DRIVE35 Scale-Up: £5M to Manufacture the Future of EVs

This opportunity is a UK government-backed feasibility funding competition for companies that already have a zero-emission vehicle technology and need confidence that it can be manufactured in the UK at real production scales.

It is not a broad innovation “proof of concept” grant for early ideas. It is explicitly a feasibility study competition. The mission is practical: can your technology move from concept or pilot to production-ready capability without derailing due to technical, commercial, or supply-chain risk?

The official UKRI competition page describes this as:

• UK registered businesses can apply
• up to £5 million available across the competition
• funding is for feasibility studies into UK manufacturing of zero-emission vehicle technologies
• lead must be a single applicant (no joint lead consortium)

The IFS competition page states the close date was 17 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. UK time and describes this round as closed. That is important: the structure below is still valuable to understand fit and process, but you should treat this as a closed historical competition unless a new call opens.

At-a-glance summary

What this funding is really for (and what it is not)

This competition supports companies that can already show a technical concept and now need structured evidence about manufacturing scale-up. The supported work is about answering feasibility questions before committing capital to major investment.

In practical terms, it supports:

• “Can we make this at pilot, demonstration, or industrial scale?”
• “What is the most realistic manufacturing route?”
• “What are the cost, yield, tooling, quality, and supply-chain risks?”
• “Can this be done in the UK in a way that supports a real investment decision?”

The UKRI page emphasises that proposals should lead to an “investment ready business case” and raise manufacturing readiness for the selected production maturity and volumes. That is the north star. If your application just says “our technology is good” without demonstrating manufacturing de-risking, it will likely fail.

What it does not cover:

• Open-ended R&D with no manufacturing path
• Generic EV market commentary with no project scope
• Outsourcing feasibility to others without your own clear execution ownership
• Broad consortium science projects where no single business applicant can lead

Why a normal business should care

If your company has had repeated experiences where an invention was strong but industrial roll-out failed, this competition is directly relevant. If your biggest issue is not technical plausibility but “how do we scale this safely and commercially?”, this is designed for that problem.

The official pages indicate about 40% success is seen historically in similar competitions, which is relatively high for a competitive grant but not a guarantee. That means your application has to be coherent and fit-for-assessment. This is less about flashy narrative and more about disciplined feasibility planning.

Commonly, a good proposal here helps teams:

• Build a realistic capex roadmap
• Decide if process choices are viable in UK manufacturing context
• Prepare for later larger awards or private investment
• Decide not to scale too early, which can prevent expensive sunk-cost mistakes

Who this is for (and who should not apply)

Good fit

You are likely in the right place if:

• You are a UK-registered business (any size, per official wording), applying alone as lead.
• You can already describe the technology clearly and where it sits technically.
• Your project can be run inside 9 months.
• You need evidence, not just optimism, to move from R&D or pilot to scaled production.
• You can justify your budget and show co-investment (because Innovate UK funding is not full project replacement).
• Your manufacturing work can be done in the UK, and you intend to exploit results in the UK.

Typical examples in this lane:

• A Tier 2 or tier-like supplier modernising a legacy drivetrain component process for EVs
• A small manufacturer exploring pilot-to-industrial transition of power electronics hardware
• A startup with a novel battery/electronics/drive component that now needs production pathway validation

Not a good fit

You should reconsider if:

• You are not a UK registered business
• You are a public sector body, charity, or research organisation (cannot lead this competition as lead)
• Your team is not ready to define manufacturing scope and deliverable milestones in 3–9 month terms
• You cannot produce a budget that meets the percentage limits
• You are aiming to use this as “phase 1 of building a brand-new science program” rather than validating scale-up decisions
• You rely on unsupported assumptions of cheap overseas subcontracting without UK-cost evidence

Eligibility and constraints to check before spending time

These are the constraints that matter most in practice, all from the official competition terms:

1. Single applicant only
   • You cannot lead this as a consortium.
   • The project lead must be one UK-registered business entity.
2. Grant request range
3. Allowed project funding requests are between £150,000 and £750,000.
   • In practice, this is the most likely gate to fail early if not matched with realistic total costs.
4. Duration limit
   • Project must last up to 9 months, with dates tied to this competition window and setup constraints.
5. Start and end assumptions
   • The UKRI and IFS pages specify start by 1 May 2026 and end by 31 January 2027 for this competition.
6. UK conduct and exploitation
   • Work must be carried out in the UK and exploitation intended in or from the UK.
7. Subcontractor rule
   • Subcontractors are allowed.
   • If using overseas subcontractors, the application must justify why UK subcontractors could not be used; cost is not enough on its own.
8. Eligibility risk checks
   • Applicants may be declined for prior non-compliance (for example, overdue reports, past issues).
9. Financial viability
   • Innovate UK checks financial condition; if in financial difficulty, applications can be ineligible.
10. Regulatory and compliance readiness
    • You must handle permits/licensing where needed.
    • You must address animal-welfare requirements only if animals are used in the project.
    • Export controls, TR&I, and sanctions considerations apply depending on your technology profile.

