DRIVE35 Scale-Up: £5M to Manufacture the Future of EVs

DRIVE35 Scale-Up: £5M to Manufacture the Future of EVs

This opportunity is a UK government-backed feasibility funding competition for companies that already have a zero-emission vehicle technology and need confidence that it can be manufactured in the UK at real production scales.

It is not a broad innovation “proof of concept” grant for early ideas. It is explicitly a feasibility study competition. The mission is practical: can your technology move from concept or pilot to production-ready capability without derailing due to technical, commercial, or supply-chain risk?

The official UKRI competition page describes this as:

• UK registered businesses can apply
• up to £5 million available across the competition
• funding is for feasibility studies into UK manufacturing of zero-emission vehicle technologies
• lead must be a single applicant (no joint lead consortium)

The Innovation Funding Service page confirms that this round closed on 17 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. UK time. The Department for Business and Trade’s current Scale-Up guidance says that applications for the first feasibility-studies round are closed and that details of future rounds will be announced later; it does not announce a replacement round. Treat this page as a historical reference, not as an open application route. The structure below remains useful for understanding the closed call and preparing for a future official announcement.

At-a-glance summary

What this funding is really for (and what it is not)

This competition supports companies that can already show a technical concept and now need structured evidence about manufacturing scale-up. The supported work is about answering feasibility questions before committing capital to major investment.

In practical terms, it supports:

• “Can we make this at pilot, demonstration, or industrial scale?”
• “What is the most realistic manufacturing route?”
• “What are the cost, yield, tooling, quality, and supply-chain risks?”
• “Can this be done in the UK in a way that supports a real investment decision?”

The UKRI page emphasises that proposals should lead to an “investment ready business case” and raise manufacturing readiness for the selected production maturity and volumes. That is the north star. If your application just says “our technology is good” without demonstrating manufacturing de-risking, it will likely fail.

What it does not cover:

• Open-ended R&D with no manufacturing path
• Generic EV market commentary with no project scope
• Outsourcing feasibility to others without your own clear execution ownership
• Broad consortium science projects where no single business applicant can lead

Why a normal business should care

If your company has had repeated experiences where an invention was strong but industrial roll-out failed, this competition is directly relevant. If your biggest issue is not technical plausibility but “how do we scale this safely and commercially?”, this is designed for that problem.

The official pages indicate about 40% success is seen historically in similar competitions, which is relatively high for a competitive grant but not a guarantee. That means your application has to be coherent and fit-for-assessment. This is less about flashy narrative and more about disciplined feasibility planning.

Commonly, a good proposal here helps teams:

• Build a realistic capex roadmap
• Decide if process choices are viable in UK manufacturing context
• Prepare for later larger awards or private investment
• Decide not to scale too early, which can prevent expensive sunk-cost mistakes

Who this is for (and who should not apply)

Good fit

You are likely in the right place if:

• You are a UK-registered business (any size, per official wording), applying alone as lead.
• You can already describe the technology clearly and where it sits technically.
• Your project can be run inside 9 months.
• You need evidence, not just optimism, to move from R&D or pilot to scaled production.
• You can justify your budget and show co-investment (because Innovate UK funding is not full project replacement).
• Your manufacturing work can be done in the UK, and you intend to exploit results in the UK.

Typical examples in this lane:

• A Tier 2 or tier-like supplier modernising a legacy drivetrain component process for EVs
• A small manufacturer exploring pilot-to-industrial transition of power electronics hardware
• A startup with a novel battery/electronics/drive component that now needs production pathway validation

Not a good fit

You should reconsider if:

• You are not a UK registered business
• You are a public sector body, charity, or research organisation (cannot lead this competition as lead)
• Your team is not ready to define manufacturing scope and deliverable milestones in 3–9 month terms
• You cannot produce a budget that meets the percentage limits
• You are aiming to use this as “phase 1 of building a brand-new science program” rather than validating scale-up decisions
• You rely on unsupported assumptions of cheap overseas subcontracting without UK-cost evidence

