The Innovate act: The problems with Phase 1A


By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

The Department of Defense has developed numerous ways to modify the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to rapidly secure solutions for the warfighter. From Commercial Solutions Offerings (CSO) to $50,000 Phase I awards that make a company instantly eligible for a government Phase III, DoD has demonstrated its ability to use both traditional and nontraditional methods to secure technologies that it needs for the warfighter more rapidly.

However, it appears that some small businesses that have benefited from the application of DoD’s tool kit, often become proponents of applying these same methods to all agencies. For example, the Phase 1A concept in the INNOVATE Act bears a striking resemblance to DoD’s Commercial Solutions Offering (CSO).  This is an optional approach used by DoD – not a mandated one – which enables companies with an existing commercial solution to make modifications to meet a DoD need.“CSO can be used to acquire innovative commercial items, technologies, or services that directly meet program requirements, whereas BAAs are restricted to basic and applied research.[1]

The proposed Phase 1A is intended to speed upon the entry of new applicants into the SBIR/STTR programs, by asking them to submit a two-page proposal in response to an “open topic” for which they could receive a $40,000 award. The proposed guidelines for the Phase 1A application includes: (1) Identification of the Problem, (2) Description of the Solution, (3) Impact of the Solution, (4) Differentiation and (5) Commercialization Strategy including both the commercial and government markets. The requirement for an “Open Topic” and the proposed outline suggests that very little is known about how civilian agencies differ from the Department of Defense. Here are a few of the differences:

    1. Most of the SBIR/STTR topics from civilian agencies ARE focused on basic and applied research.
    2. Many civilian agencies already have developed their own methods to quickly enable potential applicants to discern if there is a fit between their skills and the agencies needs. The National Science Foundation uses the Project Pitch, the Department of Energy uses the Letter of Intent, and the National Institute of Health uses Aims.
    3. Civilian agencies already conduct outreach to bring in hundreds of new applicants each year and provide support in proposal preparation through federally funded Phase 0 programs. The Department of Energy has provided the DOE Phase 0 support for more than 10 years, as has the National Institutes of Health through its Applicant Assistance Program. These programs are comprehensive and cost effective.
    4. Most civilian agencies have funded I-Corps and make this available in various forms in order to assure that small businesses speak with their potential customers.
    5. Although Government Phase IIIs are theoretically available to all agencies, granting organizations tend not to use this mechanism as their mission is focused on “public good”, as opposed to being focused on a government mission.

The bottom line is that there is no need to substitute effective solutions that agencies have already developed with an approach that will overwhelm their staff and require more taxpayer money. Existing federal Phase 0 programs cost between $5,000 and $7,000 per company, as opposed to $40,000 as proposed by the INNOVATE ACT.  It is important to note that the Department of Defense, which accounts for more than half of the available SBIR/STTR funding, has far more staff to manage and implement its programs than smaller agencies with less resources.

The INNOVATE ACT maintains that “Phase 1A funds will bring thousands of new small business concerns committed to commercialization of critical technologies into the SBIR program.” However, there are no data to substantiate this belief, even though the argument is being made that by placing a cap on the number of awards that frequent award winners receive, an increase in first time applicants winning SBIR/STTR awards will increase.  However, the Annual SBIR/STTR Reports to Congress, provided by the Small Business Administration do not include any data regarding how many first-time applicants submit SBIR/STTR proposals,  how many of these were non-responsive, merited award or received an award. Such data are necessary to substantiate this assumption.

It is therefore suggested that in bill S. 853 “Phase 1A be presented as an option, rather than a mandate and that all agencies be required to use not less than 2.5% of their SBIR budget for either Phase IA or other outreach initiatives aimed at bringing in qualified, first time SBIR/STTR applicants. Existing Federal Phase 0 programs are funded with “outreach” dollars which would be eliminated by a mandated Phase 1A requirement.

[1] DAU, Commercial Solutions Opening (DFARS 212.70), accessed August 20, 2025

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn

Stay in the Know with Dawnbreaker®

Receive valuable industry insights such as our Market Snapshots, SBIR/STTR & TABA updates, & webinar announcements.

Fusion Energy Overview

Fusion is a potential energy source and occurs when one or more lighter elements combine to form a heavier element, releasing energy in the process. [1] Devices designed to harness this energy are known as fusion reactors. [2]   A future fusion plant could use the heat produced by the fusion reaction to produce steam to drive turbines or generators that produce electricity. [3] For almost a century, scientists around the globe have been looking to recreate and harness the power of fusion energy. [4]  

Tokamak
Source: ITER

There are two commonly pursued technologies to create and control plasma. Magnetic confinement uses strong magnets to contain plasma. A widely used configuration known as a tokamak[5] uses powerful magnets to confine the plasma within a toroidal reaction vessel, with the magnetic fields keeping the plasma away from the walls of the vessel to prevent damage and unintended cooling of the plasma.[6]  

