Technology Transfer: Several Factors Have Led to a Decline in	 
Partnerships at DOE's Laboratories (19-APR-02, GAO-02-465).	 
                                                                 
Since 1980 Congress has passed laws to facilitate the transfer of
technology from federal laboratories to U.S. businesses. In	 
particular, the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act 
of 1989 authorized federal laboratories operated by contractors, 
including the Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories,
to enter into cooperative research and development agreements	 
(CRADA). Under a CRADA, the partner and DOE laboratory agree to  
jointly conduct research and typically share the research costs. 
By fiscal year 1992, DOE's national laboratories were among the  
leading federal laboratories participating in CRADAs. Recently	 
however, the 12 laboratories that DOE surveyed have substantially
reduced their CRADA partnerships and their technical assistance  
to small businesses. Instead, the laboratories have increasingly 
transferred technology through agreements that did not involve	 
collaborative research and were funded by a business or other	 
nonfederal entity. Managers at most of the laboratories say the  
lack of dedicated funding for technology for transfer to	 
technology partnerships, including funding targeted to small	 
businesses, is the most important barrier to their technology	 
transfer activities. Managers at most laboratories said that	 
DOE's lack of a high-level, effective advocate for technology	 
transfer and DOE's lack of commitment to technology partnerships 
were important barriers. Several managers also said that	 
requirements, such as DOE's advance payment clause, were often	 
financially burdensome for small businesses.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-465 					        
    ACCNO:   A03033						        
  TITLE:     Technology Transfer: Several Factors Have Led to a       
Decline in Partnerships at DOE's Laboratories			 
     DATE:   04/19/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Cooperative agreements				 
	     Laboratories					 
	     Private sector					 
	     Technology transfer				 
	     Research and development				 
	     Small business					 
	     DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable		 
	     Energy Program					 
                                                                 
	     DOE Environmental Management Program		 
	     DOE Fossil Energy Program				 
	     DOE Laboratory Technology Research 		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     DOE Technology Partnership Program 		 
	     Small Business Innovation Research 		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     Small Business Technology Transfer 		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     Cooperative Research and Development		 
	     Agreements 					 
                                                                 


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-465
     
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S.
Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2002 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Several Factors Have Led to a Decline in Partnerships at DOE?s Laboratories

GAO- 02- 465

Page 1 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

April 19, 2002 The Honorable Jeff Bingaman Chairman, Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman: Since 1980, the Congress has enacted several laws
designed to make federally funded technology available to the public by
facilitating the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to U. S.
businesses. In particular, the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer
Act of 1989 authorized federal laboratories operated by contractors-
including the Department of Energy?s (DOE) national laboratories- to enter
into cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) that are
consistent with the laboratories? missions. Under a CRADA, the partner and
DOE laboratory agree to jointly conduct research and typically share the
research costs. By fiscal year 1992, DOE?s national laboratories were among
the leading federal laboratories participating in CRADAs with businesses,
universities, and other partners. In addition to CRADAs, DOE?s laboratories
have participated in technology partnerships by providing technical
assistance to small businesses. DOE?s laboratories have also transferred
technology to businesses and other nonfederal entities without using
partnerships by (1) ?work- for- others? agreements, in which laboratory
scientists perform specified research and the business pays full costs; (2)
licensing their technology to businesses; and (3) making specialized user
facilities available.

To further encourage DOE?s laboratories to enter into CRADAs and provide
technical assistance, the Congress began providing funding specifically
designated for technology partnerships in fiscal year 1991. However, in
fiscal year 1996, the Congress began to phase out these dedicated funds,
relying instead on program managers at the laboratories to use their regular
research funds for CRADAs that would significantly benefit their programs.
While the use of regular research funds instead of dedicated funds ensures
that a CRADA project will have primary benefits to DOE?s research mission,
it has raised concerns that DOE?s laboratories will be less likely to
support CRADAs.

In July 2001, we reported a substantial drop in the number of CRADAs and
technical assistance agreements that DOE?s National Nuclear Security

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Administration (NNSA) laboratories and production facilities have entered
into in recent years. 1 Concerned that a similar decline might have occurred
among all of DOE?s laboratories, you requested that we expand our analysis
to include the 12 DOE laboratories that have historically been most active
in transferring technology to U. S. businesses. Specifically, you asked that
we (1) examine these laboratories? participation in and funding for
technology transfer activities with nonfederal entities during the past 10
years and (2) obtain laboratory managers? views on any barriers that may
limit technology transfer activities between DOE?s laboratories and
potential nonfederal partners.

