AIR Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

To avoid conflicts of interest, particularly between TA1-A (robotic systems) and TA1-B (simulation platforms for robot evaluation), and to ensure high quality solutions across the program, the following eligibility rules have been established.

The maximum number of full proposals a team may be part of is three (3): one (1) as prime and two (2) as subcontractor, or three (3) as subcontractor. A team may be the prime for TA1 and a subcontractor for TA2 and vice versa. A team may not be the prime for TA1-A and a subcontractor for TA1-B, or vice versa.

Given that there will be down-selection between the solution summary and full proposal stages, a team may submit solution summaries as a prime for TA1-A/B while a subcontractor on another TA1-B/A solution summary. However, for full proposals, a team must choose between TA1-A and TA1-B.

For universities, a team is generally a lab or collaborative group. Two distinct labs with different PIs are likely to be considered different teams.

For businesses, a team is typically a legal distinct entity with its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Two independent subsidiaries of the same parent company (different UEIs) may apply to/be awarded as prime on TA1-A and TA2, or to TA1-B and TA2. Two independent subsidiaries of the same parent company (different UEIs) may not be awarded on both TA1-A and TA1-B.

For more unique or complex scenarios, ARPA-H reserves the right to assess team structures and individual roles across submissions to address any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

International institutes that are not designated a Foreign Country of Concern are welcome to participate.

Endovascular navigation is a fundamental component of TA1. Non-vascular elements may be considered in addition to, but not in place of, endovascular navigation. Similarly, ischemic stroke (large vessel occlusions) and embolization treatments are also fundamental aspects of TA1. Additional endovascular therapies may be considered in addition to, but not in place of, mechanical thrombectomy and neurovascular embolization.

TA1-A involves robotic systems to autonomously guide endovascular devices, and system specifications such as size, weight, footprint, etc. must be described as part of the proposal. Excessively large systems may be impractical to deploy in rural settings and thus may not meet the requirements of the program. Developments specific to attaining vascular access are out of scope. TA1 is independent of TA2, and for TA2 proposers are to select a surgical intervention and detail a microbot solution for it.

It is expected that teams selected for TA1-B will be responsible for obtaining neurovascular procedure data and furnish them to TA1-A teams. However, it is understood that TA1-A teams may need to perform some data collection activities independently.

Off-unit sources of locomotion and localization are permitted provided that surgical intervention end goals are achieved in a productive manner, i.e., providing clear benefits to patients, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders. Note that external equipment should not be so onerous as to defeat the purpose of microbots.

If a microbot is tethered, traverses the vascular system, and treats stroke to a degree similar or superior to mechanical thrombectomy, it may be suitable for TA1-A. Note however that it must also be capable of neurovascular embolization. Otherwise, TA2 may be more appropriate.

Living cells hybridized with synthetic/non-biological components would be considered responsive to the TA2 call.

GI microrobots are not required to be ingestible.

ARPA-H expects to make awards using Other Transactions (OTs) for flexible, milestone‑based research and development agreements, as described in the solicitation. These are not traditional grants or standard procurement contracts and allow ARPA-H to tailor terms and conditions to the specific project.

ARPA-H does not prescribe a strict budget cap for this program. Proposers should submit a budget that is realistic and well-justified for accomplishing the proposed work and meeting the program metrics and milestones. Selection decisions will consider the availability of funds, the quality of proposed solutions, and the reasonableness of proposed costs, as described in the solicitation. To help assess cost realism and how efforts align with the technical plan, the proposed budget should identify labor categories and distribute costs across project years.

There is no predetermined number of awards per Technical Area. The number of awards will depend on the quality of proposals received, how well they address the program objectives and metrics, and the availability of funds. There may be multiple awards, a single award, or no awards in each TA, as described in the solicitation. Proposers should focus on submitting the most compelling, high‑impact solution they can, rather than targeting a specific number of anticipated awards.

The ISO includes down‑selection at phase transition points. At these points ARPA‑H may: (1) continue funding, (2) re‑scope or redirect work, and/or (3) discontinue funding teams or project elements based on performance against metrics and overall program needs. Down‑selects are not limited to all‑or‑nothing outcomes for entire teams.

The submission deadlines were updated through a formal amendment to the solicitation on SAM.gov to address programmatic and administrative needs. All materials were then updated as quickly as possible. During this transition period, there may have been a short time when public-facing pages and the solicitation (ISO) did not yet match.