NASA Just Overhauled How It Funds Small Business Innovation. Here Is What Changed.

For more than four decades, the NASA SBIR/STTR program operated on a predictable rhythm. Every January, the agency released a single omnibus solicitation containing the year's research topics. Small businesses had roughly eight weeks to evaluate the topics, write proposals, and submit. If you missed the deadline, you waited a year. If your technology did not align with that year's topic list, you waited a year. If your proposal was rejected, you waited a year to try again — often against the same proposal limits that counted your previous submission.

That rhythm ended on April 17, 2026, when NASA replaced the traditional solicitation with a Broad Agency Announcement that will remain open through September 30, 2027. The change is not incremental. It fundamentally alters the timing, economics, and strategy of competing for NASA small business innovation funding.

Phase I awards jumped 50 percent — from $150,000 to $225,000. Phase II awards now reach $1,275,000. Proposal limits reset with each appendix release. And the agency will publish new research topics on a rolling basis, two to three times per fiscal year, instead of dumping them all into a single January document.

If you compete for NASA SBIR/STTR awards, everything you knew about timing your proposal pipeline just changed.

The Old Model and Why NASA Killed It

The traditional NASA SBIR solicitation was a relic of 1980s program design. The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 — the original SBIR legislation — envisioned annual solicitation cycles as the standard mechanism for matching agency research needs with small business capabilities. Most agencies adopted some version of this model, and it worked well enough when technology development timelines measured in years and mission requirements shifted slowly.

NASA's problem was that technology needs increasingly shifted faster than annual cycles could accommodate. A mission directorate that identified a critical need for, say, autonomous navigation software for lunar surface operations in March had to wait until the following January to solicit proposals — and then wait another six to nine months for Phase I awards. By the time funded work began, 18 months had passed since the need was identified.

The single-deadline model also created perverse incentives. Proposal writers front-loaded their calendars to hit the January-March window, leaving the rest of the year for contract performance. Mission directorates hoarded their best topics for the annual solicitation, sometimes holding back emerging requirements rather than finding workarounds. And the rigid proposal limits — typically five SBIR and three STTR proposals per company per cycle — forced small businesses to make difficult choices about which opportunities to pursue when all topics dropped simultaneously.

The BAA model solves all three problems. Rolling appendix releases let NASA publish topics as mission needs emerge, not on a fixed annual calendar. Staggered deadlines let proposers spread their work across the year. And resetting proposal limits per appendix means that a company whose five proposals were unsuccessful in Appendix A gets five fresh chances in Appendix B — without the previous submissions counting against them.

What the BAA Actually Looks Like

The 2026 BAA was released on April 17 and establishes the overarching framework. Individual appendices — each containing a defined set of research subtopics — will be released separately, with their own submission deadlines.

Appendix A (SBIR topics) and Appendix B (SBIR and STTR topics) were the first releases, posted April 21, 2026, with proposals due May 21, 2026. Future appendices will follow throughout the BAA's 18-month validity period.

Each appendix functions as a self-contained solicitation within the BAA umbrella. It specifies research topics, submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and deadlines. When NASA identifies new technology needs — whether driven by Artemis mission timelines, commercial crew requirements, or emerging science priorities — it can publish a new appendix without renegotiating the entire BAA framework.

This is the same model that DARPA has used for years through its office-wide BAAs, and it is the model that the recent SBIR/STTR reauthorization legislation encourages across all participating agencies. NASA is not pioneering the approach — it is adopting a proven structure that other defense and intelligence agencies have already validated.

The Money: 50 Percent More Per Award

The funding increases are the most immediately tangible change for proposers.

Phase I awards now cap at $225,000, up from $150,000. This is not just a cost-of-living adjustment. The old $150,000 ceiling — unchanged for years — had become increasingly inadequate for the hardware prototyping, laboratory testing, and computational work that most NASA topics require. Principal investigators routinely spent their entire Phase I budget on materials and labor before generating the preliminary data needed for a competitive Phase II proposal. The $225,000 ceiling gives teams roughly 50 percent more runway to demonstrate technical feasibility.

Phase II awards now reach $1,275,000, incorporating Technology Acceleration and Business Assistance funds that were previously budgeted separately. The consolidation simplifies accounting for both NASA and performers — instead of managing a base Phase II award plus supplemental technology acceleration funding, everything falls under a single contract ceiling.

Phase I duration remains 6 months for SBIR and up to 13 months for STTR. Phase II duration remains up to 24 months. The funding increase without a corresponding timeline increase means NASA expects higher-intensity work — more personnel, more testing, more data — not longer timelines.