To address the first objective, we surveyed the following 12 laboratories,
which have accounted for almost all of DOE?s technology transfer activities
and funding, according to DOE:

 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
and Sandia National Laboratories within NNSA;  Ames Laboratory, Argonne
National Laboratory, Brookhaven National

Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory within DOE?s Office of
Science;  National Renewable Energy Laboratory within DOE?s Energy
Efficiency

and Renewable Energy Program;  Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory within DOE?s

Environmental Management Program; and  National Energy Technology
Laboratory within DOE?s Fossil Energy

Program. DOE?s other laboratories have been less active in technology
transfer primarily because they (1) conduct basic research in the fields of
high energy and nuclear physics and nuclear fusion, which have little near-
term potential for commercial applications; (2) conduct classified research
with little, if any, commercial application; or (3) are small.

In recent years, the 12 DOE laboratories have substantially reduced their
CRADA partnerships and their technical assistance to small businesses.
Instead, the laboratories have increasingly transferred technology through

1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: DOE Has Fewer
Partnerships, and They Rely More on Private Funding, GAO- 01- 568 (July 6,
2001). Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

agreements that did not involve collaborative research and were funded by a
business or other nonfederal entity. Specifically, the number of active
CRADAs at the 12 DOE laboratories dropped by almost 200 from fiscal year
2000 to fiscal year 2001 because the laboratories terminated 360 CRADAs and
entered into only 166 new CRADAs. In particular, active CRADAs at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory dropped from 256 in fiscal year 2000 to 79 in fiscal
year 2001, primarily because of funding constraints. Further, by fiscal year
2001, most of the 12 DOE laboratories did not provide technical assistance
for small businesses, unless a business was willing to pay for the service.
In contrast, between 1992 and 2001, the laboratories experienced more than a
fourfold increase in the number of work- for- others agreements and an
eightfold increase in the number of technology licenses and user facility
agreements. Although work- forothers agreements have grown, the research
typically is less beneficial for the laboratory than CRADA research because,
among other things, the laboratory?s scientists do not typically have the
opportunity to collaborate closely with the nonfederal entity?s researchers.

Managers at DOE laboratories most frequently cited the lack of dedicated
funding for technology partnerships, including funding targeted to small
businesses, as the most important barrier to their technology transfer
activities. Many of the managers said that the uncertainty of continued DOE
funding from year to year was a problem. Further, managers at most of the
laboratories stated that the lack of a high- level, effective advocate for
technology transfer at DOE headquarters and DOE?s lack of commitment to
technology partnerships were important barriers. Some laboratory managers
also told us that certain requirements, such as DOE?s advance payment
clause, were often financially burdensome, particularly for small
businesses.

DOE laboratories have primarily used the following types of agreements to
transfer technology to U. S. businesses and other organizations:

 CRADAs: A DOE laboratory and its nonfederal partner( s) agree that their
scientists will collaborate on a research project of mutual interest and
consistent with the laboratory?s mission. Both parties may contribute
personnel, services, and property to the CRADA project, and the partner( s)
can provide funding for the laboratory?s research. However, the DOE
laboratory cannot provide funding to the partner( s). Intellectual property
rights to technology developed under the CRADA are negotiated in advance. In
general, the inventing partner retains ownership rights, while the other
partner receives appropriate licensing rights. Background

Page 4 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

 Technical assistance for small businesses: Both NNSA?s and the Office of
Science?s laboratories used dedicated funds (provided by the Technology
Partnership Program and the Laboratory Technology Research Program,
respectively) to provide technical assistance to small businesses.  Work-
for- others agreements: A DOE laboratory agrees to conduct a

defined scope of work or list of tasks that is consistent with DOE missions
and which does not place the laboratory in direct competition with the
private sector. The nonfederal entity pays for the entire cost of the
project. While intellectual property rights are negotiable, the nonfederal
entity typically retains title rights to any inventions.  Technology
licensing agreements: A DOE laboratory grants a business

an exclusive or nonexclusive license to use its intellectual property in
return for a licensing fee and/ or royalties.  User facility agreements: A
DOE laboratory permits outside

organizations to use its unique research equipment and/ or facilities to
conduct research. For nonproprietary research, almost all of the users are
supported by federal grants, typically through the National Science
Foundation or DOE. For proprietary research, the private organization pays
the full cost for using research equipment or facilities and retains title
rights to any intellectual property.

