The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 52-85

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 52... ... The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the distribution of awards, giving a context into which questions regarding outcomes and program management can best be placed. This is especially important because of the very decentralized character of the DoD SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... In 2001, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was seeking to exit the SBIR program. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... DoD has provided data covering FY2005 (as of March 2006) that show that 37 percent of awards went to firms that had not previously won a DoD SBIR award. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Like other Federal R&D funding distributed by merit, SBIR funding tends to cluster in high-tech states and high-tech regions within those states. DoD Phase I SBIR awards go disproportionately to states with well-established traditions of science and engineering (see Table 3-2) Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 PREPUBLICATION COPY TABLE 3-2 Phase I awards 1992-2006 by State. STATE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total AK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 AL 14 20 24 32 24 31 21 38 21 32 45 59 63 89 513 AR 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 15 AZ 14 16 14 23 41 41 31 31 38 32 40 44 46 50 461 CA 262 336 370 294 332 344 275 321 254 302 500 439 436 464 4929 CO 30 43 47 38 47 68 52 57 76 59 114 101 99 97 928 CT 35 33 55 27 30 30 24 22 14 15 35 27 26 19 392 DC 2 2 3 4 3 2 8 4 3 6 3 3 6 49 DE 6 3 7 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 1 6 6 6 56 FL 31 30 35 36 36 44 35 37 38 38 51 46 60 65 582 GA 6 11 10 7 13 17 16 17 15 13 20 19 17 21 202 HI 4 3 3 4 3 8 3 6 7 4 14 59 IA 1 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 2 21 ID 1 4 2 1 2 5 7 3 3 8 36 IL 12 15 4 11 14 10 12 17 15 9 23 17 29 26 214 IN 5 4 1 4 5 3 8 4 2 3 14 9 8 24 94 KS 4 3 2 3 2 5 3 3 3 4 1 6 1 5 45 KY 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 20 LA 4 5 1 5 6 2 3 2 1 3 5 8 7 5 57 MA 181 219 199 194 204 247 189 198 182 176 317 310 298 298 3212 MD 37 65 59 48 63 73 48 84 53 68 118 101 108 122 1047 ME 6 5 3 3 1 1 4 1 1 11 9 8 10 63 MI 14 13 20 26 20 37 27 19 23 18 54 41 40 68 420 MN 13 19 25 19 18 26 15 25 20 18 27 23 20 26 294 MO 4 4 6 7 3 10 8 4 5 4 12 6 7 12 92 MS 2 2 3 1 3 4 4 5 2 26 MT 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 6 4 8 8 47 NC 9 10 13 10 10 8 10 9 13 15 9 20 26 16 178 ND 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 NE 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 18 NH 8 15 14 17 10 12 15 20 14 18 27 29 22 27 248 NJ 40 42 55 41 44 51 44 44 41 36 63 68 53 65 687 NM 37 40 24 38 37 27 32 33 26 27 35 35 35 30 456 NV 3 2 1 6 4 5 1 6 2 5 14 12 4 4 69 NY 36 53 64 50 57 54 50 52 40 56 78 89 82 108 869 OH 38 51 50 56 45 63 64 58 63 56 92 87 95 111 929 OK 5 2 3 2 6 3 4 3 1 5 6 7 21 16 84 OR 5 7 10 13 8 12 6 5 4 11 13 14 15 17 140 PA 44 38 52 44 53 61 48 46 48 56 74 80 92 101 837 RI 9 6 4 8 7 1 5 3 6 2 6 10 2 4 73 SC 2 2 3 4 1 1 7 5 12 12 3 4 56 SD 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 TN 7 10 15 9 9 8 13 11 10 9 9 11 11 10 142 TX 26 45 42 55 53 55 54 38 41 51 80 95 98 115 848 UT 13 8 9 10 16 4 11 14 2 8 14 12 7 23 151 VA 75 88 86 79 105 113 112 94 95 109 151 170 144 186 1607 VT 2 3 2 1 4 6 3 3 1 1 4 5 4 4 43 WA 16 26 17 23 16 22 17 25 17 14 35 34 32 32 326 WI 5 4 9 5 4 12 5 8 5 2 3 5 8 8 83 WV 3 4 2 1 7 15 10 8 50 WY 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 10 Total 1065 1303 1370 1262 1372 1526 1286 1393 1220 1310 2162 2113 2075 2344 21801 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... This concentration of awards is not unique to the SBIR program. The GAO pointed out in its 1999 study of the SBIR program that, according to the SBA, one third of the states received 85 percent of all SBIR awards, but also found that the distribution of SBIR awards tends to mirror the distribution of R&D funds in general.3 The same 1999 GAO study also noted concern about the concentration of awards, not only by company (see below) Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... . This is a lower degree of concentration than at NIH, but in both cases, the data illustrate that the SBIR awards, like other innovation activity, tend to be concentrated in relatively small geographic areas. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... prime contractors in 2004 garnered over $86 billion in defense revenues. 12 For example, Foster-Miller, a multiple award winner, developed robots for use in Iraq to identify roadside improvised explosive devices. Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... The study noted that "even though many of the SBIR projects have not yet had sufficient time to achieve their full commercial potential, the program is showing success in Phase III activity," with the majority of this activity occurring in the private sector, a goal of the program. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 17. They note further that "even with this early group of Phase II recipients, additional time is required for projects to mature." They add that "about ten percent of the projects responding to our survey had not even completed Phase II," adding that "our findings therefore represent an early interpretation of the trends in Phase III." 19 House Report (REPT. