By the Cada team | Last updated: May 27, 2026 | Cada has written 100+ grant proposals across 30+ agencies, including AFWERX, ARPA-H, and DIU.
The AFWERX Customer Memorandum is the gating artifact for Direct-to-Phase-II, and most founders treat it like a letter of support. It is not. It is a program office putting its name on adoption intent. The signatory, the language, and the named transition path decide whether reviewers count it as real pull or polite interest.
Here is the mistake that sinks most of them. A founder gets an enthusiastic email from a major who saw the demo, asks that person to sign "a quick memo," and submits it. Reviewers have read a thousand letters like that. It reads as one person who likes your gear, not an organization that will field it.
This guide covers what the memo actually has to contain, who can sign it so it counts, the exact language that signals adoption intent, and the most common reasons a memo gets discounted. The goal is simple: get you a memo that reviewers read as Signal 2, not Signal 1 on letterhead.
What is an AFWERX Customer Memorandum?
An AFWERX Customer Memorandum is a short signed statement, roughly 2,000 characters, from an Air Force organization naming a specific point of contact, the capability gap your technology addresses, and an intended transition path. For Direct-to-Phase-II (D2P2), it is the required centerpiece of the transition case. It proves organizational sponsorship, not individual enthusiasm.
Why does it exist? Because AFWERX Open Topic Phase I is mostly a customer-discovery exercise, not an R&D feasibility test. The program is not trying to find out whether your technology works in a lab. It is trying to find out whether anyone in the Air Force will actually adopt it.
The memo is how they test that. A signed memo from a real program office says an organization has looked at your technology, mapped it to a mission, and committed to a next step. That is a much harder thing to fake than a working prototype.
So the memo is not paperwork. It is the evidence that your transition case is real. If you understand that, the rest of this guide is just execution.
Why most Customer Memos don't get signed
The memo stalls for predictable reasons. Almost none of them are about your technology.
You approached the wrong person. An operator or an engineer who loves your demo cannot commit an organization to anything. They can write you a glowing letter, but a letter from someone with no authority to sponsor a transition is Signal 1. You need the person or office that owns the mission, not the person who happens to be excited.
You made the ask too big, too early. Founders treat the memo as the opening move. They email a program office cold and ask for a signed commitment. That almost never works. The memo is the result of a relationship, not the start of one.
You wrote a letter of support and called it a memo. This is the most common failure. The document names a person, says the technology is exciting, and stops there. No named organization, no mission, no transition path. It is a Signal 1 letter wearing a Customer Memorandum title.
You never named a transition path. A memo that says "we are interested in this capability" commits no one to anything. A memo that says "we intend to evaluate this capability during [a named exercise] to close [a named gap]" commits an organization to a next step. Reviewers can tell the difference in one read.
If you recognize your situation in two or more of these, your problem is not the writing. It is the relationship behind the memo, and no amount of polish fixes that.
Who actually signs it (and who can't)
The single biggest factor in whether a memo counts is whether it comes from a named organization that owns a mission, or just a named individual who likes you.
Rank is not the same as budget or mission authority. A program-office lead who runs an acquisition line can be a far stronger signatory than a colonel who simply enjoyed the demo. The question is never "how senior is the signer?" It is "does the signer's office own the mission your technology serves?"
To find that office, you have to know the Air Force landscape. The organizations that sign meaningful memos usually sit in one of three places:
- AFRL directorates -- the research labs organized by domain (materials and manufacturing, information, sensors, munitions, aerospace systems, human performance). Good for technology-maturation sponsorship.
- Major Commands (MAJCOMs) -- operational commands like Air Combat Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, and Space Systems Command. Good when an operational unit owns the mission gap.
- Program Executive Offices (PEOs) -- the acquisition offices that actually buy and field systems. The strongest, because they sit closest to a transition decision.