Examples of U.S. companies developing magnetic confinement systems are Commonwealth Fusion Systems, TAE Technologies, Tokamak Energy, Helion Energy, and Thea Energy. Inertial confinement uses high-power lasers or electrical discharges to compress a small capsule of fusion fuel to extreme temperatures and pressures for a short time. This approach is used, for example, in the National Ignition Facility at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. [7] Examples of U.S. companies developing inertial confinement systems are Xcimer Energy, Focused Energy, ZAP Energy, and Shine Technologies. In addition to these methods, several companies such as General Fusion,  are pursuing various other pathways to try to create and control fusion reactions, including a hybrid of both magnetic and inertial confinement approaches. [8]

Various fusion fuels are used to power these pursued pathways. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, once developed, first-generation fusion plants may likely use a combination of abundant deuterium and lithium as fuel. [9] Deuterium, lithium and tritium Deuterium-tritium is a highly studied fusion fuel and a likely basis for the first fusion power plants.[10] Lithium is a critical resource for fusion because of its material properties. Lithium is used to breed tritium, the key fuel for fusion. [11] The rare lithium-6 form of the metal, which makes up only 7.5 per cent of all naturally occurring lithium, is the most efficient for sustaining the fusion process. [12] Li-6 is banned in the U.S. because of the harmful mercury waste it generates. [13] So most fusion power concepts rely on “enriched” lithium, where the Li-6 content has been boosted. [14]

Several companies are investing in efforts aimed at commercializing fusion energy. [15] Many of these companies are startups that have raised over $100 million in the past few years. [16]  The global fusion energy market size is projected to reach $611.8 billion by 2034, expanding at a CAGR of 5.56% from 2025 to 2034. [17] 

Current State - Projections of the time to putting Fusion Energy on the Grid

As of October 2025, fusion reactors remain pre-commercial, with no system yet producing net energy. Fusion energy stakeholders provide varying timelines as to when fusion energy will become technically feasible as an energy source for the electrical grid and when it will become commercially viable.  Projections range from 10 years to several decades in the future. [18]   Some companies are claiming that they will achieve commercial fusion energy in the next few years[19] while other stakeholders and experts said fusion energy will take more than 20 years. The Fusion Industry Association reported that many commercial companies predict fusion industry will be commercially viable in the 2030’s time frame. [19] 

Source: The Global Fusion Industry in 2025—Fusion Industry Association

Other stakeholders and experts believe fusion energy might put electricity on the grid in 10 to 20 years, however, significant resources are required to do so.[20] The Figure below illustrates commercialization risks that fusion energy will face on the road to commercial deployment. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the aspirational timeline as shown is strongly dependent on the level of both public and private investments. [21]

Commercialization risks for fusion

Source. U.S. Department of Energy, Fusion Energy Strategy 2024

Download the Dawnbreaker® OTA Report

Click below to download a copy of the Dawnbreaker® OTA Report. 

DoD Transition Information Packet (TIP)®

The Transition Information Packet (TIP) is a market research report specifically developed for small businesses working with the Department of Defense.

Customized Market Research (CMR)®

Filling in the gaps in your commercialization strategy….

The CMR provides our team with the greatest flexibility in addressing gaps in the information you need to refine your commercialization strategy. Based strictly on secondary literature, the market researcher can look for information that will help you understand changes in government regulations, market dynamics, emerging solutions, sources of funding, points of contact and other challenges you pose. Based on the information gathered, a business strategist will add comments throughout regarding the implications of the information for your strategy.

LICA Licensee Analysis®

Who will take the best care of your baby?

You’ve done a great job with your R&D. You’ve been careful to protect your intellectual property – but those next steps to bring the product to market seem out of reach. There’s too much competition, scale up would be too expensive – so you’ve decided to license-out your intellectual property. The challenge before you is to find the best licensee to bring your baby to market. Let us help you. We will profile organizations that frequently cite your patents and dig deeper to determine their financial health, technology and market synergies, and experience with licensing-in.

Commercial Potential Assessment (CPA)

Be wary of big numbers!

You’ve done a great job with your R&D. You’ve been careful to protect your intellectual property – but those next steps to bring the product to market seem out of reach. There’s too much competition, scale up would be too expensive – so you’ve decided to license-out your intellectual property. The challenge before you is to find the best licensee to bring your baby to market. Let us help you. We will profile organizations that frequently cite your patents and dig deeper to determine their financial health, technology and market synergies, and experience with licensing-in.

Competitor Analysis

Your customers know your competitors! Do you?

Maybe you believe that you don’t have any competition, but your customers know better! Their needs are being addressed now – perhaps not as well, but if there is a need, someone is providing a solution. Learn about the competition and be prepared to differentiate your solution from that of others. Dawnbreaker’s competitor analysis contrasts your competition on specifications, performance and price. Armed with this information we can help you create a compelling value proposition.

Developing Network Contacts (DevNC)

When you need to reach out...

There are times when you need to reach out to others – whether you are looking for potential customers, potential partners, or potential investors. But who should you call…and how do you address your fear of contacting them. The DevNC is a unique market research tool designed to provide you with between 25 and 30 Points of Contact (PoC). With each POC, information is included that provides insight about the person’s role. Depending on their position, other information commonly included relates to their background, articles that they have written, conference presentations and other pertinent information. This type of information enables you to customize your correspondence. Contact information is also included  – typically LinkedIn, email and phone number.

We are in the process of updating the Energy Portal

Please check back soon for access to our updated Energy Portal.