National Science Foundation
SBIR/STTR Program
F. C. Thomas Allnutt
Division of Industrial Partnerships & Innovation
Vermont June 2008 – Grant Writing
Bridging the “Valley of Death”
Prototypes
Small Business
Tech Development
Business
Development
Seed Funding
NSF SBIR
Business
Startups;
Expansions
Research
and Education
-Univ.
-R&D Labs
Participating Agencies

TOTAL ~ $2.3B
Est. FY 2008
DOD
 HHS
 NASA
 DOE
 NSF
 DHS
 USDA
 DOC
 EPA
 DOT
 DoED
Defense
Health
Space
Energy
~$110 Million
Homeland Security
Agriculture
Commerce
Environment
Transportation
Education
NSF SBIR/STTR Innovation Model
Phase I B
Third-Party
Investment +
1:2 NSF
Matching
PHASE I
Feasibility
Research
$100k/6 mos
Unique
to NSF
Phase IIB
Third-Party
Investment +
1:2 NSF
Matching
Private Sector or
Non-SBIR
Investment
MATCH
MAKER
PHASE II
Research
towards
Prototype
$500k/24 mos
PHASE III
Product
Development to
Commercial
Market
Taxes
Federal
Investment
Phase I - Solicitation Topics



2 Solicitations released per calendar year, typically:
– Sept. for Dec. closing
– March for June closing
Each Solicitation will offer 1 or more topics that
represent:
– Investment/business-focused technologies
– Market-driven technologies
– Special topics in response to National needs
Keep a watch on the topic offerings of the current
solicitation for opportunities most relevant to you
New Developments!
 Current
solicitation is only SBIR
 Three topics:
•
•
•
Bio/Chemical Technologies (BC)
Software & Systems (SS)
Electronics, Components, and Engineering
Systems (EL)
10th and Dec 4th Deadlines
 STTR will be a separate solicitation
 June
Doing Business with NSF

NSF is not the Final Customer

NSF is not buying a product, process,
software, or intellectual property

NSF wants to see the grantee successfully
commercialize the innovation

Company needs investment dollars beyond
NSF SBIR/STTR
Commercialization Analysis
Phase II NSF Projects
The Data
– Success rate ~ 40% for 240 projects (multi-year analysis)
– Success criteria – product sales I year after completion and $1
MM sales after 6 years
Risks
– Market Failures > Technology Failures
– 50% more likely to fail based on Market Forces
Importance of Partnerships
– ~60% of successful projects have a “strategic partnership”
– ~30% close university tie
– Phase IIB funding: 75% success rate (vs. 31% without)
Key Takeaways
 Market
risks > Technical risks
 Partnerships and External Financing
are Critical indicators of success
 Partnerships take time
Most Proposals Fail Because

Lack of identified opportunity (science
projects)
 Lack of perceived technology risk
 Lack of clarity (e.g. poor work plan)
 Other issues
–
–
–
–
–

IP ownership and landscape
No clear technology advantage
Competitive landscape
Path/Time to market
Distraction to the company mission
Didn’t read the directions
Takeaway

Many SBIR/STTR programs out there!

At NSF ~$100M/year granted primarily for seedstage development in…
–
Software & Systems (SS)
–
Biotechnology & Chemical Technologies (BC)
–
Electronics (EL)

Program to mitigate technical risk and bridge the
“Valley of Death”

Investment in Country’s Innovation Capacity
Questions??
Useful Links:
www.sbir.gov (SBIR Resource/gov run)
www.zyn.com/sbir/ (SBIR Gateway)
www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/ (NSF SBIR homepage)
Contact info:
Tom Allnutt
email: tallnutt@nsf.gov
phone: 703-292-5332
BC. Bio/Chemical Technologies




A.1 Agricultural Biotechnology: Such applications include but are
not limited to pathogen and toxin diagnostics, genetic engineering,
methods to reduce the use of fertilizer and/or increase efficiency of
plant nutrient assimilation.
A.2 Food Biotechnology: Such applications include but are not
limited to real-time methods for detection of pathogens and toxins in
the food, novel tracking methods, improved sterilization methods.
A.3 Environmental Biotechnology: Such applications include but
are not limited to methods to reduce human ecological and
environmental impacts, microbial contamination sensing and control,
removal of toxic compounds for human and animal safety, point of
use water treatment, midstream wastewater treatment technologies,
treatment of runoff, environmental compatibility and sustainability,
pathogen and toxin diagnostics, control of exotic diseases,
nanobiotechnology solutions, and water treatment.
A.4 Marine and Aquatic Biotechnology: Such applications include
but are not limited to improved or novel marine species hatchery
technologies, replacement of marine sourced materials in feeds,
disease control, diagnostics, vaccines, alternative technologies,
sensors and biosensors; marine environment extremophilic enzymes
for extreme temperatures.
NSF Merit Review Process

NSF Merit Review
–
–
–
Typically reviewed by panel meetings
Panelists from Academe, Investment Community,
Industry
Confidential with signed CDAs by panel
Phase I – all proposals receive a minimum of
3 reviews & both technical and commercial
review
 Phase II – 3 reviews & both technical and in
depth commercial review

SBIR/STTR Reviews
 Technical
–
–
Review
Technical Merit
Broader Impact
 Commercial
–
–
–
–
Review
Team
Market Opportunity
Technology, IP, and Competition
Financial Plan
Why does NSF care about
commercialization?

What is the NSF Vision?
“…catalyze the strong progress in science and
engineering needed to establish world leadership
and secure the Nation’s security, prosperity, and
well being”

What is the NSF SBIR/STTR Vision?
To be the pre-eminent federal resource to leverage
high technology through small businesses to
stimulate our nation’s innovation leadership and
contribute to the U.S. economy and society
Commercial Review Guidance
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?

Does there appear to be a plan to bring
reasonable resources to bear to get this
innovation to market?
Competitive Proposal - Hints

Answer the right question
 The right question
–
Not Can it be done but Should it be done

Communicate with the Program Manager
 Prepare an Executive Summary for the
Communication
–
–
–
–

Team
Market Opportunity
Technology
Competition
Listen to the Feedback
Doing Business with NSF (cont.)


Ideas do NOT equal business opportunities
Do your HOMEWORK, describe the
opportunity
–

Remember the time component to value of
money
Get some market validation BEFORE you
come to NSF SBIR/STTR
 Consider proposal as ADVOCATE at the
table
 Proposal as “selling” document
Technology Review Guidance
Intellectual Merit

Does the proposal reflect state-of-the-art in the
major research activities proposed?

Is the proposed plan a sound approach for
establishing technical and commercial
feasibility?

How well qualified is the team (the PI, other
key staff, consultants, and subawardees)?

Is there sufficient access to resources
(materials, supplies, analytical services,
equipment, facilities, etc.)?
Technology Review Guidance
Broader Impact

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?
Commercial Review Guidance
Company/Team
 Based on the information in the proposal, is this is a
seed, early stage or expanding company?
 How well is the team poised to take this innovation
to market?
 Have they taken similar products to market
previously?
 Do they have additional outside advisors, mentors,
partners and stakeholders?
 Is the corporate structure consistent with the
company’s stage and vision?
Commercial Review Guidance (continued):
Product/Technology and Competition
Has the company described the features of their product or
service that are going to provide a compelling value
proposition to the customer?
What validation is there from the market about the proposed
value proposition?
Does the company demonstrate knowledge of the competitive
landscape?
How is this company going to compete: price, performance or
other?
Does the company appear to understand issues regarding IP?
Is there adequate evidence that the company knows its position
in the IP landscape?
Does there appear to be a management plan for handling IP
issues as they arise?