Julie and Bryan have a long track record of experience and success securing non-dilutive funding.
>$650M
>$650M in Total Funding
Since 2009, we have helped clients secure more than $650 million in SBIR/STTR and non-SBIR/STTR grants and contracts.
81%
81% Success Rate at NIH
81% of NIH SBIR and STTR grants and contract proposals we prepared for clients were funded on the first submission or later resubmissions.
5X
5X Greater than the NIH Average
Our success rates for NIH SBIR and STTR grants and contracts are, on average, 5 times greater than the NIH average.
$349,465
Average Phase I Award Size
Our average Phase I award is ~$350K, demonstrating that our success does not rely on very small Phase I awards that are essentially automatic at some agencies.
$2,603,747
Average Phase II Award Size
Our average Phase II award is ~$2.6M, which is well above the current statutory limit at the NIH. We are adept at obtaining budget waivers for our clients and optimizing budgets to reflect the scope of work proposed.
Digging Deeper into Our NIH Success Rates
The table below shows our success rate by NIH SBIR/STTR Project type compared to NIH’s average reported success rate over the past several years. Methods for calculations are provided below the table, and additional details are provided under the heading How We Got These Numbers.
| Project Type | Our Success Rate (2018 – present) | NIH Success Rate (2020-2022) | Our Multiple of the NIH Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I | 71% | 13% | 5.5X |
| Phase II | 100% | 32% | 3.1X |
| Fast Track | 44% | 16% | 2.8X |
| Direct-to-Phase II | 88% | 18% | 4.9X |
| Phase IIB | 100% | 32% | 3.1X |
| ALL TYPES | 81% | 16% | 5.1X |
Notes on the calculations:
- The multiple for each project type is determined by dividing our success rate by NIH’s reported success rate. For example, for Phase I projects, the calculation is 71% / 13% = 5.5X.
- Because the total number of proposals we have submitted varies by project type, our overall success (ALL TYPES) is not simply an average of the percentages and/or multiples across project types. Likewise, the NIH overall success rate cannot be derived by averaging the percentages reported for each project type.
- Calculations are based solely on projects where Bryan wrote the original application and any subsequent resubmissions. Julie provided technical thought leadership and comprehensive administrative support as program manager on many of these projects. The calculations include some work performed at other grant writing firms.
Why We Report Our Success Rates
In the current environment, where investor funding is very difficult to come by, grant funding becomes a key inflection point for small businesses. Not only can it validate your technology to investors, but it can also be the deciding factor for where you focus your limited R&D resources.
When making a decision about which grant writing firm to trust with your product’s near-term financial destiny, you deserve to know your odds of success. DeBusk & Fife cannot guarantee you a win, but we can guarantee that if we are interested in working with you, it is because we believe we can position your product to be competitive for funding.
How We Compare to Other SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Firms
Most firms do not publicize their success rates, and most will not give you a straight answer if you ask. To-date, we are not aware of any other firm that publicizes their actual success rates as a percentage of NIH SBIR and STTR applications, and we are changing that.
The few companies that report success rate percentages do not identify the agencies or programs that are responsible for these rates. Their average award sizes, award totals, and numbers of awards suggest that their rates rely heavily on submissions to programs where very small Phase I awards are all but automatic for any applicant (e.g., AFWERX).
We are confident that our success rates are among the highest in the industry, but these rates are not the only factor to consider when hiring a grant writing support. We encourage you to find a company that has the experience, process, and people that fit your needs, priorities, and preferences.
How We Got the Numbers
Although a “win” is obviously the right metric for success in grant seeking, it is far from simple to settle on the definition of a loss. In addition, federal agencies only report limited data for comparison, and determining the right comparator for a success rate is challenging.
Because DeBusk & Fife focuses largely on human health-related applications, and NIH is the place our clients are most likely to seek grant funding, we report our success relative to other NIH applicants. Each year, NIH publishes data on the number of applications submitted and the number of applications receiving awards in each SBIR/STTR project type. These numbers encompass three review cycles, and the applications considered in those cycles are a mix of first-time applications, first-time resubmissions, and with the exception of renewal project types like Phase IIs and Phase IIBs, a dwindling number of further submissions.
Since NIH reports outcomes in aggregate, regardless of how many times an application has been submitted, we use a similar approach for comparison. That is, we report our success in getting a project funded on any round of review rather than reporting rates separately for a first, second, or later submission. In addition, we exclude projects that are still under review or that have not yet been resubmitted because including these applications would under-represent the true funding potential for a given client’s project. We also exclude projects where we did not write the original submission so that we are not taking credit for other writers’ work.
Using this method, we update our success rates at least annually when NIH publishes its numbers for the preceding year.
DeBusk & Fife 