detailed in the BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated. That makes proposing the wrong period of performance a real risk rather than a cosmetic one. If you cannot get an answer, the safer construction is to propose to the index figures, since the index is the controlling award structure table, while showing in the technical volume how your milestone plan maps onto the six-milestone base structure DARPA described, compressed to the funded period.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

A software tool to predict casualty and patient streams and needs following large scale medical emergencies in austere environments, and project the lifesaving potential of various response options with limited or no access to real-time data or communications.

‍ ‍

Why crisis medical planning is different

‍ ‍

The challenges underlying crisis medical response in austere and contested environments are significantly different than those underlying long-range planning or response in established theaters.

‍ ‍

Strategic and operational planning decisions are made in ample time with full situational awareness regarding the scope and nature of medical needs, availability and positioning of resources, and the immediate and emerging state of the theater.

‍ ‍

Crisis action decisions must be made in much shorter time frames, using sparse, low-quality situational data that cannot be verified due to lack of secure communications and denied, disrupted, intermittent, and limited-bandwidth, or DDIL, states.

‍ ‍

Furthermore, as resource allocation for medical response must be constrained by tactical and logistical requirements, the medical benefits of early and best medical response must be weighed against the tactical demands of the mission objectives.

‍ ‍

Thus, in scenarios where theater realities drive the timing, level, and means of medical response, decision makers must rapidly devise multiple optional courses of action and optimize their selection to accommodate tactical and logistical limitations. Without quantitative metrics assigned to the medical benefits of each response option, these lifesaving decisions must be made using multiple channels of low-quality situational data to obtain subjective medical benefits.

‍ ‍

That final sentence is the gap. Today the medical benefit of a response option is a judgment call made from bad data. DARPA wants it to be a number.

‍ ‍

What the product must do

‍ ‍

This topic seeks proposals for solutions that assist users with medical response decisions in austere environments with variable access to communications or situational data.

‍ ‍

The desired product will be focused on automated prediction of casualty and patient streams, identification of the related medical needs with variable latencies, and metrics-based evaluation of benefits gained from various responses as a dynamic function of time.

‍ ‍

Three functions, and the third one is the differentiator. Predicting casualties is one thing. Predicting the medical needs those casualties generate, with variable latencies, is harder. Quantifying the benefit of each response option as a function of time is the part that turns a model into a decision aid.

‍ ‍

Solutions must have the potential for use in the civilian sector, meaning integrate with civilian networks and infrastructure, as well as integration into existing DoD planning tools.

‍ ‍

Proposals shall outline the strategic and technical development of the proposed solution, including required data, data sources and environments, data quality management, and model development design and integration.

‍ ‍

As the technology will be fielded for military use in various operational environments, proposed approaches must be adaptable to variable levels of communication capability and medical care.

‍ ‍

That last requirement is the DDIL constraint restated as a design principle. Your tool has to degrade gracefully. Full connectivity, intermittent connectivity, and no connectivity should all produce usable output at different confidence levels, and saying how is central to a responsive proposal.

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Requirement

‍ ‍

This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only. As such, the offeror shall provide detail and documentation which demonstrates the accomplishment of a "Phase I-like" effort demonstrating feasibility and proof-of-concept.

‍ ‍

DARPA then lists seven things a demonstration of feasibility may include. The permissive "may include" language gives you latitude in how you evidence it, but the list tells you what DARPA expects to see.

‍ ‍

Conceptual characterization of the complete product.

‍ ‍

Relevant use cases, required data categories, and anticipated final capabilities.

‍ ‍

Leveraged systems and workflow, as relevant.

‍ ‍

Proposed approach or methodology for model development, as relevant.

‍ ‍

Anticipated interactions between data and model components, as relevant.

‍ ‍

The presentation of scientific and technical material that support the above.

‍ ‍

Design specifications for any computational or software components of a prototype.

‍ ‍

Then a separate requirement that is not optional: proposals should contain preliminary data, published or unpublished, supporting the rationale for the development of the candidate products. Describe how the product will be usable in the operational continuum or the environmental settings for which it is designed.

‍ ‍

Note that this feasibility bar is notably softer than several other topics in this DARPA release. It asks for conceptual characterization, methodology, design specifications, and preliminary data, rather than a validated working prototype. That opens the topic to modeling and analytics teams with strong underlying science and a credible design, rather than restricting it to companies with fielded software. If you have published casualty modeling work, medical logistics optimization research, or operations research applied to mass casualty response, read this requirement carefully before assuming you are ineligible.

‍ ‍

For the White Paper and Slide Deck format, the white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for the content of each element of the Technical Volume and the commercialization strategy.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Program

‍ ‍

This phase will focus on refinement and optimization of a prototype tool that can interact with users through a visual interface. The prototype should be designed to integrate decision criteria from users, for example response level and latency, with medical needs predictions from built-in models. Software interface must be sufficiently mature to receive input data from users and display the output for evaluation and further improvement of the tool's feedback.

‍ ‍

Offerors should only propose products at or above Technology Readiness Level 2.

‍ ‍

The proposal shall describe the planned prototype design, product development, testing, and validation of the prototype product in table-top like exercises. The testing and practical implementation of the prototype should be relevant to the requirements of medical command and control functions in austere and contested environments.

‍ ‍

What the proposed work may include

‍ ‍

Information required for a Phase I proposal, including selected methods and approaches.

‍ ‍

Medical, scientific, and technical justification and selection criteria for specific approaches.

‍ ‍

Anticipated data sources, for example theater, casualty, medical, natural, virtual, and types, organic versus synthetic.

‍ ‍

Interactions and relationships between the data and modeling components of the proposed work.

‍ ‍

Detailed description of planned prototype design and development, covering communication requirements, data, architecture, software, interface, and models.

‍ ‍

Methodology and outcome metrics for determination of functionality and utility.

‍ ‍

Threshold and objective exit criteria.

‍ ‍

The four prototype requirement

‍ ‍

The investigator shall deliver no less than 4 prototypes supporting different military user evaluations.

‍ ‍

Each prototype should demonstrate increasing operational capability and maturity while reducing technical risk through measurable performance objectives.

‍ ‍

That is an unusual and demanding structure. Four successive prototypes, each evaluated by different military users, each more capable than the last. It maps directly onto the milestone table below, where Prototypes 1 through 4 are named milestones at Months 8, 11, 15, and 18. Your plan must be organized around iterative delivery and user evaluation, not a single build.

‍ ‍

The proposal shall describe a detailed strategy for the Phase III effort to include dynamic uncertainty quantification to support operational decision-making and transition to both DoD and commercial applications.

‍ ‍

Dynamic uncertainty quantification appears in both the Phase III strategy requirement and in the Prototype 2 milestone. Given that the entire premise is decision-making on sparse, unverifiable data, quantified uncertainty is not a refinement, it is the feature that makes the output trustworthy. Treat it as core.

‍ ‍

The milestone structure DARPA specifies

‍ ‍

Note that these milestones assume the 18 month base and 6 month option structure described in the narrative, which conflicts with the 12 month no-option structure in the index. Resolve that before building your plan, but understand the intended shape.

‍ ‍

M1, Operational Requirements and Technical Baseline, Months 1 to 2. Technical objective: establish the operational concept, technical architecture, and data strategy for casualty prediction and medical decision support in DDIL environments. Exit criteria and deliverables: System Requirements Specification, System Architecture Description, Data Management Plan, with an End of Month 2 System Requirement Review.

‍ ‍

M2, Casualty Prediction and Data Fusion, Months 3 to 5. Technical objective: develop and validate the baseline casualty prediction engine using representative military and civilian datasets with varying data completeness. Exit criteria: baseline casualty prediction engine demonstrated, data fusion capability validated using representative operational scenarios, initial model performance assessment completed, with an End of Month 5 Technical Baseline Review.

‍ ‍

Note the phrase "varying data completeness." Your validation has to show the engine works when the data is partial, which is the operational reality the topic describes.

‍ ‍

M3, Prototype Number 1, Technical Baseline and Decision Optimization Prototype, Months 6 to 8. Technical objective: establish the program's technical baseline while demonstrating an initial prototype that integrates casualty prediction with medical resource allocation and response optimization to evaluate alternative Courses of Action. Exit criteria: an Operational Model Baseline covering physiology model requirements, performance objectives, and fidelity needed to support operational decision making; operational parameter space, key decision variables, and scenario boundaries; data requirements, model assumptions, constraints, and uncertainty characterization; threshold and objective performance metrics, verification methodology, and validation approach. Plus automated Course of Action generation and ranking demonstrated. There is a Month 6 Government Technical Baseline Review completed, establishing technical foundation and evaluation criteria for prototype maturation, and an End of Month 8 Prototype 1 Presentation and Demonstration.

‍ ‍

M4, Prototype Number 2, Decision Support and Interaction, Months 9 to 11. Technical objective: develop an interactive decision-support interface incorporating user-defined constraints and dynamic uncertainty quantification. Exit criteria: interactive visualization demonstrated, dynamic uncertainty and confidence metric demonstrated, user assessment completed and incorporated into prototype refinement, with an End of Month 11 Prototype 2 Presentation and Demonstration.

‍ ‍

M5, Prototype Number 3, Integrated Operational Prototype, Months 12 to 15. Technical objective: integrate prediction, optimization, visualization, and user interaction into a single operational prototype and demonstrate functionality in representative military scenarios. Exit criteria: successful tabletop exercise completed, prototype evaluated against metrics, with an End of Month 15 Prototype 3 Presentation and Demonstration.

‍ ‍

M6, Prototype Number 4, Operational Prototype Demonstration and Transition Planning, Months 16 to 18. Technical objective: demonstrate a mature prototype and establish the technical foundation for Phase III transition. Exit criteria: operational prototype demonstration completed, final technical report completed, Phase III transition strategy completed, with an End of Month 18 Prototype 4 Presentation and Demonstration.

‍ ‍

Option milestones:

‍ ‍

O1, Operational Refinement and Model Optimization, Months 19 to 20. Refine casualty prediction, decision optimization, and user interface capabilities based on Government feedback from Phase II evaluations. Exit criteria: prototype refinement demonstration, model improvement documentation, with an End of Month 20 updated prototype demonstrating improved performance.

‍ ‍

O2, Expanded Operational Validation, Months 21 to 22. Validate prototype performance across representative military and civilian emergency response scenarios. Exit criteria: prototype demonstration with expanded scenarios with metric and threshold validations, user evaluation report documentation, with an End of Month 22 updated prototype demonstration.

‍ ‍

O3, Transition Readiness, Months 23 to 24. Prepare the prototype for Phase III maturation by documenting technical maturity, transition planning, and integration considerations. Exit criteria: updated transition and commercialization plan identifying DoD and commercialization opportunities, preliminary integration and cyber security strategy documented, final prototype package delivered, with an End of Month 24 final program review.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

If successful, Phase II work will result in a final phase funded by sources other than a Federal government SBIR Program. Phase III awards may be made by any Government entity without further competition, creating a "SBIR-sourcing" or sole-source-like tool for portfolio managers and advanced developers.

‍ ‍

Final improvements to the product's functionality should be completed during Phase III, and additional development will be performed as necessary to expand the methodologies and components included in the Phase II prototype or improve their capability.

‍ ‍

The resulting product will provide a decision-assist tool for medical response optimization in austere environments where access to data and communications ranges from full to null.

‍ ‍

Phase III is expected to mature the Phase II prototype into an operational decision-support capability suitable for military and commercial use. Activities may include expanding predictive models, incorporating additional operational data sources, enhancing interoperability with existing planning and command and control systems, strengthening cyber security, and refining software functionality based on operational feedback.

‍ ‍

The desired end-state of the research is the full development of one or more products consisting of front- and back-end software for a digital tool that provides casualty stream predictions for a given event with minimal user input, interacts with users to receive known response parameters, and projects the health and lifesaving impacts of available response options on survivability. The product must demonstrate full functionality and reliability in tabletop and field exercises.

‍ ‍

Military application: the potential product may transition to an Acquisition Program managed by the Service Product Developers for inclusion into various Service-specific mobile applications. Deployment will require appropriate cybersecurity certifications be met and the ability to join an existing Authority to Operate or obtain a separate ATO.

‍ ‍

Commercial application: the product will provide a similar capability for the planning of response to non-military emergency events, for example following natural disasters or war.

‍ ‍

Two practical notes. The ATO requirement is real work with its own timeline, and the O3 option milestone asks for a preliminary integration and cyber security strategy, which is where you begin addressing it. And the transition target is Service-specific mobile applications, which tells you the eventual delivery form factor and argues for designing the interface with mobile constraints in mind from the start.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

Per the topic index, $750,000 over 12 months with no options. Per the topic narrative, an 18 month base plus a 6 month option. See the discrepancy section above and resolve it with DARPA before you build your cost volume.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received and to make awards with or without communications with proposers, and to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

Cost-plus reimbursement requires including your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires including a completed OT using the Model OT for Prototype from the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, with at minimum the color-coded areas completed and redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. Requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award.

‍ ‍

For this topic, cybersecurity assistance is directly relevant given the ATO requirement flagged in Phase III, and market validation with civilian emergency management buyers supports the dual-use requirement.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification, marking, and registrations

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, and the projected requirement for this topic is Level 2 with self-assessment. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Two, both from the military medical literature rather than the modeling literature.

‍ ‍

Quinn M.T., et al. (2024). Automating the Survival Chain and Revolutionizing Combat Casualty Care, Human-Technology Teaming on the Future Battlefield. Military Review.

‍ ‍

Butler FK, Bennett B, Wedmore CI. Tactical Combat Casualty Care and Wilderness Medicine: Advancing Trauma Care in Austere Environments. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. 2017 May;35(2):391-407.

‍ ‍

That both references are clinical and doctrinal rather than computational is a signal. DARPA is not steering you toward a modeling method. It is telling you to understand combat casualty care and the survival chain, and leaving the operations research to you. Butler is a foundational Tactical Combat Casualty Care author, and the Quinn paper on human-technology teaming in the survival chain is the conceptual frame for a decision aid that assists rather than replaces the medical planner.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Period of performance: unresolved. 12 months per the index, 18 months plus a 6 month option per the narrative

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Submit the period of performance question to DARPA immediately, since it affects everything downstream. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read both cited references. Assemble your feasibility package against the seven-item list plus the preliminary data requirement. Identify your data sources and be specific about theater, casualty, medical, natural, and virtual data, and about organic versus synthetic. Line up military users for the four prototype evaluations, because four different user groups is a real coordination burden. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20 page white paper and 15 slide deck. Structure the white paper around the DDIL constraint, the casualty and needs prediction engine, the response option benefit metric as a function of time, dynamic uncertainty quantification, and the four-prototype iterative plan. Address civilian integration and DoD planning tool integration, both of which are stated requirements.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template to whichever period of performance DARPA confirms. Price four prototype builds and four user evaluation events, data acquisition or synthesis, and the tabletop exercise support.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page white paper, 15 slide deck, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV027?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV027 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Casualty Operations and Resource Prediction Software (CORPS)," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a software tool to predict casualty and patient streams and needs following large scale medical emergencies in austere environments, and to project the lifesaving potential of various response options with limited or no access to real-time data or communications.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available, and for how long?

‍ ‍

The topic index states $750,000 over 12 months with no options. However, the topic narrative and milestone tables describe an 18 month base period plus a 6 month option period with milestones running through Month 24. These conflict, and the discrepancy needs to be resolved with DARPA before you finalize a cost volume or milestone plan.

‍ ‍

How should I handle the schedule conflict?

‍ ‍

Submit the question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, well before the October 14 deadline, and watch the consolidated FAQ. Because DARPA treats non-compliant proposals as non-conforming and does not evaluate them, this is not a cosmetic issue. Absent an answer, the safer construction is to propose to the index figures, since the index is the controlling award structure table, while showing how your plan maps onto DARPA's six-milestone base structure compressed to the funded period.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals. Note the separate technical question deadline of October 14, 2026.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and the offeror shall provide detail and documentation demonstrating the accomplishment of a "Phase I-like" effort demonstrating feasibility and proof-of-concept.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation is required?

‍ ‍

DARPA lists seven things a demonstration of feasibility may include: conceptual characterization of the complete product; relevant use cases, required data categories, and anticipated final capabilities; leveraged systems and workflow as relevant; proposed approach or methodology for model development as relevant; anticipated interactions between data and model components as relevant; the presentation of scientific and technical material supporting the above; and design specifications for any computational or software components of a prototype. Separately and not optionally, proposals should contain preliminary data, published or unpublished, supporting the rationale for the development of the candidate products.

‍ ‍

Is the feasibility bar lower than on other DARPA topics in this release?

‍ ‍

Notably so. This topic asks for conceptual characterization, methodology, design specifications, and preliminary data rather than a validated working prototype or fielded system. That opens it to modeling, analytics, and operations research teams with strong underlying science and a credible design. If you have published casualty modeling, medical logistics optimization, or mass casualty operations research, read the requirement before assuming you are out of scope.

‍ ‍

What is the DDIL constraint?

‍ ‍

Crisis action decisions must be made in much shorter time frames than strategic planning, using sparse, low-quality situational data that cannot be verified due to lack of secure communications and denied, disrupted, intermittent, and limited-bandwidth states. The topic requires that proposed approaches be adaptable to variable levels of communication capability and medical care, which means your tool must degrade gracefully and produce usable output at different confidence levels depending on connectivity.

‍ ‍

What are the three core functions?

‍ ‍

Automated prediction of casualty and patient streams. Identification of the related medical needs with variable latencies. And metrics-based evaluation of benefits gained from various responses as a dynamic function of time. The third is the differentiator, because it converts a subjective judgment about medical benefit into a quantitative one.

‍ ‍

Does the tool have to work in the civilian sector?

‍ ‍

Yes. Solutions must have the potential for use in the civilian sector, meaning integration with civilian networks and infrastructure, as well as integration into existing DoD planning tools. Both integrations are stated requirements, not commercialization aspirations.

‍ ‍

What technology readiness level must I start at?

‍ ‍

Offerors should only propose products at or above Technology Readiness Level 2.

‍ ‍

How many prototypes must I deliver?

‍ ‍

No less than 4 prototypes supporting different military user evaluations. Each prototype should demonstrate increasing operational capability and maturity while reducing technical risk through measurable performance objectives. The milestone table names Prototype 1 through Prototype 4 at Months 8, 11, 15, and 18 respectively, each with a presentation and demonstration.

‍ ‍

What are the four prototypes for?

‍ ‍

Per the milestone table, Prototype 1 is the technical baseline and decision optimization prototype integrating casualty prediction with medical resource allocation and response optimization to evaluate alternative Courses of Action. Prototype 2 is decision support and interaction, adding an interactive interface with user-defined constraints and dynamic uncertainty quantification. Prototype 3 is the integrated operational prototype demonstrated in a tabletop exercise. Prototype 4 is the operational prototype demonstration with the Phase III transition strategy.

‍ ‍

What is dynamic uncertainty quantification and why does it matter?

‍ ‍

It appears both in the Prototype 2 milestone, which requires a dynamic uncertainty and confidence metric demonstrated, and in the Phase III strategy requirement. Because the whole premise is decision-making on sparse, unverifiable data, quantified uncertainty is what makes the output trustworthy rather than a false-precision number. Treat it as a core feature rather than a refinement.

‍ ‍

What data sources should I plan for?

‍ ‍

The topic names anticipated data sources including theater, casualty, medical, natural, and virtual, and types including organic versus synthetic. It also requires you to outline required data, data sources and environments, data quality management, and model development design and integration. The M2 milestone requires validating the baseline casualty prediction engine using representative military and civilian datasets with varying data completeness.

‍ ‍

What testing is expected?

‍ ‍

The proposal shall describe planned prototype design, product development, testing, and validation of the prototype product in table-top like exercises, relevant to the requirements of medical command and control functions in austere and contested environments. The M5 milestone requires a successful tabletop exercise completed.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

This topic uses the White Paper and Slide Deck format. The white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 slides. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for the content of each element and the commercialization strategy.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Phase II work will result in a final phase funded by sources other than a Federal government SBIR Program, and Phase III awards may be made by any Government entity without further competition, creating a sole-source-like pathway. Phase III matures the prototype into an operational decision-support capability, potentially transitioning to an Acquisition Program managed by Service Product Developers for inclusion into Service-specific mobile applications. Deployment will require appropriate cybersecurity certifications and the ability to join an existing Authority to Operate or obtain a separate ATO.

‍ ‍

Do I need to think about an ATO?

‍ ‍

Yes, though not in Phase II. Phase III deployment requires appropriate cybersecurity certifications and the ability to join an existing ATO or obtain a separate one, and the O3 option milestone asks for a preliminary integration and cyber security strategy documented. Building toward that from the start is better than retrofitting.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ, updated until one week before the due date.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial application?

‍ ‍

The product will provide a similar capability for the planning of response to non-military emergency events, for example following natural disasters or war. Combined with the stated requirement to integrate with civilian networks and infrastructure, the buyers are emergency management agencies, hospital systems and trauma networks doing surge planning, and disaster response organizations.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Resolve the period of performance first. Twelve months with no options versus eighteen months plus a six month option is a factor-of-two difference in scope, staffing, and price. Ask DARPA before you write, because a proposal built to the wrong structure risks being found non-conforming.

‍ ‍

Recognize that this is a softer feasibility bar than its neighbors. Several topics in this DARPA release demand validated fielded prototypes. This one asks for conceptual characterization, methodology, design specifications, and preliminary data. Operations research groups, casualty modeling teams, and medical logistics analytics companies who would be ineligible elsewhere should look here.

‍ ‍

Make the benefit metric the intellectual core. Predicting casualties is the entry price. Quantifying the lifesaving benefit of each response option as a dynamic function of time is what the topic actually lacks and what decision makers need. Define your metric, ground it in survivability science, and explain how it lets a planner compare a fast partial response against a slower complete one.

‍ ‍

Design for degradation, explicitly. The DDIL constraint means your tool must work at full connectivity, at intermittent connectivity, and at none. Show three operating modes with the confidence bounds each produces. A proposal that assumes data availability has misread the topic's central premise.

‍ ‍

Make uncertainty quantification visible in the interface. Prototype 2 requires a dynamic uncertainty and confidence metric demonstrated, and Phase III requires dynamic uncertainty quantification to support operational decision-making. A planner who cannot see how much to trust a projection will not use it. This is an interface problem as much as a statistical one.

‍ ‍

Line up four different military user groups now. The four-prototype requirement specifies different military user evaluations, and each prototype has a presentation and demonstration milestone. Access to military medical planners for four separate evaluation events is a coordination burden that will not appear from nowhere at Month 8. Naming your evaluation partners strengthens the proposal considerably.

‍ ‍

Answer both integration requirements. Civilian networks and infrastructure, and existing DoD planning tools. These are stated as requirements. Naming specific DoD planning systems you would interoperate with, and specific civilian emergency management systems, converts a generic claim into a credible one.

‍ ‍

Ground the work in TCCC and the survival chain. Both references are clinical and doctrinal, not computational. Butler is foundational Tactical Combat Casualty Care, and the Quinn paper frames human-technology teaming in the survival chain. Using that vocabulary correctly signals that you understand the medical decision the tool supports, rather than treating it as an abstract allocation problem.

‍ ‍

Design for a mobile end state. Phase III transition is to Service-specific mobile applications. A desktop-first interface will need rework. Thinking about screen real estate, offline operation, and low-bandwidth sync from Prototype 2 onward is cheap now and expensive later.

‍ ‍

Start the cybersecurity story early. CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is the projected requirement, the option period asks for a preliminary cyber security strategy, and Phase III requires ATO. For a tool that will handle casualty data and join a Service network, security architecture is not a late-stage concern.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV026: Influence Benchmarks for AI Systems

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV026 is a DARPA SBIR topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, and one of only two topics in this release accepting both Phase I and Direct to Phase II proposals. DARPA wants a simulated market, an auction environment, used as a testbed to characterize the latent behavioral preferences of AI systems. The premise is that economic frameworks let you measure how an AI agent actually behaves under incentives, including whether it deceives or collaborates, without needing a prior definition of what counts as harmful. Phase I is $300,000 over 12 months. Direct to Phase II is $1,800,000 over 24 months with no options, which makes it the largest single-tranche award in this DARPA release. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The design constraint that makes this topic interesting is stated in one sentence: such a testbed shall rely only on queries and outputs of the subject AI system, rather than direct access to the model itself. You are building a black-box behavioral assay. You do not get weights, gradients, or internals. You get to ask the model things and watch what it does in a market.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV026

‍ ‍

Title: Influence Benchmarks for AI Systems

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program types accepted: both Phase I and Direct to Phase II

‍ ‍

Phase I award: $300,000 over 12 months. Technical volume is a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II award: $1,800,000 over 24 months. No Option 1 and no Option 2

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II technical volume format: Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages

‍ ‍

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Human-Machine Interfaces

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Access model: black box only. The testbed shall rely only on queries and outputs of the subject AI system, not direct access to the model

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees, up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceilings

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: AI, LLM, cognitive bias, economic model, market, information

‍ ‍

Two Entry Points, and the Unusual Award Shape

‍ ‍

This topic appears in both the Phase I and the Direct to Phase II award structure tables.

‍ ‍

Phase I: $300,000 over 12 months, with a 10 page white paper and a 5 page slide deck. Note that 12 months is a long Phase I by DoW standards, and the topic's Phase I description is structured around month-by-month milestones running to Month 12, so the schedule is intentional rather than incidental.

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II: $1,800,000 over 24 months, Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages. There are no options on this topic, which is worth noticing. Most DP2 awards in this release use a base plus one or two priced options, giving DARPA off-ramps. Here the entire $1,800,000 is committed as a single 24 month effort. That means DARPA is buying a complete program in one decision, and the proposal has to justify all 24 months up front rather than relying on option exercise to prove itself.

‍ ‍

The DP2 requirement is stated plainly: proposers submitting Direct to Phase II should be able to demonstrate an existing test environment that meets the criteria outlined in Phase I. So the Phase I description doubles as the DP2 feasibility specification. Read it that way.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop a testbed utilizing economic frameworks to benchmark AI biases in dynamic environments. This tool will evaluate how agents adapt, collaborate, or deceive within a simulated marketplace. Ultimately, these assessments will ensure safe and effective AI integration in high-stakes decision-making.

‍ ‍

The threat model

‍ ‍

As warfighters increasingly engage with AI systems, particularly agents that rely on large language models, concern has arisen that the systems may encourage cognitive behavior in users that impart hidden biases, impair judgement, and ultimately degrade warfighting capacity.

‍ ‍

DARPA gives three concrete mechanisms, each with a citation. Overreliance on AI-powered decision support tools may induce users to accept erroneous suggestions or change from correct decisions to incorrect decisions, citing Bucinca et al. 2021. LLM use may also induce novel cognitive biases, citing Alessa et al. 2025. And LLM use may amplify delusional beliefs, citing Dohnany et al. 2025.

‍ ‍

Compounding the threat, deceptive strategies frequently emerge among interacting AI systems, citing Ying et al. 2026. Few tests of AI systems account for their adaption to dynamic data, which obfuscates such adaptive strategies.

‍ ‍

To detect and combat these risks, the DoW requires a universal approach to elicit, characterize, and compare the behavior of AI agents amid changing contexts, citing Li et al. 2026.

‍ ‍

That word "universal" is doing work. DARPA is not asking for a test of one model family. It is asking for an instrument that can be pointed at any AI system and produce comparable measurements.

‍ ‍

Why economics, and why a market

‍ ‍

Economic frameworks permit the measurement and comparison of decisions. As the basis of extensive prior research, models of auctions, markets, and other economic arenas provide a critical baseline of organic patterns of human behavior, citing Hausch 1986 and Martinez-Saito 2019.

‍ ‍

Emerging open-source tools, such as Magentic Marketplace, citing Bansal et al. 2026, have shown promise in revealing behavioral variations in market-focused contexts.

‍ ‍

Then the argument that distinguishes this approach from mainstream AI safety evaluation: furthermore, unlike existing assessments of AI risk, economic frameworks do not rely on a priori definitions of "harmful" or "helpful" traits, citing Vijayvargiya et al. 2026, and these testbeds allow for diverse social strategies such as deception and collaboration.

‍ ‍

That is the intellectual core of the topic. Most AI safety benchmarks require you to define the bad behavior in advance and then test for it. A market does not: it reveals preferences through revealed choices under incentives, and it has decades of human baseline data to compare against. If you write only one thing well in this proposal, make it your grasp of this argument.

‍ ‍

The black-box constraint

‍ ‍

Such a testbed shall rely only on queries and outputs of the subject AI system, rather than direct access to the model itself.

‍ ‍

This is a hard architectural requirement and it shapes everything. You cannot inspect activations, probe internal representations, or fine-tune the subject model. Your instrument observes behavior in a market and infers latent preferences from it. That is both the constraint and the reason the approach generalizes to any commercial or adversary model you can query.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Program, Which Is Also the DP2 Feasibility Bar

‍ ‍

The goal of Phase I is to develop and define the architecture of the test environment and demonstrate a functional proof of concept for a simulated auction or market, referred to throughout as the market.

‍ ‍

The test environment must be able to accommodate different models of auctions and markets to evaluate agents on different measures of market efficiency. Proposers must also develop classifiers to detect biases in AI agent behavior and outcomes in the market environment. This test environment should be a sandbox in which multiple AI agents may operate.

‍ ‍

The month-by-month Phase I requirements

‍ ‍

By Month 2, proposers should have defined the core mechanics of the test environment, such as market structures, payout schemes, measures of market efficiency and consumer utility, and a dynamic "news feed" that informs the behavior of AI agents within the market. The news feed is meant to simulate public information relevant to the market.

‍ ‍

By Month 6, proposers should establish a strategy for scaling issues and define how AI agents interact through their decision space: a set of bids, each of which is defined by the time, asset, quantity, and price offered or requested on the market.

‍ ‍

Note that four-tuple. A bid is time, asset, quantity, and price. That is the atomic unit of observable behavior in your instrument, and defining the decision space this precisely is what makes cross-model comparison possible.

‍ ‍

By Month 9, proposers must demonstrate a suite of "stock" AI agents for use within the test environment. These AI agents shall only be used within the test environment sandbox and shall not be used on other systems.

‍ ‍

By Month 12, proposers should have a proof-of-concept test environment for assessing behavior preferences of AI systems amid dynamic data. In the proof-of-concept, the test environment must be able to replicate bidding patterns and allocation efficiencies observed in markets and demonstrate allocative efficiencies of greater than 90 percent. The environment and associated data must be sufficient for comparison to models of human behavior in auctions or markets, as well as to compare agents to one another.

‍ ‍

That greater than 90 percent allocative efficiency figure is the only hard numeric performance target in the topic. It is a validation criterion: if your simulated market does not clear efficiently, it is not a credible market and any behavioral inference from it is suspect. Address it directly.

‍ ‍

Phase I fixed payable milestones

‍ ‍

Month 2: report on initial architecture and core mechanics of test environment and classifiers of AI agent behavior.

‍ ‍

Month 6: report on scaling and AI agent interaction within the test environment.

‍ ‍

Month 9: demonstration of a suite of stock AI agents, drawn from at least 10 different LLMs, operating within the test environment.

‍ ‍

Month 12: demonstration of test environment and AI agent behavior within the marketplace, with allocative efficiencies of greater than 90 percent.

‍ ‍

The Month 9 milestone contains a requirement the narrative does not state: stock AI agents drawn from at least 10 different LLMs. Ten distinct models is a meaningful integration and cost burden, covering API access, prompt harnesses, rate limits, and version drift across a dozen vendors and open-weight families. Budget for it and name your intended model set.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Program

‍ ‍

Proposers submitting Direct to Phase II should be able to demonstrate an existing test environment that meets the criteria outlined in Phase I.

‍ ‍

In Phase II, proposers should develop a range of AI agents as stock reference models against which the performance of a test AI agent may be compared.

‍ ‍

Proposers must define an error function that describes differences between AI agent decisions and expected human results.

‍ ‍

The stock AI agents should help identify and bound agent behaviors of concern, such as hidden biases. At least one AI agent should represent the human user of the test AI agent, to explore how the test AI agent may drive human behaviors of concern such as encouraging delusions or eroding military discipline.

‍ ‍

That last sentence is the most striking requirement in the topic. You are not only benchmarking the AI agent's market behavior. You are instantiating a simulated human user as an agent in the market, so you can observe whether the test AI influences that user toward delusion or indiscipline. The topic's title is Influence Benchmarks, and this is where influence is actually measured.

‍ ‍

Proposers should define analytics to compare the behavior of the AI agents.

‍ ‍

The Phase II timeline in narrative form

‍ ‍

By Month 6, proposers should have a suite of such stock AI agents, representing both human and native AI agent behavior. Agents should be able to interact with other agents in the test environment to develop strategic bids in an attempt to influence the behavior of other market actors to maximize their expected profit.

‍ ‍

By Month 12, proposers should demonstrate and measure how each AI agent responds to the news feed and the observable behavior of other agents, which alters each agent's expectation of future asset values and behaviors of other agents.

‍ ‍

By Month 15, proposers should assess social interactions among AI agents to model behaviors including, but not limited to, collaboration and deception. Proposers must provide quantitative metrics on how social behaviors between AI agents alter market efficiency and outcomes and generate testable hypotheses for how latent AI agent preferences affect social interactions, dynamic responses to external stimuli, and ultimately market outcomes.

‍ ‍

By Month 18, proposers should test their own hypotheses across a range of AI agents and quantify differences between human-like agents and AI agents.

‍ ‍

By Month 21, proposers should demonstrate the test environment to DARPA, and deliver software and data for testing by U.S. Government partners to ensure that the environment may be used to reliably characterize the latent preferences of a test AI agent.

‍ ‍

By Month 24, the proposers should deliver a final report describing the performance of the test environment and AI agents, and include a transition plan.

‍ ‍

Phase II fixed payable milestones

‍ ‍

Month 2: a report on new capabilities that will be added to the test environment to enable analysis of dynamic AI agent behavior and outcomes. Provide definitions of an error function to compare AI agent decisions versus human decisions, as well as measures for comparing distributions of human and AI market outcomes.

‍ ‍

Month 6: demonstration of "human" stock AI agents that replicate human preferences and behavior in the market, and a report on how a "human" stock AI agent simulates expected human interaction in the market. Test Phase 1 classifier's ability to distinguish "human" versus AI agents in the market environment, and propose improvements to classification algorithm or alternative test statistics.

‍ ‍

Month 12: report on dynamic behavior of AI agents in response to news events and observed actions of other agents within the test environment. Evaluate agent behavior using improved classifiers.

‍ ‍

Month 15: report on modeling social interactions between AI agents, including impact on bidding behavior of AI agents.

‍ ‍

Month 18: report on how latent AI preferences impact social interactions between AI agents, dynamic responses, and market outcomes.

‍ ‍

Month 21: final software delivery, both object and source code, for operation by DARPA or other U.S. Government personnel for additional demonstrations, with suitable documentation in a contractor proposed format.

‍ ‍

Month 24: final report, including quantitative metrics on AI agent behavior and fidelity of the test environment. The report must also discuss advances in LLM models and AI agents that have occurred during the period of performance and their potential impact on the evaluation of AI models.

‍ ‍

Two of these deserve emphasis. The Month 21 delivery is object and source code for operation by DARPA or other U.S. Government personnel. That is a source code delivery to the Government, and it has direct implications for how you structure intellectual property and what you build on. Address data rights deliberately.

‍ ‍

And the Month 24 requirement to discuss advances in LLM models during the period of performance and their impact on the evaluation approach is an unusual and telling ask. DARPA is acknowledging that the measurement target will move underneath you across 24 months, and asking you to reason about whether your instrument survives that. A proposal that addresses model drift and instrument durability up front is answering a question DARPA has already flagged.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

DARPA's commercial argument here is specific and unusually persuasive, and it is worth quoting closely because it is your commercialization strategy handed to you.

‍ ‍

The potential risk of AI systems inducing harmful behaviors is a major commercial concern due to the associated legal and reputational risk to their developers. AI firms are actively seeking mechanisms to argue the limits of their systems' biases and impacts on user behavior, including measuring deviations from expected human norms of behavior, in response to lawsuits. The impact on a firm's stock value of establishing the scope of liability far exceeds the already-robust immediate financial consequences of these court cases, suggesting that the AI firms have strong market demand for the capability to benchmark the influence of their systems.

‍ ‍

Read that as a liability-driven market thesis. The buyer is an AI developer facing litigation over user harm, and the product is a defensible, quantitative measurement of how far its system's influence deviates from human norms. That is a market with willingness to pay set by legal exposure rather than by research budgets, which is a much better commercial position than most AI evaluation tooling occupies.

‍ ‍

Extend it naturally to insurers underwriting AI liability, to regulators needing a measurement standard, and to enterprise buyers performing vendor due diligence. But lead with DARPA's own framing.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The awards

‍ ‍

Phase I: $300,000 over 12 months, 10 page white paper plus 5 page slide deck.

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II: $1,800,000 over 24 months, Standard Proposal Format 35 pages, no options.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received and to make awards with or without communications with proposers. Because this topic has no options, the option-exercise language elsewhere in the instructions does not apply here.

‍ ‍

The Standard Proposal Format structure for DP2

‍ ‍

DP2 feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages. The DP2 technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages. The Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed five pages, and this should be the last section of the technical volume. Those three total the 35 page limit. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for the content of each element.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

Cost-plus reimbursement requires including your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires including a completed OT using the Model OT for Prototype from the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, with at minimum the color-coded areas completed and redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

For a software program with fixed payable milestones and a source code delivery, the choice of instrument interacts with your intellectual property position. Think about it early rather than defaulting.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500. Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. Requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award.

‍ ‍

For this topic, intellectual property protections and market validation are both directly useful, given the source code delivery requirement and the liability-driven commercial thesis.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification, marking, and registrations

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, though the projected requirement for this topic is Level 1. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I or Direct to Phase II award within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy. Given that the commercial thesis here is a liability-driven enterprise sale to AI developers, an embedded entrepreneur with that market's access would be materially useful.

‍ ‍

The Reference List, Which Is the Intellectual Map

‍ ‍

Eight references, and they divide cleanly into three groups that together define the topic's intellectual position.

‍ ‍

The AI harm evidence. Bucinca Z., Malaya M., Gajos K. (2021), To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 5, CSCW, 1-21. Alessa A., Somane P., Lakshminarasimhan A., Skirzynski J., McAuley J., Echterhoff J. (2025), Quantifying Cognitive Bias Induction in LLM-Generated Content. Dohnany S., Kurth-Nelson Z., Spens E., Luettgau L., Reid A., Gabriel I., Arulkumaran K., and Nour M. M. (2025), Technological folie a deux: Feedback loops between AI chatbots and mental illness, arXiv:2507.19218.

‍ ‍

The economics baseline. Hausch DB. (1986), Multi-Object Auctions: Sequential vs. Simultaneous Sales, Management Science 32(12):1599-1610. Martinez-Saito M., Konovalov R., Piradov MA., Shestakova A., Gutkin B., Klucharev V. (2019), Action in auctions: neural and computational mechanisms of bidding behaviour, European Journal of Neuroscience 50(8): 3327-3348.

‍ ‍

The AI agent evaluation tooling. Li E., Bellotti V., Sessions N., Kao R. (2026), Mastering Agentic Techniques: AI Agent Evaluation. Bansal G. et al. (2026), Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Markets, arXiv:2510.25779v1. Vijayvargiya S., Bharat Soni A., Zhou X., Zhiruo Z., Wang Z.Z. (2026), OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety, arXiv:2507.06134v2.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. The Hausch and Martinez-Saito references are your human baseline: sequential versus simultaneous multi-object auction theory and the neural and computational mechanisms of human bidding. If you cannot speak to human bidding behavior in auctions, you cannot build the comparison the topic requires.

‍ ‍

Magentic Marketplace is named in the narrative as an emerging open-source tool showing promise, which is as close as DARPA comes to a build-on recommendation. Understand it and state your relationship to it, whether you extend it, differentiate from it, or replace it.

‍ ‍

And OpenAgentSafety is cited precisely as the thing this approach improves on, because it relies on a priori definitions of harmful traits. Engaging with why revealed-preference measurement in a market is better than checklist safety evaluation is the argument that makes your proposal look expert rather than derivative.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Phase I period: 12 months

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II period: 24 months, no options

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Decide your entry point: DP2 requires an existing test environment meeting the Phase I criteria, including the greater than 90 percent allocative efficiency demonstration and stock agents from at least 10 LLMs. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read the eight references, particularly Hausch on multi-object auctions, Martinez-Saito on human bidding mechanisms, Magentic Marketplace, and OpenAgentSafety. Settle your market design: structures, payout schemes, efficiency measures, consumer utility, and the news feed mechanism. Enumerate your intended 10-plus LLMs and confirm API access, terms of service compatibility, and cost. Work out your data rights position given the Month 21 object and source code delivery to the Government. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Submit technical questions before October 14.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft to your format. For Phase I, a 10 page white paper plus 5 slides structured on the Month 2, 6, 9, and 12 milestones. For DP2, 10 pages of feasibility documentation evidencing your existing environment, 20 pages of technical proposal built on the Month 2 through 24 milestone structure, and 5 pages of commercialization strategy built on DARPA's liability thesis. Address the black-box constraint, the error function definition, the simulated human user agent, and the allocative efficiency target explicitly.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template. Price LLM API consumption honestly, since a market simulation with many agents across a dozen models over 24 months is a substantial inference bill. Price the source code delivery and documentation work at Month 21.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: page and slide limits for your format, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV026?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV026 is a DARPA SBIR topic titled "Influence Benchmarks for AI Systems," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a testbed utilizing economic frameworks to benchmark AI biases in dynamic environments, evaluating how agents adapt, collaborate, or deceive within a simulated marketplace, to ensure safe and effective AI integration in high-stakes decision-making.

‍ ‍

Can I submit either a Phase I or a Direct to Phase II proposal?

‍ ‍

Yes. This topic appears in both award structure tables. Phase I is $300,000 over 12 months with a 10 page white paper and 5 page slide deck. Direct to Phase II is $1,800,000 over 24 months using the Standard Proposal Format at 35 pages.

‍ ‍

Are there options on the Direct to Phase II award?

‍ ‍

No. The award structure table lists no Option 1 and no Option 2 for this topic. The full $1,800,000 is a single 24 month commitment, which makes it the largest single-tranche award in this DARPA release and means your proposal must justify all 24 months up front.

‍ ‍

How do I know if I qualify for the Direct to Phase II path?

‍ ‍

The topic states that proposers submitting Direct to Phase II should be able to demonstrate an existing test environment that meets the criteria outlined in Phase I. So the Phase I description is the DP2 feasibility specification, including the greater than 90 percent allocative efficiency demonstration and the suite of stock AI agents drawn from at least 10 different LLMs.

‍ ‍

Can I access the model I am testing?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states that such a testbed shall rely only on queries and outputs of the subject AI system, rather than direct access to the model itself. You are building a black-box behavioral assay. That is both the constraint and the reason the approach generalizes to commercial and adversary models you can only query.

‍ ‍

Why use economic frameworks instead of a safety benchmark?

‍ ‍

Because economic frameworks permit measurement and comparison of decisions against decades of human baseline data from auction and market research, and because unlike existing assessments of AI risk they do not rely on a priori definitions of harmful or helpful traits. Markets also allow for diverse social strategies such as deception and collaboration to emerge rather than needing to be specified in advance.

‍ ‍

What is the hard performance target?

‍ ‍

Greater than 90 percent allocative efficiency in the proof-of-concept test environment by Month 12, along with the ability to replicate bidding patterns and allocation efficiencies observed in markets. It is the only numeric target in the topic and it functions as a validity check: an inefficient simulated market undermines any behavioral inference drawn from it.

‍ ‍

How many LLMs do I need to integrate?

‍ ‍

At least 10. The Month 9 Phase I fixed payable milestone requires demonstration of a suite of stock AI agents drawn from at least 10 different LLMs operating within the test environment. Budget for API access, prompt harnesses, rate limits, and version drift across that many models.

‍ ‍

How is a bid defined?

‍ ‍

By Month 6, proposers should define how AI agents interact through their decision space: a set of bids, each of which is defined by the time, asset, quantity, and price offered or requested on the market. That four-tuple is the atomic unit of observable behavior and what makes cross-model comparison possible.

‍ ‍

What is the news feed?

‍ ‍

A dynamic mechanism, defined by Month 2, that informs the behavior of AI agents within the market and is meant to simulate public information relevant to the market. By Month 12 of Phase II, proposers must demonstrate and measure how each AI agent responds to the news feed and the observable behavior of other agents, which alters each agent's expectation of future asset values and behaviors of other agents.

‍ ‍

What is the simulated human user requirement?

‍ ‍

In Phase II, at least one AI agent should represent the human user of the test AI agent, to explore how the test AI agent may drive human behaviors of concern such as encouraging delusions or eroding military discipline. This is where influence, as opposed to market behavior alone, is actually measured, and it is the most distinctive requirement in the topic.

‍ ‍

What is the error function?

‍ ‍

Phase II requires proposers to define an error function that describes differences between AI agent decisions and expected human results. The Month 2 Phase II milestone requires definitions of that error function plus measures for comparing distributions of human and AI market outcomes.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II deliver to the Government?

‍ ‍

At Month 21, final software delivery, both object and source code, for operation by DARPA or other U.S. Government personnel for additional demonstrations, with suitable documentation in a contractor proposed format. That is a source code delivery, and it has direct implications for your intellectual property strategy.

‍ ‍

Why does the final report have to discuss LLM advances?

‍ ‍

The Month 24 milestone requires the final report to discuss advances in LLM models and AI agents that have occurred during the period of performance and their potential impact on the evaluation of AI models. DARPA is acknowledging that the measurement target moves underneath you across 24 months and asking whether your instrument survives that. Addressing model drift and instrument durability proactively answers a question DARPA has already flagged.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck. For Direct to Phase II, the Standard Proposal Format at 35 pages, structured as up to 10 pages of feasibility documentation, up to 20 pages of technical proposal, and up to 5 pages of commercialization strategy as the last section.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ, updated until one week before the due date.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

How much TABA can I request?

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees up to $6,500. Phase II awardees up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee, and requests are reviewed by the contracting office at time of award.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

DARPA states it directly. The potential risk of AI systems inducing harmful behaviors is a major commercial concern due to associated legal and reputational risk to developers. AI firms are actively seeking mechanisms to argue the limits of their systems' biases and impacts on user behavior, including measuring deviations from expected human norms, in response to lawsuits. DARPA argues the stock-value impact of establishing the scope of liability far exceeds the immediate financial consequences of the court cases, suggesting strong market demand from AI firms for influence benchmarking. Insurers, regulators, and enterprise vendor due diligence extend naturally from that.

‍ ‍

Should I build on Magentic Marketplace?

‍ ‍

The topic names it as an emerging open-source tool that has shown promise in revealing behavioral variations in market-focused contexts, which is as close as DARPA comes to a recommendation. Understand it and state your relationship to it explicitly, whether you extend it, differentiate from it, or replace it.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Bring the economics, not just the machine learning. The differentiating expertise on this topic is auction theory and experimental economics, not LLM engineering. Two of the eight references are auction and bidding-behavior papers, and the entire premise rests on having a credible human baseline to compare agents against. A team of ML engineers without an economist will struggle to make the comparison meaningful, and it will show.

‍ ‍

Design the market before you design the agents. The Month 2 milestone is market structures, payout schemes, efficiency measures, consumer utility, and the news feed. Get that right and the behavioral measurement follows. Get it wrong and you have a chatbot arena with prices attached.

‍ ‍

Hit the 90 percent allocative efficiency target credibly. It is the only hard number and it is a validity gate. Show why your market design clears efficiently with rational agents, because if it does not, no inference about AI agent bias from it will be trusted.

‍ ‍

Respect the black-box constraint in the architecture. Query-and-output only is not a limitation to work around, it is the design premise that makes the instrument universal. If any part of your approach quietly assumes logprobs, activations, or fine-tuning access, it breaks the topic.

‍ ‍

Take the simulated human user seriously. This is the requirement that makes it an influence benchmark rather than a market benchmark. Explain how you construct a human-behavior stock agent grounded in the auction literature, how you validate that it behaves like a human, and how you detect the test AI influencing it toward delusion or indiscipline. That last outcome is unusual and specific, and DARPA named it deliberately.

‍ ‍

Budget the inference bill honestly. Ten or more LLMs, many agents, repeated market runs, across 24 months, is a real cost. Understating it reads as inexperience with the scale of the experiment.

‍ ‍

Plan for model drift from the start. The Month 24 report must address LLM advances during the period of performance and their impact on the evaluation approach. An instrument that only measures the 2026 model generation has limited value. Build and describe versioning, re-baselining, and comparability across model generations.

‍ ‍

Resolve your intellectual property position before you write the cost volume. The Month 21 deliverable is object and source code for Government operation. That interacts with what you build on, whether you can use restrictively licensed components, and what you can commercialize afterward. Data Rights Assertions are a Volume 5 item and this is the topic to use them thoughtfully.

‍ ‍

Lead the commercialization strategy with DARPA's liability thesis. You have a stated market argument from the customer: AI firms need defensible influence measurements because of litigation exposure, and the stock-value stakes exceed the case costs. That is a stronger opening than any market sizing you would construct, and you can extend it to insurers and regulators from there.

‍ ‍

Engage OpenAgentSafety explicitly. It is cited as the class of approach this topic improves on. Explaining why revealed-preference measurement under incentives beats a priori harm checklists, in your own words and with your own market design as the example, is the clearest way to show you understand what DARPA is buying.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV025: Noninvasive Detection and Localization of Occult Hemorrhage

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV025 is a DARPA SBIR topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, and it is one of only two topics in this release that accepts both Phase I and Direct to Phase II proposals. DARPA wants a capability that lets a combat medic with no surgical or imaging expertise find internal bleeding in the field: noninvasive or minimally invasive detection, anatomic localization, and rate estimation of occult non-compressible torso hemorrhage, outside a hospital. Phase I is $250,000 over 6 months. Direct to Phase II is $1,000,000 over 12 months with a $500,000 option over a further 12 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The clinical problem is the leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield, and DARPA's two cited references are the Eastridge papers that established it. What makes this topic distinctive is that it does not stop at detection. The system must distinguish slow or self-limiting hemorrhage from rapidly expanding, exsanguinating hemorrhage, and it must support serial or continuous monitoring so changes in bleeding rate can be tracked and reported to the medic in near-real time. That is a triage and evacuation prioritization capability, not just a diagnostic.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV025

‍ ‍

Title: Noninvasive Detection and Localization of Occult Hemorrhage

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program types accepted: both Phase I and Direct to Phase II

‍ ‍

Phase I award: $250,000 over 6 months. Technical volume is a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II award: $1,000,000 over 12 months, with an option of $500,000 over 12 months

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II technical volume format: White Paper and Slide Deck, 20 page white paper plus 15 slide deck

‍ ‍

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Biotechnology

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees, up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceilings

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: hemorrhage detection, clinical decision support, medical device, austere environment

‍ ‍

Two Entry Points, and How to Choose

‍ ‍

This topic appears in two of DARPA's award structure tables, which means you have a genuine choice of entry point. Getting it right matters, because the formats and the evidence bars are different.

‍ ‍

The Phase I path. $250,000 over 6 months. Technical volume is a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck. Phase I proposals shall present tasking and relevant milestones for a 6-month base period. This path is for a team with a sensing concept and supporting science but without an integrated system that already detects and localizes internal bleeding.

‍ ‍

The Direct to Phase II path. $1,000,000 over 12 months plus a $500,000 option over 12 months. Technical volume is a 20 page white paper plus a 15 slide deck, within an overall 35 page limit that DARPA describes for the White Paper and Slide Deck format. This path requires documentation demonstrating you have already achieved the feasibility milestones expected at the conclusion of a Phase I effort, and DARPA lists four specific ones.

‍ ‍

The choice is not strategic preference, it is evidence. If you can document the four DP2 feasibility elements below, take the DP2 path, because it is four times the money and it skips a phase. If you cannot document all four, a DP2 proposal will be found non-conforming and Phase I is the honest route.

‍ ‍

Note that Phase I proposals shall present tasking and relevant milestones for a 6-month base period, while Phase II proposals shall present tasking and relevant milestones for a 12-month base period, and separate tasking and milestones for a subsequent single 12-month option period. Structure your schedule accordingly.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Demonstrate a capability that noninvasively detects and localizes occult, meaning internal, non-compressible hemorrhage outside of a hospital.

‍ ‍

The user, named precisely

‍ ‍

The goal is to produce a noninvasive or minimally invasive capability that enables Role 1 medical personnel, specifically a combat medic with no surgical or pre-operative imaging expertise, to rapidly detect, localize, and characterize the rate of life-threatening, occult, or non-compressible torso hemorrhage that cannot be precisely identified through routine clinical assessments available in the field.

‍ ‍

That parenthetical is the design constraint that matters most. Not a radiologist. Not a surgeon. A combat medic with no imaging expertise. Every interface decision, every acquisition-guidance decision, and every output format decision follows from it. A device that requires skilled sonographic window-finding does not meet this requirement no matter how good its physics.

‍ ‍

What the system must do

‍ ‍

The proposed solution should integrate advanced sensing technologies with artificial intelligence to provide accurate, real-time detection, anatomic localization, and quantitative or semi-quantitative estimation of bleeding rate, distinguishing slow or self-limiting hemorrhage from rapidly expanding, exsanguinating hemorrhage, and should function in austere and contested environments.

‍ ‍

The capability should support serial or continuous monitoring such that changes in hemorrhage rate can be tracked to provide updates to the medic in near-real time.

‍ ‍

Solutions should provide intuitive, actionable visualization of both hemorrhage location and rate to support timely medical decision-making, triage, and evacuation prioritization when definitive surgical care is delayed or denied.

‍ ‍

Four distinct capabilities sit in those paragraphs: detection, anatomic localization, rate estimation, and change tracking over time. Rate estimation is the hardest and the most valuable, because it is what separates the casualty who needs the next helicopter from the one who can wait.

‍ ‍

Phase I in detail

‍ ‍

Demonstrate the technical feasibility of a noninvasive or minimally invasive capability for rapid detection, anatomical localization, and characterization of life-threatening occult or non-compressible hemorrhage. The performer shall develop a proof-of-concept sensing and artificial intelligence framework capable of accurately identifying the anatomical source of bleeding and estimating hemorrhage rate for a limited set of representative injury types.

‍ ‍

Scanning may be performed manually or using an automated platform, for example robotic or assisted acquisition, and should provide clinically actionable results within a timeframe compatible with Role 1 medical decision-making.

‍ ‍

Note the permission for a limited set of representative injury types in Phase I. You do not have to cover the whole torso. Choosing a defensible subset and justifying the choice is better than claiming breadth you cannot demonstrate.

‍ ‍

Proposals shall describe the envisioned concept of operations, including sensor placement or access method for minimally invasive approaches, data acquisition, user workflow, system-guided adjustments to sensor positioning or data collection, data processing, reporting, and, where appropriate, serial or continuous monitoring.

‍ ‍

That list is a checklist. Nine elements, and system-guided adjustments to sensor positioning is the one that speaks directly to the untrained-user constraint. If your device tells the medic where to move the probe, say how.

‍ ‍

Proposals shall describe the sensing technologies to be employed, their anticipated technology maturity, the proposed AI algorithms and training strategy, available datasets, and any additional data collection planned during Phase I.

‍ ‍

Representative testbeds may include retrospective clinical datasets, computational models, physical phantoms, ex vivo preparations, or controlled preclinical studies.

‍ ‍

That is a permissive testbed list and it matters for schedule. Six months does not accommodate a new animal study from scratch, but retrospective clinical data, phantoms, and computational models are all explicitly acceptable.

‍ ‍

Phase I efforts should establish the technical capabilities and limitations of the proposed approach, including the minimum and maximum resolvable hemorrhage rate, localization accuracy, anatomical applicability including challenging locations such as retroperitoneal hemorrhage or bleeding obscured by bone or bowel, and expected robustness across representative operational conditions.

‍ ‍

Retroperitoneal hemorrhage and bleeding obscured by bone or bowel are named because they are where most sensing modalities fail. Address them directly, including where your approach cannot reach, because DARPA asked for limitations as well as capabilities.

‍ ‍

Proposals shall define quantitative performance metrics for hemorrhage detection, localization, bleeding-rate estimation, response time, and operational robustness under austere conditions, including environmental stressors, limited power availability, transportation, storage, and deployment.

‍ ‍

While field-ready systems are not required, proposals utilizing components with demonstrated field suitability will be viewed favorably.

‍ ‍

The Phase I effort should culminate in a proof-of-concept demonstration and a detailed technical development plan supporting maturation into an integrated prototype during Phase II.

‍ ‍

Phase II in detail

‍ ‍

Phase II will build upon the successful Phase I demonstration by developing, integrating, and validating a portable prototype capable of real-time hemorrhage detection, anatomical localization, bleeding-rate estimation, and longitudinal monitoring across a broader range of clinically relevant battlefield injuries.

‍ ‍

Then a sentence that constrains the work in a useful way: Phase II should emphasize engineering maturation, system integration, and operational validation rather than fundamental sensor development. The sensing hardware architecture established during Phase I should remain substantially unchanged, with improvements focused on optimization, robustness, algorithm refinement, and user-centered operation.

‍ ‍

If you enter at DP2, that tells you DARPA expects your sensing architecture to be settled. Proposing to explore modalities in Phase II is a mismatch with the topic.

‍ ‍

Performers shall expand system performance to encompass additional solid organs, vascular structures, and clinically relevant hemorrhage scenarios while collecting additional datasets to improve algorithm performance, robustness, and generalizability.

‍ ‍

The system shall support serial or continuous assessment of hemorrhage progression, enabling near-real-time updates of bleeding location and rate.

‍ ‍

The integrated prototype shall provide intuitive clinical decision support suitable for Role 1 medical personnel, including actionable visualization of hemorrhage location, bleeding rate, confidence estimates, injury implications, and recommendations supporting triage, treatment prioritization, and evacuation decisions.

‍ ‍

Note confidence estimates in that list. A rate estimate without an uncertainty bound is not usable for evacuation triage, and DARPA has asked for it explicitly.

‍ ‍

Validation should be conducted using representative preclinical, cadaveric, clinical, or other operationally relevant test environments, with performance evaluated under conditions representative of austere military operations, including motion, environmental stress, limited logistical support, and communications degradation where appropriate.

‍ ‍

Proposals shall define quantitative Phase II performance metrics for detection accuracy, localization precision, bleeding-rate estimation, response time, longitudinal tracking performance, usability, and operational suitability.

‍ ‍

Phase II should conclude with delivery of an integrated prototype, validation results demonstrating operational feasibility, and a transition strategy supporting military evaluation, regulatory planning, manufacturing, and commercialization.

‍ ‍

As with Phase I, proposals shall define envisioned Phase II metrics for success in the detection, localization, and characterization of bleeding. Phase II proposals should enumerate the planned list of injury targets planned for characterization.

‍ ‍

The Direct to Phase II Feasibility Requirement

‍ ‍

DP2 proposers must provide documentation demonstrating they have already achieved the feasibility milestones expected at the conclusion of a Phase I effort. Specifically, proposals must demonstrate existing evidence of four things.

‍ ‍

Proof-of-Concept: an established sensing and AI framework capable of accurately identifying the anatomical source of occult or internal bleeding.

‍ ‍

Hemorrhage Rate Estimation: the ability to quantitatively or semi-quantitatively estimate hemorrhage rates to distinguish slow bleeding from rapidly expanding hemorrhage across various injury profiles.

‍ ‍

Performance Metrics: tested parameters detailing the minimum and maximum resolvable hemorrhage rates, localization accuracy, and anatomical applicability, including challenging areas such as retroperitoneal hemorrhage.

‍ ‍

Operational Robustness: preliminary data indicating the approach can withstand austere conditions, including environmental stressors and limited power availability.

‍ ‍

All four are evidentiary, not aspirational. The second one, rate estimation, is the element most likely to be missing from an otherwise strong team, because plenty of groups can detect free fluid or hemorrhage while far fewer can put a rate on it. If you cannot show rate estimation data, the Phase I path is the correct entry.

‍ ‍

Per the DP2 authority, if a proposer can provide adequate documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described in the Phase I section of the topic has been met, and describes the potential commercial applications, the Direct to Phase II authority allows the Department of War to make an award under Phase II of the SBIR program without regard to whether the small business concern was provided an award under Phase I of an SBIR program.

‍ ‍

For the White Paper and Slide Deck DP2 format, the white paper shall not exceed 20 pages and the slide deck shall not exceed 15 pages, within the 35 page overall format DARPA describes. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for the content of each element of the Technical Volume and the commercialization strategy.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

DARPA splits this into two applications, both concrete.