Table 1 shows the dedicated funding that the Congress has made available for
technology partnerships through the Technology Partnership Program for
NNSA?s laboratories and weapons production facilities and the Laboratory
Technology Research Program for DOE?s Office of Science laboratories. 2 The
Technology Partnership Program, which provided funding for DOE?s nuclear
weapons laboratories and production facilities, peaked at $214 million in
fiscal year 1996 and was subsequently phased out by fiscal year 2001. The
Laboratory Technology Research Program, which provided funding for DOE?s
Office of Science laboratories, also declined from a peak of $47 million in
fiscal year 1995 to $3 million in fiscal year 2002. DOE requested $3 million
for the Laboratory Technology Research Program for fiscal year 2003 and has
announced that it will terminate this program once previously approved
projects have been funded.

2 The Technology Partnership Program was initially called the Technology
Transfer Initiative.

Page 5 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Table 1: DOE?s Dedicated Funding for CRADAs and Other Technology Partnership
Activities

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Dedicated funding 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 2002

Technology Partnership Program a $19 $49 $141 $206 $214 $100 $59 $56 $43 $15
0 0 Laboratory Technology Research Program b -10 1038 47 1424 15 169$ 10$ 3

a Dedicated funding provided by DOE?s National Nuclear Security
Administration and its predecessors. b Dedicated funding provided by DOE?s
Office of Science.

Source: DOE.

In the early 1990s, DOE created the Office of Research and Development
Management within the Office of the Under Secretary to promote and oversee
technology transfer at DOE?s laboratories and production facilities. In
March 1996, at the direction of the Congress, DOE disestablished this office
and eliminated all of its staff positions. Subsequently, in 1999, DOE
established a Technology Transfer Working Group, composed of representatives
from 25 DOE organizations, to oversee and coordinate technology transfer
policies. The working group has no permanent staff positions.

The 12 DOE laboratories surveyed have substantially reduced their
participation in CRADAs and technical assistance to small businesses in
recent years, primarily because DOE research program funding has not
replaced dedicated funding for technology partnerships. On the other hand,
the number of work- for- others agreements, technology licenses, and user
facility agreements has increased during the past 10 years. (See tables 5
and 6 in app. I for data on each laboratory?s technology transfer activities
and nonfederal entities? financial support.) Finally, two laboratories have
identified non- DOE sources to support their efforts to provide local small
businesses with technology assistance.

Table 2 shows that active CRADAs at DOE laboratories- which peaked at 1,111
in fiscal year 1996- dropped by more than 40 percent to 606 in fiscal year
2001. In particular, CRADAs that continued from the prior year dropped from
861 in fiscal year 1996 to 440 in fiscal year 2001. Much of this decline
occurred in fiscal year 2000, when 360 CRADA projects ended. (See table 7 in
app. I for each laboratory?s newly executed and continuing CRADAs.) DOE
Laboratories

Have Substantially Reduced Technology Transfer Activities Not Fully Funded
by Nonfederal Partners

CRADAs Increasingly Depend on Partner?s Financial Support

Page 6 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Table 2: CRADA Activity at DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001
Fiscal year Active CRADAs 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Newly executed CRADAs 164 241 393 424 250 190 196 223 128 166 Continuing
CRADAs 30 185 369 664 861 770 642 618 672 440

Total 194 426 762 1,088 1,111 960 838 841 800 606

Source: DOE laboratories.

The initial growth and subsequent decline in CRADAs over the past 10 years
mirrors the change in DOE?s dedicated funding for technology partnerships
through NNSA?s Technology Partnership Program and the Office of Science?s
Laboratory Technology Research Program. Since peaking in fiscal year 1996,
the drop in CRADAs has been greatest at the laboratories for which dedicated
funding constituted a substantial share of partnership funding. For example,
from 1996 through fiscal year 2001, the number of new CRADAs dropped from 12
to 7 and total active CRADAs dropped from 55 to 30 at the Office of
Science?s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Laboratory Technology
Research Program was the DOE source of funding for 68 percent of these
CRADAs. The termination of Technology Partnership Program funding resulted
in more than a 60- percent drop in active CRADAs at NNSA laboratories.

According to technology transfer managers at the DOE laboratories we
visited, their laboratories are likely to have fewer CRADAs in the future
because of DOE funding constraints. For example, the number of CRADAs at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory dropped from 256 in fiscal year 2000 to 79 in
fiscal year 2001 primarily because of funding constraints. In addition, as a
result of unanticipated cuts in fiscal year 2002 funding for the Laboratory
Technology Research Program- from $10 million in fiscal year 2001 to $3
million in fiscal year 2002- the Office of Science funded only 5 of the 12
multi- year CRADA proposals previously approved for funding by its peer
review process. The partners for the other seven approved CRADAs were
informed that funding for their projects would not be available in fiscal
year 2002. The Office of Science has announced that these 12 CRADAs will be
the last ones funded by the Laboratory Technology Research Program, which
will be terminated.

