Appendix D
Update of SBIR Fast Track Case Studies

Rosalie Ruegg

TIA Consulting

SELECTION OF A SUBSET OF EARLIER FAST TRACK CASES FOR UPDATE

In an earlier NRC study of the SBIR Fast-Track initiative, members of an NRC research team conducted a series of case studies of SBIR projects which included both Fast-Track and non-Fast Track participants. Of the total of 55 project case studies conducted for the earlier study, 17 were Fast Track cases, and 38 were non-Fast Track cases. While the cases centered on projects, they also treated the companies that received the SBIR awards and conducted the research. There were slightly fewer companies than projects because several case-study projects were conducted by the same company, but in the case of the Fast Track projects, there was a one-to-one correspondence between projects and companies: 17 projects carried out by 17 companies.

A preliminary search of the 17 previous Fast Track companies was done using Dun & Bradstreet company reports to determine which of the companies could still be found. Of the 17 companies, 10 were found to have reports on file. While it is possible that some of the remaining seven companies also may be still in existence, no Dun & Bradstreet reports were found for them, and further searches for contact information came up empty. Moreover, not all of the 10 companies for which Dun & Bradstreet reports were on file could be found—although 9 of the 10 were found.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE 55 EARLIER CASE STUDIES

The previous case studies, from which the 10 Fast Track companies were drawn, were conducted by five different researchers, focused on projects and associated award recipients in different regions of the country, and on a variety of research questions. A brief summary follows of the earlier five sets of



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 115
Appendix D Update of SBIR Fast Track Case Studies Rosalie Ruegg TIA Consulting SELECTION OF A SUBSET OF EARLIER FAST TRACK CASES FOR UPDATE In an earlier NRC study of the SBIR Fast-Track initiative, members of an NRC research team conducted a series of case studies of SBIR projects which included both Fast-Track and non-Fast Track participants. Of the total of 55 project case studies conducted for the earlier study, 17 were Fast Track cases, and 38 were non-Fast Track cases. While the cases centered on projects, they also treated the companies that received the SBIR awards and conducted the research. There were slightly fewer companies than projects because several case-study projects were conducted by the same company, but in the case of the Fast Track projects, there was a one-to-one correspondence between projects and companies: 17 projects carried out by 17 companies. A preliminary search of the 17 previous Fast Track companies was done using Dun & Bradstreet company reports to determine which of the companies could still be found. Of the 17 companies, 10 were found to have reports on file. While it is possible that some of the remaining seven companies also may be still in existence, no Dun & Bradstreet reports were found for them, and further searches for contact information came up empty. Moreover, not all of the 10 companies for which Dun & Bradstreet reports were on file could be found—although 9 of the 10 were found. AN OVERVIEW OF THE 55 EARLIER CASE STUDIES The previous case studies, from which the 10 Fast Track companies were drawn, were conducted by five different researchers, focused on projects and associated award recipients in different regions of the country, and on a variety of research questions. A brief summary follows of the earlier five sets of 115

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 116 cases which included the Fast Track award recipients, with illustrative research questions and findings from each set:1 (1) Researcher John Scott’s set of 14 cases included six Fast Track and eight non-Fast Track projects in 13 companies.2 Illustrative Research Questions and Findings: Question: In the absence of the SBIR funding, would the research projects have been undertaken in the same way or at the same pace? Finding: It was concluded that the projects would not have been undertaken in the same way or at the same pace in absence of the SBIR program, due to the expectation that they would have been under funded. Question: Were there differences between Fast Track and non-Fast Track projects in their estimated lower-bound social rates-of-return? Finding: As a group, the Fast Track projects were estimated to have higher prospective lower-bound social rates of return. (2) Researcher Albert Link’s set of 12 cases included six Fast Track and six non-Fast Track projects in 12 companies.3 Illustrative Research Questions and Findings: Question: Do Fast Track projects progress more rapidly than standard SBIR awards? Finding: Fast Track projects proceeded to Phase II research faster than non- Fast Track projects. Question: Do the Fast Track projects commercialize more rapidly than the non-Fast Track projects? Finding: Fast Track projects developed a commercialization strategy sooner than non-Fast Track projects, but those Fast Track projects did not anticipate having commercial products sooner than non-Fast Track projects. 1 In addition to the 55 case studies, the earlier study of Fast Track included a survey of 379 Phase II awards. 2 Study focus and key findings of John Scott’s case study set were reported in “An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program in New England: Fast Track Compared with Non- Fast Track Projects,” in National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000, pp. 104-105. 3 Study focus and key findings of Albert Link’s case study set were reported in “An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Fast Track Program in Southeastern States,” in National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, op. cit., pp. 194-210.

