Pilot Programs in the Transportation Sector – Sector-Level Pilots - Pilots Fund

Pilot Programs in the Transportation Sector – Sector-Level Pilots - Pilots Fund

The Israel Innovation Authority published this 2026 transportation-sector call with the Ministry of Transport and Road Safety. The call was for sector-level pilot programs under the Pilots Fund. Its submission window is now closed: the official page gives an opening date of 18/05/2026 and a deadline of 16/07/2026 at 12:00 noon Israel time. It also says that applications submitted after the deadline will not be accepted.

This page is therefore a historical reference for the completed 2026 cycle. The official source does not announce a successor deadline, so this record does not invent one. A company that finds this page now should use it to understand the completed call’s structure and preparation requirements, then check the Innovation Authority for a newly published transportation call before attempting to apply.

At a glance

What the 2026 call supported

The call was not a general-purpose startup grant or an open-ended feasibility award. The official description focused on R&D programs that include experiments or product demonstrations at pilot facilities. The intended applicant was an industrial corporation carrying out R&D for commercial purposes. The pilot had to test an existing technology in an environment that simulates the target market and produce evidence of feasibility or value.

The program had a defined maturity path. An application had to include R&D at TRL 5, and the approved program had to conclude at a minimum of TRL 6. The Authority describes TRL 6 as demonstration of the technology in a real-world environment. The execution period could not exceed 24 months. This makes the call a fit for a product that can be placed into a serious demonstration plan, not for a team that still needs to solve its central technical problem before any field work can begin.

The page also required that at least two-thirds of the requested budget be allocated to real-environment demonstration at TRL 6. Up to one-third could be allocated to lower TRL work to bring the product up to TRL 6. That budget split is important: a proposal dominated by laboratory development would not match the call’s stated balance, even if the technology eventually has transportation uses.

Transportation impact areas

The pilot had to create demonstrated impact and transportation benefits that improve transportation in Israel. The official call identifies several areas of interest:

• Reducing road congestion, including last-mile delivery and demand-management solutions.
• Encouraging public-transport use or shifting transportation congestion.
• Improving road safety or reducing traffic accidents.
• Preparing transportation infrastructure and operations for climate impacts, including extreme heat, flooding, fires, and other extreme weather.
• Improving the resilience and adaptation of transportation systems, including energy alternatives that reduce transport carbon emissions.

The strongest project description would connect one technology to one operational setting and a measurable result. For example, a proposal might define the road segment, fleet, depot, public-transport service, delivery network, or infrastructure component where the demonstration will run. It should then explain the baseline, the intervention, the evidence collected, and the threshold that would count as a successful result. A broad statement that a product is “good for mobility” would not show the demonstrated Israeli transport benefit requested by the call.

The call’s scope also leaves room for different kinds of transport technology. A congestion project could address demand management or last-mile logistics. A public-transport project could test a system that changes service use or capacity. A safety project could demonstrate a technology intended to reduce crashes. An infrastructure project could address maintenance materials, climate readiness, or resilience. An energy-related project could test an alternative that lowers emissions from transport. The common requirement is a real pilot and evidence of the transportation benefit, not merely a sector label.

Funding and budget rules

The official finance section lists investment of 20%, 30%, 40%, or 50% of the approved budget. It adds 10% when approved recipients carry out the majority of the approved program in Development Area A, as defined in the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investment. The percentage is an approved investment rate, not an automatic award and not a promise that every requested cost will be accepted.

The same page separately states that the Innovation Authority investment rate will be 66% of the approved budget for industrial corporations and 80% for commercialization companies (academia). Because the notice presents these provisions separately, an applicant should not collapse them into one informal percentage. The applicable rate and eligible costs must be confirmed against the call documents and the applicant’s status in the official submission process.

The page also states that the total investment budget allocated by the Innovation Authority for all Israeli participants approved under the PRIMA partnership for 2026 is €0.5 million, and explicitly says that this does not constitute a commitment to pay that amount, in whole or in part. That figure should not be described as a guaranteed pool available to any one applicant.

Build the budget around the required demonstration. Identify which costs support the real-environment TRL 6 work and which limited portion supports the work needed to reach that stage. Link each cost to a test activity, milestone, or evidence point. Keep the project total, requested investment, applicant contribution, and any other support clearly separated. A funding rate is useful only when the scope and cost basis are clear enough for the Authority to assess.

Eligibility requirements

The official eligibility section says that the applicant must be an industrial corporation that has submitted an application for transportation R&D support as described in the call. The project must not exceed 24 months, must begin at TRL 5, and must conclude at least at TRL 6. Those are core program conditions rather than optional positioning advice.

The R&D must be carried out in Israel by Israeli residents unless the Research Committee is convinced, for documented reasons, that part of the program must be performed outside Israel or by non-residents. Work may be performed by the applicant, a party designated by the applicant, or an executor approved by the Research Committee. An applicant should therefore map every technical and operational contributor before submission, rather than assuming that a foreign contractor or overseas test location is automatically acceptable.

The applicant must commit to owning all knowledge and intellectual-property rights arising from the R&D from the moment those rights are created. Where knowledge is jointly owned, all owners must make that commitment. The program also cannot be performed on behalf of a third party in exchange for full or partial payment that grants that third party ownership rights in the knowledge or product.

Several financial and process restrictions also apply. The applicant cannot have a pending application for funding for the same program, in whole or in part, under another Innovation Authority benefit track or sub-track. The applicant cannot have received government or Innovation Authority financial assistance for the project, directly or indirectly, other than under this program, and a project that previously received an investment under this program cannot receive an additional investment program for the same project.