The three laboratories that have historically relied on DOE program funds to
support CRADAs have participated in at most 50 CRADAs per year each. For
example, total CRADAs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have grown
from 14 in fiscal year 1996 to 21 in fiscal year 2001, primarily because the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program,

Page 7 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

whose mission includes working with industry, has provided funding support
for most of these CRADAs. CRADAs at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory peaked at 50 in fiscal year 1996 and subsequently
fell to 32 in fiscal year 2001.

Figure 1 shows that CRADA funding from all sources peaked at over $500
million in fiscal year 1995. Since then, DOE funding has declined while
partners have provided a greater proportion of CRADA support through funding
and in- kind contributions. These trends reflect the decline in the total
number of active CRADAs and the fact that DOE?s research programs generally
have not provided the funding support for CRADAs that NNSA?s Technology
Partnership Program and the Office of Science?s Laboratory Technology
Research Program had previously provided. Funding from some DOE programs has
increased, however. For example, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program, which provided $16.6 million for CRADAs in fiscal year 1996,
provided $40.1 million of the $81 million in total DOE funds for CRADAs in
fiscal year 2001. (See tables 8 and 9 in app. I for the financial support of
CRADAs by DOE research programs and partners.)

Page 8 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Figure 1: Sources of Funding for CRADAs at DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years
1992 through 2001

Note: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory could not provide data on the
value of partners? inkind support. Other DOE laboratories estimated
partners? in- kind support based on their planned contributions.

Source: GAO analysis of DOE laboratories? data.

With the decline in DOE funding support for CRADAs, the bulk of support for
CRADAs has come from the laboratories? partners. Before fiscal year 1997,
CRADA partners primarily provided in- kind contributions that covered the
costs incurred by their scientists. Since then, CRADA partners have provided
more funding to cover part, or all, of the DOE laboratory?s costs for
CRADAs. In fiscal year 2001, CRADA partners provided 76 percent of the total
financial support for CRADAs through funding and in- kind contributions-
specifically, partners paid all of the costs for 23 percent of active CRADAs
and jointly funded the DOE laboratory?s costs for 15 percent of active
CRADAs. (See table 10 in app. I for the type of financial support that
partners provided.)

While these funds enabled the DOE laboratories to leverage their resources,
technology transfer managers at several laboratories noted that

Page 9 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

many ongoing CRADAs were terminated early and potentially beneficial CRADA
projects were stopped during negotiations because a business learned that it
would have to pay a substantial part, or all, of the laboratory?s research
costs in addition to its own costs. In recent years, about 33 percent of the
CRADAs were with small businesses, 50 percent were with large or
intermediate businesses, and 13 percent were with universities or consortia.
(See table 11 in app. I.)

Table 3 shows that the DOE laboratories? other technology transfer
activities funded by businesses and other nonfederal entities have grown
substantially in the past 10 years- work- for- others agreements are more
than four times greater and technology licenses and user facility agreements
are eight times greater. Businesses and other nonfederal entities have
provided more funding for work- for- others agreements than for all other
types of technology transfer activities combined. Funding from nonfederal
entities for work- for- others agreements increased from $31 million in
fiscal year 1992 to over $188 million in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year
2001, there were 1,527 work- for- others agreements funded at $147 million.

Table 3. Active Technology Transfer Agreements at 12 DOE Laboratories,
Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 Fiscal year Type of agreement 1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Work- for- others 350 358 367 424 604 813 917 1,126 1,355 1,527 Technology
licenses 189 230 396 540 808 944 1,045 1,424 1,589 1,720 User facilities 252
421 496 672 859 1,076 1,271 1,499 1,667 2,018

Source: DOE laboratories.

