session #24: what are agency proposal reviewers looking for? national …€¦ · ·...

Gisele Muller-Parker August 10 2009

Symbiosis lunch

1

Session #24: What are Agency Proposal Reviewers Looking For? National SBIR/STTR Conference June 18, 2014 National Science Foundation SBIR / STTR Francisco Estevez-Molinero, M.Sc., MBA – Commercial Reviewer


Symbiosis lunch

2

NSF SBIR/STTR Submission Logistics

• 2 SBIR and 2 STTR solicitations released per year (concurrently, in December and June)

• All proposals are externally-reviewed by domain experts • Reviewers: Academics, investors, industry,

entrepreneurs • Review criteria: Technology and commercial aspects

• Dialog encouraged throughout the process

• Timeline Phase I:

• Decision: 4-5 months after proposal receipt • Cash in the Bank: 6 months after proposal receipt

Phased approach, apply at every phase (no fast-track):

PHASE I – Feasibility Research (6 months - $150,000/$225,000)

PHASE II – Research Toward Prototype (24 months - $750,000)

PHASE IIB – Matching funds against outside investment (12 to 24 month extension, up to an additional $500,000)

Funds set-aside for NSF SBIR (Fiscal Year 2014)

SBIR: ~$160 million STTR: ~$18 million

Funding rate varies – 2013, e.g. Phase I: 385 awds 23% Phase II: 101 awds 54%

Funds and Funding Rate


Symbiosis lunch

3

You

Program Director Groups similar proposals, selects reviewers

reviewer* reviewer reviewer reviewer* reviewer* reviewer reviewer

Panel (1) Convenes All proposals discussed as a group

Program Director Considers panel advice

Two distinct audiences – technical and commercial

$ $ or

Panel Summary

Minimum 1 sentence on:

• Innovation Proposed

• Broader Impact/Commercial Potential Proposed

From both the technical and commercial perspectives:

• Strengths

• Weaknesses

• Suggestions

NSF Review Process Overview

Adapted From: NSF Funding: a view from the “inside” Richard McCourt (NSF HER/DGE)

Dec

isio

n +

pan

el s

um

mar

y an

d r

evie

ws

*Each proposal assigned to at least 3 reviewers.

Individual Reviews

Non-dilutive funding

NSF is not the final customer

More or less “topic agnostic”. Broad topics (9!) cover most innovations.

Grantees keep their technology and resulting IP (the government does have royalty-free rights that, to date, NSF has never used)

Funding is ONLY for R&D, so successful proposals stress the importance of R&D on company/product viability

Document-driven process, and lead times (esp. until “the big money”) can be long. Phase I to Phase II bridge supplemental funding is available.

NSF wants grantees to successfully commercialize their technologies

Investment dollars beyond SBIR are needed

Key Considerations for NSF SBIR/STTR


Symbiosis lunch

4

Recent Program Statistics

• About 10-15 acquisitions of Phase II grantees per year

• Leverage: for FY2013, 52 Phase IIB awards made by the were based on $83 M in third-party investment (the vast majority private funds)

Company data from FY 2013 Phase I awardees:

• 86% of Phase I awardees have 10 or fewer employees

• 68% of Phase I awardee companies were incorporated since 2008

• 76% of Phase I awardees had never had a Phase II award from any agency

From the Reviewer’s

Perspective What are NSF SBIR/STTR reviewers REALLY looking for?


Symbiosis lunch

5

We fund high-risk, high-payback innovations and R&D

with high potential for commercialization (company vision and track record)

Commercial revenues

Company growth

Follow-on investment / deals

Exits (mergers/acquisitions)

to small businesses that demonstrate strategic partnerships with research collaborators, customers and equity investors

We do NOT fund projects lacking technical risk or innovation (evolutionary optimization of existing products and

processes)

If there’s no technical risk, why fund R&D?

If there’s no innovation, it’s not appropriate for NSF – our goal is to bridge the early-stage funding gap

projects where we don’t see a strong chance of resulting commercial outcomes

This applies to the project AND the proposing company/team

projects where our funding won’t move the needle

If we can’t make a big impact on the company’s prospects, there are usually better ways to raise

analytical or “market” studies of technologies

Funding Criteria

Intellectual Merit

Is the proposed plan a sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility?

To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore unique or ingenious concepts or applications?

How well qualified is the team (the PI, other key staff, consultants, and subawardees) to conduct the proposed activity?

Is there sufficient access to resources (materials, supplies, analytical services, equipment, facilities, etc.)?

Does the proposal reflect state-of-the-art in the major research activities proposed? (Are advancements in state-of-the-art likely?)

As a result of Phase I, did the firm succeed in providing a solid foundation for the proposed Phase II activity?

Technical Review Criteria (Phase I/II)


Symbiosis lunch

6

Broader Impacts

What may be the commercial and societal benefits of the proposed activity?

Does the proposal lead to enabling technologies (instrumentation, software, etc.) for further discoveries?

Does the outcome of the proposed activity lead to a marketable product or process?

Evaluate the competitive advantage of this technology vs. alternate technologies that can meet the same market needs.

How well is the proposed activity positioned to attract funding from non-SBIR sources once the SBIR project ends?

Can the product or process developed in the project advance NSF’s goals in research and education?

Does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, etc)?

Has the proposing firm successfully commercialized SBIR/STTR supported technology where prior awards have been made?

Commercial Review Criteria*

*Commercialization is strongly considered in Phase I proposals, but the questions in this deck and the heaviest emphasis on commercialization occurs for Phase II proposals.

Market Opportunity

Does the proposer succinctly describe the product or service and the “customer needs”?

Is the business model for this innovation clearly defined? Is the model a service, product, license or “other” strategy?

Has the company described how they are going to get the innovation to market?

