Friday, September 4, 2009

Reflections on the Birth of the SBIR Program

.
SBIR lost perhaps its greatest champion on August 25th with the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy. Relatively few know how much he did to ensure the SBIR Program became reality.

There were many back in the late 1970s and early 80s who worked tirelessly to get the legislation crafted and passed. Among them was my friend Ann Eskesen. Ann recently shared an email letter she had received that shed much light on that early process, including Ted Kennedy's behind-the-scenes role, and I'd like to give it wider exposure here.

To the SBIR Community:

Whether strong supporter or ardent foe of his political stance, the recent passing of Senator Ted Kennedy has generated among those on both sides of the aisle extensive discussion of, and comment on, the extraordinary diversity of his legislative impact.

Few are aware that the creation of SBIR is high on that list.

This weekend I was in receipt of an email from an old friend who in the early-mid seventies was the original source of the idea of a special federal R&D access by small firms - an idea that later became the SBIR program - and with whom a few of us then worked to get to the enabling legislation which took that program government-wide in 1982. My friend's email is printed below in its entirety along with, from my own files, some photographs from the Rose Garden of the White House on that very hot and humid day in July 1982 when President Reagan signed that very controversial legislation.

It is useful, I think, first also to tell you a little about Dr. Arthur Obermayer - the essence of the dignified gentleman and creative talent - who is now well into his eighties and still active in the technology development space.

Arthur was/is a highly regarded MIT PhD and his wife - Judy - also a published PhD from Carnegie Mellon, had run a very successful, research-based small firm for a long time through the sixties and seventies. Publicly traded when few small firms were, Moleculon Research was founded, I think I recall, on the research that had been Arthur's doctoral dissertation.

Their work had important medical application. However, despite a solid, research-based track record, when Arthur approached NIH for potential R&D support, he was summarily turned away. At that time NIH did not fund anyone who came from a for-profit entity - a condition that actually remained in effect until only months before passage of SBIR.

Knowing that they were probably missing out on something important, however, a few senior NIH players advised Arthur to set up a non-profit arm which they told him they would be delighted to fund. He saw that as manipulating the system - effective for his firm but not an option for many others - and he refused. Instead he had a discussion with his Senator and his friend - Ted Kennedy.

At that time, the Senator controlled the NSF budget to some extent so the decision was obviously to go with that agency, not NIH. Arthur's idea was simply that there be established a place in a federal agency where small firm applicant's research work could be considered. The Phase I-Phase II classic SBIR design was Roland Tibbetts - subsequently hired by NSF as the first SBIR program Manager - and came much later.

It is classic Kennedy that he knew how to work the system. However, I have to admit, I had not previously known that was actually a two-step process until I read Arthur's accounting of the NSF effort to avoid the Kennedy original directive and his out-maneuvering them - see below. It is also classic Kennedy that when, with two NSF SBIR offerings and one DOD under our belts, we subsequently shifted the political effort to making SBIR a government wide program, rather than being at the head of what was to become a highly contentious and, at times, downright nasty fight, the Senator opted for a behind-the-scenes role - out of the frame but very clearly, not out of the picture. Instead, that leadership role was assumed by Warren Rudman (NH.R) - a brand new Senator and a Republican.

It was also Arthur Obermayer, BTW who met with Horace Crouch in DOD in about 1979-1980. Crouch was a retired Army General working in the Pentagon but open to the interesting challenge of enabling an effort that would bring within reach of DOD, the leading-edge capabilities of small firms. It happened that Horace Crouch was Strom Thurmond's brother in law - already then a senior player on the Senate Armed Service committee. Arthur persuaded them to the idea of having a version of the NSF program in DOD. They found a spare $5M and DESAT was launched as a small-scale effort in DOD in 1981.

