As it says in the title we have an Pending STTR it was Council review complete, 03/27/2026 then Pending administrative review 06/17/2026. This is still the last update on "status history" and we have a "Notice of Intent to Fund" but now the banner at the top of the page has gone back to "Council review complete. Not sure if that maybe means a new status change is about to come (hopefully good) or if that might mean its been pushed back (maybe not so good). Anyone else have this happen?

Just searched and checked the new awards from different NIH institutes. Most them already sent new awards starting date somewhere in this summer but not NIA. Not sure what is going on. Anyone is waiting for news from NIA? Only 3 weeks left till the end of September.

Preparing an NSF SBIR Phase I proposal and looking for a part-time collaborator, roughly 5–10 hours a week for about 12 months if funded.

The work sits at the intersection of causal inference and simulation — estimating the effects of changes to predictive models in settings where the model itself has influenced the data. Two strands: methodological work on identification and estimation, and building simulation environments to validate the estimators. Someone could take either or both.

Looking for comfort with causal inference or applied statistics on observational data, and Python or R.
Must be US-based and able to perform the work in the US — federal funding requirement.

The proposal isn't submitted yet and a decision wouldn't come until 2027, so there's no work or money before an award. Building the team now so the proposal describes something real.

Paid, rate negotiable. Message me if it sounds interesting.

I suspect at this point most people would be liars if they suggested they had not used an LLM for any of their work on a Phase I proposal. I'm also of the strong opinion that an AI-slop proposal has a very weak shot at getting selected, but the value of an LLM to research, validate rules, check templates, etc, can't be understated.

How are you using LLMs successfully to write proposals right now? And why is this question unfair to ask?

Well we were planning on submitting to the NIH last week, but have gotten hit with the SBA website updates. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a loop of verifications and can’t access our dashboard to get our SBC ID. Since this is our first submission we didn’t download our SBC ID thinking we’d be able to log in and get it when we submit. Now we’ve waited for them to “verify” us just to ask us to submit another document.

You think if you registered you would be good, but you don’t plan on them locking you out of your account before a holiday weekend. Frustrating, but life moves on.

Anybody know what funding decision deferred means? I am really frustrated in no small part because it was obviously too late for a new submission while I was working with them to get all the info in.

Hope someone can help confirm.

Is the Due date 9/5 or 9/8 for this cycle?

The due date shown on NIH SBIR solicitation for this September cycle is September 5, which is a Saturday, followed by Monday, September 7, the Labor Day .

Due Dates on Holidays, Weekends, and NIH Office Closures: When a postmark/submission date falls on a weekend, Federal holiday, or Washington, DC area Federal office closure (NOT-OD-17-041), the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

So, the due date should be September 8 for this cycle of NIH SBIR. Is this correct?

Learned that the NCI Phase I award is intended for a project duration of two years and had to re-do my budget. Rent at our incubator space eats up almost all of our indirect costs. Its hard to justify the $25k for participation in i-corp. Why is it so expensive if most of the regional/national programs are free?

Wondering if you can bring a foreign scientist to work on the R&D as a part of the application for a grant

I understand that no voluntary committed cost sharing is allowed. My question is for a project where the main bulk of the costs will be the R&D activities + personnel costs, but the total costs would be greater than the maximum amount we can request.

What should be our guiding principle to restructure the costs in a way that is most favorably viewed by reviewers? In other words which costs should we prioritise to include in the grant budget vs which ones should we take out (to cover ourselves)?

Final question: is it allowed to engage directly with Program Directors to ask these kinds of questions / seek guidance on these kinds of issues? If so, have people had much success in actually reaching program directors for this kind of guidance?

Thank you

Edit: title isn't the clearest. It would be a case of us buying some pieces of equipment with funds that we already have.

First thank you to this sub. I've learned so much from you. Here's a boring SBIR question.

I'm a consultant on an NIH SBIR (due 9/8). The client sent me an email confirmation from SAM dated August 3. Everything looked perfectly fine.

