Navy SBIR/STTR Program
Transition Strategies
(CPP, RIF, TAP, II.5, etc.)
Mr. John R. Williams
Director, Navy SBIR & Technology Transfer Programs
November 2011
www.navysbir.com
Acquisition Driven Process, with
Strong Technology Pull
• SBIR/STTR projects derive from SYSCOM-generated Topics
announced in quarterly solicitations.
• Over 90% of Navy Topics are selected by PEO/PM/FNC office
and address one of their specific needs, not just “sponsored”.
• Topics/Phase I/Phase II awards selections based on acquisition
R&D priorities.
• PEO gets back 90% of their SBIR/STTR “tax” back.
• Many contracts awarded/monitored by lab employees with
Acquisition Office POC involved. Labs funded through SBIR
Admin fund (additional tax taken above the 2.5%) which helps
to ensure dedicated workforce.
SBIR
Program
Director
Navy SBIR Managers at SYSCOM, PEO and
Warfare Centers
PEO SBIR Technology
Managers
SBIR
SYSCOM
Program
Managers
John Williams, Navy SBIR/STTR Director
Dean Putnam
SBIR, PM
NAVSEA
Paul Lambert
SBIR, PM
MARCOR
Tracy Frost
SBIR, PM
ONR
Paul Halloran
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO Land Systems
Elizabeth Altmann
SBIR, PM
SPAWAR
Eric Pitt
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO Carriers
Jamie Guerrero
SBIR, Technical Liaison
NAVAIR (1.0)
Glen Sturtevant
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO Ships
Kamala Massary
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO (A)
John McDonnell
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO C4I
Douglas Marker
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO IWS
Jim Alper
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO (T)
Al Sweeny
SBIR, Technical Liaison
JPEO JTRS
Theresa Cramer
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO LCS
Edmund Anderson
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO (W)
Bill Bankhead
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO Subs
David Park
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO (JSF)
Michelle Willis
CPP PM
SBIR Field
Offices
Donna Moore
SBIR, PM
NAVAIR
Lee Ann Boyer
CPP PM
Clifton Phillips
SBIR, Technical Liaison
PEO Space
Doug Schaefer
SBIR PM
Navy
Steve Sullivan
STTR PM
Navy
Dusty Lang
STTR PM
James Wood
NSWC Carderock
Joe Garcia
NSWC Dahlgren
Jack Griffin
NUWC Newport
Jerry Rubinsky
NAWC- AD
Patuxent River
Kimberly Berch
CPP PM
Patuxent River
John Dement
NSWC Crane
Nancy Johnson
NSWC Indian Head
Dr. Mark Husni
NAVAIR Lakehurst
Dr. Thomas Franz
NAWC- TSD Orland
Dr. Michael Seltzer
NAWC- WD China Lake
Butch Wren
Avionics & Sensor
Patuxent River
Steve Hartle
Propulsion and Power
Patuxent River
3
Navy SBIR Initiatives that Assist and Accelerate
Transition to Phase III
• Transition Assistance Program (TAP) – Available to all
Navy Phase II companies, provides Business Acceleration
Manager who helps with DoD customer marketing and Phase III
strategies
• Opportunity Forum – Annual June event with over 1200
attendees, third SBC’s, Primes and Navy PoR or R&D Managers
• Commercialization Pilot Program (CPP) – 1% of SBIR
funds used by Navy so we can provide additional non-monetary
transition support to SBIR firms
• Phase II.5 - Provides SBIR/STTR funding, above normal < $1M
Phase II levels, to firms with high Phase III potential
• RIF – Rapid Innovation Fund, new program that provides Phase
III funding to SBIR and other firms
Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
Opportunity Forum Started in 2000
• Objective
– Accelerate transition to Phase III
– All current Phase IIs are eligible
• Key Program Elements
–
–
–
–
–
Market research provided
Phase III strategy development
Training webinars on advanced topics
Advanced Assistance options provided
Marketing materials developed
Forum
Year
# Finalists
Total amount
received (18 mo.)
% Finalists
2001
59
$62,214,941
45%
2002
61
$114,726,540
62%
2003
54
$177,411,414
64%
2004
94
$189,815,733
75%
2005
150
$222,375,541
55%
2006
162
$216,688,622
64%
2007
172
$254,471,907
53%
• Partnering/Investment event
– Opportunity Forum – 1300 Attendees
– Prime Integrator partnering
◦ Virtual Acquisition Showcase – www.virtualacquisitionshowcase.com
5
CPP Historical Perspective in Navy
• 2006 - CPP legislation goal: “… accelerate the transition of
technologies, products, and services developed under SBIR to
Phase III, including the acquisition process.” Allowed 1% of SBIR
funds to “manage acceleration” efforts, but CPP funds cannot be
added to Phase II awards.