Proposal Limits Reset: The Hidden Strategic Shift

The proposal limit reset may matter more than the funding increase for companies that compete seriously in the NASA SBIR ecosystem.

Under the old model, a company was limited to five SBIR proposals per annual solicitation. If you submitted five proposals and three were declined, your success rate was 40 percent — and you had to wait a full year for another shot. Companies with broad technology portfolios routinely faced agonizing triage decisions: pursue the topic most aligned with their core capabilities, or pursue the topic with fewer expected competitors? Bet on the mission directorate that funded well last year, or take a risk on a new directorate that might be building its portfolio?

Under the BAA model, proposal limits reset with each appendix. A company that submits five proposals to Appendix A gets five fresh proposals for Appendix B, regardless of Appendix A outcomes. Over the course of the BAA's 18-month window, with two to three appendix releases expected per fiscal year, a single company could submit 10 to 15 proposals — compared to five under the old annual model.

This changes competitive dynamics in several ways. Companies with broad technology portfolios benefit most, because they can pursue multiple topics across multiple appendices without sacrificing opportunities. Companies that were previously constrained to one or two proposals per year — because they were saving slots for their highest-priority topics — can now be more aggressive. And the psychological dynamic shifts: a declined proposal is no longer a year-long setback, but a data point that informs the next appendix submission weeks or months later.

The New Submission System

NASA retired the old SBIR submission portal and moved to ProSAMS — the Proposal Submissions and Award Management System. Every company competing under the BAA must register in ProSAMS, regardless of whether they had active accounts in the previous system.

The transition is not seamless. ProSAMS uses different data fields, different formatting requirements, and a different user interface than the legacy system. Companies that have proposal templates built around the old submission format will need to rebuild them. The good news is that NASA has posted a BAA Reference Guide and topic-specific Q&A resources on the Program Year 2026 Information Hub.

Existing contracts are unaffected. Any Phase I or Phase II award made under the previous solicitation structure continues under its original terms. The BAA governs new proposals only.

Evaluation Criteria: What Reviewers Will Prioritize

NASA's multi-stage evaluation process remains largely intact under the BAA, though the specifics may vary by appendix. The general framework includes:

Administrative screening — compliance checks on eligibility, page limits, required forms, and formatting. Proposals that fail administrative screening are not reviewed on merit. Under the old system, roughly 10 to 15 percent of proposals were rejected at this stage for easily avoidable formatting or eligibility errors. With a new submission system and new formatting requirements, that number may increase in the first appendix cycle.

Technical assessment — reviewers evaluate the scientific and engineering merit of the proposed approach, the team's qualifications, the work plan's feasibility, and the adequacy of facilities and equipment. This is where proposals are won or lost.

Commercial viability analysis — NASA evaluates whether the proposed technology has a credible path to commercialization, either through NASA mission infusion, other government agency adoption, or commercial market sales. Proposals that demonstrate demand from identified customers — not hypothetical market projections, but letters of interest, partnership agreements, or customer discovery data — score significantly higher.

Pricing review — cost reasonableness assessment, including labor rates, materials costs, subcontract justifications, and overhead rates.

The relative weighting of these criteria may shift between appendices depending on the topics. Hardware-focused topics may weight technical merit more heavily. Software and services topics may weight commercial viability. Proposers should read each appendix's evaluation criteria carefully rather than assuming consistency across releases.

Who Benefits Most — and Who Needs to Adapt

The companies best positioned under the new model are those with diverse technology portfolios, strong proposal-writing capacity, and the financial resources to prepare multiple submissions per year. These are typically companies with 20 to 100 employees, established SBIR track records, and dedicated business development staff who can monitor appendix releases and turn proposals around in four to six weeks.

First-time proposers face a steeper learning curve than under the old model, because the BAA structure — with its multiple appendices, new submission system, and rolling deadlines — is more complex to navigate. But the resetting proposal limits partially offset this disadvantage: a first-timer who submits one proposal to Appendix A and is rejected can submit again to Appendix B with lessons learned, rather than waiting a full year.

The companies most disrupted are those that built their entire business development calendar around the January solicitation window. If your process was "read January topics, pick three, write proposals in February, submit in March, and then focus on execution for nine months," you need a new process. The BAA model demands year-round market intelligence, continuous proposal readiness, and the ability to mobilize writing teams on shorter notice.

NASA's BAA is open through September 30, 2027, and new appendices will be released as mission needs evolve. Small businesses tracking the program should bookmark the NASA SBIR/STTR Information Hub and subscribe for appendix release notifications. For companies evaluating whether a specific topic aligns with their capabilities — or preparing their first NASA SBIR proposal under the new format — Granted can help match your technology to open solicitations and build competitive proposals before each appendix deadline.