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 117 (3) Researcher Maryann Feldman’s set of five cases included one Fast Track and four non-Fast Track projects.4 Illustrative Research Questions and Findings: Question: What has been the role of DoD’s SBIR in financing bioscience research? Finding: DoD’s SBIR was found to have played a substantial role in financing bioscience research, with the study documenting more than $240 million in SBIR awards for bioscience-related research by small firms. Question: How does funding of small start-up biotech companies by DoE and NIH compare? Finding: DoD and NIH funding of the projects examined was found to be complementary; these agencies funded different applications, and it was common for a firm that received DoD funding to subsequently apply to NIH. (4) Researchers David Audretsch’s, Juergen Weigand’s, and Claudia Weigand’s set of 12 cases included zero Fast Track and 12 non-Fast Track5 Illustrative Research Questions and Findings: Question: To what extent have recipients of SBIR awards altered their career choices as a result of SBIR, particularly by commercializing their knowledge by starting a new firm? Finding: Study results suggested that the SBIR influenced the career paths of scientists and engineers by facilitating the start-up of new firms; it was found that a significant number of the scientists and engineers would not have become involved in the commercialization process in the absence of SBIR. Question: Has the behavior of recipients of SBIR awards “spilled over” by inducing other colleagues to commercialize their knowledge in the form of starting a new firm? 4 Study focus and key findings of Maryann Feldman’s case study set were reported in “Role of the Department of Defense in Building Biotech Expertise,” in National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, op. cit., pp. 251-274. 5 Study focus and key findings of the case study set of David Audretsch, Juergen Weigand, and Claudia Weigand were reported in “Does the Small Business Innovation Research Program Foster Entrepreneurial Behavior? Evidence from Indiana,” in National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, op. cit., pp. 160-193.

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 118 Finding: The study concluded that as a result of the demonstration effect by SBIR-funded commercialization, a number of other scientists altered their careers to include commercialization efforts. (5) Researcher Reid Cramer’s set of 12 cases included four Fast Track and eight non-Fast Track6 Illustrative Research Questions and Evidence-Based Answers: Question: What organizational characteristics differentiate the SBIR companies? Finding: Three categories of firms were found among the case-study firms, resulting in the following classification by firm type: (1) contractor firms, (2) technologies firms, and (3) scientific firms. Question: Are there benefits from the SBIR beyond commercial sales? Finding: Benefits of the case-study companies were not only expressed in terms of commercial sales, but also in terms of expanding basic research, responding to government needs, and developing applications for technology. UPDATING THE 10 FAST TRACK CASES The current study has focused on updating the earlier Fast Track cases that could be found, but without the single-project focus of the earlier study and without pursuing the research questions of that earlier study. Rather, the focus of this update is on the company: on major changes in the company over the nearly 10 years since the earlier case was performed; on shifts in the company’s technology focus and application areas over the period; on the extent of commercialization by the company and specifically on commercialization of its SBIR-funded technology; on the number of SBIR awards received by the company; and on company views about SBIR and Fast Track awards, and, where relevant, Phase II Enhancement awards. The updated case studies are based on telephone interviews with owners, presidents, or designated points of contacts within the companies; supplementary information from the companies provided by email correspondence; information gleaned from company Web sites; news releases; Dun & Bradstreet company reports; SBA SBIR and Fast Track on-line awards databases; and the earlier case studies. The interview discussions focused on the following topics: 6 Study focus and key findings of Reid Cramer’s case study set were reported in “Patterns of Firm Participation in the Small Business Innovation Research Program in Southwestern and Mountain States,” in Naitonal Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, op. cit., pp. 160-159.

