STOMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

After Proposers’ Day, Solution Summaries can be submitted to the ARPA-H Solutions Portal by selecting STOMP under “Which ARPA-H solicitation does this apply to?” tab.

Indirect costs on Federal awards to foreign organizations and foreign public entities, without a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, performed fully outside the territorial limits of the U.S. may be paid to support the costs of compliance with federal requirements at a fixed rate of 8%.

ARPA-H can directly fund a foreign entity; however, ARPA-H will prioritize awards to entities that conduct funded work in the U.S., as per 42 USC § 290c(n)(1). Awards will not be made to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country, defined in the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 3059) as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. Each solicitation defines eligibility and requirements so please review the solicitation for detailed instructions. For more information, see the International Affairs FAQs.

FFRDCs and UARCs are not eligible to propose directly to STOMP as either prime or sub-proposers. Exceptions may be considered for unique capabilities with documentation required. Contact STOMP@arpa-h.gov for direct FFRDC or UARC collaboration.

No. Although it is expected that successful solutions may consist of teams with interdisciplinary expertise and/or multi-PI teams, association with an already established multi-PI research center is not an eligibility requirement for STOMP.

Yes, please see “Appendix A: Solution Summary Template” within the STOMP ISO on sam.gov for the required Solution Summary format.

For both the Solution Summary and Full Proposal stage, application to BOTH TA1 and TA2 is allowed, but not required. Teams may choose to apply to both TA1 and TA2, just TA1, or just TA2.

No, only a Basis of Estimate is required at the Solution Summary stage. Please see “Appendix A: Solution Summary Template” within the STOMP ISO on sam.gov for the required Basis of Estimate template. If invited for a full proposal, further detail will be required and updates to the budget are allowable.

As detailed in Section 2.6, proposers may participate as part of multiple full proposal submissions as subcontractors/co-investigators, whether the prime/PI is part of a different lab at the same institution or not. 

While interested TA3 proposers are encouraged to engage with TA1/TA2 teams during and following Proposer’s Day, proposers will be given sufficient time following TA3 Proposers’ Day to put together a competitive TA3 solution summary and need not have already finalized teams and generated preliminary data in the area of MNP removal/degradation at this stage. 

All registered attendees to the STOMP TA1/TA2 Proposers’ Day will be notified when the TA3 funding opportunity is released. Additionally, prospective TA3 proposers are encouraged to subscribe to the ARPA-H Vitals newsletter to receive information when new funding opportunities are released here: https://engage.arpa-h.gov/vitals. For teaming opportunities, the STOMP Teaming Page can be used starting now for prospective TA3 performers to connect with potential teaming partners and will remain open throughout Phase 1.

Yes, to clarify eligibility constraints, companies that provide support contractors (aka ARPA-H SETAs), CANNOT apply for ARPA-H awards. Multiple PIs at a single institution CAN apply for multiple ARPA-H awards. Individual PIs are also eligible for multiple ARPA-H awards, but should ensure they are not overcommitted.

The STOMP program has many moving parts, so teaming will likely be necessary. We want to see a strong PI to drive technical direction and the project management side, but ARPA-H is agnostic to your role (full or associate professor, etc.) or size of the proposing entity. Technical merit is the most important review criteria so focus on proposing your best science.

Follow the table guidelines in Appendix A: Solution Summary Template of the ISO (rolled up, broken down by Technical Areas). 

There is no limitation on cost share (cash, personnel, equipment, materials); we ask you to note this where applicable. If resources are offered through another government agency through a separate contract, however, it is not considered cost-share. Proposers should note areas where there is overlap with funded work from other agencies.

Each proposal must designate a single lead PI from the prime organization and all others may be classified as Co-PIs. The team may also include other Investigators collaborating with the Co-PIs. Proposers may change the lead PI/prime organization between the solution summary and full proposal stage if necessary.

No, TA3 proposers are not required to participate in TA1 or TA2.

The prime is defined at the institution level, or the organization that will contract directly with the government if awarded. However, for the purpose of STOMP, limitations are set at the level of the proposing entity (e.g. your academic lab, small business or unit of a large business) for participation in multiple proposals. Multiple PIs at the same institution can serve as the lead "proposing entity." See Section 2.6 Special STOMP Requirements in the ISO for more information. 

Please see Appendix A: Solution Summary Template for the full description of documentation needed at the Solution Summary stage. Subcontractor roles should be described and costs should be included in the Basis of Estimate table.

