Gov Business Review Magazine

This article is part of Gov Business Review's Insights series featuring expert contributions nominated by our subscribers and reviewed by our editorial team.

Nicole Tripputi, Bidwell Solutions | Gov Business Review | Top Public Affairs Firm

What SBIR Companies Get Wrong About Phase III

Nicole Tripputi, Founder , Bidwell Solutions

Government Innovation Strategist

Editor's Note: Phase III success requires more than technical innovation—it demands strategic planning, commercialization readiness and strong engagement with government customers long before Phase II concludes. Government contractors, SBIR awardees and innovation leaders will value this perspective for its practical insights into avoiding common transition pitfalls and maximizing long-term program success.

You won the Phase II. The technology works. The agency program manager is enthusiastic. The contract never materializes, the relationship stalls, and a year later you're back to chasing the next award instead of building the federal business you thought you'd earned.

This is the most common story I hear, and it has almost nothing to do with the quality of the technology.

The Contracting Gap Nobody Talks About

Government procurement has always been complex, but the last several years have added new layers; cybersecurity mandates, increased compliance scrutiny, and agencies under pressure to show results. For SBIR technology companies, the environment has never been more demanding or, paradoxically, more full of opportunity.

The opportunity is Phase III. Under SBIR statute, agencies have the authority to award Phase III contracts on a sole-source basis to companies that have been awarded a Phase I/II. No further competition. No open solicitation. A direct path from innovation to procurement, and most companies never access it.

I've spent twenty five years in this space, most as an active duty contracting officer, eventually holding an unlimited warrant. I didn't know this authority existed for most of that time. That is still the reality in most contracting offices today. The program managers who championed your Phase II award are not the same people writing your contract. The contracting officers who are? They are often working off a limited playbook that doesn't include the tool specifically designed for your situation. Closing that gap is where most Phase III deals are won or lost and it has nothing to do with your technology.

Leadership Lessons from the Complexity

Managing complex contracting processes has taught me to be honest about what I don't know, and to build teams that are, too. This space moves fast, and no one person holds every answer. Pretending otherwise is how mistakes get buried until they become problems.
The other thing I've learned: the people closest to the work see the gaps first. SBIR awardees are often brilliant technologists who have never had to think about contract vehicles, pricing structures, or agency relationships. Some of the best process improvements I've helped implement came from someone new enough to the job that they didn't yet assume something was fine because it had always been done that way. Creating space for those questions, genuinely creating it, not just saying the door is open, is one of the more underrated skills in this field.

What Changes When You Understand This

The companies that successfully transition from Phase II to Phase III share a few consistent habits. They treat the agency relationship as the asset, investing in the program manager and technical point of contact well before any follow-on work is on the horizon. They build their contracting infrastructure during Phase II, not after. They learn enough about the FAR and SBIR statutes to have a real conversation with a contracting officer.
  • Closing the contracting gap is where most Phase III deals are won or lost and it has nothing to do with your technology.


Leadership in this space means being the bridge your agency contact didn't know they needed. Most program managers want to continue working with a technology they championed. They just don't know how to pull the contracting piece together. Walking in prepared to help them do exactly that changes the entire dynamic.

What's Coming

The pressure on agencies to show that SBIR investments are translating into deployed capability is intensifying. Phase III is getting attention at senior levels in a way it hasn't historically. At the same time, compliance requirements, particularly around cybersecurity, are raising the bar for what it takes to be a viable contractor. Companies that build their compliance posture now, and treat it as an ongoing operation rather than a one-time event, will be positioned when the moment arrives.

Set-asides are also under political scrutiny, and the small business contracting landscape may look different in two years. The companies that have cultivated direct agency relationships and understand how to use sole-source authorities won't be dependent on the broader set-aside environment to sustain their federal business.

For Professionals Entering This Field

Learn both sides of the table. Understand what Phase I and II awardees are trying to accomplish, what the agency invested in and why. Then go deep on the contracting mechanics: the FAR, SBIR statutes, GAO decisions. The professionals who move the needle are the ones who can translate between the technical champions inside an agency and the contracting officers trying to execute. That fluency is rare, and it is worth building deliberately.

The Phase III pathway is real. Most people just don't know how to use it yet.

MORE FROM INSIGHTS

What SBIR Companies Get Wrong About Phase III
Bidwell Solutions
Nicole Tripputi, Founder
Fair and Impartial Policing, LLC:  Now providing award-winning implicit bias training to city/county employees
Fair and Impartial Policing, LLC
Lorie Fridell, Ph.D., CEO/Owner and Executive-Level Trainer
Golden-the worlds most award-winning volunteering platform
Golden Solution
Sam Fankuchen, Founder & CEO

EXPLORE OUR KNOWLEDGE NETWORK



The articles from these contributors are based on their personal expertise and viewpoints, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers or affiliated organizations.