Eligibility and constraints to check before spending time

These are the constraints that matter most in practice, all from the official competition terms:

1. Single applicant only
   • You cannot lead this as a consortium.
   • The project lead must be one UK-registered business entity.
2. Grant request range
   • Allowed project funding requests are between £150,000 and £750,000.
   • In practice, this is the most likely gate to fail early if not matched with realistic total costs.
3. Duration limit
   • Project must last up to 9 months, with dates tied to this competition window and setup constraints.
4. Start and end assumptions
   • The UKRI and IFS pages specify start by 1 May 2026 and end by 31 January 2027 for this competition.
5. UK conduct and exploitation
   • Work must be carried out in the UK and exploitation intended in or from the UK.
6. Subcontractor rule
   • Subcontractors are allowed.
   • If using overseas subcontractors, the application must justify why UK subcontractors could not be used; cost is not enough on its own.
7. Eligibility risk checks
   • Applicants may be declined for prior non-compliance (for example, overdue reports, past issues).
8. Financial viability
   • Innovate UK checks financial condition; if in financial difficulty, applications can be ineligible.
9. Regulatory and compliance readiness
   • You must handle permits/licensing where needed.
   • You must address animal-welfare requirements only if animals are used in the project.
   • Export controls, TR&I, and sanctions considerations apply depending on your technology profile.

If any one of the above is uncertain, pause and get advice before drafting.

What funding can actually cover

The official competition language indicates grants are available up to stated project-level limits and percentages:

• SME projects may receive up to 60% of eligible project costs.
• Large organisations may receive up to 50%.
• This means your own matched funding/co-investment is mandatory by design.
• In award terms, there is an APC industrial contribution (3.5%).
• Funding can be reduced or withdrawn if policy/funding decisions change.

For planning, do not treat the headline total as guaranteed cash for each business. It is a pool. Competition funding limits apply and competition quality means not all strong projects are funded.

Application process for the closed round

The official Innovation Funding Service flow for this competition was specific. No application can be submitted to this closed round now, but the sequence below records what applicants had to complete and gives a useful preparation checklist if a future DRIVE35 feasibility-studies competition is announced.

1) Confirm fit first, before drafting

Do a scope sanity check against the competition description:

• Is the project explicitly a manufacturing feasibility study?
• Is the output likely to improve the readiness for pilot/demonstration/industrial scale?
• Is there a clear UK manufacturing deployment logic?

If you fail scope, your submission is not assessed. This is the single biggest avoidable loss.

2) Build proposal logic around outcomes, not technology features

In this competition, assessment will look for evidence of de-risking decisions:

• Which process route are you testing?
• What decisions will be made at the end (go/no-go, process choice, investment readiness)?
• What does success look like in measurable terms (cost range, yield, conversion, throughput, capital strategy)?

3) Complete the three IFS sections

The application was divided into project details, application questions, and finances. The project-details section asked for the project title, start date, duration, research category, summary, public description, and scope. Applicants then had to answer all application questions, including the organisation’s location, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export licences, trusted research and innovation, business, feasibility study, product or process proposition, completed and planned R&D, target market, commercialisation plan, commercialisation team, finance plan, impact, and project costs. The finance section required organisation, cost, and funding information.

The scored narrative had to explain a real manufacturing decision rather than merely repeat product claims. The feasibility-study response needed objectives, deliverables, milestones, team and subcontractor responsibilities, and the connection to commercialisation. The product response needed evidence for automotive TRL and MRL, while later answers covered market traction, investment, jobs, environmental benefits, and the unfunded contribution.

The IFS page allowed supporting PDF appendices for selected answers. Each appendix had a 10 MB limit and had to be legible at 100% zoom; the page specified two A4 pages for product economics and maturity evidence, two A4 pages for R&D evidence, three A4 pages for market evidence, two A4 pages for commercialisation evidence, and two A4 pages for impact evidence. Applicants should use the exact instructions for any future call rather than assume these limits will be repeated.

