In Strategi Consulting v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims allowed an SBIR contractor’s protest to proceed where the company alleged the Air Force continued Phase III-type development internally and through other contractors instead of awarding follow-on work to the Phase II developer. The case highlights why SBIR firms should document technology lineage, Phase III proposals, agency communications, and SBIR data rights.

S. 3971 is not yet law, but its Senate passage signals where Congress may take SBIR and STTR next. The bill would extend the programs through 2031, strengthen research-security screening, expand commercialization pathways, and improve Phase III transition and procurement data tracking.

SBIR/STTR foreign risk assessments now require enhanced disclosures and agency due diligence under the SBIR/STTR Extension Act of 2022. This article explains NIH’s implementation, ongoing disclosure obligations, the 2025 lapse in SBIR/STTR authority, and why SBIR Phase III awards can still proceed when the work “derives from, extends, or completes” prior efforts.

GAO’s Bode Cellmark decision upholds a DHS SBIR phase III sole-source rapid DNA contract, confirming that agencies may bundle SBIR-derived technology with commercial items. Learn why this matters for federal contractors competing against or leveraging SBIR awards.