ARPA-H can directly fund a foreign entity; however, ARPA-H will prioritize awards to entities that conduct funded work in the U.S., as per 42 USC § 290c(n)(1). Awards will not be made to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country, defined in the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 3059) as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. If a proposing entity has both U.S. and non-U.S.-based locations, the submission should clarify where the work would actually be performed and which legal entity would receive the funds. If the entity receiving the funds is incorporated in the U.S., it would generally be treated as a U.S. entity. But if any of the work will take place outside the U.S., that should be clearly described in a full proposal and budget. For more information, see the International Affairs FAQs. 

You do not need a SAM.gov Unique Entity ID (UEI) to submit a Solution Summary, but you will need one if you move on to a proposal. 

Joint Powers Research and Development Authorities are eligible to propose to STOMP. 

Proposers may include key personnel with a variety of roles as appropriate, including but not limited to scientific personnel (engineer, data scientist, etc.) and administrative staff (project manager, etc.). 

State government entities are eligible to propose to STOMP.

The Solution Summary requires listing of contact information for both the technical and administrative point of contact and both will be notified of any decisions. It is up to the proposer team whether the administrative or technical point of contact submits the Solution Summary.

Letters of support are welcome at the full proposal stage. At the Solution Summary stage, proposers are encouraged to include brief descriptions of any relevant partnerships.

As outlined in notional timelines in the STOMP ISO, Phase 1 of the program runs from months 1-30 and Phase 2 from months 30-60.

Yes, one lead/primary PI and all others can propose as Co-PIs.

Letters of support are welcome at the full proposal stage. At the Solution Summary stage, proposers are encouraged to include brief descriptions of team members and structure, including any considerations specific to early-career investigator leadership.

Yes, subaward costs should be aggregated under the "Subcontractors/Consultants" line in the consolidated Solution Summary BOE.

Yes, institutions other than the Prime fall under Subcontracts.

Aside from the cover page, key personnel table, BOE, and citations, all Solution Summary information including tables and figures has a limit of 4 pages. 

The Preliminary Task Description Document (TDD) is only required at the full proposal stage.

TA1 and TA2 proposers should submit for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 work. There will be no separate application period for Phase 2 later. 

At the solution summary stage, please provide a cost of all combined subs in one line.

At the Solution Summary stage, only a BOE is required. For the full proposal, please include budget for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. 

At the Solution Summary stage, only a BOE is required. For the full proposal, separate Excel cost workbooks should be submitted to meet the requirement to present budgets separately. 

Proposers should determine the best team structure for their teams. Typically, non-bench program directors would be designated as a project manager, with a technical PI. At the solution summary stage, biosketches are not required. For the full proposal, biosketches should be provided for all key personnel.

Proposers should present their best proposal for all sub-TAs, including the rationale for why they have the strongest capabilities to accomplish the goals. Proposers are expected to put together the strongest proposal possible through teaming for all sub-TAs.

While additives can be an important contributor to toxicity, to balance expediency, risk and focus, they are out of scope for STOMP.

STOMP requires data sharing across the different teams performing TAs 1-3. While no specific data frameworks are required, proposers are encouraged to describe how they will facilitate data sharing to meet the requirements outlined in the ISO. 

For TA1, teams should be able to demonstrate identification and quantification of both known levels of MNPs (e.g., spiked) within biological samples in addition to identification and quantification of MNPs in biological samples where accumulation is unknown but may be suspected (e.g., in tissue samples following exposure).

The intent of TA1.3 is to determine if non-invasively collected bodily fluid MNP levels are a valid reporter for MNPs deposition in tissues. Both bodily fluid and tissue samples are required to make this determination. As outlined in the STOMP ISO: Performers must enroll at least 100 subjects (or provide power analysis and justification for proposed sample size) in the study and collect two bodily fluids (urine, blood, etc.) and one type of tissue (surgical, biopsy, etc.), at the minimum. See STOMP ISO for further technical details and requirements. 

Use of organoid models may be considered under specific contexts and must be technically justified for the associated milestone. However, animal models are required for several milestones as outlined in the STOMP ISO.

For TA2.1, teams are required to investigate whole body distribution of MNPs to inform TA2.2 mechanistic studies where further investigation of specific organs will occur. It is expected that teaming may be necessary to accomplish both the goals of TA2.1 and TA2.2.

