The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 240-325

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 240... ... 18. 180 DOE, the agency with the earliest Opportunity Forum, has reportedly long opened its Opportunity Forum to partnering with SBIR programs run by other agencies. Read the entire page →
From page 241... ... NSF's "MatchMaker" program also attempts to help grantees find suitable partners for commercialization. It encourages grantees to obtain additional sources of funding by matching interested Phase II grantees with prospective partners and investors from the venture-capital, angel-investor, and strategic-partner communities."183 As of late 2005, the activity had not met program expectations regarding business participation rates, and the OII was looking for ways to increase participation.184 It should be noted that because companies often receive SBIR grants from multiple agencies that offer commercialization assistance, some of the NSF grantees have received commercialization assistance from other agency programs, either prior to, during the same time, or after the CP2 program, and generally through the same contractors.185 8.4.2 Rating the Effectiveness of Various Training Efforts In addition to providing training for NSF's SBIR program, Dawnbreaker has provided training for participation of Phase II companies in Opportunity Forums for other agencies, including DOE, EPA, NIH, and NIST's ATP. Read the entire page →
From page 242... ... A comparative rating by NSF program managers of the usefulness of the various support functions provided to grantees is provided by the NRC Program Manager Survey.187 Table 8.4-1 shows the rating of comparative usefulness. The most useful training functions were reported to be "business plan development" and "commercialization planning assistance to Phase I grantees." 186 Dawnbreaker, SBIR: The Phase III Challenge, op cit., p. Read the entire page →
From page 243... ... 5. 189 Dawnbreaker, SBIR: The Phase III Challenge; Commercialization Assistance Programs (1990-2005) Read the entire page →
From page 244... ... The Phase IIB option extends "the R&D efforts beyond the current Phase II grant to meet the product/process/software requirements of a third-party investor to accelerate the Phase II project to the commercialization stage and/or enhance the overall strength of the commercial potential of the Phase II project."192 The NSF SBIR program essentially holds back what could otherwise be part of its Phase II funding, and grants it as a supplement to those Phase II grantees who show evidence of commercialization potential as indicated by their ability to attract third-party funding. The Phase IIB grant is provided in a partial match to the amount of third-party funding. Read the entire page →
From page 245... ... Furthermore, to be eligible, the applicant must apply for the Phase IIB grant during the original performance period of the relevant Phase II grant. The NSF SBIR program office announces the deadlines for submission of Phase IIB proposals. Read the entire page →
From page 246... ... 8.5.2 Use of Matching Funds The Phase IIB grant requires third-party funding twice that of the NSF grant. To put it another way, NSF matches third-party investment with $0.50 on the dollar. Read the entire page →
From page 247... ... For Phase IIB grants up to and including $250,000, the third-party funding may consist of other government funding, such as other federal funding and state and local funding, as well as private-investor funding. A Phase IIB grant in excess of $250,000 is considered "supersized," or a "Phase IIB+ grant," and the third-party funding for the amount in excess of $250,000 must come from one or more non-governmental private investors. Read the entire page →
From page 248... ... Each proposal is reviewed based on the criteria given in Section 8.5.2. They are identical to the criteria applied to Phase I and Phase II proposals, except they are fleshed out to relate specifically to Phase IIB: Additionally, if the requested amount exceeds $250,000, a representative from the SBIR grantee company and one from the private sector third-party contributor are expected to make a presentation to a panel made up of NSF SBIR program officers.193 Further, if the requested amount exceeds $250,000, the final grant recommendation may be subject to SBA approval. Read the entire page →