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 119 • Verification of current company location and contact information, founding date, and ownership structure. • Verification of the number and type of SBIR awards the company has received, including Fast Track and Phase II Enhancements, the agency making the award, the year and amount, and the project title, as reported by on-line SBA databases. • Major company developments over the nearly 10 years since the previous case studies were done. • SBIR effects, if any, on the firm. • Commercialization status, including whether the company’s SBIR awards have led to commercial products, including use of SBIR project results by DoD. • Views about the SBIR program in general. • Level of satisfaction with Fast Track. • Identification of any problems or shortcomings with Fast Track • Identification of any positive aspects of Fast Track. • Suggested changes to Fast Track. • Views about whether they would consider proposing again to SBIR; proposing again for a Fast Track award; or proposing for a Phase II Enhancement award; factors influencing their decisions. Table App-D-1 lists the 10 company cases selected for update—nine of which were found still in existence. Of the nine found, seven agreed to cooperate with the study. Entries are provided for all 10 of the companies, but information derived from interview is available only for the seven which cooperated. The table provides overview information for the 10 companies, including the following: location; forms of ownership and major changes since 1998; founding dates; technology focus then and now; number of employees then and now; and the number of SBIR awards received over a specified period. In addition to the information summarized in Table App-D-1, the individual cases provide the following kinds of information: descriptions of major changes experienced by the companies since the original Fast Track case study was performed about 10 years ago; application areas for technologies then and now; descriptions of company commercialization; and company views of the SBIR program, of Fast Track, and, where applicable, of Phase II Enhancement awards. An analysis of aggregate findings for each kind of information collected follows. Location As would be expected given the regional distribution of the original case studies, the Fast Track cases for update are geographically dispersed. Three are located in the northeast; two in the west; and five in the south,

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 120 although one of the latter was acquired by a company headquartered in California. Ownership and Size At the time the case studies for these 10 companies were originally done, all were small, privately owned companies. Two were woman owned, and one of the woman-owned companies was also minority owned. Half had 10 or fewer employees, and all but one had no more than 26 employees. A single company had more than 100 employees. At the time of the update, one of the companies (Picolight) had been acquired by a very large, publicly held company, and another (CG2) had been acquired by a privately owned company larger than CG2, though still a small company. One company (Opts) appears no longer to exist. The remaining companies showed no change in ownership. Two (Hyperion Catalysis and Matis) had become larger; three (Synkinetics, AvPro, and Summitec) had become smaller; and two (Yardney and PTS) remained little changed in size. Founding All but one of the 10 companies was started between 1982 and 1995. At the time of the original case studies, three of the companies (Picolight, Opts, and CG2) were less than five years old. Of these three, two had been acquired by larger companies prior to this case study update, and one had gone under. The oldest company, Yardney, started in 1944, began to use SBIR awards in the early 1990s to advance its battery technology for defense and aerospace applications. One of the companies, Picolight, was a second startup by a former AT&T Bell Laboratories researcher. One of the companies, Synkinetics, was a spin-off company of MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory in the early 1980. Another, Matis, was started in 1990 to respond to U.S. defense scientific computing needs, and has maintained close academic ties. Yet another of the companies, Summitec, started in 1987 to conduct defense R&D, had shifted away from R&D. Technology Focus and Application Areas Of the nine companies found, all had stayed in the same general technology field from the time of the earlier case studies to the present. At the same time there were significant shifts in focus, technical advances, and new applications. Yardney, for example, used its SBIR awards to develop high performance Li-ion batteries for defense and aerospace applications, a change from its former battery line. CG2 broadened its virtual reality capabilities and