STOMP is not currently soliciting for TA3 removal strategies; further detail on what is in scope for TA3 will be defined later. Overall, however, STOMP is focused on downstream strategies to remove existing microplastics from the body and is designed to be complementary to other funders better positioned to address upstream approaches to reduce MNPs in the environment and/or reduce toxicity of those in the environment. 

No, human biosamples are required for TA1.3 to clinically validate the correlation between bodily fluids collected non-invasively and tissue MNP levels, informing upon the translation of the TA1.2 Clinical Quantification Method. Animal model systems are appropriate to accomplish the goal outlined in TA2.1 defining the organ-to-blood ratio of MNPs in a small animal model.

A separate Request for Solutions (RFS) had been issued to fund performers providing TA1/TA2 performers with MNP reference materials and more details can be found here: https://arpa-h.gov/news-and-events/rfi-sources-sought-standardized-micro-and-nano-plastics. More information on reference materials (types, size distributions, etc.) will be provided at negotiation for selected STOMP performers. We are challenging entities making reference materials to make them in different shapes (shards, irregular shapes, mirroring what is in environment). These reference materials would be supplied toxin free, but you can also propose to source additional reference materials (for example as another control). NIST and other experts at federal agencies are involved in reviewing and assessing performers.

The 15 minute requirement primarily serves the purpose of addressing the amount of active labor needed for the test, to ensure the clinical test is accessible to everyone based on cost, rather than for the sake of time alone. Proposers are expected to provide thorough description for how they will meet milestones. In cases where proposers believe an alternative milestone is more appropriate to achieve the broader goals, justification should be provided.

No, bioaccumulation is not the only research focus. TA2 is designed to first understand bioaccumulation and then narrow down on specific mechanisms of harmful effects. TA2.1 explicitly begins by defining whole body and organ system bioaccumulation and then progressing to determining the health impacts of MNPs in affected systems. TA2.2 addresses trafficking of MNPS alongside toxicity at the cellular and subcellular level.

The STOMP ISO specifically requires performers to conduct experiments both in small animal models, as well as in cellular systems. STOMP is not prescriptive in the types of model systems used, but performers should thoroughly describe and justify their choices, including the risks and benefits of selected model systems. 

Yes, MNP reference materials will be provided to all STOMP performers.

Per the ISO, Section 2.1.3 Technical Area 1.3 Biofluids and Tissue Correlation Study, two bodily fluids and one tissue are required.

MNP experts will help determine a standard sample collection process. Within a month, we will ensure that contamination mitigation techniques are effective (TA1.1 performers will create the protocols). While collection will be standardized, proposers should explain how they will minimize and mitigate MNP contamination in TA1 and TA2 proposals. 

Yes, variation in diet could yield different health effects of MNPs. Performers should select, describe and justify the appropriate animal model, as well as any specialized diet.

We ask that proposers make an argument on why the proposed number of subjects provides sufficient power for the approach. At least one organ proposed must be accessible for TA3 screening and removal from a particular person/organ system.

This will depend on the proposing team capabilities and will be sorted in the negotiation process.

CDC will be involved in evaluating quantification methods. Depending on the type of sample tested (urine vs tissue, etc.) the expectations may change. There is no specific metric related to limit of MNP measured in the ISO so propose the LLOD/Q of your technology, and how you will assess this.

Figure 7 in the ISO provides a notional timeline for chronic and acute studies to determine reasonable timelines for longer term exposures: Chronic goes from month 3 to month 24, but is staggered upon receipt of batches of reference materials. Thus early mechanistic studies may focus on the acute phase, but keep in mind chronic exposure.

There are both ethical and technical concerns to this approach as we would not want to intentionally expose someone to potentially harmful materials, and additionally, baseline controls would be complex in this scenario. However, as long as proposed work accomplishes the stated requirements in the ISO and is not violating any human research policies, proposed approaches will be reviewed. 

Monomers may be proposed as an additional material.

Propose your best hypothesis and develop the budget and expert team from there. Also consider developing the tasks to be interchangeable across organ systems, which would also allow you to change the expertise being used on your team. (for example you may initially hire someone with GI expertise, but if MNPs in the brain become a critical area of focus, you can switch to a neuroscientist). This information can be updated throughout the lifetime of the contract.

Radiolabeled plastics are a ‘mitigation strategy’ rather than a minimization strategy, this is one way to track and quantify plastics. Describe and justify the proposed approach to both minimize and mitigate MNP contamination. 