From page 249... ... If a proposal is recommended for grant, the company must submit proof of the bank transaction showing that the third-party has exercised its commitment or the date-certain agreement for transfers of third-party funding. 8.5.4 Role of Program Manager in Phase IIB The NSF SBIR program managers play a key role in the selection of Phase IIB grants. Read the entire page →
From page 250... ... 195 Discussions in 2004 with Ritchie B Coryell, NSF SBIR program, now retired. Read the entire page →
From page 251... ... For Phase IIB grants not in excess of $250,000, the projects are due to be completed and the final reports filed about a year after the Phase II proposals would have been due. For grants in excess of $250,000, another year is added to the completion time, so the projects should be completed within four years. Read the entire page →
From page 252... ... Coryell, NSF a Note: Does not reflect the schedule for the "supersized" Phase IIB grants. From an analysis of the schedule depicted in Table 8.6-1, the main persisting funding gap occurs between completion of the Phase I grant and start of the Phase II follow-on grant. Read the entire page →
From page 253... ... A small percentage reported receiving bridge funding. As the case studies revealed, companies that had built up a revenue stream in advance were able to continue work during the funding gap by self-funding research. Read the entire page →
From page 254... ... 197 See NSF SBIR program information at www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/phaseibinfo.pdf. Read the entire page →
From page 255... ... The major source was "another company", followed by the company itself, and then by "an angel or other private investor." Note that few of the projects received funding from venture capitalists. Clearly, respondents interpreted this question as extending beyond third-party financing for Phase IIB because self-funding is not eligible for this purpose. Read the entire page →
From page 256... ... Some leveraged SBIR grants to obtain the larger ATP awards then available. Some had developed products and services for sale. Read the entire page →
From page 257... ... 8.6.3 Bridge Funding Programs (after Phase II) Other than the Phase IIB funding program described in detail in Section 8.5, the NSF SBIR program does not operate bridge funding programs. Read the entire page →
From page 258... ... annual commercialization reports for 5 years following completion of the Phase II grant. The interim reports are due at the end of 6, 12, and 18 months, unless the grantee receives a supplementary Phase IIB grant, in which case additional interim reports at the end of 24 and 30 months are added (and more interim reports are added at six Read the entire page →
From page 259... ... A final report following completion of a Phase IIB grant must include a combined Phase II and IIB final report and a commercialization report inclusive of an updated commercialization plan. When the grant closes, regardless of whether it is a Phase II or IIB grant, the grantee company is responsible for continuing to report annually on commercialization for 5 years, as noted earlier. Read the entire page →
From page 260... ... Furthermore, no evidence was found that program management has used data from the annual post-completion reports to provide performance metrics or otherwise assist in program evaluation.200 As described above, the NSF SBIR program office has taken a step to increase company compliance for reporting post-project data by implementing a new post-completion telephone interview. The program office reportedly plans to use the results of the telephone survey to gain insight into commercialization progress. Read the entire page →
From page 261... ... 202 The NSF SBIR program office informally collects anecdotal information from grantees and unsuccessful applicants to assess their satisfaction with the program. The results provide guidance to the program office in considering how to improve the program.203 No existing evaluation studies of NSF's SBIR program, conducted or commissioned by the agency, were found published in the open literature.204 However, as discussed from the standpoint of commercial results in Chapter 5, several ad hoc, unpublished studies of the program were made available by OII for this NRC study. Read the entire page →
