REST Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Full information about REST and the application process is in the solicitation on SAM.gov. Also explore the agency's submission resources. Ask questions via the ARPA-H Solutions site linked below. As of August 11, 2026, you will receive an answer via email as no more responses will be published to this page. Please note, you will first need to sign-in or register an account to submit a question.

Ask A Question

Eligibility Questions

Per ISO Section 4.1, ARPA-H must prioritize awards to entities that will conduct the funded work in the United States. Non-domestic performers are encouraged to collaborate with a domestic entity. ARPA-H will not make awards to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country per 42 U.S.C. 290c(n)(1)(D).

Per ISO Section 4.1, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and government entities, including federal employees, are not permitted to respond to this ISO as a prime or sub-performer. A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-affiliated investigator may submit a Solution Summary as either a non-profit employee or as a university employee.

Eligibility requirements are provided in ISO Section 4.1.

Teams are expected to be interdisciplinary and complementary. Proposers are encouraged to build the best and most effective team to execute their proposed work.

This restriction applies to the individual, not the institution. An individual may be a Principal Investigator on only one proposal but may be a collaborator on other proposals.

Yes. Proposers are encouraged to establish collaborations, including with other proposing teams, at the Solution Summary stage — regulatory planning does not need to be finalized before teaming discussions begin. If a collaboration involves shared equipment or resources, the associated costs may be included in the proposal budget, provided the budget clearly identifies which entity is incurring the cost, how the shared resource supports the proposed technical approach, and that the cost is well justified and non-duplicative across team members' budgets.

There are no requirements or restrictions on the applicant entity's date of incorporation.

ARPA-H does not categorically prohibit foreign-based primes, consultants, subawardees, and/or suppliers. Per ISO Section 4.1, the primary stipulation is that ARPA-H will not make awards to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country per 42 U.S.C. 290c(n)(1)(D).

If a subawardee participates on more than one awarded proposal, the proposed work for each team should be distinct. ARPA-H will not fund the same work more than once, and any overlap would need to be resolved during negotiations.

No.

The prohibition applies to government entities serving as a prime or sub-performer. Use of facilities at a government site would not, by itself, be prohibited, provided the government entity is not acting as a performer under the award. Proposers should clearly describe the arrangement and the roles of all parties in the submission.

Yes.

Program Scope Questions

Per ISO Section 2.3.3, efforts focused solely on lifestyle or behavioral interventions, pharmacologic treatment, non-personalized interventions, or interventions that do not credibly use objective physiological measurements to adapt treatment to the user’s sleep state or physiology are out of scope.

Per ISO Sections 1.1, 2.1.1, and 2.1.2, REST is focused on home-based systems.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1, TA1 approaches may focus on during-sleep measurements, multi-night measurements, or broader 24-hour characterization of sleep and arousal as interdependent systems, provided the proposer explains how the approach supports REST objectives and stated program metrics.

Per ISO Section 2.1.2, strong TA2 proposals will deliver intervention during sleep, but alternative approaches that are responsive to individual sleep physiology will also be considered.

Per ISO Sections 3.2 and 3.3, this program requires human subjects research to meet success metrics and milestones.

There is no clinical diagnostic requirement for insomnia. Program metrics are based on the Insomnia Severity Index, not a clinical diagnostic interview.

Per ISO Section 1.1., all proposals must include an emphasis on insomnia.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1., proposers to TA1 should develop in-home systems that translate sleep-related data into individualized health-risk assessment and prediction capabilities.

The REST ISO does not limit studies to adults. Proposers should define and justify the study population in their proposal and ensure the proposed human subjects research is appropriate for the objectives of the proposed effort.

Solution summaries may not include an "optional" work package. Proposers are encouraged to bring their biggest and best ideas.

Per ISO Section 2, proposers should plan in accordance with the 66-month program timeline and associated milestones.

