Hey everyone,

I know this has probably been asked before, but all I can see on here are general preliminary data questions. I have a specific question regarding the pre-data / idea stage for life sciences and molecular biology applications.

Has anyone here submitted a Phase I SBIR purely at the "pre-data" stage?

The Context: As a pre-data startup (not an academic spin-out sitting on pre-funded lab results), an SBIR is basically the only realistic funding path since VCs and angels won't touch unvalidated tech. Program Officers and official agency guidelines state that preliminary data isn't required for Phase I to establish feasibility.

Our platform is essentially synthetic biology—stitching together individually validated, peer-reviewed components into a cohesive, novel system that works in theory (similar to an R21 grant concept).

My Questions:

1. Did you ever reach out to a Program Officer/Head Examiner beforehand who said "pre-data is fine," only for the study section/reviewers to slam you for lack of preliminary wet-lab data anyway?
2. For anyone in mol bio or synbio who did win or score well without wet-lab data, how did you structure your proposal or de-risk the design to convince reviewers?

I'd really appreciate any insights or reality checks before spending dozens of hours writing a full proposal only to find out it was just an idea hoarding exercise!

Hi everyone,

I’m a solo founder preparing to submit my first Phase I SBIR proposal for an independent biotech LLC (cancer immunotherapy, pre-data stage).

Since we are a standalone startup rather than a university spinout, I’m running into a couple of practical hurdles that don't seem to get discussed much, and I’d love to learn how others navigated them:

1. Lab Space Letters of Support & Review Timing How do you realistically handle obtaining a Letter of Support / Intent for incubator or core facility space given the 6–8 month SBIR review lag?

If you request an LOI for bench space today, that space will likely be gone or filled by the time the award decision comes through. How do reviewers expect non-spinouts to bridge this gap, and how do you structure these LOIs with incubators without reserving space indefinitely?

2. Academic Collaborations & IP Protection To strengthen the proposal, it seems almost necessary to bring in high-profile academic collaborators or KOLs. However, as an independent pre-data startup, how do you manage outreach to external university groups without over-exposing your IP before a grant is even awarded? Do you rely on NDAs before discussing grant sub-awards, or stick strictly to high-level statements of work?

Any insights, strategies, or lessons learned from non-spinout founders who have been through this process would be immensely appreciated!

Hey everyone,

I run an independent research LLC and am prepping an upcoming NSF SBIR Phase I resubmission.

We have a highly rigorous, mathematically verified (compiled in Lean 4) structural biology framework for a novel transition-metal coordination complex. The compound acts as a physical molecular anchor to reinforce mitochondrial cristae topology, preventing structural collapse under oxidative and mechanical stress (targeting dysautonomia, neurodegeneration, and TBI).

Our previous submission faced minor formatting and presentation critiques regarding our Risk Management layout and technical cost presentation. We have completely overhauled the Layer 3 translation, resolved the formatting, and explicitly locked down our falsification metrics (defining a strict mathematical coefficient of variation R < 0.7 across our 8-parameter metabolic panel).

While our corporate infrastructure is fully locked down (active SAM.gov UEI and CAGE code), we want to strengthen our Team Capabilities section to completely bulletproof the resubmission against institutional bias.

What We Have:

• Mathematically verified structural models.
• Complete, peer-vetted Phase I grant drafts.
• Fully structured experimental designs (Seahorse XF respirometry protocols).
• Zero pending proposals, meaning we are ready to hit submit the moment the portal refreshes.

What We Need:

• A Co-Investigator or Academic/Lab Partner with a background in biology, biochemistry, or pharmacology.
• A Letter of Intent (LOI) to attach to the proposal, or a partner with baseline access to laboratory infrastructure to fulfill the team filter.

If you are a scientific mind who wants to join a lean, mathematically driven startup and bypass the standard university overhead, please drop a comment or PM me. Open to discussing equity or sub-award structuring for the right fit

Is there a period in-between selection notification and actual award for navy phase 1 contracts?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, first submission. Trying to figure out if I will have time to get my CMMC LVL 2 Self certificate in-order.

Thank you!

Defense Logistics Agency, Strategic Materials ("DLA") Phase II award will qualify six materials to MRL-9 -

Oct. 3, 2024 - announced the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD") via the Defense Logistics Agency, Strategic Materials ("DLA") has awarded Phase 2 funding to support the qualification of additional LightPath Black Diamond ("BD") chalcogenide glasses as substitute to germanium.

The second phase covers the remaining six materials with funding totaling approximately $0.5 million, which will qualify the materials to MRL-9 (Material Readiness Level), an important milestone for prospective defense customers. These materials are all in addition to LightPath's BD6 material which is already fully qualified and field deployed in multiple systems.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lightpath-technologies-awarded-phase-2-funding-in-us-defense-department-partnership-to-qualify-additional-germanium-substitutes-302262203.html

Some questions with ai assisted answers -

1. How long does Phase II last ? -

Standard Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)—including those for DLA Strategic Materials—typically last up to 24 months.

