Poland Deep-Tech Commercialization Grants: NCBR STEP 2026 Cycle (Closed)

Poland Deep-Tech Commercialization Grants: NCBR STEP 2026 Cycle (Closed)

Status and scope

This page is a historical reference for the six 2026 STEP calls run by Poland’s National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) under the European Funds for a Modern Economy programme (FENG), Priority V. These calls are not open. The last application window, Biotechnology Track B, closed on 16 September 2026. NCBR’s individual call pages report that submitted applications are under evaluation. NCBR has not published another application date for the digital, clean-technology or biotechnology sector calls in the linked schedule. Its official FAQ says any further 2027 calls depend on programme funds; it does not give a confirmed date. Separately, NCBR says a STEP defence-technologies call may be announced after European Commission approval of a programme change and gives a probable quarter, but not an application window. Applicants should check the schedule and call pages linked below for confirmed terms before preparing or submitting anything.

The 2026 set consisted of six separate competitions. NCBR grouped them into three technology sectors—digital technologies and deep-tech, clean and resource-efficient technologies, and biotechnology—and two routes within each sector. Track A supported critical technologies that bring an innovative, advanced or breakthrough element with significant economic potential to the EU internal market. Track B focused on projects that contribute to reducing or countering the EU’s strategic dependencies, while also supporting relevant critical-technology value chains. Track B was not limited to consortia: the official call descriptions allowed individual applicants as well as consortium applications.

The programme paid for research and development. Projects could include industrial research and experimental development together, or experimental development alone. The funded work was intended to develop the critical technology. Implementation of the R&D results was outside the project and had to be financed by the beneficiary or another source. That distinction matters for a commercialization plan: applicants needed to show how the R&D would lead toward adoption, but the grant itself was not a general deployment or market-launch budget.

The 2026 calls and their dates

The consolidated NCBR competition schedule gives the following windows. Each window is now closed.

The final deadline in the set was 16 September 2026. It is retained in the page metadata as the last real deadline, while the historical-reference flag marks the page as an archive. NCBR’s current schedule says that the digital Track A and B, clean-technology Track A and B, and biotechnology Track A and B windows all concluded on the dates shown above. None is accepting late applications through this opportunity.

There are related FENG instruments, but they are not additional STEP calls. For example, the 2026 Ścieżka SMART consortium competition is a separate action with its own eligibility rules and documents. NCBR’s schedule gives that competition a 16 October 2026 closing date. A business that needs a currently open route should read its separate call page and verify its fit there; it should not treat this closed STEP record as an application link for SMART.

Funding terms

Each of the six STEP sector-track calls listed a 150,000,000 PLN competition budget. Across six calls, that represents 900,000,000 PLN in published allocations, although each allocation belonged to its own competition and should not be treated as a shared pot. The maximum requested grant was 140,000,000 PLN for the whole project, not for each consortium partner. The call pages say that the support was a grant and that the aid intensity depended on the type of public aid selected for the project. Research organisations could receive support without state aid for non-economic activities; enterprises and other eligible partners received support under applicable public-aid rules.

The maximum is a ceiling, not a recommended ask. A credible amount depends on the eligible work, applicant type, research category, consortium composition, and the applicable aid rate. The call rules and cost eligibility guide controlled those details. The summary pages do not establish one universal project minimum for every sector and applicant configuration, so a reader should not rely on older STEP minimums or another sector’s thresholds as if they automatically applied to every 2026 call. For an archived application, the correct reference is the specific call’s current and archived versions of its Regulamin wyboru projektów and cost guide.

For project design, the key budgeting question was whether the expenditure directly supported the proposed R&D. A strong budget connected staff time, equipment or depreciation, materials, external services, testing, and other eligible categories to defined work packages and measurable technical outcomes. Commercial implementation after the funded project needed its own financing assumptions. A proposal that included a plausible prototype but no credible path to pay for deployment would leave a gap between project completion and market use.

Who was eligible

The 2026 sector call descriptions allowed an enterprise to apply on its own or as the lead or a partner in a consortium. Consortium membership was limited to three entities. Eligible partner types included SMEs, large enterprises (including small mid-caps and mid-caps), research organisations, and non-governmental organisations. A consortium had to be led by an enterprise. Research organisations and NGOs could participate only as consortium members, not as the lead. NCBR stated that NGO support followed enterprise conditions; research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could receive support outside the state-aid framework.

Eligibility also depended on the particular sector and route, not simply on being a Polish startup or using a fashionable technology label. The project had to match the critical-technology scope set out in the call’s thematic attachment and support the relevant Track A or Track B objective. A proposal needed to define the R&D problem, its technical novelty, the work plan, and the intended economic or strategic value. The rules and project-selection criteria, rather than a broad label such as “AI,” “robotics,” “cleantech,” or “biotech,” determined whether a particular solution fit.

The programme was intended for research and development rather than routine product maintenance, ordinary business expansion, or implementation alone. Applicants had to follow the detailed beneficiary, ownership, control, expenditure, state-aid, and project-delivery conditions in the specific rules. Those details can vary by route and are too important to infer from a summary. The official call page and its linked documents were the controlling source for an application.

Project profiles that illustrate the fit

A robotics company could have proposed experimental development to improve a prototype’s reliability, followed by structured validation against industrial use requirements. A clean-technology team could have sought support for R&D that advances a critical process and tests its performance, while financing later deployment separately. A biotech consortium could have developed a technology or value-chain component whose contribution mapped clearly to the biotechnology call scope. A digital deep-tech company could have described a specific critical technology, the technical barriers to overcome, the validation evidence it would generate, and a path to customers in the EU market.