Although the nonfederal entity is required to pay all of the project costs,
many businesses use a work- for- others agreement, rather than a CRADA. The
work- for- others program allows them to obtain title, in most cases, to any
intellectual property developed under the agreement while the title and
licensing rights to any intellectual property developed under a CRADA are
subject to negotiations. (See table 12 in app. I for work- for- others
agreements by laboratory.) In contrast, the research under a work- forothers
agreement typically is less beneficial for the DOE laboratory than research
under a CRADA because (1) it is not required to provide direct benefit to
the program missions, although it must be consistent with them; (2) the
laboratory?s scientists typically do not collaborate on research with the
nonfederal entity?s scientists; and (3) the laboratory does not normally
have rights to any resulting intellectual property. Nonfederal Entities Have

Increasingly Used Other Technology Transfer Agreements

Page 10 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

During the past 10 years, the laboratories? technology licensing activities
significantly increased, from 189 licenses with $4.7 million in license
income in fiscal year 1992 to 1,720 licenses with $19.3 million in license
income in fiscal year 2001. The growth in technology licensing can be traced
to the 1984 amendments to the Patent and Trademark Amendments of 1980,
commonly known as the Bayh- Dole Act, which allowed DOE?s laboratories
operated by universities or nonprofit organizations to retain title to
inventions that their scientists made. Subsequently, the National
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 added technology transfer as
a mission of the DOE laboratories. (See table 13 in app. I for technology
licenses by laboratory.)

User facility agreements, which provide access to unique DOE research
equipment and facilities, increased from 252 in fiscal year 1992 to more
than 2,000 in fiscal year 2001. In particular, Brookhaven National
Laboratory had 741 agreements in fiscal year 2001 that provided nonfederal
entities with access to its specialized facilities such as the National
Synchrotron Light Source. Similarly, Oak Ridge National Laboratory had 604
agreements with nonfederal entities in fiscal year 2001.

The 12 DOE laboratories have reduced their technical assistance to small
businesses from a high of 746 agreements in fiscal year 1995 to 246
agreements in fiscal year 2001. This decline reflected the phasing out of
dedicated funding for technology partnerships, which the NNSA and Office of
Science laboratories could use to support technical assistance. More
recently, two laboratories have used other, non- DOE sources of funding to
provide technical assistance to local small businesses. Sandia National
Laboratories have an agreement with the state of New Mexico that entitles
Sandia to up to $1.8 million per year in tax relief for assistance provided
to small businesses in the state. Similarly, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory has received funding from an economic development agency in
Washington to provide technical assistance. These laboratories accounted for
more than two- thirds of the DOE laboratories? technical assistance
agreements in fiscal year 2001. Two DOE Laboratories

Have Used Non- DOE Sources to Fund Their Technical Assistance Programs for
Small Businesses

Page 11 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

According to DOE laboratory managers, the most important barrier to
effective technology transfer was the lack of dedicated DOE funding for
technology partnerships, including funding targeted at small businesses. 3
(See table 4.) According to laboratory managers, other important barriers
are closely associated with the lack of dedicated funding for technology
partnerships and raise serious concerns about the future of CRADAs at their
laboratories. While the laboratory managers also identified certain
administrative issues that have delayed, or even stopped, potential
partnerships, several of them told us that the long delays in obtaining DOE
approval of CRADAs, common in the mid- 1990s, have mostly been addressed.

Table 4: DOE Laboratory Managers? Ranking of Key Barriers to Technology
Transfer Barrier Show

stopper a Major barrier Moderate

barrier Minor barrier No barrier

Lack o f dedicated D OE f unding f or C RADAs 3 3 2 3 1 Lack of dedicated
DOE funding for technology transfer activities with small businesses 2 3 3 2
2 Uncertainty about the availability of DOE funding in subsequent fiscal
years 1 4 3 2 2 Lack of a high- level, effective advocate for technology
partnerships at DOE headquarters 0 7 3 0 2 Lack of DOE institutional
commitment to technology partnerships as a way to accomplish agency missions
0 6 3 1 2 DOE?s r equirement for a dvance p ayment by t he n onfederal p
artner0 6 3 2 1 U. S. c ompetitiveness r equirements 0 5 2 4 1 U. S. T rade
R epresentative r eview 0 2 2 5 3

a The laboratory would have few, if any, partnerships with affected
nonfederal entities. Source: DOE laboratories.

Managers at 8 of the 12 DOE laboratories we surveyed cited the lack of
dedicated DOE funding for CRADAs as an important barrier that has
constrained technology partnerships at their laboratories. Each of these
laboratories had received dedicated funding under either the Technology
Partnership Program or the Laboratory Technology Research Program. According
to several laboratory and DOE officials, DOE?s research managers generally
have questioned whether technology partnerships would provide direct
benefits to NNSA?s missions of stockpile stewardship

3 We considered that an issue was an important barrier to a laboratory if
the managers ranked it as a ?show stopper,? a ?major barrier,? or a
?moderate barrier.? Managers at DOE

Laboratories Cited Barriers to Technology Transfer Activities

Lack of Dedicated DOE Funding for CRADAs

Page 12 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

and nuclear nonproliferation and the Office of Science?s mission of basic
science. As a result, research managers have been reluctant to substitute
limited research funds for the dedicated technology transfer funding that
was phased out in recent years. Because DOE funding was not available,
several laboratories had to advise many of their CRADA partners that they
would either have to pay the project?s full costs, including those incurred
by the DOE laboratory?s scientists, or the laboratory would terminate the
CRADA. Sandia National Laboratories managers told us that they had
terminated 18 CRADAs early in fiscal year 2000 because of such funding
constraints.

