Bascom-Hunter "Blog"
Bason-Hunter Logo  
Click here to visit BH's presence on Linkedin

MISSIONSERVICESINDUSTRIESCONTACT
teamwork technology research Click here to acces CRM
 
Click for BH Blog FEDERAL PROGRAMS

SMALL BUSINESS

CRM & SALES
 

 

DOD Goes It Alone (For Now)                         from zyn.com

By a vote of 68/29 the Senate has accepted the FY-2010 National Defense Conference Report which was approved by the House on October 8. All that is needed is the Present's signature which is expected shortly.

Although SBIR occupies only a few lines in this mammoth 1400+ page legislation (H.R. 2647), its inclusion insures that the DoD SBIR/STTR and CPP will continue "as is" through the end of fiscal year 2010 (September 30, 2010).

As reported previously, ( www.zyn.com/sbir/insider/sb-insider10-07-09.htm ) the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC & SASC) took the unprecedented action of including SBIR reauthorization language in their defense bill because they were concerned over the lack of progress in SBIR reauthorization by the House Small Business, House S&T, and the Senate Small Business committees.

Originally the SASC's effort included the entire SBIR reauthorization language of the Senate Small Business Committee's bill (S.1233), thereby affecting all 11 agency SBIR programs. However, in compromise with the HASC, the SBIR language was narrowed to DoD only for a period of 14 years (later reduced to 1 year).

The House S&T and House Small Business Committees strenuously objected to the inclusion of SBIR language in Defense Authorization, but HASC stood its ground. It has been suggested that House S&T subcommittee chair David Wu (D-OR) helped to broker a compromise whereby the 14 year reauthorization period was reduced to 1 year while the relevant House and Senate SBIR conferees would try to pass a respectable compromise SBIR reauthorization bill soon.

In the mean time you DoD SBIR folks should get ready for DoD SBIR FY10.1 that should hit the streets November 12.

 

<back to top>

Ten Agency SBIR/STTR Programs Extended Through January 31, 2010
From zyn.com

As reported to you on Oct 26, Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship (SBE) were able to get the Senate to pass S. 1929 that extends SBIR/STTR for all agencies (except DoD which was handled separately) for 6 months, expiring on April 30, 2010. The bill was then sent to the House for a vote.

Naturally, Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), chair of the House Small Business Committee (SBC), didn't see eye to eye with the Senate, so she amended the bill by changing 6 months to 3 with an expiration date of January 31, 2010. With the short leash of the current October 31, 2009 expiration, and the fact that the House will not meet on Friday, the Senate will concur with the amendment and the President will sign this new Continuing Resolution (CR).

Bottom line, the SBIR/STTR programs will be extended through January 31, 2010, except for the DoD which was addressed separately by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and run through September 30, 2010.

The House and Senate are still in conference trying to reconcile differences in their bills in order to pass a true SBIR reauthorization bill. All conferees are being tight lipped about the progress but it is believed that they are getting close to a compromise bill. The Senate's bill originally contained several compromises on sensitive issues while the House was closer to "my way or the highway." Consequently progress on conferencing the two bills has been very slow and tough, to the point where some question if they can "get er done."

The Senate and House Armed Services Committees, lead by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO), were not comfortable with the above scenario. Realizing that the SBIR, STTR and CPP programs were of great importance and benefit to the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as many small businesses, Levin and Skelton took matters into their own hands and worked together (with their ranking members and committees) to extended the DoD SBIR/STTR/CPP programs though the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2010). The vehicle used was the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Wednesday, October 28.

The Armed Services committees were aided and abetted by the Senate SBE, while the House's SBC and S&T committees cried "foul", sent letters to Skelton and whined to Pelosi. Ultimately House S&T subcommittee David Wu (D-OR) worked out a compromise and the 14 year DoD extension was reduced to 1 year. Kudos to Levin, Skelton, Landrieu and their staff for their efforts. Oh yes, a "restrained nod" to Wu for trying to be helpful in a difficult situation.

<back to top>

 

 

Grant Application Basics

from the National Institutes of Health

What Does NIH Look For?

NIH funds grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts that support the advancement of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems to meet the NIH mission of extending healthy life and reducing the burdens of illness and disability. While NIH awards many grants specifically for research, we also provide grant opportunities that support research-related activities, including: construction, training, career development, conferences, resource grants and more. 

We encourage:

Projects of High Scientific Caliber
NIH looks for grant proposals of high scientific caliber that are relevant to public health needs and are within NIH Institute and Center (IC) priorities. ICs highlight their research priorities on their Web sites. Applicants may want to contact the appropriate Institute or Center to discuss the relevancy and/or focus of the proposed research before submitting an application. NIH also has a number of broad NIH-wide initiatives that may be of interest.

