Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Program Management
Pages 35-67

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 35...
... . The DoE SBIR/STTR programs also serve DoE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
From page 36...
... Approximately 100 federal staff in the program offices of the participating science divisions and applied programs manage the program's technical aspects. These include technical points of contact (TPOCs)
From page 37...
... Listed in Figure 2-1 in the contractor boxes is "Dawnbreaker," a private contractor that provides two types of support services to the DoE SBIR/STTR Program Office: Advice to firms seeking to apply to the DoE program, i.e., "Phase 0 support," and support services are to assist Phase I recipients plan for Phase II, and to provide commercialization assistance to Phase II awardees. OUTREACH AND APPLICATION SUPPORT DoE recognizes that it can derive significant agency-wide value from outreach activities to attract promising companies and technologies to the program.
From page 38...
... Therefore, there is evidence that DoE's recent efforts to better inform potential applicants about the application process have been successful. SOLICITATION TOPICS Topic development at the DoE SBIR program 3 is highly decentralized: individual topic managers in the science divisions and in the applied programs 3 The process has changed little in recent years.
From page 39...
... For the first of the two FY 2016 releases, science divisions ASCR, BER, BES, and NP participated, generating a total of 25 topics. The other science divisions and applied programs will participate in Release 2.
From page 40...
... This allocation of funding and influence over topic selection ignores systematic differences in commercial potential among the science divisions and the applied programs: commercial opportunities in high energy physics are not nearly as compelling as they are in renewable energy or fossil fuels because markets in high energy physics are smaller and needs are more specialized. For example, many research division topics support development of new scientific instruments, which, although valuable themselves, tend not to represent a large commercial market.
From page 41...
... All of the topics published under the first FY 2016 release (in which ASCR, BES, BER, and NP participated) included an "other" subtopic, and SBIR/STTR Program Manager, Manny Oliver, said that initial tracking of "other" subtopics indicated that for the science divisions, "other" topics were drawing 7 to 9 percent of applications.
From page 42...
... Topics from Science vs. Applied Divisions Topics within the science divisions in large measure remain unchanged from year to year, and in some cases subtopics remain unchanged or similar as well.
From page 43...
... Shared Solar Energy Development Tools 7 In both cases, the solar topics reflect technical needs identified in the context of a large DoE/EERE solar initiative -- the SunShot Initiative. 8 Yet, while DoE solar topics for at least 2015 and 2016 have been based on needs identified by the SunShot initiative, the subtopics changed and became more restrictive.
From page 44...
... is released. This period provides potential applicants with an opportunity to connect with subtopic managers to discuss technical elements of a proposed project and to become familiar with the somewhat complex application process now required by all federal SBIR agencies.
From page 45...
... FIGURE 2-3 DoE SBIR/STTR applications and awards timeline, FY 2016. SOURCE: DoE SBIR/STTR Program Office.
From page 46...
... 46 FIGURE 2-4 Deadlines for DoE SBIR/STTR applications, FY 2015. SOURCE: DoE website.
From page 47...
... 11 For preparing Fast-Track and Phase II guidance, DoE refers applicants to the respective Funding Opportunity Announcement. 11 DoE, Instructions for Completing a DOE SBIR/STTR Phase I Grant Application.
From page 48...
... Project Narrative The project narrative also describes commercial potential of the proposed project, in terms of expected future applications and/or public benefits if the project is continued into Phase II and beyond. The applicant is asked to discuss the technical, economic, social, and other benefits to the public as a whole that are anticipated if the project is successful and is carried forward.
From page 49...
... the appropriateness of the data management plan for the proposed work. Selection Criteria Commercial potential is considered under criterion number two.
From page 50...
... From the applicant's perspective, learning that they received a score of "outstanding" and did not receive funding, while others with the same score did receive funding would likely be perceived as a lack of transparency and possible unfairness. A clear statement of selection criteria, a more nuanced scoring system that indicates ranking among proposals, and announcement of where the funding cut-off occurred, such as some aspects of the selection process used at NIH, helps prevent perceptions that the selection process lacks transparency and fairness.
From page 51...
... PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 51 FIGURE 2-6 Outcomes from review of DoE Phase I and Phase II applications, FY 2015. SOURCE: Manny Oliver, "DoE's SBIR and STTR Programs," DoE Webinar, December 4, 2015.
From page 52...
... In 2012, the Program Office arranged to have contracts staff in Chicago dedicated to the SBIR/STTR Programs. This arrangement was made possible in part by the decision to release two annual solicitations, with some divisions participating in the spring and the others in the fall.
From page 53...