With the NSF and DOD experience in place and a record of achievement already becoming evident, under the able direction of the late Milt Stewart, to include Arthur and Judy and a few others some like Jere Glover and Dave Metzger - being still prominent in the SBIR space - in 1980 we all worked the halls (big time) at the White House Conference on Small Business to get SBIR and the precursor to Bayh-Dole among other things onto the agenda of that convening. I am still somewhat incredulous, when you consider how few we were, that we got that assembly of 2000 small business people - most of whom were in retail, services etc (nary a high tech firm among them) - to vote that issue (as I recall) Number 5 of the 60 top recommendations to come out of that Conference. As further testament what can happen when small firms speak together, of those 60 recommendations - well over 40 are now implemented.

Ann Eskesen, President
The Innovation Development Institute
Swampscott, MA
www.inknowvation.com

See Dr. Obermayer's letter
"The Role of Ted Kennedy in the Birth of the SBIR Program"
by clicking HERE.



L to R: The Obermayers, Senator Kennedy, and Ann Eskesen (7/22/82)


President Reagan signing the SBIR Program into law on July 22, 1982.
.

Friday, August 28, 2009

SBIR National Conference coming to Reno in November

Shrinking angel fund investments. Decreasing venture capital support. Limited family and friends savings to draw on. How is one to ramp up a start up company with innovative but unproven technologies?

Why, with SBIR of course! This year's National SBIR Conference will be held on November 2-5 in Reno, Nevada. I'm going to ask my friend Fritz Grupe, the General Conference Chairman to tell you all about it:

Each year more than $2.3 billion in grants and contracts are awarded by eleven federal agencies participating in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs.

Through these competitive programs, small businesses can receive up to $100,000 for feasibility research in Phase I and up to $750,000 for prototype development in Phase II. Some of the participating agencies provide additional financial and management assistance subsequent to Phase II.

Although the competition for this support is stiff – approximately 1 in 10 proposals are funded in Phase I, SBIR and STTR remain as the largest startup fund in the United States.

In order to compete effectively, many entrepreneurs need help in learning about this important program. How can companies find out about the priorities, the varying deadlines and the guidelines for getting into the fray?

The Nevada Small Business Development Center is hosting the 2009 National SBIR / Small Business Technology Transfer Program Conference from November 2 through 5, 2009 in Sparks, Nevada, a Reno suburb. The conference is supported by the 11 federal agencies, all of which will have representatives available to talk to innovators about their product ideas in one-on-one sessions and in general sessions.

In addition, it is expected that another 30 or more prime contractors, SBIR consultants, and other companies will be exhibiting and providing attendees with information on how to proceed.

Separate speed networking sessions enable attendees to interact with other innovative people in three areas of interest: medicine and agriculture, science and defense, and energy and the environment. This enables innovators to meet potential customers and business partners.

The conference includes numerous sessions on related topics including intellectual property protection, proposal writing hints, commercialization, business planning and other sources of funding than these two programs.

Further information on the conference is available at www.unr.edu/sbir-sttr2009.


The SBIR Coach will be speaking and exhibiting at this event. I'd love to see y'all there!

By the way, there are some other SBIR-related events coming up in September:
Federal Lab Consortium Open House - Sept 1-2, San Francisco, CA
NASVF National Conference, Sept 14-16, Oklahoma City, OK
Beyond Phase II - Sept 21-24, Orlando, FL

Rick Shindell published a lengthy SBIR Insider report earlier this week. See it HERE. In addition to the latest news on SBIR Reauthorization, it includes a very nice tribute to the late Senator Edward Kennedy, who was one of SBIR's earliest and greatest champions.
.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Whither Goest Seed Funding?

.
SBIR's future is uncertain. The VC industry is hunkering down and tightening the screws on their portfolio companies. They even look to SBIR's "reform" as a way to "prop up portfolio valuations".

So what is the future of seed funding? We're about find out what those who are in the forefront of the seed funding world think about that.

The National Association of Seed Venture Funds (NASVF) international conference, which brings together hundreds of the most prominent seed and angel investors with technology transfer and economic development professionals, takes place September 14-16th in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Here is a partial list of some of the world class experts that will be speaking:

-Honorable Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, will talk about his department's big investments in research and development to improve the food industry.

-Rick G. Wade, deputy chief of staff for the US Department of Commerce, will talk about the various programs and ways his department supports entrepreneurship.

