IGoR Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
To help provide timely information about all aspects of the program, this page is updated periodically in response to questions from potential performers.
Full information about IGoR and the application process is in the solicitation on SAM.gov. Ask questions via the ARPA-H Solutions site linked below. Please note, you will first need to sign-in or register an account to submit a question.
Program Scope, Technical Content & Milestones
We may consider capital equipment requests provided that the investment enables proposers to adapt existing expertise and capabilities in a fundamentally new direction that supports program goals.
Yes, adding new capabilities in a complementary scientific field to an existing cloud laboratory is within scope for TA4, provided that the expansion is in the direction of greater flexibility in executing a broad range of experiments.
Yes, immune-focused disease models would be considered appropriate for IGoR, if they provide sufficient insight into a complex disease to improve therapy. Additionally, we expect any mechanistic models to fit into a modular, multiscale framework as described. In any case, ARPA-H will not fund the same model development efforts that are already/could be funded by existing ARPA-H, NIH, or other life sciences funding.
Yes, patient-derived samples are allowed, provided that HIPAA requirements are followed.
A pathophysiological process that is common across a range of diseases would be in scope for TA1, and application to therapies for more than one disease would satisfy this metric.
IGoR does not have commercialization requirements for the software generated; however, performers will be expected to participate in the setting of standards through working groups, bake-offs, and requests-for-comment.
One goal of IGoR is to demonstrate the utility of the system on real biological problems. This utility will be assessed by a panel at the end of Phase I. A novel drug candidate would be one potential way to demonstrate insights from the system and overall utility but is not required. Regulatory approval or commercialization of novel therapeutics is out of scope for IGoR.
AI-driven experiments in organisms where the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals applies are out of scope. Confirmatory experiments in animals where PHS policy applies may be conducted solely at the direction of humans.
Cancer is neither prioritized nor excluded.
No. Crossover to different approaches or disease areas is desirable.
Appendix A, Section 3 states: "Experiments in cell/tissue culture and lower-level invertebrate animals (e.g., insects, nematodes) are in scope. Limited use of vertebrate and higher-level invertebrate animal experiments is allowed for testing strong predictions of a working system; however, they must be directed solely by the human researcher. Human clinical trials are out of scope."
Teams will propose their own complex area of human disease involving large knowledge gaps, multifactorial causes, or poorly understood mechanisms of action.
No. Clinical information systems are out of scope.
While the long-term goal is to create an interoperable marketplace, for the purposes of IGoR the teams will create a prototypical network comprising funded TA4 performers.
No — and by Phase II they must demonstrably accept and run protocols from at least one other team's TA2 engine.
Core facilities can participate as full-fledged TA4 performers, and teams can farm out work (for example DNA sequencing) to core facilities.
Each team funds its own marketplace operations within TA4 in Phases I–II. The IV&V partner validates but does not build the marketplace. Cross-team unification by Phase III is achieved through collaborative standards work (workshops, RFCs, bake-offs, connect-a-thons), which teams should also budget for.
The two labs must have at least one modality in common so that inter-lab variability can be assessed.
Proposers can propose any complex disease that they feel is amenable to the approach being developed in IGoR.
We cannot comment on if specific diseases are in scope. However diseases that are within the same disease ecosystem are within scope.
Yes, and this qualifies as HSR. Please refer to the ISO for limitations on AI and HSR and vertebrate research.
The ISO sets out milestones that are common across all teams. Proposers are encouraged to include metrics that are specific to their effort.
If a step is intended to be run by a human and it runs successfully, it is not an exception.
Proposers may include any mixture of lab types they feel is most efficient
No. The key focus is on reproducible experimentation.
Techniques should be generalizable to the greatest extent possible, both to address multiple diseases and to establish a viable marketplace.
There is room for new development.
Teams should propose TA4 repertoire that adequately cover key questions in their proposed disease area. It is not expected that all experiments will be automated.
Yes.
It can be a related disease of the same organ or the same etiology.
The expected output would be a mechanistic model of a disease that would enable the development of new therapies.
Proposers should propose diseases amenable to understanding from cellular to multi-cellular assays. Performers can also use invertebrate animals, and more complex tissue cultures. Higher animal models are allowed at the direction of the human researcher.
We expect that the proto-marketplace will evolve into a fully formed marketplace where companies are reimbursed for the services provided.
The model should be causal and do not require biophysical components.
Proposers should identify to what extent they will have overlap which should be as great as possible.
We expect research to be done for money.
Integrations across TAs are central to the program.
We are open to a range of models that capture complexity and causality.
No, not using robotics. Yes they can include manual processes.
CROs and reference labs count.
For TA1, we will not support the development of models that are predominantly data driven where the gathering or training of data is the main expense.
Yes, these fall under human subjects research. You are allowed to use existing sample, but are not allowed to prospectively grab new samples.
Yes.
Eligibility, Teaming, and Team Composition
ARPA-H anticipates awarding approximately three multidisciplinary teams, each addressing all four components.
FFRDCs and U.S. Government entities, including federal Government employees, are not permitted to respond to the ISO as a prime or sub-performer on a proposed performer team.
The IV&V role will not be competed.
Organizations are not limited in the number of proposals that can be submitted.