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 121 broadened the applications beyond missile simulation testing to virtual training in urban assault and homeland defense, flight training, ground vehicle training, and additional weapons system simulation. Picolight advanced from developing its VCSEL platform technology to developing VCSEL-based transceivers and other devices for communication systems. Synkinetics advanced from fuel efficiency transmission technology to a patent-protected transmission system. AvPro made advances in moving its advanced process control technology for fabricating composite aerospace structures onto the shop floor. Hyperion Catalysis advanced from conducting carbon research to improving its manufacturing process technology for making carbon nanotubes and applying its carbon nanotube technology to making plastic parts for automobiles, electronics including flat-panel displays, and advanced batteries. In contrast to most of the companies which generally advanced their technologies, Summitec stayed in the general field of information technology, but moved out of research. It shifted from pursuing software for transmission of video images over narrow bandwidth for military applications, to providing technical services in information technology to government agencies. Commercialization The seven companies for which interviews were conducted were asked about their commercialization. Of the seven cooperating, six reported that they had commercialized technologies which they had developed. Six offered products for sale and several also provided services. The seventh (Summitec), having shifted its business away from R&D, offered a commercial service. Speaking specifically about commercializing their SBIR-funded technologies, two of the seven companies (Summitec and Hyperion Catalysis) stated explicitly that they had not commercialized their SBIR-funded technologies. Four (Yardney, Picolight, AvPro, and CG2) emphasized that they had commercialized their SBIR-funded technologies. One (Matis) spoke of commercializing its technology but did not directly connect commercialization to SBIR-funded projects. Four (Yardney, AvPro, CG2, and Matis) of the seven companies were supplying products and services primarily for military applications. At least two (Picolight and Hyperion Catalysis) of the seven companies had developed strong applications in civilian markets. One (Summitec) was providing information technology services to the Department of Energy. Number of SBIR Awards Received Six of the 10 companies received no more than five SBIR awards, and three received three or fewer. One received seven awards. Then there were three of the 10 companies that received considerably more awards: Yardney (56), Picolight (17), and CG2 (22). An observation is that the companies that

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 122 received the most SBIR awards over the period examined included three of four that reported commercializing their SBIR-funded technologies, as well as the two companies (Picolight and CG2) that were acquired by larger companies. The small number of respondents means that these observations can not be generalized. Views on the SBIR Program Of the seven companies who provided comments on the SBIR program, three were extremely enthusiastic about the SBIR program in general. Of the three who were enthusiastic, Picolight’s founder called the SBIR program, “Excellent.” Adding, “It works.” He went on to describe how he was able to build the foundation of his company’s device technology and his company on SBIR awards. Yardney’s President explained how the SBIR program had been particularly important to his company in helping it boost its R&D and sustain a research group, establish a new technology needed by aerospace and defense clients, and provide a path for implementation. The designated spokesperson for CG2said, “SBIR in general is fantastic,” and elaborated that the SBIR gives small companies the chance to take on high-risk research and to undertake more advanced topics of DoD interest. These three were the companies that had the most experience with the SBIR program and the most recent awards. Three companies (Summitec, Hyperion Catalysis, and Matis)—none of whom had received SBIR awards since the original case studies were done— thought that the program had been satisfactory and could recall no specific problems. Matis’ President also noted that the SBIR awards had promoted company growth and helped the company to generate revenues. Views on Fast Track and Phase II Enhancement Awards Given that all of the companies had received Fast Track awards but only two (CG2 and Yardney) had received Phase II Enhancement awards, it is not surprising that company comments focused on Fast Track rather than Phase II Enhancement awards. Yet, because a decade had passed since their last Fast Track award, institutional memory of these companies did not appear to be strong in most cases. According to Matis, Fast Track was “satisfactory,” but it did not recall the Fast Track award it received in 1997 as being “very significant.” According to CG2, the company sees both Fast Track and Phase II Enhancement awards as “having value,” but noted that “the discussion of Fast Track has not come up recently in proposal planning.” According to Hyperion Catalysis, Fast Track “worked well,” but no specifics were given. Several companies did have relatively vivid recall of their earlier Fast Track awards. AvPro’s President, for example, said the third-party financing requirement of Fast Track was instrumental in enabling his company to obtain an SBIR Phase II award. Without Fast Track’s third-party financing

