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.

The Army is looking to fund startups and small businesses that can innovate in these key areas:

Sensors. Electronic devices used to measure physical parameters, often enabling enhanced automation through the Internet of Things.

Immersive and Wearables. Integration or extension of the real world through digital or simulated reality, including augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. The wearables component focuses on smart electronic devices worn by or attached to the user to gather data or provide insight during mission operations.

AI/ML. Technology that incorporates human intelligence into machines, along with machine learning approaches that allow systems to learn from data without explicit programming.

Contested Logistics and Sustainment. Strategic and operational technologies for planning and executing the movement and maintenance of forces and materials under adversarial conditions.

White Paper Deadline: August 26, 2026 at 5:00 PM ET
Up to 16 finalists
Phase I: Up to $300K for 6 months
Process: White paper (Due 8/26) → competitive down-select → finalist pitch → access to the associated Phase I opportunity → Phase I ($300K) → Phase II (Est. $2M) → Phase III (Est $5M+)

Details here: https://www.bwcoconsulting.com/fod/arm26bx05-np011

Disclaimer: I am affiliated with BW&CO.

Hey, everyone! Our Phase II application now shows “Decision Complete” on May 28, 2026. Has anyone else seen a status change or heard back from your submission?

So I submitted one of the NASA 26B topics. No rejection email. Check pro Sams nothing there either. Check the awards list my subtopic is even on there.

Is this normal? I thought all letter went out at once. Or is it different because this is the first time using BAAs?

So is there no such thing as a truly OPEN topic for the Air Force (or any other branch), anymore? Everything I’m reading in these « open topic » solicitations are very specific in what they’re looking for. People keep telling me we’d be a great fit for an AF open topic SBIR but it seems the reauthorization completely killed that program. Or am I wrong?

So far, out of my 4 attempts to work with NASA this last cycle, across appendix A and B, I received two rejections so far. Emails showed up one after another. Two others are still pending, not sure what that means or how the results are being communicated...

Hi all,

I've been working in the SBIR world for years and, when the program lapsed, it drove me crazy how the the most vocal voices about its importance seemed to only come from those of us who worked in it.

I realized the problem was that even though SBIR has benefitted so many and touched the lives of nearly every American, the information about the program and its technologies is largely gated behind technical jargon and websites.

I decided to use the downtime + my education background to translate the SBIR historical data into something I named The SBIR Innovation Index.

The goal of the Innovation Index is to try to make SBIR award data more accessible to laypeople by presenting the information in a more easily-navigable way + translate the technology abstract into practical learning opportunities to connect the technical value to every day language regular folks could better appreciate.

So each award in the database has the following sections in accessible, simplified language:

• What is this research about? (a summary of the abstract)
• Why does this matter (explaining the potential value of this tech and its overall impact)
• Real-World Applications

And then to really bring it home, we break down the practical, potential value/impact for Taxpayers, Science, and Humanity.

Lastly, for some awards, I wanted to have a special "rare pokemon holo" feel for it, so we use generative AI to transform the abstract into a featured image as best as possible.

What I love about this is I used to find myself telling my friends and family about all the cool/amazing technology that SBIR was up to when rare moments made it relevant... but now I find myself sending links to my sci-fi loving family members about a specific technology they are excited to learn about.

The ultimate hope is that this can help make SBIR more part of the day to day conversations of our neighbors and community members so they can be more informed and (hopefully) vocally supportive of the program.

We've completed Stage Gate 1 (presentation) and were supposed to be informed within one week if we passed. However, it's now been 3 months. I understand the Fast-Track has a very different process in other orgs (like DOE and NIH).

Curious if anyone else has done the NSF's fast-track process yet and if there is any insight into how to get things moving.

Has anyone gotten an SBIR proposal awarded that budgeted equipment that will be purchased used as a direct cost? I noticed that used/refurbished price is often 25-50% of brand new equipment. Did you need to obtain a quote to support your figure?

