ARPA-E NOFOs and SBIR/STTR Grants 2025: How to Compete for SPARKS $500,000 Awards and Major Programs Like MAGNITO, ROCKS, QC3, GLASING and More

If you work at the intersection of energy and hard problems — new magnets, faster catalyst discovery, super-hot geothermal, or quantum chemistry that actually matters for decarbonization — ARPA-E likely has a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) that maps to your expertise. This is a run-down of the current portfolio of ARPA-E funding tracks (NOFOs and SBIR/STTR versions where applicable), why they matter, who should apply, and how to build an application that survives the first cut and makes reviewers sit up and take notes.

This is not a dry list of program names. Think of this as a field guide: which programs fund what, the realistic size and shape of projects (SPARKS gives a clear example), how teams should assemble, and concrete advice about timelines and application materials. Read this if you prefer clarity to bureaucratic fog and want to act, not just browse opportunities.

At a Glance

Note: Deadlines and templates change frequently. Always confirm current dates and templates on ARPA-E eXCHANGE.

What This Opportunity Offers

ARPA-E funds high-risk, high-reward projects that private investors and traditional grants often won’t. Unlike typical grants that top out at incremental goals, these NOFOs push for outcomes that would, if successful, change how energy is produced, stored, transported, or used. That means money for ambitious prototypes, integrated system demonstrations, new experimental apparatus, high-throughput labs, or software/hardware co-design that proves a concept at scale.

Beyond funding, winners gain visibility to strategic partners and potential follow-on funders. SCALEUP Ready explicitly aims to prevent “stranded” ARPA-E technologies by supporting pre-commercial scale-up so industry can justify a manufacturing or deployment bet. SPARKS offers a distinct value: nimble, short-duration awards (≤18 months, ≤$500k) to test daring ideas fast. SBIR/STTR tracks exist for small businesses that want both R&D funding and a path to commercialization — they come with different eligibility and cost-sharing rules but similar technical ambition.

What matters most is that ARPA-E expects technical novelty plus clear metrics: prototypes that meet stated performance targets, validated experimental workflows, or demonstrable system-level integration. Programs like QC3 demand quantifiable targets (100x improvement or provable scalability); MAGNITO expects teams that combine computational discovery with high-throughput synthesis and magnetic characterization. If you can show not only a clever idea but a plausible path to measurable results within the project period, you’re speaking ARPA-E’s language.

Who Should Apply

This is for people who like complicated problems and hard constraints. Academic groups with strong track records, national labs with specialized facilities, startups with demonstrable prototypes, and consortia that combine industry, researchers, and engineers all have places in these NOFOs — but the fit depends on the program.

Early-career applicants should watch IGNIITE 2025: it’s built for emerging innovators and includes mentorship and cohort activities. Small businesses should focus on the SBIR/STTR streams (MAGNITO SBIR/STTR, ROCKS SBIR/STTR, DC-GRIDS SBIR/STTR, etc.). Established teams with bench-scale success and a need for scale-up should look at SCALEUP Ready. If you’re proposing radically new physics or chemistry (think new permanent magnet chemistries or inverse-designed catalysts), aim for the full ARPA-E NOFOs such as MAGNITO or the proposed Net Zero Catalyst concepts.

Concrete example: a university materials group that has a promising computational pipeline for magnet discovery but lacks high-throughput synthesis and measurement capabilities should recruit a manufacturing or national lab partner and consider MAGNITO (full NOFO) or the SBIR/STTR route if a qualified small-business lead exists. Another example: a startup that built a compact HTE reactor and has preliminary catalyst hits for low-carbon monomers should apply to CATALCHEM-E (if a NOFO is released) and also consider the Net Zero Catalyst teaming list RFI to find partners for scaling and data infrastructure.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

1. Lead with metrics. ARPA-E reviewers want numbers: R-values, dollars per ton, penetration rate, qubit counts, expected improvement factors. If your project aims to improve something by “a lot,” quantify what “a lot” means and how you will measure it.

2. Show a risk-reduction path. ARPA-E loves crazy ambition — but reviewers worry about feasibility. Lay out critical technical risks and two-tiered mitigation plans. For each risk, give the trigger (“if X fails, we will do Y”) and resources needed for the fallback.

3. Build complementary teams. Most successful proposals combine computational scientists, experimentalists, and an industry or commercialization-oriented partner. If you lack hardware (HTE rigs, quantum access, or specialized drilling?), use the ARPA-E teaming partner lists to identify collaborators early.

4. Prototype the pitch. Spend time on a 1-page technical elevator that answers: what’s new, why ARPA-E should fund it now, expected milestone outcomes, and how success scales beyond the project. If a reviewer can extract that page in 30 seconds, you’re doing well.

5. Budget like you mean it. Your budget must align with milestones. Don’t pile most funds into “other” or leave personnel costs suspiciously low. If you propose $500k, show realistic line items: PI effort, postdoc, materials, equipment use, third-party validation, and travel for deployment tests.

6. Use reviewer comments smartly. If given a chance to reply to reviewer comments, treat that reply as a second proposal: concise, evidence-based, and addressing the exact points raised. This is where clarity and humility help: admit valid criticisms and explain concrete changes.

7. Test for audience comprehension. ARPA-E panels often include experts across disciplines. Circulate a draft to a non-specialist scientist and a commercialization-minded reader. If both understand the stakes and the plan, you’re well positioned.

8. Prepare data management and IP language. Many NOFOs require a public summary and data plans. Be direct about what you will share and what needs protection for commercialization — explain how you’ll balance openness and IP.

