Life sciences and biotechnology companies
For a company with real science and no revenue, the order in which you take money determines what it costs you.
Early-stage life sciences companies have one structural advantage most startups do not: a large federal system that will fund their research without taking equity. Used well, SBIR and STTR carry a technology to the point where a venture round is a different conversation — de-risked, validated, and priced accordingly. Used badly, they are a distraction that consumes a year of founder time for a Phase I that leads nowhere. The difference is planning across the whole arc rather than chasing the next deadline.
What is different here
Sequencing money
Raising equity for work a grant would have funded is the most expensive avoidable mistake available to an early-stage company.
Phase I as a means, not an end
What a Phase I is designed to demonstrate determines whether Phase II is a continuation or a fresh argument.
Commercialisation is scored
Reviewers assess the commercial plan, not just the science. Treating it as paperwork is a common and costly error.
Investor readiness
Deep-tech and life sciences investors underwrite differently. What counts as evidence is specific and knowable.
Relevant practice areas
Common questions
Should we pursue an SBIR or raise a seed round?
Usually both, in that order, if the work is fundable federally. Non-dilutive funding that answers a feasibility question is cheaper than equity that answers the same question, and the round afterwards is priced against a de-risked asset.
Do you take a success fee on an SBIR award?
No. Success fees paid from SBIR or STTR award funds are unallowable under FAR 31.205-33(f), and the exposure — audit findings, repayment — falls on the company. Engagements are fixed-fee and agreed in advance.
How long does an SBIR cycle take?
Longer than founders expect. Agencies have their own cycles, review takes months, and the gap between Phase I and Phase II has to be planned for as a funding gap rather than discovered as one.
Related reading
- Why paying a grant consultant a percentage of your award is a problemSuccess fees on federal grants are generally unallowable, and the exposure falls on the grantee rather than the consultant. What the rules actually say.
- Most strong proposals fail on fit, not on scienceProgramme selection decides more outcomes than proposal quality does. How agencies differ, and why the choice has to be made before anything is written.
- Non-dilutive funding first: why sequence changes what your round costsFor research-driven companies, what you prove with grant funding before raising materially changes the terms available. The reasoning and the trade-offs.