The goal of TA1.2 is a fast, cheap, readily accessible test, though we realize other tissue types might be useful (beyond blood/tissue/urine). The important question is whether there is a correlation between blood and tissue. A portion of your study must be actionable (requiring accessible tissue/biosamples) that can be tested for validation.

The goal of TA1.3 is to clinically validate the correlation between non- or minimally-invasively collected bodily fluids and tissue MNP levels. There may be challenges to the approach of using donor samples rather than living clinical samples. Offeror should propose the approach they think best addresses the problem and provide a thorough justification.

Alternative methods to those cited in the ISO will be considered, including combining workflows. Provide thorough justification for the approach proposed.

Proposers are expected to apply MNP measurement techniques developed as part of TA1 for MNP measurement in TA1.3. STOMP is not prescriptive about the specific sample preparation technique. Provide thorough justification for your proposed approach.

As stated in the ISO, while three geographically distinct clinical sites are desired, they are not required and proposers may include different approaches to address heterogeneity in MNP exposure. Provide a thorough rationale for your choice.

Proposers are not required to utilize both ingestion and inhalation as exposure routes for TA2 studies, but should provide description and justification for proposed exposure routes, including verification of exposure concentration, homogeneity of exposure, and biological relevance of exposure route (presence of polymer type in airborne particles versus food and water sources). 

While proposers may consider additional sample types beyond what is required in the ISO, TA1 requires validation of MNP measurement in biological fluid/tissue samples.

No, beyond the guidance of less than $50/sample for TA1.2, there are no further metrics for instrumentation costs for TA1.2. 

Notional timelines have been provided for milestones and metrics for TA1 and TA2. TA2 performers may propose timelines that account for interdependencies and build on gold standard measurement technique development in TA1, techniques that allow for labeling of MNPs, or some combination of approaches to accomplish the metrics and milestones in the program period.  

Solution summaries for TA2 must address both TA2 subcomponents, as well as address all other requirements, metrics and milestones for TA2 as laid out in the ISO to be competitive. 

The ISO requires proposers to identify three or more key mechanisms of toxicity (e.g. oxidative stress, inflammation, protein dyshomeostasis, etc.) for hypothesis testing based on results across organ systems (multi-omics, high resolution imaging, etc.). Proposers should propose and justify pathways they are most likely to investigate and expertise to address multiple routes by which MNPs may induce toxicity.

STOMP is not prescriptive about the animal models used for studies. The only requirement is that proposers utilize small animal models rather than large animal models. Provide thorough rationale for the selected model system. 

STOMP TA2 removal and degradation processes refers strictly to biological processes, rather than transformation of MNPs in the environment. 

Beyond the requirements for TA1.3 to “collect two bodily fluids (urine, blood, etc.) and one type of tissue (surgical, biopsy, etc.), at the minimum,” STOMP does not mandate specific biospecimens. Proposers should provide thorough rationale for their choices. 

No, inclusion of animal models is not a requirement of TA1, however TA1 performers are expected to support TA2 performers as needed, which may entail applying the gold standard platform developed in TA1.1 to animal samples. 

As stated in Section 2.1.3: Technical Area 1.3 in the ISO, “if biofluid MNP levels do not correlate well to tissue levels, TA1.2 assays will have to focus on relevant, and accessible, tissues.” Proposers are expected to validate the clinical system on one biological fluid or tissue sample for TA1.2, with the understanding that the results from TA1.3 will influence—and may require altering—the choice of sample type for TA1.2 in Phase 2.

The STOMP ISO does not have any specific requirements around measurements of surface charge or electrokinetic properties. However, where proposers believe an alternative or additional milestone/metric is appropriate to achieve the broader goals, it should be described with thorough justification.

As stated in the ISO, alternative methods for MNP measurement will be considered, but proposers should provide thorough justification. 

Autofluorescence will be assessed for reference polymers.

For TA2.2, proposers are expected to use the prioritized MNP subtypes tested from the provided reference materials in TA2.1. “MNP type" or “polymer type” are used interchangeably to refer to these samples.

The use of human embryonic stem cells is prohibited. 

Beyond the requirements for TA1.3 to “collect two bodily fluids (urine, blood, etc.) and one type of tissue (surgical, biopsy, etc.), at the minimum,” STOMP does not mandate specific biospecimens. Proposers should provide thorough rationale for their choices of tissue samples.  