-Wendy Kennedy, founder of WendyKennedy.com, Inc., will explain how to turn ideas into financial opportunities.

The SBIR Coach (a member of NASVF) is an invited speaker, and will be on a panel with Wendy Kennedy. Our topic is:

Translating Science into Business When Funding is Tight

History has proven that during times of economic stress is when we see a garden of opportunities – ideas that have the ability to transform markets – witness the Ipod, Google and Amazon during the recession of early 2000. Spotting winning ideas and business models in these uncertain times takes a disciplined, yet creative approach. Savvy investors are even more rigorous in their assessment of risk and return. But what else is needed besides a sound technology and business plan? What types of technologies are being funded at the state and federal levels? This panel will address some key issues funders should consider before they invest in a technology venture in the near future.

For information on the NASVF Conference, go HERE.

There are a whole bunch of SBIR opportunities out there at the moment:

  • USDA SBIR (due Sept 3rd)
  • NASA SBIR/STTR (due Sept 4th)
  • DOE SBIR/STTR (due Sept 4th)
  • NIH SBIR/STTR AIDS related (due Sept 7th)
  • DOD SBIR/STTR (due Sept 23rd)
  • NSF SBIR/STTR (due Nov 17th)
  • NIH SBIR/STTR (due Dec 5th)


See the details on The SBIR Gateway, including a matching service for DOD and NASA STTR partnerships.

By the way, Boeing has issued its Interest List for the current DOD SBIR and STTR rounds. If you'd like a copy, send me an email.

I had the opportunity to meet Karen Mills, the new SBA Administrator, at the SCORE National Leadership Conference in Salt Lake City this week. We were both speakers. Her message: DON'T STOP TALKING TO LEGISLATORS ABOUT SBIR!


So, keep on educating House and Senate members. SBIR reauthorization isn't over until it's over.
.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Need an Antidote to SBIR Malaise?

.
I've about had it with our Congress. This current health care turmoil has everyone in a frenzy. And it's all so familiar. Partisan politics is more important than anything else. It's OK to selectively stifle dissent. Special interests rule. Sigh.... The problem is the health care stakes are so high SBIR is fixin' to get lost in the shuffle again. I'm beginning to not care. Isn't that sad? Maybe I've got SBIR Malaise.

Yes, they'll probably arrive at some sort of SBIR Reauthorization compromise, arranged at the last minute by overworked and harried staffers, who are truly doing their best. But will what results be in the best interest of small business? Sure! And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

So it's time to move on and talk about something useful. Deal flow that moves technology to commercialization. An antidote to the malaise.

There's an annual event called the World's Best Technologies Showcase. It's been held in Arlington, Texas since 2004. WBT2010 will be held on March 16-17, 2010. The Center for Innovation at Arlington (CIA) serves as the host organization for it now. I proudly serve as the CIA's Business Coach (can you see that quoted out of context?).

Arizona based Development Capital Networks (DCN) organizes and puts on the event. Here's what they're saying about it...

While the WBT has evolved from its beginnings in 2002 in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, the mission has remained clear - the WBT is the premier event to see the world's best vetted and mentored deal flow ready for the marketplace. In the past seven years the WBTshowcase has worked with over 470 emerging companies and technologies transitioning from the lab, the university, and yes even the garage, to the marketplace. If you are ready to expose your research or technology to investors, licensees, and commercialization partners the WBT is the must attend event.

We are often asked, "What is the WBT difference?" Simple, the WBT serves as a partner on your path to commercialization. The competitive selection process is designed to give each applicant feedback on their commercialization opportunity from investors and licensees. Each selected presenter works with a two person mentor team in the weeks leading up to the event walking away with a concise 6-minute investor/licensee oriented presentation and perhaps meets a strategic partner or two along the way. The two day event provides each pre-prepped selected presenter with a forum to showcase their emerging research or company directly to investors, licensees, and strategic partners.