From page 262... ... outputs and outcomes, but also examined several other topics including the positioning of SBIR within NSF, the value placed by the agency on the program, and the development and maintenance of supporting databases.205 As a resource for assessing the program's processes, the COV reviewed 123 proposal jackets from the 5,814 proposals processed by NSF over the three years. The non-random selection, which aimed at including proposals across the three years, geographic regions, and underrepresented groups, yielded 78 Phase I proposals, 36 Phase II proposals, and 9 Phase IIB proposals. Read the entire page →
From page 263... ... Criteria for Judging Success of NSF SBIR Program Criteria for Judging Success Used by NSF's Not Used by NSF's Program Program Efficient program management (i.e., grants X made on time) Commercial outcomes X Outcomes that support specific agency X missions Customer (grantee) Read the entire page →
From page 264... ... 264 PREPUBLICATION COPY 8.8.3 Evaluators (Internal and External) NSF's SBIR staff members have been the main performers of program-sponsored grantee surveys. Read the entire page →
From page 265... ... The program managers have primary responsibility, without the advice of peer reviewers, in deciding when supplemental funding is warranted under the provisions of Phase IIB grants. In practice, however, the requirement for third-party funding appears to be the governing factor. Read the entire page →
From page 266... ... It first revisits the formal and effective limits on the size and duration of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase IIB grants available from the NSF SBIR program. Then it examines for a sample of Phase II projects the additions to funding that grantees obtained prior to and after the survey's referenced grant. Read the entire page →
From page 268... ... - For grant amounts in excess of $250,000, the third-party funding must come from non-governmental private-sector sources. - Phase IIB helps bridge the gap between research and commercialization - A one-time opportunity Phase III: A non-SBIR funding phase during which companies are encouraged to develop commercial products/processes/service and take them to market. Read the entire page →
From page 269... ... For example, a year of a large rise in the allocation to Phase I grants tends to be followed the next year by a rise in the allocation to Phase II grants. Discussions with NSF SBIR program officials did not reveal a formulaic approach for allocating available funding among the different grant categories. Read the entire page →
From page 270... ... , which has oversight responsibility for the program. Table 8.10-1 Phase I Grants, 1992-2005 Average $ FY Grants $ Total 1992 208 $49,755 $10,349,115 1993 256 $49,727 $12,730,184 1994 309 $64,103 $19,807,945 1995 301 $64,571 $19,436,011 1996 252 $74,283 $18,719,287 1997 261 $74,262 $19,382,371 1998 215 $98,371 $21,149,814 1999 236 $98,749 $23,304,757 2000 233 $99,405 $23,161,372 2001 219 $99,353 $21,758,218 2002 286 $99,162 $28,360,340 2003 437 $99,275 $43,383,103 2004 244 $100,000 $25,117,992 2005 149 $98,575 $14,687,703 Source: NSF SBIR program data. Read the entire page →
From page 271... ... from $750,000 to $1,000,000. NSF, however, has chosen to limit the funding of its Phase II grants to $500,000, and to make the remaining allowable $500,000 available as a supplement to the initial amount through follow-on Phase IIB grants. Read the entire page →
From page 272... ... Table 8.10 3 gives the number, average size, and total amount of Phase IIB grants. Read the entire page →
From page 273... ... Program officials thought offering additional funding through Phase IIB grants would accelerate development and commercialization of technology by encouraging Phase II grantees to seek third-party funding. Program officials pointed out that changes in the average size of Phase IIB grants in response to the move to provide supersized grants depend on how successful grantees are in securing third party investments. Read the entire page →
From page 274... ... Table 8.10-4 Total Funding Provided to Grantees by NSF SBIR, 1992-2005 Total Grants of All Types FY Total $ Outlays 1992 265 $24,391,404 1993 308 $26,752,941 1994 330 $25,687,589 1995 349 $32,738,553 1996 342 $45,501,820 1997 383 $54,687,896 1998 336 $61,909,845 1999 346 $60,445,299 2000 337 $62,900,087 2001 324 $69,287,532 2002 392 $71,157,158 2003 538 $87,458,248 2004 397 $96,422,423 2005 322 $89,910,612 Source: NSF SBIR Program data. 8.11 ON-LINE CAPABILITIES AND PLANS 8.11.1 FastLane System Grant application and processing at NSF is now entirely electronic via the NSF's online FastLane system. Read the entire page →
