Austria FFG BRIDGE Program

Austria FFG BRIDGE Program

This page is a historical reference for the closed BRIDGE 2026/1 call from the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). FFG’s current BRIDGE program page says that the last call was open from 2026-03-11 to 2026-06-11 at 12:00, that the BRIDGE program is being discontinued, and that there will be no new calls for proposals starting in 2027. There is therefore no open BRIDGE application window and no verified future deadline to publish.

The metadata keeps 2026-06-11 because it is the real closing date for the last call. historicalReference = true tells readers and the site that this is an archive entry, not a live opportunity whose deadline has simply been missed. Do not submit an application based on this page. Researchers looking for a successor should check FFG’s other current funding programmes and wait for an explicit official announcement rather than assuming that BRIDGE will reopen under another date.

At a glance: BRIDGE 2026/1

The figures above describe the final call, not a promise of funding today. The official BRIDGE 2026/1 page labels the submission period closed and lists maximum funding of EUR 360,000. It also records the 36-month maximum duration, the company-size-dependent rates, and the eligible cost categories. A maximum is not an automatic award: a proposal would still have needed to pass the programme’s scientific, implementation, and formal checks, and the approved budget could be lower.

What BRIDGE was designed to fund

BRIDGE supported cooperation between scientific institutes and companies. The research was expected to remain close to basic research while showing a recognizable route toward economic use. That combination is important. The call was not a general company subsidy for routine product development, and it was not a grant for a publication-only project with no interested industrial partner.

The central question for a 2026/1 proposal was whether a research result could move toward an application through a real science-industry collaboration. A university, research institute, university of applied sciences, or competence centre could bring the research question, methods, facilities, and scientific staff. A company could contribute an application context, implementation knowledge, data, equipment, staff time, or financial participation. The two sides needed to work together on the project rather than treating the company as a passive letter of support.

FFG described the initiative as open to all topics and technologies. That did not mean that every project was eligible. The open subject scope still had to be paired with research quality, a credible exploitation perspective, a coherent partnership, and compliance with the industrial-research funding rules. A proposal about materials, manufacturing, digital systems, life sciences, energy, or another field could fit in principle if it answered those questions. A project that was already ordinary engineering delivery, a commissioned service, or a finished commercial product would have been a weaker match.

The call also allowed young researchers to be involved. FFG specifically connected BRIDGE with the participation of doctoral researchers and postdocs and with the movement of research capability toward industrial settings. That was part of the programme’s transfer purpose, not a separate fellowship route. A team should therefore have explained the role of early-career researchers in the work packages, supervision, training, and relationship with the company.

Clinical studies were not the focus. The official 2026/1 page allowed a narrow exception for a clinical pilot study involving first testing or validation of a substance, therapy concept, or medical device, but only up to 30% of total project costs and only when the clinical study was not the project’s main research focus. A predominantly clinical project should not have been presented as a direct BRIDGE fit.

Who was eligible for the closed call

The required structure was a consortium of at least two project participants: at least one from science and at least one from business or industry. FFG’s target groups included universities, universities of applied sciences, research facilities, and competence centres. Companies from different sectors and of different sizes could participate, subject to the applicable funding intensity and general FFG requirements.

The partners needed a genuine cooperation plan. The research institute or researchers were expected to carry at least 80% of the project-cost focus. The company side could participate as the prospective user or implementer of the results, but its contribution was limited to a maximum 20% share in the call’s cost logic. That company contribution could include financial participation and the provision of material and work services. The proposal had to make those contributions concrete enough for FFG to distinguish collaboration from contract research.

Competence centres associated with COMET could be eligible, but FFG required the BRIDGE project to concern a new research topic and to be clearly separated from the centre’s existing research programme. The call also indicated that new collaborations could receive an assessment advantage. This did not remove the other conditions: a new partnership still needed defined tasks, a sound budget, adequate scientific quality, and a realistic route to use.

The safest eligibility check for the completed cycle was therefore a short written test:

1. Is there a research-led question with a plausible economic application?
2. Is there at least one eligible science participant and one company participant?
3. Will at least 80% of the project-cost focus remain on the research side?
4. Will the company perform useful project work or make an appropriate contribution rather than simply endorse the idea?
5. If a competence centre is involved, is the topic new and demonstrably outside its existing programme?
6. Can the consortium finish the proposed work within 36 months?

If any answer was unclear, the partners needed to resolve it before the 2026/1 application was submitted. It is not evidence of current eligibility because the programme is now being discontinued.

Funding amount, rates, and cost structure

FFG listed maximum funding of EUR 360,000 per project for BRIDGE 2026/1. The grant rate depended on the largest company represented in the consortium. The published rates were up to 80% for a small enterprise, up to 70% for a medium-sized enterprise, and up to 60% for a large enterprise. These were ceilings within the applicable funding rules, not guaranteed percentages for every line item.

The call page gave examples of the relationship between rate and total project costs. With a small company and an 80% rate, total eligible project costs could be up to EUR 450,000 for an EUR 360,000 grant. With a medium-sized company at 70%, total costs could reach about EUR 514,000; with a large company at 60%, the example total was up to EUR 600,000. Those examples explain why the amount field is a maximum funding figure while the total project budget can be higher. The remaining share had to be covered under the programme’s co-financing rules.