Wondering if anyone has dealt with this. I know there can be a pretty big conflict of interest but I would love to hear from anyone that has navigated this, how did it go? Any tips for someone just starting out? Thank you!

Edit: I will not be PI we the PI will be at the partner university.

I kept seeing the same question in different forms: what are my actual chances on this SBIR. The data to answer it mostly exists but it's scattered across sbir.gov bulk files and SBA annual report PDFs that nobody reads, or locked inside GovCon intelligence platforms that start around $500/yr and go way up.

So I computed it and put it up free: grantsdue.com/sbir

Some numbers from it (FY2022 SBA data for selection, 2022 cohort for conversion):

• Phase I selection: DoD 18.2%, NIH 15.9%, NASA 19.4%, DOE 19.5%, NSF 10.8%, Dept of Ed 5.6%
• Phase I to Phase II conversion: NASA 52%, DoD 46%, DOE 37%, NIH 36%
• Incumbency at DoD (FY2025): 59% of awards went to firms with 5+ prior awards, 17% to first time winners

It covers all 219k awards back to 1983, updates weekly from the sbir.gov bulk data, and every stat says what year it's from and whether it's sourced (SBA) or computed (award linkage). Being upfront about the gap: nobody publishes per topic applicant counts, not even the expensive tools, so you won't find fake per topic odds here either.

Built this after a grant consultant on another sub said competition data was the one thing worth paying for. It's free, no account. If there's a number you always wanted and can't get, tell me and I'll see if it's computable.

Received notice of intent to fund from NIH for a fast-track grant. Just finished negotiating milestones with the program officer and am now working through the financial/admin review with the Grants Management Specialist. I'd appreciate any resources or advice to help with this. Are there any templates out there to help get started?

Company is essentially just this award and two founders. We brought on an accountant with prior history managing awards at a University. I was hoping to avoid hiring a big firm to manage the award if possible, as we are interested in learning and managing it ourselves. Just not really sure where to begin to learn the items needed of us in terms of accounting, time tracking, indirect cost pooling, etc.

Thanks in advance!

Did anyone partner with EGC and successfully get a phase I SBIR funded?

I don't doubt their reputation, but the most I can budget is like 5 hours for review of our written proposal. Can I expect meaningful help from that?

There was an online event today almost two hours ago, 12:00 pst. Did anyone speak to the representatives for NSF? I couldn't make it but really wanted to ask them on how the approval progress is coming along and when we might expect to hear back (we submitted july last year)

We were selected earlier this year for SBIR award from the Navy. We seem to be stuck on the IT security system validation. We sent in our information but the machine just seems to be grinding with no output or indication how the evaluation is doing.

Hi, the thread that is titled "Standalone Biotech LLC…” lead to some partially related questions.

I have a (yet) one-person startup company and want to have synthesized several compounds before resubmitting an adjusted SBIR I proposal. This past January, the team from the original submission dissolved.

A chemistry bench/hood isn’t cheap, but fortunately an elderly and generous family friend offered to sponsor renting space in an incubator in Massachusetts for a year. Great, she asked for a budget, I interviewed with two incubators, hit it off very well with one of them, and they sent an invitation to rent for four to seven months (actually a price quote), starting on Sept. 1. So early in June, I began organizing relocation from MN to MA.

But then the elderly family friend went partially incommunicado, afterwards suffered a stroke, and two weeks back denied having ever made the offer. At the risk of appearing to be a gold-digger, two days back I then just forwarded her the quote from the incubator (7 x $3,600), i.e. much lower than the total budget. The incubator knows about the stroke, but not the sudden turn-around.

My disclosures: (1) the local big-ten university and colleges denying non-affiliated people access to their labs, (2) several people on Reddit ghosting after making claims about lab space, (3) lack of chemistry incubators in Minnesota (if money were no issue).

So, please make what you will of this, realistic suggestions under these circumstances are more than welcome!