Foreign ownership, control or influence — FOCI in defense shorthand — is where SBIR eligibility gets least predictable. Some arrangements are flatly disqualifying, many only require honest disclosure, and the line between them depends heavily on which agency you are applying to and whether the topic touches national security. Guessing is a poor strategy in either direction.
The hard line: majority ownership
Start with the structural test. An SBIR applicant must generally be more than half owned and controlled by US citizens or permanent residents, or by other small businesses that are themselves majority owned that way, with a separate authorized path at some agencies for companies majority owned by multiple investment funds. A company that is a subsidiary of a foreign parent does not satisfy that test. Neither does one where foreign individuals hold the controlling stake.
Control matters as much as ownership. A minority foreign shareholder with board control or with veto rights over ordinary business decisions can be treated as controlling the company, which is the same negative-control principle that drives the affiliation rules generally.
What is disclosure rather than disqualification
Below that structural line, most foreign connections are disclosure obligations. Agencies increasingly ask applicants and key personnel to report foreign affiliations, appointments, talent-program participation, foreign funding and support, and material relationships with foreign entities. Answering those questions accurately is not an admission of a problem — failing to answer them is the problem, and undisclosed relationships discovered later are treated far more severely than disclosed ones.
Employing foreign nationals is likewise generally permitted. What can restrict it is not SBIR eligibility but export control law, which governs what technical data a foreign national may access regardless of where they sit. Teams building dual-use technology should think about that early, in the same way they would for export controls on a dual-use design.
Why defense is different
Health, science and energy agencies apply the ownership test and ask disclosure questions. Defense programs go considerably further. Expect additional due diligence on ownership chains, investors, foreign business relationships and personnel, and expect that ties to specific countries of concern can weigh against an award even where no formal eligibility rule is breached. Classified or facility-access topics add clearance requirements on top. Because the scrutiny varies so much, which agency you target changes what your corporate structure has to survive.
Two practical steps help. Map your ownership chain to its ultimate beneficial owners before you apply, including entities held through funds or holding companies. And read the eligibility and disclosure sections of the specific topic, not just the agency's general solicitation. Founders who have taken money from abroad should treat this alongside the ordinary diligence considerations of taking investment from foreign investors.
This is general information and not legal advice. Foreign ownership, control and influence rules are set by the funding agency and by national security regulation, they differ sharply between agencies, and they have been tightened over time. Any company with a foreign parent, a foreign controlling shareholder or significant foreign relationships should get a qualified opinion before investing in a proposal. Related answers are collected in the SBIR and STTR guide.
Projects House works with globally structured teams building products for US programs. Tell us what you are developing through the contact form.