‍ ‍

Military application, battlefield. The developed noninvasive hemorrhage detection system transitions directly to military operational medicine, specifically empowering Role 1 combat medics. In austere and contested environments where definitive surgical care or medical evacuation is delayed or denied, this portable technology provides critical clinical decision support. By continuously monitoring non-compressible torso hemorrhage progression, medics can perform highly accurate triage, prioritize life-saving interventions, and optimize evacuation scheduling for casualties with exsanguinating hemorrhage versus those with self-limiting bleeding.

‍ ‍

Civilian and commercial application, remote disaster areas. In the civilian sector, this technology holds significant dual-use potential for emergency medical services, search-and-rescue teams, and disaster response units. During mass casualty incidents or natural disasters such as earthquakes or severe storms where infrastructure is damaged and access to hospital imaging is impossible, first responders can use this tool to rapidly detect occult internal bleeding at the point of injury. It provides paramedics with real-time, actionable data to prioritize helicopter transport or specialized trauma center routing for critically internally injured patients in remote or rural environments, ultimately reducing preventable mortality outside of the hospital setting.

‍ ‍

Both framings converge on the same commercial proposition: pre-hospital triage of internal bleeding. Ground and air EMS, rural hospitals without imaging, and disaster response organizations are the buyers, and the regulatory pathway is a medical device clearance rather than a defense qualification. Your commercialization strategy should address FDA strategy explicitly, since Phase II asks for a transition strategy supporting regulatory planning.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The awards

‍ ‍

Phase I: $250,000 over 6 months. Technical volume is a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck.

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II: $1,000,000 over 12 months, plus an option of $500,000 over 12 months, for $1,500,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

Cost-plus reimbursement requires including your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires including a completed OT using the Model OT for Prototype from the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, with at minimum the color-coded areas completed and redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. TABA funding requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.

‍ ‍

For a medical device topic, regulatory strategy support and market validation with EMS and trauma system buyers are both plausible uses.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions related to improving the understanding of a topic's requirements must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification, marking, and registrations

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, though the projected requirement for this topic is Level 1. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

DARPA's permissive posture matters here, since medical device companies at this stage are commonly venture-funded.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those identified strengths and weaknesses will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other during the evaluation process but rather evaluated on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I or Direct to Phase II award within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees, with the goal of maximizing the potential to move technology beyond Phase II into other research and development programs, DoW acquisition programs, other federal programs, or the commercial market. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy. For a medical device seeking regulatory and market entry, both programs have real value.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Two, and both are foundational rather than technical.

‍ ‍

Eastridge BJ, Mabry RL, Seguin P, Cantrell J, Tops T, Uribe P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001-2011): Implications for the future of combat casualty care. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2012 Dec;73(6):S431-7.

‍ ‍

Eastridge BJ, Hardin M, Cantrell J, Oetjen-Gerdes L, Zubko T, Mallak C, Wade CE, Simmons J, Mace J, Mabry R, Bolenbaucher R, Blackbourne LH. Died of wounds on the battlefield: causation and implications for improving combat casualty care. J Trauma. 2011 Jul;71(1 Suppl):S4-8.

‍ ‍

These are the papers that quantified preventable death from hemorrhage in Iraq and Afghanistan and established non-compressible torso hemorrhage as the dominant category. DARPA cites no sensing technology references at all, which tells you the agency is not steering you toward a modality. It is stating a clinical problem and leaving the physics open. That is unusual and it is an opportunity: ultrasound, photoacoustics, electrical impedance, microwave, near-infrared, and hybrid approaches are all on the table, and your argument for a modality is part of what gets evaluated.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Phase I period: 6 months

‍ ‍

Direct to Phase II base: 12 months. Option: a further 12 months

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Decide your entry point by testing yourself honestly against the four DP2 feasibility elements, especially hemorrhage rate estimation. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Assemble your evidence base: retrospective clinical datasets, phantom results, ex vivo or preclinical data, and any field-suitability data on components. Settle your sensing modality and be ready to defend it, since DARPA cites no modality references. Work out your position on retroperitoneal hemorrhage and bleeding obscured by bone or bowel, including where you cannot reach. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Submit technical questions before October 14.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft to the format for your chosen path. For Phase I, a 10 page white paper plus 5 slides with 6 month tasking and milestones. For DP2, a 20 page white paper plus 15 slides with 12 month base tasking and separate 12 month option tasking. In either case, walk the nine-element concept of operations list, define the quantitative performance metrics DARPA names, and state limitations as well as capabilities.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template. Price your validation environment realistically, whether phantom, ex vivo, cadaveric, preclinical, or retrospective clinical data access, since data access agreements and IRB or IACUC timelines can dominate a 6 or 12 month schedule.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: page and slide limits for your format, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV025?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV025 is a DARPA SBIR topic titled "Noninvasive Detection and Localization of Occult Hemorrhage," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to demonstrate a capability that noninvasively detects and localizes occult, meaning internal, non-compressible hemorrhage outside of a hospital.

‍ ‍

Can I submit either a Phase I or a Direct to Phase II proposal?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is one of only two topics in this DARPA release that appears in both the Phase I and the Direct to Phase II award structure tables. Phase I is $250,000 over 6 months with a 10 page white paper and 5 page slide deck. Direct to Phase II is $1,000,000 over 12 months plus a $500,000 option over 12 months, with a 20 page white paper and 15 slide deck.

‍ ‍

How do I decide which path to take?

‍ ‍

By evidence, not preference. The DP2 path requires documentation demonstrating four specific existing capabilities: an established sensing and AI proof-of-concept identifying the anatomical source of internal bleeding, quantitative or semi-quantitative hemorrhage rate estimation across injury profiles, tested performance parameters covering minimum and maximum resolvable rates plus localization accuracy and anatomical applicability including retroperitoneal hemorrhage, and preliminary operational robustness data under austere conditions. If you cannot document all four, a DP2 proposal risks being found non-conforming and Phase I is the correct route.

‍ ‍

Who is the intended user?

‍ ‍

Role 1 medical personnel, specified as a combat medic with no surgical or pre-operative imaging expertise. That constraint drives the entire interface and acquisition design. A device requiring skilled imaging technique does not satisfy this topic.

‍ ‍

What must the system actually do?

‍ ‍

Four things. Detect occult non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Localize it anatomically. Estimate bleeding rate quantitatively or semi-quantitatively, distinguishing slow or self-limiting hemorrhage from rapidly expanding exsanguinating hemorrhage. And support serial or continuous monitoring so changes in rate can be tracked and reported to the medic in near-real time. It must also provide intuitive, actionable visualization of location and rate to support triage and evacuation prioritization.

‍ ‍

What sensing modality does DARPA want?

‍ ‍

The topic does not say, and notably cites no sensing technology references at all, only the two Eastridge clinical papers. Proposals shall describe the sensing technologies to be employed, their anticipated technology maturity, the proposed AI algorithms and training strategy, available datasets, and any additional data collection planned. The modality choice and its justification are yours to make and defend.

‍ ‍

What anatomical challenges must I address?

‍ ‍

The topic names challenging locations explicitly: retroperitoneal hemorrhage and bleeding obscured by bone or bowel. Phase I efforts should establish anatomical applicability including these, and the DP2 feasibility requirement names retroperitoneal hemorrhage specifically. State where your approach works and where it does not.

‍ ‍

What testbeds are acceptable in Phase I?

‍ ‍

Representative testbeds may include retrospective clinical datasets, computational models, physical phantoms, ex vivo preparations, or controlled preclinical studies. That is a permissive list, which matters because a 6 month schedule will not accommodate a new animal study from scratch.

‍ ‍

Do I need a field-ready system?

‍ ‍

No. While field-ready systems are not required, proposals utilizing components with demonstrated field suitability will be viewed favorably.

‍ ‍

What must my proposal define quantitatively?

‍ ‍

Performance metrics for hemorrhage detection, localization, bleeding-rate estimation, response time, and operational robustness under austere conditions, the latter including environmental stressors, limited power availability, transportation, storage, and deployment. Phase II adds longitudinal tracking performance, usability, and operational suitability.

‍ ‍

What concept of operations detail is required?

‍ ‍

Proposals shall describe the envisioned concept of operations including sensor placement or access method for minimally invasive approaches, data acquisition, user workflow, system-guided adjustments to sensor positioning or data collection, data processing, reporting, and where appropriate serial or continuous monitoring. The system-guided adjustment element is the one that speaks to the untrained-user constraint.

‍ ‍

Can I change my sensing hardware in Phase II?

‍ ‍

Not substantially. Phase II should emphasize engineering maturation, system integration, and operational validation rather than fundamental sensor development, and the sensing hardware architecture established during Phase I should remain substantially unchanged, with improvements focused on optimization, robustness, algorithm refinement, and user-centered operation.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II have to deliver?

‍ ‍

An integrated portable prototype capable of real-time detection, anatomical localization, bleeding-rate estimation, and longitudinal monitoring across a broader range of clinically relevant battlefield injuries, expanded to encompass additional solid organs, vascular structures, and hemorrhage scenarios. Plus validation results demonstrating operational feasibility and a transition strategy supporting military evaluation, regulatory planning, manufacturing, and commercialization. The prototype must provide clinical decision support including actionable visualization of hemorrhage location, bleeding rate, confidence estimates, injury implications, and recommendations supporting triage, treatment prioritization, and evacuation decisions.

‍ ‍

How should Phase II validation be conducted?

‍ ‍

Using representative preclinical, cadaveric, clinical, or other operationally relevant test environments, with performance evaluated under conditions representative of austere military operations including motion, environmental stress, limited logistical support, and communications degradation where appropriate.

‍ ‍

Are confidence estimates required?

‍ ‍

Yes, in Phase II. The integrated prototype's clinical decision support must include confidence estimates alongside hemorrhage location, bleeding rate, injury implications, and recommendations. A rate estimate without an uncertainty bound is not usable for evacuation triage.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a 10 page white paper plus a 5 page slide deck. For Direct to Phase II, a 20 page white paper plus a 15 page slide deck, within the 35 page White Paper and Slide Deck format DARPA describes. Refer to Appendix A for Phase I content and Appendix B for DP2 content.

‍ ‍

What milestone structure should I propose?

‍ ‍

Phase I proposals shall present tasking and relevant milestones for a 6-month base period. Phase II proposals shall present tasking and relevant milestones for a 12-month base period, and separate tasking and milestones for a subsequent single 12-month option period.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ, updated until one week before the due date.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

How much TABA can I request?

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500. Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee, and requests are reviewed by the contracting office at time of award.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

Pre-hospital triage of internal bleeding. The topic names emergency medical services, search-and-rescue teams, and disaster response units, and describes mass casualty incidents and natural disasters where infrastructure is damaged and hospital imaging is unavailable. First responders would use the tool to detect occult internal bleeding at the point of injury and prioritize helicopter transport or trauma center routing. Ground and air EMS, rural hospitals without imaging, and disaster response organizations are the buyers.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Choose your entry point on evidence. The four DP2 feasibility elements are checkable, and rate estimation is the one that separates teams. Detecting free fluid is well-trodden ground; quantifying a bleeding rate is not. If you have rate data, take the DP2 path and the four-times funding. If you do not, Phase I is not a lesser choice, it is the correct one.

‍ ‍

Design for the medic, and say so on page one. No surgical or pre-operative imaging expertise is the phrase to internalize. System-guided sensor positioning, automated or assisted acquisition, and an output that reads as a decision rather than an image are all responsive to that constraint. Many strong medical imaging teams will propose excellent physics with an operator model that does not exist at Role 1.

‍ ‍

Make rate estimation the technical centerpiece. It is what the whole capability is for. Detection tells you there is bleeding; rate tells the medic whether this casualty goes on the next aircraft. Show your physics for rate, your validation approach, and your uncertainty quantification.

‍ ‍

Be candid about the anatomy you cannot see. Retroperitoneal hemorrhage and bleeding obscured by bone or bowel are named because they are hard. DARPA asked for capabilities and limitations. A proposal claiming uniform torso coverage will read as either uninformed or overselling; one that maps its performance envelope honestly reads as expert.

‍ ‍

Own the modality argument. With no sensing references cited, DARPA has left the physics open and will judge your reasoning. State why your modality can resolve rate and location in a torso, what its failure modes are, and why alternatives are worse for this use case.

‍ ‍

Plan the data problem early. AI algorithms need training data, and hemorrhage rate ground truth is scarce. Retrospective clinical datasets, phantoms with controlled flow, ex vivo preparations, and preclinical models each give you different ground truth quality. Name your sources and your access arrangements, because in a 6 or 12 month schedule, IRB, IACUC, and data use agreements are often the critical path.

‍ ‍

Put field suitability in the component choices. Proposals utilizing components with demonstrated field suitability will be viewed favorably, which is a low-cost way to earn credit. If a subsystem already has ruggedized or fielded heritage, say so.

‍ ‍

Address the regulatory path in the commercialization section. Phase II asks for a transition strategy supporting regulatory planning, and the civilian market is a cleared medical device market. A realistic FDA pathway view, including predicate strategy or de novo reasoning, distinguishes a company that intends to sell a product from one that intends to publish.

‍ ‍

Use both Eastridge papers. They are the only references, they are the canonical statement of the problem, and citing them correctly signals you understand why this topic exists rather than treating it as a generic imaging opportunity.

‍ ‍

Write to eliminate weaknesses. DARPA's selectability test turns on whether accumulated weaknesses would require extensive negotiation or resubmission. An unaddressed anatomical limitation, an unexplained data source, or a missing regulatory view are each the kind of gap that pushes a good proposal from selectable to non-selectable.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV024: New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV024 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants an autonomous, networked insect trap that detects and identifies New World Screwworm flies on board, without a technician driving out to service it and without shipping samples to a laboratory. The economic case is stated in the topic: re-entry of New World Screwworm into the United States could cost U.S. cattle producers $732 million per year. The award is $1,100,000 over a 12 month base, with two sequential $500,000 options of 6 months each, for a total of $2,100,000 across 24 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The current state of the art is deliberately unflattering, and DARPA spells it out. The USDA is using three types of traps at the US Southern Border, sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps, all of which require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory. Suspected samples go to the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa for official confirmation. The lure in use, Swormlure-5, is a synthetic bait on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds that is not specific to New World Screwworm and can lure other species.

So the topic asks you to beat two things at once: a trap that needs a human, and a lure that is not selective. That dual requirement is the shape of the whole program.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV024

‍ ‍

Title: New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This is a Direct to Phase II topic only

‍ ‍

Technical volume format: Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages

‍ ‍

Base award: $1,100,000

‍ ‍

Base period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Option 1: $500,000 over 6 months

‍ ‍

Option 2: $500,000 over 6 months

‍ ‍

Total if all options exercised: $2,100,000 across 24 months

‍ ‍

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Biotechnology

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

‍ ‍

Required facility access: the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility

‍ ‍

Phase II demonstration standard: TRL 6 using a prototype system in a relevant environment

‍ ‍

Target device size and weight: approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm, 600 g

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: New World Screwworm, NWS, sensor, lure, pest, identification, network, detection, surveillance, monitoring

‍ ‍

Read This First: The ACL-3 Facility Requirement

‍ ‍

Buried in the Phase II description is a sentence that functions as an eligibility gate: the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility.

‍ ‍

ACL-3, Arthropod Containment Level 3, is the containment standard for work with arthropods that pose significant risk, and access to a compliant facility is not something you arrange in a month. If you are proposing to work with live New World Screwworm, or with a surrogate species requiring that containment level, you need this access identified and documented before you submit.

‍ ‍

Practically, that means either you operate an ACL-3 arthropod containment facility yourself, or you have a partner institution that does and a written arrangement to use it. Very few small businesses hold ACL-3 arthropod containment. University entomology departments, USDA facilities, and a handful of contract research organizations do. Identify yours early and name it in the proposal, because a reviewer who cannot see how you will conduct the work will treat the plan as not credible.

‍ ‍

Note also the related constraint: New World Screwworm is a regulated pest not currently established in the United States, so live-organism work carries permitting requirements alongside containment requirements. Address both.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The problem and the money

‍ ‍

New World Screwworm, or NWS, scientific name Cochliomyia hominivorax, larvae infest the living tissue of warm-blooded animals. NWS is prevalent in South America and the Caribbean, and it is estimated that re-entry of NWS into the United States could cost US cattle producers $732 million per year, citing USDA 2025.

‍ ‍

Screwworm flies lay eggs in open wounds. The eggs hatch into maggots, or larvae, that eat live tissue, causing a worsening, often painful and foul-smelling wound, citing CDC 2025.

‍ ‍

Wildlife and free-ranging animals are an important pathway for New World Screwworm to spread, making surveillance beyond livestock essential, citing Arizona 2026.

‍ ‍

What is deployed today, and why it is inadequate

‍ ‍

The current state of the art for NWS detection and tracking being used at the US Southern Border involves three types of traps: sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps. All of which require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory.

‍ ‍

The state-of-the-art lure to attract NWS flies to a trap is Swormlure-5, a synthetic bait based on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds. However, such baits are not specific to NWS and can lure other species.

‍ ‍

The USDA has deployed over 100 NWS-specific traps and lures across high-risk areas of U.S. Border States and is leveraging thousands of fruit fly and insect traps all along the Southern Border. Suspected NWS samples are forwarded for official confirmation to the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, the national reference lab responsible for screwworm diagnostics.

‍ ‍

Read that last point carefully. Every suspected detection today travels from the border to Iowa. The latency in that pipeline is the operational problem your device eliminates, and quantifying that latency reduction is a strong argument to make.

‍ ‍

The system DARPA wants

‍ ‍

A real-time, autonomous, persistent, networked NWS detection, identification, and surveillance system is necessary for accurate and timely tracking and forecasting of the movement of the New World Screwworm.

‍ ‍

Such a system must operate reliably in rugged, remote regions lacking power and communications infrastructure by leveraging on-board data processing and machine learning analysis. This can enable on-board insect identification, for example using low-power, localized optical, acoustic, electrical, or chemical sensing, and eliminate the need for manual sample collection and laboratory diagnostics.

‍ ‍

Furthermore, these devices must form resilient, low-bandwidth ad-hoc networks to transmit real-time, highly compressed detection telemetry, enabling NWS movement forecasting and biosecurity intervention even in remote and disconnected environments.

‍ ‍

The objective, stated at the top of the topic, is to develop and demonstrate a real-time, networked pest detection, identification, and surveillance technology that provides actionable New World Screwworm detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, and long and unattended operation.

‍ ‍

Note the five named outcome qualities: detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, long operation, and unattended operation. Those are your performance dimensions.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Requirements, Which Are Unusually Specific

‍ ‍

DARPA lists what the DP2 effort will develop, integrate, validate, and demonstrate. This list is effectively the specification, and it is worth walking in full because each bullet is a checkable requirement.

‍ ‍

System level

‍ ‍

A scalable, networked NWS detection, identification, and surveillance system suitable for areal coverage as large as national borders.

‍ ‍

Improved lure over Swormlure-5

‍ ‍

Greater NWS selectivity. Increased lure attraction range to reduce the number of traps needed. Volatility consistent with a one-month maintenance interval.

‍ ‍

Those three are in tension with each other, which is what makes the lure work hard. Greater selectivity usually means a narrower chemical signature, which often reduces attraction range. Longer volatility means a slower release rate, which also cuts range. A proposal that claims all three without addressing the tradeoff will not persuade an entomologist.

‍ ‍

Improved trap design

‍ ‍

No dependence on sticky coatings. Unattended trap or device operation, including advanced pest identification that does not require manual insect collection and laboratory analysis. Remote user communications with the trap or device, and communications between traps or devices.

‍ ‍

On-board detection, identification, and surveillance hardware and software

‍ ‍

Single or multi-sensor design, for example capacitive, optical, or optoacoustic. High NWS probability of detection and probability of false alarm to provide for actionable decision making. Capability to distinguish between NWS and related species such as Cochliomyia macellaria. Capability to distinguish between marked sterile and non-sterile NWS. Remotely upgradable code. Enables NWS movement forecasting. Capability to handle multiple pests via code update.

‍ ‍

Two of those deserve emphasis. Distinguishing Cochliomyia hominivorax from Cochliomyia macellaria, the secondary screwworm, is a hard discrimination problem between closely related congeners, and it is the specific reason a non-selective lure plus a coarse sensor is insufficient. And distinguishing marked sterile from non-sterile NWS matters because the sterile insect technique is the primary control method: releases of sterilized males suppress wild populations, and a surveillance system that cannot tell a released sterile fly from a wild one will produce false alarms during a control campaign. That requirement tells you the system has to work alongside an active eradication program.

‍ ‍

Low maintenance

‍ ‍

Battery life of a minimum of 3 months, assuming low NWS prevalence and a strong user-device and device-device network signal. Required maintenance, for example lure refreshment, interval of two weeks or longer. Simple, rapid maintenance procedure.

‍ ‍

Note the mismatch worth resolving in your design: battery life minimum 3 months, but lure refreshment interval two weeks or longer, while the lure volatility target elsewhere is stated as consistent with a one-month maintenance interval. Read the one-month lure volatility as the goal and the two-week interval as the floor, and be explicit about what your design achieves.

‍ ‍

Physical

‍ ‍

Lightweight, easily deployed, low cost. Approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm, 600 g.

‍ ‍

That is a small, light device. Fifteen centimeters cubed and 600 grams constrains battery capacity, which constrains sensing and compute, which constrains identification accuracy. The whole design closes or does not close on that budget, and showing the budget is the most persuasive thing you can put in the proposal.

‍ ‍

Program-level Phase II requirements

‍ ‍

The performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility. The system demonstration must be conducted at TRL 6 using a prototype system in a relevant environment. DP2 will also require commercialization and transition planning along with technology development. Throughout the phase, the proposers must collaborate with commercial and government end-users to refine operational requirements and deployment scenarios of their developed solution. Manufacturing and scaling plans for production must also be developed before the end of the Phase. The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and government applications.

‍ ‍

Note that end-user collaboration is a stated requirement, not a suggestion. USDA APHIS is the obvious government end-user, and the topic's references are almost entirely USDA documents. Establishing that relationship before you propose is worth real effort.

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Requirement

‍ ‍

This is a Direct to Phase II topic only. The Government expects that the small business has accomplished the following in a Phase I-type feasibility effort and developed a prototype NWS Distributed Detection System to address, at a minimum, the basic requirements of the stated objectives.

‍ ‍

For this Direct-to-Phase II SBIR, a technical report containing Phase I Feasibility Documentation is required to demonstrate that Phase I feasibility has been met.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Feasibility Documentation must contain a detailed description of the technical plan, milestones, and data substantiating that they have designed and field-tested a functional, low-power Distributed Detection System prototype outside of the SBIR program.

‍ ‍

This feasibility report must provide empirical data verifying that the physically demonstrated sensor platforms can successfully isolate and identify target insects, while operating on strict energy budgets and seamlessly transmitting synchronized threat data across a coordinated wireless network.

‍ ‍

Break that into its four claims, because all four must be evidenced. You designed and field-tested a functional low-power distributed detection system prototype. Outside the SBIR program. The physical platforms successfully isolate and identify target insects. And they operate on strict energy budgets while transmitting synchronized data across a coordinated wireless network.

‍ ‍

Note the phrase "target insects" rather than New World Screwworm specifically. That is a meaningful opening. If you have a fielded distributed insect detection network working on a different target species, that plausibly satisfies the feasibility bar, and the NWS-specific discrimination becomes the Phase II development. Companies working in agricultural pest monitoring, mosquito surveillance, or stored-product pest detection should read this topic carefully rather than dismissing it as out of domain.

‍ ‍

For the Standard Proposal Format, DP2 feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the DP2 technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed five pages, which should be the last section of the technical volume.

‍ ‍

The Milestone and Deliverable Schedule

‍ ‍

DARPA specifies base and option milestones and deliverables separately. Build your plan to match.

‍ ‍

DP2 Base milestones, 12 months

‍ ‍

Month 1: identify the candidate sensor technologies, lure chemistries, and device physical design.

‍ ‍

Month 3: initial test results for various sensor and lure combinations integrated into a device. Finalize the device sensors and lure chemistry options. Develop the prototype device design and device test plan.

‍ ‍

Month 6: assemble at least four prototype devices and collect initial test results for the prototype devices, individually and networked. Begin battery life and lure longevity testing.

‍ ‍

Month 9: collect initial NWS probability of detection and probability of false alarm results against unrelated and related insects, for example Cochliomyia macellaria.

‍ ‍

Month 12: refine the sensor subsystem for improved NWS detection and identification. Initial networked system demonstration, including remote user-device and device-device connectivity and remotely upgradable code.

‍ ‍

DP2 Base deliverables

‍ ‍

Month 1: sensor and lure candidate selection and design of experiments report.

‍ ‍

Month 3: sensor and lure test results report, and device design and test plan.

‍ ‍

Month 6: report describing test results for individual and networked devices.

‍ ‍

Month 9: report describing NWS detection and identification results against unrelated and related insects, including updates to sensor design and lure technologies.

‍ ‍

Month 12: Phase II feasibility report documenting device and system design, testing and validation, performance to date, manufacturing and scaling plans, and commercialization and transition plan.

‍ ‍

DP2 Option 1, months 13 to 18

‍ ‍

Milestones: Month 15, design scale-up to pilot plant quantities. Month 18, prototype system demonstration in a relevant environment.

‍ ‍

Deliverables: Month 15, report documenting pilot plant design and operations. Month 18, report on field demonstration results.

‍ ‍

DP2 Option 2, months 19 to 24

‍ ‍

Milestones: Month 21, scale-up to pilot plant quantities. Month 24, final performance testing and commercialization plan.

‍ ‍

Deliverables: as listed in the topic, Month 15 report documenting pilot plant design and operations, and Month 18 final report on system design and performance, and commercialization and transition plan.

‍ ‍

Note that the Option 2 deliverable months in the topic read Month 15 and Month 18, which duplicates the Option 1 deliverable months and does not align with the Option 2 milestone months of 21 and 24. That looks like a drafting error. The sensible reading is that Option 2 deliverables fall at Months 21 and 24 matching their milestones, and this is a good question to submit to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before the October 14 deadline.

‍ ‍

Also worth noting: the milestone structure moves to pilot plant quantities in both options, which signals that DARPA is thinking about manufacturing scale early. A device intended for national border coverage needs to be producible in the thousands, and the topic's design targets of lightweight, easily deployed, and low cost point the same way.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

Successful development of an NWS distributed detection and surveillance system will have significant applications in both military and commercial sectors.

‍ ‍

The most direct DoW application involves force protection disease vector control.

‍ ‍

In addition, the distributed insect detection technology may expand to non-agricultural or disease prevention applications such as insect swarm behavioral changes as a proxy for human activities.

‍ ‍

If the pest sensor and identification device can be made multifunctional in terms of what it senses, for example movement or vibration, or a chemical moiety, applications can expand farther into areas such as vehicle detection or an electronic "sniffer."

‍ ‍

The key commercial application is agriculture protection for both crops and livestock, which also overlaps with National Security.

‍ ‍

That progression is worth following in your commercialization strategy. The near market is agricultural pest surveillance, which is large and already buys traps. The defense market is force protection vector control. And the topic itself raises the possibility that a distributed low-power multi-modal sensing network with on-board classification generalizes well beyond insects, which is a longer-term argument for platform value rather than product value.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

$1,100,000 over a 12 month base, plus Option 1 of $500,000 over 6 months and Option 2 of $500,000 over 6 months. Total $2,100,000 across 24 months if both options are exercised.

‍ ‍

The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance. The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

‍ ‍

Contract type, which you must elect

‍ ‍

DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.

‍ ‍

If requesting a cost-plus reimbursement contract, include your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. If requesting an Other Transaction for Prototype, include a completed OT in your proposal using the Model OT for Prototype on the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, completing at minimum the color-coded areas and providing redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. No additional action is required for firm-fixed-price.

‍ ‍

Templates are mandatory

‍ ‍

Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. TABA funding requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.

‍ ‍

For this topic, market validation with agricultural end-users and regulatory support are both plausible uses, given that the device will need to work within USDA surveillance programs.

‍ ‍

Questions and the FAQ

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions related to improving the understanding of a topic's requirements must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals.

‍ ‍

Classification and marking

‍ ‍

All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Registrations

‍ ‍

Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, though the projected requirement for this topic is Level 1. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.

‍ ‍

A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh the weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Post-award support

‍ ‍

DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees, with the goal of maximizing the potential to move technology beyond Phase II into other research and development programs, DoW acquisition programs, other federal programs, or the commercial market. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

The References, Which Are the Reading List

‍ ‍

Seven references, and unusually for a DARPA topic they are almost entirely government program documents rather than research papers. That tells you the customer is a working surveillance program, not a research community.

‍ ‍

USDA 2025, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, New World Screwworm Ready Reference Guide, Historical Economic Impact, January 2025.

‍ ‍

CDC 2025, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New World Screwworm, What You Need To Know, 2025.

‍ ‍

USDA 2026a, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Fly Trapping: A Critical Tool for Detecting New World Screwworm, June 2026.

‍ ‍

USDA 2026b, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Surveillance, July 1 2026.

‍ ‍

USDA 2026c, US Department of Agriculture, San Angelo Strike Team Uses Baited Sticky Lure Traps to Track Screwworm Activity in Texas, June 27, 2026.

‍ ‍

Hickner 2023, Paul V. Hickner et al., A new formulation of screwworm fly attractant with reduced hazardous chemicals and transport restrictions, Journal of Medical Entomology, 2023.

‍ ‍

Arizona 2026, University of Arizona, U of A secures $3.74 million to strengthen Arizona's preparedness for New World screwworm, June 30 2026.

‍ ‍

Two of these are worth particular attention. The Hickner 2023 paper is the lure chemistry reference, and since improving on Swormlure-5 is a named requirement, engaging with that work is the fastest way to show you understand the lure problem rather than treating it as a black box. And the USDA 2026a fly trapping document plus the USDA 2026c San Angelo Strike Team item describe the actual field operation your device has to fit into, including who deploys the traps and how.

‍ ‍

The Arizona 2026 reference is also a signal about the ecosystem: a university with $3.74 million in NWS preparedness funding is both a potential ACL-3 partner and a potential competitor's partner.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Base period: 12 months from award

‍ ‍

Option 1: 6 months. Option 2: 6 months

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Secure and document ACL-3 test facility access, which is the hardest item and a stated Phase II requirement. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ for this topic and keep rechecking it. Assemble your feasibility package: evidence you designed and field-tested a functional low-power distributed detection system prototype outside the SBIR program, with empirical data on insect isolation and identification, strict energy budget operation, and synchronized data transmission across a coordinated wireless network. Read the Hickner 2023 lure paper and form a view on beating Swormlure-5 on selectivity, range, and volatility simultaneously. Reach out to USDA APHIS, since end-user collaboration is a stated Phase II requirement. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Submit technical questions before October 14, including the Option 2 deliverable month discrepancy.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the technical volume in three parts: 10 pages of feasibility documentation, 20 pages of technical proposal, 5 pages of commercialization strategy. Structure the technical proposal around the specification list: system scalability, lure improvement with the three-way tradeoff addressed, trap design, on-board detection and identification including the Cochliomyia macellaria and sterile-versus-wild discriminations, low maintenance with the battery and lure interval budget shown, and the physical envelope with a power budget that closes at 15 cm cubed and 600 g.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template across the base and both options, aligned to the stated milestones and deliverables. Price the ACL-3 facility access, prototype fabrication of at least four devices, insect colony or specimen access, and pilot plant design work.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 35 pages with the three internal section limits observed, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV024?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV024 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a real-time, networked pest detection, identification, and surveillance technology providing actionable New World Screwworm detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, and long unattended operation.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

$1,100,000 for a 12 month base period, plus Option 1 of $500,000 over 6 months and Option 2 of $500,000 over 6 months, for a total of $2,100,000 across 24 months if both options are exercised. Up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to the cost ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals. Note the separate technical question deadline of October 14, 2026.

‍ ‍

Do I need an ACL-3 facility?

‍ ‍

Yes. The Phase II description states that the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility. Arthropod Containment Level 3 access is not quickly arranged, so either you hold it or you need a documented arrangement with an institution that does. Name it in the proposal.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site, updated until one week before the due date.

‍ ‍

Why does this matter to the Department of War?

‍ ‍

The topic names force protection disease vector control as the most direct DoW application, and notes that agriculture protection for crops and livestock, the key commercial application, also overlaps with national security. The economic figure DARPA cites is that re-entry of NWS into the United States could cost U.S. cattle producers $732 million per year.

‍ ‍

What is wrong with current traps?

‍ ‍

The three types in use at the US Southern Border, sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps, all require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory. Suspected samples are forwarded to the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa for official confirmation. The latency and labor in that pipeline is the problem.

‍ ‍

What is wrong with the current lure?

‍ ‍

Swormlure-5, the state-of-the-art lure, is a synthetic bait based on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds, but such baits are not specific to New World Screwworm and can lure other species.

‍ ‍

What must an improved lure achieve?

‍ ‍

Three things: greater NWS selectivity, increased lure attraction range to reduce the number of traps needed, and volatility consistent with a one-month maintenance interval. Note these are in tension, since narrower selectivity and slower release both tend to reduce range. Address the tradeoff explicitly.

‍ ‍

What discriminations must the sensor make?

‍ ‍

Two named hard ones. Capability to distinguish between NWS and related species such as Cochliomyia macellaria, the secondary screwworm, which is a congener discrimination. And capability to distinguish between marked sterile and non-sterile NWS, which matters because the sterile insect technique is the primary control method and a surveillance system that cannot tell released sterile flies from wild ones will generate false alarms during a control campaign.

‍ ‍

What sensing modalities are suggested?

‍ ‍

Single or multi-sensor design, with capacitive, optical, and optoacoustic given as examples. Elsewhere the topic mentions low-power localized optical, acoustic, electrical, or chemical sensing. DARPA does not prescribe a modality.

‍ ‍

What are the physical and power requirements?

‍ ‍

Approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm and 600 g. Battery life of a minimum of 3 months assuming low NWS prevalence and a strong network signal. Required maintenance such as lure refreshment at an interval of two weeks or longer, with a simple, rapid maintenance procedure. Lightweight, easily deployed, and low cost.

‍ ‍

What networking is required?

‍ ‍

Devices must form resilient, low-bandwidth ad-hoc networks to transmit real-time, highly compressed detection telemetry, enabling movement forecasting and biosecurity intervention even in remote and disconnected environments. The system must support remote user communications with the device and communications between devices, plus remotely upgradable code.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. This is a Direct to Phase II topic only. A technical report containing Phase I Feasibility Documentation is required to demonstrate that Phase I feasibility has been met.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation is required?

‍ ‍

A detailed description of the technical plan, milestones, and data substantiating that you designed and field-tested a functional, low-power Distributed Detection System prototype outside of the SBIR program. The report must provide empirical data verifying that the physically demonstrated sensor platforms can successfully isolate and identify target insects while operating on strict energy budgets and seamlessly transmitting synchronized threat data across a coordinated wireless network.

‍ ‍

Does the feasibility work have to be on screwworm specifically?

‍ ‍

The topic says "target insects" rather than naming NWS in the feasibility requirement, which suggests a fielded distributed insect detection network on a different species may satisfy the bar, with NWS-specific discrimination becoming the Phase II development. Companies in agricultural pest monitoring, mosquito surveillance, or stored-product pest detection should read the requirement closely rather than assuming they are out of domain. If in doubt, ask DARPA before October 14.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

35 pages in the Standard Proposal Format, structured as up to 10 pages of DP2 feasibility documentation, up to 20 pages of DP2 technical proposal, and up to 5 pages of Phase II commercialization strategy, which should be the last section.

‍ ‍

What TRL must the Phase II demonstration reach?

‍ ‍

TRL 6, using a prototype system in a relevant environment.

‍ ‍

Is there an error in the Option 2 deliverable schedule?

‍ ‍

It appears so. Option 2 milestones are stated at Month 21 and Month 24, but the Option 2 deliverables are listed at Month 15 and Month 18, which duplicates the Option 1 deliverable months. The sensible reading is that Option 2 deliverables fall at Months 21 and 24 matching their milestones. This is worth a question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14.

‍ ‍

Do I have to work with end-users?

‍ ‍

Yes. Throughout the phase, proposers must collaborate with commercial and government end-users to refine operational requirements and deployment scenarios. USDA APHIS is the obvious government end-user, and the topic's reference list is largely USDA program documents.

‍ ‍

Do I need manufacturing plans?

‍ ‍

Yes. Manufacturing and scaling plans for production must be developed before the end of the Phase, and both options include milestones for scale-up to pilot plant quantities. The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and government applications.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

Is the cost template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

The key commercial application named is agriculture protection for both crops and livestock, which the topic notes also overlaps with national security. Beyond that, DARPA raises the possibility that the distributed insect detection technology may expand to non-agricultural or disease prevention applications such as insect swarm behavioral changes as a proxy for human activities, and that a multifunctional sensor could expand into vehicle detection or an electronic sniffer.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, available Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Sort out ACL-3 access before anything else. It is a stated Phase II requirement, it takes time, and a proposal that cannot show where the containment work happens will read as unexecutable regardless of technical quality.

‍ ‍

Read the feasibility requirement generously but honestly. It says target insects, not screwworm. A company with a fielded, networked, low-power insect detection system on another species has a plausible path in. A company with a laboratory demonstration and no field network does not, because the requirement is explicit about field testing and about synchronized data across a coordinated wireless network.

‍ ‍

Show the power budget that closes at 600 grams. Fifteen centimeters cubed, 600 grams, three months of battery life, on-board machine learning classification, and mesh networking is a tight envelope. The single most convincing artifact you can include is a credible power and mass budget showing how sensing, compute, radio, and lure all fit. Most proposals will assert the requirements; showing the arithmetic distinguishes you.

‍ ‍

Take the lure seriously as chemistry, not packaging. Greater selectivity, longer range, and one-month volatility pull against each other. Read Hickner 2023 and engage with the actual attractant chemistry. A proposal with an excellent sensor and a hand-wave at the lure has solved half the problem, and it is arguably the easier half given that a non-selective lure fills your trap with the wrong flies.

‍ ‍

Solve the sterile-versus-wild discrimination explicitly. This is the requirement most likely to be skipped, and it is the one that reveals whether you understand the operational context. Sterile insect technique releases are how screwworm is controlled, so any surveillance system deployed during a campaign will see large numbers of marked sterile flies. Say how you tell them apart, and note what marking method you assume.

‍ ‍

Quantify the latency you eliminate. Every suspected detection today goes to Ames, Iowa. Estimating the current detect-to-confirm timeline and what your device reduces it to is the clearest statement of operational value, and it is the argument USDA will care about.

‍ ‍

Engage USDA APHIS now. End-user collaboration is a Phase II requirement, the reference list is mostly USDA documents, and the agency is actively running the surveillance program your device would join. A letter or documented engagement changes how the transition plan reads.

‍ ‍

Design for thousands of units. The topic asks for coverage as large as national borders, names low cost as a design goal, and puts pilot plant scale-up in both option periods. Manufacturability is not a Phase III concern here, it is in the base and option milestones.

‍ ‍

Build the multi-pest story into the architecture. Capability to handle multiple pests via code update is a stated requirement, and remotely upgradable code is another. That combination means the device should be a platform, and the commercialization argument is stronger for a platform that addresses agricultural pest surveillance broadly than for a single-species instrument.

‍ ‍

Ask about the Option 2 deliverable months. The dates in the topic do not align with the Option 2 milestones. Submitting that question before October 14 both gets you an answer and demonstrates careful reading.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV023: Novel Radio Frequency Sensing Technologies

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ06-DV023 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants a high-altitude, high-speed airborne geologic sensing system: a self-contained radar payload flying at roughly 40,000 feet and about 400 knots that produces rapid, stand-off 3D subsurface tomographic imaging to detect subterranean features such as metals and critical minerals. The award is $700,000 over an 18 month base period, with a $500,000 option over 6 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The physics is the whole problem, and DARPA states it in the topic. Radar transmit power for small targets scales as the fourth power of range. Moving from a 10,000 foot baseline to 40,000 feet is a 4x increase in distance, which nominally demands a 256x increase in radiated power to maintain equivalent subsurface imaging performance. That single number defines the engineering challenge: a kW-class RF power amplifier, an antenna that survives 400 knots at altitude, and heat dissipation to match, all inside a fully self-contained payload with its own power generation.

This is not an entry-level topic. To be eligible you must already have developed, integrated, and validated an airborne subsurface radar or similar system in a physical environment at low altitude and low speed up to 10,000 feet. DARPA says explicitly that modeling and simulation data alone is not sufficient to prove feasibility.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV023

‍ ‍

Title: Novel Radio Frequency Sensing Technologies

‍ ‍

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

‍ ‍

Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic is soliciting DP2 proposals only

‍ ‍

Technical volume format: Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages

‍ ‍

Base award: $700,000

‍ ‍

Base period of performance: 18 months

‍ ‍

Option 1: $500,000 over 6 months

‍ ‍

Option 2: none

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Integrated Sensing and Cyber

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling

‍ ‍

Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: ground penetrating radar, subsurface tomography, standoff radar, void detection, high-power RF, airborne geophysics, subterranean imaging, RF shielding, critical minerals

‍ ‍

How DARPA Differs From Other Components

‍ ‍

If you have worked Air Force or Navy SBIR topics, several DARPA-specific rules will catch you out.

‍ ‍

There is no DSIP Topic Q&A. DARPA states that DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions related to improving the understanding of a topic's requirements must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line. All questions must be in English and must include the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document on its Small Business site, linked under the topic number summary, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.

‍ ‍

Read that FAQ before you write, and read it again the week before you submit. It is the only public question channel for this topic and it will contain answers to questions you did not think to ask.

‍ ‍

DARPA will not accept late proposals. The instructions say this twice, in bold. Proposers are encouraged to submit as early as possible to avoid unexpected delays due to high traffic in the final hours before a BAA closes.

‍ ‍

You must state your requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, either firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal. If requesting a cost-plus reimbursement contract, you must include your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. If requesting an Other Transaction for Prototype, you must include a completed OT in your proposal using the Model OT for Prototype on the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5. At a minimum you need to complete the areas color coded in the template, and if you wish to negotiate any articles or attachments you must provide redlines and comments explaining each. No additional action is required for a firm-fixed-price request.

‍ ‍

The cost proposal template is mandatory. Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Everything must be unclassified or CUI. All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI, and you must not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.

‍ ‍

You get a written evaluation narrative regardless of outcome. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria, subparagraph (d) Release of Proposal Review Information, DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested by the proposing firm via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA. That is more generous than most components and worth using.

‍ ‍

DARPA reserves broad discretion on partial awards. The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received, and to make awards with or without communications with proposers. It also reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options, and DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. The Government reserves the right to remove a proposal from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and price within a reasonable time, or should the proposer fail to provide requested additional information within three business days.

‍ ‍

Two commercialization programs come with a DP2 award. DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution, at no cost, with the goal of maximizing the potential for SBIR/STTR companies to move technology beyond Phase II into other research and development programs, DoW acquisition programs, other federal programs, or the commercial market. Separately, awardees may be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, funding a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, connections to investor working groups, and the hiring of an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

What DARPA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop, integrate, and flight-test a high-altitude, meaning roughly 40,000 feet, high-speed, meaning approximately 400 knots, airborne geologic sensing system. The system must be capable of providing rapid, stand-off 3D subsurface tomographic imaging to detect subterranean features such as metals and critical minerals.

‍ ‍

Why the current state of the art does not work

‍ ‍

Detecting and mapping deep subsurface mineral deposits typically requires localized or low-altitude operations. Current state-of-the-art airborne subsurface radar systems are limited to relatively low-altitude and low-speed platforms due to the physical limitations of signal attenuation over distance. Increasing altitude and airspeed would allow for larger areas to be scanned in less time.

‍ ‍

This topic seeks the rapid development of an advanced airborne subsurface radar system designed for seamless integration onto high-altitude fixed-wing aircraft.

‍ ‍

The scaling law you must address

‍ ‍

Proposers must address the physical scaling laws of radar propagation through lossy media. According to the radar equations for small targets of a radar cross section of approximately one wavelength, the necessary transmit power scales as a function of range to the fourth power, or R4. For instance, transitioning from a 10,000 foot baseline to a 40,000 foot operational altitude represents a 4x increase in distance, nominally demanding a 256x increase in radiated power to maintain equivalent subsurface imaging performance.

‍ ‍

Due to the higher power requirements at higher altitudes, system designs must prioritize transmit power scaling, advanced antenna structure designs, and robust heat dissipation systems.

‍ ‍

That 256x figure is the organizing fact of this topic. Every design decision you make is either a way to supply that power, a way to avoid needing all of it through processing or waveform gains, or a way to survive the thermal consequences. A proposal that does not confront the number directly has not engaged with the topic.

‍ ‍

The self-contained payload requirement

‍ ‍

To facilitate rapid, modular deployment across diverse airframes without requiring permanent, costly aircraft modifications, the entire system must be designed as a fully self-contained payload. It must utilize independent, internal power generation and an edge computational architecture.

‍ ‍

Three consequences. You cannot draw power from the host aircraft, which means generating kW-class RF power from onboard generation. You cannot rely on aircraft cooling. And you cannot downlink raw data for ground processing, because the architecture is specified as edge computational.

‍ ‍

The five key technical challenges

‍ ‍

DARPA lists five challenges proposers must address. Use them as your technical volume structure.

‍ ‍

High-power transmitter and power scaling: engineering and validating a highly reliable kW-class RF power amplifier.

‍ ‍

Aerodynamic and structural antenna design: designing and reinforcing an externally deployable or structurally integrated antenna system capable of withstanding aerodynamic loads at relevant velocities, approximately 400 knots, and altitudes, approximately 40,000 feet.

‍ ‍

Thermal dissipation and management: integrating passive or active high-capacity heat dissipation systems to mitigate thermal loads under sustained high-power transmit cycles.

‍ ‍

RF shielding and electromagnetic compatibility: implementing advanced RF shielding and electrical isolation to guarantee zero electromagnetic interference with the host aircraft's flight navigation, control, and mission avionics.

‍ ‍

Note the word "zero." That is an absolute framing, and the single cited reference is MIL-STD-461G, the EMC standard. Treat EMC as a first-class design and test problem rather than a compliance afterthought.

‍ ‍

Field-programmable gate arrays and edge processing: selecting FPGAs and processing techniques that can handle increased signal propagation delays, modified waveforms, and real-time tomographic data processing at high standoff distances.

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Requirement

‍ ‍

This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only. Proposers must submit feasibility documentation in lieu of a Phase I proposal.

‍ ‍

Proposers must demonstrate that they have already developed, integrated, and validated an airborne subsurface radar or similar system in a physical environment, for example low-altitude, low-speed flight regimes up to 10,000 feet.

‍ ‍

Then the sentence that disqualifies most applicants: modeling and simulation data alone is not sufficient to prove feasibility.

‍ ‍

The three required feasibility elements

‍ ‍

The submitted feasibility documentation must include three things, and DARPA numbers them.

‍ ‍

Empirical flight data: representative 3D tomographic subsurface reconstructions, signal-to-noise ratio calculations, and imagery demonstrating successful detection of underground mineral deposits.

‍ ‍

Receiver characterization: technical documentation proving the receiver operates at a low thermal noise floor.

‍ ‍

Analytical scaling models: detailed physical, mathematical, and electromagnetic models validating the R4 scaling equations and mapping the exact architectural transition from a low-power baseline to a high-power, high-altitude design.

‍ ‍

That third element is where the proposal is won. Empirical flight data and receiver characterization establish that you have a working system. The scaling models establish that you know how to get from that system to this one. DARPA is asking for the bridge, explicitly and in detail, and the phrase "mapping the exact architectural transition" leaves no room for a general statement of intent.

‍ ‍

Per the DP2 authority, if a proposer can provide adequate documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described in the Phase I section of the topic has been met, and describes the potential commercial applications, the Direct to Phase II authority allows the Department of War to make an award under Phase II of the SBIR program without regard to whether the small business concern was provided an award under Phase I of an SBIR program.

‍ ‍

For the Standard Proposal Format, DP2 feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the DP2 technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed five pages, which should be the last section of the technical volume. Those three sections total the 35 page limit.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Program and Its Fixed Payable Milestones

‍ ‍

Phase II is described as an accelerated hardware realization, integration, and flight-testing campaign. DARPA specifies fixed payable milestones, which means your payment schedule tracks these deliverables. Build your plan around them rather than proposing your own structure.

‍ ‍

Base Period, 18 months:

‍ ‍

Month 2, Subsystem Engineering: preliminary designs for the power amplifier, motherboard, and high-efficiency heat dissipation structures, plus an initial report on updated firmware architecture.

‍ ‍

Month 4, Subsystem Design Completion: finalized engineering designs for all major subsystems.

‍ ‍

Month 6, Structural Antenna Engineering Interim Report Number 1: manufacturing progress and initial benchtop testing for the power amplifier and antenna assembly to survive aerodynamic loads of approximately 400 knots.

‍ ‍

Month 9, FPGA and Compute Development Interim Report Number 2: progress on integrated systems testing, including initial results from tomographic reconstruction algorithms at the edge.

‍ ‍

Month 12, Safety and Test Readiness Review Data Package: comprehensive safety testing results on high-voltage and high-power RF emissions, and flight clearances documentation.

‍ ‍

Month 15, High-Altitude Flight Campaign Interim Report Number 3: preliminary data from demonstration flights on a fixed-wing platform at approximately 40,000 feet and speed of approximately 400 knots, including measurements of radiated power and signal penetration.

‍ ‍

Month 18, Data Analysis and Final Base Period Report: detailed analysis of flight data, fully reconstructed 3D subsurface tomograms of test sites, and system performance evaluation.

‍ ‍

Option Period, 6 months:

‍ ‍

Month 21, Interim Report Number 4: detailed data analysis, algorithm enhancement, and performance improvements of the prototype system.

‍ ‍

Month 24, Comprehensive Final System Assessment Report: final evaluation of performance, including 3D subsurface tomogram data of relevant structures, against a low-altitude baseline and commercial viability analysis.

‍ ‍

Two observations about this schedule. The Month 12 Safety and Test Readiness Review with flight clearances documentation is the gate that decides whether the Month 15 flight campaign happens on time. High-voltage and high-power RF airborne flight clearance is an approval process with its own timeline, and 12 months is not generous. Address your airworthiness and flight clearance pathway explicitly, including which platform and which test organization.

‍ ‍

And the Month 24 final assessment requires comparison against a low-altitude baseline. That means your feasibility data is not just an eligibility document, it becomes the benchmark you are measured against. Choose what you submit accordingly.

‍ ‍

Phase III Dual Use

‍ ‍

DARPA describes the high-altitude geological sensing system as a highly disruptive dual-use technology.

‍ ‍

Military and DoD applications: identifying additional domestic sources of critical minerals is a national security imperative that will improve access to materials needed for advanced defense systems. This capability would strengthen the U.S. supply chain for critical minerals.

‍ ‍

Commercial and civil applications: DARPA calls the system a highly scalable "MRI for the Earth." It could map deep-seated geologic structures to rapidly locate critical mineral reserves and rare earth element deposits buried under hundreds of meters of geology. This significantly accelerates discovery timelines, increases exploratory extraction success rates from 1-in-200 to near certainty, and optimizes geologic risk management.

‍ ‍

That 1-in-200 to near certainty claim is DARPA's own, and it is a strong commercial argument you can cite rather than construct. Mineral exploration economics are dominated by drilling failure rates, and a technology that changes the hit rate changes the industry's cost structure. Build your five page commercialization strategy on mining and exploration companies, critical mineral supply chain investors, and government geological surveys.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and TABA

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

$700,000 for an 18 month base period, plus a $500,000 option over 6 months, for $1,200,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised. There is no Option 2 on this topic.

‍ ‍

The resources made available for each topic issued under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.

‍ ‍

Note that $700,000 for kW-class RF amplifier development, antenna structural qualification, thermal system integration, EMC qualification, and a high-altitude flight campaign is a tight budget. That is part of why the feasibility bar is set at an already-validated flying system: DARPA is funding the transition, not the invention.

‍ ‍

Contract type

‍ ‍

State your requested type. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action. Cost-plus reimbursement requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval, included in the proposal. An Other Transaction for Prototype requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

DARPA describes the OT instrument favorably: the flexibility of the OT award instrument is beneficial because the performer will be able to apply its commercial best practices as required to carry out the research project, outside of FAR process-driven requirements, with streamlined milestone-driven performance intended to reduce time and effort on award administration and permit performers to focus on the research effort and rapid prototyping. For a hardware program with fixed payable milestones, that is worth considering seriously.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. Refer to the DoW Program BAA for detailed information about TABA funding, allowable services, and requirements. TABA funding requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.

‍ ‍

Export Control

‍ ‍

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

‍ ‍

Note also from the DARPA Phase I instructions, which apply generally: proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov, and those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification. The projected requirement for this topic is Level 2 with self-assessment. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm for more information and notes that resources exist to assist companies with meeting this criterion, one of which is Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io, where users can create accounts and gain access to educational videos and material as well as a cyber self-assessment.

‍ ‍

Proposal Structure

‍ ‍

A complete proposal submission consists of seven volumes: Proposal Cover Sheet, Technical Volume, Cost Volume, Company Commercialization Report, Supporting Documents, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training, and Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries.

‍ ‍

Volume 1, Proposal Cover Sheet. Do not include any proprietary information on the coversheet. Note that proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.

‍ ‍

Volume 2, Technical Volume. Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages, structured as up to 10 pages of DP2 feasibility documentation, up to 20 pages of DP2 technical proposal, and up to 5 pages of Phase II commercialization strategy as the last section. Templates are provided on the DARPA Small Business website. Refer to Appendix B, DARPA Direct to Phase II Instructions, for content requirements.

‍ ‍

Volume 3, Cost Volume. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory. Refer to Appendix B for content.

‍ ‍

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report. Completion of the CCR in DSIP is required, but DARPA will not consider information contained in the CCR during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Volume 5, Supporting Documents. In addition to documents required by DoW, small businesses may submit additional documentation to support the Technical Volume and the Cost Volume. Required certifications are listed in Appendix B. This is also where a Model OT and OT Certifications go if you are requesting an Other Transaction, where the SBIR VC Certification goes if you are majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds, and where Data Rights Assertions go if applicable.

‍ ‍

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training. Material is in the Volume 6 section of the DSIP proposal submission module and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

‍ ‍

Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries. Complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP submission. It will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of the form must not be uploaded to Volume 5.

‍ ‍

Eligibility and Evaluation

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA.

‍ ‍

Three conditions apply. Prior to submitting a proposal, firms must register with the SBA Company Registry Database. The proposer, within its submission, must submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with a copy of the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, included in Supporting Documents Volume 5. And should a proposer become a member of this ownership class after submitting its proposal and prior to any receipt of a funding agreement, the proposer must immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification.

‍ ‍

DARPA's position here is permissive, which matters for a capital-intensive RF hardware topic where venture funding is common.

‍ ‍

Evaluation and selection

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria. Based on these identified strengths and weaknesses, the Government will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other during the evaluation process but rather evaluated on their own individual merit to determine how well the proposal meets the criteria stated in this BAA and the corresponding DARPA topic.

‍ ‍

DARPA defines two outcomes. A selectable proposal is one that the Government has evaluated against the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA and DARPA topic, and the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal do not outweigh its weaknesses.

‍ ‍

That framing is useful. You are not competing against other proposals; you are being assessed for whether your strengths outweigh your weaknesses cleanly enough to award without renegotiation. Weaknesses that accumulate into a need for extensive negotiation make you non-selectable even if the technical concept is strong. Write to eliminate weaknesses, not only to accumulate strengths.

‍ ‍

Awards will be given to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, consistent with instructions and evaluation criteria specified in the DoW SBIR Program BAA and availability of funding.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email.

‍ ‍

It is DARPA's policy to treat all proposals as source selection information and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. During the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support contractors for administrative purposes or to assist with technical evaluation. All DARPA support contractors are expressly prohibited from performing DARPA-sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by DARPA from other Government or non-Government consultants and experts who are strictly bound by the appropriate nondisclosure requirements. No submissions in response to the BAA will be returned. Upon completion of the evaluation and selection process, an electronic copy of each proposal received will be retained at DARPA.

‍ ‍

Protests

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA for procedures to protest this BAA. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close

‍ ‍

Base period: 18 months from award

‍ ‍

Option period: 6 additional months if exercised

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Download the DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates from the DARPA Small Business website, since the cost template is mandatory. Read the consolidated FAQ for this topic and keep checking it. Assemble your feasibility package: empirical flight data with 3D tomographic reconstructions, SNR calculations, and imagery showing detection of underground mineral deposits; receiver thermal noise floor documentation; and the analytical scaling models mapping the architectural transition. Decide your contract type and, if cost-plus, confirm you hold a current DCMA Final Determination Letter; if OT, download and complete the Model OT and OT Certifications. Confirm SAM registration is active and your CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is current in SPRS. Identify your flight test platform and the organization that will grant flight clearance for high-power RF emissions, because the Month 12 gate depends on it. Resolve export control staffing. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Submit technical questions well before October 14.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the technical volume in three parts against the 35 page structure: 10 pages of feasibility documentation, 20 pages of technical proposal built around the five key technical challenges, and 5 pages of commercialization strategy using DARPA's own MRI for the Earth and 1-in-200 framing. Confront the 256x power scaling number explicitly and show your path, whether through amplifier power, processing gain, waveform design, or a combination.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template across the 18 month base and 6 month option, aligned to the fixed payable milestones. Get supplier quotes for the amplifier, antenna structure, thermal components, and FPGA hardware. Price the flight campaign realistically, including platform time and test organization support.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with your contract-type documents, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 35 page limit with the three internal section limits observed, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template used.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP. October 21 is the deadline, not the plan.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV023?

‍ ‍

DPA26BZ06-DV023 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Novel Radio Frequency Sensing Technologies," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks development, integration, and flight test of a high-altitude, approximately 40,000 foot, high-speed, approximately 400 knot, airborne geologic sensing system providing rapid stand-off 3D subsurface tomographic imaging to detect subterranean features such as metals and critical minerals.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

$700,000 for an 18 month base period, plus a $500,000 option over 6 months, for a total of $1,200,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised. There is no second option on this topic. Up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to the cost ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

October 21, 2026. DARPA states it will not accept late proposals. Note also the separate technical question deadline of October 14, 2026.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?

‍ ‍

No. DARPA states that DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be emailed to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026, and must include the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site, updated until one week prior to the due date.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and proposers must submit feasibility documentation in lieu of a Phase I proposal.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation is required?

‍ ‍

You must demonstrate you have already developed, integrated, and validated an airborne subsurface radar or similar system in a physical environment, for example low-altitude, low-speed flight up to 10,000 feet. Modeling and simulation data alone is not sufficient. The documentation must include three things: empirical flight data with representative 3D tomographic subsurface reconstructions, signal-to-noise ratio calculations, and imagery demonstrating successful detection of underground mineral deposits; receiver characterization proving the receiver operates at a low thermal noise floor; and analytical scaling models validating the R4 scaling equations and mapping the exact architectural transition from a low-power baseline to a high-power, high-altitude design.

‍ ‍

What is the R4 scaling problem?

‍ ‍

According to the radar equations for small targets of a radar cross section of approximately one wavelength, necessary transmit power scales as range to the fourth power. Moving from a 10,000 foot baseline to 40,000 feet is a 4x increase in distance, nominally demanding a 256x increase in radiated power to maintain equivalent subsurface imaging performance. That number defines the engineering problem and your proposal must address it directly.

‍ ‍

What are the five key technical challenges?

‍ ‍

A highly reliable kW-class RF power amplifier. An externally deployable or structurally integrated antenna system capable of withstanding aerodynamic loads at approximately 400 knots and 40,000 feet. Passive or active high-capacity heat dissipation to mitigate thermal loads under sustained high-power transmit cycles. Advanced RF shielding and electrical isolation to guarantee zero electromagnetic interference with the host aircraft's flight navigation, control, and mission avionics. And FPGA selection and processing techniques handling increased signal propagation delays, modified waveforms, and real-time tomographic data processing at high standoff distances.

‍ ‍

Can the payload draw power or cooling from the aircraft?

‍ ‍

No. The entire system must be designed as a fully self-contained payload, utilizing independent internal power generation and an edge computational architecture, to facilitate rapid modular deployment across diverse airframes without requiring permanent, costly aircraft modifications.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

35 pages in the Standard Proposal Format, structured as up to 10 pages of DP2 feasibility documentation, up to 20 pages of DP2 technical proposal, and up to 5 pages of Phase II commercialization strategy, which should be the last section. Templates are provided on the DARPA Small Business website.

‍ ‍

Is the cost proposal template mandatory?

‍ ‍

Yes. DARPA provides templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website, and states that use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.

‍ ‍

Do I have to choose a contract type?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. A cost-plus request requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT request requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications, loaded in Volume 5. A firm-fixed-price request requires no additional action.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase II milestones?