4) Handle subcontracting carefully

If using any subcontractor:

• Record UK-first sourcing attempts
• Keep procurement evidence
• Explain overseas choice if selected
• Tie each cost to eligible project outcomes

This is heavily important because the page is explicit: overseas use must be justified with evidence and rationale, not just lower cost.

5) Submit before the deadline

For the closed round, the application had to be complete and resubmitted in IFS before 17 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. UK time. The competition page warned that the deadline was a UK-time cutoff and that dates could change, so a future applicant should rely on the live IFS page rather than a copied calendar entry. The IFS instructions also prohibited website addresses or links in application answers; including URLs could make an application ineligible.

6) After submission, treat feedback seriously

If unsuccessful, Innovate UK provides assessor feedback on the portal. You can often learn from scoring comments and prepare stronger resubmissions (where available).

Typical application workflow for this round

The round structure was:

• Opening: 10 November 2025 at 9:30 a.m. UK time
• Closing: 17 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. UK time
• Status: closed

Use this as a planning template if a future iteration opens:

1. Week 1–2: Scope and team alignment
2. Week 3–4: Evidence package creation (budget, roadmap, team, risks)
3. Week 5: Internal review/red-team reading
4. Week 6: Final edits and early submission

What you should include in your package (practical checklist)

This list is derived from official requirements and common assessment expectations:

• Clear statement of manufacturing problem and why now
• Feasibility question to be answered within 9 months
• Proposed manufacturing pathway options to compare
• Cost model assumptions and sensitivity analysis
• Project schedule with milestones (not just broad narrative)
• Team responsibilities and execution capability
• Subcontractor rationale and UK sourcing evidence
• Budget breakdown with eligible costs and organisational contribution
• Risk register showing mitigation and decision triggers
• Commercial plan showing exploitation route in UK

Readiness scorecard: decide quickly whether to apply

Ask your team to score readiness from 0–10 on:

• Scope fit to “UK manufacturing feasibility” (must be high)
• Budget realism vs. requested grant range
• UK exploitation logic
• Evidence quality (not only claims)
• Internal sponsorship and decision ownership
• Ability to run within 9-month timeline

If you are below 6 on any one category, you should fix that before applying, or postpone.

Why your proposal gets accepted (or not)

Publicly stated scoring behaviour indicates:

• You must answer all required questions
• In-scopeness is mandatory and checked early
• Not all high-scoring projects may be funded if competition funding limits are reached
• Prior conduct and subsidy/cost rules are considered in the final decision
• Portfolio funding mechanics can mean close scores are not always sufficient

Therefore, “good score” is necessary but not always sufficient. This is competitive grant logic, not a pass/fail for one metric.

Common mistakes that waste cycles

1. Treating it as pure R&D funding instead of feasibility de-risking
2. Ignoring UK-only or UK-intent exploitation criteria
3. Underestimating the required matched funding
4. Using overconfident claims without decision-ready evidence
5. Omitting subcontractor justification where non-UK sources are used
6. Vague outcomes: “we’ll know if it works” without measurable go/no-go criteria
7. Forgetting to answer all non-scored governance and compliance questions (they are mandatory)
8. Inserting URLs into application answers

The IFS guidance specifically warns that including website URLs in answers can make your application ineligible, so keep references internal (plain text names only).

Risks you should plan for before submission

Strategic risk

You might be building a technically good idea that does not map to a UK manufacturing system. Address this by mapping suppliers, tooling, labour, and quality capabilities.

Commercial risk

Your cost-per-unit or capex assumptions might be too optimistic. Include sensitivity cases and explain assumptions.

Compliance risk

Permits, licences, export control, and TR&I/security issues can invalidate otherwise strong applications if not handled in advance.

Financial risk

Because this is not full project cost coverage, a project with weak internal contribution is likely to collapse in business review.