• 2007 - Navy pilots SBIR Accelerated Transition (SAT) by providing
substantially higher SBIR funding to promising Phase II projects,
either as a mod or second Phase II award. Put out original Phase
II.5 guidance.
• 2007 to 2009 - SYSCOM’s used CPP 1% to develop processes and
tools to address goal of “accelerate the transition … to Phase III”.
• 2010 – pulled together SYSCOM best practices, developed Navywide terminology and rules for accelerating from Phase II – III.
6
How Much Should Navy Invest in Phase II?
Studied past Phase II funding levels and successes
• Norm was that 90% of Phase II projects funded within a tight range to
specific dollar amount
• Process didn’t provide “carrot” for Navy customer to invest or SBIR firm to
seek out and fulfill Navy need
• Big successes came from projects that obtained non-SBIR matching
funding during Phase II
• Industry funds projects in “Gated” fashion and GAO report recommended
that DoD do the same
• Gated process allows funding same number of Phase II’s but those with
greater potential obtain higher funding levels
• Gated process is more man-power intensive on Navy but mandates “go –
no go” decisions and brings in non-SBIR funds, thus increasing overall SBIR
funding levels
NAVSEA Funding on Phase II Awards
Ending in FY04, 07 & 10
30
Ending FY
Number of
Contracts
2004
43
2007
58
2010
58
Frequency of Awards
20
2004
2007
2010
10
0
$350K
$450K
$550K
$650K
$750K
$850K
$950K $1.05M $1.15M $1.25M $1.35M $1.45M $1.55M
Obligated Funding
More
Navy “Gated” Phase II.5 Structure (started ~07)
Feasibility
ACTIVITY -
Year 1
Technology
Development and
Prototype Demo.
Year 2
Prototype Testing & Evaluation
Technology Demonstration & Validation
Year 3
Year 4
Year 6
Year 5
Phase II.5
Opt.
~ 9 mo.
$≤ 250K
Enhancement*
~ 12 mo.
Phase 1teOption
6 mo.
6 mo.
$80K
Phase 2
18-24 mo.
$≤ 750k SBIR
Cont. Dev.
12 – 18 mo.
$70k Between $500K to
$750K
Some Require TTP
$≤ 750k SBIR
Phase III
Non-SBIR $
TTA Required
variable
AT (Accelerated Transition)* ≤ 2 yr.
$≤ 1.50M SBIR
TTA Required
SBIR
FUNDS -
NTE $150K
CONTRACT
TYPE -
FFP
Contract
CPFF or FFP
Contract
TRL -
0-3
2-5
NTE $1M
NTE $1.5M
NTE $2.65M
CPFF or FFP Contract
4 7
TTA –Technology Transition Agreement -3 -5 yr technical/funding strategy
Any
6-9
9
* Requires Non-SBIR Funding Commitment
How do I get Phase II.5 Funding?
• The SYSCOM SBIR PM, Technical Monitor and PEO
Sponsor decide which Phase II’s receive Phase II.5 funding
• The firms are identified in different ways at each SYSCOM
but the request and start of due diligence process is internal
• How can a firm best prepare themselves for a Phase II.5?
• Know who wants your technology in Phase III
• What you need to overcome to get there
• Address Risk, Funding, Competitive approaches,
Partnering, Licensing, etc…
• Plan transition early and often
• Download TTP/TTA template from navysbir.com
• Never to early to start to fill out and continuously update
Navy SBIR By The Numbers
11
CPP - Phase II.5 To Date
• From FY07 to FY09 Navy expended $9.0M in CPP funding (1%
of our SBIR allocation for those three yrs)
• Funded 123 Phase II.5 projects FY07-FY09 with $104M SBIR
funding, matched with $64M non-SBIR funds placed on Phase
II.5 awards
• Projects support 23 of 45 DoN ACAT I designated programs
including the newest Ships, Aircraft, Submarines, Weapons,
C4I, and support systems.
• Through FY 2009 these 123 projects have received over
$300M in Phase III Funding more than doubling the initial
SBIR program investment in these projects.
What Makes A Successful Phase II.5?