Investigator-Initiated Research
NIH strongly encourages investigator-initiated research across the spectrum of our mission. We issue hundreds of funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) in the form of Program Announcements (PAs) and requests for applications (RFAs) to stimulate research in particular areas of science.  Some PAs, called “Parent Announcements,” span the breadth of the NIH mission in order to ensure we have a way to capture “unsolicited” applications that do not fall within the scope of targeted announcements.  The majority of NIH applications are submitted in response to parent announcements.

Unique Research Projects
Projects must be unique. By law, NIH cannot support a project already funded or pay for research that has already been done. Although you may not send the same application to more than one Public Health Service (PHS) agency at the same time, you can apply to an organization outside the PHS with the same application. If the project gets funded by another organization, however, it cannot be funded by NIH as well.

Who Is Eligible for an NIH Grant?

Each type of NIH grant program has its own set of eligibility requirements.  Applicants can find eligibility information in section III of each funding opportunity announcement (FOA).  While the principal investigator (PI) conceives and writes the application, NIH recognizes the applicant institution as the grantee for most grant types.

Individual Eligibility: NIH supports scientists at various stages in their careers, from pre-doctoral students on research training grants to investigators with extensive experience who run large research centers. NIH is committed to supporting new and early stage investigators (ESI).  Reviewers give new and early stage investigators special consideration, and NIH has programs targeted specifically for these populations.

Generally, PIs and other personnel supported by NIH research grants are not required to be U.S. citizens; however, some NIH programs/mechanisms have a citizenship requirement. Any citizenship requirement will be stated in the program announcement (PA) or request for applications (RFA).

Institutional Eligibility: In general, domestic or foreign, public or private, non-profit or for-profit organizations are eligible to receive NIH grants. NIH may limit eligibility for certain types of programs, such as limitations on the participation of foreign entities or programs for which only small businesses are eligible applicants.

Foreign Eligibility: In general, foreign institutions and international organizations, including public or private non-profit or for-profit organizations, are eligible to apply for research project grants. Foreign institutions and international organizations are not eligible to apply for Kirschstein-NRSA institutional research training grants, program project grants, center grants, resource grants, SBIR/STTR grants, or construction grants. However, some activity codes, such as program project grants (P01), may support projects awarded to a domestic institution with a foreign component. For purposes of this policy, a “foreign component” is defined as performance of any significant element or segment of the project outside the United States (U.S.) either by the grantee or by a researcher employed by a foreign institution, whether or not grant funds are expended. Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the U.S. or that augment existing U.S. resources.

Foreign applicants are strongly encouraged to review the Eligibility section of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to determine whether their non-domestic (non-U.S.) entity (foreign organization) is eligible to respond to that particular FOA. Additional information on grants to foreign institutions, international organizations and domestic grants with foreign components is found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

<back to top>

 

Grant applications swamp NIH

From SPIE.com

The US National Institutes of Health, already groaning under the weight of grant applications brought on by a $10.4-billion economic stimulus package, is likely to be inundated with a second tidal wave of applications this autumn that would send success rates plummeting, agency officials predict.

The flood of applications for Challenge Grants, a new category created by the stimulus funds, means that the success rate will probably be less than 1%.

The agency is already reviewing more than 40,000 investigator-initiated applications; in a typical June review round, that figure would be 16,000. The NIH normally uses around 8,000 reviewers; it is now up to about 30,000.

 

<back to top>

 

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education

From www.ed.gov

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides approximately $100 billion for education, creating a historic opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, support states and school districts, and advance reforms and improvements that will create long-lasting results for our students and our nation including early learning, K-12, and post-secondary education. This document describes the principles and strategy that will guide the distribution and implementation of the ARRA funds appropriated to the U.S. Department of Education.

 

 Accompanying documents provide initial guidelines for three components of ARRA education funding: the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. Separately, we will issue guidelines on other ARRA funds as they are developed. The Department will periodically provide updated information at www.ed.gov.

Principles: The overall goals of the ARRA are to stimulate the economy in the short term and invest in education and other essential public services to ensure the long-term economic health of our nation. The success of the education part of the ARRA will depend on the shared commitment and responsibility of students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, education boards, college presidents, state school chiefs, governors, local officials, and federal officials. Collectively, we must advance ARRA's short-term economic goals by investing quickly, and we must support ARRA's long-term economic goals by investing wisely, using these funds to strengthen education, drive reforms, and improve results for students from early learning through post-secondary education. Four principles guide the distribution and use of ARRA funds:

  • Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs. ARRA funds will be distributed quickly to states, local educational agencies and other entities in order to avert layoffs, create and save jobs and improve student achievement. States and LEAs in turn are urged to move rapidly to develop plans for using funds, consistent with the law's reporting and accountability requirements, and to promptly begin spending funds to help drive the nation's economic recovery.

  • Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. ARRA funds should be used to improve student achievement. In addition, the SFSF provides funds to close the achievement gap, help students from all backgrounds achieve high standards, and address four specific areas that are authorized under bipartisan education legislation – including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the America Competes Act of 2007:

    • Making progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including English language learners and students with disabilities;

    • Establishing pre-K-to college and career data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement;

    • Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, particularly students who are most in need;

    • Providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

    • Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability. To prevent fraud and abuse, support the most effective uses of ARRA funds, and accurately measure and track results, recipients must publicly report on how funds are used. Due to the unprecedented scope and importance of this investment, ARRA funds are subject to additional and more rigorous reporting requirements than normally apply to grant recipients.

    • Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the "funding cliff." ARRA represents a historic infusion of funds that is expected to be temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are available for only two to three years. These funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires.

 

<back to top>

 

 

Building The Recovery

From Recovery.gov

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) authorized the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Public Building Service (PBS) to invest $5.55 billion in federal public building projects. This includes $4.5 billion to transform federal facilities into exemplary high-performance green buildings, $750 million to renovate and construct new federal offices and courthouses, and $300 million to construct and renovate border stations. GSA recently submitted a list of proposed projects and cost estimates to Congress. Buildings were selected based on the speed at which jobs could be created and the magnitude of improved energy efficiency. 

With 60 years’ experience and expertise in the building and real estate industry, GSA is excited by this challenge to contribute to our nation’s economic recovery, address strategic energy goals, and reinvest in our public buildings. In a matter of months—once approved, $1 billion worth of projects will be awarded in 120 days—funds will start flowing to all those in the building industries: construction workers, electricians, plumbers, air conditioning mechanics, carpenters, architects and engineers.  

As an effective steward of the resources entrusted to it, GSA is moving forward with speed tempered by its responsibilities and its accountability to the American taxpayer.
Projects are funded in all 50 states and all contracts will be awarded within the next two years.


Funding by Category

Investing in its existing facilities will reduce GSA’s backlog of needed repairs and modernizations and increase the value of federal assets. The most significant effect, however, might be the greatly-improved energy efficiency and performance of these projects. For more than 30 years, GSA has been an industry leader in the arena of sustainability. This work will leverage that expertise, conserve resources over the long-term, and yield inspiring models of high-performance green design excellence. The projects funded by the Recovery Act will also reduce our reliance on costly operating leases by providing government-owned solutions for our federal customers.

GSA/PBS is the landlord for the civilian federal government. GSA/PBS manages 354 million square feet of workspace for a million federal employees. This includes 8,600 government-owned and leased buildings in 2,200 American communities. GSA/PBS helps preserve our past and define our future as a steward of more than 480 historic properties.

GSA/PBS designs and builds award-winning courthouses, border stations, federal office buildings, laboratories, and data processing centers. Additionally, PBS:

  • Leases space;

  • Repairs, alters, and renovates federal facilities;  

  • Houses over 100 child care centers; 

  • Donates or sells real estate for federal agencies;  

  • Leads in energy conservation, sustainability, recycling, and historic preservation; 

  • Commissions artwork for new federal buildings and conserves a substantial inventory of New Deal art.

The timeline of Recovery Act spending has been a key issue in the debate and design of the Recovery Act because of the elapsed time between when policy changes are first proposed and actual spending begins to flow from enacted changes. The chart below shows the projected time of state and local-administered Recovery Act spending.

Timing of Funds

Over time, the programmatic focus of Recovery Act spending will change. About two-thirds of Recovery funds expected to be spent by states in the current 2009 fiscal year will be health related, primarily temporary increases in Medicaid FMAP funding. Health, education, and transportation is estimated to account for approximately 90 percent of fiscal year 2009 Recovery Act funding for states and localities. However, by fiscal year 2012, transportation will be the largest share of state and local Recovery Act funding. Taken together, transportation spending, along with investments in the community development, energy, and environmental areas that are geared more toward creating long-run economic growth opportunities will represent approximately two-thirds of state and local Recovery Act funding in 2012.

<back to top>

R&D Budget and Policy Program

From AAAS

Federal Research Investments Continue to Decline in 2009 Budget

Although high-priority investments in physical sciences research, weapons development, and human space exploration help to keep the federal R&D outlook brighter than the bleak outlook for domestic programs overall, the FY 2009 budget continues the recent trends of declining federal support for research.