The inclusion of distinct geographical regions is intended to address heterogeneity in MNP exposure. Proposers may define their regions however they believe best reflects this intent and should include rationale for novel strategies. Proposers may include international sites (see ARPA-H International Affairs FAQs for more information). 

Yes, the experimental design is open for proposers to bring what they believe the best solution is to the problem. 

The labeling strategy cited in the ISO refers to labeling microplastics (e.g. via polymer-specific dyes, antibodies or isotope-tagged probes). 

An ISO Amendment will be issued to correct this error, as follows: “Characterization of particle size distribution down to 50 nm.”

Specific thresholds defining what constitutes “long-lived” have not been mandated. Proposers should provide justification for their definitions of “long-lived” considering the broader goal of TA2.1. 

As stated in the ISO, proposers should not generate solution summary or proposal text using generative AI. Proposers are expected to cite where generative AI has been used to generate figures.

Novel methods for TA1.1 should be supported by thorough justification, including preliminary data. 

Proposers should budget for all clinical sites in the proposal. If collaboration across teams can reduce redundancies and costs, budgets can be adapted later. 

The requirements as laid out in the ISO in regard to transition/commercialization of the clinical system are to initiate premarket submission to the FDA at the end of the program and to create a draft commercialization plan at the full proposal stage that is updated at month 24 and 48. This plan will include ways to address regulatory considerations, end-user uptake, manufacturability, etc. but proposers are not expected to reach full commercial readiness at the end of the program. 

While stool fits the criteria for bodily fluid more readily than tissue, proposers should provide justification for their choices. 

The timelines laid out in the ISO are notional and proposers may propose alternative timelines to accomplish the goals of STOMP. One consideration for the timeline is the delivery of reference materials, which will occur in waves throughout the program as the performers deliver batches of different MNP types. 

Yes, proposers must measure only one biological matrix during Phase 1 and may document paths to other matrices as necessary based on TA1.3 results.

It is expected that novel methods development will be necessary, which could include combining multiple steps or systems. Proposers should provide thorough rationale for their proposed system and how it will meet the metrics laid out for TA1.2. 

ARPA-H doesn’t own or operate its own research labs – rather, it oversees research that takes place at various facilities around the country. Thus, the STOMP program is unable to collect samples from interested participants. Once the awardees are announced, the interested donors may reach out to the performers and inquire about it.

ARPA-H has committed $144 million to the STOMP program and anticipates making multiple awards. In accordance with ISO Section 5.4.3, Assessment of Proposed Cost/Price, proposers are encouraged to submit a fully justified budget that is appropriate for the scope, complexity, and risk of their proposed technical approach. ARPA-H will evaluate the reasonableness and value of the proposed cost in the context of the work to be accomplished, rather than against a predetermined budget amount or range.

ARPA-H is a funding agency driving transformation of biomedical and health breakthroughs. Thus, addressing regulation or environmental research is out of scope for STOMP. However, STOMP is designed to be complementary to work being done in other agencies and organizations that are better positioned to address these questions. Critically, we do not yet know what the bad types of plastics are - STOMP will help answer that question. If 1-2 types are indeed particularly damaging to human health, regulations and/or legislation could be put into place to address this. It is ultimately unrealistic to imagine a world completely devoid of plastics given their current ubiquity - and those microplastics that have already accumulated in our bodies could create downstream damage if not removed.

Application to BOTH TA1 and TA2 is allowed but not required. Teams may choose to apply to both TA1 and TA2, just TA1, or just TA2.

ARPA-H projects STOMP performers will begin work in late fall 2026.

While STOMP performers will only be contracted to provide reference materials for STOMP performers, we encourage those in the broader field to remain in community with performers and share resources when appropriate to accelerate the field overall. 

Proposers should expect to receive encourage/discourage letters within a couple weeks of submission of solution summaries.

ARPA-H will not help with teaming for incomplete proposals. Proposers are expected to address all three subcomponents of TA1 (TA1.1, TA1.2 and TA1.3) OR both subcomponents of TA2 (TA2.1 and TA2.2). In the event that only one subcomponent is selected from a proposing team, ARPA-H will require teaming with other proposers.

We are soliciting for separate TA1 and TA2 proposals at this time, and parties can submit to both TAs in separate documents. At the solution summary stage, you can be prime on both submissions, but at the proposal selection stage you can be prime on one but only sub on another. This would allow you to perform on TA1 and TA2 at the same time. A draft timeline for TA1 and TA2 milestones is provided in the ISO.

