SBIR at the Department of Defense (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Program Management
6 Program Management
Pages 170-199
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 170... ...
In this chapter, the committee undertakes a detailed review of how various services and components have sought to improve the SBIR program's efficiency in recent years. In particular, this chapter explores issues related to the selection of topics, which guide the technical direction of the program; source selection, and which determines which applicants receive funding; and a range of other SBIR process issues, including an extended discussion of Technical Points of Contact (TPOCs)
|
From page 171... ...
NAVSEA correctly reasons that this challenge has implications for its own workforce development, and its commitment to address this challenge as it relates to its own mission is commendable." 2 This section is drawn from NAVSEA, "NAVSEA SBIR Needs and Topic Validation Process," April 2012, and from interviews with Dean Putnam, NAVSEA SBIR Program Manager; Dr. Regan Campbell, PEO SUBS Director for Undersea Warfare; Glen Sturtevant, PEO Ships SBIR Director; and Douglas Marker, PEO IWS SBIR Director, June 25, 2013.
|
From page 172... ...
. Meeting these requirements helps to ensure topic quality, according to Dean Putnam, NAVSEA SBIR Program Manager.5 Although each of the components and Services has its own process for writing topics, and these are likely to differ significantly from the NAVSEA process described above, the general point is that the era in which topic writing was left largely to individual authors, and in which there was almost no linkage between acquisition offices and topics, has largely ended.
|
From page 173... ...
____________________________ SOURCE: NAVSEA: NAVSEA SBIR Needs and Topic Validation Process, April 2012. connections with acquisition offices are a high priority: According to AF staff, DoD is now targeting PEO sponsorship for more than 50 percent of topics.6 Topic Specialization One possible area for further innovation in program design may be specialization.
|
From page 174... ...
7 of 6 or 7 at the end of Phase II -- somewhat closer to combat readiness than SBIR awards at other components, which often need to be integrated by developers of larger systems. And as a result, SOCOM relies less on prime contractors to deliver weapons systems, offering more opportunities for SBIR winners to move on directly to contracts with SOCOM.
|
From page 175... ...
For example, at Navy "Phase II SBIR Proposal Invitation forms must identify the Navy acquisition or R&D program that will potentially transition the contractors' SBIR technology, product or service to Phase III and into the acquisition process. In addition, the NAVSEA SBIR PO requires from the acquisition or R&D program a Transition Memo indicating the desire to proceed with the contractor into Phase II, the potential for Phase III funding, and the requirements to be met by the contractor during SBIR Phase II development."12 At AF, recent changes in the program -- notably the introduction of a shared-cost Phase II.5 and the introduction of new liaison positons between companies and acquisitions - have strengthened the link between Phase II funding and acquisitions.
|
From page 176... ...
Each panel must include a topic expert, a Research and Systems Engineering (R&SE) expert, and a mission area expert (the latter two must be from outside the sponsoring program office, and the third must be a government employee)
|
From page 177... ...
c Thus, at NAVSEA, for example, firms with a CAI falling into the bottom quintile can score a maximum of 15 out of 30 for commercialization potential. SOURCE: DoD SBIR Program Solicitation FY 13.2 Section 6.0.
|
From page 178... ...
However, it is possible that some components favor proposals that include matching funds at this stage. The recent NRC survey addressed this question: 138 DoD Phase II respondents (18 percent)
|
From page 179... ...
16.2 N = 136 NOTE: Because respondents could choose more than one category, responses do not sum to 100 percent. SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 28.
|
From page 180... ...
for senior 23.7 company staff 2-8 weeks of effort FTE for senior company staff 35.9 2-6 months of effort FTE for senior company staff 19.1 More than 6 months of effort FTE for senior company staff 6.1 Total 100.0 N = 131 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 29. Funding Gaps Agencies have become much more attuned to problems caused by funding gaps, which can be especially challenging for small firms because they are less likely to have access to other funding sources to keep projects on life support until Phase II funding arrives.
|
From page 181... ...
About 1 percent ceased operations. These responses indicate a slight worsening of effects compared to the 2005 NRC Survey, which reported that 58 percent stopped work on the project.22 Aside from the direct impact of delayed projects, funding gaps can have long-term consequences, especially for smaller companies, for which there could be insufficient work to retain key project staff during the gap period.
|
From page 182... ...
Unless agency funding for SBIR programs increases overall, larger awards inevitably imply fewer awards. In the context of that trade-off, there was no clear majority for (or against)
|
From page 183... ...
Yes 36.1 No 38.8 Not sure 25.1 Total 100.0 N= 761 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 43. TABLE 6-8 Increasing the Size of the SBIR Program Phase II Respondents Recommendations that the size of the SBIR program be… (Percent)
|
From page 184... ...