If any one of the above is uncertain, pause and get advice before drafting.

What funding can actually cover

The official competition language indicates grants are available up to stated project-level limits and percentages:

• SME projects may receive up to 60% of eligible project costs.
• Large organisations may receive up to 50%.
• This means your own matched funding/co-investment is mandatory by design.
• In award terms, there is an APC industrial contribution (3.5%).
• Funding can be reduced or withdrawn if policy/funding decisions change.

For planning, do not treat the headline total as guaranteed cash for each business. It is a pool. Competition funding limits apply and competition quality means not all strong projects are funded.

Application process (practical walkthrough)

The UKRI/IFS flow is official and specific. Even though this competition is closed, this is the right sequence to prepare for a similar competition:

1) Confirm fit first, before drafting

Do a scope sanity check against the competition description:

• Is the project explicitly a manufacturing feasibility study?
• Is the output likely to improve the readiness for pilot/demonstration/industrial scale?
• Is there a clear UK manufacturing deployment logic?

If you fail scope, your submission is not assessed. This is the single biggest avoidable loss.

2) Build proposal logic around outcomes, not technology features

In this competition, assessment will look for evidence of de-risking decisions:

• Which process route are you testing?
• What decisions will be made at the end (go/no-go, process choice, investment readiness)?
• What does success look like in measurable terms (cost range, yield, conversion, throughput, capital strategy)?

3) Prepare required application content

IFS-based competition assessments typically ask for:

• Applicant identity (full registered address and subcontractor information)
• Permits/licences, export controls, and project governance details
• International collaboration disclosures
• TR&I/export/security considerations if relevant
• Scored sections (all scoring sections must be answered, including a substantial technical and commercial argument)
• A credible budget and project plan
• Clear evidence of UK project setup and exploitation strategy

You should also check the specific section guidance on the IFS application pages because each competition can have extra scoring emphasis.

4) Handle subcontracting carefully

If using any subcontractor:

• Record UK-first sourcing attempts
• Keep procurement evidence
• Explain overseas choice if selected
• Tie each cost to eligible project outcomes

This is heavily important because the page is explicit: overseas use must be justified with evidence and rationale, not just lower cost.

5) Manage submission timing

These competitions are strict on timing:

• Competition close date/time must be met in UK time.
• In a live launch, practical experience suggests submitting early is safest.
• Portal timeouts/technical issues can occur near peak.

6) After submission, treat feedback seriously

If unsuccessful, Innovate UK provides assessor feedback on the portal. You can often learn from scoring comments and prepare stronger resubmissions (where available).

Typical application workflow for this round

The round structure was:

• Opening: 10 November 2025 at 9:30 a.m. UK time
• Closing: 17 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. UK time
• Status: closed

Use this as a planning template if a future iteration opens:

1. Week 1–2: Scope and team alignment
2. Week 3–4: Evidence package creation (budget, roadmap, team, risks)
3. Week 5: Internal review/red-team reading
4. Week 6: Final edits and early submission

What you should include in your package (practical checklist)

This list is derived from official requirements and common assessment expectations:

• Clear statement of manufacturing problem and why now
• Feasibility question to be answered within 9 months
• Proposed manufacturing pathway options to compare
• Cost model assumptions and sensitivity analysis
• Project schedule with milestones (not just broad narrative)
• Team responsibilities and execution capability
• Subcontractor rationale and UK sourcing evidence
• Budget breakdown with eligible costs and organisational contribution
• Risk register showing mitigation and decision triggers
• Commercial plan showing exploitation route in UK

Readiness scorecard: decide quickly whether to apply

Ask your team to score readiness from 0–10 on:

• Scope fit to “UK manufacturing feasibility” (must be high)
• Budget realism vs. requested grant range
• UK exploitation logic
• Evidence quality (not only claims)
• Internal sponsorship and decision ownership
• Ability to run within 9-month timeline

If you are below 6 on any one category, you should fix that before applying, or postpone.

Why your proposal gets accepted (or not)

Publicly stated scoring behaviour indicates:

• You must answer all required questions
• In-scopeness is mandatory and checked early
• Not all high-scoring projects may be funded if competition funding limits are reached
• Prior conduct and subsidy/cost rules are considered in the final decision
• Portfolio funding mechanics can mean close scores are not always sufficient

Therefore, “good score” is necessary but not always sufficient. This is competitive grant logic, not a pass/fail for one metric.