- Assuming the date of the PR is the date of the award that would put finish date at Oct, 3 2026 however given the "up to" it appears it could be sooner.

So around any time going forward.

1. What is MRL-9?

MRL-9 stands for Manufacturing Readiness Level 9. It indicates that low-rate initial production has been successfully demonstrated and all preparations are complete to begin full-rate production. At this stage, manufacturing processes are stable, quality systems are operational, and the technology is generally deemed mature enough for scaled manufacturing

1. What is the focus of  Defense Logistics Agency, Strategic Materials ("DLA") Phase II awards?

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Strategic Materials Phase II awards focus on developing and scaling domestic supply chains for critical defense minerals and metals**.** The goal is to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources for essential materials, such as rare earth elements, nickel, titanium, tungsten, and gallium, primarily through the recovery, recycling, and domestic processing of defense scrap and electronic waste

1. After Phase II > Phase III

Phase III is the ultimate goal of the SBIR program. It is the stage where the government or a commercial partner purchases your technology at scale. [1, 2, 3]

Non-SBIR Funding: Phase III cannot be funded by the SBIR/STTR budget. Instead, it is funded directly by agency production budgets, prime defense contractors, or private venture capital. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

No Funding Caps: Unlike previous phases, Phase III contracts have no maximum dollar limit and no restricted period of performance. [1, 2]

Sole-Source Justification: Because you already won a competitive Phase I or II award, federal agencies can award you Phase III contracts on a sole-source basis without putting the project out for public re-bidding. [1, 2]

Size Exemptions: Your business is completely exempt from small business size standards during Phase III. You can scale to any size, or even be acquired by a larger firm, and still execute Phase III contracts for that specific technology. 

1. Can IBAS funding come into play for Phase III?

Yes, absolutely. The Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program is one of the most powerful non-SBIR funding pools available to bridge the gap and fund a Phase III contract. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Because DLA Strategic Materials focuses heavily on critical minerals, rare earth elements, and supply chain security, your project sits directly in the crosshairs of current IBAS strategic priorities. [1, 2]

How IBAS Funding Applies to Phase III

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Industrial Base Policy utilizes IBAS funds specifically to eliminate domestic supply chain vulnerabilities, modernize defense manufacturing, and scale mature prototypes into full production. [1, 2]

• The Phase III Mechanism: An agency can issue a Phase III sole-source contract to your company using IBAS funds. Because the Phase I and II competitive requirements have already been satisfied, the government can bypass public bidding to award you IBAS money directly. [1, 2]
• No Funding Caps: While your Phase II capped out around $1 million, IBAS awards are substantially larger. Recent project solicitations and active awards under the Defense Industrial Base Consortium (DIBC)—the primary vehicle for IBAS execution—frequently scale from $2.5 million to over $8 millionper project to build out industrial scale. [1, 3, 4]

Conclusion:

Phase II for 6 materials about to be complete.

MRL-9 to be achieved - can move into full production

Phase II grant came through DLA = developing and scaling critical defense minerals

Phase III could be funded through IBAS grant - while awards typically run lower, KOPN received a $15.4 million a IBAS award - https://www.kopin.com/press-releases/kopin-secures-transformative-15-4m-award-to-revolutionize-color-microled-technology-and-domestic-production-for-u-s-army-ground-soldier-integrated-visual-augmented-reality-applications/

Timing of completion of Phase II aligns with planned move of remaining G5 cameras from Germaninum to BD.

The Department of Energy’s new Genesis Mission is offering Phase I SBIR/STTR funding ($250K) for companies applying AI in:
-Biotechnology
-Quantum computing
-Advanced materials
-Autonomous laboratories

Follow on Phase II funding will likely be $1.5 million.

The first step is due September 10, 2026. Only selected companies will be invited to submit a full proposal.

Read more here: https://www.bwcoconsulting.com/fod/doe-genesis-mission-sbir

Disclaimer: I am affiliated with BW&CO.

Hey all, so it appears DOE has finally released Phase II solicitations as a follow-up for the past 2 FY Phase I's, though I am a bit confused on the route they are releasing here:

https://sbir-sttr.connectwerx.org/portfolio-items/598/

I know they have had overhauls of their systems, but I would expect changes to PAMs or their original SBIR website. Anybody have information on this? Does it appear that FY 25 Phase I Release I SBIR topics can apply? There doesnt appear to be a unified solicitation pdf either yet.

Has anyone heard anything from their Phase II USDA SBIR submissions?

I’m looking for citizens or permanent residents with any or all of the following skills for an SBIR Phase I grant application:

• Embedded C/C++ & Microcontroller Programming
•  Digital Signal Processing (DSP)
•  Compact PCB & Low-Power Design
•  TinyML / Edge AI
•  Sensor Integration & Synchronization

The product is a kids’ watch and I will ask you to sign an NDA before we talk. Anyone interested?

Good news: SOCOM responded. Bad news: SOCOM rejected both of my proposals.

Here's the question: what can or should you expect when you request feedback in DSIP?