Per ISO Sections 2 and 3, TA1 and TA2 are designed as complementary components of the broader REST ecosystem and are expected to progress across the same overall program phases. If a proposer submits an integrated TA1 + TA2 approach, ARPA-H may select the integrated proposal or may elect to pursue only the TA1 or TA2 component.

Teams may commercialize a single product spanning both TAs. Proposers should clearly identify the TA1 and TA2 scope within the integrated effort and describe a credible TA1 cost share strategy. If awarded, ARPA-H will work with the performer to plan for later phase cost share.

Read the ISO, follow the required templates, and if you were unable to attend REST Proposers' Day, watch the Proposers' Day video once it's posted on YouTube.

Yes.

Implantables are within scope.

Teams should propose the regulatory pathway and timing that works best for their proposed approach.

ARPA-H cannot comment on a team's specific approach.

Teams are welcome to propose a solution that meets REST program milestones sooner than outlined in the ISO. If selected for award, ARPA-H will negotiate terms with the performer.

ARPA-H cannot comment on a team's specific approach.

Technical Questions

Per ISO Section 2.1.1, proposed methods may also incorporate proposer-generated retrospective or prospective data collection and modeling efforts.

Per ISO Section 2.1.2, systems may comprise multiple coordinated devices rather than a single unified platform.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1, proposed methods may also incorporate proposer-generated retrospective or prospective data collection and modeling efforts.

Per ISO Section 1.1, proposers may either (1) submit one proposal to one of the two Technical Areas, OR (2) submit one proposal that addresses both Technical Areas as an integrated approach.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1., proposed TA1 methods may incorporate additional in-home/wearable data sources beyond EEG and physiology during sleep, such as wearable/continuous biochemical markers. ARPA-H cannot comment on whether a team’s idea fits within the REST program scope.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1., proposers to TA1 should design, build, and iterate on wearable or nearable devices capable of capturing the signals necessary to compute sleep microstructures in the home environment.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1., TA1 systems must capture sleep microstructure at clinical PSG-comparable fidelity. Proposed methods may incorporate additional in-home/wearable data sources beyond EEG and physiology during sleep, such as circadian signals, wearable/continuous biochemical markers, daytime assessments, continuous 24-hour physiology, and environmental context, provided the proposer demonstrates that the approach can achieve fidelity sufficient to support clinically meaningful interpretation on key microstructural features and support objective diagnosis and health-relevant predictions. Insomnia subtype diagnosis alone, without that physiological characterization, would not be sufficient.

Per ISO Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2, IV&V will provide independent assessment of technical progress, integration readiness, and data quality assurance and quality control. Performers should expect to participate in program-level coordination, common evaluations, benchmarking exercises, integration reviews, demonstrations, and site visits.

Per ISO Sections 2.2, the Foundational Sleep Health Modeling and Discovery effort is a separate, non-solicited shared program resource. However, per ISO Section 2.1.1, proposers may also include independent or complementary data generation, curation, harmonization, and modeling activities within their proposed effort.

Per ISO Section 2.2, shared program resources will be made available on a rolling basis, and proposers should not assume that all shared resources will be available at the start of performance. More detail on the anticipated sequencing, content, and intended use of shared resources is available in the REST Proposers’ Day recording.

Per ISO Section 3.2.2, the TA2 remission metric is defined as the percentage of participants with an Insomnia Severity Index total score of 7 or less.

Yes.

Yes, proposed work may include maturation of an early-stage technology as long as the technology is demonstrated usable in the home by month 21, per REST milestones.

Per ISO Sections 3.1 and 3.3, TA1 human subjects enrollment should be underway by Month 12, the in-home technology should be demonstrated usable by Month 21, and move fully into homes by Phase 2.

ARPA-H does not recommend FDA strategies. Proposers should propose their own strategy.

The phase-end metrics are expected to be achieved by the end of the applicable phase. Program go/no-go decisions occur shortly before the end of each phase, so performers do not need to have fully reached the phase-end metrics at the time of those decision points. However, they will be evaluated on the likelihood that they will achieve the applicable metrics by the end of the phase.

Yes.