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 123 requirement, he doubted that his company would have been able to obtain the Phase II award because of what he considered a “negative response of academic reviewers to technical challenges associated with manufacturing and process innovations.” As another example of recall—but of a contrasting effect— Picolight’s President praised Fast Track as being particularly helpful in helping him secure financing from third-party investors and leverage the SBIR award into a much larger investment amount. Thus, in the case of AvPro, Fast Track’s major significance was in obtaining SBIR funding, whereas for Picolight, Fast Track’s major significance was in obtaining the third-party financing. Several of the company respondents spoke of their perceptions of the comparative roles of Fast Track and Phase II Enhancement Awards, rather than of their specific experience. According to CG2’s spokesperson, the company sees these awards as having quite different functions, stating, “Fast Track is better for simpler projects where the research gap is of prime concern, and Phase II Enhancement is better for longer, larger, more complex projects that require more funding to get the R&D to Phase III.” Yardney said that it had more interest in the “faster funding feature” of Fast Track, than in the larger funding amount offered by Phase II Enhancement. Several of the companies said they were unfamiliar with the Phase II Enhancement award, but expressed interest in learning more. An interesting observation regarding Fast Track was that while none of the seven responding companies were negative about Fast Track, none had received additional Fast Track awards since the award it received in the late 1990s—the award that was the subject of the earlier case studies. It appeared that none of the companies had applied for additional Fast Track awards, but this was only implied and has not been verified. Yet all of the responding companies who were still in R&D expressed potential future interest in both Fast Track and Phase II Enhancement Awards. Suggestions for Improvements in SBIR Four of the responding companies offered comments that either directly or indirectly suggested changes to strengthen the SBIR program. AvPro’s President urged that there be greater receptivity toward proposals that address technical challenges to implementing practical process and manufacturing technologies. According to him, overly academic reviews of proposals tend to give low scores to proposals that aim at addressing process and manufacturing technologies, because these reviewers tend not to appreciate the technical difficulties of integrating technologies in a shop-floor environment. (AvPro had found the Fast Track program to be a way around this problem.) Hyperion Catalysis described SBIR awards as “very difficult to obtain” and as “requiring substantial company time to work through the process”—a comment which does not necessarily imply a problem with SBIR, but is worth considering since it may suggests undue application difficulties. Hyperion

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 124 Catalysis also expressed disappointment that its efforts to take its Fast Track technology into use by DoD had failed. Yardney’s President spoke about the erosion of the research-funding power of a Phase I SBIR award and the urgent need for an increase to ensure that this award continues to serve its intended purpose. Picolight’s President had a comment on why SBIR does not work better for many companies, with implied advice for companies on how they might change the way they approach SBIR, as well as potential advice on how better to formulate SBIR topics and reviews. He postulated that many companies tend to be less successful in building strong technology bases and companies from SBIR because they chase in scattered directions available SBIR topics rather than closely align their proposals with well-thought-through company goals. From the perspective of SBIR, this comment might imply that avoiding over-specification (i.e., unnecessarily constrained) specification of topics would give companies more leeway to align proposals with company goals. It may also imply that greater attention be given by administrators of proposal solicitations or reviewers of proposals to the alignment of proposed projects with company goals. The individual cases study updates follow.