The research-side concentration was equally important. At least 80% of project costs had to sit with the research institute or researchers, while companies could account for no more than 20% in the stated project structure. Partners needed to make the budget, work plan, and staff allocation tell the same story. A budget that placed most of the labour, equipment use, or development tasks with the company would undermine the research-led basis of the proposal even if the narrative used scientific language.

The 2026/1 page listed third-party costs, facility or equipment use, material and other operating costs, personnel costs, and travel among eligible cost categories. The FFG cost guide and the BRIDGE call guide governed the exact treatment. Teams should not have assumed that every expense connected to an innovative project was eligible, and they should not have copied a cost rule from an earlier call without checking the 2026/1 documents.

How the 2026/1 application worked

Applications for the final call were made through FFG’s eCall system. The official call page states that submission was possible from 2026-03-11 at 09:00 until 2026-06-11 at 12:00. That route is closed now. The steps below describe the historical process so that this page remains useful for understanding the completed cycle; they are not current instructions to submit.

1. Confirm the partnership and project fit

The research lead and company partner needed to agree on the scientific question, intended use, work packages, responsibilities, expected results, and project duration. Before drafting a long proposal, they should have checked the two-participant minimum, the 80% research-side cost share, the company’s active role, and the distinction between a new BRIDGE topic and work already funded elsewhere.

2. Read the call documents and build the budget

The team needed the BRIDGE 2026/1 call guide, the FFG cost guide, and the applicable FFG funding directive. The project description should have been built alongside the partner budget, not written first and costed later. Each work package needed an owner, a research output, a transfer or exploitation connection, and a cost basis. The company’s cash and in-kind contributions needed to be documented clearly.

3. Prepare the eCall submission

The consortium had to register or confirm the partner details in eCall, complete the project description and cost plan, and upload the required supporting material. The proposal needed to show scientific quality, implementation feasibility, transfer potential, partner suitability, and compliance with formal requirements. The team should have allowed time for institutional approvals, partner declarations, file checks, and portal problems before the 12:00 closing time.

4. Submit before the final time

The final 2026/1 submission had to be completed in eCall by 2026-06-11 at 12:00. A draft in a local folder, an internal approval, or an email to an FFG contact was not the same as a completed eCall submission. Applicants should have retained the confirmation and final submitted files for their records.

5. Understand the review route

FFG described a combined review process. External experts assessed scientific quality and excellence and whether the work was predominantly basic-research oriented. FFG experts assessed implementation potential. The BRIDGE board considered the complete assessment and made funding recommendations with FFG involvement. The official 2026/1 page listed the funding session for 2026-10-06. That session date concerned the completed call and is not a new application deadline.

What a strong proposal needed to explain

A credible proposal had to connect four pieces without leaving gaps. First, it needed a research question that was genuinely uncertain and worth investigating. Second, it needed a company context that made the transfer path concrete. Third, it needed a work plan showing how the partners would produce and test new knowledge. Fourth, it needed an exploitation route that was realistic without pretending that a 36-month research project would automatically become a market-ready product.

The consortium should have explained why the company needed this research partner, why the work could not be completed as well by one side alone, and what evidence would change the next decision. It should have assigned staff and facilities to named work packages, identified risks, and stated how results, data, intellectual property, and publications would be handled. If the project involved clinical pilot work, the proposal needed to show that the clinical component stayed within the 30% ceiling and did not become the main research activity.

The 80% research-side rule should have appeared in the numbers, not only in the summary. Reviewers could compare the staffing plan, facility costs, materials, travel, company tasks, and requested grant. A proposal that described a university-led project but placed most of the paid work at the company would have created a clear eligibility and credibility problem.

Current status and what to do next

FFG’s current programme page is the controlling source for status. It says that BRIDGE 2026/1 was the last call, that the programme is being discontinued, and that no new calls will start in 2027. This page therefore does not give a replacement deadline, change the closed deadline to rolling, or suggest that an application can still be filed late. There is no confirmed successor call in the official source checked for this update.

Researchers with a BRIDGE-like project should review FFG’s current programme list for a genuinely matching instrument. The existence of another FFG programme does not mean that its amount, partner rules, research share, eligible costs, or submission schedule are the same. A team should start with the new programme’s own official call page and documents, then confirm whether the proposed work is research-led, company-collaborative, and within the relevant technology-readiness and cost rules.

If a team is reviewing an old BRIDGE proposal, it can still use the prior concept note, partner map, work packages, budget logic, and exploitation analysis as background. It should not reuse the 2026/1 deadline, assume that the EUR 360,000 maximum remains available through another instrument, or present BRIDGE as an open route. The programme’s discontinuation makes the historical distinction especially important.

Official references

• FFG BRIDGE programme page — current status, discontinuation notice, programme scope, headline funding data, and the last-call dates.
• FFG BRIDGE 2026/1 call page — archived call eligibility, funding rates, research-side cost rule, eCall window, decision session, and eligible cost categories.
• FFG BRIDGE 2026/1 call guide — call-specific application guidance and examples.

The official FFG pages are the authority for any future correction. As of this update, BRIDGE 2026/1 is closed, the program is being discontinued, and no new call beginning in 2027 has been announced.