A successful TA1 effort will meet the applicable TA1 program metrics.

Yes.

ARPA-H will facilitate coordination across Technical Areas, and performers should expect to participate in program-level coordination and to use shared resources and cross-team insights as they become available.

Per ISO Section 2.1.1., TA1 systems must capture sleep microstructure at clinical PSG-comparable fidelity. Proposed methods may vary provided the proposer demonstrates that the approach can achieve fidelity sufficient to support clinically meaningful interpretation on key microstructural features and support objective diagnosis and health-relevant predictions.

Use the format provided in Attachment A, and be sure to include the requested information (e.g., Technical Areas Addressed, Technical Approach Overview, and so forth). Order the presentation of information in accordance with Attachment A.

The "solely" applies to all items in the list. Items in the list may be used in conjunction with other approaches.

At a minimum, performers should plan to submit the FDA CDRH by month 43 (the beginning of Phase 3). Teams should propose the regulatory pathway and timing that works best for their proposed approach. The pivotal trial is expected only to be planned by Month 66, neither initiated nor completed within the 66-month program period.

Budget, Cost Share, and Award Questions

This program ISO does not specify funding range. Awards are anticipated in Spring 2027. Proposers should propose a budget that is appropriate and well justified for their approach. The salary ceiling typically required for grants does not apply.

Per ISO Sections 2.1.1, ARPA-H anticipates that proposers will secure industry cost share that increases as the work matures toward translation and commercialization. Proposers should describe a credible cost share strategy commensurate with the maturity and transition trajectory of the proposed technology, including anticipated source(s) of cost share, when such support is expected to become available (in terms of timing and/or milestones accomplished), and how the proposed cost share approach will support commercialization and long-term sustainability. Cost share is not required to be uniform across all team members.

Per ISO Part II, proposals addressing both Technical Areas shall clearly identify the scope, objectives, and evaluation plan for each Technical Area. ARPA-H may select the integrated proposal or may elect to pursue only the TA1 or TA2 component.

ARPA-H doesn't differentiate between OT for Research and OT for Prototype. The salary ceiling typically required for grants does not apply.

The solution summary should address the entire program across all three phases. More detail should be provided in Phase 1 of the proposal, and Phase III may be more ambiguous given the 5.5 year program timeline.

Yes, collaboration is encouraged. Costs should be budgeted by whichever entity incurs the cost, not duplicated across both budgets, and justified in the proposal.

If a team is awarded and then unable to secure the cost share they proposed, that may impact award continuation.

At the Solution Summary stage, proposers must provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) budget using the required template. If invited to submit a Full Proposal, more detailed cost information will be required. ARPA-H recognizes that scope, team composition, and execution details may mature between stages.

Prime awardees are responsible for the work of their subawardees. The impact of a missed milestone would depend on its significance to the overall proposed effort.

Per ISO Section 6.2, ARPA-H will negotiate intellectual property and data rights as part of award negotiations. Proposers are encouraged to describe their IP strategy in their Commercialization Plan. ARPA-H intends to negotiate terms that enable both government use and commercial transition of program outputs.

At the Solution Summary stage, proposers must provide a ROM budget using the required template. If invited to submit a Full Proposal, more detailed cost information will be required. ARPA-H recognizes that scope, team composition, and execution details may mature between stages.

No.

Yes.

Proposers should clearly identify the TA1 and TA2 scope within the integrated effort and describe a credible TA1 cost share strategy. Cost share is not expected for TA2.

Cost share should be calculated based on total project cost.

ARPA-H doesn't differentiate between OT for Research and OT for Prototype. The salary ceiling typically required for grants does not apply.

Proposers’ Day Questions

Lightning Talk presenters do not need to attend the entire Proposers' Day. However, Lightning Talks are not guaranteed, and presenters must be in-person to provide their talk.

Lightning Talks are not guaranteed, and presenters must be in-person to provide their talk.

Prospective performers are encouraged to use the Teaming Profiles page to share their capabilities and identify potential partners.