From page 275... ... During 2002, NSF became the first federal agency to receive the top rating for the e-government initiative.212 211 "NSF SBIR Response to NRC Questions," January 2004. Read the entire page →
From page 276... ... 8.12 ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES 8.12.1 Funding of Program Administration According to NSF SBIR program officials, the program's dedicated annual administrative budget was $2 million in a recent year, not including program officer salaries and other administrative support that does not come out of the $2 million. Items included in the $2 million are contracts for support to supplement NSF personnel, costs of running review panels, contractor costs to organize and run national conferences or operate outreach websites, and other items.213 The COV in 2004 commented in a broad way on the inadequacy of resources available for managing and administering the program. Read the entire page →
From page 277... ... 8.13 BEST PRACTICES AND PROGRAM EVOLUTION 8.13.1 Adoption of Best-Practices from Other Agencies There is evidence that the NSF SBIR program has adopted at least three-to-four best-practices from other agencies. The following are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Read the entire page →
From page 278... ... Though derived from the DOD Fast Track, NSF put its own stamp on its Phase IIB program, placing the third-party financing initiative after Phase II and using it to move grantees closer to commercialization. A second practice borrowed from another agency is NSF's Commercialization Assistance Program (CP2) Read the entire page →
From page 279... ... to identify, nurture and lead the small business community to technological innovation arising from the frontiers of academic research; 215 According to the Strategic Plan's Preface, the motivating forces driving the OII Strategic Plan is the Engineering Directorate's Strategic Directions to "Strengthen Technological Innovation" in response to the National Innovation Initiative Report "Innovate America." UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 280... ... Bring business reviewers into the Phase I process 5. Provide training for international patent strategies B Read the entire page →
From page 281... ... Continuously review, refine, rejuvenate and revise the investment business focused topics of Electronics Technology, Biotechnology and Information Based Technology 2. Continuously review, refine, rejuvenate and revise the industrial market-driven topics of Advanced Materials and Manufacturing and Chemical Based Technology 3. Read the entire page →
From page 282... ... Moreover, the history of the program is replete with changes to make the program better. 8.14 CONCLUSION This report is one element of the study that Congress requested of SBIR as a part of the 2000 program reauthorization.216 It focuses on the smallest, and the oldest, of the "big-five" Federal SBIR programs addressed by the NRC study of SBIR, namely, NSF's SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 283... ... At the same time, it identifies challenges and recommends operational improvements to strengthen the SBIR program at the National Science Foundation. Read the entire page →
From page 284... ... 284 PREPUBLICATION COPY Appendix A NSF SBIR Program Data Phase I Grants by Year, 1992-2005 $ Total Average Grant Amount FY Grants $ Grant 1992 208 $49,755 $10,349,115 1993 256 $49,727 $12,730,184 1994 309 $64,103 $19,807,945 1995 301 $64,571 $19,436,011 1996 252 $74,283 $18,719,287 1997 261 $74,262 $19,382,371 1998 215 $98,371 $21,149,814 1999 236 $98,749 $23,304,757 2000 233 $99,405 $23,161,372 2001 219 $99,353 $21,758,218 2002 286 $99,162 $28,360,340 2003 437 $99,275 $43,383,103 2004 244 $100,000 $25,117,992 2005 149 $98,575 $14,687,703 Phase I Applications and Success Rates, 1994-2005 Success Phase I Rate: % Phase I Total of Proposals Not Proposals Phase I Proposals Funded Proposals Granted FY Funded 1,587 309 1,896 16.3 1994 1,552 301 1,853 16.2 1995 1,530 252 1,782 14.1 1996 1,390 261 1,651 15.8 1997 1,367 215 1,582 13.6 1998 1,286 236 1,522 15.5 1999 1,110 233 1,343 17.3 2000 942 219 1,161 18.9 2001 1,125 286 1,411 20.3 2002 1,653 437 2,090 20.9 2003 1,186 244 1,430 17.1 2004 923 149 1,072 13.9 2005 Read the entire page →