‍ ‍

Fixed payable milestones across an 18 month base: Month 2 subsystem engineering preliminary designs, Month 4 subsystem design completion, Month 6 structural antenna engineering interim report with benchtop testing at approximately 400 knot loads, Month 9 FPGA and compute development interim report with initial edge tomographic reconstruction results, Month 12 Safety and Test Readiness Review data package with high-voltage and high-power RF emissions safety results and flight clearances documentation, Month 15 high-altitude flight campaign interim report with preliminary data at approximately 40,000 feet and 400 knots, and Month 18 data analysis and final base period report with fully reconstructed 3D subsurface tomograms. The 6 month option adds Month 21 interim data analysis and Month 24 comprehensive final system assessment against a low-altitude baseline plus commercial viability analysis.

‍ ‍

What is the biggest schedule risk?

‍ ‍

The Month 12 Safety and Test Readiness Review, which requires flight clearances documentation for high-voltage and high-power RF emissions. Airborne flight clearance for high-power RF is an approval process with its own timeline independent of your engineering progress. Name your platform and your test organization, and describe the clearance pathway.

‍ ‍

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 use of 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. The projected CMMC requirement is Level 2 with self-assessment, and DARPA notes that firms engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have Level 2 certification.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible for DARPA topics under this BAA, subject to three conditions: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and immediately notify the Contracting Officer if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission. A non-selectable proposal is one where strengths do not outweigh weaknesses.

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes, and this is more generous than most components. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive Appendix I paragraph 4 subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but DARPA will not consider information contained in the CCR during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

What support comes with a DP2 award?

‍ ‍

Two programs. The Transition and Commercialization Support Program provides services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees, aimed at moving technology beyond Phase II into other R&D programs, DoW acquisition programs, other federal programs, or the commercial market. Separately, awardees may be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee, funding a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur for a Go-to-Market strategy.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

DARPA calls the system a highly scalable "MRI for the Earth," able to map deep-seated geologic structures to rapidly locate critical mineral reserves and rare earth element deposits buried under hundreds of meters of geology, significantly accelerating discovery timelines, increasing exploratory extraction success rates from 1-in-200 to near certainty, and optimizing geologic risk management. On the defense side, identifying additional domestic sources of critical minerals is framed as a national security imperative strengthening the U.S. critical minerals supply chain.

‍ ‍

What reference does the topic cite?

‍ ‍

One: DoD Joint Sensor Integration Standards, "Electromagnetic Compatibility and RF Shielding Guidelines for High-Power Airborne Payloads (MIL-STD-461G)," 2019. That the sole reference is the EMC standard tells you how seriously DARPA takes the zero-interference requirement.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Specific questions on the administration of the DARPA Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to the DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. Technical questions related to research objectives and awards specifically related to a topic also go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support is available Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us, including "Tips for DARPA Proposal Success."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Qualify yourself honestly on the feasibility bar. You need a flown airborne subsurface radar with empirical tomographic results, documented receiver noise floor, and validated scaling models. Simulation is explicitly insufficient. There are not many companies in the world that clear this bar, which is good news if you are one of them and a reason to look elsewhere if you are not.

‍ ‍

Make the scaling model the centerpiece. Empirical flight data proves you have a system. The analytical scaling models prove you can build this one. DARPA asks for models "mapping the exact architectural transition from a low-power baseline to a high-power, high-altitude design," which is a request for engineering specificity, not a narrative. Show the power budget, the link budget, the loss terms, and where you buy back margin.

‍ ‍

Do not concede the full 256x. The honest reading of the topic is that DARPA expects proposers to attack the number from several directions: raw amplifier power, aperture gain, coherent integration, waveform design, and processing. A proposal that simply proposes a 256x more powerful transmitter is unlikely to close on SWaP, thermal, or cost. Show the decomposition.

‍ ‍

Treat EMC as a design driver. The requirement is zero electromagnetic interference with flight navigation, control, and mission avionics, and the only cited reference is MIL-STD-461G. On a self-contained kW-class payload strapped to a manned aircraft, this is what stands between you and a flight clearance.

‍ ‍

Name the aircraft and the clearance path. The Month 12 milestone requires flight clearances documentation, and the Month 15 milestone requires demonstration flights. Airworthiness for a high-power RF payload is not a formality. Identifying your platform, your test organization, and your safety-of-flight approach converts the highest schedule risk in the program into a managed item.

‍ ‍

Address thermal honestly. Sustained high-power transmit cycles at altitude, in a self-contained payload, with no aircraft cooling, is a genuinely hard thermal problem, and it interacts with the power amplifier choice and the antenna structure. Proposals that gloss this tend to have an unstated assumption of low duty cycle. If your duty cycle is low, say so and show what that costs in area coverage rate.

‍ ‍

Use DARPA's own commercial numbers. The MRI for the Earth framing and the 1-in-200 to near certainty claim come from the topic itself. Your five page commercialization strategy is stronger citing DARPA's framing and adding the market sizing than inventing a different story.

‍ ‍

Choose your contract instrument deliberately. For a milestone-driven hardware program, the Other Transaction for Prototype has real advantages and DARPA describes them favorably. But it requires a completed Model OT with redlines in your proposal, which is legal work you need to start early. Firm-fixed-price is the low-friction path. Cost-plus requires a DCMA-approved accounting system you either have or do not.

‍ ‍

Write to eliminate weaknesses. DARPA's selectability definition turns on whether accumulated weaknesses would require extensive negotiations or resubmission. Unlike a scored competition, a single unresolved weakness can move you from selectable to non-selectable. Have someone hostile read the proposal looking for gaps, not for polish.

‍ ‍

Submit your technical questions by October 14 and read the FAQ. With no DSIP Q&A available, the DARPA FAQ is the only public clarification channel, and it is updated until a week before the deadline. Competitors' questions will surface requirements you had not considered.

DAF STTR DAF26TZ06-NV007: Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge

Quick Answer

DAF26TZ06-NV007 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is a single sentence: develop a real time automated combat assessment at the edge system. The problem it solves is a timeline problem. Today, battle damage assessment arrives hours after mission execution as an after-action report built from multiple imagery collects, assembled through a sequence of independent manual tasks. The Air Force states plainly that this does not meet timeline requirements for prosecuting advanced enemy threat systems, because critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike to inform re-strike planning. Awards are up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 20 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two eligibility gates come first. This document states that small businesses majority-owned in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible. And as an STTR topic it requires a research institution partner performing a minimum of 30 percent of the effort, with the small business conducting a minimum of 40 percent, and the DAF states it will not consider deviation requests.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26TZ06-NV007

Title: Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program: STTR, requiring a single partnering research institution

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $300,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)

Component Technology Priority Area: Trusted AI and Autonomy

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this document

Work split: minimum 40 percent by the small business, minimum 30 percent by the single partnering research institution, for both Phase I and Phase II. Deviations will not be considered

Named standards: CJCSI 3162.02 for damage classification, Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302 for confidence intervals

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total

Type size: no smaller than 10-point

Evaluation criteria: not restated in this document. See the FY26 STTR BAA

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the FY26 STTR BAA

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: combat assessment, physical damage, functional damage, machine learning, edge processing, testing, evaluation

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

The Two Eligibility Gates

Venture capital ownership is disqualifying under this document

The instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for Department of Air Force Topics.

Because this provision is not uniform across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, here is where it actually stands across all seven documents.

Not eligible: the SBIR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV037; the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV008; and this STTR BAA Phase I document covering topics NV006 and NV007.

Eligible: the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions covering topics NV034 through NV036; the SBIR CSO Direct to Phase II instructions; the SBIR CSO Phase I instructions; and the STTR CSO Phase I instructions.

Every Commercial Solutions Opening document permits venture-backed firms. Three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The DAF has not explained the variation. What matters is that the exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative, verify your status against 13 CFR 121.702, and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period rather than assuming it resolves in your favor.

The STTR work split, and no deviations

For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution. Applicants and awardees may partner with multiple entities that separately meet the definition of a research institution as indicated in the STTR BAA. Applicants may use only one partnering research institution to meet STTR eligibility requirements. The DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements.

The Subcontracts section restates the same figures and adds that deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. The instructions also point to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement.

On a $300,000 award, that means at least roughly $90,000 flowing to your research institution partner and at least roughly $120,000 staying with you. There is no deviation process available here, unlike several other DAF Release 6 documents, so the split has to work as designed.

This document is also the clearest statement of the STTR work requirement anywhere in the DAF Release 6 instructions. The STTR CSO Phase I document states a two-thirds in-house floor and the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II document states 50 percent plus a two-thirds figure labeled Phase I, neither of which matches the statutory STTR structure. If you are working a topic governed by one of those, this document is useful evidence of what the requirement actually is, and the discrepancy is worth a Help Desk question.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The timeline problem

Combat assessment, both physical and functional, provides tactically relevant information for re-strike and re-planning.

The state of practice for traditional targeting involves generating after-action reports including battle damage assessment hours after mission execution, relying on multiple imagery collects, specifically electro-optical. This analysis is performed as a sequence of independent tasks that are outdated, time consuming, and lack automation.

Then the consequence, stated bluntly. This does not meet timeline requirements for prosecution of advanced enemy threat systems, as critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike, to inform planning for re-strike and to drive potential changes to operations.

So the deliverable value is measured in time. Hours to minutes, or minutes to seconds, depending on the phase of the problem you attack. Your proposal should quantify the timeline improvement you expect, because that is the currency this topic trades in.

The three named barriers

Despite advancements in technology, challenges still remain for speeding processes.

The time-consuming and often incomplete nature of traditional damage assessment methods.

Limitations in remote sensing technologies, hindering data collection especially in remote or difficult-to-access areas.

The lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery for model training.

That third barrier is worth pausing on, because it is a data problem rather than an algorithm problem, and it shapes what a six month Phase I can honestly claim. If real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery is not available for training, your proposal needs a credible answer about what you will train on. The topic's own invitation to propose novel or under-utilized data modalities is partly a response to this constraint.

The three operational realities the system must follow

The topic seeks the development of a system for the automation of damage assessment following three operational realities. Treat these as the three pillars of your technical approach.

Edge Processing Software. Software programs and data-sharing instructions designed to run directly on physical field equipment such as sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles. This covers multi-sensor, multi-modal data collection and processing, damage classification and assessment at the edge in near real time, and information sharing protocols, all under low size, weight, and power and contested environment constraints.

Note the compound constraint: multi-sensor and multi-modal, at the edge, in near real time, under low SWaP, in contested environments. Each of those individually is manageable. Together they are the hard part, and a proposal that addresses only the classification accuracy question has answered the easy third of the problem.

AI and ML Software Model Development. AI and ML software designed to automatically classify military damage. For damage classification, both physical and functional, aligned to CJCSI 3162.02 for DoD customers. Confidence intervals aligned to Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302. And performance metrics for accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location.

Three specifics there. CJCSI 3162.02 is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction on combat assessment methodology, and aligning your damage classification taxonomy to it is a stated requirement rather than a suggestion. ICD 302 governs confidence expression, which means your model outputs need calibrated, doctrinally expressed confidence rather than raw scores. And the three performance metrics are accuracy, computation time, and sensor density and location, which together mean the Air Force wants to know not just how well you classify but how fast and with how much sensing.

A note on the references. The topic body cites ICD 302 for confidence intervals, while the reference list cites ICD 203, the Analytic Standards Technical Amendment. ICD 203 is the directive most commonly associated with analytic confidence and probabilistic language standards. We cannot resolve which the author intended, so read both and address analytic confidence standards explicitly, and consider asking the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

Robust Testing and Evaluation. To ensure the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the aforementioned technologies, testing and evaluation would be conducted in a phased approach. Beginning with laboratory-based testing to verify basic functionality and performance, followed by increasingly complex testing in simulated and field environments. The goal is to ensure that the technologies developed for combat assessment are operationally effective, suitable, and can be confidently deployed in operationally relevant environments.

Operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability are formal test and evaluation terms. Their presence signals that the Air Force expects a real T&E plan, phased from laboratory through simulated to field, not an ad hoc validation approach.

Phase I

Phase I will focus on the analysis and design of an automated combat assessment at the edge system for re-strike, described as a particularly targeted asset, and re-attack recommendations, with preliminary laboratory model testing.

Awardees must demonstrate an innovative approach to physical and functional combat assessment, and novel or under-utilized data modalities.

The final report must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.

Four things to draw out. Phase I is analysis and design plus preliminary laboratory model testing, not a working system. The scope is re-strike and re-attack recommendations, which is narrower than combat assessment in general and gives you a bounded use case. Physical and functional assessment are both required, and they are genuinely different problems: physical damage is what the structure looks like, functional damage is whether the target can still do its job. And novel or under-utilized data modalities is an explicit requirement, which pairs with the stated barrier around imagery availability.

That last requirement is the clearest differentiation opportunity in the topic. The state of practice relies on electro-optical imagery. If your approach brings synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency signatures, acoustic sensing, infrared, multispectral, passive collection, or fused combinations, that is responsive to a stated requirement rather than a nice extra.

Phase II

Develop, implement, test, evaluate, and demonstrate a distributed automated damage assessment system at the edge that follows the criteria in the Description and Phase I sections of this proposal. The final report must detail all criteria implementations and a Phase III plan.

Phase II performance will focus on the development, integration, and operational evaluation of a functional prototype software system for distributed, edge-based automated combat assessment. Awardees will transition Phase I designs into working software models running on representative edge hardware, culminating in a demonstration within a simulated or operationally relevant environment.

Required deliverables may include three items. Functional prototype software and compiled AI and ML model weights. Comprehensive system architecture and interface control documentation. And a Phase II final report detailing test results, performance metrics, criteria implementations, and a commercialization and transition plan for Phase III production and deployment.

Note that compiled model weights are named as a deliverable. That has intellectual property implications worth thinking through in Phase I, particularly on an STTR award where a research institution partner may contribute to model development and where the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights for 20 years in what is developed under the contract.

Note also the words distributed and representative edge hardware. Phase II runs on real edge devices, not a workstation, and it is distributed rather than centralized. Your Phase I architecture should be designed for that from the start.

Phase III

The awardee will identify and pursue commercial applications, including urban surveillance, disaster and humanitarian response, and other use cases.

That is a short Phase III section but the two named applications are genuinely adjacent. Disaster and humanitarian response in particular is a strong dual-use fit: rapid automated damage assessment from multi-modal sensing at the edge is exactly what post-earthquake, post-hurricane, and post-flood assessment requires, and the customer set includes FEMA, international relief organizations, insurers, and infrastructure operators. Build the commercialization case there rather than straining for something more exotic.

The references

Three are cited, and all three are worth obtaining before you write.

"Analytic Standards, Intelligence Community Directive 203 Technical Amendment," Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2023, available at dni.gov.

"Methodology for Combat Assessment," United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2021, which is CJCSI 3162.02A, available at jcs.mil.

Broad Agency Announcement title: Targeting Operations and Analytics Development, BAA FA8750-25-S-7002, available at sam.gov.

The third reference is the most interesting and the least obvious. FA8750 is the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate contracting office prefix, and a live BAA on Targeting Operations and Analytics Development tells you there is an existing AFRL program area in this space. Reading that BAA tells you who the government is already working with and what language the program office uses. That is competitive intelligence available for free.

CJCSI 3162.02 is not optional reading. Your damage classification taxonomy must align to it, and the terms physical damage assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment come from that doctrine.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $300,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

With the mandatory 30 percent minimum to your research institution partner, roughly $90,000 or more leaves your firm. Six months of a small team plus an academic effort supports analysis, architecture, and preliminary laboratory model testing, which is what Phase I asks for. It does not support building a distributed edge system, and Phase I does not ask you to.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes STTR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, and this total is in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.

Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Given that compiled model weights are a Phase II deliverable and an Allocation of Rights Agreement with your research institution partner is required, intellectual property protections is the most directly useful eligible activity here.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The Cost Volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. On this topic, representative edge compute hardware for laboratory model testing belongs here.

Other direct costs. This category includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Commercial satellite or aerial imagery purchases, and compute resources for model training, plausibly sit here and may be significant given the data barrier the topic names.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

Subcontracts. Involvement of a consultant in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. A minimum of 40 percent of each STTR project must be conducted by the small business concern and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort performed by the single partnering research institution. Deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract. Additionally, see the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort, and should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Where work must be performed

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

Personnel Disclosure

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. That said, targeting and combat assessment is sensitive subject matter, and your disclosure obligations apply in full.

Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included, and only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful.

Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.

Do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.

On an STTR award this reaches your research institution partner's personnel, and computer vision and machine learning groups are among the most internationally staffed in engineering. Request a complete roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner early. Note also that foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a mandatory award denial under the foreign risk provisions below.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit

The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white, which matters here since you will want to show imagery examples, classification outputs, and architecture diagrams.

The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. This differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point.

The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.

The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides, and because it is expressed as pages or slides a slide-format volume is acceptable.

Note that this document, unlike the STTR CSO Phase I instructions in the same release, does not require a government proposal template.

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. On a targeting-adjacent topic, be deliberate about abstract content.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 STTR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.

Key personnel, as described above.

Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it. Note that on this topic the final report is a substantive deliverable: it must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, for proposals submitted under export-controlled topics. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 STTR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

Technical Data Rights Assertions matter here more than on most topics, because compiled AI and ML model weights are a named Phase II deliverable and because an STTR structure puts a research institution's contributions in the same codebase as yours. Pre-existing models, training pipelines, and architectures are background intellectual property, and this is the mechanism for saying so.

The detailed TABA request, if requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training

Material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the STTR Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria live in the BAA

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic.

This document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria, unlike the DAF CSO instructions which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance. Read the criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA before you begin writing.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

Two items deserve extra attention on this topic. Employee analysis and foreign affiliations, because computer vision research is globally distributed and academic appointments abroad are common. And the eight denial lists, because edge compute hardware sourcing can touch them.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified.

Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, getting preliminary laboratory model testing results early rather than at the end of the six months is worth planning for.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

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

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

Period of performance: up to 6 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Settle eligibility: venture-backed majority ownership excludes you under this document. Contact your research institution partner's sponsored programs office, get their internal timeline and their formal budget with federally negotiated rates, and confirm the 40/30 split closes with no deviation available. Begin the Allocation of Rights Agreement conversation. Read the evaluation criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA. Obtain and read CJCSI 3162.02 on combat assessment methodology, ICD 203 on analytic standards, and the AFRL Targeting Operations and Analytics Development BAA FA8750-25-S-7002 on sam.gov. Settle your novel or under-utilized data modality and your training data answer, given the topic's stated barrier around real time pre- and post-event imagery. Select representative edge hardware for laboratory testing. Request a personnel roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit. Structure it around the three operational realities: edge processing software under low SWaP in contested environments, AI and ML model development aligned to CJCSI 3162.02 with ICD-compliant confidence expression and the three named performance metrics, and a phased test and evaluation plan from laboratory through simulated to field. Make the timeline improvement quantitative. Write the work plan outline separately with no proprietary content, since it becomes the Statement of Work.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Verify the 40/30 split in the numbers. Itemize edge hardware, imagery purchases, and compute with quotes. Get executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for your partner and every consultant. Include the recommended trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF STTR topic DAF26TZ06-NV007?

‍ ‍

DAF26TZ06-NV007 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic titled "Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge," released under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a real time automated combat assessment at the edge system, replacing a current practice in which battle damage assessment arrives hours after mission execution.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26TZ06-NV007?

‍ ‍

Up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the FY26 STTR BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

No, under this document. The instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible for Department of Air Force topics. The provision is not uniform across DAF Release 6: all three Commercial Solutions Opening documents permit such firms, while three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution. On a $300,000 award that means roughly $90,000 or more to your partner.

‍ ‍

Can I get a waiver on the work split?

‍ ‍

No. The instructions state that the DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements, and the Subcontracts section states deviations are not permitted.

‍ ‍

What is the problem this topic solves?

‍ ‍

A timeline problem. The state of practice generates after-action reports including battle damage assessment hours after mission execution, relying on multiple electro-optical imagery collects, performed as a sequence of independent tasks that are outdated, time consuming, and lack automation. The Air Force states this does not meet timeline requirements for prosecution of advanced enemy threat systems, because critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike to inform re-strike planning and drive potential changes to operations.

‍ ‍

What are the three named barriers?

‍ ‍

The time-consuming and often incomplete nature of traditional damage assessment methods; limitations in remote sensing technologies hindering data collection especially in remote or difficult-to-access areas; and the lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery for model training.

‍ ‍

What are the three operational realities the system must follow?

‍ ‍

Edge Processing Software, meaning software and data-sharing instructions running directly on field equipment such as sensors and UAVs, covering multi-sensor multi-modal data collection and processing, damage classification and assessment at the edge in near real time, and information sharing protocols, all under low SWaP and contested environment constraints. AI and ML Software Model Development, meaning software that automatically classifies military damage, physical and functional, aligned to CJCSI 3162.02, with confidence intervals aligned to Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302, and performance metrics for accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location. And Robust Testing and Evaluation in a phased approach from laboratory-based testing through increasingly complex simulated and field environments.

‍ ‍

What standards must my damage classification align to?

‍ ‍

CJCSI 3162.02, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction on methodology for combat assessment, for damage classification covering both physical and functional damage. Read it before writing, since the terminology comes from that doctrine.

‍ ‍

Is it ICD 302 or ICD 203 for confidence intervals?

‍ ‍

The topic body cites ICD 302 for confidence intervals, while the reference list cites ICD 203, the Analytic Standards Technical Amendment. ICD 203 is the directive most commonly associated with analytic confidence and probabilistic language standards. We cannot resolve which the author intended, so read both, address analytic confidence standards explicitly, and consider asking the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

‍ ‍

What performance metrics does the topic name?

‍ ‍

Accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location. Note that two of the three are not about classification quality: the Air Force wants to know how fast your model runs and how much sensing it needs, which are edge deployment questions.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I deliver?

‍ ‍

Analysis and design of an automated combat assessment at the edge system for re-strike and re-attack recommendations, with preliminary laboratory model testing. Awardees must demonstrate an innovative approach to physical and functional combat assessment, and novel or under-utilized data modalities. The final report must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.

‍ ‍

What counts as a novel or under-utilized data modality?

‍ ‍

The topic does not define it, but the state of practice it describes relies on electro-optical imagery. Synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency signatures, acoustic sensing, infrared, multispectral, passive collection, and fused combinations are all plausible answers. This is an explicit requirement, so name your modality and explain why it is under-utilized and what it adds.

‍ ‍

What is the difference between physical and functional damage assessment?

‍ ‍

Physical damage assessment concerns the observable structural effect on the target. Functional damage assessment concerns whether the target can still perform its mission. Both are required by this topic, and they are genuinely different inference problems. CJCSI 3162.02 defines the terms.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase II?

‍ ‍

Develop, implement, test, evaluate, and demonstrate a distributed automated damage assessment system at the edge following the criteria in the Description and Phase I sections. Awardees transition Phase I designs into working software models running on representative edge hardware, culminating in a demonstration within a simulated or operationally relevant environment. Required deliverables may include functional prototype software and compiled AI and ML model weights, comprehensive system architecture and interface control documentation, and a Phase II final report detailing test results, performance metrics, criteria implementations, and a commercialization and transition plan for Phase III.

‍ ‍

Compiled model weights are a deliverable. What are the IP implications?

‍ ‍

Significant, and worth planning in Phase I. The Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years, and on an STTR award your research institution partner may contribute to model development. Use Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 to identify pre-existing models, training pipelines, and architectures as background intellectual property, and settle the Allocation of Rights Agreement with your partner early.

‍ ‍

What are the commercial applications?

‍ ‍

The topic names urban surveillance and disaster and humanitarian response, plus other use cases. Disaster response is the strongest dual-use fit, since rapid automated damage assessment from multi-modal sensing at the edge is exactly what post-earthquake, post-hurricane, and post-flood assessment requires, with customers including emergency management agencies, relief organizations, insurers, and infrastructure operators.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides, per the topic index. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit; only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either.

‍ ‍

Is there a required proposal template?

‍ ‍

No. Unlike the DAF STTR CSO Phase I instructions in this same release, this BAA document does not require a government template.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. That said, targeting and combat assessment is sensitive subject matter, and your disclosure obligations apply in full, including identifying all U.S. permanent residents and all non-U.S. citizens involved with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and anticipated level of involvement.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

This document does not restate the evaluation criteria. It says only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. Read those criteria before writing.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

What references should I read?

‍ ‍

Three are cited and all three are worth obtaining. ICD 203 Analytic Standards Technical Amendment, ODNI, 2023. "Methodology for Combat Assessment," Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2021, which is CJCSI 3162.02A. And BAA FA8750-25-S-7002, Targeting Operations and Analytics Development, on sam.gov. That third reference is the least obvious and the most useful competitively: FA8750 is the AFRL Information Directorate contracting prefix, and reading that BAA shows you the existing program area and the language the program office uses.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. Given the model weights deliverable and the required Allocation of Rights Agreement, intellectual property protections is the most useful eligible activity.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The Air Force anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 STTR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 STTR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Clear the two gates first. Venture-backed majority ownership excludes you under this document, and the 40/30 STTR split is not waivable. Your research institution partner has to do at least 30 percent of the work, so pick one whose contribution is real.

‍ ‍

Make the timeline claim quantitative. The entire premise is that hours is too slow. State what your approach delivers and when: seconds, minutes, or the first actionable assessment within a stated window. A proposal that describes better classification without addressing latency has missed the point of the topic.

‍ ‍

Read CJCSI 3162.02 and use its vocabulary. Physical damage assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment are doctrinal terms with specific meanings. Aligning your classification taxonomy to that instruction is a stated requirement, and getting the language right signals you understand the customer's process rather than just the computer vision problem.

‍ ‍

Answer the confidence expression requirement properly. Whether the governing directive is ICD 302 or ICD 203, the point is that model outputs must carry calibrated, doctrinally expressed confidence rather than raw softmax scores. Analysts and targeteers work in probabilistic language standards, and a model that cannot express uncertainty in their terms is not usable in their workflow.

‍ ‍

Take the compound edge constraint seriously. Multi-sensor, multi-modal, near real time, low SWaP, contested environment. Any one of those is tractable. Together they force real architecture decisions about what runs on the sensor, what runs on the platform, what gets transmitted, and what happens when the link degrades. Show those decisions.

‍ ‍

Bring a real answer on training data. The topic names the lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery as a barrier. Synthetic data generation, transfer learning from civil damage datasets, few-shot approaches, physics-based simulation, or commercial imagery partnerships are all plausible. Silence on this looks like you have not thought about it.

‍ ‍

Use the novel modality requirement to differentiate. It is an explicit Phase I requirement and most competitors will default to electro-optical imagery with better models. If you bring synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency, acoustic, or fused multi-modal sensing, lead with it.

‍ ‍

Write a real test and evaluation plan. Operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability are formal terms, and the topic specifies a phased approach from laboratory through simulated to field. A credible phased plan with entry and exit criteria per stage distinguishes a serious proposal.

‍ ‍

Read the AFRL Targeting Operations and Analytics BAA. FA8750-25-S-7002 is cited in the references and it is on sam.gov. It tells you the existing program area, the office behind it, and the terminology in use. Very few SBIR topics hand you a live related BAA to study.

‍ ‍

Plan the intellectual property boundary now. Compiled model weights as a deliverable, 20 year Government data rights, and a research institution co-developing the models is a combination that needs a plan before award, not after. The Allocation of Rights Agreement is required, and TABA can fund IP support.

‍ ‍

Build the commercial case on disaster response. Urban surveillance and disaster and humanitarian response are the two named applications, and the second is a genuinely large market with the same technical shape: rapid, automated, multi-modal damage assessment at the edge where connectivity is poor.

DAF STTR DAF26TZ06-NV006: Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool

Quick Answer

DAF26TZ06-NV006 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force Test Center has a problem it states plainly: current AI evaluation processes lack standardization and reproducibility across varying operational environments, which makes it difficult for AFTC to confidently assess AI models' trustworthiness, reliability, and operational readiness. This topic funds the design of a tool that fixes that, capable of evaluating AI-enabled sensor suites and aligning with the simulation environments AFTC already uses. Awards are up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 20 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two eligibility facts to settle before you invest effort. This document states that small businesses majority-owned in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible. And because this is STTR, you need a research institution partner, with a work split this document states precisely and refuses to waive: a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent performed by the single partnering research institution, with the DAF stating it will not consider deviation requests.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26TZ06-NV006

Title: Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program: STTR, requiring a single partnering research institution

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $300,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)

Component Technology Priority Area: Trusted AI and Autonomy

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic

Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this document

Work split: minimum 40 percent by the small business, minimum 30 percent by the single partnering research institution, for both Phase I and Phase II. Deviations will not be considered

Technology readiness: Phase I initial TRL 2, target TRL 4. Phase II initial TRL 4, target TRL 6

Named customer: Air Force Test Center, with the 412th Test Wing test environment and the 416th Test Squadron at Edwards AFB as the Phase III transition partner

Named simulation environments: AFSIM, Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or Joint Simulation Environment (JSE)

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total

Type size: no smaller than 10-point

Evaluation criteria: not restated in this document. See the FY26 STTR BAA

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the FY26 STTR BAA

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI performance evaluation, trusted AI, autonomy, explainability, AI metrics, AI validation, AI systems, sensor technologies, information systems, operational testing, ABMS, 412TW, AFTC, DoD AI standards, test and evaluation

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

The Two Eligibility Gates

Venture capital ownership is disqualifying under this document

The instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for Department of Air Force Topics.

This provision is not uniform across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, so here is the actual state of it across all seven documents.

Not eligible: the SBIR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV037; the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV008; and this STTR BAA Phase I document covering topics NV006 and NV007.

Eligible: the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions covering topics NV034 through NV036; the SBIR CSO Direct to Phase II instructions; the SBIR CSO Phase I instructions; and the STTR CSO Phase I instructions.

Read as a pattern, every Commercial Solutions Opening document permits venture-backed firms, and three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, with the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions the lone exception. Whether that is deliberate or a drafting inconsistency, the DAF has not said. What matters practically is that the exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative. Verify your status against 13 CFR 121.702 and the definition in the instructions, and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period rather than assuming it resolves in your favor.

The STTR work split, stated precisely and not waivable

This document is the clearest of the DAF Release 6 instructions on the STTR partnership requirement, and it is worth quoting closely because two other DAF STTR documents in the same release handle it less clearly.

For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution. Applicants and awardees may partner with multiple entities that separately meet the definition of a research institution as indicated in the STTR BAA. Applicants may use only one partnering research institution to meet STTR eligibility requirements. The DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements.

The Subcontracts section restates it: a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR project must be conducted by the small business concern and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort performed by the single partnering research institution, and deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit.

Four practical points. The 40/30 split is the statutory STTR structure, correctly stated here, and it applies to both phases. You may have multiple research institution partners, but only one of them counts toward satisfying STTR eligibility, so designate which one deliberately. Deviations are not available, so unlike several other DAF Release 6 documents there is no deviation process to fall back on. And the percentage calculation uses direct and indirect costs after removing your proposed profit, which is the same convention used elsewhere in the release.

The instructions also point to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement. That agreement governs intellectual property between you and your research institution partner, and it is a real document your partner's technology transfer office will need to negotiate. Start it early.

Worth noting for anyone reading across our other DAF Release 6 pages: the STTR CSO Phase I instructions state a two-thirds in-house floor and the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions state 50 percent plus a two-thirds figure labeled Phase I, neither of which matches the STTR statutory split. This document gets it right at 40/30. If you are working a topic governed by one of those other documents, that discrepancy is worth a Help Desk question, and this document is useful evidence of what the STTR requirement actually is.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The problem, in AFTC's terms

The proposed research effort aims to address critical gaps in the evaluation and validation of artificial intelligence systems within the Air Force by developing an Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool. The tool will provide a standardized, adaptive, and robust framework capable of assessing the performance, reliability, and explainability of AI models, with a targeted application in sensor and information systems used in test and evaluation missions under the 412th Test Wing of the Air Force Test Center. This effort aligns with the Department of Defense's thrust toward advancing Trusted AI and Autonomy and operationally focused Advanced Battle Management System initiatives.

The unmet need is stated directly. Current AI evaluation processes lack standardization and reproducibility across varying operational environments, making it difficult for the AFTC to confidently assess AI models' trustworthiness, reliability, and operational readiness. Furthermore, the escalation in complexity of AI-enabled systems has underscored the need for technologies that can quantitatively measure AI performance while adhering to DoD Responsible AI principles. These challenges prevent the Air Force from leveraging AI advancements at scale, impacting readiness and modernization goals.

That last sentence is the value argument. The bottleneck on fielding AI is not model capability, it is the inability to evaluate models to a standard someone will sign off on. Frame your proposal around removing that bottleneck.

The desired outcome

By creating a modular AI evaluation tool, this effort provides an opportunity to establish a scalable and adaptable solution that aligns with emerging DoD AI standards. The desired outcome is a measurable enhancement in the fidelity, speed, and consistency of AI performance assessments, reducing decision-making cycles and increasing mission readiness. The tool will enable practical implementation of AI validation in secure environments, ensuring compliance with applicable standards and operational conditions. Successful deployment will support the broader modernization priorities tied to mission-critical AI deployment and advanced autonomy.

Fidelity, speed, and consistency are the three named improvement axes. Quantify your expected gains against all three where you can.

The hard requirements

Three requirements in the objective paragraph function as gates, and a proposal that does not address them is not responsive.

Sensor suite evaluation. To demonstrate early-stage feasibility, the proposed tool must be capable of evaluating AI-enabled sensor suites, with electro-optical and infrared, radar, and radio frequency systems given as the examples. This is not a generic model evaluation framework. It has to handle AI operating on sensor data.

Environment alignment. The tool must align with AFTC's primary simulation and digital engineering environments, specifically the Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM), the Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE). Note the "or," meaning you may pick one, but you must pick one and show the alignment. If you have never worked with any of the three, that is the gap to close before writing.

Standards compliance. Ensuring compliance with evolving Department of Defense AI standards, such as those delineated in the DoD Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation Pathway.

The three critical gaps the tool must address

By addressing critical gaps in assessing AI robustness under dynamic and contested conditions, the effort aims to establish early-stage feasibility for an adaptive framework capable of identifying key performance indicators, assessing trustworthiness through explainability metrics, and ensuring compliance with evolving DoD AI standards.

The three named robustness gaps are real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection. Those three recur in the Phase I research task, so treat them as your core metric set.

Phase I, and a note on the document's structure

The topic contains two Phase I descriptions and two Phase II descriptions, which do not fully align with each other. The first pair is written around the AI evaluation framework and sits under an Approach heading with explicit TRL targets. The second pair appears after a Conclusion paragraph and is written around flight test analysis workflows, hardware and software architectural design, Python-based extensibility, and Time Space Position Information processing accuracy.

The second pair reads as though it may have been carried in from a related but distinct topic, since a hardware architectural design and TSPI processing accuracy are not natural fits for a software AI evaluation framework. We have not resolved which governs, and neither have the instructions. The prudent approach is to write primarily to the first, more detailed pair, while addressing the elements of the second pair that are compatible: the analysis of current flight test analysis workflows to identify bottlenecks, constraints, and user requirements is genuinely useful, and modularity, security, and Python-based extensibility are reasonable architectural commitments. Ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period which description governs.

Here is what the primary Phase I description requires. Phase I is Feasibility and Concept Development, initial TRL 2, target TRL 4.

Research. Conduct an initial landscape analysis of AI performance metrics, methodologies, and tools with a focus on gaps and challenges specific to AFTC's mission space. Identify and assess algorithms for measuring real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift specifically for different sensor models. This research must establish and utilize open-source or synthetically generated surrogate sensor datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios.

That surrogate data requirement is the most consequential sentence in the Phase I description. You will not be given real AFTC flight test sensor data. You must establish and use open-source or synthetic surrogate datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios, and the deliverables list names a Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining as a possible component. Your proposal should name your datasets or your synthesis approach and argue their representativeness.

Framework Design. Develop a software architecture for an adaptable AI performance evaluation framework designed to address reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Awardees will need to base their design on widely accepted DoD digital engineering and telemetry standards. The architecture must explicitly define the assumed data ingestion pipelines for surrogate sensor data and detail the computational methods that will be used to calculate reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics.

Note two explicit requirements there: data ingestion pipelines defined, and computational methods for the metrics detailed. Not described in general terms, but defined and detailed.

Simulation. Perform initial simulation tests to explore early-stage integration of explainability metrics and KPI identification methodologies. This will consist of running dry-runs within a localized software sandbox. The objective of these tests is to demonstrate that the proposed mathematical models can successfully process these inputs, identify key performance indicators such as data drift, and output quantifiable explainability scores.

Deliverables. A feasibility report describing how the tool can practically operate within the AFTC environment, a detailed framework design document, and initial simulation results demonstrating concept validity. This could include Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining, algorithmic and mathematical validation, architectural alignment and computational overhead, and Phase II scalability and transition pathway.

Computational overhead appears in that list, which is a useful signal. A framework that produces excellent metrics at prohibitive computational cost will not fit a test environment, and the Air Force is asking you to characterize the cost.

The secondary Phase I description adds: a comprehensive study of current flight test analysis workflows to identify specific bottlenecks, constraints, and user requirements; a detailed hardware and software architectural design emphasizing modularity, security, and Python-based extensibility; development and simulation of proof-of-concept algorithms for automated metric generation and data processing; and a final report summarizing findings, the complete system design, simulation results, and a detailed plan for Phase II prototype development.

Phase II

Phase II is Prototype Development and Validation, initial TRL 4, target TRL 6.

Prototype Development. Build a functional prototype of the performance evaluation tool with a secure Python-based backend and a user-friendly graphical user interface.

Integration. Test and integrate the tool with existing sensor and information systems in a controlled 412th Test Wing test environment to assess real-world performance.

AI Metrics Library. Develop an expandable library of explainability metrics aligned with DoD Trusted AI standards to support diverse mission applications.

Validation. Conduct comprehensive testing in operationally relevant scenarios to ensure reliability, scalability, and compliance with DoD standards.

Deliverables. A fully functional prototype, test reports validating system performance, and a roadmap for field-level deployment.

The secondary Phase II description adds performance validation against a set of metrics including Time Space Position Information processing accuracy, comparative analysis against legacy methods, integrity of automated report generation, and system security and resilience against simulated threat and victim scenarios, plus lab-based testing in a secure closed-loop environment and an end-to-end demonstration.

Upon completion of Phase II, the AI Performance Evaluation Tool is expected to reach TRL 6, with a clearly defined transition pathway toward operational implementation across the 412th Test Wing and other DoD components.

Phase III and the named transition partner

The 416th Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, which specializes in F-16 flight testing and has a history of integrating advanced systems, will serve as the dedicated transition partner for this effort.

That is unusually specific for a Phase I topic and it is the most valuable line in the Phase III section. A named squadron with a stated history of integrating advanced systems is a transition pathway you can reference and build toward.

The commercialization strategy is described as multifaceted. Productization, refining the successful Phase II prototype into a robust, user-friendly, and cost-effective commercial product. User-centric feedback, conducting extensive operational testing with the 416th Test Squadron and other target users to gather feedback for iterative product improvements. Dual-use applications, where the primary customer is the Department of War but commercial aerospace, avionics testing, and other sectors requiring complex data analysis will be explored. And infrastructure and support, establishing comprehensive manufacturing, customer support, and training infrastructure to ensure a smooth transition from a prototype to a fully supported operational tool.

The reference list, which is a reading assignment

Eleven references, and they map the standards landscape you are expected to work within.

Department of Defense Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway, at ai.mil. National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework, at nist.gov/ai-risk-management. Air Force Test Center Organizational Overview, at aftc.af.mil. John M. McQuade, et al., "Metrics for Trustworthy AI: Evaluating Reliability, Robustness, and Explainability in Defense Applications," DoD Artificial Intelligence Symposium, 2023. Executive Order 13960, Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government. Advanced Battle Management System Fact Sheet, U.S. Air Force. Defense Innovation Unit, "Trusted AI Framework: Operationalizing AI Ethics and Reliability," March 2022. Test and Evaluation Framework for Autonomy, presented at T&E Working Group, AFTC, 2022. "Explainable AI (XAI) Principles for DoD Applications," DARPA XAI Program Summary, 2021. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, "Key Performance Indicators for AI and Autonomy Testing," Report No. OUSD(A&S)-21-0045, 2023. And an April 15, 2026 AFTC news article, "From weeks to minutes: How AI is accelerating the flight test process."

Three observations. The McQuade paper title maps almost exactly onto the topic's three metric categories of reliability, robustness, and explainability, so it is likely the conceptual backbone. The OUSD KPI report on AI and autonomy testing is directly on point for the KPI identification requirement. And the April 2026 AFTC news article is recent and specific to this customer, which suggests the topic was written by people close to a live effort. Read it.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $300,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

At $300,000 with a mandatory 30 percent minimum to your research institution partner, roughly $90,000 or more flows to the partner and your own share is at least $120,000. Six months of a small team plus an academic effort is enough for a rigorous landscape analysis, an architecture, a surrogate data strategy, and sandbox simulation, which is what the topic asks for. It is not enough for a working tool, and Phase I does not ask for one.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes STTR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, and this total is in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.

Note that this STTR BAA document carries the full detailed TABA request requirements, unlike the DAF CSO Phase I documents which state the amount in a single sentence.

Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

On an STTR award with a required Allocation of Rights Agreement, intellectual property protections is the standout eligible activity.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The Cost Volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose.

Other direct costs. This category includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Compute resources for model training and simulation, and any licensing for AFSIM, TETK, or JSE access, plausibly sit here.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a study and design Phase I this is the dominant element.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. On a topic with a named customer at Edwards AFB, that trip has substantive value.

Subcontracts. Involvement of a consultant in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. A minimum of 40 percent of each STTR project must be conducted by the small business concern and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort performed by the single partnering research institution. Deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract. Additionally, see the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort, and should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Where work must be performed

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

Personnel Disclosure

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. Your disclosure obligations still apply in full.

Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included, and only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful.

Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.

Do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.

On an STTR award, this reaches your research institution partner's personnel. University AI and machine learning groups are internationally staffed, so request a complete roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner early. Note also that the foreign risk evaluation below treats foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern as a mandatory award denial.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit

The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white.

The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. Note this differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point.

The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.

The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides. Because it is expressed as pages or slides, a slide-format volume is acceptable.

Note that this document, unlike the STTR CSO Phase I instructions in the same release, does not require a government proposal template. You build the technical volume yourself, subject to the required elements below.

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 STTR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.

Key personnel, as described above.

Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it. Note also that the topic's secondary Phase I description makes the final report substantive: it must summarize findings, the complete system design, simulation results, and a detailed plan for Phase II prototype development.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, for proposals submitted under export-controlled topics. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 STTR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

Technical Data Rights Assertions deserve attention on an STTR AI topic. Your existing models, evaluation code, and metric implementations are likely background intellectual property, and your research institution partner will have its own. The Allocation of Rights Agreement and these assertions together are how the boundaries get drawn.

The detailed TABA request, if requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training

Material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the STTR Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria live in the BAA

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic.

This document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria, unlike the DAF CSO instructions which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance. Read the criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA before you begin writing, and do not assume the CSO criteria carry over.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

The mandatory denial for foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a first-order diligence item on an STTR award with a required academic partner. Work through your partner's personnel affiliations and international collaborations before you propose.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.

Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing real simulation results early rather than saving them for the final report is worth planning for on a six month award.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

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

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

Period of performance: up to 6 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Settle eligibility: if venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity funds hold majority ownership in part, you are excluded under this document, so resolve your status first. Contact your research institution partner's sponsored programs office and get their internal review timeline plus their formal budget with federally negotiated rates, and confirm the 40/30 split closes with no deviation available. Begin the Allocation of Rights Agreement conversation. Read the evaluation criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA. Work through the eleven references, especially the McQuade metrics paper, the OUSD KPI report, and the April 2026 AFTC article. Choose your simulation environment from AFSIM, TETK, or JSE and establish what access requires. Identify your surrogate sensor datasets, open-source or synthetic, and your representativeness argument. Ask the One Help Desk which of the two Phase I descriptions governs. Request a personnel roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit. Lead with the AFTC gap, then your framework architecture with data ingestion pipelines explicitly defined and computational methods for reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics detailed, then the surrogate data strategy, then the sandbox simulation plan. Address real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection as your named metric set. Write the work plan outline separately with no proprietary content, since it becomes the Statement of Work.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Verify the 40/30 split in the numbers. Get executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for your partner and every consultant. Include the recommended trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA, and consider intellectual property protections as the activity.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF STTR topic DAF26TZ06-NV006?

‍ ‍

DAF26TZ06-NV006 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic titled "Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool," released under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks to design, develop, and demonstrate a tool that streamlines, standardizes, and enhances the evaluation of AI-enabled systems across various operational conditions, with a targeted application in sensor and information systems used in test and evaluation missions under the 412th Test Wing of the Air Force Test Center.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26TZ06-NV006?

‍ ‍

Up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the FY26 STTR BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

No, under this document. The instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible for Department of Air Force topics. This provision is not uniform across DAF Release 6: all three Commercial Solutions Opening documents permit such firms, while three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR topic. For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution.

‍ ‍

Can I use more than one research institution?

‍ ‍

You may partner with multiple entities that separately meet the definition of a research institution as indicated in the STTR BAA, but you may use only one partnering research institution to meet STTR eligibility requirements. Designate which one deliberately.

‍ ‍

Can I get a waiver on the work split?

‍ ‍

No. The instructions state that the DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements, and the Subcontracts section states that deviations are not permitted. This differs from several other DAF Release 6 documents, which provide a deviation process.

‍ ‍

How is the work percentage calculated?

‍ ‍

The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit.

‍ ‍

What is the Allocation of Rights Agreement?

‍ ‍

A required agreement governing intellectual property between the small business and the research institution. The instructions direct you to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information. Your partner's technology transfer office will need to negotiate it, so start early.

‍ ‍

What must the tool be capable of evaluating?

‍ ‍

AI-enabled sensor suites, with electro-optical and infrared, radar, and radio frequency systems given as examples. This is not a generic model evaluation framework; it must handle AI operating on sensor data.

‍ ‍

Which simulation environments must I align with?

‍ ‍

The tool must align with AFTC's primary simulation and digital engineering environments, specifically the Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM), the Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE). You may choose one, but you must choose one and demonstrate the alignment.

‍ ‍

What are the three critical robustness gaps?

‍ ‍

Real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection. Those recur in the Phase I research task, so treat them as your core metric set.

‍ ‍

Will the Air Force give me flight test data?

‍ ‍

No. The Phase I research task requires you to establish and utilize open-source or synthetically generated surrogate sensor datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios, and the deliverables list names a Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining as a possible component. Name your datasets or synthesis approach and argue their representativeness.

‍ ‍

What technology readiness levels apply?

‍ ‍

Phase I is initial TRL 2 with a target of TRL 4. Phase II is initial TRL 4 with a target of TRL 6. Upon completion of Phase II the tool is expected to reach TRL 6 with a clearly defined transition pathway toward operational implementation across the 412th Test Wing and other DoD components.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase I deliverables?

‍ ‍

A feasibility report describing how the tool can practically operate within the AFTC environment, a detailed framework design document, and initial simulation results demonstrating concept validity. This could include Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining, algorithmic and mathematical validation, architectural alignment and computational overhead, and Phase II scalability and transition pathway.

‍ ‍

Why does the topic seem to describe Phase I twice?

‍ ‍

The topic contains two Phase I descriptions and two Phase II descriptions that do not fully align. The first pair is written around the AI evaluation framework with explicit TRL targets. The second pair, appearing after a Conclusion paragraph, is written around flight test analysis workflows, hardware and software architectural design, Python-based extensibility, and Time Space Position Information processing accuracy, which reads as though it may have come from a related but distinct topic. Write primarily to the first, more detailed pair while addressing compatible elements of the second, and ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk which governs.

‍ ‍

What does the architecture requirement specifically demand?

‍ ‍

Develop a software architecture for an adaptable AI performance evaluation framework addressing reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics, based on widely accepted DoD digital engineering and telemetry standards. The architecture must explicitly define the assumed data ingestion pipelines for surrogate sensor data and detail the computational methods that will be used to calculate reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Note that both the pipelines and the computational methods must be defined and detailed, not described generally.

‍ ‍

Who is the Phase III transition partner?

‍ ‍

The 416th Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, which specializes in F-16 flight testing and has a history of integrating advanced systems, will serve as the dedicated transition partner for this effort. That is an unusually specific transition pathway for a Phase I topic and worth referencing throughout your proposal.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides, per the topic index. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit; only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either.

‍ ‍

Is there a required proposal template?

‍ ‍

No. Unlike the DAF STTR CSO Phase I instructions in this same release, which require a government template, this BAA document does not. You build the technical volume yourself, subject to the required key personnel and work plan outline elements.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. Your general disclosure obligations still apply, including identifying all U.S. permanent residents and all non-U.S. citizens involved with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and anticipated level of involvement.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

This document does not restate the evaluation criteria. It says only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. Read those criteria before writing, and do not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Why does the work plan outline matter so much?

‍ ‍

Because the DAF uses it as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. The instructions direct you not to include proprietary information in it, warning that doing so will necessitate a request for revision if selected and may delay award.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. This BAA document carries the full detailed request requirements: provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, and requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

What references should I read?

‍ ‍

Eleven are cited, and they map the standards landscape. The most directly useful are the McQuade et al. paper on metrics for trustworthy AI evaluating reliability, robustness, and explainability, which maps onto the topic's three metric categories; the OUSD report on Key Performance Indicators for AI and Autonomy Testing; the DoD Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation Pathway; the NIST AI Risk Management Framework; and an April 15, 2026 AFTC news article, "From weeks to minutes: How AI is accelerating the flight test process," which is recent and specific to this customer.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The Air Force anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 STTR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 STTR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Clear the two gates before anything else. Venture-backed majority ownership disqualifies you under this document, and the 40/30 STTR split is not waivable. Both are threshold questions, and the second one means your research institution partner has to be real and has to be doing at least 30 percent of the work.

‍ ‍

Pick your simulation environment and prove you know it. AFSIM, TETK, or JSE. Alignment with one of the three is a stated requirement, and it is the fastest way to separate a proposal written by someone who understands AFTC from one written from the outside. If your team lacks that experience, your research institution partner may be where you get it.

‍ ‍

Make the surrogate data strategy a centerpiece. You will not get real flight test data, and the topic requires representative open-source or synthetic surrogates. Naming specific datasets, describing your synthesis approach, and arguing representativeness against AFTC flight test scenarios is where a credible proposal distinguishes itself from a hand-wave.

‍ ‍

Detail the computational methods, because the topic asks you to. The architecture must explicitly define data ingestion pipelines and detail the computational methods for reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Vague references to standard techniques will not satisfy that. Show the math.

‍ ‍

Report computational overhead honestly. It appears in the deliverables list, and a framework that produces beautiful metrics at prohibitive cost is not deployable in a test environment. Characterizing overhead is a credibility signal.

‍ ‍

Frame the value as unblocking AI fielding. The topic says these challenges prevent the Air Force from leveraging AI advancements at scale, impacting readiness and modernization goals. That is the argument: evaluation is the bottleneck, and your tool removes it. Fidelity, speed, and consistency of assessments are the three named improvement axes.

‍ ‍

Use the named customer chain. The 412th Test Wing test environment, the Air Force Test Center, the 416th Test Squadron at Edwards as the dedicated transition partner, and ABMS alignment are all in the topic. Very few Phase I topics hand you a specific squadron. Build your transition narrative on it.

‍ ‍

Take explainability seriously, not decoratively. The reference list includes DARPA XAI, the DIU Trusted AI Framework, and the McQuade metrics paper. The topic asks for quantifiable explainability scores from the sandbox simulation. That is a measurable output, not a discussion section.

‍ ‍

Ask about the duplicated phase descriptions. The two Phase I and two Phase II descriptions in this topic do not align, and one pair mentions hardware architecture and TSPI accuracy that fit a different kind of effort. A quick Help Desk question in the first week could save you from writing to the wrong specification.

‍ ‍

Start the Allocation of Rights Agreement now. It is required, your partner's technology transfer office has to be involved, and TABA can fund intellectual property support. On a six month award, an IP dispute discovered at contract negotiation is expensive.

Navy SBIR DON26BZ06-DV088: Minimally Invasive Remote Blood Collection Device for Free-Ranging Cetaceans

Quick Answer

DON26BZ06-DV088 is a Department of the Navy SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. The Navy wants to adapt an existing capillary blood collection device originally designed for humans into a compact, waterproof, remotely deployable device that can draw blood from Fleet dolphins and free-swimming cetaceans. The award structure is a $1,000,000 base over 24 months plus a $1,000,000 option over 24 months, for a total not to exceed $2,000,000, with the option requiring dollar-for-dollar cost matching from non-SBIR funding. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The Navy process here differs fundamentally from the Air Force topics in the same release, and getting this wrong wastes the whole effort. Navy Direct to Phase II is a two-step competition. Step One is a Phase I Feasibility Proposal, submitted on a mandatory Navy template, which is what you submit now. Only if the Navy selects you does Step Two happen: the cognizant Systems Command program office contacts you directly with instructions to submit a Full Direct to Phase II Proposal. You are not writing a Phase II proposal in October. You are writing a feasibility proposal that earns you an invitation.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: DON26BZ06-DV088

‍ ‍

Title: DIRECT TO PHASE II: Minimally Invasive Remote Blood Collection Device for Free-Ranging Cetaceans

‍ ‍

Solicitation: Department of the Navy, DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Direct to Phase II Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Sponsoring Systems Command: Office of Naval Research (ONR)

‍ ‍

Program Manager: Ms. Lore-Anne Ponirakis

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). No Phase I awards will be issued to the designated DP2 topic

‍ ‍

Process: two steps. Step One is a Phase I Feasibility Proposal; Step Two, only if selected, is a Full DP2 Proposal by invitation

‍ ‍

Base award: $1,000,000 not to exceed, 24 months not to exceed

‍ ‍

Option: $1,000,000 not to exceed, 24 months not to exceed, requiring 1:1 cost matching with non-SBIR/STTR funding

‍ ‍

Total: $2,000,000 not to exceed

‍ ‍

SBIR contribution caps: the SBIR Option contribution shall not exceed $500,000 and total SBIR contribution for the total award shall not exceed $1.5 million

‍ ‍

Technical volume page limit: 30 pages total, with the Phase I Proof of Feasibility portion not to exceed 20 pages and the Snapshot of Proposed Phase II Effort portion not to exceed 10 pages

‍ ‍

Required template: the DP2 Phase I Feasibility proposal template, mandatory, from navysbir.com/links_forms.htm

‍ ‍

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Biomanufacturing (BIO)

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Biotechnology

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

‍ ‍

Minimum work performed by the small business: 50 percent, in the Base costs and in the Option costs

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per award, not to exceed $50,000 per Phase II project, included in the Phase II award amount rather than added to it

‍ ‍

Cost as an evaluation factor: no. Cost is not an evaluation criterion and Volume 3 receives only a compliance review

‍ ‍

Contract types the Navy may use: Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Firm Fixed Price, Basic Ordering Agreement, or Prototype Other Transaction

‍ ‍

Animal use: DoW veterinary review can take 2 to 3 months and proposals cannot be funded until all animal use documentation, permits, and protocols are approved

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: blood sampling, blood collection, minimally invasive, health assessments, marine species health, rapid health assessment

‍ ‍

Note on the deadline time. The Navy instructions direct proposing small businesses to the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time. DoW deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting rather than assuming end of day.

‍ ‍

How the Navy Direct to Phase II Process Works, Which Is Not Like the Air Force

‍ ‍

Two steps, and you are only doing the first one

‍ ‍

The DON SBIR Direct to Phase II is a two-step process.

‍ ‍

Step One: prepare and submit a Phase I Feasibility Proposal. The purpose of the Phase I Feasibility Proposal is for the proposing small business to provide documentation to substantiate that both Phase I feasibility and the scientific and technical merit described in the topic have been met. The Phase I Feasibility Proposal must demonstrate that the proposing small business performed Phase I type research and development, and provide a concise summary of Phase II objectives, work plan, related research, key personnel, transition and commercialization plan, and estimated costs. Feasibility documentation must not be solely based on work performed under prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. The government will evaluate Phase I Feasibility Proposals and select small businesses to submit a Full DP2 Proposal.

‍ ‍

The Navy states the gate plainly: demonstrating proof of feasibility is a requirement for a DP2 award, and the small business must submit a Phase I Feasibility Proposal to be considered for selection to submit a Full DP2 Proposal.

‍ ‍

Step Two: if selected, the cognizant Systems Command Program Office will contact the small business directly to provide instructions on how to submit a Full DP2 Proposal.

‍ ‍

The practical consequence is that your October submission is a compact, template-bound feasibility document with a 10 page forward-looking snapshot attached. It is not a full technical and cost proposal. Companies that treat a Navy DP2 like an Air Force D2P2 tend to over-invest in the wrong document and then fail the compliance review on template and page structure.

‍ ‍

The Navy also notes it reserves the right to make no awards under this DP2 BAA, that all awards are subject to availability of funds and successful negotiations, and that the Government is not responsible for expenditures by the proposing small business prior to award of a contract.

‍ ‍

The Navy instructions take precedence

‍ ‍

The Navy states that the information provided in the DON Proposal Submission Instructions takes precedence over the DoW Instructions posted for this BAA. Where the two differ, follow the Navy.

‍ ‍

This BAA is issued under other competitive procedures

‍ ‍

This BAA is issued under regulations set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation 35.016, and awards will be made under other competitive procedures. The policies and procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3 shall not apply to this BAA except as specifically referenced in it. All procedures are at the sole discretion of the Government as set forth in the BAA, and submission of a proposal constitutes the proposing small business's express acknowledgement to that effect.

‍ ‍

That framing has a direct consequence in the evaluation section: this is not a FAR Part 15 evaluation and proposals will not be compared to one another.

‍ ‍

The Award Structure and the Cost Matching Requirement

‍ ‍

This is the most commercially consequential part of the topic, and it is easy to misread.

‍ ‍

The Base is not to exceed $1,000,000 over not to exceed 24 months. The Option is not to exceed $1,000,000 over not to exceed 24 months. The Total is not to exceed $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Then the footnote that changes the arithmetic. Small businesses should propose an Option not to exceed $1,000,000, with cost matching at a one-to-one ratio using non-SBIR/STTR funding for the Option, to be identified by ONR prior to the end of the Base period. The SBIR Option contribution shall not exceed $500,000, and the total SBIR contribution for the total award shall not exceed $1.5 million.

‍ ‍

Read together, that means the Option is a matched option: roughly $500,000 of SBIR money paired with roughly $500,000 of non-SBIR funding, adding to a $1,000,000 Option value. Across the whole award, SBIR dollars are capped at $1.5 million against a $2,000,000 total. So $500,000 of the total has to come from somewhere else.

‍ ‍

Three implications for how you plan. First, the matching funding is identified by ONR prior to the end of the Base period, so the source is not something you must have secured at proposal time, but it is something you should be thinking about from the start. Second, a matched option is a strong transition signal, so building your Phase III and commercialization narrative around who would plausibly provide that match is directly useful. Third, the Base and Option costs must be separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet and in the Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Table in your Technical Volume.

‍ ‍

Where the cost estimate goes

‍ ‍

The text fields related to costs for the proposed effort must be answered in the Cost Volume of the DoW submission system. However, proposing small businesses do not need to download and complete the separate cost volume template when submitting the Navy SBIR Phase I Feasibility Proposal.

‍ ‍

Instead, include a cost estimate in the Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Table within the Snapshot of Proposed Phase II Effort portion of the Technical Volume. The table has line items for Direct Labor fully burdened for the prime, Subcontractors and Consultants, Material, Travel and other direct costs, General and Administrative, Facilities Capital Cost of Money, Fee or Profit, TABA not to exceed $25,000 included in the total amount, and Total Estimated Costs, each broken into Estimated Base Amount, Estimated Option Amount, and Total Estimated Base plus Option.

‍ ‍

Note that TABA appears inside the total amount in that table, not on top of it. This differs from the Air Force treatment, where TABA is additive to the topic ceiling.

‍ ‍

The 50 percent work requirement, with the Navy's own calculation

‍ ‍

For Phase II a minimum of 50 percent of the work must be performed by the proposing small business. The percentage of work requirement must be met in the Base costs as well as in the Option costs, which is a stricter formulation than a single blended figure across the award.

‍ ‍

The Navy gives the calculation explicitly, which is unusually helpful. The percentage of work is measured by both direct and indirect costs. To calculate the minimum percentage of work for the proposing small business, the sum of all direct and indirect costs attributable to the small business represents the numerator, and the total cost of the proposal, meaning total cost before the profit rate is applied, is the denominator. The subcontractor percentage is calculated by taking the sum of all costs attributable to the subcontractor as the numerator and the total cost of the proposal before profit as the denominator. General and administrative expenses, if proposed, will only be attributed to the proposing small business.