Collectively, these steps take preparation time. Start eight to twelve weeks before concept or full deadlines.

Application Timeline (Realistic, Working Backward)

Create a calendar and stick to it. For full ARPA-E NOFOs, the path usually goes: concept paper, invite/encourage decisions, then full application. Allow time for institutional approvals (sponsored projects offices often require internal lead times).

• 12+ weeks out: Decide program and draft the one-page pitch. Contact potential partners and request letters of support.
• 8–10 weeks out: Draft technical volume sections; outline milestones and metrics.
• 6–8 weeks out: Assemble budget and work with your contracts office on SF-424, facilities, and overhead calculations.
• 4–6 weeks out: Complete figures, create summary slides, and circulate to 2–3 external reviewers (one technical outside your area).
• 2 weeks out: Finalize business forms, Proofread the entire package, run through the portal upload process.
• At least 48 hours before the deadline: Submit. Systems and approvals fail; don’t rely on deadline day.

If the opportunity uses a concept paper phase, invest disproportionately in that first submission: concept decisions often determine whether you’ll be competitive for full proposal invitations.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them

ARPA-E NOFOs ask for a consistent set of materials, though details vary by program. Typical items include the technical volume, budget justification (SF-424A workbook), biographical sketches or company profiles, a Summary for Public Release, letters of support, business assurances and disclosures, and sometimes a replies-to-reviewer template.

Prepare these early:

• Technical narrative: Significance, innovation, approach, milestones, and a risk table. Use figures and timelines sparingly but effectively.
• Milestones and metrics: Concrete deliverables with clear pass/fail thresholds.
• Budget workbook (SF-424A): Work with your sponsored research office — mistakes here will derail proposals.
• Summary for public release: This is often posted publicly; write it so a savvy reporter or partner understands the value without exposing proprietary details.
• Letters of support: Obtain short, specific letters describing commitments (access to equipment, manufacturing capacity, offtake interest).
• For SBIR/STTR: include VCOC and other small-business-specific forms.

Treat each required template as a checklist; failing to follow formatting rules is a common cause of administrative rejection.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Two things separate funded projects from the rest: clarity of the problem-to-solution path and a credible plan for tangible metrics. Standouts combine bold goals with operational detail. For example, a MAGNITO proposal that pairs a fast computational search for new ternary magnet chemistries with an automated thin-film synthesis line and rapid magnetic characterization demonstrates both discovery and validation capability. A QC3 team that shows access to quantum hardware, a validated algorithmic demonstration on smaller problems, and credible resource estimates for scaling to ~100 logical qubits has a much better chance than a purely theoretical pitch.

Also, connect to impact beyond an academic publication — job creation, domestic supply chains, deployable systems, or pathways to follow-on investment. For SCALEUP Ready applicants, show evidence of prior ARPA-E funding and how the scale-up will de-risk the technology for private capital.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Vague metrics: Saying “we’ll improve performance” without a measurable target.
• Overpromising: Proposing 10 disparate tasks in 12 months; reviewers sniff scope creep immediately.
• Weak team composition: Lacking essential expertise (e.g., proposing HTE without access to HTE hardware).
• Missing templates or outdated forms: Use the latest SF-424 and budget workbooks noted on the NOFO.
• Submitting at the last minute: Portal hiccups and institutional approvals often bite late submissions.
• Ignoring commercialization: ARPA-E cares about real-world deployment pathways; don’t leave this as an afterthought.

Fixes are straightforward: quantify, narrow scope, recruit partners, update forms, and finish early.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can international partners be involved? A: Yes, but awards typically go to U.S.-based recipients and funding flows to U.S. institutions. Some programs encourage collaboration (e.g., HAEJO with Korean seaweed partners), but review each NOFO’s eligibility rules.

Q: Are concept paper decisions binding? A: No, but concept paper Encourage/Discourage letters influence reviewers and can signal competitiveness. Treat an Encourage as a green light to invest in the full proposal.

Q: What if my project spans multiple NOFOs? A: Choose the NOFO that aligns best with your primary technical objective and the maturity stage. Discuss interdisciplinary fits with ARPA-E contacts if unclear.

Q: How much does ARPA-E fund annually? A: Programs vary; SPARKS noted approximately $10M per fiscal year for new awards. Other program budgets are FOA-specific.

Q: Will I get reviewer comments? A: Yes. ARPA-E typically provides reviewer comments and a comments period. Use feedback constructively for resubmission or to refine next steps.

Q: Is the Teaming Partner List worth using? A: Absolutely. If you need hardware, pilots, or manufacturing partners, the teaming lists are practical ways to find collaborators — but don’t rely on ARPA-E to broker introductions.

How to Apply / Next Steps

Ready to apply? Start here:

1. Visit the ARPA-E eXCHANGE portal and find the NOFO of interest: https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#FoaIda9f6c0f8-cc97-4b18-b98d-684f180efaea
2. Create/confirm your user account and check the current templates for the specific NOFO.
3. Download the technical volume and budget templates; read the NOFO instructions verbatim.
4. Register potential teaming partners and search the Teaming Partner List if you need collaborators: https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/TeamingPartners.aspx
5. Reach out to ARPA-E program contacts with specific, concise questions ([email protected] for portal problems; [email protected] for NOFO questions). Keep questions tight and reference the FOA section.

If you want, send me the NOFO you plan to target and a one-paragraph project summary. I’ll help turn that into a 1-page technical elevator and an outline for the concept paper or full application.