From page 285... ... 285 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase I Grants to Woman-owned Businesses, 1994-2005 Average $ Size of Women owned Phase I Women- Average $ Grants as a owned Size of % of Share Phase I Phase I Average Average $ of Grants to Size of Grants to $ Size of Women- All Phase I Phase I Woman- All Overall Grants owned Average owned Grants to Phase I FY Businesses (%) Businesses Grants Businesses Grants 25 309 8.1 $63,496 $64,103 99.1 1994 33 301 11.0 $64,680 $64,571 100.2 1995 27 252 10.7 $74,051 $74,275 99.7 1996 24 261 9.2 $74,252 $74,262 100.0 1997 22 215 10.2 $99,341 $98,371 101.0 1998 16 236 6.8 $96,863 $98,096 98.7 1999 21 233 9.0 $99,378 $97,690 101.7 2000 17 219 7.8 $99,299 $99,353 99.9 2001 38 286 13.3 $99,345 $100,559 98.8 2002 47 437 10.8 $99,789 $99,272 100.5 2003 23 244 9.4 $97,678 $99,254 98.4 2004 20 149 13.4 $99,136 $98,575 100.6 2005 Phase I Applications and Success Rates for Woman-owned Companies Women- Women owned owned as % Overall Success Success of Overall Proposals Proposals Total FY Declined Granted Applications Rate Rate Success Rate 249 25 274 9.1 16.3 56.0 1994 212 33 245 13.5 16.2 82.9 1995 197 27 224 12.1 14.1 85.2 1996 204 24 228 10.5 15.8 66.6 1997 177 22 199 11.1 13.6 81.3 1998 179 16 195 8.2 15.5 52.9 1999 157 21 178 11.8 17.3 68.0 2000 133 17 150 11.3 18.9 60.1 2001 165 38 203 18.7 20.3 92.4 2002 209 47 256 18.4 20.9 87.8 2003 168 23 191 12.0 17.1 70.4 2004 135 20 154 13.0 13.9 93.4 2005 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 286... ... 286 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase I Grants to Disadvantaged Businesses,a 1994-2005 Average Grant Grants to Size to Disadvantaged Disadvantaged Businesses as Average Grant Average Businesses as Grants to Grants to a % of Grants Size to Grant Size % of Average Disadvantaged to All Grant Size to Disadvantaged All to All FY Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses All Businesses 35 309 11.3 $63,597 $64,103 99.2 1994 40 301 13.3 $64,849 $64,571 100.4 1995 30 252 11.9 $74,949 $74,275 100.9 1996 35 261 13.4 $74,746 $74,262 100.7 1997 27 215 12.6 $99,589 $98,371 101.2 1998 36 236 15.3 $98,431 $98,096 100.3 1999 32 233 13.7 $99,773 $97,690 102.1 2000 35 219 16.0 $99,571 $99,353 100.2 2001 50 286 17.5 $99,720 $100,559 99.2 2002 54 437 12.4 $99,515 $99,272 100.2 2003 28 244 11.5 $98,348 $99,254 99.1 2004 16 149 10.7 $98,601 $98,575 100.0 2005 a Note that NSF's term, "disadvantaged," is used here, whereas the main body of the report has used the SBA counterpart term, "minority." As concerns this NRC study, the two terms are considered equivalent, despite differences in Federal contract usage. Phase I Applications and Success Rates of Disadvantaged Businesses, a 1994-2005 Disadvantaged Disadvantaged Disadvantaged Business Business Disadvantaged Success Rate Business Business Total of Phase I Phase I Success Success Rate Phase I Disadvantaged Rate of All Applications Applications As % of Overall Declined Granted Applications Businesses Businesses Success Rate 306 35 341 10.3 16.3 63.0 1994 302 40 342 11.7 16.2 72.0 1995 283 30 313 9.6 14.1 67.8 1996 263 35 298 11.7 15.8 74.3 1997 220 27 247 10.9 13.6 80.4 1998 211 36 247 14.6 15.5 94.0 1999 159 32 191 16.8 17.3 96.6 2000 167 35 202 17.3 18.9 91.9 2001 242 50 292 17.1 20.3 84.5 2002 359 54 413 13.1 20.9 62.5 2003 207 28 235 11.9 17.1 69.7 2004 154 16 170 9.4 13.9 67.7 2005 Read the entire page →
From page 288... ... 288 PREPUBLICATION COPY Distribution of Phase I Grants among Firms Number of Companies Total Grants Number Receiving this Received by of Number of these Grants Grants Companies 40 1 40 36 1 36 33 1 33 32 1 32 31 1 31 24 2 48 22 2 44 21 1 21 18 2 36 16 4 64 15 1 15 14 2 28 13 5 65 12 7 84 11 6 66 10 1 10 9 4 36 8 11 88 7 11 77 6 27 162 5 24 120 4 47 188 3 92 276 2 249 498 1 1115 1115 Phase I Previous Winners and New Winners, 1996-2003 % of Grants to Multiple Winners within Unique Previous New % new FY Grants Winners Each Year Winners Winners Winners 252 207 17.9 98 109 52.7 1996 261 215 17.6 99 116 54.0 1997 215 183 14.9 83 100 54.6 1998 236 194 17.8 113 81 41.8 1999 233 205 12.0 97 108 52.7 2000 219 187 14.6 92 95 50.8 2001 286 232 18.9 99 133 57.3 2002 427 374 12.4 138 236 63.1 2003 Note: The excess of grants over unique winners indicates the number of grants that went to firms receiving more than one grant within the designated year. Read the entire page →