The applicant must not have restricted bank accounts or be undergoing receivership, a stay of legal proceedings, liquidation, or similar proceedings. The applicant and its controlling shareholders must comply with the Regulations for the Encouragement of Industrial R&D (Conditioning of Approvals - Minimum Wage), 2011. The applicant and application must also meet the designated process requirements stated in the call. These conditions make legal, funding, and ownership checks part of the preparation work, not a last-minute formality.

How applications were submitted

The official process was online. Applicants submitted through the Innovation Authority personal area until 16/07/2026 at 12:00 noon. The call page says that applications after this deadline would not be accepted. Since that window has passed, no company should treat the personal-area link as permission to submit a late 2026 application.

For a future call, the safe sequence is:

1. Start from the current Innovation Authority transportation call, not from this archived record. Confirm the current title, status, dates, forms, and any updated eligibility language.
2. Confirm that the applicant is the right type of industrial corporation and that the proposed work is transportation R&D within one of the stated impact areas.
3. Define the existing technology, current TRL 5 evidence, pilot facility or real-world setting, and the route to at least TRL 6 within the allowed execution period.
4. Build the budget so at least two-thirds of the requested amount supports real-environment TRL 6 demonstration, with no more than one-third allocated to lower-TRL work needed to reach that point.
5. Document the Israeli execution plan, every designated executor, the IP ownership commitment, and the absence of duplicate public funding for the same program.
6. Complete the online application and upload whatever supporting material the active call and personal area require. The archived notice does not provide a universal attachment checklist, so old forms or guessed requirements should not be presented as current instructions.
7. Submit before the active deadline and retain the confirmation. The call states that nothing in the notice is a commitment to approve an application, so submission is not the same as an award.

Materials a future applicant should prepare

The public call page describes the conditions and evaluation topics but does not publish a complete, reusable list of attachments. For a future round, an applicant should be ready to substantiate the following through the online form and current call documents:

• A clear description of the product or technology and the transportation problem it addresses.
• Evidence that the technology is at TRL 5 at submission and a credible plan to demonstrate at least TRL 6.
• A pilot-site description showing how the environment resembles the target market.
• A work plan of no more than 24 months, with responsibilities, milestones, test conditions, and success metrics.
• A budget that identifies the real-environment demonstration share and the lower-TRL work share.
• Evidence supporting the expected congestion, public-transport, safety, climate, resilience, or emissions benefit in Israel.
• The applicant’s commercial and technical capability, including why it can execute the program without relying entirely on the Authority’s investment.
• Ownership and IP declarations, contributor roles, and any permitted exception requiring Research Committee consideration.
• A check for duplicate funding, previous support for the same project, restricted accounts, and other financial or legal exclusions.

Do not turn these preparation items into claims that a particular attachment form was required in the closed cycle unless the active official documents say so. The correct source for a future checklist is the current call page and the personal area associated with it.

Evaluation priorities

The official evaluation criteria cover four broad areas. The technological aspect includes the product’s technological and functional innovation, complexity, technological challenges, feasibility, maturity for experimentation or demonstration, and how closely the pilot site resembles a real-world environment. A proposal should make the current technology and the remaining work easy to distinguish.

The business aspect includes business and economic growth potential, market potential and growth, competitive advantage, IP strength, market validation, and the adequacy of the success metrics for commercialization. The quality of the experiment or pilot site is also part of this aspect. A site chosen only because it is available may be weaker than a site that represents the target customer and produces decision-useful evidence.

The economic aspect concerns incremental return to the Israeli economy, including high market-entry barriers and the potential to grow a complete company in Israel. This does not mean that a project must already have commercial revenue. It does mean that the application should explain why the pilot creates value beyond a one-off technical demonstration.

Applicant capabilities cover the ability to complete the program, including managerial, technological or engineering, and business or marketing capabilities. The page also points to achievements to date, the ability to execute without the Authority’s grant, and the ability to enter target markets. Assign owners to the pilot, technical work, measurement, budget, and commercialization story so that execution responsibility is visible.

Common fit checks

This historical call is a poor fit for a concept that needs major core R&D before a pilot can begin. It is also a poor fit for a project that cannot identify a realistic demonstration setting, cannot measure a transportation benefit, or cannot satisfy the IP and Israeli-execution rules. A company with an otherwise promising product should first close those gaps before preparing for a similar call.

The project should be narrow enough to test. A useful internal review asks: What existing technology is being demonstrated? What does TRL 5 mean for this product? Where will the real-world test occur? What part of the budget produces TRL 6 evidence? Which metric will improve, compared with what baseline? Who owns the resulting knowledge? Which costs or partners could create a duplicate-funding or ownership problem?

Those questions also expose weak claims early. A pilot with no baseline cannot prove impact. A pilot with no credible site cannot prove feasibility. A budget with no clear demonstration share does not match the call’s central rule. A product that is still changing its core architecture may not be ready for a call that expects a demonstration in an environment simulating its target market.

Status and next round

The 2026 submission window closed on 16/07/2026. The official page does not announce a next round or a successor deadline. The retained metadata deadline is the real closing date for this completed cycle; it is not an invitation to apply late. The historicalReference = true front matter flag identifies the record as an archive entry.

If the Innovation Authority publishes another transportation-sector call, compare its title, ministry partnership, eligible applicant type, TRL conditions, budget rates, impact areas, and application dates with this record. Do not assume that a future call will repeat the 2026 rates, budget ceiling, forms, or eligibility exceptions. Until a new official notice exists, the responsible status is closed with no successor deadline announced.

Official links

• Current official call page:
  • https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/calls_for_proposal/transportation-pilots-2026/
• Innovation Authority personal area named in the call:
  • https://my.innovationisrael.org.il