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... Firm winning more than 4 or 5 awards (the number changed in 2005) are now required to complete a CCR with every application for further DoD SBIR awards. Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... For example, agency staff suggest that SBIR awards permit efficient probes of the technological frontier, conducted in a short time frame, with a very limited budget. These awards can effectively explore new technological approaches, saving time and resources; and some companies succeed in providing viable alternatives to program managers.22 4) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... These data indicate a considerably greater degree of concentration of awards among the top winning companies than at other agencies, including NIH, which has the second largest SBIR program. It might also be observed that a number of the companies listed in Table 3-6 have grown, and are now large firms, no longer eligible for SBIR. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... On the other side of the spectrum, 95 percent of SBIR awardees received less than 10 awards, and 74 percent received no more than two. 3.2.6 Phase I awards – Demographics Data from the DoD awards database indicate that the percentage of DoD SBIR awards going to women- and socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns has hovered around 20 percent for years (see Figure 3-4) Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... The data show that the three largest components – Army, Air Force, and Navy – account for a fraction under 70 percent of all DoD SBIR awards between 1992 and 2005. This dominance varies substantially, however, ranging from a high of 83 percent in 1995 to a low of 59 percent in 2002 (as shown in Figure 3-5) Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... DoD staff have suggested that these extra-large awards – and similar extra-large Phase II awards – have resulted from the addition of non-SBIR funding to existing SBIR awards. This technique is a permissible and apparently not uncommon event at DoD and is considered by many to be a very desirable additional incentive and success measure. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... The extent to which these awards are actually oversized SBIR awards rather than SBIR contracts supplemented with non-SBIR funds cannot be determined conclusively from the DoD awards database.24 3.3.2 Phase II Awards – By Company As with Phase I, some companies have received numerous Phase II awards. The companies receiving many Phase I awards are often also successful in applying for multiple Phase II awards, as on average, 42 percent of Phase I winning proposals receive Phase II awards. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... 3.3.3 Phase II Awards – by state As would be expected with merit-based R&D awards, the geographical distribution of Phase II awards approximates but does not equal the distribution for Phase 25 Because companies change names, and in some cases tax ID numbers, a precise count would require a manual examination of all records: UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... Overall, the top 10 zip codes accounted for 11.2 percent of both Phase I and Phase II awards. This contrasts with NIH, where the top zip code accounted for 19.9 percent of Phase I awards, and the top 10 zip codes for 13.6 UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... DSW A/ SO MDA/ DTR CO Year AF ARMY BMDO NAVY CBD DARPA A NGA NIMA OSD M Total 110 172 46 52 0 41 12 0 0 0 0 433 1992 199 123 60 120 0 83 6 0 0 0 0 591 1993 152 78 23 107 0 43 3 0 0 0 0 406 1994 191 131 34 127 0 84 6 0 0 0 2 575 1995 217 100 36 156 0 78 3 0 0 16 5 611 1996 221 113 51 164 0 57 6 0 0 23 3 638 1997 243 111 69 136 0 71 7 0 0 33 2 672 1998 212 105 43 107 6 44 7 0 0 37 7 568 1999 195 112 56 186 8 45 5 1 0 13 5 626 2000 221 180 59 136 7 53 6 3 0 29 8 702 2001 233 124 28 170 11 47 6 1 0 36 5 661 2002 234 323 184 193 10 66 3 1 0 50 14 1,078 2003 317 273 211 212 11 75 3 2 0 60 9 1,173 2004 339 123 102 290 7 80 4 1 0 38 14 998 2005 3,084 2,068 1,002 2,156 60 867 77 9 0 335 74 9,732 Total Source: DoD awards database As shown by Figure 3-10, Army, Navy, Air Force, and MDA account for more than 85 percent of Phase II awards on average since FY2000: The remaining 14 percent is largely accounted for by DARPA 26 Data from DoD awards database and NIH IMPAC database respectively UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... 3.4 WOMEN- AND MINORITY-OWNED FIRMS One of the stated objectives of the SBIR program is to expand opportunities for women and minorities in the Federal S&T contracting process. One way to measure program performance in this area is to review the share of awards being made to womenand minority-owned firms. Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... One firm that had about ten proposals annually listed itself as minority-owned, then UNEDITED PROOFS Read the entire page →

From page 52...

... The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the distribution of awards, giving a context into which questions regarding outcomes and program management can best be placed. This is especially important because of the very decentralized character of the DoD SBIR program.