From page 289... ... 289 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase I Grants by State State % of all State % of all CA 656.0 19.0% MO 28 0.8% MA 476.0 13.8% DE 22 0.6% CO 192.0 5.6% IN 25 0.7% NY 183.0 5.3% WI 26 0.8% TX 140.0 4.0% OK 20 0.6% NJ 129.0 3.7% HI 21 0.6% CT 119.0 3.4% AR 24 0.7% VA 123.0 3.6% VT 18 0.5% MD 115.0 3.3% ME 20 0.6% OH 105.0 3.0% SC 15 0.4% PA 88.0 2.5% WY 13 0.4% AZ 81.0 2.3% SD 12 0.3% NM 78.0 2.3% KS 16 0.5% MN 63.0 1.8% AK 12 0.3% MI 69.0 2.0% WV 11 0.3% WA 63.0 1.8% ND 12 0.3% FL 60.0 1.7% LA 11 0.3% IL 53.0 1.5% ID 9 0.3% OR 46.0 1.3% IA 8 0.2% NC 53.0 1.5% NV 6 0.2% UT 40.0 1.2% KY 7 0.2% GA 44.0 1.3% NE 6 0.2% AL 34.0 1.0% MS 7 0.2% TN 30.0 0.9% RI 2 0.1% NH 29.0 0.8% PR 3 0.1% MT 32.0 0.9% DC 2 0.1% Phase I Applications and Success Rates by State* Total Success State Declines Grants Applications rate AK 29 12 41 29.3 AL 173 25 198 12.6 AR 34 18 52 34.6 AZ 442 72 514 14.0 CA 2420 602 3022 19.9 CO 743 184 927 19.8 CT 457 118 575 20.5 DC 25 2 27 7.4 DE 109 22 131 16.8 FL 332 53 385 13.8 GA 152 38 190 20.0 GU 1 1 0.0 HI 56 17 73 23.3 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 290... ... 290 PREPUBLICATION COPY IA 39 8 47 17.0 ID 49 7 56 12.5 IL 267 52 319 16.3 IN 116 19 135 14.1 KS 43 12 55 21.8 KY 17 6 23 26.1 LA 121 10 131 7.6 MA 1512 472 1984 23.8 MD 611 106 717 14.8 ME 35 14 49 28.6 MI 338 60 398 15.1 MN 259 63 322 19.6 MO 87 26 113 23.0 MS 28 4 32 12.5 MT 78 26 104 25.0 NC 154 41 195 21.0 ND 24 11 35 31.4 NE 6 4 10 40.0 NH 89 31 120 25.8 NJ 581 117 698 16.8 NM 295 79 374 21.1 NV 32 5 37 13.5 NY 638 171 809 21.1 OH 515 88 603 14.6 OK 60 19 79 24.1 OR 141 47 188 25.0 PA 338 84 422 19.9 PR 2 RI 27 3 30 10.0 SC 29 14 43 32.6 SD 42 10 52 19.2 TN 126 30 156 19.2 TX 759 140 899 15.6 UT 157 38 195 19.5 VA 773 113 886 12.8 VI 1 0 1 0.0 VT 35 15 50 30.0 WA 273 58 331 17.5 WI 109 22 131 16.8 WV 48 11 59 18.6 WY 27 12 39 30.8 Note: through 2003. Read the entire page →
From page 291... ... 291 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase II Grants, 1992-2005 FY Grants Average Maximum Minimum Total 57 $246,373 $288,934 $203,984 $14,043,289 1992 52 $269,668 $321,875 $224,503 $14,022,757 1993 21 $279,983 $300,000 $242,194 $5,879,644 1994 48 $277,136 $300,000 $6,000 $13,302,542 1995 90 $297,584 $399,998 $213,271 $26,782,533 1996 122 $289,390 $325,817 $66,327 $35,305,525 1997 117 $344,958 $400,000 $262,889 $40,360,087 1998 89 $394,854 $400,000 $200,000 $35,141,968 1999 95 $400,827 $453,585 $300,000 $38,078,524 2000 91 $475,018 $500,000 $200,000 $43,226,632 2001 67 $495,645 $500,000 $329,984 $33,208,238 2002 77 $498,505 $500,000 $417,779 $38,384,851 2003 131 $498,254 $500,000 $398,768 $65,278,995 2004 132 $499,715 $749,947 $320,102 $65,962,445 2005 Phase II Applications and Success Rates, 1993-2005 Success Phase II Rate: % Proposals Phase II Total of Proposals Not Proposals Phase II FY Funded Granted Funded Proposals 41 52 93 55.9 1993 106 21 127 16.5 1994 159 48 207 23.2 1995 133 90 223 40.4 1996 115 122 237 51.5 1997 93 117 210 55.7 1998 91 89 180 49.4 1999 92 95 187 50.8 2000 83 91 174 52.3 2001 91 67 158 42.4 2002 110 77 187 41.2 2003 190 131 321 40.8 2004 83 132 215 61.4 2005 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 292... ... 292 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase II Grants to Woman-owned Businesses, 1995-2005 Average $ Size of Women Women- Average $ owned owned Size of Phase II Phase II Share of Phase II as a % of Grants to Phase II All Grants to Average $ Average Women- Grants to Phase II Woman- Size of All $ Size of Owned All Grants owned Phase II All Phase FY Businesses Businesses (%) Businesses Grants II Grants 1995 1 48 2.1 $299,994 $277,136 1.1 1996 5 90 5.6 $289,799 $297,584 1.0 1997 7 122 5.7 $292,329 $289,390 1.0 1998 16 117 13.7 $327,549 $344,958 0.9 1999 8 89 9.0 $399,801 $394,854 1.0 2000 9 95 9.5 $404,585 $400,827 1.0 2001 6 91 6.6 $466,323 $475,018 1.0 2002 4 67 6.0 $499,407 $495,645 1.0 2003 4 77 5.2 $499,903 $498,505 1.0 2004 5 131 3.8 $499,903 $497,997 1.0 2005 14 132 10.6 Phase II Applications and Success Rates for Woman-owned Businesses, 1995-2005 Success Rate of Women Women- Women- Women- owned owned owned owned Businesses Success Business Business Business Rate of as % of Overall Phase II Phase II Total Phase Women- Overall Applications Applications II Success Success owned FY Declined Granted Applications Businesses Rate Rate 1995 1 1 2 50.0 23.2 215.6 1996 15 5 20 25.0 40.4 61.9 1997 14 7 21 33.3 51.5 64.8 1998 8 16 24 66.7 55.7 119.7 1999 14 8 22 36.4 49.4 73.5 2000 5 9 14 64.3 50.8 126.5 2001 9 6 15 40.0 52.3 76.5 2002 11 4 15 26.7 42.4 62.9 2003 22 4 26 15.4 41.2 37.4 2004 14 5 19 26.3 40.8 64.5 2005 11 14 25 56.0 61.4 91.2 Read the entire page →