‍ ‍

That last sentence is worth noting because it helps you: G&A counts on your side of the ratio.

‍ ‍

Provide sufficient detail for subcontractor, material, and travel costs. Subcontractor costs must be detailed to the same level as the prime contractor. Material costs must include a listing of items and cost per item. Travel costs must include the purpose of the trip, number of trips, location, length of trip, and number of personnel. Inclusion of cost estimates for travel to the sponsoring Systems Command's facility for one day of meetings is recommended for all proposals.

‍ ‍

The Additional Cost Information section of Supporting Documents in Volume 5 may be used to provide supporting cost details for Volume 3.

‍ ‍

What the Navy Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

Why the Navy needs this

‍ ‍

Navy bottlenose dolphins are valuable Fleet assets whose health and well-being are essential to sustaining mine countermeasures, port security, and object recovery missions. Medical issues compromise performance and have direct implications for Navy mission readiness, longevity, and reliability.

‍ ‍

Additionally, for the U.S. Navy to meet environmental compliance requirements under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act, it is essential to understand the effects of sound and military activity on marine mammals, including physiological, behavioral, ecological, and population-level effects.

‍ ‍

While technologies and techniques for assessing marine mammal health are growing rapidly, many barriers remain for these Fleet assets as well as other free-swimming large cetacean species that can be used as biological sensors of the undersea environment. A transformative diagnostic tool will provide unparalleled access to physiological data and biomarkers of health, stress, and disease from free-swimming cetaceans with applications in clinical care, operational biosurveillance, and conservation.

‍ ‍

Note the framing of cetaceans as biological sensors of the undersea environment. Blood sampling in free-ranging animals enables their use as sensors for persistent surveillance of the undersea environment, providing early warning of pathogens and other ecosystem stressors in operational waters. That is a distinctly naval framing of what might otherwise look like a veterinary problem, and it is worth adopting in your proposal.

‍ ‍

The gap in current methods

‍ ‍

Blood sampling of captive trained dolphins and stranded marine mammals enables researchers to evaluate individual and population health, age, genetics, exposure to pathogens and toxicants, and physiological responses to anthropogenic and natural stressors.

‍ ‍

However, current blood collection methods in marine mammals are designed for use on stranded or captured individuals and are therefore limited in their capability of rapidly assessing health for larger free-swimming species. The lack of such a tool for health assessments is particularly urgent for Fleet animals and free-ranging animals in the region of deployment, where timely and accurate health assessments are essential for informing recovery efforts and mitigating population decline.

‍ ‍

So the unmet need is remote application to an unrestrained, free-swimming animal.

‍ ‍

The device requirements, stated precisely

‍ ‍

These are the numbers your proposal will be measured against. State your position on each.

‍ ‍

Approach: further develop an existing capillary blood collection device initially designed for humans. This is an adaptation topic, not a clean-sheet design.

‍ ‍

Remote deployment: the prototype must be remotely deployable using current techniques used for the deployment of suction-cup electronic tags on free-ranging marine mammals, specifically pole-based or drone dropped.

‍ ‍

Prototype scope: the prototype will include a blood collection device, a waterproof housing, a delivery device using a suction cup tag carrier, and suction cup-based tag attachment.

‍ ‍

Size: target size of the blood collection device, not including the suction cup housing, approximately 3.40 by 2.25 by 1.30 inches.

‍ ‍

Weight: between 0.85 and 0.95 ounces.

‍ ‍

Fit: the device should sit flush and seal against the skin.

‍ ‍

Sample volume: use suction to draw 200 to 800 microliters of capillary blood.

‍ ‍

Clotting and orientation: with minimal clotting into an internal reservoir, independent of orientation, and mix the sample with anticoagulants or other stabilization chemicals.

‍ ‍

Epidermal thickness: at minimum the Phase II prototype should collect blood samples from species with epidermis less than 2.5 mm thickness, with a plan to successfully collect blood samples from species with epidermal thickness greater than 10 mm.

‍ ‍

Incision geometry: during collection the device needs to make a narrow incision, less than or equal to 0.15 mm in width and less than 5 mm in length, such that rapid wound healing is possible.

‍ ‍

Detachment: the device needs to account for pressure variations underwater such that it detaches from the animal after a set time, less than 3 minute duration, or when it reaches a critical depth. At a minimum, it must be able to identify samples that may have ex vivo red cell hemolysis.

‍ ‍

Seawater intrusion: the device will need to protect the blood sample from seawater intrusion.

‍ ‍

Validation standard: blood samples collected via this prototype device need to have comparable blood test values to those collected via standard venipuncture methods through the Peri-Arterial Venous Rete, or PAVR.

‍ ‍

The topic then names the three technical challenges directly: to optimize reliable blood collection from the prototype device, development must address challenges including clotting, lancing depth, and anticoagulant use.

‍ ‍

That is your risk section, handed to you. A proposal that does not address clotting, lancing depth, and anticoagulant use as named risks with mitigation approaches has ignored the topic's own statement of what is hard.

‍ ‍

The value the Navy expects

‍ ‍

This minimally invasive blood collection prototype device will result in reliable remote deployment on free swimming cetaceans and significantly improve the capability to assess physiological responses and health measures in cetacean populations across spatial and temporal ranges.

‍ ‍

For the Navy Fleet bottlenose dolphins in particular, this prototype device will enhance the ability to detect health changes, reduce unplanned medical stand-downs, and provide more continuous health oversight by providing a minimally invasive diagnostic tool to detect infection and inflammatory markers, as well as subclinical infections.

‍ ‍

Reducing unplanned medical stand-downs is the readiness argument. It is the most direct link between this device and Fleet capability, and it belongs in your proposal.

‍ ‍

It will offer a novel tool to enhance systemic and organ-specific health monitoring, providing individualized biomarker data that can be applied to preventive medicine, geriatric care, and environmental health. Consistent with the Navy's Clinical Research Pipeline, if this diagnostic tool proves successful, it will be integrated into the Navy's Marine Mammal Program health program to directly improve the health and readiness of Navy dolphins, with potential translational benefits to conservation and human health.

‍ ‍

Overall, this device and its resulting data will directly support the warfighter, improve the reliability of Navy biological assets, support environmental compliance needs, and contribute to broader undersea warfare biosurveillance objectives.

‍ ‍

Phase I feasibility, which is what you are documenting

‍ ‍

Develop concepts and determine feasibility of an existing blood collection device adapted to be suitable for marine species, in a compact, waterproof, remotely deployable, and cost-effective design, capable of collecting capillary blood samples from species with at minimum less than 2.5 mm epidermal thickness. Develop key component technology milestones and conceptual designs for hardware. Develop a plan for a validation study comparing blood collected from this prototype device against blood collected from standard methods.

‍ ‍

Note the three deliverable categories: concepts and feasibility determination, key component technology milestones with conceptual designs, and a validation study plan. All three are documentation, which fits a feasibility proposal.

‍ ‍

The topic's feasibility documentation paragraph reinforces the standard. Offerors interested in participating in Direct to Phase II must include in their response to this topic Phase I feasibility documentation that substantiates the scientific and technical merit and Phase I feasibility described in Phase I has been met, meaning the small business must have performed Phase I type research and development related to the topic not solely based on work performed under prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and describe the potential commercialization applications. The documentation provided must validate that the proposer has completed development of technology as stated in Phase I above.

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Develop prototype payloads and technology hardware based on adapting an existing capillary blood collection device, initially designed for humans, for use in a waterproof, remotely deployable device capable of collecting capillary blood samples from species with at minimum less than 2.5 mm epidermal thickness in a compact, efficient, cost-effective design.

‍ ‍

Refine the prototype or plan to re-engineer the prototype device to iteratively test and successfully collect blood samples from across a diversity of species with epidermal thickness greater than 10 mm.

‍ ‍

Deliver a prototype device for species with epidermal thickness less than 2.5 mm, and at minimum a plan for species with epidermal thickness greater than 10 mm, at the end of Phase II, ready for integration and testing by the Government.

‍ ‍

Prepare and submit a Phase III commercialization and transition plan.

‍ ‍

Note the two-tier deliverable. Hardware for thin-epidermis species, and at minimum a plan for thick-epidermis species. That is a realistic scoping decision by the Navy and you should mirror it rather than promising hardware for both.

‍ ‍

Phase III and the dual use market

‍ ‍

Support transition of the device to the Government and into the wider scientific community.

‍ ‍

Businesses that provide marine mammal monitoring capabilities to a wide range of government agencies having equities in marine life issues could leverage the device. The topic names NOAA National Marine Fisheries, the National Ocean Service, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, as beneficiaries. A key goal of this phase will be making the technology available to the broader research and Navy communities.

‍ ‍

Six named federal agencies plus the research community is an unusually concrete non-Navy market list. Use all of it. Note also the topic's earlier mention of translational benefits to human health, which connects back to the device's human-medical origin.

‍ ‍

The references

‍ ‍

Four are cited. Balmer, Brian B., et al., "Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in blood and blubber of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) at three northern Gulf of Mexico sites following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill," Science of the Total Environment 621 (2018), pp. 130-137. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017), "Consensus Study: Approaches to Understanding the Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals." Schwacke, L.H. et al. 2024, "An expert-based system to predict population survival rate from health data," Conservation Biology 38(1), p.e14073. And Office of Naval Research, "Marine Mammal Animal Use Protocol."

‍ ‍

The fourth reference is not background reading, it is a compliance document. Read it.

‍ ‍

Animal Use Requirements, Which Will Drive Your Schedule

‍ ‍

This is the requirement most likely to surprise a device company new to marine mammal work, and the Navy flags it directly.

‍ ‍

DoW Animal Use Requirements should be taken into consideration when submitting proposals. The DoW Vet review process can take 2 to 3 months. Proposals cannot be funded until all animal use documentation, permits, and protocols are received by the SBIR Program Office and approved by the DoW veterinarian. Some of this documentation can take months to acquire, so investigators need to plan to submit paperwork to the SBIR program office once the proposal has been selected for funding.

‍ ‍

DoW Animal Use approval is not required at the time of proposal submission to this SBIR topic. However, the proposer must be prepared to provide all required animal use documentation at the time of proposal selection to ensure that this approval is received before the contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

Separately, the Navy instructions state that if the use of human, animal, and recombinant DNA is included under a DP2 proposal, review the requirements at the Naval Research Enterprise webpage on compliance and protections for research protections, which provides guidance and lists approvals that may be required before contract work can begin.

‍ ‍

Three practical points. Approval is not needed to submit, but it gates award, so a selected proposal can stall for months. Some documentation takes months to acquire, which means starting the process at selection rather than at award is the difference between a timely start and a long delay. And the ONR Marine Mammal Animal Use Protocol is listed in the topic references, so read it during proposal preparation and describe your compliance approach, including how you would use existing protocols or facilities.

‍ ‍

A proposal that shows awareness of the animal use pathway, and ideally an existing relationship with an institution that already holds relevant protocols, is materially more credible on schedule than one that treats this as a post-award administrative step.

‍ ‍

Eligibility and Registrations

‍ ‍

Each proposing small business must have demonstrated feasibility of Phase I type research and development work, have submitted a Phase I Feasibility Proposal for evaluation, meet the Offeror Eligibility and Performance Requirements as defined in the Proposal Fundamentals section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA, comply with primary employment requirements of the principal investigator during the Phase II award including employment with the small business at the time of award and during the conduct of the proposed project where primary employment means more than one-half of the PI's time is spent in the employ of the small business, and be registered in the System for Award Management as defined in the Certifications and Registrations section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA.

‍ ‍

System for Award Management

‍ ‍

It is strongly encouraged that proposing small businesses register in SAM by the Close date of this BAA, or verify that their registrations are still active and will not expire within 60 days of BAA Close. Additionally, proposing small businesses should confirm that they are registered to receive contracts, not just grants, and that the address in SAM matches the address on the proposal. A small business selected for an award must have an active SAM registration at the time of award or they will be considered ineligible.

‍ ‍

Two details there that catch companies out: registered for contracts rather than grants, and an expiration date more than 60 days past BAA close.

‍ ‍

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

‍ ‍

Proposing small businesses that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DON topics advertised within this BAA.

‍ ‍

This is a meaningful contrast with the Air Force BAA Direct to Phase II documents in the same Release 6 cycle, which state that such firms are not eligible. The Navy permits them, subject to certification requirements.

‍ ‍

For proposing small businesses that are a member of this ownership class, three things must be satisfied for proposals to be accepted and evaluated. Prior to submitting a proposal, the small business must register with the SBA Company Registry Database. The small business within its submission must submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, and a copy of the SBIR VC Certification is available at navysbir.com/links_forms.htm, to be included in Supporting Documents, Volume 5. And should a proposing small business become a member of this ownership class after submitting its proposal and prior to any receipt of a funding agreement, it must immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification.

‍ ‍

That third condition matters for any company with a financing round in progress during the evaluation period.

‍ ‍

CMMC and NIST SP 800-171

‍ ‍

DoW has established the CMMC Program to verify that awardees have implemented required security measures necessary to safeguard Federal Contract Information and Controlled Unclassified Information. CMMC Level requirements are identified within each topic and must be met prior to award. Proposing small businesses should carefully review and consider the CMMC requirements as compliance may impact proposed costs and technical approach. For this topic, the projected requirement is Level 2 with self-assessment.

‍ ‍

Separately, and this is a Navy-specific requirement with real teeth, as prescribed by DFARS 252.240-7997, in order to be considered for award a small business is required to implement NIST SP 800-171 and shall have a current assessment uploaded to the Supplier Performance Risk System, which provides storage and retrieval capabilities for that assessment. The platform Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment will be used for secure login and verification to access SPRS.

‍ ‍

If you do not have a current NIST SP 800-171 self-assessment score in SPRS, start that now. It is a prerequisite to being considered for award, not a post-award item.

‍ ‍

The Proposal: Seven Volumes, Navy Style

‍ ‍

Volume 1, Proposal Cover Sheet

‍ ‍

As specified in the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA. The Proposal Cover Sheet will undergo a compliance review to verify the proposing small business has met eligibility requirements and followed the instructions for Proposal Cover Sheet as specified in the DoW BAA. Costs for the Base and Option are to be separate and identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet.

‍ ‍

Volume 2, Technical Volume, and the mandatory template

‍ ‍

The Technical Volume must meet the following requirements or the proposal will be REJECTED.

‍ ‍

A submitting small business MUST use the DP2 Phase I Feasibility proposal template for Volume 2. The template is specific to DON DP2 topics and meets DP2 submission requirements, and can be found at navysbir.com/links_forms.htm.

‍ ‍

The template requirements are specific. Not to exceed 30 pages, regardless of page content. The Phase I Proof of Feasibility portion is not to exceed 20 pages. The Snapshot of Proposed Phase II Effort portion is not to exceed 10 pages. Single column format, single-spaced typed lines. Standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper. Page margins one inch on all sides, and a header and footer may be included in the one-inch margin. No font size smaller than 10-point.

‍ ‍

Additional information: a font size smaller than 10-point is allowable for headers, footers, imbedded tables, figures, images, or graphics that include text. However, proposing small businesses are cautioned that if the text is too small to be legible it will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrase "regardless of page content" attached to the 30 page limit. There is no relief for graphics-heavy content. And the internal 20 and 10 page split is a structural requirement, not a suggestion.

‍ ‍

The Technical Volume is the only volume that matters for selection. The Navy will evaluate and select Phase I Feasibility proposals using the evaluation criteria specified in the Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA, and the information considered for this decision will come from Volume 2.

‍ ‍

Volume 3, Cost Volume

‍ ‍

The text fields related to costs for the proposed effort must be answered in the Cost Volume of the DoW submission system. However, proposing small businesses do not need to download and complete the separate cost volume template when submitting the DON SBIR Phase I Feasibility Proposal. Instead include a cost estimate in the Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Table within the Snapshot of Proposed Phase II Effort portion of the Technical Volume.

‍ ‍

The Cost Volume will not be considered in the selection process and will undergo a compliance review to verify that the proposing small business has met the following requirements, or the proposal will be REJECTED. It must not exceed values for the Base and Option. And it must meet the minimum percentage of work, a minimum of 50 percent performed by the proposing small business, with the requirement met in the Base costs as well as in the Option costs.

‍ ‍

So Volume 3 cannot win you anything, but it can disqualify you on two grounds: exceeding the Base or Option values, or failing the 50 percent work split in either the Base or the Option.

‍ ‍

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

‍ ‍

DoW collects and uses Volume 4 and DSIP requires Volume 4 for proposal submission. Refer to the Proposal Preparation Instructions and Requirements section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA to ensure compliance with DSIP Volume 4 requirements. The CCR will not be evaluated by the DON nor will it be considered in the award decision.

‍ ‍

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

‍ ‍

Volume 5 is for the submission of administrative material that DON may or will require to process a proposal, if selected, for contract award. Supporting Documents will not be considered in the selection process and will only undergo a compliance review to ensure the proposing small business has included items in accordance with the DP2 submission instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposing small businesses must review and submit the following items, as applicable: Majority Ownership in Part, meaning the certification described above for VCOC, hedge fund, or private equity majority-owned firms.

‍ ‍

Proposing small businesses may include the following administrative materials in Supporting Documents, and a template is available at navysbir.com/links_forms.htm to provide guidance on optional material: Additional Cost Information to support the Cost Volume; SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification; Data Rights Assertion; Disclosure of Information under DFARS 252.204-7000; Prior, Current, or Pending Support of Similar Proposals or Awards; and Foreign Citizens.

‍ ‍

Details of a request for Discretionary Technical and Business Assistance, if proposed, are to be included under the Additional Cost Information section if using the DON Supporting Documents template.

‍ ‍

Two prohibitions worth heeding. Do not include documents or information to substantiate the Technical Volume, such as resumes, test data, technical reports, or publications. Such documents or information will not be considered. That is the opposite of the Air Force approach, where feasibility documentation and supporting technical material belong in Volume 5 and do not count against page limits. On a Navy DP2, your evidence has to fit inside the 30 page Technical Volume.

‍ ‍

A font size smaller than 10-point is allowable for documents in Volume 5, however proposing small businesses are cautioned that the text may be unreadable.

‍ ‍

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training Certification

‍ ‍

DoW requires Volume 6 for submission. Refer to the Proposal Preparation Instructions and Requirements section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA for details. The Navy states plainly that Volume 6 is not evaluated.

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

In accordance with Section 4 of the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, the DoW will review all proposals submitted in response to this BAA to assess security risks presented by small businesses seeking a federally funded award. Small businesses must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission.

‍ ‍

Volume 7 will be assessed as part of the Foreign Risk Evaluation Program to Assess Security Risks. 15 U.S.C. 638(vv) requires the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to establish and implement a due diligence program known as the Foreign Risk Evaluation Program to assess and, when possible, mitigate security risks presented by small businesses seeking a federally funded award. Review the Certifications and Registrations section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA for details on how DoW will assess security risks. The FRE Program to Assess Security Risks will be implemented for all Phases.

‍ ‍

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

‍ ‍

The process and the criteria

‍ ‍

Proposals meeting DSIP submission requirements will be forwarded to the DON SBIR/STTR Programs. Prior to evaluation, all proposals will undergo a compliance review to verify compliance with DoW and DON SBIR/STTR proposal eligibility requirements. Proposals not meeting submission requirements will be REJECTED and not evaluated.

‍ ‍

The DON will evaluate and select Phase I Feasibility proposals using the evaluation criteria specified in the Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA, with technical merit being most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel and commercialization potential of equal importance. The information considered for this decision will come from Volume 2.

‍ ‍

That is a three-factor structure: technical merit first, then qualifications of key personnel and commercialization potential tied for second. Note that it is a different shape from the Air Force CSO criteria, where commercialization sits third alone.

‍ ‍

This is not a FAR Part 15 evaluation and proposals will not be compared to one another. Cost is not an evaluation criterion and will not be considered during the evaluation process; the DON will only do a compliance review of Volume 3.

‍ ‍

Due to limited funding, the DON reserves the right to limit the number of awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The practical reading: every point you can earn sits in the 30 page Technical Volume, and cost cannot help or hurt you except through the compliance gates. Spend your effort accordingly.

‍ ‍

Notifications, awards, and debriefs

‍ ‍

Email notifications for proposal receipt, approximately one week after the Phase I BAA Close, and for selection are sent based on the information received on the proposal Cover Sheet, Volume 1. Consequently, the email address on the proposal Cover Sheet must be correct.

‍ ‍

Due to limited funding, the DON reserves the right to limit the number of awards under any topic. Any notification received from the DON that indicates the proposal has been selected does not ultimately guarantee an award will be made. Such notification indicates that the proposal has been selected in accordance with the evaluation criteria and has been sent to the Contracting Officer to conduct cost analysis, confirm eligibility of the proposing small business, and take other relevant steps necessary prior to making an award.

‍ ‍

Debriefs. Requests for a debrief must be made within 15 calendar days of select or non-select notification via email as specified in the notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the proposal within 60 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

That 15 day window is short and it is a real opportunity. Unlike the Air Force, which provides automated feedback at its discretion, the Navy provides a written debrief on request. Calendar the deadline the day you receive notification.

‍ ‍

Protests

‍ ‍

Interested parties have the right to protest in accordance with the procedures in FAR Subpart 33.1.

‍ ‍

Pre-award agency protests related to the terms of the BAA must be served to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil. A copy of a pre-award Government Accountability Office protest must also be filed with that email address within one day of filing with the GAO.

‍ ‍

Protests related to a selection or award decision should be filed with the appropriate Contracting Officer for an Agency Level Protest or with the GAO. Contracting Officer contact information for specific DON topics may be obtained from the DON Systems Command Program Managers listed in the topic instructions. For protests filed with the GAO, a copy of the protest must be submitted to the appropriate DON Systems Command Program Manager and the appropriate Contracting Officer within one day of filing with the GAO.

‍ ‍

Contracting, deliverables, and program participation

‍ ‍

Contract Types. The DON will consider the following for award: Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Firm Fixed Price, Basic Ordering Agreement, or Prototype Other Transaction. That is a wider range than the Air Force, which primarily uses firm-fixed-price, and a cost-type award has accounting system implications worth thinking about early.

‍ ‍

Contract Deliverables. Contract deliverables are typically progress reports and final reports. Required contract deliverables must be uploaded to navysbirprogram.com/navydeliverables/.

‍ ‍

Transfer Between SBIR and STTR Programs. Section 4(b)(1)(i) of the SBIR and STTR Policy Directive provides that, at the agency's discretion, projects awarded a Phase I under a BAA for SBIR may transition in Phase II to STTR and vice versa.

‍ ‍

Navy SBIR Transition Program. Phase II awardees have the opportunity to participate in the virtual Navy STP Kickoff during the first or second year of the Phase II contract. While there are no travel costs associated with this virtual event, Phase II awardees should budget time of up to a full day to participate. Phase II awardees will be contacted separately regarding this program.

‍ ‍

Phase III guidelines and data rights

‍ ‍

A Phase III SBIR or STTR award is any work that derives from, extends, or completes efforts performed under prior SBIR/STTR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR/STTR programs. This covers any contract, grant, or agreement issued as a follow-on Phase III award, or any contract, grant, or agreement award issued as a result of a competitive process where the awardee was an SBIR/STTR firm that developed the technology as a result of a Phase I or Phase II award.

‍ ‍

The DON will give Phase III status to any award that falls within that description. Consequently, DON will assign SBIR/STTR Data Rights to any noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software delivered in Phase III that were developed under SBIR/STTR Phase I or II efforts. Government prime contractors and their subcontractors must follow the same guidelines and ensure that companies operating on behalf of the DON protect the rights of the SBIR/STTR firm.

‍ ‍

That is a favorable data rights posture and worth understanding, since it means Phase III work carries SBIR data rights protection rather than losing it.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies offer TABA. The purpose of TABA is to assist awardees in making better technical decisions on SBIR/STTR projects; solving technical problems that arise during SBIR/STTR projects; minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR/STTR projects; commercializing the SBIR/STTR product or process, including intellectual property protections and cybersecurity assistance; and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

‍ ‍

TABA services can be provided through vendors selected by the small business, or the small business may propose use of TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA.

‍ ‍

The Phase II TABA amount, if proposed, cannot include any profit or fee by the proposing small business and must be inclusive of all applicable indirect costs. TABA cannot be used in the calculation of general and administrative expenses for the SBIR proposing small business. A small business receiving TABA will be required to submit a report detailing the results and benefits of the service received, due at the time of submission of the final report.

‍ ‍

Requests for TABA funding will be reviewed by the DON SBIR/STTR Program Management Office.

‍ ‍

If proposing a TABA provider, the following must be included in the request or be subject to denial: the providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with an average or blended rate acceptable.

‍ ‍

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including the purpose and objective of the assistance; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with an average or blended rate acceptable.

‍ ‍

TABA requests must be included in the proposal as follows. For Phase II, in the DON Phase II Cost Volume provided by the DON Systems Command, the value of the TABA request. And in Supporting Documents, Volume 5, a detailed request for TABA specifically identified as "TABA" in the section titled Additional Cost Information when using the DON Supporting Documents template.

‍ ‍

Proposed values for TABA must not exceed a total of $25,000 per award, not to exceed $50,000 per Phase II project, included in the Phase II award amount.

‍ ‍

Note again that Navy TABA is included in the award amount rather than added to it, which is the reverse of the Air Force treatment. On this topic, intellectual property protections and cybersecurity assistance are both plausible uses, and regulatory support around animal use documentation is worth exploring against the eligible purposes.

‍ ‍

Disclosure of Information and Fundamental Research

‍ ‍

In order to eliminate the requirements for prior approval of public disclosure of information in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7000 under this award, the proposing small business shall identify and describe all fundamental research to be performed under its proposal, including subcontracted work, with sufficient specificity to demonstrate that the work qualifies as fundamental research.

‍ ‍

Fundamental research means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons, as defined by National Security Decision Directive 189.

‍ ‍

A small business whose proposed work will include fundamental research and requests to eliminate the requirement for prior approval of public disclosure of information must complete the DON Fundamental Research Disclosure and upload it as a separate PDF file to the Supporting Documents, Volume 5, in DSIP as part of their proposal submission. The DON Fundamental Research Disclosure is available at navysbir.com/links_forms.htm and includes instructions on how to complete and upload the completed Disclosure.

‍ ‍

Simply identifying fundamental research in the Disclosure does NOT constitute acceptance of the exclusion. All exclusions will be reviewed and, if approved by the Government Contracting Officer, noted in the contract.

‍ ‍

This is worth attention on a topic with likely academic collaborators and publishable biological results. If publication matters to your team or your partners, complete the Disclosure.

‍ ‍

Export Control Considerations

‍ ‍

The Navy instructions include an ITAR note. For topics indicating ITAR restrictions or the potential for classified work, limitations are generally placed on disclosure of information involving topics of a classified nature or those involving export control restrictions, which may curtail or preclude the involvement of universities and certain non-profit institutions beyond the basic research level.

‍ ‍

Small businesses must structure their proposals to clearly identify the work that will be performed that is of a basic research nature and how it can be segregated from work that falls under the classification and export control restrictions. As a result, information must also be provided on how efforts can be performed in later phases if the university or research institution is the source of critical knowledge, effort, or infrastructure, meaning facilities and equipment.

‍ ‍

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR restriction paragraph, and the technology area, Biomanufacturing and Biotechnology, is less likely to be export controlled than the Air Force space and seeker topics in the same release. But if your team includes a marine mammal research institution whose facilities or animal access is critical, the segregation guidance above is directly relevant to how you structure the work.

‍ ‍

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 SBIR/STTR Program BAA, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

‍ ‍

Proposal receipt notification: approximately one week after the Phase I BAA Close

‍ ‍

Debrief request window: within 15 calendar days of select or non-select notification

‍ ‍

Debrief delivery: typically in writing within 60 days of receipt of the request

‍ ‍

Base period of performance, if awarded: not to exceed 24 months

‍ ‍

Option period of performance, if exercised: not to exceed 24 months, with matching funding identified by ONR prior to the end of the Base period

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Download the DP2 Phase I Feasibility proposal template from navysbir.com/links_forms.htm, and the Supporting Documents template while you are there. Read the ONR Marine Mammal Animal Use Protocol, which is cited in the topic references. Confirm your SAM registration is active, will not expire within 60 days of close, and shows you as registered for contracts rather than grants, with an address matching your proposal. Get a current NIST SP 800-171 assessment uploaded to SPRS, since it is a prerequisite for award consideration. Assemble your feasibility evidence for the existing human capillary blood collection device, including any test data, and confirm it has a basis independent of prior SBIR or STTR work. Identify a marine mammal research partner or facility if you do not have one, since animal access and protocol experience are the hardest things to acquire late. If you are VCOC, hedge fund, or private equity majority-owned, register with the SBA Company Registry Database and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Begin thinking about the non-SBIR match source for the Option.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft inside the template. Allocate the 20 page Proof of Feasibility portion to your existing device, its performance data, and why it adapts to the marine application. Allocate the 10 page Snapshot to Phase II objectives, work plan, related research, key personnel, transition and commercialization plan, and the Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Table. Remember that resumes, test data, technical reports, and publications cannot be pushed into Volume 5, so everything you want evaluated must fit in 30 pages.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 14. Build the Base and Option cost estimate with the 50 percent work requirement satisfied in both, using the Navy's stated calculation. Separate Base and Option on the Cover Sheet and in the table. Answer the Cost Volume text fields in DSIP. Assemble Volume 5: Majority Ownership certification if applicable, Fundamental Research Disclosure if you want the publication exclusion, Data Rights Assertion, Foreign Citizens, and the TABA detail under Additional Cost Information if requesting TABA. Complete the Volume 7 webform and the Volume 4 CCR.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 17. Compliance pass against the template: 30 pages total regardless of content, 20 page feasibility portion, 10 page snapshot portion, single column, single spaced, 8.5 by 11, one-inch margins with header and footer permitted inside them, no font smaller than 10-point except in headers, footers, imbedded tables, figures, images, and graphics, and legible throughout. Confirm no encryption or password protection anywhere in the submission, since the Navy states such proposals will be rejected.

‍ ‍

October 18 through October 19. Submit and certify in DSIP. Note that proposals not successfully certified electronically in DSIP by the Corporate Official prior to BAA Close will not be considered submitted and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is Navy SBIR topic DON26BZ06-DV088?

‍ ‍

DON26BZ06-DV088 is a Department of the Navy SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Minimally Invasive Remote Blood Collection Device for Free-Ranging Cetaceans," sponsored by the Office of Naval Research under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks to adapt an existing capillary blood collection device designed for humans into prototype hardware for use on Fleet dolphins and free-ranging cetaceans of varying epidermal thickness.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

A Base not to exceed $1,000,000 over not to exceed 24 months, plus an Option not to exceed $1,000,000 over not to exceed 24 months, for a total not to exceed $2,000,000. The Option requires cost matching at a one-to-one ratio using non-SBIR/STTR funding, identified by ONR prior to the end of the Base period. The SBIR Option contribution shall not exceed $500,000 and total SBIR contribution for the total award shall not exceed $1.5 million.

‍ ‍

So how much of the $2 million is actually SBIR money?

‍ ‍

Up to $1.5 million. The remaining $500,000 comes from the non-SBIR match on the Option. Practically, the Option is roughly $500,000 of SBIR funding paired with roughly $500,000 of matched non-SBIR funding.

‍ ‍

Do I need the matching funds identified now?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states the matching funding for the Option will be identified by ONR prior to the end of the Base period. But because a matched option is a strong transition signal, building your commercialization and transition narrative around plausible match sources strengthens the proposal.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The Navy instructions direct proposers to the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

What am I actually submitting in October?

‍ ‍

A Phase I Feasibility Proposal, not a full Phase II proposal. Navy Direct to Phase II is a two-step process. Step One is the Phase I Feasibility Proposal on the mandatory Navy template. The government evaluates those and selects small businesses to submit a Full DP2 Proposal. Step Two happens only if you are selected, when the cognizant Systems Command Program Office contacts you directly with instructions.

‍ ‍

Do I have to use a specific template?

‍ ‍

Yes, and this is a rejection criterion. A submitting small business MUST use the DP2 Phase I Feasibility proposal template for Volume 2, available at navysbir.com/links_forms.htm. The template is specific to DON DP2 topics and meets DP2 submission requirements.

‍ ‍

What are the page limits?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 30 pages regardless of page content. Within that, the Phase I Proof of Feasibility portion is not to exceed 20 pages and the Snapshot of Proposed Phase II Effort portion is not to exceed 10 pages. Single column, single-spaced, standard 8.5 by 11 paper, one-inch margins with a header and footer permitted inside the margin, and no font smaller than 10-point except in headers, footers, imbedded tables, figures, images, or graphics that include text.

‍ ‍

Can I put supporting technical material in Volume 5?

‍ ‍

No. The Navy states plainly not to include documents or information to substantiate the Technical Volume, such as resumes, test data, technical reports, or publications, and that such documents will not be considered. This is the reverse of the Air Force approach. Everything you want evaluated must fit inside the 30 page Technical Volume.

‍ ‍

Is cost evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Cost is not an evaluation criterion and will not be considered during the evaluation process. The DON will only do a compliance review of Volume 3. That review can still reject you on two grounds: exceeding the Base or Option values, or failing the 50 percent minimum percentage of work in either the Base or the Option costs.

‍ ‍

How is the proposal evaluated?

‍ ‍

Using the evaluation criteria in the Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria section of the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA, with technical merit being most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel and commercialization potential of equal importance. The information considered comes from Volume 2 only. This is not a FAR Part 15 evaluation and proposals will not be compared to one another.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

A minimum of 50 percent for Phase II, and the requirement must be met in the Base costs as well as in the Option costs. The Navy gives the calculation: the sum of all direct and indirect costs attributable to the small business is the numerator, and the total cost of the proposal before the profit rate is applied is the denominator. General and administrative expenses, if proposed, will only be attributed to the proposing small business.

‍ ‍

What are the device requirements?

‍ ‍

Target size approximately 3.40 by 2.25 by 1.30 inches for the collection device excluding the suction cup housing, weight between 0.85 and 0.95 ounces, sitting flush and sealing against the skin, drawing 200 to 800 microliters of capillary blood by suction with minimal clotting into an internal reservoir independent of orientation, mixing with anticoagulants or stabilization chemicals, making an incision no more than 0.15 mm wide and less than 5 mm long for rapid wound healing, detaching after less than 3 minutes or at a critical depth, protecting the sample from seawater intrusion, and producing values comparable to standard venipuncture through the Peri-Arterial Venous Rete.

‍ ‍

What epidermal thickness must the device handle?

‍ ‍

At minimum the Phase II prototype should collect from species with epidermis less than 2.5 mm thickness, with a plan to successfully collect from species with epidermal thickness greater than 10 mm. The Phase II deliverable is a prototype device for the thinner case and at minimum a plan for the thicker case.

‍ ‍

How is the device deployed?

‍ ‍

Remotely, using current techniques for deploying suction-cup electronic tags on free-ranging marine mammals, specifically pole-based or drone dropped. The prototype includes the blood collection device, a waterproof housing, a delivery device using a suction cup tag carrier, and suction cup-based tag attachment.

‍ ‍

What are the named technical challenges?

‍ ‍

The topic states that to optimize reliable blood collection, development must address clotting, lancing depth, and anticoagulant use. Treat those three as your named risks with mitigation approaches.

‍ ‍

Do I need animal use approval to submit?

‍ ‍

No. DoW Animal Use approval is not required at the time of proposal submission. However, the proposer must be prepared to provide all required animal use documentation at the time of proposal selection to ensure approval is received before the contract is awarded. The DoW Vet review process can take 2 to 3 months, proposals cannot be funded until all documentation, permits, and protocols are received and approved by the DoW veterinarian, and some documentation can take months to acquire.

‍ ‍

What is the practical effect of the animal use requirement?

‍ ‍

It gates award, not submission, which means a selected proposal can stall for months. Plan to submit paperwork to the SBIR program office as soon as the proposal is selected for funding. A team with an existing relationship to an institution holding relevant marine mammal protocols is materially more credible on schedule.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Proposing small businesses more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination, as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702, are eligible for DON topics under this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and immediately notify the Contracting Officer and file the certification if you enter this ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement. Note this differs from the Air Force BAA Direct to Phase II documents in the same Release 6 cycle, which exclude such firms.

‍ ‍

What registrations do I need?

‍ ‍

An active SAM registration, strongly encouraged by the BAA Close date, that will not expire within 60 days of close, shows you registered to receive contracts rather than just grants, and has an address matching your proposal. A small business selected for award must have an active SAM registration at time of award or will be considered ineligible. Separately, as prescribed by DFARS 252.240-7997, to be considered for award you must implement NIST SP 800-171 and have a current assessment uploaded to the Supplier Performance Risk System, accessed through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment.

‍ ‍

What contract types might I receive?

‍ ‍

The DON will consider Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Firm Fixed Price, Basic Ordering Agreement, or Prototype Other Transaction. That is a wider range than the Air Force, which primarily uses firm-fixed-price, and a cost-type award has accounting system implications worth considering early.

‍ ‍

Can I get a debrief if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes, on request. Requests for a debrief must be made within 15 calendar days of select or non-select notification via email as specified in the notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the proposal within 60 days of receipt of the request, and requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

How does Navy TABA work?

‍ ‍

Up to $25,000 per award, not to exceed $50,000 per Phase II project, and included in the Phase II award amount rather than added on top of it. This is the reverse of the Air Force treatment. TABA cannot include profit or fee, must be inclusive of all applicable indirect costs, and cannot be used in the calculation of general and administrative expenses. Requests are reviewed by the DON SBIR/STTR Program Management Office, and an awardee receiving TABA must submit a report on results and benefits at the time of final report submission. The detailed request goes in Volume 5 under Additional Cost Information, identified as "TABA."

‍ ‍

What is the Fundamental Research Disclosure?

‍ ‍

A mechanism to eliminate the requirement for prior approval of public disclosure of information under DFARS 252.204-7000. If your proposed work includes fundamental research and you want that exclusion, complete the DON Fundamental Research Disclosure and upload it as a separate PDF to Volume 5. Simply identifying fundamental research does not constitute acceptance of the exclusion; all exclusions are reviewed and, if approved by the Contracting Officer, noted in the contract. This matters if publication is important to you or your academic collaborators.

‍ ‍

Who are the non-Navy customers?

‍ ‍

The topic names NOAA National Marine Fisheries, the National Ocean Service, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, as agencies with equities in marine life issues that could leverage the device. A key Phase III goal is making the technology available to the broader research and Navy communities, and the topic also notes potential translational benefits to human health.

‍ ‍

What happens to my data rights in Phase III?

‍ ‍

The DON will give Phase III status to any award deriving from, extending, or completing prior SBIR/STTR work but funded from other sources, and will assign SBIR/STTR Data Rights to any noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software delivered in Phase III that were developed under Phase I or II efforts. Government prime contractors and their subcontractors must follow the same guidelines and protect the rights of the SBIR/STTR firm.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

For program and administrative questions, the DON SBIR/STTR Program Management Office at usn.pentagon.cnr-arlington-va.mbx.navy-sbir-sttr@us.navy.mil, or the Program Manager for this topic, Ms. Lore-Anne Ponirakis at the Office of Naval Research, reachable at usn.pentagon.cnr-arlington-va.mbx.onr-sbir-sttr@us.navy.mil. For topic-specific technical questions during BAA pre-release, the Technical Point of Contact listed on the topic in DSIP; during BAA open, the DoW SBIR/STTR Topic Q&A platform. For electronic submission issues, DSIP Support at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For Navy-specific BAA instructions and forms, the DON SBIR/STTR Program Management Office.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Understand you are writing a feasibility proposal, not a Phase II proposal. This is the single most common way companies waste effort on a Navy DP2. Thirty pages on the mandatory template, split 20 and 10, evaluated on technical merit, key personnel, and commercialization potential, with cost excluded from evaluation. Get the template first and write inside it.

‍ ‍

You must already have the device. This is an adaptation topic. The Phase I feasibility standard is that you performed Phase I type research and development on an existing capillary blood collection device, and the documentation must validate that you completed the development stated in the Phase I description. A company without a working human capillary collection device to adapt does not meet the bar.

‍ ‍

Everything evaluable must fit in 30 pages. Because Volume 5 explicitly cannot carry resumes, test data, technical reports, or publications, you cannot use the page-limit escape hatches available on Air Force topics. Budget your pages ruthlessly and lead with data.

‍ ‍

Get marine mammal access sorted before you write. Animal use documentation gates award, veterinary review takes 2 to 3 months, and some documentation takes months to acquire. A partner institution with existing protocols and access to Fleet or free-ranging animals is the difference between a schedule the Navy believes and one it does not.

‍ ‍

Address clotting, lancing depth, and anticoagulant use head on. The topic names those three as the challenges development must address. They are also where a human capillary device most plausibly fails on cetacean skin. A candid risk section with real mitigation approaches beats optimism.

‍ ‍

Take the incision geometry seriously. Less than or equal to 0.15 mm wide and less than 5 mm long, such that rapid wound healing is possible, on a wild animal you will not see again. That constraint interacts with epidermal thickness, lancing depth, and suction, and it is where the engineering is genuinely hard.

‍ ‍

Solve the underwater detachment problem explicitly. Detaching after less than 3 minutes or at a critical depth, while protecting the sample from seawater intrusion, is a mechanism design problem distinct from the collection problem. The fallback the Navy offers, identifying samples that may have ex vivo red cell hemolysis, is a hint that they expect this to be difficult.

‍ ‍

Frame the value in Navy terms. Reduced unplanned medical stand-downs for Fleet dolphins is the readiness argument. Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act compliance is the regulatory argument. Cetaceans as biological sensors for undersea biosurveillance is the operational argument. All three are in the topic. Use them rather than writing a veterinary diagnostics pitch.

‍ ‍

Build the commercialization case on the six named agencies. NOAA National Marine Fisheries, National Ocean Service, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, BOEM, USGS, and USFWS are handed to you, along with the broader research community and potential human health translation. That is a real market list, not a stretch.

‍ ‍

Do the NIST SP 800-171 and SPRS work now. It is a prerequisite to award consideration under DFARS 252.240-7997, and it is not something you can complete in the week after selection.

‍ ‍

Calendar the debrief window. Fifteen calendar days from notification, written response within 60 days of the request. Whether selected or not, that debrief is genuinely useful intelligence for the next cycle, and the Navy is more forthcoming here than most components.

DAF STTR DAF26TZ06-DV008: Counter Adversarial GPS Jamming

Quick Answer

DAF26TZ06-DV008 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force wants a general, effective, and robust antijamming framework for GPS signals, and it names a specific and unusual technical route to get there: exceptional-point stochastic resonance combined with modern machine learning. The counterintuitive premise is that adding noise in the right way can improve the signal-to-noise ratio for a weak signal, which opens a path to pulling a GPS signal out of jamming that is orders of magnitude stronger. Awards are up to $2,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 35 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two things to settle before you invest proposal effort. First, this document states that small businesses majority-owned in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible. Second, this is an STTR topic requiring a research institution partner, and the physics involved, higher-order exceptional points in pseudo-Hermitian systems, is genuinely academic territory. The ideal team here is a small business with signal processing and GPS receiver capability paired with a university group that works on non-Hermitian physics or stochastic resonance.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26TZ06-DV008

Title: Counter Adversarial GPS Jamming

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Direct to Phase II Proposal Submission Instructions

Program: STTR, which requires a research institution partner as a condition of the program

Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2). Phase I proposals will not be evaluated and Phase I awards will not be made under this topic

Award maximum value: $2,000,000

Award maximum duration: 24 months

Technical volume page limit: 35 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technology (LOG)

Component Technology Priority Area: Integrated Sensing and Cyber

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

Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this document

Named technical approach: exceptional-point stochastic resonance plus modern machine learning

Phase II deliverable: a user-friendly computer program prototype insertable into a GPS anti-jamming system

Evaluation criteria: not restated in this document. See the FY26 STTR BAA

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW FY26 STTR BAA

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: counter adversarial GPS jamming, exceptional-point stochastic resonance

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 STTR BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time. DoW deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

Read This First: Two Eligibility Gates

Venture capital ownership is disqualifying under this document

The instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.

This provision varies across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, and the pattern is now clear enough to describe. Both Direct to Phase II documents issued under the Broad Agency Announcement, the SBIR version covering topic DV037 and this STTR version, state that such firms are not eligible. The BAA Phase I instructions and the CSO instructions, both SBIR and STTR, state that they are eligible. So the exclusion tracks the BAA Direct to Phase II documents specifically.

Because the same provision appears in two independent BAA D2P2 documents, a deliberate restriction is more plausible than a typographical error, though the DAF has not explained it. Treat it as the operative rule for this topic. If your ownership sits near the line, verify your status against 13 CFR 121.702 and the definition in the instructions, and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period rather than assuming it resolves in your favor.

STTR requires a research institution partner

This is an STTR topic. The defining feature of the STTR program is a formal partnership between a small business concern and a research institution, and it is a condition of eligibility rather than an option.

The Air Force component instructions for this release do not restate the STTR partnership mechanics. They cover proposal format, cost volume detail, foreign risk assessment, and administration, in language that reads nearly identically to the parallel SBIR BAA instructions, but the work split, the written agreement, and the allocation of intellectual property rights all live in the DoW FY26 STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. Read those alongside this topic.

Under the STTR statute and the SBA Policy Directive, the small business generally performs at least 40 percent and the research institution at least 30 percent of the total effort, and the principal investigator may be primarily employed by either organization. That last point is a genuine advantage on a topic like this one, where the relevant expertise may well sit with an academic physicist.

There is a tension to work through. These instructions state that a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm, and separately cap all consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements at one-half of the total contract price. A third statement, under Performance of Work Requirements, sets a two-thirds floor while labeling it Phase I inside a Direct to Phase II document, which appears to be a drafting carryover. A 50 percent in-house floor is compatible with the STTR 40/30 split depending on how effort and cost are measured, but a two-thirds floor is harder to reconcile. This is worth a question to the One Help Desk early in the open period, and the instructions provide a Performance of Work deviation process that must be exercised twice, once before submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal submission.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The problem

Military and commercial missions rely heavily on the Global Positioning System, but GPS signals, due to their low signal intensity and their need to travel considerable distances, are vulnerable to external interference such as jamming and spoofing.

The topic then quantifies the difficulty. Adversarial jamming can be strong in that its amplitude can be orders of magnitude larger than that of the GPS signal, and jamming shares the same spectral band as the signal. That combination, far stronger interference in the same band, is what defeats conventional approaches.

Various methods based mostly on traditional signal-processing techniques, such as filtering or wavelet transform, were proposed to mitigate GPS jamming to a certain extent. But the effectiveness of a specific method often depends on the type of jamming signals in terms of their waveform, amplitude, and frequency range. That dependency is the gap. The Air Force wants a general framework rather than a collection of countermeasures each tuned to a particular jammer.

The objective

Developing a general, effective, and robust antijamming framework for GPS signals is described as a problem of critical importance. This topic seeks proposals that utilize exceptional-point stochastic resonance and modern machine learning to overcome the vulnerabilities of GPS signals to strong adversarial jamming and spoofing. This will ultimately enhance the signal-to-noise ratio for weak signals and maintain the operational readiness of the Air Force.

Note the three words describing the desired framework: general, effective, and robust. General means jammer-agnostic. Effective means it actually recovers the signal. Robust means performance does not collapse as conditions change. Your proposal should address all three explicitly, because the topic's complaint about existing methods is precisely that they are not general.

The technical thesis, in the topic's own terms

The topic lays out a two-part argument, and understanding it is essential to writing a responsive proposal.

First, GPS antijamming is framed as a problem type. GPS antijamming is essentially a nonlinear signal prediction and classification problem. For nonlinear signal prediction, a possible solution is exploiting modern machine learning, where a suitable neural-network architecture trained with features of the desired signals views the jamming as undesired and removes them.

Then the obstacle. However, the inevitable noise represents a difficulty when employing machine learning to predict the GPS waveform and navigation signal, which can significantly degrade the antijamming capability.

Then the counterintuitive resolution. In nonlinear dynamical systems, the counterintuitive phenomenon of stochastic resonance has been well established, where the signal-to-noise ratio for a weak signal can be enhanced by tuning the noise amplitude. This opens the possibility of enhancing the GPS signal through the stochastic-resonance mechanism.

So the intended architecture pairs a machine learning predictor and classifier with a stochastic resonance front end that uses noise constructively rather than fighting it. Noise is the problem for the machine learning approach and, through stochastic resonance, also part of the solution. A proposal that treats these as two unrelated techniques bolted together has missed the logic.

Why exceptional points

The Phase II description extends the physics. Previous research explored the potential of higher-order exceptional points, uncovering a broad type of stochastic resonance where the system's response to a signal is enhanced by the presence of noise. As the noise amplitude increases, the signal-to-noise ratio reaches a global maximum, suggesting that higher order exceptional points can sustain high performance over a wide range of noise amplitudes.

That last clause is the engineering payoff, and it maps directly onto the robustness requirement. A conventional stochastic resonance system has an optimal noise amplitude and degrades away from it. Higher-order exceptional points reportedly hold performance across a wide range of noise amplitudes, which is what you need in a system facing a jammer whose amplitude you do not control.

The ability to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio with minimal performance decay paves the way for the development of robust and reliable signal processing and sensor technology.

Proposals in antijamming and counter measuring GPS technology would exploit the exceptional-point features design for the development of next generation sensors and communication systems both sensitive and resilient to GPS disruptions and jamming. In signal processing paradigms, robust systems that maintain high quality signal transmission, in the presence of adversarial interference, drives innovative solutions for the challenges and needs of the Department of Air Force's operational readiness.

The technical merit of GPS antijamming research is described as lying in the adaptability and efficiency of integrated sensing and cyber capabilities that remain robust under varying noise and interference levels.

The Phase II deliverable

One sentence, and it is unusually concrete for a physics-driven topic. The offeror must develop and demonstrate a user-friendly computer program prototype that can be inserted into a GPS anti-jamming system.

Note the word "GSP" appears in the source text at this point, which is plainly a transposition of GPS. Read it as GPS.

Three things follow. The deliverable is software, not hardware. It must be user-friendly, which implies attention to interfaces and operability rather than a research script. And it must be insertable into a GPS anti-jamming system, which means you need a view of what receiver or anti-jam architecture it drops into, and what the interface looks like. Naming a plausible host system, or a class of host systems, strengthens the proposal considerably.

Phase III dual use

The integration of higher-order exceptional features into commercial technologies offers the promise of reliable, efficient, dynamical systems across a broad spectrum of industrial and military processes. In industrial sectors like manufacturing and logistics, efforts would improve the resilience of sensors, ensuring that they remain responsive and resilient to external interferences.

Potential research would also address critical Department of Defense areas in weak signal processing, a facet central to GPS. Extracting weak signals in strong jamming and noise is described as a poised challenge to GPS, magnetometer, and numerous communication systems significant to commercial and DoD domains.

Successful research in this domain promises the protection of aircraft and long-range vehicle capabilities, particularly in enhancing the accuracy of flight data, reduction of signal disruption risks, and advancement of autonomous flight systems in the aerospace ecosystem. As these advancements are realized, aircraft would adapt swiftly to changes in signal processing flight conditions, enhancing the overall readiness of flight operations, including protection of commercial airline usage of GPS.

That gives you a broad and credible commercialization argument: weak signal extraction is a general capability, and magnetometers, communications receivers, industrial sensing, and civil aviation GPS protection are all named markets. Commercial aviation GPS interference is a live and well-documented operational problem, which makes this a market claim you can support rather than assert.

The reference list

Four references, and they define the intellectual territory precisely.

C.-Z. Wang, L.-W. Kong, J.-J. Jiang, and Y.-C. Lai, "Machine learning-based approach to GPS antijamming," GPS Solutions 25, 115, 1-12 (2021).

L. Gammaitoni, P. Hanggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, "Stochastic resonance," Reviews of Modern Physics 70, 223-287 (1998).

S. Panahi, L.-L. Ye, and Y.-C. Lai, "Higher-order exceptional points and stochastic resonance in pseudo-Hermitian systems," Physical Review Applied 22, 054063, 1-14 (2024).

J. B.-Y. Tsui, Fundamentals of Global Positioning System Receivers: A Software Approach, John Wiley and Sons, 2005.

Three observations. The Gammaitoni review is the canonical stochastic resonance reference, so the topic is grounding itself in established physics rather than speculation. The Panahi paper from 2024 is the recent result the topic is built on, and reading it is not optional. And Y.-C. Lai appears as an author on two of the four references, including both the GPS antijamming machine learning paper and the higher-order exceptional points paper, which strongly suggests the intellectual lineage of this topic. A proposal that engages seriously with that body of work, including where it disagrees, will read very differently from one that does not.

The Tsui textbook reference is a signal that the Air Force expects real GPS receiver competence alongside the physics. A software-defined receiver perspective is the practical frame in which any of this has to be implemented.

The Feasibility Requirement

Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already performed the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR and STTR programs. The DAF will not review a proposal that fails this test, and 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.

What this topic requires

This is a Direct to Phase 2 topic. Phase I proposals will not be evaluated and Phase I awards will not be made under this topic. The offeror is required to provide detail and documentation in the Direct-to-Phase-II proposal which demonstrates accomplishment of a Phase I type effort, including a feasibility study.

For this D2P2 topic, the offeror should have accomplished the following in a Phase I type effort via some other means. The offeror must have developed a concept for a workable prototype or design to address at a minimum the basic capabilities of the stated objective above. The proposal must show, as appropriate to the proposed effort, a demonstrated technical feasibility to meet the capabilities of the stated objective. The proposal may provide example cases of this new capability on a specific application.

The documentation provided must demonstrate that the offeror has developed a preliminary understanding of the technology to be applied in their Phase II proposal to meet the objectives of this topic. Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to, technical reports, test data, prototype designs and models, and performance goals and results.

Note the phrase "preliminary understanding." That is a lower bar than some Direct to Phase II topics set, and it fits the character of this work. You are not being asked to have a fielded product. You are being asked to show you already have a concept, evidence of technical feasibility, and enough grasp of the physics and the signal processing to execute a 24 month program. Prior publications, simulation results, and bench demonstrations all count as relevant documentation.

The general D2P2 rules

Feasibility documentation cannot be based solely upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Note the word "solely" in this topic's phrasing, which is slightly softer than the flat prohibition in some parallel documents, but do not rely on that distinction. The safe position is feasibility evidence with an independent basis.

Applicants must demonstrate completion of research and development through means other than the SBIR and STTR programs to establish the feasibility of the proposed Phase II effort based on the criteria outlined in the topic description.

Feasibility efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator. On an STTR award where the principal investigator may be employed by the research institution, this is worth reading carefully: work performed by your academic partner's principal investigator can qualify where that person is the designated PI.

If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, the applicant must provide IP rights assertions, and applicants shall provide 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. This matters here because university-held IP on exceptional point or stochastic resonance methods is a realistic possibility, and your partner's technology transfer office will have views.

Feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. That last clause is valuable. Your prior publications, simulation results, and technical reports can be documented at whatever length the evidence requires without consuming your 35 page technical volume.

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

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $2,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Two million dollars over 24 months is a substantial award for a software deliverable, which suggests the Air Force expects real research depth alongside the prototype. Budget for the physics and algorithm development, the receiver-side implementation, and a credible test campaign against representative jamming.

Contract type and fee

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

If no exceptions are taken to an applicant's proposal, the Government may award a contract without exchanges. Therefore the applicant's initial proposal should contain the applicant's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen exchanges later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use 50 percent of this TABA allocation, meaning $25,000, on a first Phase II award and 50 percent on a sequential Phase II award.

Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

On an STTR award with a research institution partner, intellectual property protections is the standout eligible activity. Sorting out who owns what between your firm and your partner is exactly the kind of work TABA is meant to fund.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume expectations

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

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, and labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a research-heavy software program this is the dominant element, and the credibility of your named physicists and signal processing engineers is part of what gets evaluated.

Direct cost materials. Costs for materials, parts, and supplies must be justified and supported. Provide an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. If computer or software purchases are planned, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. Software-defined radio hardware, GPS simulators, and compute resources belong here with quotes.

Other direct costs. This includes specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities and equipment. Provide usage hours expected, rates, and sources, as well as a brief discussion concerning the purpose and justification. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale. GPS signal simulator time and anechoic or shielded test facility access plausibly sit here, and simulator rental is common enough that the lease versus purchase rationale is likely to apply.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort, and should not be of a type that an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business.

Subcontracts. Subcontract costs must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements. Agreement documents must adequately describe the work to be performed and cost bases, and should include a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials if any, and proposed travel if any. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task or tasks at a fixed price is not considered sufficient. 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 otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The prime contractor must accomplish price analysis, including reasonableness, of the proposed subcontractor costs. If based on comparison with prior efforts, identify the basis upon which the prior prices were determined reasonable. If price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires subcontractor cost or pricing data submission, provide a cost analysis.

On an STTR award your research institution partner's costs count against this cap, so get their formal budget with federally negotiated rates early and check the arithmetic. One-half of $2,000,000 leaves reasonable room for a university partner, which is more workable than the one-third cap that applies on the DAF Phase I documents.

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

Travel. Each effort should include, at a minimum, a kickoff or interim meeting. Travel costs must be justified as required for the effort. Include destinations, number of trips, number of travelers per trip, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation. Per diem and lodging rates may be found in the Joint Travel Regulation, Volume 2.

Indirect costs. Indicate proposed rates' bases, for example budgeted or actual rates per fiscal year. The proposal should identify the specific rates used and allocation bases to which they are applied. Do not propose composite rates; proposed rates and applications per fiscal year throughout the anticipated performance period are required.

Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed. However, it is not required, nor will it be a proposal evaluation factor.

The work performance statements, and how to handle them

Three statements bear on how much work must be yours.

Under Consultants and Subcontractors, the instructions state that in accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and that these requests can only be made upon proposal submission.

Under Performance of Work Requirements and Location of Work, the instructions state that for Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the Awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. That paragraph says Phase I inside a Direct to Phase II document where no Phase I awards are made, and the same wording appears in the parallel SBIR BAA D2P2 instructions, which suggests a drafting carryover rather than an intended two-thirds floor for this topic.

Under the Cost Volume, the 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.

The workable reading for an STTR proposal is to plan on performing at least 50 percent of the R/R&D in house and keeping all outside costs below one-half of the contract price. That satisfies the two statements that are clearly intended for a Phase II award, and it is compatible with an STTR research institution partner performing its statutory 30 percent share. If you want certainty, ask the One Help Desk during the open period which floor governs, and file the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request as insurance.

Where work must be performed

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

Non-Hermitian physics and stochastic resonance are internationally distributed research fields, so if your partner's collaborators sit abroad, address this.

Export Control and Foreign Nationals

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

Foreign nationals, also known as foreign persons, 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 STTR BAA and disclose this information regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR restrictions.

When the topic area is subject to export control, these individuals, if permitted to participate, are limited to work in the public domain. Further, tasks assigned must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives. This prevents foreign citizens from acting in key positions, such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify foreign citizens' eligibility to perform on a contract awarded under this BAA.

This is the sharpest practical tension on this topic. GPS antijamming is export-controlled technical data. Theoretical physics groups working on pseudo-Hermitian systems are among the most internationally staffed environments in academia. And the instructions state that foreign persons cannot act as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer where the topic is export controlled, which constrains the STTR flexibility to place the PI at the research institution. Resolve this with your partner before you designate a principal investigator.

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

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

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Type shall be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, with one-inch margins and pages consecutively numbered. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items. If included, such material will count toward the page limit.

Note that this differs from the DAF Phase I instructions in this same release, which permit 10-point.

The technical volume limit for this topic is 35 pages or slides. Pages or slides in excess of this number will not be considered by the Government in evaluations. The preferred submission format is Portable Document Format. Graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, which matters here because you will want to show signal-to-noise curves, eigenvalue plots, and receiver operating characteristics. Virus-check all submissions.

The complete proposal must be submitted electronically through DSIP. Ensure the complete technical volume and additional cost volume information is included in this sole submission.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission. When training is complete and certified, DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement, and the proposal cannot be submitted until the training is complete. The DAF recommends completing submission early, as site traffic is heavy prior to solicitation close, causing system lag, and states plainly not to wait until the last minute. The DAF will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted prior to the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept alternative means of submission outside of DSIP.

The instructions also carry a criminal warning: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released.

If a proposal submitted in response to this BAA is substantially the same as another proposal submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, the applicant must so indicate on the Cover Sheet. This section deserves attention on an STTR proposal, since university partners frequently have related federally funded research.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The technical proposal includes all items listed below in the order provided.

Table of contents, located immediately after the Cover Sheet. Glossary of acronyms and abbreviations used in the proposal. Milestone identification, including a program schedule with all key milestones identified. Identification and significance of the problem or opportunity, briefly referencing the specific technical problem or opportunity to be pursued. Phase II technical objectives, detailing the specific objectives of the Phase II work and describing the technical approach and methods to be used in meeting these objectives, including an assessment of the potential commercial application for each objective.

