Archive for category Science Funding

SBIR close to renewal

I’ve commented before on the SBIR program, which was originally envisaged as a way to support small, high-tech businesses, while generating truly innovative solutions to difficulties faced by US Government programs. SBIR was for small businesses only (<500 employees), majority owned by US citizens and/or US companies (with the restriction that the entire family of companies hard to qualify as a small business). SBIR contracts are not large; the standard is ~100k-$150k for a proof of principal (research), followed by ~$1M for development to a stage at which it could attract Angel financing.

For the past three and a half years, SBIR has been a political football, since the previous authorization ended 9/30/08. It appears that an agreement has been reached.  This agreement would:

  • Reauthorize the SBIR program, more or less as it is, for six years
  • Increase the SBIR allocation, which is currently 2.5% of government research, to 3.2% in FY2017 (slightly more than 0.1% increase each year).  STTR, the equivalent program aimed at universities and nonprofit research groups, will get an increase from 0.5% to 0.45% over the same period, about 0.05% per year.
  • Permitting, for the first time, funding to small businesses that are majority owned by US corporations–at least, by investment companies (venture, angel, private equity, etc.)–even if the owning corporation does not qualify as a small business.  Only up to 15% of the funding can go to these types of organizations for the contract agencies, such as DoD, but up to 25% of the funding can go to these organizations for grant agencies NIH, DOE, and NSF.
  • Permitting, for the first time, DoD, NIH, and ED to give Phase II awards ($1M) without prior proof-of-concept in Phase I, if the agency determines that there is a compelling reason to do so.

This is a much better solution than we might have thought.  This is going to be offered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act.  One potential problem with this is that there is a provision already added to that Act that many people are against, one that permits the government to arrest US citizens and hold them incognito, without informing anyone, at any location in the world, and doesn’t even require the government to state a reason.  This is likely to cause a lot of debate, at the very least, on this Act, and we will still need to advocate to keep the SBIR portions of the Act, even if the other parts are amended.

For more information, go to Rick Shindell’s SBIR Insider.

Post to Twitter

Share

Tags: , , ,

SBIR in need of Continuation

In his SBIR Insider newsletter of January 16, Rick Shindell covers a lot of ground.  The key point is his analysis of current Congressional priorities.  He points out that, since the House is trying to do a number of things (such as repealing the Health Care Act), they are unlikely to put in the time to do a full reauthorization.  The new Chair of the House Small Business Committee is Sam Graves (R-MO), replacing Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).  I was originally hopeful that Graves would be more open to genuine small business concerns, but Rick points out that he generally supported Velazquez when their roles were reversed.  Still, we hope to get a continuing resolution to keep SBIR alive for a few months as Congress tries to reauthorize this incredibly successful program.

If you read the Internet as assiduously as I do, you have no doubt heard lots of stories of “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse (WF&A) in the SBIR program.”  Many of these seem to be minor technicalities, but if the government sues a small business we generally have two choices – settle or go out of business. My own (opinionated) conclusion is that the WF&A attacked by government investigators is generally small, probably just accounting errors, while the WF&A that I would like to see them attack is not only ignored but commended.  Read the rest of this entry »

Post to Twitter

Share

Tags:

SBIR 2.0. More Entrepreneur Friendly?

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has released an initiative they call “SBIR 2.0.”  It feels preliminary, but it has a number of good ideas (together, of course, with a number of bad ones).  Their claim is:

“SBIR 2.0 will make the program more entrepreneur-friendly to ensure entrepreneurs have the support they need to do what they do best – innovate and create jobs. By leveraging best practices among the 11 agencies who participate in SBIR and strengthening performance measurements to ensure effective operation government wide, SBIR 2.0 will produce better results for the program.”

Their goals include reducing the time-frame between proposal selection and award to 60 days (hey, how about the time it takes to select the winner?), clarifying and simplifying data rights for SBIR contracts (I like “everything developed under this project belongs to the small business!”), and accessing all solicitations from a single location.  They’re also pushing for expanded “Valley of Death” bridge financing and expanded availability of technology transfer from federal labs (currently, federal labs can’t participate in any way on most SBIR projects).  They also want to create new one-size-fits-all systems, which they call “implementing common performance metrics,” and want to “share performance data publicly” (not completely sure what they mean by that).
The SBA has a website about SBIR and wants to make www.sbir.gov their main SBIR portal.

Post to Twitter

Share

Tags: ,