Three laboratories stated that the lack of dedicated DOE funding was a ?show
stopper? for CRADAs. For example, managers at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory told us that because many of the laboratory?s research program
budgets have been squeezed in recent years, research managers have little
flexibility to support CRADAs or other types of technology partnerships.
Alternatively, CRADA partners- particularly small businesses- are unwilling
or unable to fund all of the research costs. The Lawrence Berkeley managers
believe that dedicated funding is important for maintaining a critical mass
of CRADAs- without the likelihood of funding support, scientists will not
invest the effort to develop strong funding proposals for potentially useful
collaborations. Moreover, according to managers at several laboratories,
previous DOE funding support for CRADAs likely led to an increase in work-
for- others agreements and CRADAs funded by nonfederal partners in recent
years. These managers believe that dedicated funds have provided the
laboratories with an opportunity to ?get their foot in the door? with
companies. Once the partners are familiar with the capabilities of the
national laboratories, they are more likely to want to continue working with
the laboratories, according to the managers.

Several managers cited the importance of dedicated funding for
commercializing many of their laboratories? technological innovations
because there often is a gap in the funding needed to translate the
innovation into possible commercial applications, a gap that some managers
referred to as the ?valley of death.? The Lawrence Berkeley managers told us
that CRADAs have enabled technology licensees to collaborate with the
laboratory?s scientists to develop commercial applications. According to
Lawrence Berkeley and Argonne managers, based on the number and quality of
proposals that their scientists had previously submitted for Laboratory
Technology Research funding, each of these laboratories could effectively
use $10 million per year in dedicated funding for CRADAs.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Managers at 4 of the 12 laboratories stated that the lack of dedicated DOE
funding was not an important barrier for CRADAs. In particular, three of
these four laboratories had not received dedicated funding. Furthermore, two
of these three laboratories- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and
the National Energy Technology Laboratory- primarily conduct research for
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program and the Fossil Energy
Program, respectively, which may have been more willing than some of the
other DOE programs to use regular research funds to support CRADAs because
their missions include working with industry.

Managers at 8 of the 12 DOE laboratories cited the lack of dedicated funding
for technology partnerships as an important barrier that has constrained
small business participation at their laboratories. In particular, managers
at two laboratories told us that the lack of dedicated funding was a ?show
stopper? for small businesses because a small business generally did not
have the funds available to pay all, or part, of the DOE laboratory?s costs-
in addition to its own costs- for a CRADA research project. Managers at
several of the laboratories also cited the importance of dedicated DOE
funding as a basis for providing technical assistance to small businesses.
Managers cited various examples of a laboratory scientist correcting a
manufacturing problem or improving a product after spending a few days with
a small business.

Managers at 8 of the 12 laboratories told us that uncertainty about DOE?s
continued financial support for CRADAs was an important barrier. In
particular, managers at several Office of Science laboratories told us that
Laboratory Technology Research Program funding cutbacks in recent years had
created ill will among CRADA partners whose funding support was cut and
uncertainty among laboratory scientists and their partners about whether to
pursue CRADA proposals for projects that were unlikely to get funded. Some
scientists at laboratories we visited discussed their frustration at having
funding disappear after they had nurtured working relationships with
industry scientists to develop potential technology transfer projects and-
much more time- consuming, in their perspective- persuading the partner?s
key financial and management staff of the project?s merit. These experiences
create ?legends? about the difficulties of working with DOE laboratories,
according to the deputy director of the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Lack of Dedicated DOE