The WBT is not designed to showcase technology for technology's sake but to offer a path to the marketplace. The Showcase represents the best vetted emerging technology from around the globe, prepped and ready for business. There is no cost to apply and receive feedback on your commercialization opportunity from investors and licensees. Apply before September 14th and you will receive feedback on your application, which you can then resubmit before the final review by the screening panelists.

Want to learn more about the WBT? Visit www.wbtshowcase.com or contact DCN's Event Director Amanda Radovic (aradovic@wbtshowcase.com; 480.477.6408).

This is a first class event with international participation. Any SBIR funded company should consider being showcased at WBT2010 for moving to commercialization.

So check it out. www.wbtshowcase.com

SBIR isn't the only game in town. Good thing.
.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

DOE Announces Stimulus Funding for new SBIRs

.
The Department of Energy gets it. On several levels. Stimulus means creating opportunities for creating jobs. Clean Energy is currently a cool technology to support. R&D without commercialization is just, well, academic.

So, the DOE is putting a nice chunk of their ARRA Stimulus money ($8.5 million) into new Phase I SBIR and STTR projects that place an emphasis on near-term, clean energy technology commercialization. Sixty six-month Phase I projects will be funded in amounts up to $150,000.

The Funding Opportunity Number is DE-PS02-09ER09-27. (CFDA 81.049)

Here's the complete topic list (For details: technical topic descriptions)

Topic 1: Advanced Building Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Thermal Load Shifting, and Cool Roofs
a. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration in Buildings
b. Thermal Load Shifting
c. Advanced Materials for Roofing that Provides High IR Reflectivity, and is Architecturally Acceptable, Including Cool Roofs

Topic 2: Water Usage in Electric Power Production and Industrial Processes
a. Water Desalination for Use in Power Plants, Industrial Processes, etc.
b. Water Cleanup, Recycle and Reuse from Use in Power Plants, Industrial Processes, etc., Before Discharge
c. Desalination Using Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Topic 3: Power Plant Cooling
a. Advanced Dry or Hybrid Wet/dry Cooling Systems
b. Advanced Heat Exchangers for Super-critical Water Cycle Based Power Plants
c. Advanced Heat Exchangers for High Temperature, High Pressure Applications

Topic 4: Advanced Gas Turbines and Materials
a. Advanced Turbine Technology for IGCC Power Plants
b. High Performance Materials for Nuclear Application
c. Advanced Industrial Materials
d. Novel Modular Designs for High-efficiency Low-cost Distributed Power Applications

Topic 5: Sensors, Controls, and Wireless Networks
a. Sensors and Wireless Networks for Buildings Applications
b. Sensors and Wireless Networks for Industry Applications
c. Sensors and Wireless Networks for Nuclear Power Applications
d. Integrated Power Line Sensor Systems for the Smart Grid

Topic 6: Advanced Water Power Technology Development
a. Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH)
b. Advanced Hydropower Systems
c. Wave and Current Energy Technologies
d. Advanced Component Designs for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Systems (OTEC)

Topic 7: Smart Controllers for Smart Grid Applications
a. Smart Controller for Household
b. Smart Controllers for PEV
c. Smart Controller to Enable the Dispatch of Distributed Energy Generators

Topic 8: Advanced Solar Technologies
a. Hybrid Solar Energy Systems: Combination of Photovoltaic, Solar Heat, and/or Solar Cooling
b. Innovative Applications of Solar Energy for Fuels
c. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Systems for Distributed Applications
d. Organic Photovoltaic and Nanotech/Photonics

Topic 9: Advanced Industrial Technologies Development
a. Novel Approaches that Significantly Reduce Energy Consumption and Emissions in Cement Pyroprocessing
b. Scale-Up of Nano-Material Production
c. Novel Technologies that Utilize Waste Heat from Industrial Processes
d. Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

Topic 10: Advanced Manufacturing Processes
a. Mitigation of Heat Losses, Fouling, and Scaling in Manufacturing Unit Operations
b. Advanced Distillation and Non-Distillation Processes
c. Advanced Dewatering

You can see the complete solicitation on the DOE SBIR website (http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/) or on Grants.gov.

