LSIMF funding: why life sciences manufacturers should start preparing early

The Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund (LSIMF) offers significant funding for businesses planning major investment in UK life sciences manufacturing.

With up to £520 million available, the fund supports capital investment projects involving human medicines, diagnostics and MedTech. Eligible projects must have at least £8 million in eligible costs, with grants typically covering 10–20% of project costs and a maximum intervention rate of 25%.

For businesses considering LSIMF, though, the application should not be the starting point.

Hugh Wragg, R&D Compliance Manager at randd, says the funding conversation needs to begin much earlier:

“As soon as investment or proposed grant funding becomes an option, businesses should start thinking seriously about the fund. Ideally, 12 to 18 months before any capital is required.” For investments of this scale, that extra time matters. It gives businesses a chance to look at their plans before important decisions are fixed, test the assumptions behind them and work out whether LSIMF is the right fit.

Eligibility is only the starting point

Meeting the basic LSIMF requirements does not automatically make an application stand out.

Projects are assessed against two central objectives: increasing UK health resilience and creating economic opportunity.

Health resilience looks at areas such as domestic manufacturing capacity and the UK’s ability to respond to supply chain disruption and health emergencies. Economic opportunity includes factors such as Gross Value Added (GVA) and the creation of high-skilled, high-wage jobs.

Both objectives are equally weighted, with applications required to meet a minimum threshold against each.

Hugh says the projects that tend to stand out have a clear and specific case behind them:

“The projects that tend to stand out are really specific. They identify a gap in the knowledge and a gap in the market, and can point to things like supply chain vulnerability, novel manufacturing processes or new products.”

That clarity also needs to come through in the economic case. Technical strength on its own is not enough; applicants need to show why the investment matters, what it could deliver for the UK and back those benefits up with credible evidence.

Start with the real project

Getting advice early can influence much more than the eventual application.

While plans are still taking shape, there may be room to consider the scale and location of the investment, capital expenditure, recruitment requirements and how the project itself is structured. Each of those decisions can affect the funding case.

That does not mean designing an investment simply to meet the grant criteria.

A better starting point is the project the business genuinely wants to deliver: the proposed timeline, relevant scientific research, the gap in the market, competitor analysis and expected economic benefit.

From there, an adviser can assess how well it fits LSIMF, identify where more work may be needed and help develop the case before an application is submitted.

As Hugh puts it:

“The more understanding we’ve got ahead of time, the better, more robust the application will be.”

The aim is not to reverse-engineer an investment around the fund. It is to understand the real project early enough to make informed decisions about where funding could fit.

Strong projects still need strong evidence

A good project can still be let down by weak assumptions or incomplete evidence.

Hugh sees this as one of the more common issues:

“More often, I would say that the evidence hasn’t been properly assembled and analysed.”

That can show up in something as basic as the financial assumptions.

If new machinery, software or other capital expenditure is required, has the business properly researched what it will need and what those costs are likely to be?

The same applies to recruitment. Are the right skills available? What are realistic salary and employment costs? Could competition for those people affect delivery?

These may seem like granular details alongside a multimillion-pound investment, but together they help show whether the underlying plan stands up.

The initial project plan does not need to be polished or written specifically for LSIMF before advice is sought. A clear timeline, technical and commercial rationale, market research, expected capital requirements, recruitment needs and an early view of the economic impact can provide enough to start testing the case properly.

Starting early is about more than giving businesses extra time to write an application. It gives them time to challenge assumptions and replace estimates with evidence.

Additionality: what does the grant actually change?

One of the most important questions in an LSIMF application is what would happen without the funding.

This is the principle of additionality. Applicants need to show that the grant would make a meaningful difference to whether, where, when or at what scale the investment proceeds.

Without it, for example, the project might not happen, could proceed on a smaller scale, take place overseas or be significantly delayed. These are scenarios specifically recognised in the current LSIMF criteria.

Hugh strips the idea back to one question:

“Would the project or the investment into the project proceed without the grant funding?”

It is worth working through that question early.

If the key decisions have already been made and the investment is going ahead unchanged regardless of funding, the additionality case may be harder to make.

It should be part of the investment thinking from the outset, not something added to the application afterwards.

The process rewards preparation

Expressions of Interest (EOIs) can be submitted on a rolling basis, with eligible proposals moving through several further stages of assessment.

Successful EOIs progress to a health resilience assessment, including a formal application and panel interview. Those that move forward then undergo a financial and economic assessment, followed by due diligence covering areas such as value for money, deliverability, employment outputs, financing and what would happen without the grant.

That level of scrutiny is why early preparation matters.

As Hugh explains:

“A lot of what determines whether a project scores well in the application rounds relates to properly structured planning of both the financial and technical elements.”

By the later stages, those elements need to come together in a credible case: why the investment should proceed, why it should happen in the UK, what it will deliver and what the requested funding would make possible.

Think beyond a single incentive

LSIMF may be only one part of a much longer innovation journey.

Grant Funding can support investment at an earlier stage, while R&D Tax Relief, intellectual property considerations and potentially Patent Box may become relevant as development progresses and innovation is commercialised.

How those areas interact will depend on the business and the work being carried out, so they should not be treated as a fixed sequence.

For Hugh, that longer-term view is another reason to start the conversation early:

“The earlier we’re involved, the more we know the people at the company, the project and the scope of the work. We’re more informed about the whole development and better placed to advise as the project moves forward.”

That can mean looking beyond the immediate grant application and thinking about how the investment may develop over the next one, two or even five years, and where different forms of support might become relevant along the way.

For randd, the aim is to understand that wider picture and identify where different innovation incentives could fit as the project develops.

Don’t wait for the deadline

LSIMF accepts EOIs on a rolling basis, with submission deadlines used to determine which quarterly application round an EOI enters. The next published deadline is 13 November 2026.

But those dates should not determine when a business first starts thinking about funding.

For a life sciences manufacturer planning major UK investment over the next 12–24 months, Hugh’s advice is simple:

“Speak to an adviser as soon as possible.”

For a project with at least £8 million in eligible costs, the benefit of that early conversation is not simply having longer to prepare an application. It is having time to test the plans, strengthen the evidence and understand the funding position before key decisions are fixed.

Harley Maye

Harley Maye is a content specialist at randd, covering R&D Tax Relief, business innovation, and developments affecting UK companies. His content provides practical insights into eligibility, compliance requirements, and the latest changes shaping the R&D tax landscape.