Funding for Small Business Partnerships

Uncertainty about Continued Funding

Page 14 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Managers at 10 of the 12 DOE laboratories cited the lack of a high- level,
effective advocate for technology partnerships in DOE headquarters as an
important barrier that has constrained their technology transfer activities.
Similarly, managers at 9 of the 12 laboratories told us that the lack of DOE
institutional commitment to technology partnerships as a way to accomplish
program missions was an important barrier. Managers stated that technology
partnerships, which cut across DOE programs, need an advocate in DOE
headquarters who is not tied to a specific research area and has sufficient
visibility within DOE to effectively foster technology partnerships. More
specifically, managers at several Office of Science laboratories cited the
need for an advocate because they believe that funding technology
partnerships is a low priority within the Office of Science. They noted that
when the Congress reduced the fiscal year 2002 funding for the Office of
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, funding for the Laboratory
Technology Research Program was disproportionately cut- from the president?s
budget request of $6.9 million to $3 million- compared with other research
programs in this office. In March 2002, the Office of Science announced that
it will terminate the Laboratory Technology Research Program once its
previously approved CRADAs have been funded.

Both laboratory managers and DOE headquarters officials stated that DOE?s
lack of commitment to technology partnerships is caused, in part, by the
cross- cutting nature of the research carried out through CRADAs and other
technology transfer activities. They noted that technology partnerships
often provide important results and fulfill DOE?s broader responsibility to
disseminate knowledge, but the partnerships may not always be directly tied
to the specific goals of a single DOE research program. As a result, these
partnerships are likely to be a lower priority for research managers
responsible for meeting specific goals. Because DOE?s research budgets have
declined in recent years, it is even less likely that these managers will be
willing to fund research activities that, while potentially valuable, extend
beyond their immediate programs, according to the laboratory managers.

Finally, DOE officials noted that DOE?s Technology Transfer Working Group is
not an internal advocacy group for technology transfer, but a virtual
organization with no full- time permanent staff. The working group was
established after DOE eliminated its full- time technology transfer
organization in 1996 at the Congress? direction. The working group, which
convenes monthly by teleconference, oversees technology transfer policy and
practices, identifies issues, and coordinates the DOE headquarters response
to these issues. Other than through its organizational Lack of Commitment
for

Technology Partnerships

Page 15 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

representatives, the working group has no direct interface with Secretarial-
level officials concerning matters related to resources for technology
transfer and is not in a position, by itself, to serve as an advocate among
top- level DOE officials for such resources.

Managers at 9 of the 12 laboratories told us that DOE?s requirement that the
partner pay in advance for research conducted at the laboratory was an
important barrier to technology partnerships at their laboratory. Generally,
DOE requires an advance payment for about 90 days of work, if (1) a project
is expected to cost more than $25,000 and last more than 90 days or (2) the
nonfederal partner will contribute more than $25,000 for its portion of the
research that DOE laboratory scientists will conduct. (For shorter or less
costly projects, the partner is required to pay its entire share in
advance.) Some laboratory managers told us that the advance payment
requirement has presented problems in negotiating, for example, work- for-
others agreements or jointly funded CRADAs with small or large businesses or
with universities. While the requirement rarely stops an agreement from
being signed, it has delayed negotiations, particularly when a small
business cannot readily provide an upfront payment. The advance payment
requirement typically is more burdensome for small businesses than large
businesses because small businesses are less likely to have the funds
available to prepay work, according to laboratory managers. DOE?s policy
permits exceptions to this requirement; for example, the contractor
operating the laboratory may negotiate with DOE a smaller advance payment
for a small business that is unable to meet the standard requirement.

Some laboratory managers told us that the advance payment requirement had
created serious problems for small businesses that sought the laboratory?s
assistance as a subcontractor for a project under either the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program or the Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) program. While DOE requires an advance payment for conducting
research, the SBIR and STTR programs typically provide payments for
completed work, leaving the small business with the problem of providing
funding to bridge this gap. Managers at one laboratory questioned the need
for the advance payment requirement for an SBIR or STTR project when the
payment is coming from another federal program. In some cases, the federal
agency funding the SBIR or STTR project has agreed to provide some funding
upfront to help cover the DOE laboratory?s work. Alternatively, managers at
two of the DOE laboratories told us that they have assisted partners with a
bridge loan by Requirement That Partners

Pay for the Laboratory?s Research Costs in Advance

Page 16 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

using an account set aside for such purposes by the contractor that operates
the laboratory for DOE.