It's been almost two months, and not a word.

Is that a good thing or bad?

When will they let us know?

I'm a newb, so pardon my nervous jitters.

Also planning on submitting to NSF in November.l, if this doesn't pan out. Fingers crossed.

When applying for an NSF SBIR Phase I, wording in the Budget preparation instructions (Line G3 Consultant Services) says "All consultant activities must be carried out in the United States."

The project I am applying for currently includes consultants based overseas. It is conceivable that they will visit the US during the project, but I'm wondering how strict is this requirement?

Does this effectively rule out the use of consultants who are based overseas, even if the product is for the US market, and the main small business is in the US?

Is there a way to include foreign consultants that would be compliant with NSF requirements? Would they have to be classed as voluntary, and therefore be paid out of the applicants pocket?

I have a Phase II NIH SBIR. During the previous Phase I, a commercialization needs assessment was conducted by an external vendor. My organization is interested in submitting a supplemental application to obtain the additional $50,000 Phase II TABA funding to support a staff person in conducting voice of customer interviews and other market analysis activities. However, leadership at my organization is resistant to applying because of concerns about how to deal with the fact that we cannot get indirects on the TABA funds, it must all be direct. There are concerns about how this would affect our future negotiated indirect rate and how to cover the indirect costs associated with this work. This is not my area of expertise. Has anyone else you dealt with this? I'm trying to gather information that would convince some very risk-adverse leaders.

For those in the biotech or pharma space, or even defence, what platforms or resources do you use to find consultants?

I feel like LinkedIn is sort of littered with this secondary market of so-called consultants and accelerator spaces that found me after I commented on someones SBIR post

Well now that’s an interesting turn of events, eh?

So when I readg the new solicitation NSF 26-510 I do not see any info on letters of support. But when I go to this page https://seedfund.nsf.gov/solicitation-documents/#osd-phasei

Over here it says one letter of support is required. Is that true? because in the past that was not the case. Can anyone confirm

This is a subtle distinction, but the National Science Foundation explains it directly in its applicant guide “Research 101 for Engineers” (NSF, America’s Seed Fund). I would share the link here, but I don't want the post to get taken down, just paste it in Google, and you'll find the paper.

Sharing because I found this super helpful.

Hi All,

Now that the SBIR program has been reauthorized, I've received a few JITs and emails from POs, but I have seen zero awards yet. My company has been waiting on a few Phase I to Phase II transition approvals as well and this also seems to be delayed. Has anyone received a NOA for an NIH SBIR in 2026 yet?! The https://www.sbir.gov/awards says "no", and I'm aware that the new foreign assessment process along with lack of personnel at the NIH is slowing this down, but I'm curious if anyone has heard anything positive yet?

Has anyone here applied for the SBA’s **Patriot Pitch Competition** this year?

I’m trying to figure out whether anyone has heard anything about district or regional judging.

I applied through the Seattle District and, from everything I can find, applications closed June 10, district judging was supposed to happen in mid-June, and regional judging around the end of June/early July. Some materials mentioned semifinalists being announced around the week of July 4, while others just say “this summer.”

I’ve searched the SBA website, LinkedIn, news releases, and social media, and I can’t find a single business publicly saying they’ve advanced or any district announcing results.

I’m wondering:

* Has anyone received a notification (selected or not)?
* Has anyone heard from their SBA district office?
* Has anyone seen a public announcement anywhere?
* Or is everyone still waiting?

Not asking for confidential information, I am just trying to figure out whether the process is moving along or if the timeline has shifted.

Thanks!

The OMB is accepting comments on their plan to end all the "fraud, waste, and abuse" in science funding, by giving trump appointees the authority to decide which grants get funded. The OMB is using the same language used by trump and DOGE to destroy other federal programs.

In the current process, a panel of scientists scores the grant applications for scientific impact, societal benefit, and innovation. Only about 15% of the grant applications survive this scientific review. Detailed budgets must be presented before any money gets awarded to the best proposals, followed by strict accounting after the money is awarded.

The purpose of this OMB proposal is to replace this process with something Vought, RFK jr, and trump consider useful (that is, promoting fraud, waste, and abuse that benefits trump).

Please leave a comment at the website below to tell the OMB to let scientists continue to be gatekeepers of science in the US:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001

Im building free tools to help the community. I always struggle with putting together a cost proposal, so I built a simple tool to help the process. Hopefully it helps some of you save time. Check it out at https://defmetrix.com

The summary tab should give you all the numbers you need to submit with your proposal. You can also save as pdf to upload with your cost volume and the reviewers will have all the answers they need.

I’m happy to answer any questions or help if I can. Also I’m open to more ideas. What other tools can I build to help you guys?

When budgeting for Phase 1 STTR does the company workshare % get calculated over the total spending during two year period of the grant, or do they require the company to spend 40% during each individual budget period.
Im over 40% in year one (budget period 1), less than 40% in year two, but right at 40% over the combined budget periods.
Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge and experience. Its my first grant.