The federal investment in basic and applied research would fall in real terms for the fifth year in a row if the FY 2009 budget is enacted. Federal research did very well between 1998 and 2003 because of the campaign to double the budget of NIH, the largest federal supporter of research. Other agencies also increased their research investments in that time period because a string of budget surpluses freed up resources for domestic appropriations. But with the return of budget deficits in 2002 followed by restraints on domestic spending thereafter, growth in research funding for NIH and other domestic agencies slowed in 2004 and then reversed. At the same time, DOD research support lagged as the Pentagon went to war in 2003 and shifted resources away from research toward near-term projects, and NASA research fell even within a stable R&D budget as it shifted resources from research to development. As a result, federal support for research is now in decline, with potential gains in the physical sciences more than offset by eroding support for biomedical research and other disciplines. The 2009 budget would continue the downward slide in federal research funding and leave the federal research portfolio 9.1 percent below the 2004 level in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Federal research investments are shrinking as a share of the U.S. economy, just as other nations are increasing their investments. As shown in the Figure below, the federal R&D investment exceeded 1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) until recently, buoyed by big increases in weapons development, but is now declining sharply. Federal investments in development, mostly in DOD, have held steady as a share of the economy, but the federal research/GDP ratio is in free fall down to a projected 0.38 percent in 2009, below the long-term historical average of 0.4 percent after gains in the late 1990s. Despite an increasingly technology-based economy and a growing recognition among policymakers that federal research investments are the seed corn for future technology-based innovations, the U.S. government research investment has so far failed to match the new realities despite the rallying points of innovation and the American Competitiveness Initiative, and has also failed to match the competition. Asian nations are dramatically increasing their government research investments: both China and South Korea, for example, are boosting government research by 10 percent or more annually.

Government Spending Chart

<back to top>

R&D Spending is Highly Concentrated in a Small Number of States

From the National Science Foundation

Research and development (R&D) expenditures in the United States are highly concentrated in a small number of states. In 1998—the most recent calendar year for which R&D data are available on a state-by-state basis—the 20 highest ranking states in R&D expenditures accounted for 85 percent of the U.S. total, while the lowest 20 states accounted for only 4 percent. California, at nearly $44 billion, had the highest level of R&D expenditures in the Nation and accounted for one-fifth of the $215 billion U.S. R&D total. California’s expenditures, plus those of the five states in descending order with the next highest levels of R&D spending—New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas—accounted for nearly one-half of the entire national R&D effort. And the top 10 states—adding, in descending order, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Maryland—accounted for nearly two-thirds of the national R&D.  

Among these top 10 states, California’s R&D effort exceeded, by more than a factor of three, that of the next highest state, New York, with $14 billion in R&D expenditures. After New York, R&D levels declined incrementally to $8 billion for Maryland.

 

The leading ten Federal agencies that fund R&D reported a total of $70 billion in Federal R&D obligations to all types of performers in fiscal year (FY) 1998. California and Maryland were the two largest recipients of total Federal R&D funds. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) together provided 69 percent of this total. Performers in California received 18 percent of DoD’s R&D support, nearly three-fourths of it supporting industrial firms. Maryland received 24 percent of HHS’ funding, almost three-fourths of it for intramural activities at the National Institutes of Health’s biomedical research facilities. In addition to DoD, California was the recipient of more R&D funds from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and from the National Science Foundation (NSF) than any other state. The main recipients in California of NASA R&D funding were FFRDCs (most notably, its Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and industrial firms. Ninety percent of NSF’s funding in California was for universities and colleges. Maryland had the largest share of any one Federal agency’s total R&D support, with 37 percent of the Department of Commerce’s R&D funds; nearly all of this funding was for intramural research activities.

The NSF’s Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS) collects and analyzes statistics on the geographic distribution of R&D expenditures in the United States among the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are categorized by type of performer (industry, Federal Government, academia, FFRDCs, and other nonprofit organizations) and by source of funds (industry, Federal Government, and academia). The amounts of R&D funding from specific Federal agencies are also provided. The most recent R&D data available by state are for 1998. In that year, total R&D expenditures in the United States were $227 billion, of which $215 billion could be attributed to expenditures within individual states, with the remainder falling under an undistributed, “other/unknown” category. The statistics and discussion in this Data Brief refer to state R&D levels in relation to the distributed total of $215 billion.

In addition to these state R&D statistics, SRS collects state-specific data in its surveys of science and engineering (S&E) personnel and institutions. These data and those assembled from non-SRS sources (e.g., data on population, patents, and GSP) are included in a set of 52 one-page S&E state profiles available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/.

 

 
Click here for Bascom-Hunter News BR CHAMBER TO TOUT RESEARCH GRANT PROGRAM

BH AND LA TECH PARK OFFER SBIR WRITING CLASS

BASCOM-HUNTER AND LSU SIGN MEMORANDUM
BH Calendar of Events CRM Seminar

SBIR Grant Writing Class


CRM Training

SBIR Submission Dates
   
 

SalesGovernment | CRM | Technology
Copyright © 2009 Bascom-Hunter, LLC. All Rights Reserved.