These examples describe the kind of project logic, not automatic eligibility. Each application still needed to map its technical content to the exact call attachment and show why its work met the Track A or B objective. A generic product roadmap, a market-size claim by itself, or a proposal centered on post-R&D deployment would not substitute for that match.

How applications were made

Applications for the 2026 competitions were submitted through NCBR’s LSI 2.0 information system. The windows are closed, so LSI is not a way to file an application for these cycles now. The system link and instructions remain useful as historical references; for a later cycle, applicants must use the new call page and its current version of the documents.

The archived application sequence was specific to each call:

1. Choose the sector and route. Confirm that the proposed critical technology was within the thematic attachment for the sector, then decide whether the project addressed Track A’s EU-market potential or Track B’s strategic-dependency objective.
2. Read the binding rules and criteria. Download the call announcement, project-selection regulations, selection criteria, cost-eligibility guide, thematic scope, and consortium agreement requirements from that call’s NCBR page. The call pages carried document updates during the year, so the version and effective date mattered.
3. Build the project description and work plan. Explain the technical challenge, current evidence, research and development tasks, milestones, measurable outputs, and validation approach. For each work package, identify the responsible participant, relevant skills, dependencies, and cost basis.
4. Prepare the financial model. Use the model and instructions supplied for that call. Reconcile every budget line with work-package activity and the applicable eligibility and state-aid conditions. A consortium also needed clear allocation of tasks, costs, rights, and responsibilities.
5. Assemble the supporting evidence. The exact attachment checklist came from the form and rules. Typical evidence included applicant and partner information, SME or enterprise-status declarations where applicable, team and capability details, financial assumptions, IP and technology documentation, and supporting information for the project’s technical claims. Do not assume a document required in one call was automatically required in another.
6. Submit and retain the record. The completed application had to be sent electronically through LSI 2.0 before that particular window’s published cutoff. Applicants should retain the submitted version and system confirmation for their records.

NCBR described the selection process as a two-stage expert evaluation. The first stage was a document review without a meeting; the applicant could be asked to correct or supplement the application within the permitted scope. The second stage included a meeting with the applicant, and could also involve a request for permitted clarification or correction. The official pages described an expected assessment period of up to 150 days after closing where the call received no more than 50 applications, including an 80-day first stage; more applications could extend that period. Evaluation timelines are planning estimates and the official updates for each call govern.

What a strong archived application needed to show

The strongest project narrative connected technical work to evidence and a credible route beyond the grant. It identified the starting point honestly, stated what would become technically possible through the project, and set acceptance criteria that could be checked. For example, a testing work package should identify the conditions, measurements, and pass criteria, rather than simply promising “industrial validation.” A biotech proposal should ground its development plan in the call-specific scope and explain the relevant validation steps. A clean-technology project should connect the engineering work to the critical technology and value chain addressed by the chosen call.

Commercialization evidence should have matched the stage of development. A named prospective user, a pilot discussion, a documented buyer need, or a clear route to certification can help explain why the results matter. These are useful planning artefacts, not universal formal requirements; the published call criteria determine what evidence earns credit. Avoid stating that an informal letter or customer conversation guarantees eligibility or selection.

Consortium applications also needed a coherent delivery model. The lead enterprise had to coordinate the work, and each partner’s role needed to be justified by its contribution. Research organisations could strengthen technical execution, while industrial partners could contribute facilities, testing capacity, or application knowledge. The three-member limit made it especially important to assign responsibilities clearly and avoid partners whose role was only nominal.

Finally, the applicant needed to plan for the work after the grant. Since implementation of results took place outside the project, commercialization depended on the beneficiary’s own funds or other financing. The proposal therefore needed a believable bridge from completed R&D to adoption: remaining engineering, manufacturing readiness, regulatory steps where relevant, customer integration, and the source of funding for each. The grant’s stated maximum should not replace that plan.

Current alternatives and how to check for a new round

NCBR’s 2026 schedule is the source for the archived STEP dates and any changes that NCBR publishes to that schedule. Its official FAQ says future 2027 calls depend on funds available in the programme; it does not announce a confirmed 2027 date. The same FAQ separately says STEP defence-technology criteria are being prepared, with any call dependent on European Commission approval of a programme change, and gives the fourth quarter of 2026 as a probable announcement period. That is a possibility, not a confirmed application window. The linked schedule lists the six 2026 calls archived here. Treat any later call as unannounced until NCBR publishes formal terms.

For a current application, follow NCBR’s competition search and the relevant programme page. A different FENG action may suit a project, but it has separate objectives, cost limits, application documents, and dates. In particular, the Ścieżka SMART consortium call is not STEP even when the project is innovative or research-intensive. Use its own official call page, and confirm that the call is open before spending time on a submission.

Official sources

• NCBR 2026 competition schedule
• Digital and deep-tech Track A, call 002/26
• Digital and deep-tech Track B, call 003/26
• Clean technologies Track A, call 004/26
• Clean technologies Track B, call 005/26
• Biotechnology Track A, call 006/26
• Biotechnology Track B, call 007/26
• NCBR FAQ discussing whether more STEP calls will be held in 2027
• Separate Ścieżka SMART consortium call

This record is for reference and planning. It does not invite applications to a closed round. Use NCBR’s current call notice, rather than this summary, if a new sector competition is announced.