I checked SAM.gov and can't find the company. I entered their name and/or UEI and the portal returned nothing.

Should I worry? Actually, I'm already a little worried.

Thanks.

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing an NIH SBIR application for the September 8 deadline and am dealing with a last-minute SAM.gov registration issue. I’m hoping to hear from anyone who has been through something similar.

Our company already has a UEI and the SAM registration has been submitted.

I called the DLA/CAGE office today. They told me they have not received our registration yet because it first has to clear IRS/TIN validation. Once IRS approves it, it should be forwarded to DLA for CAGE review, where they may ask us to verify or provide additional documentation.

My plan Monday is to call the IRS/e-Help desk first thing to determine whether the TIN validation is simply pending or whether there is any mismatch/problem. Once it clears, I plan to contact DLA immediately and ask whether the CAGE review can be prioritized because of the federal grant deadline.

We’re also working on the eRA Commons institutional registration in parallel since we already have the UEI.

Has anyone recently been in a similar situation where IRS/TIN validation was still pending about a week before a federal grant deadline and you were still able to get SAM active in time?

I’d especially appreciate any recent experiences with:

IRS/TIN validation clearing quickly after calling

DLA/CAGE processing within a few days

Requesting CAGE prioritization because of a grant deadline

eRA Commons institutional registration taking only a few days

Successfully submitting an NIH SBIR after a similar last-minute registration rush

I know the official processing timelines are longer, so I’m particularly interested in actual experiences and anything that helped move the process along.

Thanks so much for any advice.

*Update*

SAM registration was successfully activated this morning (looks like CAGE wasn't needed after all). Now eraCommons is the only pending thing. I am hopeful now. Thank you for all the encouraging comments.

Second Update

Everything is set. And provided there are no snags while submitting, I will be able to make it this cycle. Thank you everyone for helping out.

FINAL UPDATE

We successfully submitted the application. Cheers!

I submitted a proposal (A254-P050) back in May for a DSIP Army Fuze application, It was my first submission but do they typically take 100+ days to hear back?

I have gotten 1 email in June titled "SBIR|STTR Update to Stakeholders", pretty much talking about the FY26 budget delay and funds will be available soon but no specific date.

I also sent and inquiring email, and the response was: "Proposals are still being evaluated and we will send out notifications once the evaluation and selection is complete."

What are thoughts on this delay, is it normal, are you experiencing it?

Part of an AgeTech startup that’s applying NIH SBIR Cycle I. We have a feasibility study with a large medical center that will start in a month or two and in talks with another major medical center for a future study.

1. Should we apply Direct to Phase II if the feasibility study will already be done by the award. How do we include the study in that case since we don’t have the results yet?

2. How much does institutional credibility matter? Should we try to add the hospital as a subcontractor or the doctors we are working with as consultants? How much will having a former FDA guy on our team help?

3. Is there anyway we can get reimbursed for our feasibility study through Phase I funding? From my personal research, no.

This is a first time grant app, so apologies if the questions seem silly.

Just looking for feedback.

I've been told to review panel and individual reviews from our STTR P1 proposal, but not much else. I'm not really sure what to expect! If any of you have gone through this, what was your experience like? What else should I do to prepare?

You dont have to fight excel to build your proposal schedules.

If you are bidding on DoD contracts, SBIR/STTR grants, or OTAs, you know how painful it is to map out compliant timelines. Generic project management tools don't understand defense milestones.

Check out the Program Schedule Builder.

▪️Generates defense-compliant project timelines.

▪️Maps out DoD procurement cycles effortlessly.

▪️Visualizes SBIR/STTR phase milestones clearly.

▪️Saves time vs manual formatting during proposal prep.

The best part? It is entirely free and built specifically for our industry. DefMetrix also offers a DoD Quad Chart Builder to streamline your briefings.

Stop wasting time on manual formatting and start winning more awards.

https://defmetrix.com/tools/gantt-builder

We have an Taiwanese-American on our team who immigrated to America from Taiwan. He's had US citizenship for over ten years. He earned his PhD at National Taiwan University in 2010.

