Your TL;DR: Direct to Phase II is no longer confined to defense. Its expansion into NASA, DOE, and STTR signals a shift in how agencies evaluate readiness and risk. Skipping Phase I is not a shortcut, it is an expectation that core uncertainty has already been addressed. Teams that recognize what agencies are truly trying to de-risk will move faster and with far fewer missteps.
A quiet expansion with real consequences
Direct to Phase II, or DTP2, has traditionally been associated with the Department of Defense. Its expansion into NASA and the Department of Energy, along with applicability to STTR, reflects a broader change in how federal agencies want to allocate early-stage funding.
This is less about speed and more about confidence.
Agencies are increasingly willing to bypass Phase I when a team can demonstrate that feasibility is already established and that the remaining work justifies a Phase II investment. That expectation changes how readiness should be framed long before a solicitation is released.
If you are evaluating whether your technology fits this pathway, it is worth examining not just technical maturity, but how clearly your prior work reduces the specific risks an agency is responsible for managing.
If your current positioning does not yet reflect that level of clarity, it may be time to reassess how your readiness would be interpreted under a Direct to Phase II review.
Expansion across agencies changes the lens
NASA and DOE bring different evaluation priorities than defense. Mission alignment still matters, but the definition of success expands to include scalability, system integration, and long-term operational viability.
That shift shows up quickly in proposal expectations.
A technology that feels mature in a laboratory setting may still present integration risk in an energy system or a space-based environment. Reviewers are not just asking whether it works. They are asking whether it works where it needs to.
The inclusion of STTR adds another layer. A formal research partnership is required, and under Direct to Phase II, that partnership must be doing real work from the start. There is little tolerance for loosely defined roles or collaborations that exist only to satisfy eligibility.
Where strong teams still fall short
Many proposals struggle because they rely too heavily on the existence of prior work rather than the interpretation of it. Data is presented, milestones are listed, and progress is implied. The connection to agency risk is often left unstated.
That is where proposals begin to lose traction.
The GAP shows up when a team believes its past results demonstrate readiness, while the reviewer cannot clearly trace how those results reduce the risks tied to deployment, integration, or mission performance. At that point, the proposal reads as incomplete, even if the underlying technology is sound.
STTR submissions tend to encounter a second version of this issue. The research partner’s role is described in general terms, but not in a way that shows how the collaboration accelerates validation or resolves a specific technical challenge. Under Direct to Phase II, that ambiguity becomes difficult to overlook.
How agencies are approaching Direct to Phase II
Program managers are not looking to fund early exploration through this mechanism. They are looking to move technologies forward that are already positioned to deliver.
That perspective shapes how proposals are read and scored.
Evidence of feasibility needs to be clear and relevant to the application at hand. The path to deployment needs to be defined in practical terms. For STTR, the partnership must demonstrate that it is actively contributing to the outcome, not simply supporting it.
None of these expectations are new. What has changed is when they are applied and how much weight they carry at the point of entry.
Rethinking how you position readiness
Direct to Phase II requires a different kind of narrative discipline. The proposal must connect past work to future execution with very little room for assumption.
This often means reframing existing results so that their relevance to agency priorities is explicit. It also means being precise about what risks remain and why those risks are appropriate for a Phase II effort.
Some technologies will not be ready for this pathway, even if they are close. Recognizing that early is part of a stronger long-term strategy.
What to watch as this evolves
This expansion will not always appear as a headline change. It will surface in how solicitations are written, how reviewers interpret readiness, and how quickly certain proposals advance.
Teams that pay attention to those signals will adjust faster.
If you are considering whether Direct to Phase II is the right path, it is worth taking a step back and evaluating how your current work aligns with what agencies are actually trying to fund at this stage.
Ready To Take the Next Step?
We assist our clients in locating, applying for, and evaluating the outcomes of non-dilutive grant funding. We believe non-dilutive funding is a crucial tool for mitigating investment risks, and we are dedicated to guiding our clients through the entire process—from identifying the most suitable opportunities to submitting and managing grant applications.