These projects can be styled as SBIR or STTR projects. Applications are due by September 4th.

You have to use Grants.gov (oh goodie!) to submit the proposal so better get started NOW to get the CCR and Grants.gov registrations done in time.

Thanks for this opportunity, DOE! Now, how about the rest of you Agencies?
.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Aaargh! Two more months of SBIR Reauthorization torture!

.
You'd think they already had enough time to do this. But no such luck.

We're talking about SBIR Reauthorization, of course. It's not going to happen by the end of the month. Surprise! Hah.

Word is that we'll have another Continuing Resolution that will extend the deadline one more time to September 30th. So we've got two more months of torture to endure.

The SBTC put out this notice on Monday:

The Senate passed a continuing resolution on Friday that would extend the SBIR program another two months. That would make the new expiration date for the SBIR program September 30th, 2009. This CR also needs to pass the House of Representatives to be enacted, and we expect it to pass the House on Tuesday.

Currently, the staff from the House Small Business and Science Committees are in negotiations in conference with the staff from the Senate Small Business Committee to produce a compromise SBIR reauthorization bill that will incorporate elements from both the House and the Senate Reauthorization Bills. We have heard and have reason to believe that both sides are negotiating in good faith, and that no party is acting unreasonably or otherwise sabotaging the process. Because there is an agreement between the staffers in the conference, we won't know what's in the compromise bill until it is finished and released to the public.

The SBTC will be hosting a conference call on Thursday to discuss these developments. Contact Alec Orban if you'd like the call-in number and code.

Thankfully, it appears that our Committee Staffers are not following the Conyers model and are taking time to actually read and analyze the provisions of the two bills.

We'll stay on top of the continuing madness, both with updates here, and on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.

As a side note, one of my clients has been following the DOD's history of topic offerings and has made the following startling observations: "There are 15.6% fewer DoD topics in FY09 than the average over the two previous years. Air Force had a staggering 44% reduction in topic count, MDA had a 23% reduction, and DARPA had a 17% reduction." Anybody have any ideas as to what's driving this? Might it be the uncertainty over reauthorization?

And finally, I'm pleased to report that two Texas editions of the Business Journal featured articles about the SBIR Reauthorization struggle last week. The SBIR Coach was interviewed and quoted in a front page article by the Austin Business Journal, and was featured on the Editorial page in the San Antonio Business Journal.
.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Final SBIR Strategy Set - Urgent Action Needed

.
We're in the bottom of the Ninth. Score is tied. Wall Street (House Team) 1, Main Street (Senate Team) 1.

There's very little sentiment to send this to extra innings, and we don't want the whole game to be called off.

Fellow SBIR Advocist Les Bowen presents the strategy to break the tie and win the game for Main Street:

__________________

Dear SBIR Advocates:

Click HERE: (SBIR_Conferee_Letter.pdf) to see the letter that will be sent from House Representatives to Senator Landrieu, Chair of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, expressing their support for S. 1233, the Senate SBIR Reauthorization Bill.

We need about fifty House Representatives to sign on in order to swing the SBIR House/Senate conference deliberations to support the Senate bill.

As you know, the Senate SBIR reauthorization bill, unlike its House counterpart, H.R. 2965, preserves most of the SBIR program for genuinely small businesses like ours, while the House bill sells out the SBIR program to large venture capital-controlled businesses. You will recall that several House representatives, including those who have already signed on to this letter, proposed amendments to H.R. 2965 that would have made it less onerous to small businesses, but this amendment was shot down by the House Rules Committee. We believe the reason was that your prior outreach efforts to your House representatives caused widespread consternation in the House that the Markey/Tsongas/Hodes/Welch amendment would pass, much to the consternation of the VC-lobby that has taken over the House SBIR reauthorization process.

By signing onto this letter, your representatives get a second bite of that apple. Their signature supporting the Senate bill gives much better insight into what most House representatives really felt about House bill H.R. 2965 and its bad consequences for true small businesses. It provides Senator Landrieu and the Senate conference committee delegates with much-needed leverage to achieve a compromise SBIR reauthorization bill that is more like S. 1233 than its House counterpart. We need SBIR to remain a program that works for innovative, independently-owned small businesses like ours, rather than becoming a bail-out fund for well-heeled venture-capitalists.

