The purpose of NIAC Phase II awards is to continue the exploration and development of revolutionary advanced concepts that have been initiated through a NIAC Phase I grant. The primary goal of the Phase II efforts is to study the major feasibility issues associated with cost, performance, development time and key technologies. These results are aimed at providing a sound basis for NASA to consider the concept for further development and a future mission.

Phase II proposals will only be accepted based on previously funded Phase I concepts. Phase II award(s) will only be made based on a down select from successfully completed Phase I efforts documented in a written final report received by the NIAC. The receipt of the Phase I final report by the due date for receipt of Phase II proposals is a firm requirement for the Phase II proposal to be considered in a Phase II evaluation cycle.

NIAC Phase I Fellows who have not previously received a Phase II contract based on their Phase I concept are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. A Phase I Fellow may choose to delay proposal submission. If they so choose, the delayed submission must be concurrent with a subsequent set of Phase I Fellows, subject to the terms and due date of the Call issued to that set of Phase I Fellows. In addition, if a Phase II proposal is not selected for funding, the investigator will be allowed to resubmit a Phase II proposal based on the same concept in response to one future Phase II Call (again subject to the terms and due date of that Call).

Both Phase I and Phase II awards will be competitively selected by the NIAC based on an independent peer review with technical concurrence by NASA. After the peer review process is completed and the awards are announced, all Phase II investigators, whether they were selected to receive funding or not, are sent a summary of the peer reviewer comments on their proposal.

Phase II awards are typically from $300K-$400K for a performance period of 18-24 months. Contracts are structured with a basic award of 9-12 months with an option period for an additional 9-12 months.

Near the end of the basic performance period, the Phase II contractor is expected to host a site visit. The purpose of the site visit is to review the status of the concept development, encourage feedback from the attendees and begin exploring the possibilities of future funding from NASA and other agencies. Invitees to the site visit include NASA technical and programmatic leaders, technical consultants and representatives from other government agencies.

The technical leadership of NIAC actively works with all Phase II Fellows to facilitate the process of identifying opportunities for further funding of NIAC concepts. As part of NIACís effort to inform NASA of the status of the NIAC sponsored activities, the Director of NIAC and other NIAC staff members conduct status briefings with key technical and management personnel in NASA HQ and the NASA Centers at key phases of the development of Phase II concepts. In addition, NIAC conducts an annual survey of enabling technologies related to ongoing Phase II contracts and provides these updates to key NASA personnel.

The Phase II Fellows are required to provide a roadmap for further development of their advanced concept as part of their Phase II Final Report. This roadmap is a critical element in formation of an advocacy for the concept with potential future funding sources.

Up to 24 Months - Up to $400K
Technical Proposal Limit: 25 pages
Electronic PDF Submission ONLY
Does the proposal continue the development of a revolutionary architecture or system in the context of a future NASA mission? Is the proposed work lilely to provide a sound basis for a future mission or program?
Is the concept substantiated with a description of applicable scientific and technical disciplines necessary for development?
Has a pathway for development of a technology roadmap been adequately described? Are all of the enabling technologies identified?
Are the programmatic benefits and cost versus performance of the proposed concept adequately described and understood? Does the proposal show the relationship between the concept's complexity and its benefits, cost, and performance?