From page 293... ... 293 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase II Grants to Disadvantaged Businesses, 1995-2005 Phase II Grants to Disadvantaged Phase II Phase II Businesses as Grants to Grants to % of Phase II Disadvantaged All Grants to All FY Businesses Businesses Businesses 1995 1 48 2.1 1996 9 90 10.0 1997 30 122 24.6 1998 14 117 12.0 1999 20 89 22.5 2000 16 95 16.8 2001 7 91 7.7 2002 8 67 11.9 2003 8 77 10.4 2004 12 131 9.2 2005 10 132 7.6 Phase II Applications and Success Rates for Disadvantaged Businesses, 1995-2005 Success Rate Disadvantaged Disadvantaged of Disadvantaged Success Rate Business Business Disadvantaged Business Total of Success Businesses as Phase II Phase II Applications Applications Phase II Disadvantaged Rate of All % of Overall FY Applications Businesses Declined Granted Businesses Success Rate 8 1 9 11.1 23.2 47.9 1995 20 9 29 31.0 40.4 76.9 1996 17 30 47 63.8 51.5 124.0 1997 13 14 27 51.9 55.7 93.1 1998 9 20 29 69.0 49.4 139.5 1999 12 16 28 57.1 50.8 112.5 2000 11 7 18 38.9 52.3 74.4 2001 22 8 30 26.7 42.4 62.9 2002 24 8 32 25.0 41.2 60.7 2003 35 12 47 25.5 40.8 62.6 2004 10 10 20 50.0 45.2 110.7 2005 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 294... ... 294 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase II Grants by State State Grants % of all State Grants % of all CA 228 27.8% NH 10 0.0 MA 139 16.9% MT 12 0.0 CO 57 6.9% VT 8 0.0 NY 56 6.8% DE 8 0.0 CT 38 4.6% WI 8 0.0 VA 39 4.8% HI 6 0.0 MD 36 4.4% ND 7 0.0 TX 35 4.3% OK 6 0.0 OH 32 3.9% SD 5 0.0 NJ 29 3.5% WY 6 0.0 MI 24 2.9% AK 4 0.0 NM 24 2.9% IN 4 0.0 MN 21 2.6% KS 5 0.0 WA 20 2.4% ME 4 0.0 PA 21 2.6% SC 6 0.0 AZ 17 2.1% AR 6 0.0 IL 20 2.4% KY 3 0.0 TN 15 1.8% MO 5 0.0 FL 17 2.1% ID 2 0.0 GA 15 1.8% LA 3 0.0 NC 12 1.5% MS 1 0.0 OR 14 1.7% NE 1 0.0 UT 13 1.6% NV 1 0.0 AL 11 1.3% RI 1 0.0 DC 1 0.0 IA 1 0.0 Phase II Applications and Success Rates by State Applications Applications Total Success State Declined Granted Applications rate CA 194 196 390 50.3 MA 174 125 299 41.8 CO 61 51 112 45.5 NY 66 49 115 42.6 CT 45 36 81 44.4 VA 43 35 78 44.9 MD 41 32 73 43.8 TX 44 31 75 41.3 OH 38 29 67 43.3 NJ 45 25 70 35.7 MI 17 24 41 58.5 NM 36 22 58 37.9 MN 22 18 40 45.0 Read the entire page →
From page 296... ... 7 31 22.6 Lynntech, Inc 8 36 22.2 Spire Corporation 7 32 21.9 Phase IIB Grants, 1992-1995 Phase Total $ Outlay IIB FY Grants Phase IIB 1992 0 0 1993 0 0 1994 0 0 1995 0 0 1996 0 0 1997 0 0 1998 4 $399,944 1999 21 $1,998,574 2000 9 $1,660,191 2001 14 $4,302,682 2002 39 $9,588,580 2003 24 $5,690,294 2004 22 $6,025,436 2005 28 $9,260,464 Read the entire page →
From page 297... ... 297 PREPUBLICATION COPY Phase IIB Grants by State, 1998-2005 State Grants % of all State Grants % of all CA 33 24.8% CT 2 1.5% MA 13 9.8% DE 2 1.5% NY 6 4.5% KS 2 1.5% OH 6 4.5% NH 2 1.5% NC 5 3.8% NM 2 1.5% VA 5 3.8% TN 2 1.5% AL 4 3.0% UT 2 1.5% IL 4 3.0% VT 2 1.5% MD 4 3.0% WI 2 1.5% FL 3 2.3% AK 1 0.8% GA 3 2.3% AZ 1 0.8% MI 3 2.3% HI 1 0.8% MN 3 2.3% MT 1 0.8% PA 3 2.3% OK 1 0.8% TX 3 2.3% OR 1 0.8% WA 3 2.3% RI 1 0.8% WY 3 2.3% SC 1 0.8% CO 2 1.5% SD 1 0.8% UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 298... ... (Appendix C presents the Phase I survey.) About the Surveys Starting date and coverage The survey of SBIR Phase II awards was administered in 2005, and included awards made through 2001. Read the entire page →
From page 299... ... The researchers added 24 new questions to attempt to understand both commercial and non-commercial aspects, including knowledge base impacts, of SBIR, and to gain insight UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 300... ... For many, the email addresses that we did have were those of Principal Investigators rather than an official of the firm. The decision to use an on-line survey meant that the first step of survey distribution was an outreach effort to establish contact with the firms. Read the entire page →