You do need to take action today. These negotiations will be over early next week. Your representative has already received a copy of this letter. Please call your House representative’s small business staffer, email the letter and ask him or her to bring it to their boss’ attention and get them to sign on this week.

Thank you for this last effort in support of the 2009 SBIR reauthorization.

We will keep you posted as information emerges from conference.

Leslie J. Bowen, President
Materials Systems Inc.

__________________

The SBTC's Jere Glover adds this suggestion, which was provided by another ardent supporter:

I ask that you urge your Congressional Representative to sign onto the Markey letter today. (Next week will be too late.) I also ask that you ask him or her to personally contact members of the House Small Business and Science Committees and ask them to consider how they are going to explain to small businesses in their state why they voted to kill jobs on Main Street so more Wall Street billionaires could have access to more Federal funds.
Here's a Dear Colleague letter sent to all Members of the House of Representatives by Rep. Niki Tsongas and others: Tsongas Dear Colleague Letter.pdf. Get your Representatives to sign onto this letter! They can do that by contacting Mitch Robinson (Rep. Markey) at 5-2836 or Mitchell.Robinson@mail.house.gov, or Kate Lynch (Rep. Tsongas) at 5-4311 or Kate.Lynch@mail.house.gov.

If you'd like to write your own letter to make a point, and would like some talking points, here's a letter from the SBTC to Senator Landrieu: SBTC Letter to Sen Landrieu.doc

Updates to all of this and links for contacting your Representatives and Senators can be found on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.
.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Conferees: Please Don't Harm the SBIR Program

.
If I had my druthers, the soon to be convened SBIR Reauthorization Conference Committee would be required to swear a Hippocratic style oath of "Primum non nocere" - First, do no harm.

There is potential that harm will be done. There's also potential for significant improvements. The problem is that it's not clear which provisions of the two SBIR Reauthorization bills on the table (H.R.2965 and S.1233) improve and which harm. It all depends on your perspective. Both sides of every issue think they're promoting improvement.

So what should we do? We're encouraged to write to our legislators and offer irrefutable logic to support a position. Does that work? Do they actually vote based upon our logical presentation? Evidently not very often.

We can argue details and numbers and statistics ad nauseum. Actually we have. I'm tired of that. Aren't you?

So let's take a different view. A qualitative view. My view of Primum non nocere. Without any numbers or statistics.

I. PURPOSE

SBIR is a technology development stimulator. It's not a jobs program, although it does result in jobs being created. The competition for project selection is based upon whether the innovation furthers the mission of the sponsoring Agency, whether advancement of the state of the art is likely, and whether the company proposing the work is capable of executing the plan and eventually making money from it. No other criteria should be applied to project selection. Applying criteria that are unrelated to the innovation defeats the purpose of the program and will do harm.

II. INTENT

SBIR provides the seed funding for jump-starting an innovation's development. The Government is the investor. In Phase I the innovation's feasibility is vetted. If the proof-of-concept after Phase II proves out, then it's up to the company to find the commercialization money to carry the innovative technology further. It may take additional investment. If the Government is eventually to become the customer for this, then it may be in the Government's interest to provide additional investment -- but not from the seed-funding pot. Keep SBIR money strictly for feasibility vetting (Phase I) and one proof-of-concept project (Phase II). Any other use of these funds harms the program by reducing the number of jump-start projects that can be funded.

III. ELIGIBILITY

Eligible companies for SBIR grants should be those who are unlikely to find seed funding anywhere else to demonstrate that the proposed technology innovation will actually work. Providing grant money to companies who have other sources for funding harms the program by reducing the funds available to those who need it.

IV. FUNDING

The number of projects funded should be an appropriate number so that we're not leaving worthy projects behind, but also not providing funds to companies who really have no chance or intent to move to commercialization. This is a balancing act of making the allocation base (the set-aside percentage) and the funding caps (project maximums) appropriate to permit the funding of as many truly worthy projects as possible. Any provision that arbitrarily upsets this funding balance does harm to the program.