Work plan. The work plan shall be a separate and distinct part of the proposal package, using a page break to divide it from the technical proposal, and begins 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. Do not include proprietary information, because in the event of proposal selection the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. The recommended format is 1.0 Objective, providing a brief overview of the specialty area explaining the purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, providing a concise description of the work to be accomplished including the technology area to be investigated, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as the key elements and consistent with section 4.0; 3.0 Background, in which the applicant shall identify appropriate specifications, standards, and other documents applicable to the effort, including information or explanation for and constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, in which detailed individual task descriptions must be developed in an orderly progression with sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, with the work effort segregated into major tasks identified in separately numbered paragraphs. Each numbered major task should delineate the work to be performed 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.

Section 3.0 Background is worth attention here. The topic itself says that traditional signal-processing techniques such as filtering and wavelet transform mitigate GPS jamming only to a certain extent, which is precisely the kind of "techniques previously determined ineffective" that this section asks you to identify.

Deliverables. 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 for hardware. If hardware or software will be developed but not delivered, provide an explanation. Since the Phase II deliverable here is a computer program prototype, be specific about what form it takes, what it runs on, and what interface it presents.

At a minimum, the following reports will be required under all Phase II contracts. Scientific and Technical Reports, noting that 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 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; the summary may be published by DoW and therefore must not contain any proprietary or classified information. 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 hardware is developed and delivered, and updates to the commercialization results.

Software documentation and users' manuals deserve note, because the deliverable is required to be user-friendly. Plan for the documentation as a real work product.

Related work. 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. The DoW requires a commercialization plan be 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. 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, the awardee will be required to update periodically the commercialization results via SBA. The Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents.

Relationship with future R/R&D efforts. 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.

Key personnel. Identify all key personnel involved in the project, including information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume for the Principal Investigator, including publications if any, must be included. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful. 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.

That primary employment statement is worth flagging on an STTR proposal, because the STTR program generally permits the principal investigator to be employed by the research institution instead. These component instructions state the small business employment requirement without the STTR carve-out that appears in some other components' instructions. Since the STTR PI employment rule comes from the DoW STTR BAA and the SBA Policy Directive rather than from this document, confirm with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk before designating an academic PI.

Facilities and equipment. 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. State whether proposed performance locations meet environmental laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments for 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. All should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal. In accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and these requests can only be made upon proposal submission. Signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached to the proposal, briefly stating the contribution or expertise being provided. Include 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. Any potential for this situation must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. 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, the solicitation titles, numbers, and dates, the contract number if an award was received, and the applicable topics. If the section does not apply, state in the proposal, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the DoW FY26 STTR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF during proposal evaluations.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

Feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also belongs in Volume 5.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste and Abuse Training

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria are in the BAA, not in this document

D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel. Throughout evaluation, selection, and award, confidential proposal and evaluation information will be protected to the greatest extent possible. D2P2 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.

The instructions then state that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 STTR BAA.

That is the whole of it. Unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO instructions, which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance, this BAA document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria. Read the criteria in the DoW FY26 STTR BAA before you begin writing, since they determine your proposal's structure and emphasis, and do not assume the CSO criteria carry over.

The DAF adds that it is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic, that multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, that each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and that the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

Employee analysis, foreign affiliations, and patent analysis all deserve attention on this topic. Non-Hermitian physics and stochastic resonance are internationally collaborative fields, academic appointments abroad are common, and the exceptional-point literature has substantial international authorship. Work through your partner's personnel and collaborations before you propose.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

The foreign research institution affiliation provision is a mandatory denial and names research institutions specifically, which makes it a first-order diligence item on an STTR proposal.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to 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 AF 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 will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary.

The 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.

Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on your firm's selection notification.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

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 STTR BAA, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

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

Period of performance: up to 24 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Settle eligibility first: if venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity funds hold majority ownership in part, resolve your status and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Read the evaluation criteria in the DoW FY26 STTR BAA, since they are not in this document. Read the four cited references, especially the 2024 Panahi paper on higher-order exceptional points and stochastic resonance in pseudo-Hermitian systems. Contact your research institution partner's sponsored programs office and get their internal review timeline, since that sets your real deadline. Resolve the principal investigator employment question with the One Help Desk, because these instructions state the PI's primary employment must be with the small business while the STTR program generally permits an academic PI. Work through export control staffing with your partner, since foreign persons cannot serve as PI or Senior Engineer on an export-controlled topic. Assemble feasibility documentation, which does not count against your page limit. Map your partner's patents, licensing arrangements, and international collaborations. Start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft Volume 2 in the required order against the 35 page limit. Build the technical approach around the topic's own logic: nonlinear signal prediction and classification via machine learning, the noise obstacle, and stochastic resonance at higher-order exceptional points as the resolution. Address general, effective, and robust as three separate claims. Write the work plan as a separate page-broken document in contract language with no proprietary content, and use section 3.0 Background to address the filtering and wavelet approaches the topic identifies as insufficient.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by individual cost element and contractor fiscal year. Get your research institution's formal budget with federally negotiated rates in writing and check it against the one-half cap. Get signed letters of intent, statements of work, and detailed cost proposals from every consultant and subcontractor, remembering that a fixed-price agreement letter is not sufficient. Itemize GPS simulator, software-defined radio, and compute costs with quotes. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA, and consider intellectual property protections as the activity.

October 13 through October 16. Finalize Volume 5: feasibility documentation with no page limit, DD Form 2345, Technical Data Rights Assertions, and the TABA request. Complete the Volume 7 webform and the Volume 4 CCR. Run compliance: 35 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics distinguishable in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, 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 STTR topic DAF26TZ06-DV008?

‍ ‍

DAF26TZ06-DV008 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Counter Adversarial GPS Jamming," released under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks proposals that utilize exceptional-point stochastic resonance and modern machine learning to overcome the vulnerabilities of GPS signals to strong adversarial jamming and spoofing.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26TZ06-DV008?

‍ ‍

Up to $2,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to that ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 STTR BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

No, under this document. The instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible for DAF topics. This provision varies across the DAF Release 6 component instructions: both BAA Direct to Phase II documents, the SBIR version and this STTR version, exclude such firms, while the BAA Phase I instructions and both CSO documents permit them. Verify your status and raise it with the One Help Desk during the open period.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR topic, and the STTR program requires a formal partnership with a qualifying research institution. Note that these Air Force component instructions do not restate the partnership mechanics, so read the DoW FY26 STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive for the work split, the written agreement, and the allocation of rights.

‍ ‍

Can my principal investigator be at the university?

‍ ‍

Confirm before you commit. The STTR program generally permits the principal investigator to be primarily employed by either the small business or the research institution. However, these component instructions state that 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, without the STTR carve-out. Separately, because this topic is export controlled, the instructions state that foreign persons cannot act as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk before designating an academic PI.

‍ ‍

What is the technical approach the Air Force wants?

‍ ‍

Exceptional-point stochastic resonance paired with modern machine learning. The topic's logic is that GPS antijamming is essentially a nonlinear signal prediction and classification problem suited to machine learning, that noise degrades the machine learning approach, and that stochastic resonance, in which the signal-to-noise ratio for a weak signal is enhanced by tuning the noise amplitude, resolves that obstacle. Higher-order exceptional points reportedly sustain high performance over a wide range of noise amplitudes, which is what delivers robustness.

‍ ‍

Why does the topic emphasize higher-order exceptional points?

‍ ‍

Because of robustness. The topic states that as noise amplitude increases the signal-to-noise ratio reaches a global maximum, suggesting that higher order exceptional points can sustain high performance over a wide range of noise amplitudes, and that the ability to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio with minimal performance decay paves the way for robust and reliable signal processing and sensor technology. A conventional stochastic resonance system has one optimal noise level; that is not useful against a jammer whose amplitude you do not control.

‍ ‍

What is wrong with existing antijamming methods?

‍ ‍

The topic says various methods based mostly on traditional signal-processing techniques, such as filtering or wavelet transform, mitigate GPS jamming to a certain extent, but the effectiveness of a specific method often depends on the type of jamming signal in terms of waveform, amplitude, and frequency range. The gap is generality. The Air Force wants a general, effective, and robust framework rather than a countermeasure tuned to a particular jammer.

‍ ‍

What is the Phase II deliverable?

‍ ‍

The offeror must develop and demonstrate a user-friendly computer program prototype that can be inserted into a GPS anti-jamming system. Note the deliverable is software, that user-friendliness is stated as a requirement, and that insertability implies you need a view of the host receiver or anti-jam architecture and its interface.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. This is a Direct to Phase 2 topic. Phase I proposals will not be evaluated and Phase I awards will not be made under this topic.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation does this topic require?

‍ ‍

You must have developed a concept for a workable prototype or design addressing at a minimum the basic capabilities of the stated objective, and must show demonstrated technical feasibility to meet those capabilities. You may provide example cases of the new capability on a specific application. The documentation must demonstrate that you have developed a preliminary understanding of the technology to be applied in Phase II, and should include all relevant information including technical reports, test data, prototype designs and models, and performance goals and results.

‍ ‍

Can I use prior SBIR or STTR work as my feasibility basis?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states feasibility documentation cannot be based solely upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Note the word "solely" in this topic's phrasing, but do not rely on it. Feasibility efforts must also have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

‍ ‍

Does feasibility documentation count against my page limit?

‍ ‍

No. The instructions state that feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. Use that room for prior publications, simulation results, and test data rather than compressing them into the technical volume.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

35 pages or slides. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Note this differs from the DAF Phase I instructions in this same release, which permit 10-point. Cost proposal attachments, subcontract copies and supporting documents, and feasibility documentation do not count toward the limit.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 STTR BAA. Read those criteria before writing, and do not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

The instructions contain three statements. Under Consultants and Subcontractors, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing, and such requests can only be made upon proposal submission. Under Performance of Work Requirements, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the Awardee, though that paragraph says Phase I inside a Direct to Phase II document and appears to be a drafting carryover. And the Cost Volume caps all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements at one-half of the total contract price. Planning to perform at least 50 percent in house and keeping outside costs under one-half of contract price satisfies the statements clearly intended for a Phase II award and is compatible with an STTR partner's 30 percent share.

‍ ‍

How does the work split interact with the STTR requirement?

‍ ‍

A 50 percent in-house floor and a one-half outside cost cap leave workable room for a research institution partner performing its statutory 30 percent share on a $2,000,000 award. A two-thirds floor would be harder to reconcile. Ask the One Help Desk which governs, and note that Performance of Work deviation requests must be made twice, before submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal.

‍ ‍

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. Where a topic is export controlled, permitted foreign national participants are limited to work in the public domain and cannot act in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer.

‍ ‍

What references should I read?

‍ ‍

Four are cited. Wang, Kong, Jiang and Lai on a machine learning based approach to GPS antijamming, GPS Solutions 2021. Gammaitoni, Hanggi, Jung and Marchesoni, "Stochastic resonance," Reviews of Modern Physics 1998, the canonical review. Panahi, Ye and Lai on higher-order exceptional points and stochastic resonance in pseudo-Hermitian systems, Physical Review Applied 2024, which is the recent result the topic is built on. And Tsui's Fundamentals of Global Positioning System Receivers: A Software Approach, 2005, which signals that real receiver competence is expected alongside the physics.

‍ ‍

Who owns the software I develop?

‍ ‍

Rights in technical data including software developed under the terms of any resulting 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. On an STTR award, work out the intellectual property boundaries with your research institution partner before award, and use Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 for background IP.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF 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, and splittable as $25,000 on a first Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential one. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. On an STTR award, intellectual property protections is a particularly relevant eligible activity.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

Broad, and the topic names it. Higher-order exceptional features integrated into commercial technologies for industrial and military processes, including improving sensor resilience in manufacturing and logistics. Weak signal extraction in strong jamming and noise, which the topic notes is significant for GPS, magnetometers, and numerous communication systems in both commercial and DoD domains. And protection of aircraft and long-range vehicle capabilities, enhanced flight data accuracy, reduced signal disruption risk, advancement of autonomous flight systems, and protection of commercial airline usage of GPS.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The DAF anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 STTR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Check eligibility twice before you write. Venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity majority ownership in part is disqualifying under this document, and the STTR research institution partnership is mandatory. Both gates come before any technical consideration.

‍ ‍

Build the right team. This topic asks for physics that lives in universities and signal processing that lives in industry. A small business with GPS receiver and software-defined radio competence paired with an academic group working on non-Hermitian systems or stochastic resonance is the profile the topic describes. A team with only one half of that will struggle to be credible.

‍ ‍

Read the Panahi 2024 paper and engage with it. Higher-order exceptional points and stochastic resonance in pseudo-Hermitian systems is the specific result the topic is built on, and the same senior author appears on the GPS antijamming machine learning reference. Demonstrating command of that body of work, including any limitations you see in it, is the fastest way to establish technical credibility.

‍ ‍

Answer general, effective, and robust as three separate claims. The topic's complaint about existing methods is that their effectiveness depends on the jammer's waveform, amplitude, and frequency range. Show what makes your framework jammer-agnostic, quantify recovery performance, and show performance across a range of noise and interference levels rather than at one operating point.

‍ ‍

Connect the physics to a receiver. The Tsui software receiver textbook in the reference list is a hint. Exceptional-point stochastic resonance is interesting physics, but the deliverable is a program that inserts into a GPS anti-jamming system. Name the receiver architecture, the point of insertion, and the interface, and show you understand acquisition, tracking, and navigation solution stages.

‍ ‍

Take user-friendly literally. The Phase II deliverable is specified as a user-friendly computer program prototype. Most physics-driven proposals will treat that as an afterthought. Treating it as a requirement, with attention to operability and to the software documentation and users' manuals the instructions may require, is a cheap differentiator.

‍ ‍

Plan a real test campaign. Twenty-four months and $2,000,000 is enough to test against representative jamming, and a proposal that describes simulated and hardware-in-the-loop testing against varied jammer types will be more persuasive than one resting on analysis alone. Budget the GPS simulator time.

‍ ‍

Resolve the PI employment question early. These instructions state the PI's primary employment must be with the small business, while the STTR program generally permits an academic PI, and the export control provision separately bars foreign persons from the PI role. Those three constraints interact, and getting it wrong invalidates your key personnel section.

‍ ‍

Use the page-limit exclusions. Feasibility documentation, cost proposal attachments, and subcontract documents all sit outside the 35 pages. Prior publications and simulation results belong in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

Do the IP work with your partner now. University-held intellectual property on exceptional point methods is a realistic possibility, twenty year Government SBIR data rights attach to what you develop, and TABA can fund intellectual property support. Better to settle this in September than during contract negotiation.

‍ ‍

Lean on the aviation market. Commercial GPS interference affecting civil aviation is a documented and growing operational problem, and the topic names protection of commercial airline usage of GPS explicitly. That makes your commercialization argument evidence-based rather than speculative.

DAF STTR DAF26TX06-NV514: Space Domain Operational Environment Assessment

Quick Answer

DAF26TX06-NV514 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic under the DAF FY26 STTR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. The Space Force wants methods to monitor and assess the space operating environment using sensing phenomenologies outside the traditional radar and electro-optical telescope set, paired with real-time multi-intelligence data processing, predictive analytics, and anomaly detection. The premise is stated bluntly in the topic: traditional sensing alone cannot track or characterize emergent non-standard threats, and current research neglects space-centric operational environment monitoring. Awards are up to $175,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 10 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two features shape how you should approach this. First, the topic splits into two distinct Technical Areas, and they attract different companies: TA1 is sensing hardware and phenomenology, TA2 is data fusion and analytics software. Pick one. Second, this is the tightest page limit and one of the smallest awards in the entire DAF Release 6 portfolio. Ten pages and six months at $175,000 is a proof-of-concept study. The topic says so, and it repeats four times that government furnished equipment will not be provided.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26TX06-NV514

Title: Space Domain Operational Environment Assessment

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force FY26 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program: STTR, which requires a research institution partner as a condition of the program

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $175,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 10 pages

Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology

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

Technical Areas: two, TA1 sensing phenomenology and TA2 data fusion and analytics

Government furnished equipment: none. The topic states GFE will not be provided, four separate times

Required proposal template: the topic directs applicants to the template titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template"

Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort

Subcontract and consultant cap: one-third of total contract price, profit excluded

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW FY26 STTR 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: multi-phenomenology sensing, spacepower, deterrence, indications and warning, object tracking, real-time data processing, novel sensor design, data dissemination, space domain, information exploitation, space domain awareness, space operational environment assessment, space operational environment

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 STTR CSO for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

Note on the template. The instructions require all applicants to complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template." That title says SBIR while this is an STTR solicitation, which appears to be a carryover from the parallel SBIR instructions. Download whatever template that link provides and use it, and if the naming causes confusion, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

STTR Means You Need a Research Institution Partner

This is an STTR topic, and the defining feature of the STTR program is a formal partnership between a small business concern and a research institution. That is not optional and it is not a subcontract of convenience.

Worth knowing up front: the Air Force component-specific instructions for this release do not restate the STTR partnership mechanics. They describe proposal format, cost volume detail, evaluation criteria, and foreign risk assessment, all of which read nearly identically to the parallel SBIR instructions, but they do not spell out the work split or the allocation of rights. Those requirements live in the DoW FY26 STTR Program CSO and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive.

Under the STTR statute and the SBA Policy Directive, the work is divided between the small business and the research institution according to statutory minimums, with the small business performing at least 40 percent and the research institution at least 30 percent of the total effort, and the principal investigator may be primarily employed by either organization. Read the DoW STTR CSO for the current terms and for the written agreement and allocation-of-rights requirements.

There is a tension worth flagging. These Air Force instructions state that for Phase I a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, and separately cap all consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements at one-third of the total contract price. A two-thirds in-house floor sits awkwardly against an STTR structure that contemplates a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work. Those two framings can be reconciled depending on how effort and cost are measured, but the arithmetic is not obvious, and on a $175,000 award one-third is roughly $58,000 for everything flowing to your research institution partner plus any consultants.

This is the single most important question to resolve during the open period. Ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk how the two-thirds performance of work requirement and the one-third subcontract cap apply to an STTR award with a required research institution partner, and note that the instructions provide a Performance of Work deviation process that must be used twice, once before submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal submission.

What the Space Force Is Actually Looking For

The strategic framing

With the acknowledgement of space as a warfighting domain in 2019, U.S. Space Command was established as a geographic combatant command. The topic states that no orbital regime is entirely safe from intentional or unintentional threats, and that adversary forces can track and target U.S. forces in all warfighting domains. The past two decades have witnessed rapidly maturing space based and counterspace capabilities of U.S. adversaries, as well as their attempts to interfere with U.S. military operations. U.S. operational space activities perform a continuous cycle of situational awareness, planning, execution, and assessment to support leadership's decision-making process at all levels of command.

Space Domain Operational Environment Assessment is described as a prerequisite to achieving space superiority by understanding the situation in space and by gaining insight into space-related activities in other domains.

The scale problem is quantified. Even in peacetime, awareness and mission assessment in the space domain is difficult to maintain due to the scope and distances involved. Achieving timely awareness and assessment of space activities to support space superiority operations is described as a monumental, highly technical challenge that is only growing. The past 20 years has seen the number of objects in orbit grow from approximately 10,000 to over 50,000. As that number grows, so does the need for timely space domain awareness and situation assessment.

Given the complexity and challenges of operations in space, this topic seeks to develop a proof-of-concept to leverage multi-intelligence, multi-domain data, intelligence, and information sources to monitor and assess space operations and their functionality in a timely manner in response to intentional and unintentional threats and situations of interest.

The objective

The objective of this Phase I effort is to develop methods, including integration of intelligence information, predictive analytics, anomaly detection, threat prediction, and environmental monitoring, for timely space domain awareness, threat detection, and operational environment assessment to support multi-domain operations.

The gap statement follows immediately, and it is the most useful sentence in the topic. Traditional sensing alone cannot track or characterize emergent non-standard threats, and current research neglects space-centric operational environment monitoring. To address these gaps, the U.S. Space Force seeks novel sensing phenomenologies paired with real-time multi-intelligence data processing, predictive analytics, and anomaly detection concepts that demonstrate how new sensing and processing techniques can present a comprehensive space operating picture.

Note the pairing. The Space Force wants novel phenomenologies and the processing that makes them useful. That pairing is why the topic has two Technical Areas.

Technical Area 1: Real-time Processing of Non-Traditional Phenomenologies for Non-Standard Threats

The space domain is becoming increasingly congested and contested as the population of satellites is both increasing and expanding. The emergence of non-standard threats in the space domain poses a challenge for traditional phenomenologies such as radars and electro-optical telescopes. Today's non-standard threats are increasingly difficult to detect, track, and characterize. The Space Force must possess the capability to monitor the space domain for nonstandard threats in order to protect national assets.

This topic seeks to identify new sensing phenomenologies and the processes necessary to detect, track, and characterize non-standard threats. Additionally, the Space Force needs to understand how these new phenomenologies complement and improve information products generated by traditional phenomenologies.

That last requirement is easy to miss and important. You are not being asked to replace radar and optical telescopes. You are being asked to show how a new phenomenology complements and improves what those systems already produce. A TA1 proposal that positions itself as a substitute rather than a complement is answering the wrong question. The reference list gives a hint about the kind of thing the Space Force has in mind: one of the cited AMOS Conference papers concerns probabilistic initial orbit determination and object tracking in cislunar space using passive radio frequency sensors.

Technical Area 2: Real-Time Automated Data Fusion, Analysis and Exploitation

Joint space forces typically support multiple Combatant Commands, joint functions, and Operational Environments simultaneously to create effects during all military operations at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Joint planners continually coordinate across internal and external equity holders to integrate intelligence and information for commander guidance and decisions on the development and refinement of space strategies, plans, and objectives. The timely assessment of space operations is critical for the iterative joint planning process, especially in a contested environment, and must keep pace with evolving conditions and considerations.

The topic then names the hard part specifically. This can be challenging in the space domain where operators often cannot directly observe the effects of an operation and resulting adversary behavior.

Space operations assessment measures the progress toward accomplishing a task, creating an effect, achieving an objective, or attaining an end state by comparing forecasted outcomes to actual events to determine the overall effectiveness of force employment. As planners identify specific space tasks, they also develop measures of performance and measures of effectiveness to assess each task and objective. Space operations assessment informs the decision-making process concerning the best way to employ and adapt limited resources in support of military operations.

Measures of performance and measures of effectiveness are joint planning terms of art, and their presence signals that TA2 is fundamentally an assessment problem framed in joint doctrine language, not a generic analytics problem. The Joint Publication references, 3-14 Joint Space Operations, 5-0 Joint Planning, and 3-60 Joint Targeting, reinforce that. If you propose in TA2, read those publications and use their vocabulary.

What Phase I requires, by Technical Area

TA1 Phase I. Identify non-traditional phenomenologies that can be used to perform space domain awareness collections. Investigate the technical challenges to exploiting the data from non-traditional phenomenologies for real-time SDA. Identify a collection strategy. Identify the benefits of leveraging the non-traditional phenomenology to complement and improve traditional phenomenologies. Define specific performance metrics and demonstrate how the approach enhances the defined metrics for tracking and characterizing targets. The offeror is expected to include a detailed plan outlining the development, testing, and integration of the proposed solution, including specific timelines and milestones. GFE will not be provided.

That is six distinct deliverable elements in ten pages. Phenomenology identification, exploitation challenges, collection strategy, complementarity benefits, performance metrics with demonstrated enhancement, and a development plan with timelines and milestones. Budget your pages before you write.

TA2 Phase I. Design a concept for a workable and scalable prototype to address the basic capabilities and technical feasibility of the stated objective as well as data and information sources and the timeliness of their solution. Identify non-traditional phenomenology and data sources. Define a set of metrics and success criteria for a Phase 2 prototype. Include detailed findings in a Phase II plan in the final report. GFE will not be provided.

Note that TA2 also asks you to identify non-traditional phenomenology and data sources, so a TA2 proposal cannot be entirely phenomenology-agnostic. And note that the Phase II plan with detailed findings goes in the final report, which makes the final report a substantive deliverable rather than a formality.

Phase II

TA1 Phase II. Research and develop technical solutions to address the technical challenges of the non-traditional phenomenology identified in the Phase I effort. Develop and demonstrate a simulation capability to generate simulated data for the non-traditional phenomenology. Perform SDA collections with the nontraditional phenomenology and investigate the collected data. Develop a framework for processing the non-traditional phenomenology. Develop a methodology to perform data fusion of the non-traditional phenomenology with traditional phenomenologies. Demonstrate an integrated prototype system or incorporation of new phenomenologies into an existing system. Demonstrate the ability to generate actionable information on relevant timelines through a simulation or deployment to a relevant environment. GFE will not be provided.

TA2 Phase II. Develop, implement and test the proposed Phase 1 solution as prototype software to assess space operations using multi-intelligence multi-domain data and information in a timely manner in response to events of interest and unintentional threats and their effects on space missions. Show the feasibility of the approach using modeling simulation and real-world data. GFE will not be provided.

Success criteria for Phase II, for both Technical Areas: demonstrated software prototype capability, with the demonstration measured against metrics and a concept of operations use case; ability to integrate outputs into operational workflows with minimal burden on users; and an achievable path to Phase III transition, including identification of customers, funding mechanisms, and required approvals.

Those three criteria are worth writing toward in Phase I even though they apply to Phase II. The phrase "minimal burden on users" in particular is a design constraint you can address early. And the third criterion asks for named customers, funding mechanisms, and required approvals, which is the transition work you should be starting during Phase I.

Phase III

Further develop and deploy the prototype capabilities developed under Phase II. Develop a strategy to transition prototype residual capabilities and incremental proliferation based on operational Space Force requirements. Mature prototype software into a commercial product for commercial space domain awareness. Identify government and commercial organizations for transition. Generate the technical and training documentation required for third party integration. Provide services to the government to maximize the utility of the alerts to operations. Provide services to the government to update software prototype for different applications.

The topic states that it promotes dual-use opportunities to provide health and operational status of commercial satellites and their services in relation to adversaries' actions. That is your commercial market statement, handed to you: commercial satellite operators who want to know whether something is happening to their assets.

The reference list

Eight references, and the mix tells you what kind of literacy the evaluators expect.

Joint doctrine: Joint Publication 3-14 Joint Space Operations (2023), Joint Publication 5-0 Joint Planning (2020), and Joint Publication 3-60 Joint Targeting (2021), all Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Space Force doctrine: United States Space Force, "Spacepower," Space Capstone Publication, Headquarters United States Space Force, June 2020.

Think tank analysis: Galbreath, C.S., 2025, "A Broader Look at Dynamic Space Operations: Creating Multi-Dimensional Dilemmas for Adversaries," Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies; and Reeves, J., 2025, "Charting a Path to Space Superiority: The Cross-Domain Imperative," Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Technical papers: J. O'Farrill, T. Mims, T. Janik and I. Fernandez, "Multi-Phenomenology Characterization of Space Objects Using Reinforcement Learning," AMOS Conference, Wailea, HI, 2022; and E. Griggs, M. Schierholtz, I. Hussein, M. Bolden, K. Charles and H. Borowski, "Probabilistic Initial Orbit Determination and Object Tracking in Cislunar Space Using Passive Radio Frequency Sensors," AMOS Conference, Wailea, HI, 2022.

Half the list is doctrine. That is unusual for a technical SBIR or STTR topic and it is a strong signal: this topic is authored by people who think in joint planning terms, and a proposal written purely in engineering language will read as disconnected from the mission. The two Mitchell Institute papers from 2025 are also worth reading, since dynamic space operations and cross-domain space superiority are the operating concepts the topic is built around.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and what it buys

Up to $175,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

At $175,000 across six months, with a research institution partner taking a share and a one-third cap on what can flow outside your company, the working budget inside your own firm is modest. Scope a study, not a build. The topic is consistent with that: TA1 asks you to identify, investigate, define, and plan, and TA2 asks you to design a concept and define metrics.

No government furnished equipment

The topic says GFE will not be provided four separate times, once in each of the four phase and technical area paragraphs. That repetition is deliberate. You cannot propose an approach that depends on access to government sensors, government data feeds, or government facilities. If your concept needs real space surveillance data, you need a commercial or academic source for it, and you should name that source.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA, and the DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award.

The STTR CSO Phase I instructions state this in a single sentence without the detailed provider documentation requirements that appear in the DAF BAA Phase I instructions. Because different DAF Release 6 documents handle TABA documentation differently, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period what Phase I TABA documentation this cycle requires and where it belongs.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

That page-limit exclusion matters more here than anywhere else in the DAF portfolio, because ten pages is so tight. Push everything permitted into Volume 3 and Volume 5.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies.

Other direct costs. This category includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Commercial space surveillance data purchases, compute time, and observatory or sensor access all plausibly sit here, and given the no-GFE rule these may be significant.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.

On an STTR award this is the clause to model first, since your research institution partner is by definition an outside organization and its costs count here.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Performance of work and location of work

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from this performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.

Given the STTR partnership requirement discussed above, treat the pre-submission deviation request as a likely necessity rather than an edge case, and file it in the first week of the open period.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

Export Control and Foreign Nationals

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

This deserves particular attention on an STTR topic. University research groups working in astrodynamics, orbit determination, and space surveillance are frequently staffed with international graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, and your research institution partner's personnel are inside the scope of this requirement. Request a complete roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner early, and resolve who can work on what before you finalize the statement of work.

If you are asserting export-controlled status, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included in Volume 5. The form, instructions, and FAQs are available at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Complete proposals must include Volume 1 Cover Sheet, Volume 2 Technical Volume, Volume 3 Cost Volume, Volume 4 Company Commercialization Report, Volume 5 Supporting Documents, Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training, and Volume 7 Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. On a topic concerning threat detection and non-traditional sensing, be deliberate about what the abstract says.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume proposal submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template."

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it rather than discovering it at closeout. Note also that for TA2, the topic requires detailed findings in a Phase II plan to be included in the final report, so your final report carries substantive content beyond a summary.

The technical volume page limit is 10 pages. Note that this is expressed as pages in the topic index rather than pages or slides, unlike most of the DAF Release 6 topics. Follow the template.

Ten pages is the binding constraint on this proposal. For TA1 you owe six named elements; for TA2, four. Neither fits comfortably. Two disciplines help. First, do not restate the topic back to the evaluators, who wrote it. Second, use the volumes that do not count: the Cost Volume, the Cost Volume Itemized Listing, and Volume 5 "Other" uploads are all excluded from the page limit.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 STTR CSO for full details on this requirement. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 STTR CSO. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

Technical Data Rights Assertions deserve attention on an STTR award, where a research institution partner's background intellectual property and publication interests are in the mix alongside your own.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria, which are restated in this document

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed below in descending order of importance. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

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.

Criteria B, second. The degree of mission impact and the urgency of the identified need. The specificity of the defense requirement addressed. 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.

Note that unlike the DAF BAA documents in this same release, which point to the announcement for criteria, this CSO document restates them. That is a small mercy on a topic this tight.

Two implications. The phrase "toward topic or subtopic solution" is doing work here, because this topic has two Technical Areas. Name yours explicitly and frame progress against it. And cost realism sits inside the top criterion, which on a $175,000 six-month award with no GFE means your data access and analysis plan has to be affordable as described.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

The foreign research institution affiliation provision is a mandatory denial, not a discretionary judgment, and it names research institutions specifically. On an STTR award with a required academic partner, this is a diligence item you must work through with that partner before you propose.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

Small business concerns that are 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.

Note that this differs from the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions, both the SBIR and STTR versions, which state that such firms are not eligible. The provision varies by document, so verify eligibility against the specific component instruction that governs the topic you are pursuing.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the CSO Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed Phase II proposal preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.

Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing substantive interim results rather than holding everything for the final report is worth planning for on a six month award.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time specified in the DoW FY26 STTR 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 6 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Contact your research institution's sponsored programs office immediately and ask what their internal review timeline is, because that sets your real deadline. Resolve the STTR work split question with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk: how the two-thirds performance of work requirement and the one-third subcontract cap apply with a required research institution partner. File the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request if the arithmetic does not close. Download the proposal template from the DSIP supporting documents page. Choose your Technical Area. Read the doctrine, particularly JP 3-14 and JP 5-0, and the two Mitchell Institute papers. Identify your data source, since no GFE will be provided. Request a complete personnel roster with citizenship and visa status from your research institution partner. Start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft inside the template against the 10 page limit. Name your Technical Area on the first page. For TA1, structure around the six named elements. For TA2, structure around the concept design, the phenomenology and data source identification, and the Phase II metrics and success criteria. Get your partner's sign-off on anything describing their scope, people, or facilities.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit, and use them for detail you cannot fit in ten pages. Get your research institution's formal budget with their federally negotiated rates in writing. Verify the one-third cap. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract. Include the recommended trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with DD Form 2345 and Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance against the template and the 10 page limit. Confirm no proprietary or classified content in the technical abstract.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF STTR topic DAF26TX06-NV514?

‍ ‍

DAF26TX06-NV514 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic titled "Space Domain Operational Environment Assessment," released under the DAF FY26 STTR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. It seeks methods, including integration of intelligence information, predictive analytics, anomaly detection, threat prediction, and environmental monitoring, for timely space domain awareness, threat detection, and operational environment assessment to support multi-domain operations.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26TX06-NV514?

‍ ‍

Up to $175,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 STTR 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.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR topic, and the STTR program requires a formal partnership with a qualifying research institution. Note that the Air Force component instructions for this release do not restate the partnership mechanics, so read the DoW FY26 STTR Program CSO and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive for the work split, the written agreement, and the allocation of rights requirements.

‍ ‍

What is the STTR work split, and how does it fit the two-thirds rule?

‍ ‍

Under the STTR program the small business generally performs at least 40 percent and the research institution at least 30 percent of the total effort. These Air Force instructions separately state that for Phase I a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, and cap all consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and subcontract or purchase agreements at one-third of total contract price. Those framings sit awkwardly together, and on a $175,000 award one-third is roughly $58,000 for everything flowing to your partner and consultants combined. Raise this with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period and use the Performance of Work deviation process, which requires a request before submission and again with the proposal.

‍ ‍

What are the two Technical Areas?

‍ ‍

TA1, Real-time Processing of Non-Traditional Phenomenologies for Non-Standard Threats, focuses on the collection, processing, and analysis of all data types and phenomenologies for advanced space domain awareness and detection of non-standard threats. TA2, Real-Time Automated Data Fusion, Analysis and Exploitation, focuses on analytics, data fusion, machine learning, dynamic command and control for understanding adversary capabilities, actions both offensive and defensive, and effects.

‍ ‍

Should I address both Technical Areas?

‍ ‍

The topic describes Phase I and Phase II requirements separately for each, which points toward choosing one and naming it explicitly. Ten pages will not support a credible treatment of both, and the evaluation criterion refers to incremental progress toward the topic or subtopic solution, so identifying your subtopic helps the evaluator.

‍ ‍

What does TA1 Phase I require?

‍ ‍

Six things. Identify non-traditional phenomenologies usable for space domain awareness collections. Investigate the technical challenges of exploiting data from those phenomenologies for real-time SDA. Identify a collection strategy. Identify the benefits of leveraging the non-traditional phenomenology to complement and improve traditional phenomenologies. Define specific performance metrics and demonstrate how the approach enhances those metrics for tracking and characterizing targets. And include a detailed plan outlining development, testing, and integration with specific timelines and milestones.

‍ ‍

What does TA2 Phase I require?

‍ ‍

Design a concept for a workable and scalable prototype addressing the basic capabilities and technical feasibility of the objective as well as data and information sources and the timeliness of the solution. Identify non-traditional phenomenology and data sources. Define a set of metrics and success criteria for a Phase 2 prototype. And include detailed findings in a Phase II plan in the final report.

‍ ‍

Am I supposed to replace radar and optical telescopes?

‍ ‍

No. TA1 explicitly asks you to identify the benefits of leveraging a non-traditional phenomenology to complement and improve traditional phenomenologies, and states that the Space Force needs to understand how new phenomenologies complement and improve information products generated by traditional ones. Position your approach as complementary, not substitutional.

‍ ‍

Will the government provide equipment or data?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states that GFE will not be provided, and it says so four separate times, once in each phase and technical area paragraph. You cannot propose an approach dependent on government sensors, data feeds, or facilities. Name your commercial or academic data source.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

10 pages, per the topic index, and note this is expressed as pages rather than pages or slides. You must use the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page. The DSIP Cost Volume and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count against the limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown, so use those volumes for detail.

‍ ‍

Do I have to use a specific template?

‍ ‍

Yes. All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page. The instructions name it "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template," which says SBIR despite this being an STTR solicitation, apparently a carryover from the parallel SBIR instructions. Use the template at that link and ask the One Help Desk if the naming creates confusion.

‍ ‍

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 use of foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the statement of work tasks intended for them, and the topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data involved. On an STTR award this reaches your research institution partner's personnel.

‍ ‍

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, its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, the qualifications of the principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, 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. Unlike the DAF BAA documents in this release, this CSO document restates the criteria rather than pointing to the announcement.

‍ ‍

What references should I read?

‍ ‍

Eight are cited, and half are doctrine, which is a strong signal. Joint Publication 3-14 Joint Space Operations, Joint Publication 5-0 Joint Planning, Joint Publication 3-60 Joint Targeting, and the Space Force Spacepower Capstone Publication. Plus two 2025 Mitchell Institute papers, Galbreath on dynamic space operations and Reeves on cross-domain space superiority. Plus two AMOS Conference technical papers, one on multi-phenomenology characterization of space objects using reinforcement learning and one on probabilistic initial orbit determination and object tracking in cislunar space using passive radio frequency sensors.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes for this topic. The STTR CSO Phase I instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible for DAF topics. Note that both DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II documents state the opposite, so verify eligibility against the specific document governing your topic.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase II success criteria?

‍ ‍

For both Technical Areas: a demonstrated software prototype capability, measured against metrics and a concept of operations use case; the ability to integrate outputs into operational workflows with minimal burden on users; and an achievable path to Phase III transition, including identification of customers, funding mechanisms, and required approvals.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market?

‍ ‍

The topic states that it promotes dual-use opportunities to provide health and operational status of commercial satellites and their services in relation to adversaries' actions, and Phase III calls for maturing prototype software into a commercial product for commercial space domain awareness. Commercial satellite operators, insurers, and space situational awareness data providers are the natural buyers.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

The DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award. These STTR CSO instructions state that in one sentence without the detailed provider documentation requirements found in the DAF BAA Phase I instructions. Because different DAF Release 6 documents handle TABA documentation differently, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk what this cycle requires and where it belongs.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, all Phase I awardees receive a notification with the submittal date and detailed instructions, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 STTR CSO. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 STTR CSO Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Resolve the STTR work split before you write anything. The two-thirds in-house floor, the one-third outside cost cap, and the STTR research institution requirement do not obviously coexist on a $175,000 award. This is a question for the Help Desk in the first week of the open period, not something to discover during cost volume assembly.

‍ ‍

Choose your Technical Area and say so on page one. Ten pages punishes ambiguity. TA1 is a sensing and phenomenology proposal; TA2 is a fusion and analytics proposal. A company that could plausibly do either should pick the one where its research institution partner is strongest.

‍ ‍

Speak joint planning language. Four of the eight references are doctrine, and TA2 is built on measures of performance and measures of effectiveness. Space operations assessment is a doctrinal activity with its own vocabulary, and using it correctly is the cheapest credibility available on this topic.

‍ ‍

Name your data source explicitly. With GFE ruled out four times, where your data comes from is a live question the evaluator will ask. Commercial space situational awareness providers, academic observatories, or your partner's own instruments are all answers. Silence is not.

‍ ‍

For TA1, make the complementarity argument concrete. Show what your phenomenology sees that radar and optical do not, and show how fusing it improves an existing information product. The passive radio frequency cislunar tracking reference suggests the kind of gap the Space Force has in mind.

‍ ‍

For TA2, address the unobservability problem. The topic says operators often cannot directly observe the effects of an operation and resulting adversary behavior. That is the hard part of space operations assessment, and a proposal that engages with inference under unobservability will stand out from one that describes a data pipeline.

‍ ‍

Define metrics, because both Technical Areas require it. TA1 asks you to define specific performance metrics and demonstrate enhancement against them. TA2 asks you to define metrics and success criteria for a Phase II prototype. Quantified, defensible metrics are a scored element, not a nicety.

‍ ‍

Use the excluded volumes. The Cost Volume, the itemized listing, and Volume 5 "Other" uploads do not count against ten pages. Anything that legitimately belongs there should go there.

‍ ‍

Work the export control question with your partner early. University space surveillance groups are internationally staffed, the topic warns that foreign nationals may be restricted, and foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a mandatory award denial. Get the roster.

‍ ‍

Start the transition conversation in Phase I. The Phase II success criteria require an achievable path to Phase III including named customers, funding mechanisms, and required approvals. That work begins now, and referencing it in your Phase I proposal signals that you understand where this goes.

DAF SBIR DAF26BZ06-DV037: Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons

Quick Answer

DAF26BZ06-DV037 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force has a high priority requirement for much lower-cost long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons that operate in the very high supersonic flight regime, and this topic funds the seeker that goes in them. The objective is a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalink modes. Low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are stated as key goals. Awards are up to $2,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 35 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two things about this topic are unusual enough that they belong in the first paragraph. First, venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity majority-owned small businesses are not eligible under this announcement. That is the opposite of the rule in the DAF Release 6 CSO topics, and it disqualifies a meaningful share of the defense hardware startup market. Second, the Phase II deliverable is a design, not hardware. The offeror will design and model a prototype to Critical Design Review level. Physical prototype build, laboratory testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing, and flight experiment integration all happen in Phase III with Air Force Research Laboratory 6.3 funding.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BZ06-DV037

Title: Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Direct to Phase II

Solicitation instrument: BAA, not a CSO. This is a separate solicitation from the DAF 2026 SBIR CSO Release 6 topics, with different rules

Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2)

Award maximum value: $2,000,000

Award maximum duration: 24 months

Technical volume page limit: 35 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics (SHY)

Component Technology Priority Area: Integrated Sensing and Cyber

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

Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this announcement

Phase II end state: Critical Design Review level design and model, not built hardware

Production cost targets: $50,000 threshold, $30,000 objective, per flight unit at volume production

Physical envelope: must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder

Interface standard: WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification

Named Phase III transition targets: AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

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

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: seeker, seekers, AESA, multifunction RF, radar, software-defined RF

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW SBIR deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

Read This First: Venture Capital Ownership Is Disqualifying Here

The DAF Release 6 BAA instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.

That single sentence deserves more attention than anything else in this document.

Because this provision is not uniform across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, here is where it stands across all seven documents.

Not eligible: the SBIR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV037; the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV008; and the STTR BAA Phase I instructions covering topics NV006 and NV007.

Eligible: the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions covering topics NV034 through NV036; the SBIR CSO Direct to Phase II instructions; the SBIR CSO Phase I instructions; and the STTR CSO Phase I instructions.

Every Commercial Solutions Opening document permits venture-backed firms. Three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The DAF has not explained the variation. What matters practically is that the exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative. Verify your status against 13 CFR 121.702 and the definition in the instructions, and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period rather than assuming it resolves in your favor.

BAA Versus CSO: Why This Document Is Not the Same as the Other DAF Release 6 Instructions

The DAF issued Release 6 topics under two different solicitation instruments. The topics numbered with BX, including the five Direct to Phase II topics and the one Phase I topic, sit under the 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening. This topic, numbered BZ, sits under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement.

The two sets of component instructions are largely parallel in structure, and much of the language is identical, but they are separate documents governing separate solicitations. The differences that matter are these.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity majority-owned firms are ineligible under this document. Across DAF Release 6, all three CSO documents permit such firms and three of the four BAA documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. So the provision tracks the specific document, with a strong BAA lean, rather than the instrument cleanly.

Evaluation criteria are not restated in the BAA component instructions. The CSO instructions spell out Criteria A, B, and C in descending order of importance. This BAA document says only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how you will be scored, and no summary of the CSO criteria is a substitute.

The address change notification uses a different subject line: "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change" rather than the CSO version.

References throughout point to the FY26 SBIR BAA rather than the CSO for cover sheet instructions, proprietary information marking, technical data rights, and protest procedures.

The performance of work language in this document reads differently, and appears to contain an error, which the next section addresses.

The Performance of Work Problem, and How to Handle It

The BAA component instructions contain three statements about how much work you must perform yourself. Read together they do not cleanly agree, and one of them appears to be a drafting error.

Under Performance of Work Requirements and Location of Work, the document states that for Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

That sentence says Phase I, inside a Direct to Phase II instruction document where no Phase I awards are made. The parallel CSO Direct to Phase II instructions say Phase II and set the floor at one-third. The DAF Phase I instructions elsewhere in Release 6 say Phase I and set it at two-thirds. So the most likely reading is that the Phase I paragraph was carried into the Direct to Phase II document by mistake.

Under Consultants and Subcontractors, the document states that in accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and that such requests can only be made upon proposal submission.

Under the Cost Volume subcontracts discussion, the document states that 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 otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

The conservative course, and the one we would recommend, is to plan on performing at least two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house and keeping all consultant, facility lease, and subcontract costs combined below one-half of the total contract price. That satisfies every reading of the document as written, including the strictest one. On a seeker design program that often means resisting the temptation to subcontract large portions of the RF front end or the digital back end design.

If your teaming structure cannot meet two-thirds, the document provides a process, and you have to use it twice. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award. Because the pre-submission request has to happen inside the four week open window, this is a first-week action, not a last-week one. It is also the natural moment to ask the One Help Desk which threshold actually governs.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States, and the awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking that approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The requirement behind the topic

The Department of the Air Force has a high priority requirement for much lower-cost long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons that operate in the very high supersonic flight regime. Toward that requirement, the objective of this topic is to develop a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting RF modes including radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalinks. Low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are key goals of this topic.

The problem statement is economic before it is technical. Current multifunction radar systems for use onboard various types of small airborne platforms are prohibitively expensive to procure at scale, and the Air Force says this is especially true for systems engineered for use in demanding regimes at peak velocity greater than Mach 3 but under Mach 5. Note that the topic labels that velocity band "high subsonic," which is inconsistent with the stated Mach numbers and with the objective's own description of a very high supersonic flight regime. Read the Mach 3 to Mach 5 figures as the governing statement of the environment.

Because affordability at volume is the point, a proposal that delivers exquisite RF performance without a manufacturing and cost story has missed the topic. Conversely, cost reduction that sacrifices the performance floor also fails, because Phase II requires meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system.

The technical approach the Air Force expects

The effort will leverage recent advancements in RF technology, high-temperature materials science, and associated manufacturing to design a complete multi-function Ku-band RF system to a Critical Design Review level of maturity.

Those three enabling areas are named deliberately and each maps to a different part of the problem. RF technology advancement points toward highly integrated, software-defined architectures, which the topic references reinforce by citing two papers on RF system-on-chip based multi-role sensors. High-temperature materials science addresses the thermal environment of sustained Mach 3 to Mach 5 flight, which is what separates this from a subsonic small-platform radar. Associated manufacturing is the volume production story that the cost targets demand.

The hard requirements

Four requirements are stated explicitly and should be treated as pass or fail gates in your proposal.

Physical envelope. The system must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder, whether conformally mounted or forward mounted. The Phase II description repeats this, adding that the offeror's design will size and package the front end and back-end RF electronics to fit within that envelope. The fact that both conformal and forward mounting are named means aperture architecture is a real design choice you should address rather than assume.

Interface standard. The design must conform to the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. Open systems architecture conformance is a stated requirement, not an option, and it constrains how you partition the system. If you have not worked to that specification before, understanding it is a prerequisite to writing a credible proposal.

Modes. The system must incorporate imaging radar modes, passive direction-finding modes, and height of burst fuze sensing modes. Combined with the objective's mention of line-of-sight datalinks, that is four distinct functions sharing one aperture and back end. Multi-function here means genuinely multi-function.

Maturity. The Phase II output is a design at Critical Design Review level of maturity.

The cost targets, which are the center of the topic

Phase II places emphasis on lowering the flight-unit production cost at volume production to a threshold of $50,000 and an objective of $30,000, while meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system.

Those numbers are the heart of this topic and they are aggressive for a Ku-band multifunction seeker with imaging radar, passive direction finding, datalink, and fuze sensing packaged for a Mach 3 to Mach 5 environment. Your proposal needs a defensible cost model at volume, not a prototype bill of materials. Address component integration and part count reduction, wafer-scale or highly integrated RF and digital solutions, aperture manufacturing approach, thermal management approach and its cost, test and calibration cost per unit which is frequently underestimated in phased array production, and the volume assumptions your model depends on.

Be explicit about the volume at which you hit the threshold and objective. A cost model that only closes at a hundred thousand units per year and a model that closes at two thousand are very different propositions, and the evaluator will want to know which one you are describing.

What Phase II actually produces

For this Direct to Phase II topic, the offeror will design and model a prototype for Critical Design Review level, a complete Ku-band multi-function radar system.

Read that carefully. The verbs are design and model. This is a design maturation program culminating in CDR-level documentation and modeling, plus a cost and manufacturability case. It is not a hardware build program, and a proposal that promises fabricated and tested hardware within the $2,000,000 and 24 month envelope is misreading the topic and inviting doubt about whether you understood it.

That framing also tells you where your effort belongs: modeling and simulation fidelity, design analysis, packaging and thermal analysis, WOSA conformance documentation, producibility analysis, and the cost model. Existing hardware you can point to is feasibility evidence, not a Phase II deliverable.

Phase III

Following successful completion of the Phase II objectives and the culmination of a CDR-level system design, the Air Force Research Laboratory and its transition partner will use 6.3 funding to implement a prototype of the radar system designed in Phase II, perform laboratory, hardware-in-the-loop, and field testing, and then integrate it into a 6.3 flight experiment for further technology maturation. TRL and MRL gaps will be identified and addressed in order to transition the system to AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users.

This is one of the more concrete Phase III descriptions in the Release 6 portfolio, and it is worth using. The government has told you that AFRL and a transition partner will fund the build with 6.3 dollars, that the test sequence is laboratory then hardware-in-the-loop then field then flight experiment, and that the eventual customer is AFLCMC/EB. Both TRL and MRL gaps are named, which reinforces that manufacturing readiness is being assessed alongside technical readiness. Your Relationship with Future R/R&D Efforts section should track this sequence and identify the specific TRL and MRL gaps your Phase II design will leave, along with how Phase III closes them.

The cited references

The topic cites two papers, both about RF system-on-chip based sensors: "ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC" by Nial Peters, Colin Horne, and Matthew Ritchie, IEEE Xplore, 2 June 2022; and "Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UAV" by Valentine Wasik, L. Casadebaig, Benjamin Gabard, and Benjamin Gigleux, 2023 20th European Radar Conference.

Both references point in the same direction, toward a software-defined, highly integrated RF system-on-chip approach as the affordability enabler, which is also consistent with the software-defined RF keyword. Read them. Citing and engaging with the government's own references, including where you think a different approach is better, is a cheap and effective way to signal that you did the work.

The Feasibility Requirement

Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already completed the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR program. The DAF will not consider your proposal if you fail to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility have been established, or if you fail to demonstrate the feasibility effort was substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator. 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.

What this topic requires specifically

For this Direct to Phase II topic, the offeror must have previously demonstrated Phase I-type feasibility by demonstrating the successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications of a multifunction radar system for use in an embedded system application. The feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system.

Three elements sit inside that requirement. Successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications, meaning documented design work and modeling results plus specifications at the hardware level. A multifunction radar system, so a single-function radar heritage is a weaker fit and you should say how it extends. For use in an embedded system application, meaning integrated into a constrained platform rather than a benchtop or standalone instrument.

Plus a fourth element that is a deliverable rather than a heritage claim: the feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system. That is forward-looking. You need to put a baseline concept for the Ku-band seeker into your feasibility documentation, not only evidence of past work.

The general D2P2 rules

Applicants must demonstrate completion of research and development through means other than the SBIR and STTR programs to establish the feasibility of the proposed Phase II effort based on the criteria outlined in the topic description.

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

Feasibility efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, the applicant must provide IP rights assertions, and applicants shall provide 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. The document points to the FY26 SBIR BAA for technical data rights information.

One helpful mechanical detail this BAA states more clearly than the parallel CSO document: feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. That means your design heritage, modeling results, hardware specifications, and baseline conceptual design can be documented at whatever length the evidence requires without eating into your 35 page technical volume. Use that.

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

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $2,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions also note that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Note the difference between the two dollar figures in this topic. The $2,000,000 is the design contract. The $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective are per-unit flight hardware production costs at volume that your design must achieve. Do not conflate them.

Contract type and fee

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

A significant procedural note: if no exceptions are taken to an applicant's proposal, the Government may award a contract without exchanges. Therefore the applicant's initial proposal should contain the applicant's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen exchanges later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use 50 percent of this TABA allocation, meaning $25,000, on a first SBIR Phase II award and 50 percent, meaning $25,000, on a sequential SBIR Phase II award.

Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases.

For this topic, development of manufacturing plans is the standout. High-volume manufacturability is a stated key goal, the cost targets are aggressive, and Phase III explicitly names MRL gaps alongside TRL gaps. TABA support for manufacturing planning is directly on point.

Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of the following purposes: making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following information or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider, including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed, including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume expectations

A detailed cost proposal must be submitted, and cost proposal information will be treated as proprietary. Proposed costs must be provided by both individual cost element and contractor fiscal year in sufficient detail to determine the basis for estimates, as well as the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each. This information will expedite award if the proposal is selected. Cost proposal attachments do not count toward proposal page limitations.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, and labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a design and modeling program, this will be nearly the entire budget, so it deserves the most care. RF engineers, digital designers, packaging and thermal engineers, and producibility analysts should be visible as named individuals or clearly defined categories with hours that match the task structure.

Direct cost materials. Costs for materials, parts, and supplies must be justified and supported. Provide an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. If computer or software purchases are planned, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. On this topic, electromagnetic simulation, circuit and system modeling, and thermal analysis licenses are likely the significant items, and they need quotes and justification.

Other direct costs. This includes specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities and equipment. Provide usage hours expected, rates, and sources, as well as a brief discussion concerning the purpose and justification. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale. Anechoic chamber or near-field range time, if any is planned for design validation, belongs here.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business. These may include such items as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Subcontracts. Subcontract costs must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements. Agreement documents must adequately describe the work to be performed and cost bases. The agreement document should include a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials if any, and proposed travel if any. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task or tasks at a fixed price is not considered sufficient. 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 otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The prime contractor must accomplish price analysis, including reasonableness, of the proposed subcontractor costs. If based on comparison with prior efforts, identify the basis upon which the prior prices were determined reasonable. If price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires subcontractor cost or pricing data submission, provide a cost analysis, which includes but is not limited to consideration of materials, labor, travel, other direct costs, and proposed profit rates.

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

Travel. Each effort should include, at a minimum, a kickoff or interim meeting. Travel costs must be justified as required for the effort. Include destinations, number of trips, number of travelers per trip, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation. Per diem and lodging rates may be found in the Joint Travel Regulation, Volume 2. On a program that culminates in a Critical Design Review, budget for the design review itself and for interim technical interchange meetings with AFRL, since Phase III depends on AFRL picking the design up.

Indirect costs. Indicate proposed rates' bases, for example budgeted or actual rates per fiscal year. The proposal should identify the specific rates used and allocation bases to which they are applied. Do not propose composite rates; proposed rates and applications per fiscal year throughout the anticipated performance period are required.

Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed. However, it is not required, nor will it be a proposal evaluation factor.

Export Control, Which Is Central on a Seeker Topic

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

A weapon seeker is about as clearly ITAR-controlled as a technology gets, so treat this as a hard staffing constraint rather than a disclosure exercise. In the technical volume, 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.

Foreign nationals, also known as foreign persons, 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 BAA and disclose this information regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR restrictions.

When the topic area is subject to export control, these individuals, if permitted to participate, are limited to work in the public domain. Further, tasks assigned must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives. This prevents foreign citizens from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify foreign citizens' eligibility to perform on a contract awarded under this BAA.

The following will apply to all projects with military or dual-use applications developing beyond fundamental research, meaning basic and applied research ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community. The Contractor shall comply with all U.S. export control laws and regulations, including ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120 through 130 and the EAR 15 CFR Parts 730 through 799, in the performance of this contract. In the absence of available license exemptions or exceptions, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate licenses or other approvals, if required, for exports of, including deemed exports of, hardware, technical data, and software, or for the provision of technical assistance. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining export licenses, if required, before utilizing foreign persons in the performance of this contract, including instances where the work is to be performed on-site at any Government installation, whether in or outside the United States, where the foreign person will have access to export-controlled technologies including technical data or software. The Contractor shall be responsible for all regulatory record keeping requirements associated with the use of licenses and license exemptions or exceptions. The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that these provisions apply to its subcontractors.

If you are asserting export-controlled status, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included in Volume 5. The form, instructions, and FAQs are available at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Type shall be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, with one-inch margins and pages consecutively numbered. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items. If included, such material will count toward the page limit.

The technical volume limit for this topic is 35 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of this number will not be considered during evaluations. The preferred submission format is Portable Document Format. Graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, which matters for a topic where you will want to show antenna patterns, block diagrams, and packaging layouts. Virus-check all submissions.

The complete proposal must be submitted electronically through DSIP. Ensure the complete technical volume and additional cost volume information is included in this sole submission.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission. When training is complete and certified, DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement, and the proposal cannot be submitted until the training is complete. The DAF recommends completing submission early, as site traffic is heavy prior to solicitation close, causing system lag, and states plainly not to wait until the last minute. The DAF will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted prior to the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept alternative means of submission outside of DSIP.

Also note the criminal warning the instructions include: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. On a seeker topic, be deliberate about what goes in the abstract, since it will become public.

If a proposal submitted in response to this BAA is substantially the same as another proposal submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, the applicant must so indicate on the Cover Sheet.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The technical proposal includes all items listed below in the order provided.

Table of contents, located immediately after the Cover Sheet.

Glossary of acronyms and abbreviations used in the proposal.

Milestone identification, including a program schedule with all key milestones identified.

Identification and significance of the problem or opportunity, briefly referencing the specific technical problem or opportunity to be pursued under this effort.

Phase II technical objectives, detailing the specific objectives of the Phase II work and describing the technical approach and methods to be used in meeting these objectives, including an assessment of the potential commercial application for each objective.

Work plan. The work plan shall be a separate and distinct part of the proposal package, using a page break to divide it from the technical proposal, and begins 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. Do not include proprietary information, because in the event of proposal selection the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. The recommended format is 1.0 Objective, providing a brief overview of the specialty area explaining the purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, providing a concise description of the work to be accomplished including the technology area to be investigated, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as the key elements meaning the anticipated end result or the effort's product, and consistent with the information in section 4.0; 3.0 Background, in which the applicant shall identify appropriate specifications, standards, and other documents applicable to the effort, including information or explanation for and constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, in which detailed individual task descriptions must be developed in an orderly progression with sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, with the work effort segregated into major tasks identified in separately numbered paragraphs. Each numbered major task should delineate the work to be performed 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.

Section 3.0 Background deserves attention on this topic, since the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification is exactly the kind of applicable specification the instructions are asking you to identify. Name it, and name any other standards your design conforms to.

Deliverables. 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. On this topic that explanation matters, because the Phase II output is a design and model rather than built hardware, so be clear about what physical artifacts, if any, exist and why.

At a minimum, the following reports will be required under all Phase II contracts. Scientific and Technical Reports, noting that 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; the summary may be published by DoW and therefore must not contain any proprietary or classified information, while the remainder of the report 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.

Given that this program produces a CDR-level design, the engineering drawings item and the 20 year data rights provision together deserve a conversation with counsel before you decide what design detail to generate under the award.

Related work. 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. The DoW requires a commercialization plan be 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 proposed 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. These updates will be required at completion of the effort and subsequently when the contractor submits a new SBIR/STTR proposal to DoW. Firms not submitting a new proposal to DoW will be requested to provide updates annually after the D2P2 completion. Note that the Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents; the CCR comprises Volume 4.

The commercialization question is harder on this topic than on most, because a Ku-band prompt strike seeker has limited non-defense application. The honest framing is that the primary market is defense volume production, that the named Phase III path runs through AFRL to AFLCMC/EB and other DoD users, and that the underlying software-defined multifunction RF architecture and low-cost manufacturing approach have adjacent applications. Do not manufacture an implausible commercial market. Build the case on volume defense demand plus genuine architecture-level spillover.

Relationship with future R/R&D efforts. 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 gives you the Phase III sequence, so track it.