REST Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Eligibility Questions

Are non-U.S. academic researchers or other non-domestic performers eligible to participate in REST?

If someone on our team has a VA appointment, can they still participate in a proposal?

Is eligibility for REST restricted to businesses based on their NAICS code?

Do we need a clinical person on the team?

Does the limitation on submissions (one as prime, potential to submit multiple as sub) apply to Lead Primary Investigators only, or is this an organizational limit? This will help our organization plan submissions from our organization.

Is contracting with a non-US company for engineering and manufacturing permitted?

Can we establish collaboration with other teams at the proposal submission stage, before regulatory planning is finalized? And if such a collaboration requires sharing equipment, can we include that cost in the budget at submission, either in our own budget or the collaborator's?

Are there any requirements or restrictions on the applicant entity's date of incorporation?

If a proposer’s core technology originated outside the United States, does avoiding restricted suppliers fully address ARPA-H’s concerns?

May proposers use foreign-based individuals as independent contractors or consultants?

If we are a sub on two selected proposals, which prime should we work with?

Is there a required team size or limit on the number of labs or partners in a REST proposal?

Can individuals or organizations already supporting ARPA-H on REST also participate as team members on TA1/TA2 submissions?

If a proposer plans to subcontract with a non-government organization that would use facilities it controls at a government site, would that violate the prohibition on government organizations being involved as collaborators or performers?

Can a proposer submit separate TA1 and TA2 proposals with different PIs from the same institution?

Program Scope Questions

Are pharmacologic approaches allowed under REST?

Would a large, prospective observational study of lifestyle effects on sleep be considered in scope for this program?

Are hospital-based sleep diagnostic systems, including those designed for neonates, newborns, or NICU use, within scope?

Is 24-hour monitoring in scope, or is the program only interested in during-sleep measurements?

Can interventions in TA2 occur during wake, or must they occur only during sleep?

Is this program only for technology development, or can it also support human subjects research?

Is a clinical diagnosis of insomnia required?

In TA1, it was mentioned that they are interested in insomnia but also sleep quality broadly so any sleep disorder is relevant. Is TA2 the same, or is TA2 focused more on insomnia such that all 3 things are targeting insomnia?

Are adolescents in scope for REST studies, or must studies be limited to adults?

May a REST Solution Summary that addresses TA1 and TA2 include an optional work package with a separate ROM budget and independent milestones?

If a team already has a mature device, can later-phase resources be accelerated rather than following the standard program timeline?

If we submit a TA1 + TA2 proposal and only one Technical Area is selected, how is the work coordinated? Are TA1 and TA2 parallel, offset, or sequential?

If we submit a TA1 + TA2 proposal as an integrated approach and plan to commercialize a single product that spans both Technical Areas, is that acceptable, and how should TA1 cost share be addressed?

We are first time ARPA-H applicants. Are there any common mistakes and tips that would be helpful for us to be aware of?

Are glymphatic-focused approaches in scope for REST?

Even though the ISO encourages wearable or nearable devices, is a consumer-grade implantable with high fidelity acceptable?

Would it be acceptable for participants to visit a hospital just once to obtain a structural MRI of their brain?

Would the STN during NREM, STN during REM, and PCC during wakefulness be considered three distinct candidate intervention targets/approaches, or is the intent that the three candidates differ in some other way?

Are there advantages or disadvantages to having an early-career investigator serve as the Contact PI (or the equivalent corresponding PI role) for an application.

Could you please clarify whether a proposal centered on a clinical-grade subcutaneous ECG monitor, such as the Medtronic LINQ II, would be considered in scope?

Technical Questions

Can we propose our own foundation model work, or should we assume that modeling will come from the shared REST resources?

Is it acceptable to combine multiple technologies or modalities in one proposed approach?

If we already have pilot data, is that okay, or does it suggest the work is too advanced for this solicitation?

If we are interested in both TA1 and TA2, do we need to submit one integrated proposal, or can we submit separately to each TA?