... COMMERCIALIZATION SUPPORT DoE provides commercialization support for awardees through a $1.5 million annual contract with Dawnbreaker, a third-party service provider. Through a range of services, Dawnbreaker provides assistance to companies to write Phase I proposals, to Phase I companies to write Phase II proposals, and to Phase II companies to improve their commercialization plans.
From page 54...
... According to the DoE SBIR/STTR Program Office, their share has varied -- from a high of 80 percent in FY 1999 to a low of 13 percent in FY 2014, while averaging about a third. 18 16 Manny Oliver, "The DoE STTR Program," presentation at the NAS STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015; discussions with DoE staff; and other material provided by DoE.
From page 55...
... Since the program permitted such a switch in FY 2011, 10 out of 83 STTR Phase I awardees applying for Phase II funding sought SBIR Phase II funding, and 4 received it. 20 SBIR/STTR PROCESS ISSUES To build on the analysis provided in the National Academies 2008 report 21 on the DoE SBIR program, the current assessment sought to identify additional information about the process of implementing SBIR/STTR awards, with a view to providing management with more detailed information about program operations.
From page 56...
... As shown in Table 2-3, 31 percent of respondents reported that the application process was easier or much easier than for other sources of federal funding, and 15 percent of respondents indicated that it was more difficult or much more difficult. Amount of Funding Although there are obvious limitations to the utility of asking recipients whether the amount of money provided was sufficient for the surveyed project, there is at least some value in determining the extent of positive responses.
From page 57...
... Size of Awards Although awardees often suggest in other contexts (e.g., case study interviews) that the size of awards should be increased, especially before the recent changes were made during reauthorization, the 2014 Survey asked directly about the possible trade-off between the size of awards and the number of awards -- the trade-off being that unless agency funding for SBIR or STTR programs increases, larger awards inevitably imply fewer awards.
From page 58...
... TABLE 2-6 Views on changing the Size of the SBIR/STTR Program, Reported by 2014 Survey Respondents Percentage of Respondents Overall SBIR Awardees STTR Awardees Expanded (with equivalent funding taken 67 67 70 from other federal research programs you benefit from and value) Kept at about the current level 32 32 30 Reduced (with equivalent funding applied to 1 1 0 other federal research programs you benefit from and value)
From page 59...
... 25 At some agencies, the rotation of program managers has been a problem for awardee companies, especially where the program manager has a function in connecting the company to Phase III opportunities within the agency. In general, however, TM rotation has not seemed a serious problem at DoE; only 17 percent of respondents indicated that their TM was replaced during the Phase II award.
From page 60...
... However, despite the new initiatives, the support that DoE offers beyond Phase II is limited. In particular, no programs are in place to link SBIR/STTR projects to potential uses inside DoE at the National Laboratories.
From page 61...
... Technology Transfer Opportunities In 2013, DoE began a new technology transfer initiative, using the SBIR and STTR programs to transition technology developed at DoE National Laboratories and universities to the marketplace. To accomplish this, DoE began setting aside a number of awards for Technology Transfer Opportunities (TTOs)
From page 62...
... SBIR/STTR and the National Laboratories At DoE, many STTR awards in particular involve partnerships with DoE National Laboratories. This is not the case for other agencies, although all have at least some STTR awards for which a National Laboratories is the Research Institution partner.
From page 63...
... For the National Laboratories, even a Phase II STTR award is a small amount of money. Thus, although scientific staff may be enthusiastic about working with an SBC 36 Matthew Stepp, Sean Pool, Nick Loris, and John Spencer, Turning the Page: Reimagining the National Labs in the 21st Century, ITIF Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation, June 2013.
From page 64...
... Administrative costs for the lab can effectively swallow all of the funding that might be provided to the lab under a Phase I award. In addition, although more than one-half of DoE SBIR/STTR reviewers are from the National Laboratories, these staff also play a powerful role in determining topics.
From page 65...
... noted that each lab has its own culture; XIA worked quite successfully with Pacific Northwest National Lab and Lawrence Livermore National Lab, but not with other laboratories. Several survey respondents and interviewees noted that STTR agreements with National Laboratories were less enforceable than SBIR subcontracts.
From page 66...
... 40 CONCLUSIONS DoE and in particular the DoE SBIR/STTR Program Office has substantially improved program management since the previous National Academies report in 2008. These improvements include: • the shift to electronic submission • considerably shorter time lines for applications and awards • better connections to topic managers • introduction of commercialization support in several areas • perhaps the best SBIR/STTR website for applicants 38 Ibid.
From page 67...
... Another factor that appears to drive the narrowness of topic definition at EERE is a deliberate effort to constrain the number of proposals. There are doubtlessly alternative, constructive methods of holding the numbers of proposals to manageable levels -- while including an open topic -- that are more consistent with improving the quality of proposals and enabling those with higher commercial potential.


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.