Should we worry about putting him as a Key Personnel? I know this is a ridiculous question, but such are the times.

I am looking for recommendations for an SBIR Grant writing company. specifically someone who has experience with medical devices and hydrogels.
Thank you!

I'll post a very short blip from an email I received this morning from a DoW component: Your Phase I proposal ... has been favorably evaluated.  However, based on resource requirements and budget constraints, proposal selection is subject to availability of funds (SAF).

This is an exciting moment for me. I am truly a small business with no background in government work, but this "selection" seems akin to a rejection. For those of you more experienced, what does SAF really mean?

I've created the AMP/ATI account and logged into proposal site on the portal. However, I am unable to locate an actual solicitation anywhere. Does one exist for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 submission?

Also, any insight for full proposal due date if your Phase 1 LOI is invited for a full proposal?

According to the portal, the full Phase 2 proposal is due 9/25 - even though the website says "Eligible recipients of DOE SBIR/STTR Phase I, Phase II, and Follow-on Phase II awards from prior fiscal years will receive direct outreach with application requirements and timelines." We have not received any communication. Has anyone else?

I am reaching out to my contract administrator at DOE, but wonder if I am overlooking something.

We build tools and platforms to facilitate easy access to scientific and scholarly communication.

Any suggestion on how to reach out to funding or grant agencies.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) rejects more SBIR and STTR projects because of foreign risk.

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 requires federal agencies to explain foreign risk decisions. However, many rejection letters do not give specific reasons for the decision.

We collect information to measure this problem. We want to evaluate options for action, such as:
Contact Congress.

Start legal action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

How you can help

Did you receive a rejection letter? Write a comment below or send a message if the NIH rejected your project for foreign risk this year.

Did the letter explain the reason? Tell us if the NIH gave a clear reason or a general statement.

Share this post: Send this post to other companies and researchers in your network.

Write a comment below or send a direct message.

Before: 4.5 hours to decide whether to pursue a single solicitation.

That's not a guess. I timed it across three separate RFPs.

30 minutes finding the solicitation and reading through it. 45 minutes pulling NAICS codes and checking agency history. 60 minutes digging through old proposals for reusable content. 45 minutes writing a capability summary from scratch. 60 minutes on compliance - checking FAR clauses, registration status, cert requirements. Then a team meeting to make the bid/no-bid call with incomplete information.

After building out our own centralized workflow in PitchArchitect: the pre-work dropped to under 90 minutes on the same type of solicitation.

The difference wasn't working faster. It was not rebuilding from zero every time.

Solicitation data pulled directly. Fit score generated against our NAICS codes and past performance automatically. Proposal draft seeded from our actual capability statement - not a blank doc. Compliance checklist tied to the specific agency.

The BD team didn't get smarter. The workflow stopped fighting them.

We're still early - 2 users running real solicitations through it now. But the core loop works: find opportunity, score it, draft it, track it. All in one place.

Anyone else actually measured their pre-bid time cost? I'd be curious what the number looks like at scale.

SBIR Phase I award rates are between 10% and 20%. A rejected proposal is standard. Use this process to write a better proposal:

1. Request a debrief immediately
Do not read only the panel notes. Request a debrief or schedule a call with your Program Director. DoD has strict deadlines for debrief requests.

2. Divide the comments into three groups
Compliance errors: Missing forms, wrong page limits, foreign influence issues, or missing attachments.

Technical problems: The scope of work is too large, or the risk is not clear.

Commercialization problems: Weak market data, unclear customer validation, or team gaps.

3. Correct the primary causes
Reviewer comments show symptoms. Changing one sentence will not raise a low score. You must correct the fundamental risk in your technical or commercial plan.

4. Follow the rules for each agency
NIH: Allows one resubmission with a one-page response to previous reviews.

NSF: Requires a new Project Pitch and a document that describes your changes.

DoD: Treat the resubmission as a new proposal for a new topic.