The survey therefore asked respondents to indicate their views on the technical capacity of the TPOC with regard to the SBIR programs. Overall, more than 65 percent reported that their TPOC was extremely knowledgeable or quite knowledgeable about the SBIR program.
|
From page 185... ...
TABLE 6-11 TPOC Knowledge about the SBIR Program Phase II Respondents (Percent) Extremely knowledgeable 23.3 Quite knowledgeable 43.5 Somewhat knowledgeable 29.0 Not at all knowledgeable 4.2 100.0 N= 756 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 49.
|
From page 186... ...
Interviewees highlighted this as an important issue, because TPOCs displayed widely varied capabilities, with some being better with the scientific and technical aspects of the project and others with connections to the acquisition programs. About 45 percent of respondents thought their TPOC was very helpful or somewhat helpful in connecting the company to Phase III funding sources, while about 55 percent thought the TPOC was not very helpful or not at all helpful (see Table 6-16)
|
From page 187... ...
TABLE 6-16 Effectiveness of TPOC in Connecting to Sources of Phase III Funding Phase II Respondents (Percent) Very helpful 17.1 Somewhat helpful 27.4 Not very helpful 24.8 Not at all helpful 30.6 Total 100.0 N= 689 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 51.
|
From page 188... ...
TABLE 6-18 Replacement of TPOC during Award Period Phase II Respondents (Percent) Yes 32.3 No 67.7 Total 100.0 N= 750 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 53.
|
From page 189... ...
Supreme Court decision in Craig v. Boren required the application of "intermediate scrutiny" for programs giving preferences by gender.25 The rejection of quotas does not however mean that DoD cannot simply ignore one of the four Congressionally mandated objectives for the SBIR/STTR program: to "foster and encourage participation in innovation and entrepreneurship by socially and economically disadvantaged persons."26 23 Workshop on "Innovation, Diversity, and Success in the SBIR/STTR Programs" February 7, 2013, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
|
From page 190... ...
Participants discussed how SBIR agencies could improve outreach to educate women and minorities on the SBIR opportunity to organizations, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, women minority advocacy organizations, and professional societies, through workshops, webinars, and social media. Participants discussed how SBIR managers could be incentivized to foster and encourage this key goal of the SBIR program.
|
From page 191... ...
Survey Data on Socially or Economically Disadvantaged (SED) Scientists and Engineers in the DoD SBIR Program Previous discussions of woman and minority participation in the SBIR program focused largely on WOSBs and MOSBs.27 In general, these studies did not address the role of PIs, nor did they disaggregate MOSBs by ethnicity.
|
From page 192... ...
The current NRC survey addresses this issue by seeking more detailed demographic information from respondents. It builds on Survey 1.0 by addressing the ethnicity of principal investigators (PIs)
|
From page 193... ...
Asian Indian 4.9 4.2 Asian Pacific 3.3 4.8 Hispanic 0.8 1.0 Black American 0.5 0.4 Native American 0.5 0.3 Other 0.3 0.4 All SED 10.3 11.10 N=3 90 765 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 14C.
|
From page 194... ...
Asian Pacific 33.3 41.3 Asian Indian 41.7 36.3 Hispanic 13.9 17.5 Black American 13.9 1.3 Native American 5.6 2.5 Other - 2.5 N= 36 80 NOTE: Columns do not sum to 100 percent because respondents were permitted to select more than one category. SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 19C.
|
From page 195... ...
Although it is beyond the scope of this study to make comparisons with the overall populations of scientists and engineers, female PIs received only 7 percent of DoD SBIR awards during the study period. Second, less than 6 percent of Phase II awards went to female PIs, compared to 9.5 percent of Phase I awards.
|
From page 196... ...
Yes 9.5 5.8 No 90.5 94.2 100.0 100.0 N= 388 762 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 14A. The Team SUBS outreach effort focused on targeted outreach to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
|
From page 197... ...
revealed that there were not enough WOSBs to meet contracting goals. Team SUBS outreach conferences for WOSB begin.
|
From page 198... ...
. OTHER PI DEMOGRAPHICS Age Demographics Other demographic characteristics of the PI population within the DoD SBIR program are of interest.
|
From page 199... ...
20-24 0.3 25-29 2.1 2.6 30-34 10.0 6.6 35-39 12.8 11.5 40-44 11.0 18.4 45-49 17.2 17.7 50-54 15.9 16.8 55-59 12.6 12.1 60-64 7.9 8.8 65 or older 10.3 5.5 Total 100.0 100.0 N= 390 762 MEAN 49 48 MEDIAN 48 47 SOURCE: 2011 NRC Survey, Question 15. data show limited differences between Phase I and Phase II respondents.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.