Can you tell where they are in the development cycle?

Are the critical milestones required to get to market clearly defined?

Is there some strategic reason (societal benefit) for the nation to invest in this innovation? If so, what is it?

Commercial Review Criteria


Symbiosis lunch

7

Company/Team How mature is the company (early stage or expanding)? How big is the company and where do the entrepreneurs want to

take the company? What are the financial resources? Does the company have other

external funding sources such as investors or strategic partners? If there is current revenue, what are the sources of the revenue?

Does the company provide revenue history over the past three years?

In your opinion; how well is the team poised to take this innovation to market? Have they taken similar products to market previously?

Does the company have additional outside advisors, mentors, partners and stakeholders? Is the corporate structure consistent with the company’s vision?


Product/Technology and Competition

Did the company described the features of their technology? Do they provide a compelling value proposition to the customer? If so, what are they?

What validation is there from the market about the proposed value proposition?

What does the company think people will pay for the innovation or service enabled by the innovation?

Is there any evidence that this assumption has been validated?

Does the company demonstrate a realistic understanding of the cost to take this innovation to market? Who are the main competitors in the market space?

Does the company clearly describe how they are going to compete: price, performance or other?

Has the company adequately addressed the IP landscape? Is there evidence that a patent search has been undertaken? Is there adequate evidence that the company knows its position in the IP landscape and has a management plan for handling IP issues as they arise?



Symbiosis lunch

8

Revenue and Finance Plan

Does the company demonstrate adequate knowledge for the level of financial resources it will take to get the innovation to market?

Do they have a phased plan to bring these funds to the table?

Is there evidence of commitment for the funding beyond the Phase II effort?

Are the revenue streams for this innovation described? When will those revenues be received? When does cash-flow break-even occur? Are the pro-formas reasonable given the state of the innovation?

Has the company adequately described and tried to validate the assumptions behind the models?


HR - highly recommend for funding

Meet all the criteria for high-risk, high payback innovation research

Technical plan is sound

Team is well-qualified

The proposed work leads to a marketable product/process or service

R – recommend for funding if funds are available or “With Revisions”

Generally meet most of the above criteria; however

Certain weaknesses exist in the technical plan and/or market intelligence that should be

addressed prior to funding

DNC - do not consider for funding

Fail to meet some or all of the above criteria

Does not automatically mean no funding

Panel Rating


Symbiosis lunch

9

Connect with NSF SBIR/STTR

Online: nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/ and nsf.gov/eng/iip/sttr/ Quarterly Update Listserv: Click here and hit "send" Twitter: @NSFInnovateSBIR Channel: NSFInnovationIIP

Funding and webinar announcements, news, and success stories

Extra Slides

http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/index.jsp?SBTR=ppthomeB

http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sttr/index.jsp?SBTR=ppthomeT

mailto:[email protected]

http://ow.ly/um0Qt

http://ow.ly/um1zm


Symbiosis lunch

10

Data Points for SBIR/STTR Basics

2011 Reauthorization Changes

http://www.sba.gov/content/key-changes-sbir-and-sttr-policy-directives

General jumping off point, award search

http://www.sbir.gov/

Congressional legislation

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-219.pdf

Data at 60,000 feet

http://www.sbir.gov/awards/annual-reports

The SBIR/STTR Program

Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR): Requirement to set aside 2.5% (now, 2.7%) for all agencies with > $100M of external R&D funding

Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR): Requirement to set aside 0.3% (now, 0.4%) for all agencies with > $1B of external R&D funding

Congress designated 4 major goals:

Stimulate technological innovation in the private sector

Use small business to meet federal R&D needs

Foster and encourage participation by minorities and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation

Increase private-sector commercialization innovations derived from federal R&D














http://www.sbir.gov/








Symbiosis lunch

11

Academia

Industry

“Valley of Death”

--Phase I--

------Supplements-------

-----Phase II------ R

eso

urc

es A

vaila

ble

($

)

Discovery Development Commercialization

Level of Development

Investors

Innovation Spectrum


Symbiosis lunch

12

Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (ENG)

Grant Opportunities for

Academic Liaison

with Industry (GOALI)

Donald Senich

Division Director Grace Wang

Industry/University

Cooperative Research

Centers (I/UCRC)

Larry Hornak

Partnerships for Innovation:

Accelerating Innovation

Research (PFI-AIR)

Barbara Kenny

Advanced Material &

Instrumentation (MI)

Ben Schrag

Assessment, Diversity,

& Program Support

Gracie Narcho

Partnerships for Innovation:

Building Innovation Capacity

(PFI-BIC) Sara Nerlove

SBIR/STTR Program Joe Hennessey

Senior Advisor, OSDBU Donald Senich

Industry/University

Cooperative Research

Centers (I/UCRC)

Shashank Priya

Program Support Manager

Mary Konjevoda

Science Assistant

Lindsay D’Ambrosio

Einstein Fellow

Steve Griffin

Program Specialist

Alexandria Hale

Program Specialist

Caroline Hayer

Program Specialist

Willis Phan

Contract Staff

Semiconductors (S) & Photonic

(PH) Devices and Materials

Steven Konsek

Advanced Material &

Nanotechnology (MN)

Rajesh Mehta

Information and Communication

Technologies (IC)

Peter Atherton

Electronic Hardware, Robotics

and Wireless Technologies (EW)

Murali Nair

Chemical and Environmental

Technologies (CT)

Prakash Balan

Biological Technologies (BC)

Ruth Shuman

Smart Health (SH) and

Biomedical (BM) Technologies

Jesus Soriano

Education Applications

and Technologies(EA)

Glenn Larsen

Experts/Special Topics

George Vermont

Operations Specialist

Greg Misiorek

session #24: what are agency proposal reviewers looking for? national …€¦ · ·...

Documents