From page 302... ... Agency Phase II Awards with % of Sample Answered Surveys as Surveys as Sample Good Email Awards w/ Survey as of a % of a % of Size Addresses Good Email 8/04/2005 Sample Awards Addresses Contacted DoD 3055 2191 72% 920 30% 42% NIH 1680 1127 67% 496 30% 44% NASA 779 534 69% 181 23% 34% NSF 457 336 74% 162 35% 48% DOE 439 335 76% 157 36% 47% Total 6408 4523 70% 1916 30% 42% Figure B-1 Phase II Survey Responses by Agency 4 August 2005 The NRC Methodology report had assumed a response rate of about 20 percent. Considering the length of the survey and its voluntary nature, the rate achieved was relatively high and reflects both the interest of the participants in the SBIR program and the extensive follow-up efforts. Read the entire page →
From page 303... ... If c., go to Question 3. If b., skip to Question 16 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 304... ... , when did the first sale occur, and what is the approximate amount of total sales resulting from the technology developed during this project? If multiple SBIR grants contributed to the ultimate commercial outcome, report only the share of total sales appropriate to this SBIR project. Read the entire page →
From page 306... ... commercialise your SBIR grant? Read the entire page →
From page 307... ... 84% Narrower in scope 15. In the absence of SBIR funding, (Please provide your best estimate of the impact) Read the entire page →
From page 308... ... 55% had no prior Phase II and another 30% had 5 or less prior Phase II 20. How many SBIR grants has your company received that are related to the project/technology supported by this Phase II grant ? Read the entire page →
From page 309... ... Funding and other assistance 21. Prior to this SBIR Phase II grant, did your company receive funds for research or development of the technology in this project from any of the following sources? Read the entire page →
From page 310... ... 221 a. 68% No matching funds / co-investment/cost sharing were identified in the proposal. Read the entire page →
From page 311... ... 1% Other UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 312... ... Was your company founded because of the SBIR Program? Read the entire page →
From page 313... ... 2 to 5 Phase II 15% (12%) 6 to 10 Phase II UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 314... ... What percentage of your company's growth would you attribute to the SBIR program after receiving its first SBIR award? Read the entire page →
From page 315... ... Which, if any, of the following has your company experienced as a result of the SBIR Program? (Select all that apply.) Read the entire page →
From page 316... ... 67% (71%) The company President or CEO g. Read the entire page →
From page 317... ... Surveys By Agency 2001 DoD 13,103 1,198 9% DoE 2,005 281 14% NASA 3,363 303 9% NIH 7,049 716 10% NSF 2,458 248 10% TOTAL 27,978 2,746 10% UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 318... ... Phase I only Received Phase II Assisted/Most Useful Assisted/ Most Useful 10/3 0/0 State agency provided assistance 11/10 2/2 15/9 0/0 Mentor company provided assistance 21/15 1/0 31/17 1/1 University provided assistance 34/22 5/4 16/8 2/2 Federal agency SBIR program Managers 25/19 2/2 or technical representatives provided assistance 3. Did you receive a Phase II award as a sequential direct follow on to this Phase I award? Read the entire page →
From page 320... ... 22 % 22 The company received at least one subsequent Phase I SBIR award in this technology. 14 % 20 Although the company did not receive the direct follow on Phase II to this Phase I, the company did receive at least one other subsequent Phase II SBIR award in this technology. Read the entire page →
From page 322... ... Questions 13 and 14 address additional funding. Additional Developmental Funds include non-SBIR funds from federal or private sector sources, or from your own company, used for further development and/or commercialization of the technology developed during this Phase I project. Read the entire page →
From page 324... ... Agenor Mafra-Neto President@iscatech.com Language Weaver, Inc. Marina del Rey, CA 90292 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 1210 310-437-7300 Mr. Read the entire page →
From page 325... ... All but three of the interviews were conducted at company headquarters. Three were conducted in Reston, VA, at a Navy Opportunity Forum. Read the entire page →

From page 240...

... 18. 180 DOE, the agency with the earliest Opportunity Forum, has reportedly long opened its Opportunity Forum to partnering with SBIR programs run by other agencies.