Common mistakes that waste cycles

1. Treating it as pure R&D funding instead of feasibility de-risking
2. Ignoring UK-only or UK-intent exploitation criteria
3. Underestimating the required matched funding
4. Using overconfident claims without decision-ready evidence
5. Omitting subcontractor justification where non-UK sources are used
6. Vague outcomes: “we’ll know if it works” without measurable go/no-go criteria
7. Forgetting to answer all non-scored governance and compliance questions (they are mandatory)
8. Inserting URLs into application answers

The IFS guidance specifically warns that including website URLs in answers can make your application ineligible, so keep references internal (plain text names only).

Risks you should plan for before submission

Strategic risk

You might be building a technically good idea that does not map to a UK manufacturing system. Address this by mapping suppliers, tooling, labour, and quality capabilities.

Commercial risk

Your cost-per-unit or capex assumptions might be too optimistic. Include sensitivity cases and explain assumptions.

Compliance risk

Permits, licences, export control, and TR&I/security issues can invalidate otherwise strong applications if not handled in advance.

Financial risk

Because this is not full project cost coverage, a project with weak internal contribution is likely to collapse in business review.

What to do next if this exact round is closed

Because this specific competition is marked closed, this is not the moment to click submit for this ID. But it is the moment to:

• Compare this opportunity against your upcoming pipeline:
  • Do you need a similar feasibility study next funding cycle?
  • Can you reuse this structure for future DRIVE35, ATF, or related industrial scale-up calls?
• Keep your feasibility logic in a reusable internal brief:
  • problem statement
  • decision milestones
  • UK sourcing map
  • matched-funding plan
• Contact Innovate UK support early if similar calls open and ask whether your current concept remains in scope.

If you are thinking of a new filing cycle, start with one page: “What decision will this feasibility study prove?” and “What evidence will support a no-go versus go forward?” Everything else follows from these two questions.

Contact and support options

Officially listed support details include Innovate UK support lines for this competition:

• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 0300 321 4357
• Phone hours: 9 a.m.–12 p.m. and 2–5 p.m. UK time, Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays)

APC is listed for indicative guidance contact at [email protected], while general queries about the page content and process can also go via UKRI support channels.

Always keep contact windows realistic in your planning. UKRI recommends contacting support early because near-deadline response options can be limited.

Frequently asked practical questions

Can only one company apply?

Yes. This competition is for single applicants only. You are the lead applicant and cannot submit as a consortium lead.

Can subcontractors be used?

Yes, including UK-based subcontractors by default. Overseas subcontractors are allowed only with justification and evidence that UK options were explored and unsuitable.

Are universities able to lead?

RTOs, charities, public sector bodies, and research organisations are not eligible to lead this competition. They may participate as subcontractors where applicable.

Is grant funding enough to cover full project cost?

No. It is a co-funding model with percentage limits (SME up to 60%, large organisations up to 50%).

What if the study shows the project is not feasible?

This competition is about feasibility, so a robust “not feasible” outcome can still be a useful decision result as long as the methodology is sound. The intent is to reduce major investment risk early.

Is this limited to EV battery packs only?

No. The wording is broad to zero-emission vehicle technologies, including relevant manufacturing routes in relevant parts of the ZEV ecosystem.

What can an organisation submit again?

The competition text indicates previously submitted applications that reached assessment can often be resubmitted in non-materially-different form, subject to exact rules. This is for live competition contexts and can change.

If you are writing a real application

Use this order:

1. Scope sentence: one paragraph defining the manufacturing decision.
2. Feasibility question: what will be proven and why.
3. UK exploitation statement: why this is being done in the UK.
4. Cost and timeline logic: how grant and non-grant costs align.
5. Risk list: at least three technical and three commercial risks with mitigation.
6. Output list: what exactly you will deliver at project end (e.g., decision model, scale-up route, capex logic, supplier qualification map).

Most applications fail not because they lack ideas, but because they do not turn ideas into structured decisions.

Final take

This is a practical, high-value call for businesses that are past the invention stage and need to answer difficult scale-up questions with evidence before committing major investment. The official competition rules are explicit:

• Scope and UK-registered single lead matter first
• Eligible grant size and project duration are bounded
• Subcontracting and compliance are scrutinised
• Scored sections require complete answers and clear decision logic

Use this as a template even now. If a future DRIVE35 or equivalent competition opens, a team that has already built this decision-oriented application logic will have a much easier time crossing the threshold from “good idea” to “fundable proposition.”

Official links

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/drive35-scale-up-feasibility-studies-two/
• Innovation Funding Service competition page: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2341/overview/4b0efce9-75b8-4e84-97c0-fc6277396586