One cannot say for sure if the Army work they mentioned in the last update is related to the previous SBIRS or if it is indeed an actual production contract. Certain words make me feel that it may be an actual production contract, such as the fact that the contract required negotiations (typically SBIRS are granted based on a proposal, there are no "negotiations" in the typical sense) and the fact that they are a subcontractor. There are no subcontractors with SBIRS except when referring to a company that receives an SBIR to develop a certain product and then contracts out to another company for additional work, such as surface coatings, finishing, integration, etc. In this instance, the primary company is still operating under the SBIR but from the subcontractor's view it is a commercial contract since they are abstracted from the SBIR process. Ultimately, this is the sort of information AFT should be releasing to its shareholders. It's pretty inexcusable that they haven't.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