OCR for page 115
APPENDIX D 125 Advanced Processing Technology (AvPro), Inc. Case Study7 COMPANY INFORMATION Addresses: AvPro, Inc. 2795 Broce Dr. Suite A Norman, OK 73072 and P.O. Box 1696 Norman, OK 73070 Telephone: 405-360-4848 Fax: 405-360-4899 Email: alongbrake@avproinc.com Web site: Year Started: 1990 Ownership: Privately owned corporation President: Thomas Rose Number of Employees: Earlier Case Study (Approx. 1999): 10 Current Case Study (2007/2008): 7 Company Changes Since Earlier Case Study: AvPro has continued as a small company working in the area of processing controls for manufacturing composite aerospace structures. On the surface, there are few apparent changes, but there have been important changes below the surface in terms of shifts toward more advanced approaches for controlling composites processing to meet the challenges of increasing complexity of composite structures. The major change since the earlier case has been the implementation of systems using the outcome of the Fast Track SBIR at major companies such as Vought, Boeing, and General Atomics. Implementation of these systems has 7 The following informational sources informed this case study: a telephone discussion with Thomas Rose, company founder/owner/president, February 21, 2008; the Web site of AvPro, Inc.; Dun & Bradstreet company report; SBA on-line Tech-net; and on-line Fast Track file.

OCR for page 115
166 TABLE App-D-7 Continued Total Phase II- Phase II- SBIR Fast Track Enhancement Award Phase I Phase II Year Agency (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Title 1997 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Fiber-to-the-Desk Laser 1999 MDA Transmitters and Receivers 1997 DoD 2 1 1 1 0 Stable Single Mode Oxide 1998 Navy Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers 1997 HHS 1 1 0 0 0 On-Airway-Ideal Spectroscopic Sensor for Carbon Dioxide 1998 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Passively Aligned Single- MDA Mode VCSEL Transceivers 1999 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 High-Performance 1550nm MDA Vertical-Cavity Surface- Emitting Lasers 1999 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Viable 2.5-10 GHz 1300nm 2000 Navy VCSEL Arrays Totals 17 11 6 2 0

OCR for page 115
TABLE App-D-8 PTS’s SBIR Awards, 1996-2007 Phase II-Fast Phase II- Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Track Enhancement Year Agency (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Title 1996 DoD 2 1 1 1 0 A New Dual-Gated 1997 DARPA DMCT for Hybrid Electric Power Systems 2002 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Novel High Current 2003 AF Switch for Spacecraft Power Bus Control 2002 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Thermionic Converters 2004 OSD Based on Nanostructured Carbon Materials 2005 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Cold Cathode for AF Traveling Wave Tubes Totals 7 4 3 1 0 167

OCR for page 115
168 TABLE App-D-9 Summitec’s SBIR Awards, 1996-2007 Phase II- Phase II- Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Fast Track Enhancement Year (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Agency Title 1996 DoD 2 1 1 1 0 Very Low Bit-Rate Error- 1997 Navy Resilient Video Communication Totals 2 1 1 1 0

OCR for page 115
TABLE App-D-10 Synkinetics’ SBIR Awards, 1994-2007 Phase II- Phase II- Fast Track Enhancement Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Agency (Number) (Number) Title Year (Number) (Number) (Number) 1994 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Precision Speed 1996 DARPA Reducer for Robotics and Manufacturing 1996 DoD 2 1 1 1 0 High Precision 1997 MDA Gimbal Systems 2000 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Navy Totals 5 3 2 1 0 169

OCR for page 115
170 TABLE App-D-11 Yardney’s SBIR Awards, 1991-2007 Phase II- Phase II- Fast Track Enhancement Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Agency (Number) (Number) Title Year (Number) (Number) (Number) 1991 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Development of Silver-Zinc 1993 Navy Cells of Improved Life and Energy Density 1993 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Lithium-ion Rechargeable 1997 NASA Battery System with Sulfur- Dioxide-Based Electrolyte 1993 NASA 1 1 0 0 0 High-Energy-Density, 1994 Rechargeable, Nickel-Zinc Cells with Improved Cycle Life 1994 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Improvement of High Power Navy Silver-Zinc Rechargeable Batteries for Underwater Vehicles 1994 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 High Rate Bipolar 1996 Navy Lithium/Thionyl Cloride Power Source for Missile Guidance