What to do next while the round is closed

Because this specific competition is marked closed, there is no live submission route for this opportunity. The official government guidance says details of future feasibility-studies rounds will be coming soon, but it does not provide a new opening date or deadline. Do not treat the current DRIVE35 Scale-Up Fund as a replacement for this feasibility-studies call: it is a separate stream with different scope and funding arrangements.

While waiting for an official announcement, a business can:

• Compare this opportunity against your upcoming pipeline:
  • Do you need a similar feasibility study next funding cycle?
  • Can you reuse this structure for future DRIVE35, ATF, or related industrial scale-up calls?
• Keep your feasibility logic in a reusable internal brief:
  • problem statement
  • decision milestones
  • UK sourcing map
  • matched-funding plan
• Contact Innovate UK at support@iuk.ukri.org or the Advanced Propulsion Centre at info@apcuk.co.uk if a future call opens and clarification is needed. APC’s role is indicative guidance, not formal approval of eligibility.

If you are thinking of a new filing cycle, start with one page: “What decision will this feasibility study prove?” and “What evidence will support a no-go versus go forward?” Everything else follows from these two questions.

Contact and support options

The official competition guidance listed these support details:

• Email: support@iuk.ukri.org
• Phone: 0300 321 4357
• Phone hours: 9 a.m.–12 p.m. and 2–5 p.m. UK time, Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays)

APC is listed for indicative guidance at info@apcuk.co.uk. Its role is to help interpret the rules informally, structure bid development, explain common pitfalls, and answer scope questions; Innovate UK remains responsible for the competition process and grant contracts.

Always keep contact windows realistic in your planning. UKRI recommends contacting support early because near-deadline response options can be limited.

Frequently asked practical questions

Can only one company apply?

Yes. This competition is for single applicants only. You are the lead applicant and cannot submit as a consortium lead.

Can subcontractors be used?

Yes, including UK-based subcontractors by default. Overseas subcontractors are allowed only with justification and evidence that UK options were explored and unsuitable.

Are universities able to lead?

RTOs, charities, public sector bodies, and research organisations are not eligible to lead this competition. They may participate as subcontractors where applicable.

Is grant funding enough to cover full project cost?

No. It is a co-funding model with percentage limits (SME up to 60%, large organisations up to 50%).

What if the study shows the project is not feasible?

This competition is about feasibility, so a robust “not feasible” outcome can still be a useful decision result as long as the methodology is sound. The intent is to reduce major investment risk early.

Is this limited to EV battery packs only?

No. The wording is broad to zero-emission vehicle technologies, including relevant manufacturing routes in relevant parts of the ZEV ecosystem.

What can an organisation submit again?

The competition text indicates previously submitted applications that reached assessment can often be resubmitted in non-materially-different form, subject to exact rules. This is for live competition contexts and can change.

If you are writing a real application

Use this order:

1. Scope sentence: one paragraph defining the manufacturing decision.
2. Feasibility question: what will be proven and why.
3. UK exploitation statement: why this is being done in the UK.
4. Cost and timeline logic: how grant and non-grant costs align.
5. Risk list: at least three technical and three commercial risks with mitigation.
6. Output list: what exactly you will deliver at project end (e.g., decision model, scale-up route, capex logic, supplier qualification map).

Most applications fail not because they lack ideas, but because they do not turn ideas into structured decisions.

Final take

This is a practical, high-value call for businesses that are past the invention stage and need to answer difficult scale-up questions with evidence before committing major investment. The official competition rules are explicit:

• Scope and UK-registered single lead matter first
• Eligible grant size and project duration are bounded
• Subcontracting and compliance are scrutinised
• Scored sections require complete answers and clear decision logic

Use this as a template even now. If a future DRIVE35 or equivalent competition opens, a team that has already built this decision-oriented application logic will have a much easier time crossing the threshold from “good idea” to “fundable proposition.”

Official links

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/drive35-scale-up-feasibility-studies-two/
• Innovation Funding Service competition page: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2341/overview/4b0efce9-75b8-4e84-97c0-fc6277396586