Here is how reviewers tend to read each signatory type.
| Signatory | How reviewers read it |
|---|---|
| Individual operator / engineer, no office authority | Signal 1 -- a user who likes it |
| Named program office or PEO lead, owns the mission | Signal 2 -- organizational sponsorship |
| Budget owner (typically O-6 / GS-15+) with a non-SBIR funding line | Signal 3 -- transition probability you can underwrite |
A memo signed by a program office that owns the relevant mission is the target. If your only signer is an enthusiastic individual, your job is to use that person as a bridge to the office, not to ask them to sign above their authority.
If the Signal 1, 2, and 3 language is new to you, it comes from the broader customer-pull rubric that maps every DoD transition signal from "a user who likes it" up to "a named budget owner." This guide zooms in on Signal 2, the memo itself.
What a signed memo must contain
A memo counts as Signal 2 only if it has all five of these components. Miss one and reviewers discount it toward a letter of support.
- A named Air Force organization that owns a mission. Not "a unit at the base." The specific squadron, program office, or directorate.
- A named point of contact with a role and an office. A person reviewers could, in principle, look up. "A contact at AFRL" fails this.
- A specific capability gap or mission problem. What operational problem your technology solves, in the organization's own terms.
- An explicit intended use. How, where, and when they would use the capability operationally. Concrete beats abstract every time.
- A transition path. The next step beyond Phase I: an evaluation, an exercise, a pilot, an integration test. Something that moves toward fielding.
Here is the weak form versus strong form of each, so you can audit a draft fast.
| Component | Weak (reads as Signal 1) | Strong (reads as Signal 2) |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | "The Air Force is interested" | "The [named program office] is interested" |
| Point of contact | "A contact at the base" | "[Role], [named office], as POC" |
| Capability gap | "This would help the warfighter" | "Closes the [named gap] our unit faces in [mission]" |
| Intended use | "Could be useful operationally" | "Would be used by [users] during [activity] to [outcome]" |
| Transition path | "We look forward to seeing it develop" | "We intend to evaluate it during [exercise/timeframe]" |
If your draft memo lives in the left column, it does not matter how warm the relationship feels. Reviewers grade the artifact, not the friendship.
The language that signals adoption intent
Once you have the right signer and the five components, the wording still decides how the memo reads. Adoption intent is a specific kind of language. Polite interest is another.
Weak language describes feelings. "We are excited about this capability." "This is a promising technology." "We look forward to learning more." None of it commits the organization to anything, so reviewers treat it as Signal 1.
Strong language describes intended action by a named organization. "The [program office] intends to evaluate [capability] during [exercise] to address [named gap]." That sentence names who, what, when, and why. It commits an office to a next step.
Here is the test that cuts through all of it. The swap test: if you could swap the signatory for any other friendly operator and the memo would read exactly the same, it is Signal 1. A real Signal 2 memo only makes sense coming from the specific office that signed it, because it references that office's mission and a transition step only that office can take.
A fully fictional example makes this concrete. Imagine a startup, call it NorthVane, building a low-cost counter-drone acoustic sensor.
The weak memo: "We at the Air Force are excited about NorthVane's sensor technology and believe it has strong potential to support our mission. We look forward to following its development." Any office could sign that. It says nothing. Signal 1.
The strong memo: "The [base air defense program office] faces a gap in low-cost detection of small drones around the flightline. We intend to evaluate NorthVane's acoustic sensor during the [named exercise] in [timeframe] to assess detection range against current systems. POC: [role], [office]." Only that office could sign it, because only that office owns that gap and that exercise. Signal 2.
Same company, same technology, same length. The difference is entirely in whether the language commits a named organization to a named next step.
How to actually develop the relationship
You cannot write your way to a memo. You develop the relationship that produces one. Here is the sequence that works.
Start from your Signal 1 contact. The operator or engineer who likes your demo is your on-ramp, not your endpoint. Ask them one question: who owns the mission this would support? They usually know, and an introduction from inside carries weight a cold email never will.