Key personnel. In the technical volume, identify all key personnel involved in the project. Include information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume for the Principal Investigator, including publications if any, must also be included. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants, if any, are also useful. 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. 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. 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. 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. All should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal. In accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and these requests can only be made upon proposal submission. Signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached to the proposal. These letters should briefly state the contribution or expertise being provided. Include 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. Any potential for this situation must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. 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 under which the proposal was or will be submitted or under which an award is expected or has been received, 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 in the proposal, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for full details on this requirement. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance and do not treat it as a scoring opportunity.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW SBIR FY26 BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions. On a seeker design program built on proprietary RF architecture, this last item is how you draw the line between your background intellectual property and what you develop under the award.

Feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. Its requirements are described above.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also belongs in Volume 5.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The webform will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria are in the BAA, not in this document

D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel. Throughout evaluation, selection, and award, confidential proposal and evaluation information will be protected to the greatest extent possible. D2P2 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.

The component instructions then state that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0.

That is the whole of it. Unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO instructions, which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance, this BAA document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how your proposal will be scored, and you should not assume the CSO criteria carry over. This is the single most important research task before you start writing, because the criteria determine your proposal's structure and emphasis.

The DAF adds that it is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic, that multiple procurements are planned and anticipated as a result of the topic, that each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and that the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures the DAF will use include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

For an RF hardware company, patent analysis and the semiconductor supply chain both deserve a look before you propose. RF system-on-chip devices, gallium nitride and gallium arsenide processes, packaging, and passive components frequently trace to suppliers with entries on one or more of the denial lists below, and the topic's own references point toward commercial RFSoC parts.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the small business concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If the DAF denies an award under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20), or upon determining that the concern has a security risk described in that paragraph, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

Support contractors

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors. These support contractors may include, but are not limited to, 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 AF 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.

Status, feedback, and protests

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, 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.

Refer to the FY26 SBIR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on your firm's selection notification.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

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 BAA, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

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

Period of performance: up to 24 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Settle eligibility first, because nothing else matters if you fail it. If venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity funds hold majority ownership in part, resolve your status against the definition and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, since the evaluation criteria are there and not in the component instructions. Obtain and study the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. Read the two cited RFSoC papers. Assemble your feasibility documentation: system design, modeling, and hardware specifications for a multifunction radar in an embedded application, substantially performed by your firm or your PI, with no SBIR or STTR lineage. Draft the baseline conceptual design for the Ku-band seeker, which the feasibility demonstration must also describe. Build the volume production cost model that reaches $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective, and identify the volume assumption it rests on. Audit your semiconductor and component supply chain against the eight denial lists. Resolve export control staffing, since foreign nationals may be restricted from performing on this topic, and start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Check your work distribution against the two-thirds figure and, if you cannot meet it, file the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request in the first week of the open period. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft Volume 2 in the required order against the 35 page limit. Structure the technical approach around the four hard requirements: the 6 inch interior diameter envelope with conformal or forward mounting addressed, WOSA Seeker Domain conformance, the imaging radar, passive direction-finding, and height of burst fuze sensing modes plus line-of-sight datalink, and CDR-level maturity. Build the milestone schedule early, since the TABA task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Write the work plan as a separate page-broken document in contract language with no proprietary content, naming the WOSA specification in section 3.0 Background.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by individual cost element and contractor fiscal year. Get quotes for simulation and modeling software licenses. 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. Verify all outside costs sit below one-half of the total contract price. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA, and consider manufacturing plan development given the volume production emphasis.

October 13 through October 16. Finalize the Volume 5 package, which for this topic carries real weight: feasibility documentation with no page limit, DD Form 2345, Technical Data Rights Assertions, and the TABA request. Complete the Volume 7 webform and the Volume 4 CCR. Run a compliance pass: 35 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics distinguishable in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, no proprietary information 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 DAF26BZ06-DV037?

‍ ‍

DAF26BZ06-DV037 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalink modes, for long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons operating in the very high supersonic flight regime.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. The Direct to Phase II instructions governing this topic state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics. If your ownership structure is near this line, verify your status and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

‍ ‍

Why does the eligibility rule differ from the other DAF Release 6 topics?

‍ ‍

Because it varies by document. Three DAF Release 6 documents exclude venture-backed firms: this one, the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions, and the STTR BAA Phase I instructions. Four permit them: the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions and all three CSO documents. Every CSO document permits them and three of four BAA documents exclude them, so there is a strong BAA pattern with one exception. Since the exclusion appears in three independently issued documents, a deliberate restriction is more plausible than a typographical error, though the DAF has not explained it. Do not carry an eligibility conclusion from one document to another in either direction.

‍ ‍

Does the BAA versus CSO distinction determine eligibility?

‍ ‍

Almost, but not cleanly. All three CSO documents permit venture-backed firms and three of the four BAA documents exclude them, but the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions permit them, which breaks a purely instrument-level rule. Check the specific component instruction document that governs the topic you are pursuing rather than reasoning from the instrument.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BZ06-DV037?

‍ ‍

Up to $2,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to that ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the exact submission time, which is ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming an end-of-day deadline.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II actually deliver?

‍ ‍

A design, not hardware. For this Direct to Phase II topic the offeror will design and model a prototype for Critical Design Review level, a complete Ku-band multi-function radar system. Physical prototype implementation, laboratory testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing, field testing, and flight experiment integration all occur in Phase III with Air Force Research Laboratory 6.3 funding. A proposal promising fabricated and tested hardware inside the $2,000,000 and 24 month envelope has misread the topic.

‍ ‍

What are the production cost targets?

‍ ‍

The Phase II emphasis is on lowering the flight-unit production cost at volume production to a threshold of $50,000 and an objective of $30,000, while meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system. These are per-unit hardware costs at volume, entirely separate from the $2,000,000 design award. State the volume assumption your cost model depends on.

‍ ‍

What is the physical envelope requirement?

‍ ‍

The system must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder, whether conformally mounted or forward mounted. The Phase II description adds that the design will size and package the front end and back-end RF electronics to fit within that envelope. Because both conformal and forward mounting are named, aperture architecture is a design choice worth addressing explicitly.

‍ ‍

What interface standard must the design conform to?

‍ ‍

The WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. This is a stated key technical requirement, so obtain and study the specification before writing, and name it among the applicable specifications in section 3.0 Background of your work plan.

‍ ‍

What modes must the system support?

‍ ‍

The topic names imaging radar modes, passive direction-finding modes, and height of burst fuze sensing modes as key technical requirements, and the objective adds line-of-sight datalinks to the RF modes supported. That is four distinct functions sharing one aperture and back end.

‍ ‍

What flight regime does this seeker operate in?

‍ ‍

The objective describes a very high supersonic flight regime, and the description specifies peak velocity greater than Mach 3 but under Mach 5. Note that the description labels that band "high subsonic," which is inconsistent with the Mach numbers stated and with the objective's own wording, so treat the Mach 3 to Mach 5 figures as governing.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. This is a Direct to Phase II topic. Applicants must provide documentation satisfying the Phase I feasibility requirement to be included in the Phase II proposal, demonstrating completion of research and development through means other than the SBIR and STTR programs.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation does this topic require?

‍ ‍

The offeror must have previously demonstrated Phase I-type feasibility by demonstrating the successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications of a multifunction radar system for use in an embedded system application. The feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system. So you need both documented heritage and a forward-looking baseline concept.

‍ ‍

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 efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

‍ ‍

Does feasibility documentation count against my page limit?

‍ ‍

No. The instructions state that feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. Use that room for your design heritage, modeling results, hardware specifications, and baseline conceptual design rather than compressing them into the technical volume.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

35 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of this number will not be considered during evaluations. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Cost proposal attachments, subcontract copies and supporting documents, and feasibility documentation do not count toward the limit.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how you will be scored, and you should not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over. This is the first research task before writing.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

The document states three overlapping figures. Under Performance of Work Requirements it says a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit, though that paragraph refers to Phase I inside a Direct to Phase II document and appears to be a drafting artifact. Under Consultants and Subcontractors it says a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. And the subcontracts cost guidance caps all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements at one-half of the total contract price. Planning to perform at least two-thirds in house and keeping all outside costs below one-half of contract price satisfies every reading. If you cannot, file a Performance of Work deviation request during the open period and again with your proposal, and ask the One Help Desk which threshold governs.

‍ ‍

How do I request a performance of work deviation?

‍ ‍

Requests must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award. Because the pre-submission request must happen inside the four week open window, treat it as a first-week action.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. 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 them. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected for award.

‍ ‍

Can foreign nationals work on this project?

‍ ‍

Only in limited ways, if at all. 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 the instructions note prevents foreign citizens from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations to verify eligibility. On a weapon seeker topic, treat this as a hard staffing constraint.

‍ ‍

Who owns the design data 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. Because this program produces a CDR-level design and the Air Force may require engineering drawings as additional reporting, review the data rights provision with counsel before deciding what design detail to generate under the award, and use Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 to protect background intellectual property.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF 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, and splittable as $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential one. Development of manufacturing plans is an eligible activity and is directly relevant here given the high-volume manufacturability goal and the MRL gaps named in Phase III. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, including provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, and the task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Requests that only specify a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Following successful completion of the Phase II objectives and the culmination of a CDR-level system design, AFRL and its transition partner will use 6.3 funding to implement a prototype of the radar system designed in Phase II, perform laboratory, hardware-in-the-loop, and field testing, and then integrate it into a 6.3 flight experiment for further technology maturation. TRL and MRL gaps will be identified and addressed in order to transition the system to AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market for this technology?

‍ ‍

It is limited, and honesty serves you better than invention here. A Ku-band prompt strike weapon seeker has a primarily defense market, and the topic gives you a concrete Phase III path through AFRL to AFLCMC/EB and other DoD users. Build the commercialization case on volume defense demand plus genuine architecture-level spillover from the software-defined multifunction RF approach and the low-cost manufacturing methods, rather than on an implausible commercial application.

‍ ‍

What references does the topic cite?

‍ ‍

Two papers on RF system-on-chip based sensors: "ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC" by Nial Peters, Colin Horne, and Matthew Ritchie, IEEE Xplore, 2 June 2022; and "Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UAV" by Valentine Wasik, L. Casadebaig, Benjamin Gabard, and Benjamin Gigleux, 2023 20th European Radar Conference. Both point toward a software-defined, highly integrated RFSoC approach as the affordability enabler.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Will I be able to negotiate after submitting?

‍ ‍

Possibly not. 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 or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to reopen exchanges later if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

For general information related to the DAF SBIR/STTR program and proposal preparation instructions, contact the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us. The DAF encourages applicants to request clarifying information as early as possible, since delays in such requests constrain its ability to provide satisfactory resolution to applicant concerns. For questions regarding the DSIP electronic submission system, contact the DoW SBIR/STTR Help Desk at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 SBIR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. If your company mail or email addresses or points of contact change after proposal submission, provide the information to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Check eligibility before anything else. Majority ownership in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds is disqualifying under this announcement. That is an unusual gate in modern defense SBIR, and it removes a large fraction of the companies that would otherwise be natural bidders. If you clear it, you are competing in a thinner field than the technology would suggest, which is worth knowing.

‍ ‍

Read BAA Section 6.0 first. The evaluation criteria are not in the component instructions. Writing a proposal without them is guessing at what matters, and the criteria should shape your section emphasis and your milestone framing.

‍ ‍

Lead with cost and manufacturability, not RF performance. The topic says low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are key goals, sets a $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective, and identifies MRL gaps alongside TRL gaps in Phase III. Performance is the constraint you must satisfy, and cost is the variable you are being asked to move. Structure the proposal accordingly, with a defensible volume cost model rather than a prototype bill of materials.

‍ ‍

State your volume assumption explicitly. A cost target is meaningless without the production rate behind it. Give the number, justify it against plausible program quantities, and show cost sensitivity if the rate is lower.

‍ ‍

Respect the design-only scope. Design and model to CDR is what Phase II buys. Overpromising fabricated hardware reads as either a misreading of the topic or an unrealistic plan, and cost realism concerns follow either way. Put the build in Phase III where the government put it.

‍ ‍

Take WOSA conformance seriously as an architecture driver. An open interface specification changes how you partition front end, back end, and processing. Show that you understand it rather than asserting conformance in a sentence.

‍ ‍

Address the thermal problem directly. High-temperature materials science is one of three named enabling areas, and Mach 3 to Mach 5 sustained flight is the reason. Radome, aperture, and electronics thermal management is where a design that works subsonically fails here, and it interacts with the cost target because exotic thermal solutions are expensive.

‍ ‍

Engage the cited references. Both point toward RFSoC-class integration. If that is your approach, say how you go beyond the referenced work. If you have a better path, say why, and be specific. Either is stronger than ignoring them.

‍ ‍

Make the four modes share hardware credibly. Imaging radar, passive direction finding, height of burst fuze sensing, and line-of-sight datalink from one aperture and back end is the multi-function claim. Explain the time and frequency resource sharing, the calibration approach, and where the modes conflict.

‍ ‍

Build the feasibility package properly, and use the page relief. Feasibility documentation lives in Volume 5 and is not page limited. System design, modeling, and hardware specifications for a multifunction radar in an embedded application, plus the baseline conceptual design, can be documented thoroughly without spending technical volume pages.

‍ ‍

Audit the semiconductor supply chain early. The denial criteria name eight lists, and RF and digital component sourcing touches them more often than teams expect. A mandatory denial after selection is an expensive way to learn this.

‍ ‍

Plan for two-thirds in house. Given the ambiguity in the document, plan to the strictest figure and keep all outside costs below half the contract price. If your approach depends on a large subcontracted element, file the deviation request in the first week of the open period rather than discovering the problem at submission.

DAF SBIR DAF26BZ06-NV036: Flightline Radio Network

Quick Answer

DAF26BZ06-NV036 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force wants a secure, adaptable, interoperable private cellular network for the flight line at Edwards Air Force Base, built on 5G and Open Radio Access Network architecture, to support aircraft maintenance, logistics, and test and evaluation operations. Awards are up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 20 page or slide technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two features make this the most accessible topic in the release for a commercial company. First, it is a named-site problem: Edwards AFB, its existing infrastructure, its flight line, and the 412th Maintenance Group as an eventual transition partner. That specificity means the winning proposal will be the one that understands the site, not just the technology. Second, the technology itself is commercial. 5G Open RAN, private cellular, and augmented reality maintenance support all exist in industry today, and the topic starts the technology at Technology Readiness Level 4. This is an adaptation and integration problem, not a research problem, and the Phase I deliverable is a feasibility study with initial design and a preliminary prototype proof-of-concept.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BZ06-NV036

Title: Flightline Radio Network

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $250,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance (Q-BID)

Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Network System-of-Systems; Sustainment and Logistics; FutureG

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, unlike NV034 in the same release. General disclosure obligations still apply

Site: Edwards Air Force Base flight line

Technology readiness at project start: TRL 4

Phase I success criterion: the topic states achieving TRL 3 to 4

Target at end of Phase II: TRL 6, with the topic also stating a targeted advancement to TRL 6 to 7 by end of Phase II

Phase III target: TRL 7

Named transition partners: the 412th Maintenance Group, Air Force Materiel Command, and commercial partners, supported by Air Force Sustainment Center and AFLCMC funding

Program alignment: Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS)

Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort

Subcontract and consultant cap: one-third of total contract price, profit excluded

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award

Type size: no smaller than 10-point

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

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

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: 5G, private cellular, flight line, aircraft maintenance, secure communications, predictive maintenance, augmented reality, Edwards AFB, logistics

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

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The operational problem at Edwards

Flight line operations at Edwards Air Force Base face increasing demands for more efficient, secure, and real-time communication systems to enhance aircraft maintenance, logistics, and operational performance. The Air Force is direct about why current arrangements fall short: current communication solutions are limited by outdated infrastructure, lack of interoperability, and insufficient data transmission capabilities.

There is a distinct opportunity to leverage advanced cellular network technologies, particularly 5G and Open Radio Access Network architectures, to address these limitations and modernize the flight line environment.

Note that Edwards is a test and evaluation base, which shapes the requirement. The objective states that the effort aims to support advanced test and evaluation activities, promoting a high-performance communication environment that meets the stringent demands of a modern Air Force Base. A flight line at a test wing generates instrumentation data, telemetry, and rapidly changing configurations in a way that an operational fighter wing does not, and the Range Commanders Council IRIG 106 telemetry standards reference in the topic reinforces that this environment has its own data conventions.

The objective

The objective is to explore and develop innovative technologies leveraging cellular network infrastructure, particularly Open RAN architectures, to enhance communication capabilities on the flight line at Edwards AFB. The goal is to establish a secure, adaptable, and interoperable cellular network that facilitates superior aircraft maintenance, logistics, and operational efficiency.

This research and development initiative will focus on feasibility studies, system design, and foundational prototyping, ensuring flexibility for future adaptation and integration into subsequent phases based on Phase I outcomes and insights.

That last sentence tells you the shape of the Phase I effort. Feasibility studies, system design, and foundational prototyping, with deliberate flexibility rather than a locked architecture.

The use cases the Air Force names

The topic is specific about what the network is for, and each named use case is a place your proposal should say something concrete.

Ground crew coordination. The project will focus on enhancing ground crew coordination, which is the baseline voice and data communication problem.

Real-time aircraft health monitoring. Enabling real-time aircraft health monitoring, which implies on-aircraft or on-equipment data collection moving over the network while the aircraft is on the ground.

Predictive maintenance. Supporting predictive maintenance to reduce aircraft downtime and enhance mission readiness. This is the value argument, since downtime is the cost the Air Force is trying to reduce.

Augmented reality maintenance support. Augmented reality applications will be integrated to provide maintenance personnel with real-time guidance, schematics, and remote support, further optimizing maintenance tasks. Note the specificity: guidance, schematics, and remote support. AR is named as an integrated application, not an aspiration, which means bandwidth and latency budgets for AR belong in your design.

Improved data sharing and operational efficiency. The aim is a secure, adaptable, and interoperable network that improves real-time communication, data sharing, and operational efficiency at Edwards AFB.

The technical direction

From a technical standpoint, the initiative will employ a 5G Open RAN architecture, offering increased flexibility, interoperability, and security while minimizing vendor lock-in and lowering costs.

Vendor lock-in avoidance and cost reduction are named as reasons for Open RAN, which is worth registering. The Air Force is not asking for Open RAN because it is fashionable; it is asking because a disaggregated, multi-vendor architecture is the procurement outcome it wants. A proposal built on a single-vendor proprietary stack answers a different question.

The modular design of this network will allow it to accommodate evolving test requirements and future upgrades, ensuring a scalable and cost-effective solution.

The network will integrate seamlessly with Edwards AFB's existing infrastructure and employ efficient frequency allocation through spectrum sharing mechanisms.

Those last two clauses are the hard parts, and they are the ones a commercial cellular vendor is most likely to underestimate. Integration with existing base infrastructure means engaging with what is already there rather than overlaying a greenfield network. Spectrum sharing at a Department of Defense test range is a genuinely constrained problem, involving federal spectrum allocations, range operations, and coordination that has no commercial analogue.

Interference with aircraft systems is a named requirement

The detailed Phase I description states that the effort will outline network architecture, components, deployment strategy, and address potential interference with aircraft systems.

This deserves emphasis because it is where a commercial telecom proposal most often fails to persuade a flight test audience. Radiating RF energy near aircraft, in a flight test environment, next to instrumentation and telemetry systems, raises electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic environmental effects questions that must be addressed on their own terms. Phase II reinforces this, stating that testing will evaluate performance and ensure compatibility with aircraft systems. If your proposal treats interference as a footnote, a reviewer from the test community will notice.

Phase I

The topic describes Phase I twice, and the two descriptions are complementary rather than contradictory.

The summary version: conduct feasibility studies and initial system design. This includes analyzing current flight line communication requirements, exploring Open RAN components, and developing foundational prototypes. Deliverables will include a comprehensive feasibility report, initial design schematics, and a preliminary prototype proof-of-concept.

The detailed version: Phase I will assess the feasibility of an Open RAN network for flight line use at Edwards AFB. It will outline network architecture, components, deployment strategy, and address potential interference with aircraft systems. Deliverables include security analysis, use cases, and integration plans. Success includes achieving TRL 3 to 4, demonstrating proof-of-concept through a preliminary prototype and feasibility report.

Combined, your Phase I deliverable list is: a comprehensive feasibility report, initial design schematics, a preliminary prototype proof-of-concept, a security analysis, documented use cases, and integration plans. That is six named items in six months, and every one of them is a document or a bench-level demonstration rather than a fielded system. Scope accordingly.

Note a small inconsistency in the source. The topic states the anticipated TRL at the start of the project is TRL 4, but then says Phase I success includes achieving TRL 3 to 4. Starting at 4 and succeeding by reaching 3 to 4 does not quite parse. The most sensible reading is that commercial Open RAN technology generally sits at TRL 4 or higher, while the specific flight line application at Edwards is what needs to be brought to TRL 3 to 4. Frame your maturity claims in terms of the application rather than the underlying technology, and describe what you will actually demonstrate.

Phase II

Phase II will develop and test a prototype Open RAN network at Edwards AFB. The system will include base stations, network components, user equipment, and specialized sensors. Testing will evaluate performance and ensure compatibility with aircraft systems, assessing coverage, bandwidth, latency, security, and operational impact. The system must integrate with Edwards AFB's infrastructure and achieve TRL 6, demonstrating a functional prototype in an operational setting.

The summary version adds that Phase II involves developing and refining the prototype based on Phase I insights, implementation of pilot deployments and rigorous testing to validate system performance and security, with deliverables including a full-scale prototype, detailed test results, and an integration plan for transitioning the technology to operational use at Edwards AFB.

Five assessment dimensions are named for Phase II: coverage, bandwidth, latency, security, and operational impact. Your Phase I design work should establish predicted values or targets against those five, because that is the framework your own Phase II will be measured on. Note also that specialized sensors appear in the Phase II system description, which connects back to the real-time aircraft health monitoring use case.

The topic also notes a targeted advancement to TRL 6 to 7 by the end of Phase II in one place and TRL 6 in another. Planning toward TRL 6, a functional prototype in an operational setting, satisfies both.

Phase III and the transition path

Phase III involves scaling the Open RAN cellular network at Edwards AFB to enhance flight line operations, targeting TRL 7. Military applications include real-time maintenance data and improved logistics coordination. Commercial use spans complex logistics in aerospace sectors. Transition efforts will engage the 412th Maintenance Group, Air Force Materiel Command, and commercial partners, supported by Air Force Sustainment Center and AFLCMC funding.

This is among the most concrete transition descriptions in the DAF Release 6 portfolio. You are given the using organization, the 412th MXG at Edwards, the major command, AFMC, and two named funding sources, the Air Force Sustainment Center and AFLCMC. Reference all of them in your future research and development discussion.

The topic also states that successful completion is expected to significantly advance the Department of Defense's technological state by providing a robust, future-proof communication solution tailored to the unique demands of flight line operations, and that this development aligns with modernization priorities such as Integrated Network System-of-Systems and Sustainment and Logistics, ultimately contributing to the operationally focused Advanced Battle Management System.

The ABMS connection is worth using carefully. It elevates a base infrastructure project into a recognized Air Force modernization line, and the topic makes the link itself so you are not stretching.

The cited references

Four references, all standards and industry documents rather than research papers, which reinforces that this is an integration topic.

3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP, the mobile broadband standard.

Range Commanders Council IRIG 106, the 106 Telemetry Standards, via the Public RCC TRMC website.

O-RAN Alliance, O-RAN Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios.

Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance, Open RAN White Paper.

The IRIG 106 citation is the one that distinguishes this topic from a generic private cellular opportunity. It is the telemetry standard family used at test ranges, and its presence signals that the flight line environment at Edwards carries range instrumentation conventions your network has to coexist with. A proposal that cites 3GPP and O-RAN but ignores IRIG 106 has read half the reference list.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and realistic scoping

Up to $250,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Six months and $250,000 supports a serious requirements analysis, an architecture and deployment design, a security analysis, an integration plan, and a laboratory or small-scale proof-of-concept. It does not support standing up a network at Edwards, and the topic does not ask you to. Deployment at the base is Phase II.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts. For a commercial telecom company new to defense work, that is worth acting on early, because DCAA accounting system approval takes time.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.

This BAA Phase I document carries the full detailed TABA request requirements. Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Cybersecurity assistance and development of regulations are the two most relevant here. Cybersecurity because a security analysis is a named Phase I deliverable and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is the projected requirement. Development of regulations because spectrum coordination at a federal test range is a regulatory problem as much as a technical one.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies. On this topic, radio units, servers or edge compute for the RAN Intelligent Controller and core, test user equipment, and AR headsets belong here.

Other direct costs. This includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Anechoic or shielded chamber time for interference characterization, spectrum analysis equipment rental, and commercial software or licensing may sit here, and the lease versus purchase rationale is likely to be relevant given how much cellular test equipment is normally rented.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a study and design Phase I, this is most of the budget. RF and network engineers, security engineers, and someone credible on flight line or maintenance operations should all be visible.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

On this topic that recommendation is more than a formality. The entire proposition is a network at a specific base, and a requirements analysis of the Edwards flight line performed entirely from a distance is weaker than one informed by a site visit. Budget the travel and say what you will do there.

Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.

Open RAN is by design a multi-vendor architecture, which creates a specific tension with this cap. One-third of $250,000 is roughly $83,000 for all consultant fees, facility lease and usage fees, and subcontract or purchase agreements combined. If your architecture requires radio units, a core, and a controller from three different vendors, the purchase agreements alone can approach that. Model it early, and consider whether Phase I needs procured hardware at all or whether a design plus a software-based or emulated proof-of-concept satisfies the deliverable.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate. A consultant with flight line maintenance or range spectrum experience is a strong addition to this proposal, and this is how you document them.

Performance of work requirements

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from this performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

This last point deserves attention on a telecom topic. Cellular network software development is frequently distributed internationally, and offshore engineering teams are common in the industry. All research and development work under this award must be performed in the United States absent specific written approval sought with the initial proposal.

Supply Chain, Which Is a Live Issue for Cellular Equipment

Nothing in this topic is more likely to disqualify an otherwise strong bidder than equipment sourcing. The foreign risk denial criteria name eight lists, and cellular network equipment intersects several of them directly. The Section 889 Prohibition List, the FCC List of Equipment and Services, the Entity List, and the Military End User List all include telecommunications equipment suppliers.

Radio units, baseband hardware, transport equipment, and even components inside otherwise domestic products are the exposure. Open RAN's multi-vendor premise increases the number of suppliers you have to clear rather than decreasing it. Audit your intended bill of materials against those lists before you propose, and be prepared to name your suppliers.

Note also that the projected CMMC level requirement for this topic is Level 2 with self-assessment, and that a security analysis is a named Phase I deliverable. A company proposing to build a secure network for a flight line should expect its own security posture to be relevant, and cybersecurity practices is the first item on the foreign risk assessment list.

Personnel Disclosure and Export Control

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph, unlike NV034 in the same Phase I release. Your general obligations still apply.

The Volume 2 Key Personnel requirements apply to every topic in this release. Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included, and only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful.

Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.

Do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.

If you are asserting export-controlled status for your own technology, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission is a Volume 5 document, and approval will be required if selected for award.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit

The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white, which matters here because network architecture diagrams and coverage maps often rely on color.

The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. This differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point.

The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.

The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides. A slide-format volume is acceptable and suits architecture diagrams, coverage analysis, and deployment layouts well.

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified. Note the criminal warning the instructions carry: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. Be careful here about anything describing base infrastructure or vulnerabilities.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 SBIR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.

Key personnel, as described above.

Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

Your Deliverables entry should reflect the six items the topic names across its two Phase I descriptions: a comprehensive feasibility report, initial design schematics, a preliminary prototype proof-of-concept, a security analysis, use cases, and integration plans.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 SBIR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, for proposals submitted under export-controlled topics. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 SBIR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

For a commercial telecom company, Technical Data Rights Assertions matter because your existing software, orchestration, and network management intellectual property predates this award. This is the mechanism for keeping that boundary clear.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria live in the BAA

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

This BAA document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria, unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO Phase I instructions which restate Criteria A, B, and C. Read the criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA before writing, and do not assume the CSO criteria carry over.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

Of all the topics in this release, this is the one where the eight lists bite hardest, because telecommunications equipment is the explicit subject of several of them.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

Small business concerns that are 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.

Worth stating plainly because the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions say the opposite for that document's topic. Within the same BAA cycle, the Phase I instructions permit venture-backed firms and the Direct to Phase II instructions do not. The Phase I instructions govern this topic, so venture-backed private cellular companies are eligible here. Verify eligibility per document rather than assuming a cycle-wide rule.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.

Because Phase II involves deploying at Edwards and the request can come during Phase I performance, building the relationship with the base during Phase I is directly instrumental rather than merely helpful.

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 BAA, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

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

Period of performance: up to 6 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Read the evaluation criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, since they are not in the component instructions. Read the four cited references, including IRIG 106, which is the one most likely to be unfamiliar to a commercial cellular team. Learn what you can about the Edwards flight line environment and the 412th Maintenance Group. Audit your intended equipment bill of materials against the eight denial lists, which on a telecom topic is the highest-risk diligence item. Identify a consultant with flight line maintenance or range spectrum experience if you do not have that inside. Work out your spectrum approach and the electromagnetic interference story. Model the one-third outside cost cap against any hardware procurement, and decide whether Phase I needs purchased equipment at all. Inventory background intellectual property for Technical Data Rights Assertions. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment. Send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which encourages early inquiries.

September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit, organized around the six named Phase I deliverables. Give the network architecture, components, and deployment strategy real specificity, address interference with aircraft systems on its own terms, and write the security analysis as an actual analysis rather than a compliance statement. Set targets for the five Phase II assessment dimensions: coverage, bandwidth, latency, security, and operational impact. Write the work plan outline separately with no proprietary content, since it becomes the Statement of Work. Build the milestone schedule early since the TABA task list must track to it.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Itemize radios, compute, test user equipment, and AR hardware if you are procuring any. Include the recommended trip to the Air Force location managing the contract with a stated purpose. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract, and check the one-third cap including purchase agreements. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with Technical Data Rights Assertions and any applicable DD Form 2345, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BZ06-NV036?

‍ ‍

DAF26BZ06-NV036 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic titled "Flightline Radio Network," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks innovative technologies leveraging cellular network infrastructure, particularly 5G Open Radio Access Network architectures, to establish a secure, adaptable, and interoperable network on the flight line at Edwards Air Force Base supporting aircraft maintenance, logistics, and operational efficiency.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BZ06-NV036?

‍ ‍

Up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Is this topic tied to a specific base?

‍ ‍

Yes. The flight line at Edwards Air Force Base is named throughout, the network must integrate with Edwards AFB's existing infrastructure, Phase II deploys and tests there, and Phase III scales there. The 412th Maintenance Group at Edwards is named as a transition partner. Site understanding is a differentiator, not a detail.

‍ ‍

What are the use cases?

‍ ‍

Ground crew coordination, real-time aircraft health monitoring, predictive maintenance to reduce aircraft downtime and enhance mission readiness, and augmented reality applications providing maintenance personnel with real-time guidance, schematics, and remote support. The broader aim is improved real-time communication, data sharing, and operational efficiency.

‍ ‍

Why Open RAN specifically?

‍ ‍

The topic states that a 5G Open RAN architecture offers increased flexibility, interoperability, and security while minimizing vendor lock-in and lowering costs, and that its modular design will accommodate evolving test requirements and future upgrades. Vendor lock-in avoidance and cost reduction are stated procurement goals, so a single-vendor proprietary stack is answering a different question.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I deliver?

‍ ‍

Across the topic's two Phase I descriptions, six items are named: a comprehensive feasibility report, initial design schematics, a preliminary prototype proof-of-concept, a security analysis, use cases, and integration plans. Phase I will also outline network architecture, components, and deployment strategy, and address potential interference with aircraft systems.

‍ ‍

What technology readiness level applies?

‍ ‍

The topic states the anticipated TRL at project start is TRL 4, and that Phase I success includes achieving TRL 3 to 4. Those do not quite reconcile, and the sensible reading is that commercial Open RAN technology sits at TRL 4 or above while the specific flight line application at Edwards is what must be matured to TRL 3 to 4. Frame maturity claims around the application rather than the underlying technology.

‍ ‍

Do I need to address interference with aircraft systems?

‍ ‍

Yes, explicitly. Phase I is required to address potential interference with aircraft systems, and Phase II testing must ensure compatibility with aircraft systems. Radiating RF near aircraft in a flight test environment raises electromagnetic interference and environmental effects questions, and a proposal that treats this as a footnote will not persuade a test community reviewer.

‍ ‍

What about spectrum?

‍ ‍

The topic states the network will employ efficient frequency allocation through spectrum sharing mechanisms. Spectrum at a Department of Defense test range involves federal allocations, range operations, and coordination that has no direct commercial analogue, so treat it as a substantive design problem rather than an assumption.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase II?

‍ ‍

Develop and test a prototype Open RAN network at Edwards AFB, including base stations, network components, user equipment, and specialized sensors. Testing evaluates performance and ensures compatibility with aircraft systems, assessing coverage, bandwidth, latency, security, and operational impact. The system must integrate with Edwards AFB's infrastructure and achieve TRL 6, demonstrating a functional prototype in an operational setting. Deliverables include a full-scale prototype, detailed test results, and an integration plan for transitioning to operational use.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Scaling the Open RAN cellular network at Edwards AFB, targeting TRL 7. Military applications include real-time maintenance data and improved logistics coordination, and commercial use spans complex logistics in aerospace sectors. Transition efforts will engage the 412th Maintenance Group, Air Force Materiel Command, and commercial partners, supported by Air Force Sustainment Center and AFLCMC funding.

‍ ‍

How does this connect to larger Air Force programs?

‍ ‍

The topic states the development aligns with modernization priorities such as Integrated Network System-of-Systems and Sustainment and Logistics, ultimately contributing to the operationally focused Advanced Battle Management System. Because the topic makes that link itself, you can reference ABMS without overreaching.

‍ ‍

What references should I read?

‍ ‍

Four are cited: 3GPP, the mobile broadband standard; Range Commanders Council IRIG 106 telemetry standards; the O-RAN Alliance's O-RAN Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios; and the NGMN Alliance Open RAN White Paper. IRIG 106 is the one that distinguishes this from a generic private cellular opportunity, since it governs range telemetry conventions your network must coexist with.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit; only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either. Pages or slides in excess of the stated limit will not be reviewed.

‍ ‍

What is my biggest disqualification risk?

‍ ‍

Equipment supply chain. The foreign risk denial criteria name eight lists, including the Section 889 Prohibition List, the FCC List of Equipment and Services, the Entity List, and the Military End User List, all of which reach telecommunications equipment. Open RAN's multi-vendor premise increases the number of suppliers you must clear. Audit your bill of materials before you propose.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit. Separately, all consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost with profit excluded, unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. On a $250,000 award that is roughly $83,000 for all outside costs combined.

‍ ‍

Does the one-third cap include equipment purchases?

‍ ‍

The cap as written covers consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements. Because Open RAN is multi-vendor by design, purchased radios, core software, and controllers can approach that figure quickly. Consider whether Phase I requires procured hardware at all, or whether a design plus a software-based or emulated proof-of-concept satisfies the deliverable.

‍ ‍

Can my offshore engineering team work on this?

‍ ‍

Not without specific approval. All research and development work must be performed in the United States. The DAF may approve a particular portion performed or obtained outside the United States only based on a rare and unique circumstance, with written approval from the awarding Funding Agreement officer, and the request must accompany the initial proposal submission. This is a real constraint in an industry where distributed development is common.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph, unlike NV034 in the same release. General disclosure obligations still apply, including identifying all U.S. permanent residents and all non-U.S. citizens involved with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and anticipated level of involvement.

‍ ‍

What identity information should I not upload?

‍ ‍

Do not upload Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying documents.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. Read those criteria before writing, and do not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes, for this topic. The BAA Phase I instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible for DAF topics. The DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions state the opposite for that document's topic, so verify per document.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Why does the work plan outline matter so much?

‍ ‍

Because the DAF uses it as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. The instructions direct you not to include proprietary information in it, warning that doing so will necessitate a request for revision if selected and may delay award.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. This BAA document carries the full detailed request requirements: provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, and requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. Cybersecurity assistance and development of regulations are the most relevant eligible activities here.

‍ ‍

Should I budget travel to Edwards?

‍ ‍

The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract, and on this topic that is substantive rather than administrative. A requirements analysis of a specific flight line performed entirely remotely is weaker than one informed by a site visit. Budget it and say what you will do there.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The Air Force anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Win on site knowledge, not on cellular expertise. Many companies can build a private 5G network. Far fewer understand a flight line at a test wing, where instrumentation, telemetry, rapidly changing aircraft configurations, and range spectrum coordination all intersect. Demonstrating that you understand Edwards specifically is the strongest differentiator available on this topic.

‍ ‍

Get someone with flight line credibility on the team. A consultant with maintenance operations or range spectrum experience changes how the proposal reads to a reviewer from the test community, and the cost volume has a documented path for consultants. This is a high-return, low-cost addition.

‍ ‍

Treat interference with aircraft systems as a first-class technical section. It is a named Phase I requirement and a named Phase II test criterion. Address emissions, coexistence with aircraft avionics and instrumentation, and your test approach. This is where a commercial telecom proposal most often loses a defense flight test audience.

‍ ‍

Read and cite IRIG 106. It is the reference in the list least likely to be familiar and the one that signals whether you understand the environment. Range telemetry conventions are part of your interoperability problem.

‍ ‍

Write the security analysis as analysis. It is a named deliverable, CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is the projected requirement, and cybersecurity practices leads the foreign risk assessment list. A threat model for a base flight line network, covering the RAN, the core, the user equipment, and the AR endpoints, is worth real pages.

‍ ‍

Audit your bill of materials before anything else. On a cellular topic, the eight denial lists are the most likely cause of a mandatory denial. Section 889, the FCC covered list, the Entity List, and the Military End User List all touch telecom equipment. Know your suppliers and their component sources.

‍ ‍

Solve the one-third cap problem structurally. Open RAN means multiple vendors, and purchase agreements count against the same cap as subcontracts. Decide early whether your Phase I proof-of-concept can be software-based or emulated, since that keeps procurement out of a tight cost envelope and leaves room for the analysis the topic actually asks for.

‍ ‍

Set targets against the five Phase II dimensions now. Coverage, bandwidth, latency, security, and operational impact are the Phase II assessment criteria. Establishing predicted values in Phase I gives the government a measurement framework and gives you a defensible basis for the Phase II request.

‍ ‍

Make the downtime argument quantitative. Predictive maintenance reducing aircraft downtime is the value proposition. Even a rough model of sortie availability or maintenance cycle time improvement is more persuasive than a description of the technology.

‍ ‍

Use the named transition path in full. The 412th Maintenance Group, Air Force Materiel Command, the Air Force Sustainment Center, AFLCMC, and ABMS are all named in the topic. Very few SBIR topics hand you the using organization, the command, the funding sources, and the program alignment. Put all of them in your future research and development section.

‍ ‍

Build the commercial case on aerospace logistics. The topic names complex logistics in aerospace sectors as the commercial application. Commercial MRO facilities, airport ramp operations, and manufacturing plants have the same problem structure, which makes the dual-use argument straightforward rather than strained.

DAF SBIR DAF26BZ06-NV035: Quantum Memory for Secure Communication

Quick Answer

DAF26BZ06-NV035 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force wants advanced quantum memory systems that enable secure communication within quantum networks, with the specific aim of building quantum repeaters that extend the range of Quantum Key Distribution. The problem being solved is stated plainly: current QKD systems are limited by signal loss over long distances, which prevents widespread implementation. Quantum memory is the component that makes a repeater possible, and a repeater is what breaks the distance limit. Awards are up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 20 page or slide technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The maturity framing is the most important thing to understand before you write. The topic states that at project start the technology is at Technology Readiness Level 2, focusing on application concept formulation, and that Phase I success means demonstrating TRL 3 by drafting a feasibility report and a detailed architecture plan for a Phase II prototype of a lab-based test bench capable of end-to-end quantum information transport. That is a design and analysis deliverable, not a working repeater. Six months and $250,000 buys a scientific approach, a conceptual design, a feasibility report, and an architecture plan, with laboratory validation activity where you can achieve it.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BZ06-NV035

Title: Quantum Memory for Secure Communication

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $250,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance (Q-BID)

Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber; Integrated Network System-of-Systems; Quantum Science; Emerging Threat Reduction; Sustainment and Logistics

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, unlike NV034 in the same release. General disclosure obligations still apply

Technology readiness at project start: TRL 2, application concept formulation

Phase I success criterion: demonstrate TRL 3

Target at end of Phase II: the topic states TRL 5 in one place and TRL 4 to 6 in another

Phase III target: TRL 7

Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort

Subcontract and consultant cap: one-third of total contract price, profit excluded

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award

Type size: no smaller than 10-point

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

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

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: quantum memory, quantum key distribution, secure communication, quantum networks, photonic qubits, quantum repeaters, long-range communication, cybersecurity, TRL 2-5, quantum science, AFWERX, strategic communications, emerging threats

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

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The threat and the gap

The topic opens with the strategic motivation. The rapid advancement of quantum computing poses a significant challenge to traditional encryption methods, potentially compromising the security of digital communications. Quantum Key Distribution provides a solution by using quantum properties to generate secure encryption keys.

Then the limitation. Current QKD systems are limited by signal loss over long distances, preventing widespread implementation. This project seeks to address that limitation by developing advanced quantum memory systems, or quantum repeaters, designed to extend the range and fidelity of quantum signals. These repeaters will enable efficient Quantum Key Distribution over long distances, thereby enhancing secure communications for the Air Force's digital infrastructure.

That framing sets your problem statement. You are not being asked to improve QKD key rates at existing distances. You are being asked to attack the distance limit itself, and quantum memory is the enabling component.

The objective

The objective is to develop and demonstrate advanced quantum memory systems essential for enabling secure communication within quantum networks. The primary goal is to enhance the storage and transmission capabilities of photonic qubits, ensuring high coherence and minimal loss over extended distances. This will facilitate the creation of scalable quantum repeater systems that significantly improve the efficiency and robustness of Quantum Key Distribution.

By focusing on the foundational aspects of quantum memory hardware, the effort aims to address critical challenges in quantum communication, providing a reliable solution that can be adapted and expanded upon in subsequent phases. The results from this phase will establish a solid technical foundation, allowing for iterative improvement and seamless integration with existing and future quantum entanglement sources and networks.

Two phrases deserve attention. "Foundational aspects of quantum memory hardware" tells you the Air Force expects hardware-oriented work rather than protocol or software analysis. And "seamless integration with existing and future quantum entanglement sources and networks" tells you that interoperability with entanglement sources is part of the design problem, not an afterthought, which the Phase II description reinforces.

The primary goal is restated as developing and demonstrating advanced quantum memory systems capable of high coherence and minimal loss, essential for reliable communication within quantum networks.

The Phase I tasks

The topic describes Phase I twice, at different levels of specificity, and the two descriptions should be read together rather than treated as alternatives.

The first description says the required efforts will commence with foundational research and development of quantum memory hardware. In Phase I, the tasks will involve designing quantum memory materials, developing quantum repeater prototypes, and validating their performance through controlled laboratory experiments. Key activities will include designing and fabricating quantum memory materials aimed at reducing signal decoherence and data loss; developing prototypes capable of storing and transmitting photonic qubits; and conducting laboratory tests to validate the prototypes' performance against defined metrics such as coherence, loss, and noise.

The second, later description is more specific about what Phase I is assessed on. Phase I will assess the feasibility of using quantum memory hardware to enhance Quantum Key Distribution by requiring proposals to detail the scientific approach, develop a conceptual design for a functional quantum memory prototype showcasing its capabilities and potential advantages in both lab and simulated environments. Demonstrate Technology Readiness Level 3 by drafting a feasibility report and a detailed architecture plan for a Phase II prototype of a lab-based test bench capable of end-to-end quantum information transport.

The tension between those two passages is real and worth handling deliberately in your proposal. The first mentions fabricating materials and developing prototypes with laboratory validation. The second sets the assessed deliverable at a feasibility report plus an architecture plan, at TRL 3. Six months and $250,000 will not support meaningful materials fabrication and prototype development from scratch, so the sensible reading is that the assessed Phase I output is the feasibility report, the scientific approach, the conceptual design, and the architecture plan, with whatever laboratory validation you can credibly perform on material or apparatus you already have.

The strongest proposals will be explicit about this. State what design and analysis you will deliver, state what laboratory work you will actually perform in six months and on what existing capability, and do not promise fabrication and validation cycles the schedule cannot hold. Cost realism sits inside the evaluation, and an overpromised quantum hardware schedule is not credible.

The three named Phase I key activities

Use these as structure. Designing and fabricating quantum memory materials aimed at reducing signal decoherence and data loss. Developing prototypes capable of storing and transmitting photonic qubits. Conducting laboratory tests to validate the prototypes' performance against defined metrics, with coherence, loss, and noise given as the examples.

Coherence, loss, and noise is your metric triple. Whatever your memory approach, atomic ensemble, rare-earth doped crystal, solid-state defect center, or another, give predicted values against those three and say how you will measure them.

Minimum deliverables

Minimum deliverables for this project include detailed technical reports, functional quantum memory prototypes, performance evaluation data, and an integration roadmap detailing steps for transition into operational use.

Note that this list is framed as deliverables for the project rather than for Phase I specifically, which is consistent with the functional prototype appearing in the Phase II description. For Phase I, the assessed items are the feasibility report and the architecture plan at TRL 3, with the integration roadmap being a natural Phase I product as well since it is analysis rather than hardware.

The advanced quantum repeater systems developed through this SBIR initiative will significantly enhance the Department of Defense's capabilities in secure communications, positioning the Air Force at the forefront of quantum-secured information transfer.

Phase II

Phase II will focus on developing a prototype quantum repeater and memory system, validating functionality in relevant environments, and achieving TRL 4 to 6. This involves building scalable prototypes, integrating with entangled pair transmission equipment, and rigorous lab testing to meet metrics such as coherence, loss, and security. Successful outcomes will demonstrate transition readiness for development and deployment.

The main Phase II activities are named as enhancing quantum memory systems for increased coherence fidelity and extended transmission distances; integrating prototypes with existing entanglement sources and quantum communication networks; testing the quantum memory systems in simulated and real-world environments to ensure robustness and reliability; and evaluating performance through rigorous data collection and analysis to meet predefined security and operational metrics.

Note the TRL inconsistency in the source. Earlier the topic states that by the end of Phase II the target is to reach TRL 5, demonstrating the integrated system in a relevant environment. The Phase II paragraph states achieving TRL 4 to 6. Those are not the same claim. The safe course is to plan toward TRL 5 in a relevant environment, which satisfies both statements, and to describe your maturity claims in terms of what you will actually demonstrate rather than leaning on a TRL number alone.

Note also that integration with entangled pair transmission equipment and with existing entanglement sources appears in both the objective and the Phase II activities. Your Phase I architecture plan should address the interfaces to an entanglement source, since that is where the Air Force has signaled the system boundary sits.

Phase III

In Phase III, the quantum memory technology will achieve TRL 7, transitioning into secure Department of Defense communication networks and commercial QKD applications. Expected efforts include finalizing integration, extensive testing, obtaining necessary certifications, and establishing production capability. Potential Air Force customers include network and cybersecurity divisions. This addresses critical needs for secure, long-range communication solutions.

Two useful details for your commercialization section. The named Air Force customers are network and cybersecurity divisions, which gives you a concrete internal buyer to reference. And commercial QKD applications are named alongside the defense path, which supports a dual-use case built on financial, utility, and government network security markets rather than an invented one.

The reference list

The topic carries an unusually long reference list, fifteen items, spanning the foundational and the applied. Kimble's "The quantum internet" in Nature 2008. Gisin and Thew, "Quantum communication," Nature Photonics 2007. Afzelius, Simon, de Riedmatten and Gisin on multimode quantum memory based on atomic frequency combs, Physical Review A 2009. Ladd et al, "Quantum computers," Nature 2010. Bussieres et al on prospective applications of optical quantum memories, Journal of Modern Optics 2013. Van Meter, Devitt and Itoh on architecture-dependent execution time of Shor's algorithm, Physical Review A 2007. Bennett and Brassard's 1984 public key distribution and coin tossing paper, listed twice, once in the Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing and once as the BB84 Protocol citation in Theoretical Computer Science with the note that this is the original QKD protocol. Knill, Laflamme and Milburn on efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 2001. A 2020 Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology paper on optical quantum memory and its applications in quantum communication systems. The Quantum Economic Development Consortium. The National Quantum Initiative at quantum.gov. Scarani et al on the security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of Modern Physics 2009. Pirandola et al on quantum cryptography, Nature Reviews Physics 2020. And Lucamarini, Yuan, Dynes and Shields on overcoming the rate-distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters, Nature 2018.

That last reference is the interesting one, and worth engaging with directly. It describes twin-field QKD, an approach that extends range without quantum repeaters. Its presence in a quantum memory topic's reference list means the Air Force is aware of the repeaterless alternative. A proposal that explains why a memory-based repeater is worth pursuing given that alternative, in terms of ultimate scaling, network topology, or entanglement distribution capability beyond key exchange, is answering a question the reference list implicitly asks. Ignoring it is a missed opportunity.

The inclusion of Afzelius on atomic frequency comb multimode memory and the NIST optical quantum memory review also suggests the government's frame of reference for candidate approaches. The Shor's algorithm and linear optics computation references, by contrast, are context for the threat and for the broader quantum landscape rather than steers on approach.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and realistic scoping

Up to $250,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

For a TRL 2 to TRL 3 quantum hardware effort, six months and $250,000 is a study with supporting laboratory work, not a build. The proposals that read as credible will scope accordingly and will be specific about what existing capability they bring, since nothing meaningful in quantum memory hardware gets built from zero in two quarters.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.

This BAA Phase I document carries the full detailed TABA request requirements. Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

For a quantum company, access to a network of scientists and engineers and intellectual property protections are the natural fits. Market validation is also worth considering given that the topic names both Air Force network and cybersecurity divisions and commercial QKD as destinations.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies. On this topic, crystals or other memory media, single photon detectors, lasers, cryogenic consumables, and optics belong here with quantities and prices.

Other direct costs. This includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Cryostat time, characterization services, and specialized measurement may sit here.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a study-weighted Phase I this will be most of the budget, and the credibility of your named quantum scientists matters.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.

This cap is the practical constraint for quantum memory work, because the field is heavily university-based. One-third of $250,000 is roughly $83,000 for all consultant fees, facility lease and usage fees, and subcontracts combined. If your approach depends on a university group's cryogenic facility and their graduate students, model the arithmetic before you commit, and note that facility usage fees count against the same cap as the subcontract itself.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Performance of work requirements

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from this performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.

Because quantum memory expertise concentrates in academic groups, this requirement will bind on a number of otherwise strong teams. If your plan is university-centric, either restructure so that two-thirds of the research or analytical effort sits inside the company, or file the pre-submission deviation request in the first week of the open period, since it must occur inside the four week window.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission. Quantum research collaborations are frequently international, so if any collaborator sits abroad, address it.

Export Control, Foreign Nationals, and Personnel Disclosure

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph, unlike NV034 in the same Phase I release. That absence does not eliminate your obligations.

The Volume 2 Key Personnel requirements apply to every topic in this release. Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included, and only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful.

Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.

One instruction is easy to get wrong: do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.

Quantum research groups are among the most internationally staffed in physical science, so build your key personnel section with this in mind. Note also that the foreign risk evaluation described below explicitly assesses foreign affiliations of covered individuals with entities in foreign countries of concern, including research institutions, which is directly relevant where your team members hold or held academic appointments abroad.

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

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit

The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white.

The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. This differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point, so do not carry formatting assumptions across documents.

The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.

The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides. Because the limit is expressed as pages or slides, a slide-format technical volume is acceptable.

Twenty pages is workable here if you resist the urge to write a quantum communication tutorial. The evaluators do not need the background, and the fifteen-item reference list tells you they have it. Spend the pages on your specific memory approach, your predicted coherence, loss, and noise, your architecture plan, and your integration path.

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified. Note the criminal warning the instructions carry: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 SBIR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.

Key personnel, as described above.

Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.

That instruction matters. Your work plan outline becomes the contract's statement of work, so proprietary content there either ends up in a contract document or triggers a revision cycle that delays award. Keep the detailed physics in the technical volume body and keep the outline at the task and deliverable level.

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it rather than discovering it at closeout.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 SBIR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, for proposals submitted under export-controlled topics. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 SBIR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

Technical Data Rights Assertions deserve attention on a quantum topic where your memory material, your protocol implementation, or your control approach may be background intellectual property developed with private or prior non-federal funding.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria live in the BAA

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

This BAA document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria, unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO Phase I instructions which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance. Read the criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA before you begin writing, and do not assume the CSO criteria carry over.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

Employee analysis and foreign affiliations warrant particular attention on this topic. Quantum information science is a globally connected field, and academic affiliations abroad are common among exactly the people you would want as key personnel. Know your team's affiliation history before you propose.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv). Note that the malign foreign talent recruitment program provision and the foreign research institution affiliation provision are both mandatory denials, not discretionary judgments.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

Small business concerns that are 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 is worth stating plainly because the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions say the opposite for that document's topic. Within the same BAA cycle, the Phase I instructions permit venture-backed firms and the Direct to Phase II instructions do not. The Phase I instructions govern this topic, so venture-backed quantum companies are eligible here. Check eligibility per document rather than assuming a cycle-wide rule, and consider raising the discrepancy with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk if you are pursuing both.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include but are not limited to TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.

Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing real results early rather than holding everything for the final report is worth planning for on a six month award.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

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

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

Period of performance: up to 6 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Read the evaluation criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, since they are not in the component instructions. Work through the reference list, particularly the Lucamarini paper on overcoming the rate-distance limit without repeaters, and form your argument for why a memory-based repeater is the right investment anyway. Settle your memory approach and the predicted coherence, loss, and noise figures. Decide honestly what laboratory work six months supports on capability you already have. Model the two-thirds in-house requirement and the one-third outside cost cap against any university involvement, and if it does not close, file the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request in the first week of the open period. Map your team's foreign affiliations and any international collaborations. Inventory background intellectual property for Technical Data Rights Assertions. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment. Send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which encourages early inquiries, and consider asking about the TRL 5 versus TRL 4 to 6 inconsistency in the Phase II language.

September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit. Lead with your scientific approach and the conceptual design, then the coherence, loss, and noise projections, then the architecture plan for the Phase II lab-based test bench capable of end-to-end quantum information transport, then the integration path to entanglement sources. Skip the tutorial. Write the work plan outline separately, keeping proprietary detail out of it since it becomes the Statement of Work. Build the milestone schedule early since the TABA task list must track to it.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Itemize memory media, detectors, lasers, cryogenic consumables, and optics. Check the one-third cap, remembering that facility usage fees count against it alongside subcontracts. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract. Budget at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with Technical Data Rights Assertions and any applicable DD Form 2345, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BZ06-NV035?

‍ ‍

DAF26BZ06-NV035 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic titled "Quantum Memory for Secure Communication," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks advanced quantum memory systems that enable secure communication within quantum networks, specifically to build quantum repeaters that extend the range and fidelity of Quantum Key Distribution.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BZ06-NV035?

‍ ‍

Up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

What problem is this topic solving?

‍ ‍

Signal loss over long distances in Quantum Key Distribution systems, which the topic says prevents widespread implementation. Quantum memory enables quantum repeaters, and repeaters extend the range and fidelity of quantum signals so that QKD works over long distances.

‍ ‍

What technology readiness level does Phase I target?

‍ ‍

The technology is at TRL 2 at project start, focusing on application concept formulation. Phase I success is demonstrating TRL 3 by drafting a feasibility report and a detailed architecture plan for a Phase II prototype of a lab-based test bench capable of end-to-end quantum information transport.

‍ ‍

What is the actual Phase I deliverable?

‍ ‍

The assessed output is a feasibility report plus a detailed architecture plan at TRL 3, supported by a detailed scientific approach and a conceptual design for a functional quantum memory prototype showing its capabilities and potential advantages in both lab and simulated environments. The topic also describes designing quantum memory materials, developing prototypes, and conducting laboratory validation, but six months and $250,000 will not support meaningful fabrication from scratch, so the credible plan pairs the design and analysis deliverables with whatever laboratory work you can perform on existing capability.

‍ ‍

Why do the two Phase I descriptions differ?

‍ ‍

The topic describes Phase I twice. One passage lists designing and fabricating quantum memory materials, developing prototypes, and laboratory validation. The other sets the assessed criterion at a feasibility report and architecture plan demonstrating TRL 3. Read them together, be explicit in your proposal about which activities you will actually perform in six months, and do not promise fabrication and validation cycles your schedule cannot hold.

‍ ‍

What metrics should I address?

‍ ‍

Coherence, loss, and noise are named as the defined metrics for laboratory validation in Phase I. Phase II adds security to that list. Give predicted values for coherence, loss, and noise for your approach and say how you will measure each.

‍ ‍

What are the minimum deliverables?

‍ ‍

The topic lists detailed technical reports, functional quantum memory prototypes, performance evaluation data, and an integration roadmap detailing steps for transition into operational use. Note this is framed as deliverables for the project rather than for Phase I alone, consistent with the functional prototype appearing in the Phase II description.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase II?

‍ ‍

Developing a prototype quantum repeater and memory system, validating functionality in relevant environments, and achieving TRL 4 to 6. That involves building scalable prototypes, integrating with entangled pair transmission equipment, and rigorous lab testing against coherence, loss, and security metrics. Named activities include enhancing coherence fidelity and extended transmission distances, integrating with existing entanglement sources and quantum communication networks, testing in simulated and real-world environments, and rigorous data collection against predefined security and operational metrics.

‍ ‍

Is the Phase II TRL target 5 or 4 to 6?

‍ ‍

The topic says both in different places. Earlier it states that by the end of Phase II the target is to reach TRL 5, demonstrating the integrated system in a relevant environment. The Phase II paragraph states achieving TRL 4 to 6. Planning toward TRL 5 in a relevant environment satisfies both statements. Describe maturity in terms of what you will demonstrate rather than relying on a TRL number alone, and consider asking the One Help Desk during the open period.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

The quantum memory technology will achieve TRL 7, transitioning into secure Department of Defense communication networks and commercial QKD applications. Expected efforts include finalizing integration, extensive testing, obtaining necessary certifications, and establishing production capability. Potential Air Force customers include network and cybersecurity divisions.

‍ ‍

Does this topic care about integration with entanglement sources?

‍ ‍

Yes, and it says so twice. The objective mentions seamless integration with existing and future quantum entanglement sources and networks, and the Phase II activities name integrating prototypes with existing entanglement sources and quantum communication networks and with entangled pair transmission equipment. Your Phase I architecture plan should address those interfaces.

‍ ‍

The reference list includes a paper on QKD without quantum repeaters. Should I address that?

‍ ‍

Yes. The Lucamarini, Yuan, Dynes and Shields 2018 Nature paper on overcoming the rate-distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters describes an approach that extends range without memory-based repeaters. Its presence in a quantum memory topic's reference list means the government is aware of the alternative. A proposal that explains why a memory-based repeater is worth pursuing anyway, on grounds of ultimate scaling, network topology, or entanglement distribution beyond key exchange, is answering a question the reference list implicitly poses.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph, unlike NV034 in the same release. Your general disclosure obligations still apply, including identifying all U.S. permanent residents and all non-U.S. citizens involved with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and anticipated level of involvement. If you are asserting export-controlled status for your own technology, DD Form 2345 is a Volume 5 document.

‍ ‍

What identity information should I not upload?

‍ ‍

Do not upload Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, meaning countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and level of involvement, not the underlying documents.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit; only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either. Pages or slides in excess of the stated limit will not be reviewed.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit. Separately, all consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost with profit excluded, unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. On a $250,000 award that is roughly $83,000 for all outside costs combined.

‍ ‍

My approach depends on a university lab. Is that a problem?

‍ ‍

Potentially, and it is the constraint most likely to bind on this topic since quantum memory expertise concentrates in academic groups. Note that facility usage fees count against the same one-third cap as the subcontract itself. Either restructure so two-thirds of the research or analytical effort sits inside the company, or file a Performance of Work deviation request, which must be made prior to submission during the topic open period and again as part of the initial proposal submission.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. Read those criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA before writing, and do not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions applies.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes, for this topic. The BAA Phase I instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible for DAF topics. Note that the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions state the opposite for that document's topic, so verify eligibility per document rather than per cycle.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Why does the work plan outline matter so much?

‍ ‍

Because the DAF uses it as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. The instructions direct you not to include proprietary information in it, warning that doing so will necessitate a request for revision if selected and may delay award. Keep the detailed physics in the technical volume body.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. This BAA document carries the full detailed request requirements: provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, and requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, all Phase I awardees receive a notification with the submittal date and detailed instructions, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The Air Force anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Scope to what six months and TRL 3 actually mean. The single most common way to lose this topic will be promising a working quantum memory prototype. The assessed deliverable is a feasibility report and an architecture plan. Write a proposal that delivers those excellently, plus laboratory results on capability you already possess, and be explicit that this is the plan rather than leaving the evaluator to wonder whether you understand the constraint.