V. EVALUATION

There needs to be a way of evaluating the return on the SBIR investment. There are three interested parties here -- each with their own perspective on ROI: (a) the Government agency making the investment, (b) the company receiving the grant, and (3) the taxpayer. If we can't measure ROI there's no way of evaluating whether anything we do improves or harms the program.

Just about every SBIR issue on the Conference Committee table can be related to one of these five categories.

So, Conferees, as you look at the details, please relate them to one of the above quality considerations and ask:

  • Do we preserve the purpose and intent of SBIR as Roland Tibbetts and others envisioned it?
  • Are we providing seed funding appropriately to worthy recipients, in the proper numbers, at the proper levels?
  • Can we calculate the return on this investment, so that when we go through this process again we have some real data to evaluate?
  • Does this provision do harm to the quality of SBIR?

OK, let's get to work. Please raise your right hand, and say after me: "Primum non nocere ut SBIR".

Hippocrates would be so proud!
.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Senate passes SBIR Reauthorization Bill - Conference Committee is Next

.
It was unanimous. The Senate wasn't swayed by pressure from the special interest lobbies and stuck to their guns.

Yes, a few amendments were added to S.1233, but they're constructive. (The full text of what they passed will be on on GovTrack soon.)

Rick Shindell's Insider of 7/14/09 has a good summary of the amendments:

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued an amendment that basically prohibits earmarking of SBIR award funds, and that SBIR funds must be competitive and merit based. His changes also include better metrics, and an 8 year reauthorization period, as has been customary for SBIR reauthorizations.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) also had an amendment passed that reads: .."SBIR program or STTR program shall encourage the submission of applications for support of projects relating to security, energy, transportation, or improving the security and quality of the water supply of the United States to such program.’’.

So, S.1233 is now "engrossed" and passed, along with H.R.2965, to a yet to be named Conference Committee.

We have heard that Representatives Ed Markey and Nikki Tsongas will be circulating a Dear Conferee Letter encouraging that provisions in their disallowed amendment to H.R.2965 be considered by the Committee.

The SBIR Advocacy, led by the Small Business Technology Council (SBTC), is formulating a strategy, a position paper, and template letters for you to send. We'll have them available soon.

Keep tuned to this Blog and to to www.SBIRreauthorization.com for updates.
.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Wall Street wins House SBIR Fight by TKO - But It's Not Over!

.
Wall Street won the House SBIR battle today by default. The House Rules Committee disqualified Main Street's avatar. They refused to allow the Markey Amendment to be voted upon. Why? Good question.

The House Parliamentarian declared the Markey Amendment "germane and pertinent" to H.R.2965. But the Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) decided that the Amendment was "out of order" and not to be voted upon, so it was blocked.

Do you suppose she did that because it may have actually passed? After all she is a New Yorker, just as is Chairwoman Velazquez, who was adamantly opposed to the Amendment.

I hear rumors that there will be some Dear Colleague letters sent from the House Members who were in favor of the Amendment and are very unhappy about what's happened. Who the letters will be sent to remains to be seen.

So, H.R.2965 passes the House. Final vote was 386-41. Text will be up on GovTrack tomorrow.

Now it goes to the Senate, which of course has S.1233. Markedly different.

This skirmish was lost, but the battle is not over. A Conference Committee will ultimately decide this.

Oh goodie. Are we in for more behind closed doors shenanigans? We'll try and figure out what to expect and keep you posted.

Thanks to all of you who so tirelessly kept the pressure on. You are appreciated.

I'm going out for a beer.

--------------------
7/9/2009 UPDATE: Rick Shindell published a new Insider letter last night that has details on the amendments to H.R.2965 that the Rules Committee did and did not accept. What a crock! This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's simple. Please tell me we don't have some of the best Committee Chairs that money can buy! That Hefeweizen I had almost took away the bad taste that's in my mouth. Almost.
.