OCR for page 115
1995 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Low Cost, High Rate, High 1996 AF Energy Density Lithium-Ion Batteries 1996 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Development of a Synergetic DARPA Battery Pack (SBP) 1996 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Advanced Development 1997 OSD Program for a Lightweight, Rechargeable “AA” Zinc-Air Battery 1996 DoD 2 1 1 1 0 Low Cost, Lightweight, 1997 OSD Rechargeable Lithium-ion Batteries 1997 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Exploratory Development of Army Novel Manganese Oxide Cathode Materials for High Performance Lithium-ion Batteries 1997 NASA 1 1 0 0 0 A High Cycle Life, High Energy Density Battery Using A Metal Oxide Anode Material continued 171

OCR for page 115
172 TABLE App-D-11 Continued Phase II- Phase II- Title Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Fast Track Enhancement Agency (Number) (Number) Year (Number) (Number) (Number) 1997 NASA 2 1 1 0 0 A High Performance Lithium 1998 Battery Using An Alloy Anode 1998 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 A Mixed Metal Oxide Anode Material for High Energy Density Li-ion Batteries 1999 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Thin Film, Flexible Space 2000 AF Battery 1999 NASA 1 1 0 0 0 A Mixed Oxide Negative Electrode Material for Li-ion Batteries 2000 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Tin Based Negative Electrode 2001 Army Materials 2000 NASA 2 1 1 0 0 Title not found 2001 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Development

OCR for page 115
2002 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 The Development of a Polyvlent Battery System 2002 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 The Development of a Low- Cost Separator with Improved Performance 2002 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Development of a Novel, 2003 MDA Thin Film Lithium-ion Battery Technology 2002 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Development of Onboard 2003 MDA Power Sources for Interceptor Missiles 2003 DoD 3 1 1 0 1 An Ultra-lightweight Lithium AF Air Battery for Unmanned Air Vehicles 2003 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Advanced High Energy Army Batteries 2003 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Innovative Manufacturing 2004 MDA Processes continued 173

OCR for page 115
174 TABLE App-D-11 Continued Phase II- Phase II- Title Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Fast Track Enhancement Agency (Number) (Number) Year (Number) (Number) (Number) 2003 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Aluminum-Air Fuel Navy Cell/Battery Research 2004 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Lithium-Air Technology Army 2004 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Ballistic Missile System MDA Innovative Power Storage Devices 2004 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Assessing Useful Remaining Navy Life of Li-ion Batteries after Deep Discharges 2005 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 Low Temperature Performance of Li-ion Batteries 2005 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Pressure Tolerant Power Navy Source for Off-Board Sensor 2006 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 State-of-Charge Technology Navy for Zn-air Battery Systems

OCR for page 115
2006 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 New and Improved Army Nonaqueous Electrolyte Components—Salts & Solvents 2006 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Innovative Lightweight OSD Metal-Air Cell Cases for Non-Rechargeable Batteries 2007 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 A Phase I SBIR Proposal to MDA Lower the Cost and Improve the Manufacturing of Li-ion Batteries 2007 DoD 2 1 1 0 0 Lithium-Air/Lithium-Ion Army Hybrid Battery for Military Use 2007 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Phase I Nano-Engineered OSD Anode Materials for rapid recharge High Energy density Lithium-ion Batteries continued 175

OCR for page 115
176 TABLE App-D-11 Continued Phase II- Phase II- Fast Track Enhancement Award Total SBIR Phase I Phase II Agency (Number) (Number) Title Year (Number) (Number) (Number) 2007 DoE 1 1 0 0 0 Radically Designed High AF Energy Metal-Air Cell for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 2007 NASA 1 1 0 0 0 Nano-Engineered Materials for Rapid Rechargeable space Rated Advance Li- Ion Batteries 2007 DoD 1 1 0 0 0 Energy Storage System for DARPA Very High Altitude Very Long Endurance Solar Aircraft Totals 56 39 15 1 1