‍ ‍

Name your memory modality and defend it. Atomic ensemble, rare-earth doped crystal, solid-state defect center, or another approach, the choice drives everything about coherence time, bandwidth, wavelength compatibility, and operating temperature. Say which and why, with numbers.

‍ ‍

Give the coherence, loss, and noise triple explicitly. Those three are named as the defined metrics. A table with predicted values, measurement methods, and which you consider highest risk earns its space.

‍ ‍

Address the telecom wavelength question. QKD infrastructure lives in the telecom bands. If your memory operates elsewhere, the frequency conversion problem and its loss penalty is part of your architecture, and a proposal that omits it looks incomplete to anyone who works in this field.

‍ ‍

Engage the repeaterless alternative. The reference list includes the twin-field QKD paper. Explain why memory-based repeaters remain the right long-term investment, whether on scaling, on network topology, or on the entanglement distribution capability that key exchange alone does not provide.

‍ ‍

Build the architecture plan as a real deliverable. The Phase I criterion names a detailed architecture plan for a Phase II prototype of a lab-based test bench capable of end-to-end quantum information transport. That phrase is a specification. Show the test bench: sources, memory, channel, detection, synchronization, and the measurements that establish end-to-end transport.

‍ ‍

Design for the entanglement source interface. Integration with existing and future entanglement sources appears in both the objective and Phase II. Treat the source as an external interface with defined requirements rather than as something to be figured out later.

‍ ‍

Solve the university dependency problem before you write. Two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house, and all outside costs including facility usage fees under one-third of contract price, is the requirement most likely to disqualify an otherwise strong academic-adjacent team. Either restructure or file the deviation request in the first week of the open period.

‍ ‍

Know your team's foreign affiliations. Foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a mandatory denial, not a discretionary judgment, and quantum information science is an unusually international field. This is a diligence item, not a paperwork item.

‍ ‍

Use the named Phase III customers. Air Force network and cybersecurity divisions are named as potential customers, and commercial QKD applications are named alongside them. That gives you both a defense buyer to reference and a credible commercial market in financial, utility, and government network security, without having to invent one.

‍ ‍

Do not write the tutorial. Fifteen references tell you the evaluators know the field. Spend all twenty pages on your approach, your numbers, and your plan.

DAF SBIR DAF26BZ06-NV034: Low Noise and Low-SWaP High-Repetition Rate Mode-Locked Lasers for High-Speed Photonics

Quick Answer

DAF26BZ06-NV034 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force wants a compact, low size, weight, and power mode-locked laser operating in the near-infrared to short-wave infrared at repetition rates between 6 and 12 GHz. The reason is a specific gap in the market: the Air Force states that a commercially available stabilized low-noise laser in the 6 to 12 GHz range is currently lacking, and it needs one as a low-noise bridge between the optical and microwave domains. Awards are up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months, with a 20 page or slide technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Phase I is a proof-of-concept and feasibility effort at breadboard level, and the Air Force is explicit that supporting electronics can use benchtop solutions at this stage. It is also explicit about something else that shapes your cost volume: no government materials, equipment, data, or facilities will be provided. Everything you need, you bring or buy.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BZ06-NV034

Title: Low Noise and Low-SWaP High-Repetition Rate Mode-Locked Lasers for High-Speed Photonics

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $250,000

Award maximum duration: 6 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Dominance (Q-BID)

Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber; Microelectronics; Advanced Materials

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

Government-furnished property: none. No government materials, equipment, data, or facilities will be provided

Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort

Subcontract and consultant cap: one-third of total contract price, profit excluded

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award

Type size: no smaller than 10-point

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

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

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords, as listed in the topic: CO2 mode-locked lasers, frequency combs, semiconductor lasers, infrared, InP, GaSb, MOCVD, MBE

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW SBIR deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

Note on the keyword list. The topic's keyword list opens with CO2 mode-locked lasers, which sits oddly against a topic body entirely concerned with mode-locked semiconductor lasers in the near-infrared and short-wave infrared, and against the InP, GaSb, MOCVD, and MBE keywords that follow. Read the topic body as governing and treat that first keyword as likely carried over from elsewhere.

The Requirements, Stated Plainly

These are the numbers your proposal will be measured against. Address each one explicitly.

Repetition rate: between 6 and 12 GHz.

Average power: 50 mW or greater.

Pulse width: a picosecond or less.

Spectral range: near-infrared to short-wave infrared, with the O-band and C-band called out for compatibility with photonic integrated circuits and commercial off-the-shelf components.

Pumping: optically or electrically pumped, your choice.

Stabilization: the repetition rate must be stabilized with custom or commercial off-the-shelf electronics.

Noise and stability: low relative intensity noise and long-term power stability.

SWaP: the overall size, weight, and power of the laser itself and the necessary electronics must be minimized, with differentiating goals highlighted across Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.

The last item is worth reading carefully. The Air Force is asking you to identify what your SWaP differentiators are at each phase, which means your proposal should say what you will demonstrate about SWaP in Phase I at breadboard level, what changes in Phase II when the electronics become modular, and what the packaged Phase III article looks like. A proposal that treats SWaP as a Phase III concern has not answered the question.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

Why semiconductor mode-locking, and why this frequency band

The technical argument in the topic is specific and worth following closely, because your proposal needs to engage with it rather than restate it.

Mode-locked semiconductor lasers can support high repetition rates up to 100 GHz due to high gain and fast gain recovery, unlike fiber lasers or doped dielectric gain medium lasers. That is the reason the Air Force is pointed at semiconductor gain media rather than fiber or crystal.

Harmonic mode-locking or pulse interleaving can be used to increase the repetition rate into the 4 to 10 GHz range, but the Air Force states that each of these techniques lacks a pure microwave signal. This is the crux of the topic. You can get to the right repetition rate by those routes, but you do not get a clean microwave tone out of it, and the clean tone is the point.

High repetition rate semiconductor lasers can provide the low-noise microwave signal due to the fundamental mode-locking that can be achieved in the gigahertz range with a semiconductor saturable absorber mirror. Fundamental mode-locking, as opposed to harmonic mode-locking or interleaving, is what delivers spectral purity.

That offers a compact, efficient, low-noise, high-speed option for connecting the optical and microwave domain, enabling integration with photonic integrated circuits or commercial off-the-shelf components.

And then the market statement: currently a commercially available stabilized low-noise laser in the 6 to 12 GHz range is lacking.

So the topic is not asking for an incremental improvement to an existing product line. It is asking you to fill a stated hole in the commercial supply, using fundamental mode-locking in a semiconductor gain medium, in a form factor and noise regime that makes it useful as a microwave source.

The approach the Air Force points toward

The topic describes a promising approach in enough detail that it functions as a technical steer. A technique enabling a two-element cavity design for high-repetition rate lasers has been demonstrated in the first two cited references.

By including the semiconductor saturable absorber with a dielectric output coupler, the overall cavity length can be made shorter for high repetition rates without complex gain structures and without high curvature cavity optics. Shorter cavity means higher repetition rate, and the two-element approach gets there without the complications that usually accompany it.

In the near-infrared this was demonstrated on a curved output coupler with a bonded quantum well saturable absorber, resulting in a hybrid SESAM, achieving pulse widths of about 400 femtoseconds at repetition rates from 2.8 to 8 GHz.

In the visible spectrum a similar technique was applied with a flat dielectric mirror, constructing what was coined as a membrane saturable absorber mirror, or MESAM. Because the output coupler and saturable absorber were independent, the repetition rate remained low but still achieved picosecond pulses.

Integrating these elements via direct membrane bonding of the saturable absorber allows higher repetition rates, and has been demonstrated for high-power applications in the third cited reference.

It is envisioned that this approach, or other proposed solutions, can be extended throughout the near-infrared and into the short-wave infrared, particularly in the O-band and C-band for compatibility with photonic integrated circuits and commercial off-the-shelf components.

Two things follow for your proposal. First, the phrase "or other proposed solutions" leaves the door open, so you are not obligated to pursue direct membrane bonding of a saturable absorber. Second, if you propose something else, you should engage with why the referenced route is insufficient or why yours is better, because the Air Force has told you what it considers promising. Silence on that point reads as unfamiliarity.

Phase I

Develop a proof-of-concept for the necessary components and conduct a feasibility study to demonstrate a breadboard 6 to 12 GHz mode-locked laser with picosecond or shorter pulse widths.

Component development is to include the semiconductor gain medium, the saturable absorber or other mode-locking element, and the necessary fabrication steps for the components.

Potential metrics include average power, pulse energy, pulse width, long-term power stability, spectral bandwidth, repetition rate tuning, and relative intensity noise.

Supporting electronics can utilize benchtop solutions.

Read those four paragraphs together and the Phase I scope becomes clear. You are building components and a breadboard, not a product. Gain medium, mode-locking element, and the fabrication process for both are named as in-scope component development, which means epitaxial growth and processing work belongs in the plan. The metric list gives you your data table. And the permission to use benchtop supporting electronics removes an entire category of work from Phase I, which matters a great deal in a six month, $250,000 effort. Do not spend Phase I money miniaturizing drive electronics.

Note also the phrase "repetition rate tuning" in the metric list. Tunability is not in the hard requirements but appears as a potential metric, so characterizing your tuning range is a way to add value without scope creep.

Phase II

Conduct research to transition the validated Phase I design into prototypes for two fiber-coupled brassboards with full stabilization and low-noise, low-SWaP implementation of the near-infrared to short-wave infrared mode-locked laser. Aside from an external DC power supply, all electronics should be modular with the ability to integrate in Phase III.

Three concrete details there. Two units, not one. Fiber-coupled, which is a packaging and alignment problem distinct from the laser physics. And full stabilization with modular electronics, meaning the benchtop permission from Phase I expires. Your Phase I proposal should show that you know where the Phase II electronics work sits even though you are not doing it yet, because the Air Force asked for SWaP differentiating goals across all three phases.

Phase III

Develop a fully packaged low-noise, high-repetition rate mode-locked laser operating in the near-infrared to short-wave infrared spectral range, suitable for system integration and commercial sales.

The commercial framing is explicit here, and it is unusually favorable. The Air Force has already told you that a stabilized low-noise laser in this band is not commercially available, which is your market statement handed to you. Photonic integrated circuit integration, microwave photonics, optical frequency comb applications, high-speed analog-to-digital conversion, and precision timing distribution are all natural adjacent markets for a clean 6 to 12 GHz optical pulse source.

The cited references

Three papers, all worth reading before you write.

Gibson, R., et al, "Hybrid SESAMs for high-repetition rate mode-locked VECSELs," SPIE Proceedings, VECSELs XII, Volume 12404, p. 1240407, 2023.

Cutuk, A., Grossmann, M., Jetter, M. and Michler, P., "Membrane saturable absorber mirror (MESAM) in a red-emitting VECSEL for the generation of stable ultrashort pulses," Optics Express, 31(4), pp. 6796-6804, 2023.

Diebold, A., et al, "Optimized SESAMs for kilowatt-level ultrafast lasers," Optics Express, 24(10), pp. 10512-10526, 2016.

The reference set points toward vertical external cavity surface emitting laser architectures with engineered saturable absorbers. Combined with the InP, GaSb, MOCVD, and MBE keywords, the picture is of a topic aimed at companies with semiconductor epitaxy and processing capability rather than at systems integrators buying components.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and what six months buys

Up to $250,000 across up to 6 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions add that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Six months is the tighter constraint for this particular topic, because semiconductor epitaxy has an irreducible cycle time. If your plan requires a growth run, characterization, a design iteration, and a second growth run, be honest about whether that fits and say how you have de-risked it. Proposals that assume a first-pass success on novel epitaxy invite skepticism. Existing wafers, existing material, or a partner with ready capacity are all ways to make the schedule credible, subject to the work-performance limits below.

No government-furnished anything

The topic states plainly that no government materials, equipment, data, or facilities will be provided. That has two consequences. Your cost volume has to carry every wafer, every characterization tool hour, and every piece of test equipment you need. And you cannot propose a plan that depends on access to an Air Force Research Laboratory facility or on government-furnished material.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

If no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, and this total is in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.

Note that this BAA Phase I document carries the full detailed TABA request requirements, which the DAF CSO Phase I instructions did not. Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following information or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

For a photonics company, intellectual property protections and market validation are the obvious candidates. Given that the Air Force has stated the commercial gap explicitly, market validation work that quantifies that gap has value beyond the proposal.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include such items as raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies. On this topic, substrates, epitaxial material, dielectric coatings, and optics belong here with quantities and prices.

Other direct costs. This category includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Outside epitaxial growth runs, if structured as a service rather than a subcontract, and specialized characterization such as noise measurement or autocorrelation may sit here. Be deliberate about whether a growth run is a service, a subcontract, or a purchase, since the classification affects your one-third cap arithmetic.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, or by labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract.

Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.

On a $250,000 award, one-third is roughly $83,000 for all consultant fees, facility lease and usage fees, and subcontract or purchase agreements combined. For a topic that may require outside epitaxy or outside fabrication, that is a real constraint. Model it before you settle on your approach.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Performance of work requirements

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from this performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.

For a semiconductor laser topic this is the constraint most likely to bind. If your plan sends epitaxy to a foundry or fabrication to a university cleanroom, run the numbers early. Two-thirds of the research or analytical effort performed by you, plus all outside costs under one-third of contract price, is a tight envelope for a materials-heavy effort. If you cannot meet it, file the pre-submission deviation request in the first week of the open period, since it must happen inside the four week window.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission. Compound semiconductor epitaxy and processing capacity is globally distributed, so if any part of your supply chain is offshore, address it.

Export Control and Foreign Nationals

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

Of the three topics in this Phase I release, this is the only one carrying a topic-level export control restriction. NV035 and NV036 do not include this paragraph. That does not remove the general disclosure obligations from those topics, but it does mean this topic specifically flags export-controlled technical data.

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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

The Volume 2 Key Personnel requirements reinforce this. You must identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants, and identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.

One instruction here is easy to get wrong and worth calling out. The topic states plainly: do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.

Photonics and compound semiconductor groups are frequently internationally staffed, so resolve who can work on what before you build your key personnel section.

If you are asserting export-controlled status, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included in Volume 5. The form, instructions, and FAQs are available at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit

The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white, which matters on a topic where you will want to show spectra, autocorrelation traces, and noise plots.

The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. Note that this differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point.

The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.

The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides, per the topic index. Because the limit is expressed as pages or slides, a slide-format technical volume is acceptable, and many hardware teams find slides more efficient for conveying device structure and measured data within a tight limit.

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified.

Note the criminal warning the instructions carry: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. On a topic where your device structure may be your core intellectual property, be deliberate about abstract content.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 SBIR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.

Key personnel. Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included. Only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants, if any, are also useful. Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants, and for all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Do not upload Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other PII to DSIP.

Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.

That is a meaningful instruction. Your work plan outline becomes the contract's statement of work, so anything proprietary in it either gets published in a contract document or triggers a revision cycle that delays your award. Write the technical detail in the body of the technical volume and keep the work plan outline at the task and deliverable level.

Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.

The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. Naming it in the required outline means your final report needs it, so plan for it rather than discovering it at closeout.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 SBIR BAA for full details on this requirement. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance and do not treat it as a scoring opportunity.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 SBIR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.

On a semiconductor laser topic, Technical Data Rights Assertions deserve real attention. Your epitaxial structure, your saturable absorber design, and your bonding process are likely background intellectual property developed with private investment, and this is the mechanism for distinguishing them from what you develop under the award.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Note that documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria are in the BAA, not in this document

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only, and more or less funding may become available. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

That is all this document says about criteria. Unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO Phase I instructions, which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance, this BAA document does not reproduce them. You must read the evaluation criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how your proposal will be scored, and you should not assume the CSO criteria carry over. Do this before you start writing, because the criteria determine your emphasis.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

Patent analysis and technology licensing arrangements both deserve attention on this topic. Compound semiconductor laser intellectual property is internationally dense, and licensing or cross-licensing relationships are common. Map yours before you propose.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If the DAF denies an award under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20), or upon determining the concern has a security risk described in that paragraph, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

For a compound semiconductor effort, audit your substrate, epitaxy, and optics supply chain against those eight lists before you propose. Substrate and coating supply in particular has significant offshore concentration.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership

Small business concerns that are 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 is worth stating explicitly because the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions say the opposite, stating that such firms are not eligible. Within the same BAA cycle, the Phase I instructions permit venture-backed firms and the Direct to Phase II instructions do not. The Phase I instructions govern this topic, so venture-backed applicants are eligible here. If you are also considering the Direct to Phase II topic in this cycle, read that document's eligibility language separately and consider raising the discrepancy with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors. These support contractors may include, but are not limited to, TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, since separate notifications are provided for each proposal.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

How Phase II works

DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed Phase II proposal preparation instructions. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. All proposals must be submitted electronically via DSIP by the date indicated in the Phase II proposal instructions, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.

Because the Phase II request can come while Phase I performance is still ongoing and is based on demonstrated technical progress, front-loading real measured results rather than saving everything for the final report is strategically sensible on a six month award.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

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

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

Period of performance: up to 6 months from award

Phase II: requested by DAF organizations based on technical progress, during or after Phase I performance, with one Phase II proposal permitted per Phase I award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Read the evaluation criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, since they are not in the component instructions. Read the three cited papers. Settle your device architecture and decide whether you are pursuing the referenced two-element cavity and membrane-bonded saturable absorber route or something else, and if something else, work out your argument for why. Inventory what material and wafers you already have, because six months plus no government-furnished material makes existing inventory valuable. Model your one-third outside cost cap and two-thirds in-house work requirement against your epitaxy and fabrication plan, and if it does not close, file the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request in the first week of the open period. Resolve export control staffing questions and start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Inventory background intellectual property for Technical Data Rights Assertions. Audit substrate, epitaxy, and optics supply against the eight denial lists. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment. Send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries.

September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit, with the device design, the fabrication plan, and the measurement plan against the named metrics as the core. Write the work plan outline separately and keep proprietary detail out of it, since it becomes the Phase I Statement of Work. Build the milestone schedule early, since the TABA task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Itemize substrates, epitaxial material, coatings, and optics with prices. Classify growth runs and outside fabrication correctly as service, subcontract, or purchase and check the one-third cap. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract. Include at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with DD Form 2345 and Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.

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

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BZ06-NV034?

‍ ‍

DAF26BZ06-NV034 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic titled "Low Noise and Low-SWaP High-Repetition Rate Mode-Locked Lasers for High-Speed Photonics," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks compact low-SWaP optically or electrically pumped mode-locked lasers in the near-infrared to short-wave infrared capable of operating at repetition rates between 6 and 12 GHz.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BZ06-NV034?

‍ ‍

Up to $250,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the exact submission time, which is ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the time on the live DSIP topic posting rather than assuming an end-of-day deadline.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

What are the laser performance requirements?

‍ ‍

Repetition rate between 6 and 12 GHz, average power of 50 mW or greater, pulse width of a picosecond or less, operation in the near-infrared to short-wave infrared with the O-band and C-band called out for PIC and COTS compatibility, optical or electrical pumping, repetition rate stabilized with custom or COTS electronics, low relative intensity noise, and long-term power stability. Overall SWaP of the laser and its necessary electronics must be minimized, with differentiating goals highlighted across Phase I, II, and III.

‍ ‍

Why does the Air Force want 6 to 12 GHz specifically?

‍ ‍

Because it says a commercially available stabilized low-noise laser in the 6 to 12 GHz range is currently lacking. The band matters because fundamental mode-locking in a semiconductor gain medium at those rates produces a low-noise microwave signal, whereas harmonic mode-locking or pulse interleaving can reach comparable rates but, as the topic puts it, lack a pure microwave signal.

‍ ‍

Why semiconductor gain media rather than fiber or crystal lasers?

‍ ‍

The topic states that mode-locked semiconductor lasers can support high repetition rates up to 100 GHz due to high gain and fast gain recovery, unlike fiber lasers or doped dielectric gain medium lasers. The InP, GaSb, MOCVD, and MBE keywords reinforce that this topic is aimed at companies with semiconductor epitaxy and processing capability.

‍ ‍

What technical approach does the Air Force suggest?

‍ ‍

A two-element cavity design in which the semiconductor saturable absorber is combined with a dielectric output coupler, allowing a shorter overall cavity for high repetition rates without complex gain structures and without high curvature cavity optics. The topic describes near-infrared demonstrations using a curved output coupler with a bonded quantum well saturable absorber forming a hybrid SESAM, achieving roughly 400 femtosecond pulses at 2.8 to 8 GHz, and a visible-spectrum membrane saturable absorber mirror approach. It notes that integrating these elements via direct membrane bonding of the saturable absorber allows higher repetition rates.

‍ ‍

Do I have to use the suggested approach?

‍ ‍

No. The topic says this approach "or other proposed solutions" can be extended throughout the near-infrared and into the short-wave infrared. If you propose an alternative, engage with why the referenced route is insufficient or why yours is better, since the Air Force has stated what it considers promising.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I actually deliver?

‍ ‍

A proof-of-concept for the necessary components plus a feasibility study demonstrating a breadboard 6 to 12 GHz mode-locked laser with picosecond or shorter pulse widths. Component development is to include the semiconductor gain medium, the saturable absorber or other mode-locking element, and the necessary fabrication steps for the components.

‍ ‍

What metrics should I characterize in Phase I?

‍ ‍

The topic names average power, pulse energy, pulse width, long-term power stability, spectral bandwidth, repetition rate tuning, and relative intensity noise as potential metrics. Use them as your data table.

‍ ‍

Do I need to miniaturize the drive electronics in Phase I?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states that supporting electronics can utilize benchtop solutions in Phase I. That permission removes a substantial body of work from a six month effort, so do not spend Phase I funding on electronics miniaturization. The modular, stabilized electronics requirement arrives in Phase II.

‍ ‍

Will the government provide any materials, equipment, or facilities?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states plainly that no government materials, equipment, data, or facilities will be provided. Your cost volume must carry every wafer, tool hour, and instrument you need, and you cannot propose a plan that depends on access to a government facility.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase II?

‍ ‍

Research to transition the validated Phase I design into prototypes for two fiber-coupled brassboards with full stabilization and low-noise, low-SWaP implementation of the near-infrared to short-wave infrared mode-locked laser. Aside from an external DC power supply, all electronics should be modular with the ability to integrate in Phase III. Note that it is two units, they are fiber-coupled, and the benchtop electronics permission expires.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Develop a fully packaged low-noise, high-repetition rate mode-locked laser operating in the near-infrared to short-wave infrared spectral range, suitable for system integration and commercial sales.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides, per the topic index. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. Note that the Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit, only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do, and documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either. Pages or slides in excess of the stated limit will not be reviewed.

‍ ‍

Is 10-point type correct, or is it 11-point?

‍ ‍

For this BAA Phase I release it is 10-point minimum. The DAF Direct to Phase II instructions require 11-point, so do not carry the formatting assumption across documents.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Of the three topics in this Phase I release, this is the only one carrying a topic-level export control restriction. You must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the statement of work tasks intended for them, and the topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data involved.

‍ ‍

What identity information should I not upload?

‍ ‍

Do not upload Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information the instructions request, meaning countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and level of involvement, not the underlying identity documents.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds 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 consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded, unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. On a $250,000 award that is roughly $83,000 for all outside costs combined.

‍ ‍

What if I need an outside foundry for epitaxy or fabrication?

‍ ‍

Run the arithmetic first, because this is the constraint most likely to bind on a materials-heavy topic. If it does not close, the DAF will occasionally consider deviations, but requests must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. Since the pre-submission request must happen inside the four week open window, treat it as a first-week action.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 SBIR BAA. You must read the criteria in the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, and you should not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes, for this topic. The BAA Phase I instructions state that 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. Note that the DAF Release 6 BAA Direct to Phase II instructions state the opposite for that document's topics, so check eligibility per document rather than per cycle.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Why does the work plan outline matter so much?

‍ ‍

Because the DAF uses it as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. The instructions direct you not to include proprietary information in the work plan outline, warning that doing so will necessitate a request for revision if selected and may delay award. Keep technical detail in the technical volume body and keep the outline at the task and deliverable level.

‍ ‍

What is the SF 298?

‍ ‍

The Report Documentation Page, a standard form that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required work plan outline format as part of the final report deliverable, so plan for it.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Unlike the DAF CSO Phase I instructions, this BAA document carries the full detailed request requirements: provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, and requests that only specify a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

You do not apply on a calendar. DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible, all Phase I awardees receive a notification with the submittal date and detailed instructions, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

For general information related to the AF SBIR/STTR program and proposal preparation instructions, contact the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us. The DAF encourages applicants to request clarifying information as early as possible, since delays in such requests constrain its ability to provide satisfactory resolution. For questions regarding the DSIP electronic submission system, contact the DoW SBIR/STTR Help Desk at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. If your company mail or email addresses or points of contact change after submission, notify the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Know whether you are the intended applicant. The reference set, the InP and GaSb keywords, and the MOCVD and MBE keywords together describe a company with semiconductor epitaxy and device processing capability, not a systems integrator assembling purchased components. Phase I explicitly includes component development covering the gain medium, the mode-locking element, and the fabrication steps. If you would be buying all of that, the two-thirds in-house requirement and the one-third outside cost cap will be hard to satisfy.

‍ ‍

Read the three papers and position against them. The Air Force described a specific promising approach in unusual detail. Engaging with it, including disagreeing with it for stated reasons, is the clearest way to show technical command of the topic. Ignoring it is the clearest way to look unfamiliar.

‍ ‍

Make the pure microwave signal argument central. The distinguishing claim in this topic is that fundamental mode-locking gives a clean microwave tone where harmonic mode-locking and pulse interleaving do not. Your proposal should make that argument in your own device's terms, with phase noise or relative intensity noise projections, rather than treating repetition rate as the only figure of merit.

‍ ‍

Take the free pass on electronics. Benchtop supporting electronics are explicitly permitted in Phase I. Spend the six months on the laser.

‍ ‍

Plan the schedule around growth cycle time. Six months and no government-furnished material is a real constraint on any plan that needs multiple epitaxy iterations. Say what material you already have, what the growth and processing turnaround is, and what your fallback is if the first structure underperforms.

‍ ‍

Address SWaP at all three phases. The requirement asks for differentiating goals highlighted in Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Give three answers, not one.

‍ ‍

Answer the metric list directly. Average power, pulse energy, pulse width, long-term power stability, spectral bandwidth, repetition rate tuning, and relative intensity noise. A compact table of predicted values with measurement methods, plus which of them you consider at risk, does a lot of work in 20 pages.

‍ ‍

Keep the work plan outline clean. It becomes the Statement of Work. Proprietary content there triggers a revision request that delays award, and the instructions say so explicitly.

‍ ‍

Assert your data rights. Epitaxial structure, absorber design, and bonding process are likely your background intellectual property. Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 is how you keep that boundary clear, and Volume 5 documents do not count against your page limit.

‍ ‍

Use the commercial gap the Air Force handed you. A stated absence of a commercially available stabilized low-noise laser in the 6 to 12 GHz range is a market claim you can cite rather than argue. Microwave photonics, frequency comb applications, high-speed conversion, and precision timing are the adjacent markets, and Phase III explicitly contemplates commercial sales.

DAF SBIR DAF26BZ06-DV037: Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons

Quick Answer

DAF26BZ06-DV037 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force has a high priority requirement for much lower-cost long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons that operate in the very high supersonic flight regime, and this topic funds the seeker that goes in them. The objective is a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalink modes. Low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are stated as key goals. Awards are up to $2,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 35 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Two things about this topic are unusual enough that they belong in the first paragraph. First, venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity majority-owned small businesses are not eligible under this announcement. That is the opposite of the rule in the DAF Release 6 CSO topics, and it disqualifies a meaningful share of the defense hardware startup market. Second, the Phase II deliverable is a design, not hardware. The offeror will design and model a prototype to Critical Design Review level. Physical prototype build, laboratory testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing, and flight experiment integration all happen in Phase III with Air Force Research Laboratory 6.3 funding.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BZ06-DV037

Title: Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Direct to Phase II

Solicitation instrument: BAA, not a CSO. This is a separate solicitation from the DAF 2026 SBIR CSO Release 6 topics, with different rules

Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2)

Award maximum value: $2,000,000

Award maximum duration: 24 months

Technical volume page limit: 35 pages or slides

OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics (SHY)

Component Technology Priority Area: Integrated Sensing and Cyber

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

Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this announcement

Phase II end state: Critical Design Review level design and model, not built hardware

Production cost targets: $50,000 threshold, $30,000 objective, per flight unit at volume production

Physical envelope: must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder

Interface standard: WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification

Named Phase III transition targets: AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

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

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

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: seeker, seekers, AESA, multifunction RF, radar, software-defined RF

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW SBIR deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

Read This First: Venture Capital Ownership Is Disqualifying Here

The DAF Release 6 BAA instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.

That single sentence deserves more attention than anything else in this document, because it is the reverse of what the DAF Release 6 CSO instructions say. The CSO documents covering the other Release 6 DAF topics state that such firms are eligible. This BAA says they are not.

Practically, that means a defense hardware company with majority ownership spread across multiple venture funds, which describes a large share of the companies actually capable of designing a Ku-band multifunction seeker, cannot compete for this topic. If you are in that position, verify your status against the definition before you invest proposal effort. The rule concerns majority ownership in part by multiple VCOCs, hedge funds, or private equity funds, so the analysis turns on your specific cap table rather than on whether you have taken venture money at all.

Two pieces of advice follow. If your ownership structure is anywhere near this line, raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period, since the DAF explicitly encourages early clarifying questions and warns that late ones constrain its ability to respond. And if you are reading this page alongside our pages on the DAF Release 6 CSO topics, do not carry the eligibility conclusion from one to the other. They are different solicitations.

BAA Versus CSO: Why This Document Is Not the Same as the Other DAF Release 6 Instructions

The DAF issued Release 6 topics under two different solicitation instruments. The topics numbered with BX, including the five Direct to Phase II topics and the one Phase I topic, sit under the 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening. This topic, numbered BZ, sits under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement.

The two sets of component instructions are largely parallel in structure, and much of the language is identical, but they are separate documents governing separate solicitations. The differences that matter are these.

Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity majority-owned firms are ineligible under the BAA and eligible under the CSO. This is the consequential one.

Evaluation criteria are not restated in the BAA component instructions. The CSO instructions spell out Criteria A, B, and C in descending order of importance. This BAA document says only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how you will be scored, and no summary of the CSO criteria is a substitute.

The address change notification uses a different subject line: "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change" rather than the CSO version.

References throughout point to the FY26 SBIR BAA rather than the CSO for cover sheet instructions, proprietary information marking, technical data rights, and protest procedures.

The performance of work language in this document reads differently, and appears to contain an error, which the next section addresses.

The Performance of Work Problem, and How to Handle It

The BAA component instructions contain three statements about how much work you must perform yourself. Read together they do not cleanly agree, and one of them appears to be a drafting error.

Under Performance of Work Requirements and Location of Work, the document states that for Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit.

That sentence says Phase I, inside a Direct to Phase II instruction document where no Phase I awards are made. The parallel CSO Direct to Phase II instructions say Phase II and set the floor at one-third. The DAF Phase I instructions elsewhere in Release 6 say Phase I and set it at two-thirds. So the most likely reading is that the Phase I paragraph was carried into the Direct to Phase II document by mistake.

Under Consultants and Subcontractors, the document states that in accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and that such requests can only be made upon proposal submission.

Under the Cost Volume subcontracts discussion, the document states that 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 otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

The conservative course, and the one we would recommend, is to plan on performing at least two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house and keeping all consultant, facility lease, and subcontract costs combined below one-half of the total contract price. That satisfies every reading of the document as written, including the strictest one. On a seeker design program that often means resisting the temptation to subcontract large portions of the RF front end or the digital back end design.

If your teaming structure cannot meet two-thirds, the document provides a process, and you have to use it twice. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award. Because the pre-submission request has to happen inside the four week open window, this is a first-week action, not a last-week one. It is also the natural moment to ask the One Help Desk which threshold actually governs.

All R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States, and the awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking that approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For

The requirement behind the topic

The Department of the Air Force has a high priority requirement for much lower-cost long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons that operate in the very high supersonic flight regime. Toward that requirement, the objective of this topic is to develop a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting RF modes including radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalinks. Low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are key goals of this topic.

The problem statement is economic before it is technical. Current multifunction radar systems for use onboard various types of small airborne platforms are prohibitively expensive to procure at scale, and the Air Force says this is especially true for systems engineered for use in demanding regimes at peak velocity greater than Mach 3 but under Mach 5. Note that the topic labels that velocity band "high subsonic," which is inconsistent with the stated Mach numbers and with the objective's own description of a very high supersonic flight regime. Read the Mach 3 to Mach 5 figures as the governing statement of the environment.

Because affordability at volume is the point, a proposal that delivers exquisite RF performance without a manufacturing and cost story has missed the topic. Conversely, cost reduction that sacrifices the performance floor also fails, because Phase II requires meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system.

The technical approach the Air Force expects

The effort will leverage recent advancements in RF technology, high-temperature materials science, and associated manufacturing to design a complete multi-function Ku-band RF system to a Critical Design Review level of maturity.

Those three enabling areas are named deliberately and each maps to a different part of the problem. RF technology advancement points toward highly integrated, software-defined architectures, which the topic references reinforce by citing two papers on RF system-on-chip based multi-role sensors. High-temperature materials science addresses the thermal environment of sustained Mach 3 to Mach 5 flight, which is what separates this from a subsonic small-platform radar. Associated manufacturing is the volume production story that the cost targets demand.

The hard requirements

Four requirements are stated explicitly and should be treated as pass or fail gates in your proposal.

Physical envelope. The system must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder, whether conformally mounted or forward mounted. The Phase II description repeats this, adding that the offeror's design will size and package the front end and back-end RF electronics to fit within that envelope. The fact that both conformal and forward mounting are named means aperture architecture is a real design choice you should address rather than assume.

Interface standard. The design must conform to the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. Open systems architecture conformance is a stated requirement, not an option, and it constrains how you partition the system. If you have not worked to that specification before, understanding it is a prerequisite to writing a credible proposal.

Modes. The system must incorporate imaging radar modes, passive direction-finding modes, and height of burst fuze sensing modes. Combined with the objective's mention of line-of-sight datalinks, that is four distinct functions sharing one aperture and back end. Multi-function here means genuinely multi-function.

Maturity. The Phase II output is a design at Critical Design Review level of maturity.

The cost targets, which are the center of the topic

Phase II places emphasis on lowering the flight-unit production cost at volume production to a threshold of $50,000 and an objective of $30,000, while meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system.

Those numbers are the heart of this topic and they are aggressive for a Ku-band multifunction seeker with imaging radar, passive direction finding, datalink, and fuze sensing packaged for a Mach 3 to Mach 5 environment. Your proposal needs a defensible cost model at volume, not a prototype bill of materials. Address component integration and part count reduction, wafer-scale or highly integrated RF and digital solutions, aperture manufacturing approach, thermal management approach and its cost, test and calibration cost per unit which is frequently underestimated in phased array production, and the volume assumptions your model depends on.

Be explicit about the volume at which you hit the threshold and objective. A cost model that only closes at a hundred thousand units per year and a model that closes at two thousand are very different propositions, and the evaluator will want to know which one you are describing.

What Phase II actually produces

For this Direct to Phase II topic, the offeror will design and model a prototype for Critical Design Review level, a complete Ku-band multi-function radar system.

Read that carefully. The verbs are design and model. This is a design maturation program culminating in CDR-level documentation and modeling, plus a cost and manufacturability case. It is not a hardware build program, and a proposal that promises fabricated and tested hardware within the $2,000,000 and 24 month envelope is misreading the topic and inviting doubt about whether you understood it.

That framing also tells you where your effort belongs: modeling and simulation fidelity, design analysis, packaging and thermal analysis, WOSA conformance documentation, producibility analysis, and the cost model. Existing hardware you can point to is feasibility evidence, not a Phase II deliverable.

Phase III

Following successful completion of the Phase II objectives and the culmination of a CDR-level system design, the Air Force Research Laboratory and its transition partner will use 6.3 funding to implement a prototype of the radar system designed in Phase II, perform laboratory, hardware-in-the-loop, and field testing, and then integrate it into a 6.3 flight experiment for further technology maturation. TRL and MRL gaps will be identified and addressed in order to transition the system to AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users.

This is one of the more concrete Phase III descriptions in the Release 6 portfolio, and it is worth using. The government has told you that AFRL and a transition partner will fund the build with 6.3 dollars, that the test sequence is laboratory then hardware-in-the-loop then field then flight experiment, and that the eventual customer is AFLCMC/EB. Both TRL and MRL gaps are named, which reinforces that manufacturing readiness is being assessed alongside technical readiness. Your Relationship with Future R/R&D Efforts section should track this sequence and identify the specific TRL and MRL gaps your Phase II design will leave, along with how Phase III closes them.

The cited references

The topic cites two papers, both about RF system-on-chip based sensors: "ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC" by Nial Peters, Colin Horne, and Matthew Ritchie, IEEE Xplore, 2 June 2022; and "Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UAV" by Valentine Wasik, L. Casadebaig, Benjamin Gabard, and Benjamin Gigleux, 2023 20th European Radar Conference.

Both references point in the same direction, toward a software-defined, highly integrated RF system-on-chip approach as the affordability enabler, which is also consistent with the software-defined RF keyword. Read them. Citing and engaging with the government's own references, including where you think a different approach is better, is a cheap and effective way to signal that you did the work.

The Feasibility Requirement

Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already completed the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR program. The DAF will not consider your proposal if you fail to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility have been established, or if you fail to demonstrate the feasibility effort was substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator. 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.

What this topic requires specifically

For this Direct to Phase II topic, the offeror must have previously demonstrated Phase I-type feasibility by demonstrating the successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications of a multifunction radar system for use in an embedded system application. The feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system.

Three elements sit inside that requirement. Successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications, meaning documented design work and modeling results plus specifications at the hardware level. A multifunction radar system, so a single-function radar heritage is a weaker fit and you should say how it extends. For use in an embedded system application, meaning integrated into a constrained platform rather than a benchtop or standalone instrument.

Plus a fourth element that is a deliverable rather than a heritage claim: the feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system. That is forward-looking. You need to put a baseline concept for the Ku-band seeker into your feasibility documentation, not only evidence of past work.

The general D2P2 rules

Applicants must demonstrate completion of research and development through means other than the SBIR and STTR programs to establish the feasibility of the proposed Phase II effort based on the criteria outlined in the topic description.

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

Feasibility efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, the applicant must provide IP rights assertions, and applicants shall provide 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. The document points to the FY26 SBIR BAA for technical data rights information.

One helpful mechanical detail this BAA states more clearly than the parallel CSO document: feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. That means your design heritage, modeling results, hardware specifications, and baseline conceptual design can be documented at whatever length the evidence requires without eating into your 35 page technical volume. Use that.

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

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $2,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The instructions also note that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Note the difference between the two dollar figures in this topic. The $2,000,000 is the design contract. The $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective are per-unit flight hardware production costs at volume that your design must achieve. Do not conflate them.

Contract type and fee

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

A significant procedural note: if no exceptions are taken to an applicant's proposal, the Government may award a contract without exchanges. Therefore the applicant's initial proposal should contain the applicant's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen exchanges later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The DAF will provide up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use 50 percent of this TABA allocation, meaning $25,000, on a first SBIR Phase II award and 50 percent, meaning $25,000, on a sequential SBIR Phase II award.

Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature available through online databases.

For this topic, development of manufacturing plans is the standout. High-volume manufacturability is a stated key goal, the cost targets are aggressive, and Phase III explicitly names MRL gaps alongside TRL gaps. TABA support for manufacturing planning is directly on point.

Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of the following purposes: making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following information or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider, including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.

If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed, including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.

A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume expectations

A detailed cost proposal must be submitted, and cost proposal information will be treated as proprietary. Proposed costs must be provided by both individual cost element and contractor fiscal year in sufficient detail to determine the basis for estimates, as well as the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each. This information will expedite award if the proposal is selected. Cost proposal attachments do not count toward proposal page limitations.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name, if possible, and labor category, if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a design and modeling program, this will be nearly the entire budget, so it deserves the most care. RF engineers, digital designers, packaging and thermal engineers, and producibility analysts should be visible as named individuals or clearly defined categories with hours that match the task structure.

Direct cost materials. Costs for materials, parts, and supplies must be justified and supported. Provide an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. If computer or software purchases are planned, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. On this topic, electromagnetic simulation, circuit and system modeling, and thermal analysis licenses are likely the significant items, and they need quotes and justification.

Other direct costs. This includes specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities and equipment. Provide usage hours expected, rates, and sources, as well as a brief discussion concerning the purpose and justification. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale. Anechoic chamber or near-field range time, if any is planned for design validation, belongs here.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business. These may include such items as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Subcontracts. Subcontract costs must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements. Agreement documents must adequately describe the work to be performed and cost bases. The agreement document should include a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials if any, and proposed travel if any. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task or tasks at a fixed price is not considered sufficient. 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 otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The prime contractor must accomplish price analysis, including reasonableness, of the proposed subcontractor costs. If based on comparison with prior efforts, identify the basis upon which the prior prices were determined reasonable. If price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires subcontractor cost or pricing data submission, provide a cost analysis, which includes but is not limited to consideration of materials, labor, travel, other direct costs, and proposed profit rates.

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

Travel. Each effort should include, at a minimum, a kickoff or interim meeting. Travel costs must be justified as required for the effort. Include destinations, number of trips, number of travelers per trip, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation. Per diem and lodging rates may be found in the Joint Travel Regulation, Volume 2. On a program that culminates in a Critical Design Review, budget for the design review itself and for interim technical interchange meetings with AFRL, since Phase III depends on AFRL picking the design up.

Indirect costs. Indicate proposed rates' bases, for example budgeted or actual rates per fiscal year. The proposal should identify the specific rates used and allocation bases to which they are applied. Do not propose composite rates; proposed rates and applications per fiscal year throughout the anticipated performance period are required.

Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed. However, it is not required, nor will it be a proposal evaluation factor.

Export Control, Which Is Central on a Seeker Topic

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

A weapon seeker is about as clearly ITAR-controlled as a technology gets, so treat this as a hard staffing constraint rather than a disclosure exercise. In the technical volume, 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.

Foreign nationals, also known as foreign persons, 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 BAA and disclose this information regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR restrictions.

When the topic area is subject to export control, these individuals, if permitted to participate, are limited to work in the public domain. Further, tasks assigned must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives. This prevents foreign citizens from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify foreign citizens' eligibility to perform on a contract awarded under this BAA.

The following will apply to all projects with military or dual-use applications developing beyond fundamental research, meaning basic and applied research ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community. The Contractor shall comply with all U.S. export control laws and regulations, including ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120 through 130 and the EAR 15 CFR Parts 730 through 799, in the performance of this contract. In the absence of available license exemptions or exceptions, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate licenses or other approvals, if required, for exports of, including deemed exports of, hardware, technical data, and software, or for the provision of technical assistance. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining export licenses, if required, before utilizing foreign persons in the performance of this contract, including instances where the work is to be performed on-site at any Government installation, whether in or outside the United States, where the foreign person will have access to export-controlled technologies including technical data or software. The Contractor shall be responsible for all regulatory record keeping requirements associated with the use of licenses and license exemptions or exceptions. The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that these provisions apply to its subcontractors.

If you are asserting export-controlled status, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included in Volume 5. The form, instructions, and FAQs are available at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Type shall be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, with one-inch margins and pages consecutively numbered. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items. If included, such material will count toward the page limit.

The technical volume limit for this topic is 35 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of this number will not be considered during evaluations. The preferred submission format is Portable Document Format. Graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, which matters for a topic where you will want to show antenna patterns, block diagrams, and packaging layouts. Virus-check all submissions.

The complete proposal must be submitted electronically through DSIP. Ensure the complete technical volume and additional cost volume information is included in this sole submission.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission. When training is complete and certified, DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement, and the proposal cannot be submitted until the training is complete. The DAF recommends completing submission early, as site traffic is heavy prior to solicitation close, causing system lag, and states plainly not to wait until the last minute. The DAF will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted prior to the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept alternative means of submission outside of DSIP.

Also note the criminal warning the instructions include: knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations may be a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, punishable by a fine up to $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released. On a seeker topic, be deliberate about what goes in the abstract, since it will become public.

If a proposal submitted in response to this BAA is substantially the same as another proposal submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, the applicant must so indicate on the Cover Sheet.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

The technical proposal includes all items listed below in the order provided.

Table of contents, located immediately after the Cover Sheet.

Glossary of acronyms and abbreviations used in the proposal.

Milestone identification, including a program schedule with all key milestones identified.

Identification and significance of the problem or opportunity, briefly referencing the specific technical problem or opportunity to be pursued under this effort.

Phase II technical objectives, detailing the specific objectives of the Phase II work and describing the technical approach and methods to be used in meeting these objectives, including an assessment of the potential commercial application for each objective.

Work plan. The work plan shall be a separate and distinct part of the proposal package, using a page break to divide it from the technical proposal, and begins 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. Do not include proprietary information, because in the event of proposal selection the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. The recommended format is 1.0 Objective, providing a brief overview of the specialty area explaining the purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, providing a concise description of the work to be accomplished including the technology area to be investigated, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as the key elements meaning the anticipated end result or the effort's product, and consistent with the information in section 4.0; 3.0 Background, in which the applicant shall identify appropriate specifications, standards, and other documents applicable to the effort, including information or explanation for and constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, in which detailed individual task descriptions must be developed in an orderly progression with sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, with the work effort segregated into major tasks identified in separately numbered paragraphs. Each numbered major task should delineate the work to be performed 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.

Section 3.0 Background deserves attention on this topic, since the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification is exactly the kind of applicable specification the instructions are asking you to identify. Name it, and name any other standards your design conforms to.

Deliverables. 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. On this topic that explanation matters, because the Phase II output is a design and model rather than built hardware, so be clear about what physical artifacts, if any, exist and why.

At a minimum, the following reports will be required under all Phase II contracts. Scientific and Technical Reports, noting that 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; the summary may be published by DoW and therefore must not contain any proprietary or classified information, while the remainder of the report 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.

Given that this program produces a CDR-level design, the engineering drawings item and the 20 year data rights provision together deserve a conversation with counsel before you decide what design detail to generate under the award.

Related work. 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. The DoW requires a commercialization plan be 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 proposed 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. These updates will be required at completion of the effort and subsequently when the contractor submits a new SBIR/STTR proposal to DoW. Firms not submitting a new proposal to DoW will be requested to provide updates annually after the D2P2 completion. Note that the Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents; the CCR comprises Volume 4.

The commercialization question is harder on this topic than on most, because a Ku-band prompt strike seeker has limited non-defense application. The honest framing is that the primary market is defense volume production, that the named Phase III path runs through AFRL to AFLCMC/EB and other DoD users, and that the underlying software-defined multifunction RF architecture and low-cost manufacturing approach have adjacent applications. Do not manufacture an implausible commercial market. Build the case on volume defense demand plus genuine architecture-level spillover.

Relationship with future R/R&D efforts. 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 gives you the Phase III sequence, so track it.

Key personnel. In the technical volume, identify all key personnel involved in the project. Include information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume for the Principal Investigator, including publications if any, must also be included. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants, if any, are also useful. 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. 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. 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. 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. All should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal. In accordance with the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, and these requests can only be made upon proposal submission. Signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached to the proposal. These letters should briefly state the contribution or expertise being provided. Include 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. Any potential for this situation must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. 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 under which the proposal was or will be submitted or under which an award is expected or has been received, 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 in the proposal, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for full details on this requirement. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance and do not treat it as a scoring opportunity.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

The following documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW SBIR FY26 BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions. On a seeker design program built on proprietary RF architecture, this last item is how you draw the line between your background intellectual property and what you develop under the award.

Feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. Its requirements are described above.

The detailed TABA request, if you are requesting TABA, also belongs in Volume 5.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The webform will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW Program BAA.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria are in the BAA, not in this document

D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel. Throughout evaluation, selection, and award, confidential proposal and evaluation information will be protected to the greatest extent possible. D2P2 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.

The component instructions then state that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0.

That is the whole of it. Unlike the DAF Release 6 CSO instructions, which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance, this BAA document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how your proposal will be scored, and you should not assume the CSO criteria carry over. This is the single most important research task before you start writing, because the criteria determine your proposal's structure and emphasis.

The DAF adds that it is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic, that multiple procurements are planned and anticipated as a result of the topic, that each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and that the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

Foreign risk evaluation

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures the DAF will use include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: the cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

For an RF hardware company, patent analysis and the semiconductor supply chain both deserve a look before you propose. RF system-on-chip devices, gallium nitride and gallium arsenide processes, packaging, and passive components frequently trace to suppliers with entries on one or more of the denial lists below, and the topic's own references point toward commercial RFSoC parts.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the small business concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If the DAF denies an award under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20), or upon determining that the concern has a security risk described in that paragraph, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

Support contractors

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors. These support contractors may include, but are not limited to, 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 AF 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.

Status, feedback, and protests

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, 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.

Refer to the FY26 SBIR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on your firm's selection notification.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

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 BAA, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

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

Period of performance: up to 24 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Settle eligibility first, because nothing else matters if you fail it. If venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity funds hold majority ownership in part, resolve your status against the definition and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. Read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA, since the evaluation criteria are there and not in the component instructions. Obtain and study the WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. Read the two cited RFSoC papers. Assemble your feasibility documentation: system design, modeling, and hardware specifications for a multifunction radar in an embedded application, substantially performed by your firm or your PI, with no SBIR or STTR lineage. Draft the baseline conceptual design for the Ku-band seeker, which the feasibility demonstration must also describe. Build the volume production cost model that reaches $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective, and identify the volume assumption it rests on. Audit your semiconductor and component supply chain against the eight denial lists. Resolve export control staffing, since foreign nationals may be restricted from performing on this topic, and start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Check your work distribution against the two-thirds figure and, if you cannot meet it, file the pre-submission Performance of Work deviation request in the first week of the open period. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.

September 23 through October 3. Draft Volume 2 in the required order against the 35 page limit. Structure the technical approach around the four hard requirements: the 6 inch interior diameter envelope with conformal or forward mounting addressed, WOSA Seeker Domain conformance, the imaging radar, passive direction-finding, and height of burst fuze sensing modes plus line-of-sight datalink, and CDR-level maturity. Build the milestone schedule early, since the TABA task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Write the work plan as a separate page-broken document in contract language with no proprietary content, naming the WOSA specification in section 3.0 Background.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by individual cost element and contractor fiscal year. Get quotes for simulation and modeling software licenses. 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. Verify all outside costs sit below one-half of the total contract price. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA, and consider manufacturing plan development given the volume production emphasis.

October 13 through October 16. Finalize the Volume 5 package, which for this topic carries real weight: feasibility documentation with no page limit, DD Form 2345, Technical Data Rights Assertions, and the TABA request. Complete the Volume 7 webform and the Volume 4 CCR. Run a compliance pass: 35 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics distinguishable in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, no proprietary information 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 DAF26BZ06-DV037?

‍ ‍

DAF26BZ06-DV037 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Low-Cost Multi-Function Ku-Band RF System for Prompt Strike Weapons," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a Ku-band multi-function RF seeker system that can be manufactured at scale, supporting radar, passive direction-finding, and line-of-sight datalink modes, for long-range air-launched prompt strike weapons operating in the very high supersonic flight regime.

‍ ‍

Are venture capital backed companies eligible for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. The DAF Release 6 BAA instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics. This is the opposite of the rule in the DAF Release 6 CSO instructions, which cover the BX-numbered topics and state that such firms are eligible. If your ownership structure is near this line, verify your status and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.

‍ ‍

Why does the eligibility rule differ from the other DAF Release 6 topics?

‍ ‍

Because they are different solicitations. The BX-numbered Release 6 topics sit under the 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, and this BZ-numbered topic sits under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement. The two sets of component instructions are largely parallel but govern separate solicitations, and the venture capital ownership provision reads opposite ways in the two documents. Do not carry an eligibility conclusion from one to the other.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BZ06-DV037?

‍ ‍

Up to $2,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to that ceiling.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct firms to the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA for the exact submission time, which is ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming an end-of-day deadline.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II actually deliver?

‍ ‍

A design, not hardware. For this Direct to Phase II topic the offeror will design and model a prototype for Critical Design Review level, a complete Ku-band multi-function radar system. Physical prototype implementation, laboratory testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing, field testing, and flight experiment integration all occur in Phase III with Air Force Research Laboratory 6.3 funding. A proposal promising fabricated and tested hardware inside the $2,000,000 and 24 month envelope has misread the topic.

‍ ‍

What are the production cost targets?

‍ ‍

The Phase II emphasis is on lowering the flight-unit production cost at volume production to a threshold of $50,000 and an objective of $30,000, while meeting or exceeding the RF performance metrics of a contemporary, similarly-sized multifunction radar system. These are per-unit hardware costs at volume, entirely separate from the $2,000,000 design award. State the volume assumption your cost model depends on.

‍ ‍

What is the physical envelope requirement?

‍ ‍

The system must fit within a 6 inch interior diameter cylinder, whether conformally mounted or forward mounted. The Phase II description adds that the design will size and package the front end and back-end RF electronics to fit within that envelope. Because both conformal and forward mounting are named, aperture architecture is a design choice worth addressing explicitly.

‍ ‍

What interface standard must the design conform to?

‍ ‍

The WOSA Seeker Domain interface specification. This is a stated key technical requirement, so obtain and study the specification before writing, and name it among the applicable specifications in section 3.0 Background of your work plan.

‍ ‍

What modes must the system support?

‍ ‍

The topic names imaging radar modes, passive direction-finding modes, and height of burst fuze sensing modes as key technical requirements, and the objective adds line-of-sight datalinks to the RF modes supported. That is four distinct functions sharing one aperture and back end.

‍ ‍

What flight regime does this seeker operate in?

‍ ‍

The objective describes a very high supersonic flight regime, and the description specifies peak velocity greater than Mach 3 but under Mach 5. Note that the description labels that band "high subsonic," which is inconsistent with the Mach numbers stated and with the objective's own wording, so treat the Mach 3 to Mach 5 figures as governing.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. This is a Direct to Phase II topic. Applicants must provide documentation satisfying the Phase I feasibility requirement to be included in the Phase II proposal, demonstrating completion of research and development through means other than the SBIR and STTR programs.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation does this topic require?

‍ ‍

The offeror must have previously demonstrated Phase I-type feasibility by demonstrating the successful system design, modeling, and hardware specifications of a multifunction radar system for use in an embedded system application. The feasibility demonstration shall also describe a baseline conceptual design for the proposed multifunction radar system. So you need both documented heritage and a forward-looking baseline concept.

‍ ‍

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 efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

‍ ‍

Does feasibility documentation count against my page limit?

‍ ‍

No. The instructions state that feasibility documentation is required for all proposal submissions, is contained within Volume 5, and is not subject to page limitations. Use that room for your design heritage, modeling results, hardware specifications, and baseline conceptual design rather than compressing them into the technical volume.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

35 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of this number will not be considered during evaluations. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Cost proposal attachments, subcontract copies and supporting documents, and feasibility documentation do not count toward the limit.

‍ ‍

How will my proposal be evaluated?

‍ ‍

The BAA component instructions do not restate the evaluation criteria. They say only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria outlined in the FY26 SBIR BAA Section 6.0. You must read Section 6.0 of the DoW FY26 SBIR BAA to know how you will be scored, and you should not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over. This is the first research task before writing.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

The document states three overlapping figures. Under Performance of Work Requirements it says a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit, though that paragraph refers to Phase I inside a Direct to Phase II document and appears to be a drafting artifact. Under Consultants and Subcontractors it says a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D must be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. And the subcontracts cost guidance caps all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements at one-half of the total contract price. Planning to perform at least two-thirds in house and keeping all outside costs below one-half of contract price satisfies every reading. If you cannot, file a Performance of Work deviation request during the open period and again with your proposal, and ask the One Help Desk which threshold governs.

‍ ‍

How do I request a performance of work deviation?

‍ ‍

Requests must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award. Because the pre-submission request must happen inside the four week open window, treat it as a first-week action.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. 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 them. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected for award.

‍ ‍

Can foreign nationals work on this project?

‍ ‍

Only in limited ways, if at all. 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 the instructions note prevents foreign citizens from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations to verify eligibility. On a weapon seeker topic, treat this as a hard staffing constraint.

‍ ‍

Who owns the design data 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. Because this program produces a CDR-level design and the Air Force may require engineering drawings as additional reporting, review the data rights provision with counsel before deciding what design detail to generate under the award, and use Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 to protect background intellectual property.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF 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, and splittable as $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential one. Development of manufacturing plans is an eligible activity and is directly relevant here given the high-volume manufacturability goal and the MRL gaps named in Phase III. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, including provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, and the task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Requests that only specify a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Following successful completion of the Phase II objectives and the culmination of a CDR-level system design, AFRL and its transition partner will use 6.3 funding to implement a prototype of the radar system designed in Phase II, perform laboratory, hardware-in-the-loop, and field testing, and then integrate it into a 6.3 flight experiment for further technology maturation. TRL and MRL gaps will be identified and addressed in order to transition the system to AFLCMC/EB and other Department of Defense users.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial market for this technology?

‍ ‍

It is limited, and honesty serves you better than invention here. A Ku-band prompt strike weapon seeker has a primarily defense market, and the topic gives you a concrete Phase III path through AFRL to AFLCMC/EB and other DoD users. Build the commercialization case on volume defense demand plus genuine architecture-level spillover from the software-defined multifunction RF approach and the low-cost manufacturing methods, rather than on an implausible commercial application.

‍ ‍

What references does the topic cite?

‍ ‍

Two papers on RF system-on-chip based sensors: "ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC" by Nial Peters, Colin Horne, and Matthew Ritchie, IEEE Xplore, 2 June 2022; and "Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UAV" by Valentine Wasik, L. Casadebaig, Benjamin Gabard, and Benjamin Gigleux, 2023 20th European Radar Conference. Both point toward a software-defined, highly integrated RFSoC approach as the affordability enabler.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Will I be able to negotiate after submitting?

‍ ‍

Possibly not. 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 or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to reopen exchanges later if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

For general information related to the DAF SBIR/STTR program and proposal preparation instructions, contact the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us. The DAF encourages applicants to request clarifying information as early as possible, since delays in such requests constrain its ability to provide satisfactory resolution to applicant concerns. For questions regarding the DSIP electronic submission system, contact the DoW SBIR/STTR Help Desk at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 SBIR BAA. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. If your company mail or email addresses or points of contact change after proposal submission, provide the information to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR BAA Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Check eligibility before anything else. Majority ownership in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds is disqualifying under this announcement. That is an unusual gate in modern defense SBIR, and it removes a large fraction of the companies that would otherwise be natural bidders. If you clear it, you are competing in a thinner field than the technology would suggest, which is worth knowing.

‍ ‍

Read BAA Section 6.0 first. The evaluation criteria are not in the component instructions. Writing a proposal without them is guessing at what matters, and the criteria should shape your section emphasis and your milestone framing.

‍ ‍

Lead with cost and manufacturability, not RF performance. The topic says low unit production cost and high-volume manufacturability are key goals, sets a $50,000 threshold and $30,000 objective, and identifies MRL gaps alongside TRL gaps in Phase III. Performance is the constraint you must satisfy, and cost is the variable you are being asked to move. Structure the proposal accordingly, with a defensible volume cost model rather than a prototype bill of materials.

‍ ‍

State your volume assumption explicitly. A cost target is meaningless without the production rate behind it. Give the number, justify it against plausible program quantities, and show cost sensitivity if the rate is lower.

‍ ‍

Respect the design-only scope. Design and model to CDR is what Phase II buys. Overpromising fabricated hardware reads as either a misreading of the topic or an unrealistic plan, and cost realism concerns follow either way. Put the build in Phase III where the government put it.

‍ ‍

Take WOSA conformance seriously as an architecture driver. An open interface specification changes how you partition front end, back end, and processing. Show that you understand it rather than asserting conformance in a sentence.

‍ ‍

Address the thermal problem directly. High-temperature materials science is one of three named enabling areas, and Mach 3 to Mach 5 sustained flight is the reason. Radome, aperture, and electronics thermal management is where a design that works subsonically fails here, and it interacts with the cost target because exotic thermal solutions are expensive.

‍ ‍

Engage the cited references. Both point toward RFSoC-class integration. If that is your approach, say how you go beyond the referenced work. If you have a better path, say why, and be specific. Either is stronger than ignoring them.

‍ ‍

Make the four modes share hardware credibly. Imaging radar, passive direction finding, height of burst fuze sensing, and line-of-sight datalink from one aperture and back end is the multi-function claim. Explain the time and frequency resource sharing, the calibration approach, and where the modes conflict.