(II.5 over $1M in SBIR funds)
• Navy reviewed 51 Projects from 2006-2008 CPP
starts that were completed prior to FY11
• 82.3% had signed TTP/TTAs
• 84.3% included matching funds as part of the CPP
project
• 58.8% of the projects had received funds above
the amount pledged in the CPP project mostly
through Phase IIIs
• Highest success rates for transition were noted at
the acquisition commands not those responsible
for S&T/R&D
13
14 Sept 2010 Memo from Dr. Ashton Carter
Objectives
• Deliver the warfighting capability we need for the dollars we have
• Get better buying power for warfighter and taxpayer
• Restore affordability to defense goods and services
• Improve defense industry productivity
• Remove government impediments to leanness
• Avoid program turbulence
• Maintain a vibrant and financially healthy defense industry
Obtain 2-3% net annual growth in warfighting capabilities without
commensurate budget increase by identifying and eliminating
unproductive or low-value-added overhead and transfer savings
to warfighting capabilities. Do more without more.
Providing Incentives for Greater Efficiency in Industry
• LEVERAGING REAL COMPETITION: Avoid directed buys and other substitutes for
real competition. Use technical data packages and
open systems architectures to support a continuous competitive environment.
• USING PROPER CONTRACT TYPE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT:
Phase out award-fee contracts and favor fixed-price or
cost-type incentive contracts in which government and industry share equally in overruns
and under-runs, and overruns have analytically based caps. Use cost-reimbursement
contracts only when either government requirements or industry processes cannot be
adequately specified to support pricing. Adjust sole-source fixed-price contracts over time to
reflect realized costs. Work down under-finalized contract actions. Seek authority for multiyear contracts where significant savings are possible.
Adopting Government Practices that Encourage Efficiency
•ADOPTING “SHOULD-COST” AND “WILL-COST” MANAGEMENT: Use historically
informed independent cost
estimation (“will-cost” estimates) to inform managing of programs to cost objectives (“shouldcost” estimates).
• STRENGTHENING THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE: Achieve SECDEF goal of adding to
government acquisition
workforce with increased skill levels. Leverage unique qualities of non-profit FFRDCs and
UARCs to augment acquisition workforce capability.
• IMPROVING AUDITS: Improve consistency and quality of government audits, and focus
them on value-added content.
 “affordability as a requirement” –
SBIR funds applied to
programmatic needs
 “incentivize productivity and
innovation in industry” – use SBIR
to reduce costs
 “promote real competition” – SBIR
allows PMs to introduce
competition where there is none
 “require open systems
architectures” - SBIR companies
validate and contribute to OA
 “increase dynamic small business
role in defense marketplace” –
this defines SBIR
14
Navy SBIR Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF) Program
RIF Execution Strategy
RIF’s Background
• Congress authorized H.R. 6523, FY2011 NDAA at Sec. 1073 “Rapid
Innovation Program” and “Explanatory Statement” pg. 447
– “… accelerate the fielding of technologies developed pursuant to Phase II
SBIR projects … and others … to stimulate innovative technologies … and
reduce acquisition costs … address technical risks … improve T&E outcomes
… and rapidly insert such products … in primarily MDAPs …”
• Appropriated $105M RDT&E and $15M O&M
• AT&L 12 August Memo Implementation Guidelines
• $24M RDT&E released to DoN
• BAA released on 2 Sept 11 - Closed on 7 Nov 11
• Currently in evaluation stage, hope to have selections
by mid January
4/13/2015
16
White Paper Format – 5 pages
• Project Description/Executive Summary (300 words or less)
• Technical Approach – How approach is innovative, feasible,
achievable, complete and supported by a proposed technical
team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the
proposed tasks. (150 words or less)
• Operational Need – Describe your proposed technology’s
contribution to the JUON, UON, UUN, Naval Challenge Areas
or acquisition program need. (125 words or less)
• Cost Reasonableness – Describe the methods used to ensure
that the proposed costs are realistic for the technical
approach proposed. (125 words or less)
•
•
•
Transition Plan – How project will be supported during the RIF effort and during the
post-RIF period to transition by DoN program office, prime systems integrator, or both.
Describe how the TRLs will mature and what will be required of the organizations
supporting the transition of this technology. Include organization and points of contact
information involved in the transition process. (125 words or less)
Cost Matching – Describe matching funds, if any, to be provided to include the timing,
source, amount, and planned use of the funds. (125 words or less)
Program Goals – Describe how project addresses each RIF goal. (300 words or less)
– Enhances Military Capability – Describe how project increases/improves the military
capabilities in relationship to identified JUON, UON, UUN, national security need, or
Acquisition program.
– Accelerates Military Development Capability – Describe how proposal accelerates
development and ability to deploy military capabilities required for use by the Department of
the Navy.
– Acquisition Development Cost Reduction – Describe how effort reduces
acquisition development and TOC of the identified Acquisition program.
•
– Fielded Systems Sustainment Cost Reduction – Describe how project reduces the
sustainment costs of the identified fielded system or acquisition program.
Project/Management Plan – Describe required to fully implement the project into a
PoR or otherwise transition the technology for field use.
19