How does REST program consider/value the role of chemical biomarkers and its clinical continuous monitoring such as Cortisol, Melatonin, and others for TA1 goals and deliverables? Would these datasets be considered complementary or primary or no relevance at all?

Is the use of contactless sensing modalities encouraged as part of TA1?

For TA1, can we use lab-grown technology (hardware) besides commercially available sensors? What are the limitations regarding that?

Has ARPA-H already identified the organization(s) that will develop and operate the Foundational Sleep Health Modeling and Discovery effort, or are there still opportunities to contribute to that work?

What shared data resources are available, when, and how do we learn more?

Are there prespecified criteria for establishing remission, such as duration of remission, or is remission based only on a symptom threshold?

For TA2, proposers must evaluate at least three therapeutics. Would variations of the same neurostimulation modality that target different sleep microstructural elements count as different therapeutics if the mechanisms are distinct?

May proposed work include maturation of an early-stage technology, or must all core components already be sufficiently mature at submission?

For TA1, by what point does the in-home system need to be usable in the home?

What FDA strategy does ARPA-H recommend for teams that intend eventual clinical translation?

Are metrics required to be met by specific times before the phase-end dates, or should proposers propose the timing they believe is appropriate?

If a TA2 intervention changes across individuals or across nights, is that acceptable?

What does a successful TA1 effort look like at the end of the program?

If a proposer is doing only TA2, will they receive measurement outputs or insights from TA1 / shared modeling resources?

How will information flow between TA1 and TA2 if a team proposes only one Technical Area?

Amendment 5 of the ARPA-H REST announcement has a different format for the solution summary than Attachment A. Which is correct?

Regarding 'Out of Scope - For TA2, efforts focused solely on lifestyle or behavioral interventions, pharmacologic treatment, ...'. Does the 'solely' apply to all items in the list or just the first? Specifically, is it ok to have a pharmacologic intervention modality alongside several others?

Budget, Cost Share, and Award Questions

What is the funding range for REST awards, when are awards anticipated, and do HHS salary cap limitations apply?

Can ARPA-H provide additional guidance on the TA1 cost share requirement, including what types of cost share are acceptable and whether all team members must contribute?

If an applicant submits proposals covering both Technical Areas, but the program thinks one is a stronger fit with the REST mission or better complements other proposals, could only one be selected for funding or is it all or nothing?

What type of other transaction is expected? OT for Research, OT for Prototype? Is salary still restricted to the ceiling typically required for grants?

Are the initial solution summaries focused on Phase I goals or all of the way through Phase III?

Can we establish other potential proposers as collaborators who would be users of our technology? If we were able to share our tech, should the cost of the instruments be in our collaborators budget or ours?

If there is a gap in the TA1 cost share in later phases, what happens? For example, what if we are waiting to close VC funding?

What level of budget detail and accuracy is expected at the Solution Summary and Full Proposal stages, and may scope or budget change between stages?

For large teams, if one sub-part of the proposal fails to meet one of its milestones, can that sub-team or sub-component be discontinued while the rest of the team continues, or does the whole team get discontinued?

The REST ISO suggests that the final optimized approach may combine technologies across multiple companies, which could create complex IP issues. Will ARPA-H assist in navigating that?

What level of budget detail and accuracy is expected at the Solution Summary and Full Proposal stages, and may scope or budget change between stages?

Will ARPA-H provide government-supported high-performance computing resources?

Can VC or investor support provided to a startup partner count toward TA1 cost share?

For Cost Sharing, the denominator is undefined for an integrated bid. Is approximately 10% to 50% against the TA1 portion or the whole award?

For the REST program, should cost share be calculated based only on direct costs, or should it be calculated based on total project costs?

If the HHS salary cap does not apply, should proposers budget personnel using their anticipated actual institutional base salaries?

Proposers’ Day Questions

If I cannot attend the full Proposers’ Day, can I still participate in a lightning talk if I am available only during a specific time window?

If selected, would Lightning Talk presenters be required to attend in person, or will virtual presentations be accommodated?