‍ ‍

Build the feasibility package properly, and use the page relief. Feasibility documentation lives in Volume 5 and is not page limited. System design, modeling, and hardware specifications for a multifunction radar in an embedded application, plus the baseline conceptual design, can be documented thoroughly without spending technical volume pages.

‍ ‍

Audit the semiconductor supply chain early. The denial criteria name eight lists, and RF and digital component sourcing touches them more often than teams expect. A mandatory denial after selection is an expensive way to learn this.

‍ ‍

Plan for two-thirds in house. Given the ambiguity in the document, plan to the strictest figure and keep all outside costs below half the contract price. If your approach depends on a large subcontracted element, file the deviation request in the first week of the open period rather than discovering the problem at submission.

DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-NV510: AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting

Quick Answer

DAF26BX06-NV510 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic under the DAF FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, working with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab, wants to assess whether artificial intelligence and machine learning can improve multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking precision, and real-time situational awareness across a multi-orbit satellite framework spanning geosynchronous, medium, and low Earth orbit. Awards are up to $150,000 for a period of performance up to 3 months, with a 30 page or slide technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

Three months and $150,000 tells you exactly what this is. It is not a build. The Air Force says Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing United States Space Force concept of operations and technical viability, plus analytical findings, and that the research plan can include modeling, simulation, literature review, or trade studies. Algorithm prototypes or simulation results are welcome as applicable. What the Air Force actually wants out of Phase I is stated plainly: to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area problem set. Read that as an invitation to become a known quantity inside a specific government lab, with a small award as the entry ticket.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BX06-NV510

Title: AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions

Program type: Phase I

Award maximum value: $150,000

Award maximum duration: 3 months

Technical volume page limit: 30 pages or slides

Sponsoring organizations: SpaceWERX, in partnership with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab

Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology

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

Required proposal template: Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template, from the DSIP supporting documents page

Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award

Named Phase III transition pipeline: the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio

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: SpaceWERX, space platforms, space sensing, Overhead Persistent Infrared, OPIR, data fusion, AI/ML, OODA, mission assurance

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW SBIR CSO deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.

How Phase I Differs From the Direct to Phase II Release

If you have read the DAF Release 6 Direct to Phase II instructions, several rules here are different. Getting these wrong is an avoidable way to lose.

You must use the government template. All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume proposal submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template." This is a stated requirement, not a suggestion, and it has no counterpart in the D2P2 instructions. Download it first and build inside it. Note also that the Phase I instructions do not restate the type size, margin, and page numbering rules that appear in the D2P2 instructions, which is consistent with the template governing format. Follow the template.

Two-thirds of the work must be yours. For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. The D2P2 instructions set that floor at one-third, so this is a substantially tighter constraint. If your plan leans on a university partner or an outside data science firm, check the arithmetic before you commit.

The subcontract cap is one-third, not one-half. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, and profit is not included in that calculation. The instructions add that the SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. On a $150,000 award, one-third is roughly $50,000 for all outside costs combined.

TABA is $6,500, not $50,000. The DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award. The Phase I instructions state that simply, without the detailed Volume 5 provider documentation requirements that the D2P2 instructions impose. If you intend to use it, ask the One Help Desk what documentation this cycle expects rather than assuming either the simple or the detailed process applies.

There is no Phase I feasibility eligibility gate. Direct to Phase II proposals get disqualified if prior feasibility documentation does not establish technical merit. Phase I has no such screen, and the Volume 5 list here carries only three conditional documents. The feasibility study in this topic is a Phase I deliverable, not an admission requirement. That makes this topic accessible to a company that has never held a SBIR award.

The protest citations differ. Protests here are prescribed under FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, versus FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3 in the D2P2 instructions.

The support contractor list differs. The Phase I list names TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). The FFRDC evaluators named are MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers.

What the Space Force Is Actually Looking For

The mission problem

The topic addresses a critical need within the U.S. Space Force's Missile Warning, Tracking, and Response mission by advancing the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking precision, and real-time situational awareness within a multi-orbit satellite framework covering GEO, MEO, and LEO.

The Air Force is specific about what is currently hard. Current technologies face challenges in fusing large volumes of disparate data across multiple sensing modalities, tackling latency in data processing, and accurately tracking increasingly sophisticated threats such as hypersonic and maneuverable missile systems.

Three distinct problems sit inside that sentence. Heterogeneous data fusion at volume. Latency. And targets that do not behave like ballistic objects. A proposal that addresses only one should say which one and why that is the highest-value place to start.

The Phase I objective

The objective of this Phase I effort is to evaluate the feasibility of applying innovative data processing techniques, including AI and ML methodologies, to address the evolving challenges in missile detection, warning, tracking, and reporting.

The primary goal of the research and development initiative is to advance data fusion, sensor integration, and real-time processing methods that enhance the accuracy, responsiveness, and reliability of satellite-based missile warning systems. That includes addressing data interoperability from multi-orbit GEO, MEO, and LEO satellite constellations, optimizing on-orbit and ground-based processing frameworks, and improving data quality from diverse sensing modalities across legacy and future Overhead Persistent Infrared space architectures.

Specifically, the effort will focus on researching and developing state-of-the-art algorithms and processing techniques that support rapid and precise multi-sensor fusion, robust target identification, and accurate real-time 3D tracking of traditional, hypersonic, and maneuverable missile threats. By leveraging novel techniques in data association, sensor fusion, and edge processing, the solution will aim to mitigate limitations presented by diverse sensor resolutions, data cadences, and observational geometries. The project will also investigate methods to increase computational efficiency for onboard satellite processing and consider robustness against noise in highly dynamic operational environments.

Four technical themes are worth pulling out of that because they are where a credible Phase I can differentiate. Data association across sensors with different resolutions, cadences, and observational geometries, which is the genuinely hard part of multi-orbit fusion. Real-time 3D tracking of maneuvering and hypersonic targets, where classical filters degrade. Computational efficiency sufficient for onboard satellite processing, meaning your algorithm has to survive a flight processor. And robustness against noise in highly dynamic environments.

The desired future state, in the Air Force's own words

Phase I will assess the feasibility of AI and ML driven multi-sensor fusion techniques for real-time advanced missile detection, warning, and tracking across multi-orbit satellite systems and data architectures. The desired future state of this effort is a network-aware, autonomous constellation spanning multiple orbital regimes where ground "migrates" with space via edge fusion that compresses timelines for the joint fight without loss of quality or confidence.

That sentence is the vision statement to write toward. Ground migrating with space via edge fusion means moving processing that today happens in ground stations onto the constellation itself. Compressing timelines without loss of quality or confidence is the constraint: faster is only valuable if the answer is still trustworthy, which is why explainability appears later in the topic.

What Phase I is actually for

The goal of this Phase I effort is to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the problem set of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area. Successful Phase I efforts from this topic will target capability testing within the OPIR Tap Lab, with the goal of advancing capability and de-risking follow-on capability development in subsequent phases.

Proposed solutions should include a feasibility study and algorithm prototypes or simulation results as applicable, as well as a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab.

The OPIR Tap Lab is named in the topic references at boulderlab.org. Understanding what it is, how outside companies engage with it, and what integration there requires is probably the highest-return hour of research you can spend before writing. Your clear path to integration and testing is an explicit proposal requirement, and it cannot be written credibly from the outside.

The four focused topic areas

The topic states that focused topic areas can include any part of the following, which is permissive language. You may address one, several, or elements across them.

Edge Fusion and Autonomy. AI and ML solutions for on-orbit track fusion, autonomous constellation tasking, and event-driven scheduling across proliferated MEO and LEO architectures in contested environments.

Multi-Source Integration. Capabilities that fuse OPIR, electro-optical, radar, signals intelligence, and commercial sensor data to improve detection, tracking, typing, and characterization, with scalable software architectures and ML-driven sensor calibration.

Observe, Orient, Decide, Act Loop Collapse and Mission Assurance. Solutions that accelerate the sensor-to-decision-maker kill chain with sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. These can include but are not limited to dynamic user control of automation covering command and control, operator overload, and scalable operations, plus orchestration, edge computing, AI trade-space exploration, and authoritative knowledge access.

New sources and methods for Missile Warning that are outside of the current missile warning operational paradigm tactics, techniques, and procedures.

That fourth area is unusual and deserves attention. It is an explicit invitation to propose something that does not fit current TTPs. Most SBIR topics reward alignment with existing practice. This one carves out space for an approach the mission area has not tried. If your technology is genuinely orthogonal to how missile warning is done today, that is the area to claim, and the topic gives you cover for it.

Note also the phrase "sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions" in the third area. For an AI proposal in a nuclear-adjacent warning mission, explainability is not a feature request, it is the precondition for the capability being usable at all. Address it directly.

The Feasibility Study and CONOPS Requirements

This is the most prescriptive part of the topic, and it is where your Phase I deliverable is defined. The Air Force tells you what a feasibility study is and what it must contain.

What the feasibility study must do

A feasibility study is an assessment of the practicality of developing and implementing a new technology within a given concept. The study aims to objectively and rationally uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the new technology, the feasibility of successful development of the technology, and the viability of the success of implementation of the technology in the proposed CONOPS.

The study should do four things.

Identify the benefits of the new technology within the CONOPS over existing solutions, or the lack thereof. Note the parenthetical. The Air Force is asking you to be honest where no existing solution exists, rather than manufacturing a comparison.

Identify the risks, uncertainties and unknowns, and issues of the proposed CONOPS with mitigation and closure measures. Both mitigation and closure, meaning how a given uncertainty gets resolved, not just managed.

Identify the critical technology elements of the new technology. Critical technology elements, or CTEs, is deliberate systems engineering vocabulary. Use it.

Provide data to support the feasibility of technology development of each CTE, to include literature research supporting technical viability or historical usage, trade studies identifying existing technologies, current developments, and feasible development pathways, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage of similar technology with identified differences in operations or environment for the proposed CONOPS.

That last item is the workload of the award. Per critical technology element, you owe literature research, trade studies, analysis, and a heritage comparison that names how your environment differs. Three months is enough time for that only if you scope the CTE list tightly. Identify four or five critical technology elements, not fifteen.

What the CONOPS must do

The Concept of Operations should clearly communicate how the technology is intended to support a military mission within a defined system. The main purpose of the CONOPS is to facilitate a common understanding of a future system to help develop operational and system-level requirements. CONOPS should be written at the system level first and then expanded on how the technology functions enable successful military operations.

That ordering instruction is specific and easy to get backwards. System level first, then how your technology's functions enable the mission. A CONOPS that starts from your algorithm and works outward is written in the wrong direction. Start with the missile warning system and the operational sequence, then place your contribution inside it.

Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing USSF CONOPS and technical viability, as well as analytical findings. The Air Force also notes that a Phase II transition concept may be outlined, so a forward-looking section is welcome but is not the deliverable.

Phase II and Phase III

Phase II

Phase II aims to build off the work completed in Phase I after successfully demonstrating capability for operational use within the OPIR Tap Lab or similar environments that demonstrate integrating advanced AI and ML for real-time multi-sensor fusion and missile tracking from OPIR systems.

Activities include system development, integration, and testing in operationally relevant environments to verify performance metrics such as accuracy, latency, resilience, and coverage. Phase II will mature the feasible concepts identified in Phase I into a deployable, testable prototype, and will include design refinement, system development, and operationally relevant testing focused on delivering a measurable improvement in AI and ML techniques to detect or accurately fuse any source detecting these threats, either on the ground in the traditional processing ground stations or on board via edge processing.

The four named performance metrics, accuracy, latency, resilience, and coverage, are worth building your Phase I analytical findings around. If your feasibility study produces baseline estimates against those four, you have handed the government the measurement framework for your own Phase II.

The pathway is stated explicitly: successful Phase I efforts establish technical feasibility and transition the validated proof-of-concept into the OPIR Tap Lab or a similar testbed, and Phase II efforts continue development of technologies coming out of the OPIR Tap Lab. By using that operationally relevant environment, the work progresses to system development, integration, and testing, which de-risks follow-on capability development. The ultimate goal of the pathway is to mature the feasible concepts into a deployable, testable working prototype delivering a measurable improvement in techniques for multi-sensor fusion and missile detection, warning, tracking and reporting.

How Phase II gets requested, which matters for planning

The Phase I instructions describe a Phase II process that is not applicant-initiated on a fixed calendar. DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. The decision is based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.

Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award. If your physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since Phase I submission, send corrected information to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk.

Two practical consequences. First, because the request can come while Phase I performance is still ongoing, and because it is based on demonstrated technical progress, front-loading real analytical results rather than saving them for the final report is strategically sensible on a three month award. Second, the DAF reserves the right to modify Phase II submission requirements and will notify all Phase I awardees if requirements change.

The instructions also note that the DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts, but awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system. If the company intends to continue work with the Department of War, an approved accounting system will allow competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts. That is worth acting on early if you expect a defense business, since DCAA accounting system approval is not a quick process.

Phase III

Potential Phase III efforts will pursue transition of the capability to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for a Technology Readiness Level of 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments.

A key transition pipeline for this capability is the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio. Successful efforts in potential Phase III efforts will involve full integration into OPIR operational data workflows and fielding the capability at scale to provide recurring operational value and reduce warfighter risk by expanding OPIR sensing capabilities.

A named transition pipeline is a gift in a SBIR topic, because it answers the question every proposal has to answer about what happens after the money runs out. Reference the Space Modernization Initiative and Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio explicitly in your commercialization and future R&D discussion.

The topic cites the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide as a reference, at gao.gov/assets/gao-20-48g.pdf. Since the Phase III target is stated as TRL 6 or 7, use GAO's definitions rather than an informal scale when you make maturity claims.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and what it buys

Up to $150,000 across up to 3 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The DAF adds, in the evaluation section, that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Be realistic about what three months and $150,000 supports. Roughly speaking this is a small team for a quarter. That is enough for a rigorous feasibility study with a bounded CTE list, a literature and trade study foundation, some simulation work against representative data, and an integration plan for the OPIR Tap Lab. It is not enough for a demonstration against real OPIR data on a flight-representative processor. Propose the former convincingly rather than the latter aspirationally, because cost realism is assessed inside the most important evaluation criterion.

Contract type

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts.

The instructions add a significant procedural note: if no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.

Technical and Business Assistance

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA, and the DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award.

The Phase I instructions state this in a single sentence, without the detailed provider documentation requirements the D2P2 instructions impose. Because the two documents in the same release treat TABA differently, and because TABA requests are commonly denied on documentation grounds, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period what Phase I TABA documentation this cycle requires and where it goes.

Cost volume requirements

Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element.

A helpful mechanical point: the DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit. The itemized listing also may be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.

The seven categories the instructions name:

Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies.

Other direct costs. Includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Compute time, if you are running significant simulation or model training, belongs here with justification.

Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name if possible, or by labor category if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a study award this will be nearly the whole budget, so it deserves the most care.

Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. On this topic, that recommendation reads as an opportunity: a trip to engage the OPIR Tap Lab supports the integration path the topic asks you to define.

Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, and profit is not included in the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. Inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant. The letter should briefly state what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.

Where work must be performed

All research and research and development work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.

Performance of work deviations

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from the performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.

Given the two-thirds in-house requirement on Phase I, this process is more likely to be relevant here than on a D2P2 topic. If a university collaborator is central to your approach, start the deviation request early in the open period.

Export Control and Foreign Nationals

The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

Missile warning is among the more sensitive mission areas in the portfolio, so treat this as a real constraint rather than a disclosure formality. AI and ML teams are frequently internationally staffed, and resolving who can work on what should happen before you write your key personnel section, not after selection. If you are asserting export-controlled status, a certified DD Form 2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission, is a Volume 5 document, and DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award. The form, instructions, and FAQs are at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Complete proposals must include Volume 1 Cover Sheet, Volume 2 Technical Volume, Volume 3 Cost Volume, Volume 4 Company Commercialization Report, Volume 5 Supporting Documents, Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training, and Volume 7 Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.

The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released, so keep sensitive algorithmic detail out of both.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume proposal submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template."

Include a work plan outline in the following format:

Scope. List the effort's major requirements and specifications.

Task Outline. Provide a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort.

Milestone Schedule.

Deliverables.

Progress reports.

Final report with SF 298.

Two notes. First, the required work plan outline here is much lighter than the D2P2 work plan, which demanded a separately paginated contract-language document with numbered task hierarchies. Phase I asks for an outline. Do not over-build it, but do include every named element, since omissions in a prescribed format are the cheapest kind of avoidable finding.

Second, the SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page, a standard form that accompanies a technical report. Naming it in the deliverables list means your final report needs it, so account for that rather than discovering it at closeout.

The technical volume page limit for this topic is 30 pages or slides, from the topic index. Note that the limit is expressed as pages or slides, so a slide-format submission is acceptable within whatever structure the template provides. Thirty pages is generous relative to the size of the award, which means the constraint on this proposal is analytical substance rather than space. Use the room for the feasibility study structure, the CTE analysis, and the CONOPS.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above. Remember that the DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information do not count against the page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. The instructions state that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance and do not treat it as a scoring opportunity. This matches the D2P2 instructions and differs from Army SBIR practice, where the CCR is considered.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal.

DD Form 2345. For proposals submitted under export-controlled topics, either ITAR or EAR, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included. This topic is export controlled, so this applies. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, which is Attachment 3 to the FY26 SBIR CSO.

Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions. For an AI and ML company whose core asset is existing models, code, and training pipelines built with private investment, this is the mechanism for protecting that background intellectual property. Do not skip it because the award is small.

Note what is absent. There is no Phase I feasibility documentation requirement in Volume 5, because Phase I is where feasibility gets established rather than where it must be proven in advance.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission. Complete this before you need it, since it gates submission.

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

Small business concerns must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The form will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and previous versions of the form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria

Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria below in descending order of importance. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

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.

Criteria B, second. The degree of mission impact and the urgency of the identified need. The specificity of the defense requirement addressed. 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.

Three observations. Cost realism sits inside Criteria A, so on a three month award the proposal that promises too much is penalized on the top criterion, not on price. The phrase "incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution" rewards a clearly bounded step, which fits a feasibility study well, so do not apologize for the modest scope. And qualifications of key personnel are inside the top criterion, which on an AI and ML topic means the credibility of your technical team relative to sensor fusion and tracking, not just to machine learning generally.

Due diligence and foreign risk

15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures the DAF will use include the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; technology licensing agreements or joint ventures, including joint venture like agreements, with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern; and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern.

The DAF will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks, and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.

Applicants will be required to disclose, under penalty of perjury, the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the small business concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of eight named lists: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; and the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified, or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

If the DAF denies an award under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20), or upon determining the concern has a security risk described in that paragraph, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same notification approach applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).

For an AI and ML company, three items on that list deserve a look before you propose. Cybersecurity practices, which leads the list and connects to the CMMC Level 2 self-assessment projection for this topic. Patent analysis, since machine learning patent portfolios often have international co-assignees or co-inventors. And employee analysis together with foreign affiliations, which in this field frequently means academic affiliations abroad.

Ownership and support contractors

Small business concerns that are 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.

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors. These support contractors may include, but are not limited to, TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Daniel J. Brewer, with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.

Status, feedback, and protests

The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, since separate notifications are provided for each proposal.

The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the CSO Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.

Refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.

All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

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 3 months from award

Phase II: requested by DAF organizations based on technical progress, either during Phase I performance or any time after it concludes, with only Phase I awardees eligible and one Phase II proposal permitted per Phase I award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Download the Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template from the DSIP supporting documents page and read it before you write anything, because it dictates your structure. Research the OPIR Tap Lab, since a clear path to integration and testing there is an explicit proposal requirement. Decide which of the four focused topic areas you are claiming. Draft your critical technology element list and keep it short enough for three months of real analysis. Resolve export control staffing questions and start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Inventory your background intellectual property so you can assert data rights properly. Check your work distribution against the two-thirds in-house requirement, and if a university collaborator is central, start the Performance of Work deviation request now, since it must be made during the open period as well as with the proposal. Complete Volume 6 training, verify SAM registration and DSIP account alignment, and send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries and warns that late ones constrain its ability to respond. Ask about Phase I TABA documentation while you are there.

September 23 through October 3. Build the technical volume inside the template. Write the CONOPS at the system level first, then expand into how your technology's functions enable the mission, following the topic's stated ordering. Structure the feasibility study around the four required elements: benefits over existing solutions or the lack thereof, risks and unknowns with mitigation and closure measures, critical technology elements, and supporting data per CTE covering literature research, trade studies, analysis, and heritage usage with identified differences.

October 4 through October 12. Complete the work plan outline with all six named elements: scope, task outline, milestone schedule, deliverables, progress reports, and final report with SF 298. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, remembering neither counts against the page limit. Include at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract, which the instructions recommend and which on this topic supports your OPIR Tap Lab engagement. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract. Verify all outside costs stay under one-third of the contract price with profit excluded.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with DD Form 2345 and Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run a compliance pass against the template and the 30 page or slide limit. Confirm no proprietary or classified content in the technical abstract, which will be publicly released if you are selected.

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-NV510?

‍ ‍

DAF26BX06-NV510 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic titled "AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting," released under the DAF FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, in partnership with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab, seeks to evaluate the feasibility of applying AI and ML data processing to multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking, and real-time situational awareness across GEO, MEO, and LEO satellite architectures.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-NV510?

‍ ‍

Up to $150,000 for a period of performance up to 3 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or that duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the exact submission time, which is ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the time on the live DSIP topic posting rather than assuming end of day.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

Do I have to use a specific proposal template?

‍ ‍

Yes. All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template." Download it before you start writing. This requirement has no counterpart in the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

30 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of that number will not be considered during evaluations. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information do not count against the limit.

‍ ‍

What is the work plan outline format?

‍ ‍

Six named elements: Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications; Task Outline, a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during Phase I; Milestone Schedule; Deliverables; Progress reports; and Final report with SF 298.

‍ ‍

What is the SF 298?

‍ ‍

The Report Documentation Page, a standard form that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required work plan outline as part of the final report deliverable, so plan for it rather than discovering it at closeout.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. Note this is substantially tighter than the one-third floor in the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions.

‍ ‍

What is the cap on subcontracts and consultants?

‍ ‍

The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. On a $150,000 award that is roughly $50,000 for all outside costs combined. The Direct to Phase II cap is one-half, so do not carry that assumption over.

‍ ‍

Can I get a waiver on the performance of work requirement?

‍ ‍

Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations. Requests must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests before submission, the DAF will approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission, then reconsider upon proposal receipt for the resultant award. The DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission opening.

‍ ‍

What does the feasibility study have to contain?

‍ ‍

Four things. Identify the benefits of the new technology within the CONOPS over existing solutions, or the lack thereof. Identify the risks, uncertainties and unknowns, and issues of the proposed CONOPS with mitigation and closure measures. Identify the critical technology elements of the new technology. And provide data supporting the feasibility of technology development of each CTE, including literature research supporting technical viability or historical usage, trade studies identifying existing technologies, current developments, and feasible development pathways, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage of similar technology with identified differences in operations or environment for the proposed CONOPS.

‍ ‍

How should I write the CONOPS?

‍ ‍

At the system level first, then expanded on how the technology functions enable successful military operations. That ordering is specified in the topic. The CONOPS should clearly communicate how the technology is intended to support a military mission within a defined system, and its main purpose is to facilitate a common understanding of a future system to help develop operational and system-level requirements.

‍ ‍

What are the focused topic areas?

‍ ‍

Four, and the topic says focused areas can include any part of them. Edge Fusion and Autonomy, covering AI and ML for on-orbit track fusion, autonomous constellation tasking, and event-driven scheduling across proliferated MEO and LEO architectures in contested environments. Multi-Source Integration, fusing OPIR, EO, radar, SIGINT, and commercial sensor data to improve detection, tracking, typing, and characterization with scalable software architectures and ML-driven sensor calibration. OODA Loop Collapse and Mission Assurance, accelerating the sensor-to-decision-maker kill chain with sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. And new sources and methods for Missile Warning outside the current missile warning operational paradigm tactics, techniques, and procedures.

‍ ‍

What if my approach does not fit current missile warning practice?

‍ ‍

The fourth focused topic area explicitly invites new sources and methods outside the current missile warning operational paradigm TTPs. That is unusual in a SBIR topic and gives cover for a genuinely orthogonal approach. Claim that area and say why the current paradigm limits the outcome.

‍ ‍

What is the OPIR Tap Lab and why does it matter?

‍ ‍

The OPIR Tap Lab is a government lab named as the destination for Phase I work, referenced in the topic at boulderlab.org. The stated Phase I goal is to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area problem set. Successful Phase I efforts will target capability testing there. Proposed solutions must include a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab, which makes understanding how the lab engages outside companies essential before you write.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase I deliverables?

‍ ‍

Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing USSF CONOPS and technical viability, as well as analytical findings. Proposed solutions should include a feasibility study and algorithm prototypes or simulation results as applicable, plus a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab. A Phase II transition concept may be outlined. The research plan can include modeling, simulation, literature review, or trade studies.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. 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 them. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data involved. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application submission, 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 proposed approach, its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, the qualifications of the principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, and whether proposed cost elements are realistic, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the methods and materials in 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.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Do I need prior SBIR experience or existing feasibility documentation?

‍ ‍

No. Unlike the Direct to Phase II topics in this release, Phase I has no feasibility eligibility gate and Volume 5 carries only three conditional documents. The feasibility study here is a Phase I deliverable, not an admission requirement, which makes this topic accessible to a company that has never held a SBIR award.

‍ ‍

How do I get to Phase II?

‍ ‍

You do not apply on a calendar. DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II submittal date and detailed preparation instructions, and Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in that request. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.

‍ ‍

Since Phase II can be requested during Phase I, should I change how I schedule the work?

‍ ‍

It is worth considering. Because a Phase II request can arrive while Phase I performance is still ongoing and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing real analytical results early rather than holding everything for the final report gives a reviewing Technical Point of Contact something to act on. On a three month award that argues for front-loading substance.

‍ ‍

What contract type should I expect?

‍ ‍

The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.

‍ ‍

Will I be able to negotiate after submitting?

‍ ‍

Possibly not. If no exceptions are taken to your proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations, so your initial proposal should contain your best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary.

‍ ‍

How do I protect my existing AI models and code?

‍ ‍

Technical Data Rights Assertions is a listed Volume 5 document if you are asserting data rights restrictions. For a company whose core asset is models, code, and training pipelines developed with private investment, this is the mechanism for distinguishing background intellectual property from what you develop under the award. Do not skip it because the award is small.

‍ ‍

What is TABA on this topic and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

The DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award. The Phase I instructions state this in one sentence without the detailed provider documentation requirements the Direct to Phase II instructions impose. Because the two documents in the same release treat TABA differently, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period what Phase I TABA documentation this cycle requires and where it belongs.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Potential Phase III efforts will pursue transition to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for TRL 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments. A key transition pipeline is the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio. Successful Phase III efforts will involve full integration into OPIR operational data workflows and fielding the capability at scale to provide recurring operational value and reduce warfighter risk by expanding OPIR sensing capabilities.

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Will I get feedback if not selected?

‍ ‍

Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

For general information related to the AF SBIR/STTR program and proposal preparation instructions, contact the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us. The DAF encourages applicants to request clarifying information as early as possible, since delays in such requests constrain the DAF's ability to provide satisfactory resolution to applicant concerns. For questions regarding the DSIP electronic submission system, contact the DoW SBIR/STTR Help Desk at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. If your company mail or email addresses or points of contact change after proposal submission, provide the information to the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR CSO Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Startups Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Understand what you are buying with this proposal. At $150,000 over three months, the award itself is not the prize. The prize is being onboarded into the OPIR Tap Lab and becoming part of the shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking problem set, with a named Phase III pipeline in the Space Modernization Initiative behind it. Write the proposal as an entry into a relationship, and be explicit about the integration path, because that is what the topic asks for and what the government is actually buying.

‍ ‍

Do the OPIR Tap Lab homework before you write. A clear path to integration and testing within the lab is a stated proposal requirement. What data is available there, what interfaces exist, how outside algorithms get evaluated, and what the onboarding process involves are all things you should know before drafting. A generic statement that you would like to integrate is not a path.

‍ ‍

Scope the critical technology element list tightly. Per CTE you owe literature research, trade studies, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage with identified differences. Three months buys that for a handful of elements, not for a dozen. Four or five well-analyzed CTEs will read as rigorous; fifteen thin ones will read as unserious and will hurt you on cost realism inside the top criterion.

‍ ‍

Write the CONOPS in the order the topic specifies. System level first, then how your technology's functions enable successful military operations. Most AI companies naturally write outward from the algorithm. This topic asks for the reverse, and following the instruction is free points.

‍ ‍

Make explainability a first-class part of the approach. The OODA loop area asks for sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. In a warning mission, an unexplainable output is unusable regardless of accuracy. Treat confidence quantification and explainability as design requirements, not as a paragraph near the end.

‍ ‍

Address the hard fusion problem specifically. Diverse sensor resolutions, data cadences, and observational geometries is where multi-orbit fusion actually breaks. Naming that problem precisely and describing your data association approach against it is the fastest way to signal that you understand the mission rather than the buzzwords.

‍ ‍

Take onboard processing seriously. The topic asks about computational efficiency for onboard satellite processing. An algorithm that only works on a ground cluster answers half the question, because the desired future state is ground migrating with space via edge fusion. State your compute budget assumptions.

‍ ‍

Consider claiming the fourth focused area if it fits. New sources and methods outside current missile warning TTPs is an explicit invitation to be different. Few topics offer that, and if your approach genuinely does not fit today's paradigm, that framing turns a weakness into responsiveness.

‍ ‍

Check the two-thirds rule against your team plan early. Phase I requires you to perform two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house, and all outside costs to stay under one-third of contract price. AI and ML proposals often lean on academic collaborators. If yours does, either restructure or start the Performance of Work deviation request during the open period, since it must be made before submission as well as with the proposal.

‍ ‍

Assert your data rights. Your models and pipelines predate this award. Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 is how you keep that boundary clear, and a small Phase I is exactly the situation where companies neglect it and regret it later.

‍ ‍

Budget the trip. The instructions recommend at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. On a topic built around integration into a specific lab, that trip is substantive rather than administrative. Put it in the cost volume with a stated purpose.

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.

DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-DV512: Cyberspace Warfare for Space

Quick Answer

DAF26BX06-DV512 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, working with Cyberspace Warfare professionals in the U.S. Space Force, is looking for solutions that defend space systems from adversarial attack through the cyber domain. The topic is organized into eight distinct focus areas, and proposals need to address one or more of them, not all eight. Awards are up to $2,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 20 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The eight focus areas are genuinely different businesses: data ingestion, software supply chain vetting, on-orbit cyber defense running on a satellite, a cyber range for training space operators, data parsing and normalization, AI threat detection, supply chain risk analytics, and a portable field kit. A company with a mature product in any one of them has a credible path here, which makes this the broadest topic in the release and probably the most accessible to commercial cybersecurity firms that have never worked with the Space Force.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BX06-DV512

Title: Cyberspace Warfare for Space

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

Sponsoring organization: SpaceWERX, in partnership with Cyberspace Warfare professionals within the U.S. Space Force

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

Award maximum value: $2,000,000

Award maximum duration: 24 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology

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

Focus areas: eight, and proposals should address one or more

Target maturity for Phase III transition: TRL 6 or 7

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: SpaceWERX, on-orbit cyber defense, space vehicles, autonomous cyber response, real-time monitoring, defensive cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, machine learning, threat simulation

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct applicants to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the proposal 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 Build

The strategic framing

The Space Force's defensive cyber operations mission is focused on rapid integration of capabilities into the Defensive Cyber Warfare pipeline, referred to throughout as DCW, to address the unique and complex cybersecurity requirements of space systems. The stated aims are to enable scaling of current DCW systems for widespread protection and to improve Space Force operational readiness.

The Space Force describes the change it wants in terms worth quoting closely, because they tell you what language to use. Modernizing Defensive Cyber Warfare for Space requires shifting from fragmented, reactive security to a cohesive, intelligence-driven posture that spans from the commercial supply chain to the orbital edge.

That phrase, from the commercial supply chain to the orbital edge, is the organizing idea behind the eight focus areas. Two of them are supply chain problems, three are data and analytics problems on the ground, one is a training environment, one runs on the satellite itself, and one goes in a case to a forward location.

The initiative is described as seeking to build a unified defense ecosystem where AI-enhanced vetting ensures the integrity of hardware and software long before deployment. Once operational, agile data architectures will seamlessly normalize complex telemetry across hybrid networks, fueling advanced machine learning engines to autonomously detect and intercept threats in real time. The focus areas should optimize the existing IT environment to minimize cost and maximize efficiency. By extending lightweight, resilient safeguards directly onto spacecraft and disconnected ground infrastructure, and validating them through hyper-realistic, immersive training environments, the initiative aims to equip cyber operators with a decisive, end-to-end advantage against advanced adversaries.

The desired outcome, stated at the top, is to produce capabilities that advance the domain of defensive cyber warfare operations in eight different focus areas, each presenting a unique opportunity for industry. This initiative supports the Space Force's broader strategy to generate, present, sustain, and improve Cyberspace Warfare forces for the Joint Force.

The eight focus areas

Proposals should address one or more of the following. Pick the one where you have real product maturity and feasibility evidence, and say so clearly and early in your proposal.

Focus Area 1: Lightweight and Cloud-Agnostic Data Ingest. To support future-ready data operations for DCW systems, the team wants best value, lightweight, efficient data ingestion at the edge or at the hub. The named problem is the significant infrastructure overhead associated with traditional data capture methods. Solutions should deploy with minimal impact to existing systems, providing high-throughput data capture without demanding extensive hardware or complex configurations. The goal is to pull critical data into analytics platforms so that on-premises monitoring capabilities are both effective and sustainable. In parallel, the effort is interested in cloud data ingestion, with Cloud Service Provider agnostic approaches offering flexible and scalable ingestion independent of cloud provider solutions, including exploring technologies such as virtual TAPs. The ultimate objective is a cohesive data ingest solution independent of the underlying infrastructure, whether on-premises, in a single cloud, or across a multi-cloud landscape.

Focus Area 2: Defensive Cyber Warfare Systems, Proactive Software Assurance and Malware Detection. To safeguard DCW systems against an increasingly compromised global software supply chain, the team wants advanced capabilities for deep inspection and security vetting of third-party software packages. The initiative is twofold, addressing both Free and Open-Source Software and non-approved Commercial Off-the-Shelf products, with the goal of proactively identifying and mitigating threats before they enter critical operational environments. Solutions should thoroughly evaluate FOSS packages to produce a comprehensive Software Bill of Materials and detailed risk analysis, automatically alerting operators to embedded malware, hidden back-doors, and vulnerabilities corresponding to the OWASP Top 10. A key feature will be the ability to trace software origin and development lineage, providing critical intelligence on contributions from foreign nationals or known adversaries. A similar vetting mechanism is desired for COTS software not currently on an Approved Product List, leveraging techniques such as binary analysis, SBOM generation, or other advanced methods to produce a thorough risk assessment covering both specific security vulnerabilities and broader digital supply chain risks. These detection mechanisms would provide the greatest value if implemented for validation onboard or integrated prior to space system deployment.

Focus Area 3: On-Orbit Space Vehicle Cyber Defense and Monitoring. The team wants an advanced on-orbit detection and response capability for Space Vehicles that directly reduces or negates the impact of cyber-attacks on critical space systems. The primary objective is to deploy a persistent monitoring solution directly onto the Space Vehicle that can identify and, in approved instances, autonomously respond to malicious activity in real time. This onboard capability should integrate seamlessly with existing ground-based DCW systems so all telemetry and alert data are relayed to terrestrial monitoring centers. Solutions should monitor a wide spectrum of the Space Vehicle's internal functions, including detecting unauthorized software, firmware, or critical configuration changes; monitoring traffic on essential, non-redundant components such as the 1553 Bus and SpaceWire; and identifying anomalous behavior such as irregular commands or malware uploads. The system should be sensitive to threat indicators targeting the vehicle's core subsystems, including triggers related to power manipulation, system timing interference, or unauthorized payload function commands. Upon detecting an approved event, the system should execute a direct response on the Space Vehicle and transmit comprehensive logs to the ground segment for analysis. Given the highly restrictive nature of space platforms, solutions should be engineered with minimal size, weight, and power impact, and software-based solutions that impose a negligible resource footprint on the host vehicle are strongly preferred. Offerors should be aware that development and testing will likely be conducted using high-fidelity environments such as a FlatSat or realistic simulations.

Focus Area 4: Immersive Space Cyber Test Environment. The team wants a comprehensive and immersive test and purple teaming platform designed to prepare cyber operators for the unique challenges of defending space systems against advanced cyber threats. The objective is a realistic, hands-on environment where operators develop and hone skills in detecting and responding to attacks targeting space assets and their supporting infrastructure, described as instrumental in building a proficient and mission-ready cyber defense workforce. The proposed solution should include two core high-fidelity components: a simulated space asset, which could be a physical FlatSat or a sophisticated digital twin, and a corresponding simulated ground system. The ground simulation should realistically model all essential elements, including the ground control segment, remote tracking stations, and antenna systems. A critical requirement is full integration of the government-furnished DCW tool suite, allowing operators to train with the actual systems they will use in live missions. The training platform should also come equipped with a robust curriculum of realistic, scenario-based cyber-attacks serving as the foundation for training exercises, simulating credible threats including direct cyber-attacks against the space vehicle's onboard systems, attacks targeting the ground control systems, and threats aimed at compromising the communication and access links between the space and ground segments.

Focus Area 5: Adaptive Data Parsers and Transformation Engine. The team wants a universal parser or data transformation mechanism capable of ingesting and normalizing a wide array of data types into a single standardized format for seamless integration into DCW analytics systems. The stated problem is that developing dedicated parsers for each data source is time consuming, labor intensive, and creates significant code maintenance challenges. The needed solution handles a wide range of data types used in analytics, including space specific protocols, proprietary logs from various network devices, proprietary data types produced by cyber tools, and non-standard formats from numerous intelligence threat feeds. It should minimize code maintenance when new Security Information and Event Management systems or data structures are introduced, and support incorporation of new data formats without requiring major code revisions. By transforming disparate data into a common, queryable format, the solution will significantly enhance analytical capabilities and provide a comprehensive, correlated view of the battlespace, described as essential for creating a unified and consistent data pipeline fundamental to effective security monitoring, threat hunting, and incident response.

Focus Area 6: AI-Driven Cyber Threat Detection. In response to emerging adversarial tactics, the team recognizes that traditional signature-based detection methods are no longer sufficient to provide a decisive advantage, and wants to augment DCW systems with an advanced, behavior-based threat detection capability. The solution should leverage artificial intelligence, machine learning, or advanced heuristics to establish a baseline of normal activity and proactively identify anomalies indicative of a compromise. Required elements include anomaly detection across multi-domain data sources such as network, host, user, and space specific telemetry; automated threat hunting correlating disparate indicators to reveal hidden patterns; predictive analytics identifying potential attack vectors before they are exploited; and natural language processing that automatically analyzes and correlates intelligence from multiple threat feeds. AI and ML capabilities should be trained in an operational-like environment to reduce noise and optimize detection, and should operate effectively in bandwidth constrained or contested environments common to space operations. Automated triage and prioritization of alerts is needed to reduce analyst fatigue and speed response times, along with AI assisted incident response recommendations informed by historical attack patterns and mission context.

Focus Area 7: AI-Driven Digital Supply Chain Illumination and Risk Management. The team wants a comprehensive digital supply chain risk management capability to safeguard the flow of software and hardware from vendors and suppliers. Proposed solutions should leverage artificial intelligence and advanced analytical tools to provide deep, multi-tier visibility and proactive risk identification across the entire supplier ecosystem. The capability should continuously monitor and analyze a wide range of data sources to deliver real-time intelligence on potential disruptions, including detecting cybersecurity risks such as data breaches or attacks within a supplier's network, as well as broader supplier and operational risks including material shortages, production delays, financial instability, or legal and labor issues. The system should use AI to identify and alert on emerging threats that could impact the ecosystem, protecting against both immediate cyber threats and long-term operational disruptions. By creating a unified view of the supply chain and automating vulnerability detection, this capability enables a move from a reactive to a predictive and resilient posture, ensuring the integrity and continuity of DCW systems.

Focus Area 8: Portable Edge Cyber Defense Kit. The team wants a lightweight, portable, plug-and-play fly-away kit for cyber threat detection, investigation, and response at remote and forward-deployed locations. As operations increasingly extend into austere environments, the Space Force wants a self-contained capability that functions effectively with limited or nonexistent network connectivity, addressing the challenge of robust cyber defense in disconnected, intermittent, and low-bandwidth settings where reliance on centralized security infrastructure is not feasible. The kit should empower operators to conduct local threat hunting and initial remediation, ensuring security of critical assets at the tactical edge. It should be engineered with a minimal physical footprint for portability and ease of deployment, and should possess onboard processing and analytical power to autonomously detect and investigate threats without real-time reach-back. A critical requirement is sufficient internal storage to collect and securely hold logs, forensic data, and other mission-critical artifacts for extended periods, and that stored data must be easily transferable so operators can push it to central analysis platforms for deeper post-mission analysis upon returning to a connected environment. The kit should provide an intuitive interface enabling an operator to effectively manage incidents and secure networks in the field, bridging the gap between disconnected operations and enterprise-level situational awareness.

Which focus area fits you

A short guide to self-selection. If you build data pipeline or observability infrastructure, look at Focus Areas 1 and 5. If you do SBOM generation, binary analysis, or software composition analysis, Focus Area 2, and if you do supplier risk intelligence, Focus Area 7. If you build embedded security or runtime monitoring for constrained systems, Focus Area 3, which is the most space-specific and most technically distinctive of the eight. If you build cyber ranges, digital twins, or training platforms, Focus Area 4. If you build behavioral detection, UEBA, or AI security analytics, Focus Area 6. If you build deployable forensic or incident response appliances, Focus Area 8.

The two focus areas with the highest barrier to entry, and therefore the least competition, are 3 and 4, because both require genuine space system knowledge. Focus Area 3 asks for monitoring on a 1553 Bus and SpaceWire in a minimal SWaP footprint, tested against a FlatSat. Focus Area 4 requires integration of a government-furnished DCW tool suite into your range. The other six are closer to adaptations of commercial cybersecurity products, which makes them more accessible and probably more crowded.

The Feasibility Requirement

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.

What this topic requires, in three specific parts

The topic states it is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, that Phase I awards will not be made, and that the applicant must provide detail and documentation in the D2P2 proposal demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort including a feasibility study. That includes determining, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have commercial potential. The applicant must have validated the product-mission fit between the proposed solution and a potential U.S. Air Force or Space Force stakeholder, and should have defined a clear, immediately actionable plan with the proposed solution and the DAF customer and end-user.

Then the topic lists three things the feasibility study should have. These are unusually explicit and you should mirror them as headings.

First, clearly identified the potential stakeholders of the adapted solution for solving the USAF or USSF needs.

Second, described the pathway to integrating with DAF operations, to include how the applicant plans to accomplish core technology development, navigate applicable regulatory processes, and integrate with other relevant systems or processes.

Third, described if and how the solution can be used by other Department of Defense or Governmental customers.

Notice that all three are about customers, integration pathways, and regulatory navigation rather than about technical performance. For a commercial cybersecurity company, that is the real bar on this topic. Your product probably works. What the Space Force is checking is whether you have identified who inside the USSF would use it, whether you understand the accreditation and integration path, and whether you can articulate broader government demand. If you have not had those conversations, that is the gap, and four weeks is not much time to close 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 II and Phase III Expectations

Phase II: proposed solutions should develop and demonstrate innovative technologies to support operations as part of the Space Force's cyberspace warfare for space operations. Solutions should address one or more of the eight focus areas.

Phase III: potential Phase III efforts will pursue transition of the capability to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for a Technology Readiness Level of 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments. Phase II efforts that demonstrate technical maturity, integration feasibility, and mission alignment may be selected for continued development and deployment into operational environments.

During Phase III, performers may be expected to advance system readiness, demonstrate operational capability, enable cross-service application, and pursue dual-use commercialization. Phase III work may be performed with non-SBIR/STTR funding and can include further government-sponsored prototyping, operational transition activities, or commercialization via strategic partners in the defense and aerospace sectors.

The reference the Air Force cites for this topic is the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, at gao.gov/assets/gao-20-48g.pdf. That is a meaningful hint. If you are going to make TRL claims, and the Phase III target is stated as TRL 6 or 7, use the GAO guide's definitions rather than your own informal scale, and cite it.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $2,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index states that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The 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.

Because this topic has eight focus areas and the Government may award multiple times, do not assume you are competing against every other proposal. You are most directly competing against other proposals in your focus area, though the topic does not commit to distributing awards across focus areas.

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.

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. Those activities must serve one of these purposes: making better technical decisions, solving technical problems arising during the project, minimizing technical risks, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.

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, 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 into training, their qualifications or the detailed need for training, the tasks to be performed with 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: 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 to determine whether hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. For a software-heavy proposal this will be the dominant cost element and deserves the most care.

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. Cloud infrastructure, commercial software licenses, and development hardware 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, rates, sources, and justification. Leased hardware requires a lease versus purchase rationale. FlatSat access or cyber range infrastructure, depending on your focus area, may live here.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material: carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness, 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: supported with copies of subcontract agreements adequately describing the work 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 at a fixed price is expressly not sufficient. The prime must accomplish price analysis including reasonableness, identifying 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: a separate agreement letter for each, stating the service, hours required, and hourly rate, plus a short concise resume.

Travel: each effort should include at a minimum a kickoff or interim meeting, with destinations, trips, travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation justified against the Joint Travel Regulation.

Indirect costs: indicate proposed rate bases, identify specific rates and allocation bases, and provide rates and applications per fiscal year across 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.

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. This is usually easier on a software topic than a hardware one, but watch cloud and licensing costs if you are treating them as purchases. If you cannot meet the thresholds, 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.

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. Requests must accompany the initial proposal submission.

This deserves particular attention on a cybersecurity topic. Distributed engineering teams and offshore development are common in commercial software, and this requirement rules that out for the funded work absent specific written approval.

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.

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 approvals including for deemed exports of hardware, technical data, and software, must obtain export licenses before using foreign persons including where work is performed on-site at any Government installation whether inside or outside the United States, is responsible for regulatory record keeping associated with the use of licenses and exemptions, and must ensure these provisions apply to its subcontractors.

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

There is a notable interaction with Focus Area 2. That focus area asks for the ability to trace software origin and development lineage, providing critical intelligence on contributions from foreign nationals or known adversaries. If you are proposing that capability, your own team composition and development practices are fair territory for scrutiny. Be prepared for that consistency check.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting

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 20 pages or slides, and 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.

Twenty pages is tight for a topic with this much surface area. The strategic implication is to be decisive about scope: name your focus area or areas in the first paragraph, and do not spend pages surveying the other seven. A proposal that gestures at breadth across all eight focus areas will read as unfocused and will run out of room to substantiate anything.

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items, and if included that 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 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 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 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. For a cybersecurity topic, take care that your abstract does not disclose detection methods or architecture detail you consider protected.

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 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 including technology area, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as key elements, consistent with section 4.0; 3.0 Background, identifying appropriate specifications, standards, and other documents applicable to the effort, 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 in separately numbered paragraphs, each major task delineated by subtask. The work plan must contain every task to be accomplished in definite, realistic, and clearly stated terms. Use "shall" for binding provisions, "should" or "may" to express a declaration or purpose, and "will" when no contractor requirement is involved.

Deliverables must clearly describe the specific sample or prototype hardware and software to be delivered, plus data deliverables, schedules, and quantities. Be aware of the possible unique item identification requirement under DFARS 252.211-7003 for hardware, which matters if you are proposing Focus Area 8's fly-away kit or Focus Area 4's physical FlatSat. If hardware or software will be developed but not delivered, provide an explanation. At minimum all Phase II contracts require Scientific and Technical Reports. Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor, and the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the 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 is a single-page project summary identifying the work's purpose, briefly describing the effort accomplished, and listing potential result applications, which may be published by DoW and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. Status reports are due quarterly at a minimum. The Air Force may require additional reporting including software documentation and users' manuals, engineering drawings, operation and maintenance documentation, safety hazard analysis when the project results in partial or total development and delivery of hardware, and updates to commercialization results.

For a software company, the 20 year SBIR data rights provision is the single most commercially significant clause in this document. Read it with counsel before you decide what code you are willing to develop under this award.

Related work must describe significant activities directly related to the proposed effort, including 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 planned coordination with outside sources. 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 but similar, with 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 addressing what the first planned product to incorporate the proposed technology is, who the probable customers are and the estimated market size, 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 it will compensate, and who the probable competitors are and what price or quality advantage is anticipated. Commercial potential is evidenced by the existence of private sector or non-SBIR governmental funding sources demonstrating commitment to Phase II efforts and results, the existence of Phase III follow-on commitments for the research subject, and other indicators of commercial technology potential including the firm's commercialization strategy. If awarded, the awardee must periodically update commercialization results via SBA. The Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents.

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 effort if planned. Given that the topic states a Phase III target of TRL 6 or 7 and cites the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, use GAO TRL definitions here.

Key personnel must identify all key personnel with information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship, and include a technical resume for the principal investigator with publications. 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 provide countries of origin, type of visa or work permit 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 may be designated per proposal.

Facilities and equipment must describe instrumentation and physical facilities necessary and available to carry out the effort, justify equipment to be purchased with detail in the cost proposal, and state whether proposed performance locations meet federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations for 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 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, briefly stating the contribution or expertise being provided, with statements of work, detailed cost proposals, and information regarding unique qualifications. Subcontract copies and supporting documents do not count against the Phase II page limit, which is a useful relief valve on a 20 page topic. Identify any subcontractor or consultant foreign citizens.

Prior, current, or pending support: 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 your proposal 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, indicate so on the cover sheet and provide the agency names and addresses, submission or award dates, proposal titles, PI names and titles, solicitation titles, numbers and dates, contract numbers if awarded, and the applicable topics for each. If the section does not apply, state so in the proposal and certify on the cover sheet, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

This section matters more than usual on this topic, because a commercial cybersecurity company with a mature product may well have submitted similar material to other agencies. Disclose fully.

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Required in DSIP. The DAF states that information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations, unlike 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; 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. That last one deserves attention here. A commercial cybersecurity product built on years of private investment almost certainly carries background IP you want to protect, and asserting those restrictions properly is how you do it.

Required of all submissions: feasibility documentation as described above, including IP rights assertions with 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 submission. It will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and do not upload previous versions of the form to Volume 5.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria for this topic

DV512 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.

Note the phrase "toward topic or subtopic solution." With eight focus areas, the subtopic language is doing work: you are being assessed on progress toward the focus area you selected, so name it explicitly and frame your progress against it.

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.

For a commercial cybersecurity firm, the counterintuitive lesson is that Criteria C, where you are probably strongest, is the least important of the three. Your commercial traction is useful evidence but it does not carry the proposal. The weight sits on technical merit against a specific Space Force focus area and on mission urgency, which means your proposal needs to be written in the Space Force's language rather than repurposed from commercial marketing.

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 considered 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 they present 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 including financial ties and obligations covering surety, equity, and debt obligations of the concern and its employees to a foreign country, person, or entity, foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel with an entity in a foreign country of concern, investment relationships 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.

Cybersecurity practices lead that list, and on this topic in particular the assessment of your own security posture carries obvious weight. A company proposing to defend Space Force systems should expect its own practices to be examined closely.

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 the concern to any entity or individual on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses security risks, it may either create a plan to mitigate them or decide not to select the proposal 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 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, the Section 1260H list of Chinese Military Companies, 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. Awards are also denied where the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified, or a security risk the DAF determines warrants 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.

If an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will as appropriate and in a manner that does not compromise security provide notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for it, and a statement that denial does not prohibit eligibility 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 is relevant on a cybersecurity topic, where venture funding is the norm.

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. Only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporation 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 cover sheet will be notified by email regarding selection or non-selection, with a separate notification for each proposal submitted. Read each notification carefully and note the proposal number and topic number referenced. Automated feedback is provided for proposals designated Not Selected, and additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF. Proposals are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic, each operating on its own schedule, so notification timeframes vary.

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 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. Final reports go to the awarding DAF organization per contract instructions, not 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 24 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. Choose your focus area. That decision governs everything else, and it should be driven by where you have deployed product and documented results. Assemble the feasibility package around the three named elements: identified USAF or USSF stakeholders for your adapted solution, the pathway to integrating with DAF operations including core technology development, regulatory navigation, and integration with other systems, and whether and how other DoD or governmental customers could use it. Determine your export control posture and confirm which team members are U.S. persons under the stated definition. Review your own cybersecurity practices, since they are the first item on the foreign risk assessment list. Inventory your background IP so you can assert data rights properly. 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 3. Draft Volume 2 against the 20 page limit. Name your focus area in the opening paragraph. Build the milestone schedule early, since the TABA task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. If you are proposing Focus Area 3 or 4, address FlatSat or simulation environment access explicitly, and for Focus Area 4 address integration of the government-furnished DCW tool suite.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by element and by fiscal year, with individual named labor rates, cloud and license costs itemized, and indirect rates per fiscal year with no composite rates. 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 your work-performance percentages against the thresholds and the one-half outside cost cap. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 including Technical Data Rights Assertions and DD Form 2345, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 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-DV512?

‍ ‍

DAF26BX06-DV512 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Cyberspace Warfare for Space," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, partnering with Cyberspace Warfare professionals in the U.S. Space Force, seeks next generation capabilities to defend space systems from adversarial attack through the cyber domain, organized into eight focus areas.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-DV512?

‍ ‍

Up to $2,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months. 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 to that ceiling.

‍ ‍

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.

‍ ‍

Do I have to address all eight focus areas?

‍ ‍

No. Proposals should address one or more of the eight focus areas. Choose the area where you have genuine product maturity and documented feasibility evidence, name it explicitly in your proposal, and resist the temptation to claim breadth across all eight. With a 20 page limit, a diffuse proposal cannot substantiate anything.

‍ ‍

What are the eight focus areas?

‍ ‍

Lightweight and cloud-agnostic data ingest; defensive cyber warfare systems with proactive software assurance and malware detection; on-orbit space vehicle cyber defense and monitoring; an immersive space cyber test environment; adaptive data parsers and a transformation engine; AI-driven cyber threat detection; AI-driven digital supply chain illumination and risk management; and a portable edge cyber defense kit.

‍ ‍

Which focus area is the best fit for my company?

‍ ‍

Data pipeline and observability companies should look at Focus Areas 1 and 5. SBOM, binary analysis, and software composition analysis companies at Focus Area 2, and supplier risk intelligence at Focus Area 7. Embedded security and runtime monitoring for constrained systems at Focus Area 3. Cyber ranges, digital twins, and training platforms at Focus Area 4. Behavioral detection and AI security analytics at Focus Area 6. Deployable forensic and incident response appliances at Focus Area 8.

‍ ‍

Which focus areas have the least competition?

‍ ‍

Focus Areas 3 and 4 carry the highest barrier to entry because both require real space system knowledge. Focus Area 3 requires monitoring a 1553 Bus and SpaceWire in a minimal SWaP footprint with FlatSat or simulation-based testing. Focus Area 4 requires integrating a government-furnished DCW tool suite into your training platform. The other six are closer to adaptations of commercial cybersecurity products and are likely more crowded.

‍ ‍

What does Focus Area 3 require technically?

‍ ‍

A persistent monitoring solution deployed directly onto the Space Vehicle that identifies and, in approved instances, autonomously responds to malicious activity in real time, integrating with existing ground-based DCW systems so all telemetry and alerts reach terrestrial monitoring centers. Monitoring must cover unauthorized software, firmware, or critical configuration changes, traffic on essential non-redundant components such as the 1553 Bus and SpaceWire, and anomalous behavior including irregular commands or malware uploads, with sensitivity to indicators targeting core subsystems such as power manipulation, system timing interference, or unauthorized payload function commands. Minimal size, weight, and power impact is required, and software-based solutions with a negligible resource footprint are strongly preferred. Development and testing will likely use high-fidelity environments such as a FlatSat or realistic simulations.

‍ ‍

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?

‍ ‍

Detail and documentation demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort including a feasibility study, plus validated product-mission fit between your solution and a potential USAF or USSF stakeholder and a clear, immediately actionable plan with the DAF customer and end-user. The feasibility study should have clearly identified the potential stakeholders of the adapted solution for solving USAF or USSF needs, described the pathway to integrating with DAF operations including core technology development, applicable regulatory processes, and integration with other relevant systems or processes, and described if and how the solution can be used by other DoD or governmental customers.

‍ ‍

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?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides. 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. Subcontract copies, supporting documents, and cost proposal attachments do not count toward the limit.

‍ ‍

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.

‍ ‍

Can my offshore development team work on this?

‍ ‍

No, absent specific written approval. All R/R&D must be performed in the United States by the small business and its team members. The DAF may approve a particular portion of work performed or obtained outside the United States only based on rare and unique circumstances, with written approval from the awarding Funding Agreement officer for each specific condition, and the request must accompany the initial proposal submission.

‍ ‍

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.

‍ ‍

My company has strong commercial traction. Does that carry the proposal?

‍ ‍

Not by itself. Commercialization is Criteria C, the least important of the three. Technical merit against the specific focus area you selected and mission urgency carry the weight, which means the proposal has to be written in the Space Force's terms rather than repurposed from commercial materials.

‍ ‍

Who owns the 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. For a software company, this is the most commercially significant clause in the instructions and warrants review with counsel before you decide what to develop under the award.

‍ ‍

How do I protect my existing intellectual property?

‍ ‍

Technical Data Rights Assertions are listed as a Volume 5 document if you are asserting data rights restrictions. Separately, if technology in your feasibility documentation is subject to IP rights, you must 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.

‍ ‍

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. Performing at least half in house satisfies every reading. 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. Cybersecurity assistance and intellectual property protections are both eligible activities. 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.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Phase III pursues transition to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for TRL 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments. Phase II efforts demonstrating technical maturity, integration feasibility, and mission alignment may be selected for continued development and deployment. Performers may be expected to advance system readiness, demonstrate operational capability, enable cross-service application, and pursue dual-use commercialization. Phase III work may include further government-sponsored prototyping, operational transition activities, or commercialization via strategic partners in the defense and aerospace sectors.

‍ ‍

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 per proposal.

‍ ‍

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

‍ ‍

Pick one focus area and commit. This is the single most consequential decision on this topic. Twenty pages does not permit a survey. Name the focus area in your first paragraph, structure the proposal around it, and let your feasibility evidence be about that area specifically.

‍ ‍

Translate your product into Space Force language. A commercial SIEM connector becomes lightweight, cloud-agnostic data ingest for DCW systems at the edge or hub. A software composition analysis tool becomes proactive software assurance for FOSS and non-APL COTS with SBOM generation and development lineage tracing. Use the topic's own vocabulary, including DCW, FlatSat, purple teaming, orbital edge, and Approved Product List. Evaluators read for alignment, and the topic hands you the words.

‍ ‍

Close the stakeholder gap before you write. The feasibility requirement is fundamentally about customers and integration pathways, not technical performance. Identified USSF stakeholders, an integration pathway that accounts for regulatory processes, and articulated demand from other government customers are the three things the topic asks you to have already established. This is where a strong commercial product with no Space Force relationship will fail.

‍ ‍

Address the space-specific constraint in your focus area. Every focus area has one. Bandwidth constrained and contested environments in Focus Area 6. Space specific protocols in Focus Area 5. Minimal SWaP and 1553 and SpaceWire in Focus Area 3. Disconnected, intermittent, and low-bandwidth settings in Focus Area 8. A proposal that ignores the space-specific twist reads as a generic commercial pitch.

‍ ‍

Get your own security posture in order. Cybersecurity practices is the first item on the foreign risk assessment list, and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is the projected requirement. A firm proposing to defend space systems will be judged on its own house.

‍ ‍

Read the data rights clause before you decide what to build. Twenty years of Government SBIR data rights in everything developed or generated under the contract, followed by Government purpose rights, is a significant commitment for a software company whose core asset is code. Structure the work so what you contribute as background IP is properly asserted and what you develop under the award is what you intend to give those rights in.

‍ ‍

Use the GAO TRL guide. The topic cites it and states a Phase III target of TRL 6 or 7. Using GAO definitions rather than an informal scale makes your maturity claims checkable, which supports Criteria A.

‍ ‍

Make cost realism match the work plan. Cost realism sits inside the top-weighted criterion. For a software effort, that mostly means credible labor: named people, real rates, hours that match the tasks. Understaffing a 24 month program to look cheap will read as a misunderstanding of the requirements.

‍ ‍

Disclose equivalent submissions honestly. A mature commercial product often means similar proposals elsewhere. The instructions permit that with proper notification but make it unlawful to enter into contracts requiring essentially equivalent effort. Full disclosure protects the award.