As described in the ISO, Section 2.6 Special STOMP Requirements, at the program kick-off, STOMP performers will all come to an agreement about reasonable doses (short and long-term exposure) and how it will be done, and all performing teams will agree on a standardized approach.

Although STOMP will invest in foundational technologies to measure and understand the health impacts of MNPs, STOMP still aims to understand how TA1 technologies would translate from bench to bedside (reference ISO commercialization requirements). It is expected that commercialization plans will be iterative, but proposers should provide evidence that there is initial thinking about an avenue for the diagnostic method proposed to be commercialized.

Multiple teams will be selected for TA1 and TA2. 

This is not a requirement for STOMP beyond an IRB review.

Across the entire ecosystem of the government, there is a move towards relying less on animal models, but the STOMP program does not require elimination of animal testing. There are areas (inhalation/ingestion of MNPs) where animal models would be useful for analysis, but if there is an alternative technology you would like to propose provide justification for your approach in your application.

Toxicity mitigation approaches will be considered as part of TA3. We are NOT soliciting proposals for TA3 at this time. At the culmination of Phase 1, an amended ISO will be released soliciting TA3 proposals. 

Yes, some TA2 activities are expected to be staggered based on interdependencies with TA1 and TA2.1. A notional timeline for TA2 is provided in Figure 7 of the ISO and staggered milestones and metrics are provided in Figure 9. 

Yes, performers are expected to share non-public data with other STOMP performers and ARPA-H with the understanding that all participants will be under NDA and commit to not share findings outside of STOMP prior to public release.

While you may submit Solution Summaries early, all proposers will receive feedback at the same time to ensure fairness.

Indirect costs on Federal awards to foreign organizations and foreign public entities, without a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, performed fully outside the territorial limits of the U.S. may be paid to support the costs of compliance with federal requirements at a fixed rate of 8%. For all other awards, ARPA-H does not have a fixed indirect cost rate. If a US organization does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, it may elect to use the 15% de minimis indirect cost rate.

The start date is dependent on the negotiation process. Proposers can use a date in early November with the understanding that the exact date may differ. 

No, cost share is not required.

The recording of Proposers’ Day can be found on YouTube. Access the STOMP Proposers' Day recording on YouTube.  

STOMP Proposers’ Day will be held on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 from 8:30 AM to 4 PM in Arlington, VA, with the option to attend virtually. In-person registrants will receive details on the venue after registration. For convenience, both in-person and virtual attendees will receive a link for remote attendance. For details on agenda please see the Special Notice: (ARPA-H-SN-26-150) on SAM.gov. 

Register for Proposers’ Day at https://solutions.arpa-h.gov/Events/STOMP/ and ensure each individual registers separately. Please see the Special Notice (ARPA-H-SN-26-150) on SAM.gov for more information on Proposers’ day. 

Poster presentations are only available for in-person attendees. Virtual attendees are encouraged to use the Teaming Profiles to facilitate connections with other prospective performers.

No, now that the STOMP ISO is live, the STOMP team cannot hold one-on-one discussions or offer feedback to potential proposers. Proposers are encouraged to review the ISO closely and attend Proposers’ Day for details on what is in-scope for the program. 

Please reach out to stomp@arpa-h.gov if you would like to change your registration information. 

Only participants who are registered and approved to present a poster should plan to bring a poster. They will be allotted a 48inches high by 36inches area on a tack board. No other technical materials are required from potential proposers for STOMP Proposers' Day.

No. While the STOMP solicitation is live, we are prohibited from having 1:1 conversations with interested proposers. All technical materials brought to STOMP Proposers' Day are intended for sharing with the scientific community to encourage teaming and collaboration.

• The Proposers' Day will be held from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM Eastern Time on April 22, 2026.  
• Doors open and webinar login begins for registered attendees at 8:30AM.  
• A final agenda, including details regarding the Poster Session, will be emailed to registered attendees before the meeting. We estimate that the ARPA-H presentations will start at 9am and finish by 1pm, with the afternoon being held for the poster session.

No. Only participants who are registered and approved to present a poster should plan to bring a poster. No other formal technical presentations from the potential proposer community are scheduled for Proposers' Day.

No, we will not be sharing a list of those who participated in Proposers’ Day. Prospective applicants are encouraged to use the Teaming Profile page at https://arpa-h.gov/explore-funding/programs/stomp/teaming to facilitate connections with other prospective performers.