IGoR proposals may have only one Prime Technical Point of Contact. Any number of Key Personnel/Staff, or Subawardee/Consultant Technical POCs may be named. Note that the IGoR program does not award grants. All awards will be Other Transactions (OTs).
A performer is an organization (or team of organizations) that has been awarded ARPA-H funding to carry out the research and development work of a program. Organizations are not limited in the number of proposals that can be submitted.
ARPA-H prioritizes work that will be conducted in the U.S., but non-U.S. entities may participate as either prime or sub-proposers, to the extent that they comply with applicable nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes.
Two performing labs should be in place by the time a full proposal is submitted. Two are also encouraged at the abstract phase.
The organization of the teams is up to the principal investigator.
Yes.
There is no cap on the number of team members allowed per team. The team should be determined by the proposer as best to be successful.
Yes, overlap is allowed. The proposal should explain who on the team is doing what and why so that the evaluation team can determine if the team has the right expertise in the right places.
ARPA-H does not dictate how the team looks, who is responsible for which tasks, or how big the team is.
High level including who is part of the team. No need to go into every detail of their biosketch.
Each solution needs to have one focused approach. If you have multiple team members that need to work together to accomplish TA1 or to accomplish TA2, that is perfectly fine. We are not looking for multiple different solutions in one proposal. ARPA-H is open to risk mitigation, but at some point a single solution must be picked.
Teams can be changed as the work requires. However, you must submit a proposal that demonstrates you can complete the entire program with the team that you have submitted. Typically the budget is fixed, so additional funds will most likely not be provided.
No. The Proposers Day is one avenue to meet and discuss with potential teaming partners. ARPA-H also lists teaming profiles on the IGoR website.
ARPA-H will not fund the same work twice. If a sub is on multiple teams and they are doing the same work and providing the same outputs to each team, then the government will allow this but not pay for the same work multiple times. If a sub is on multiple teams and doing different work with different outputs, the government will look for any overlaps and negotiate as appropriate.
Solution Summary Submission and Review Questions
Solution Summaries have a limit of five (5) pages. This has been corrected on SAM.gov.
Download APPENDIX B: SOLUTIONS SUMMARY MODEL from the solicitation ISO on SAM.gov.
Yes, provided that the infections produce distinct disease states.
There is an evaluation team that is put together and it consists of program managers from ARPA-H and may also include government reviewers from other federal agencies who have relevant expertise. ARPA-H also has subject matter experts at ARPA-H who are contractors who support the PMs. These contractors do not evaluate the proposals, but they will review the proposals and provide their expertise to the PMs.
We try to evaluate very quickly. Ideally, IGoR would be awarded this calendar year, but this timeline may change.
Typically 1-2 weeks.
The solution summary ROM is to give an idea of where you think your solution will fall. There is no set percentage you must stay within. If there is a large difference between the solution summary and proposal, explanations are expected in the write-up portion of the budget. We need the budget to be accurate in order to execute as the price will be negotiated before award and the expectation is that teams will work within this budget. Budgets should be realistic and appropriate.
Team members can change.
Budget, Cost Share, & Indirect Cost Questions
Proposers without negotiated rates should be prepared to justify their proposed rates and provide supporting cost data during negotiation. ARPA-H does not have a fixed indirect cost rate.
There is no target range; however, it is important that your proposed budget is realistic and thorough, covering all aspects needed to achieve your technical and management goals.
We may consider capital equipment requests provided that the investment enables proposers to adapt existing expertise and capabilities in a fundamentally new direction that supports program goals. Cost sharing is not required but is encouraged.
There are no restrictions for quotes. The ARPA-H Research Security Team will review all sourcing prior to an award.
Sometimes ARPA-H will notify teams of selection and ask for revisions prior to negotiations. Sometimes ARPA-H will want to start with negotiations, have everyone at the table, and go through everything in real time together. Therefore, it will depend on what the negotiation strategy looks like for IGoR.
We expect budgets to cover the entire program, understanding there are some unknowns. The negotiations will cover the entire program and awards will cover the entire program. Budgets should include what assumptions are in the budget to account for the unknowns. OTs are flexible and allow us to move where the science takes us. So as the program progresses and the ARPA-H team decides to go in a different direction with the approach, OTs allow for this.
No. Teams should put together the best solutions and not try to fit their solutions inside a number.
No. Teams must propose either their negotiated rate or what makes sense and then include justifications.
Yes. The OPM executive level 2 salary for 2026. Salaries that ARPA-H is paying for under this award cannot exceed this number.
No.
The proposal must include the total price. Make some assumptions and price on those assumptions. Near that stage of execution, the government will work with performers to reevaluate and determine if there is a mismatch in the budget.
Subawards & Sub-performer Management
The prime must be registered in sam.gov. Sub registrations will be up to the prime to determine if this is necessary based on how they operate.
The former. A single institute would be responsible for dispersing to the relevant collaborators.
The biggest expectation of the prime is that they can effectively manage the team. The government is going to directly interact with that entity throughout the program and that is who the government has privity of contract with. The prime will be responsible for disbursement of payment to the subs, ensuring the subs are executing on schedule and meeting the required metrics. This does not mean the government will have no interaction with the subs as many meetings with the PM will contain the prime and subs. Prior to award, the government negotiates with the prime with any required changes filtering through the prime.