Use AFWERX events as the door. AFWERX runs assessment events and engagement opportunities where program offices show up specifically to meet companies. Those are far better first contacts than cold outreach, because the office is already in a buying posture.
Make the first ask small. Do not ask a program office to sign a transition commitment on day one. Ask for an evaluation, a demo slot in an exercise, a technical exchange. A small, de-risked ask is easy to say yes to, and the memo follows naturally once the office has skin in the game.
Give them the words. Program offices are busy. It is normal and expected to draft the memo for them, capturing the five components in their language, and let them edit and sign. You are not putting words in their mouth. You are saving them the work of structuring it.
Start before you need it. D2P2 wants the memo up front, and relationship-building takes weeks to months, not days. If you are eyeing a D2P2 submission, the memo work starts now, not when the solicitation closes.
Compliance realities that affect the memo
A program office will not commit transition intent to a company that cannot legally receive the follow-on work. Before the memo conversation goes anywhere serious, you need to clear the gates that let an Air Force organization work with you.
The core ones: a CAGE code and active SAM.gov registration (allow 2 to 4 weeks if you are starting from scratch), ITAR compliance (work performed in the US, foreign nationals disclosed), FOCI (your company is more than 51% US-owned), and NDAA Section 889 (no prohibited telecom equipment from the named vendors).
Why does this belong in a memo guide? Because a sophisticated program office knows that sponsoring a company it cannot transition to is a waste of its time. If you have an ownership or ITAR issue you have not addressed, sort it out before you ask an office to put its name behind you. The memo is downstream of being a company the Air Force can actually do business with.
Frequently asked questions
Is a letter of support the same as a Customer Memorandum?
No. A letter of support signals interest from an individual and counts as Signal 1. A Customer Memorandum names an organization, a point of contact, a capability gap, an intended use, and a transition path, and it counts as Signal 2. If your letter could be signed by any friendly operator without changing, it is still a letter of support.
Who needs to sign the AFWERX Customer Memorandum?
A named Air Force organization that owns the relevant mission, signed by a point of contact with a role and an office. A program office or PEO lead is ideal. An enthusiastic individual operator with no office authority is not enough on its own.
How long is the AFWERX Customer Memorandum?
Roughly 2,000 characters, entered through the DoD SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal (DSIP) as part of your submission. It is short by design. The constraint forces you to name the organization, the gap, the intended use, and the transition path without padding.
Do I need the memo for Open Topic Phase I or only D2P2?
Open Topic Phase I is largely a customer-discovery exercise, so you can start it from a Signal 1 contact and build toward a memo. Direct-to-Phase-II requires the signed Customer Memorandum up front as the centerpiece of the transition case.
Can I write the memo for them to sign?
Yes, and you usually should. Drafting it for the program office, in their language, capturing all five components, is standard practice. They edit and sign. It saves them time and helps you ensure the memo reads as Signal 2.
What is the most common reason a memo gets discounted by reviewers?
It names a person but not an organization, and it states interest but not a transition path. That combination is a letter of support dressed up as a memo. Reviewers read it as Signal 1 and the transition case collapses.
Where to go from here
The fastest way to waste your D2P2 submission is to build it on a memo that reads as Signal 1. Reviewers see past enthusiasm immediately, and no proposal narrative manufactures a sponsoring organization that is not actually behind you.
So start with the artifact. Run your draft memo through the five components and the swap test. If it names an organization, a gap, an intended use, and a transition path that only the signing office could commit to, you have a real Signal 2 memo and a fundable transition case.
If it does not, the fix is the relationship, not the wording. That is the part founders most often get wrong, and it is exactly where we help.
Cada's AFWERX SBIR Phase I writers do a free Customer Memo review. We tell you, in plain terms, whether your memo reads as Signal 2 or Signal 1 on letterhead, and what the next move is to fix it. No pitch, no obligation, just a straight answer on whether your customer relationship is real adoption intent or interest you have mistaken for it.