Managers at 7 of 12 DOE laboratories cited the U. S. competitiveness
requirements in the DOE model CRADA as an important barrier to technology
partnerships at their laboratory. DOE requires that partners either
manufacture substantially in the United States or provide a plan for
ensuring that the partnership will result in a net economic benefit to the
U. S. economy. Specifically, DOE?s model CRADA states that because a purpose
of the CRADA is to provide substantial benefit to the U. S. economy,
partners are required to (1) substantially manufacture in the United States
any products embodying the intellectual property developed under the CRADA;
(2) incorporate any processes, services, and improvements developed under
the CRADA into the partner?s U. S. manufacturing facilities either prior to
or simultaneously with implementation outside the United States; and (3) not
reduce the use of such processes, services, and improvements in the United
States because of their introduction elsewhere. DOE officials noted that
DOE?s requirements are more stringent than those in the Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986, which requires that laboratory directors ?give
preference to business units located in the United States which agree that
products embodying inventions made under the cooperative research and
development agreement or produced through the use of such inventions will be
manufactured substantially in the United States.?

Some laboratory managers said that DOE?s requirements have created
particular difficulties for large U. S.- based multinational companies,
including IBM and Procter & Gamble, that would like to collaborate with a
DOE laboratory. Managers noted that multinational companies often are
unwilling to sign an agreement containing DOE?s competitiveness clause
because of its possible implications in subsequent years on the company?s
strategic manufacturing decisions. Alternatively, the managers noted that
companies could submit a detailed explanation to DOE of how the CRADA
research will provide ?alternative benefits? to the U. S. economy. They
pointed out, however, that documenting alternative benefits can be a long
and cumbersome process.

In addition, managers at 4 of the 12 laboratories cited as an important
barrier the long delays- up to 6 months- associated with consulting the
Office of the U. S. Trade Representative for CRADAs involving a company
controlled by a foreign company or government. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 and Executive Order 12591 require that laboratory
Requirements to Protect

U. S. Economic Interests

Page 17 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

directors consider whether the foreign company?s government permits
comparable access to U. S. companies. The executive order also requires that
laboratory directors consider whether the foreign company?s government has
policies to protect U. S. intellectual property. Moreover, the executive
order directs laboratory directors to consult with the Office of the U. S.
Trade Representative in addressing these issues.

Managers at some of the 12 DOE laboratories cited other barriers to
technology transfer, but we did not find a general consensus that these
problems needed to be addressed. For example, managers at four laboratories
cited administrative burdens and time delays in negotiating and signing a
technology partnership agreement.

 Managers at Los Alamos National Laboratory told us that it takes about 3
months, on average, from the time funding for a CRADA is approved until the
agreement is signed.  Managers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory cited the
administrative

burden associated with obtaining DOE headquarters approval for technology
partnerships as small as a $5,000 technical assistance project and suggested
that DOE establish a threshold below which local approval would suffice.

Managers at several laboratories, however, told us that DOE has made major
improvements in reviewing CRADAs since the mid- 1990s, when we reported
that, on average, it took four DOE contractor- operated laboratories about
7.5 months to implement a one- collaborator, onelaboratory CRADA. 4

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for its review and comment. We
met with DOE officials, including the director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, who said that DOE found the report to be a reasonable
representation of the technology partnering activities at the 12 DOE
laboratories surveyed. In commending GAO for gathering pertinent data and
analyzing trends and barriers, DOE stated that the report

4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Improving the Use of
Cooperative R& D Agreements at DOE?s Contractor- Operated Laboratories, GAO/
RCED- 94- 91 (Apr. 15, 1994). Other Issues

Agency Comments

Page 18 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

provides a sound basis for assessing the current situation and charting
future directions.

DOE stated that, for purposes of portraying a broad perspective, it was
helpful to include the work- for- others program among the five types of
agreements most commonly used to transfer technology to U. S. businesses and
other organizations. DOE also noted that a considerable amount of technology
transfer takes place in the normal course of executing technical work
associated with mission- related contracts and financial assistance, and
that this work was not included in the report as technology transfer. While
we agree with DOE that the laboratories? technology transfer activities are
not limited to the five types of agreements discussed, we note that the
laboratories? role in other forms of technology transfer was outside the
scope of our review. DOE officials also provided comments to improve the
report?s technical accuracy, which we incorporated as appropriate.

To obtain trend data on technology development partnerships, we asked
managers at each of the 12 DOE laboratories to provide participation and
funding data for fiscal years 1992 through 2001. To help ensure consistency
across locations, we worked with these managers to establish uniform
definitions and resolve any discrepancies. In addition, we (1) interviewed
officials at DOE headquarters and (2) visited Argonne National Laboratory,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
obtain the views of administrators and scientists about their laboratories?
participation in and funding of technology partnerships.

To identify any barriers that may limit DOE laboratories? efforts to
transfer technology to potential nonfederal partners, we interviewed
officials at DOE headquarters and obtained the views of laboratory
administrators at each of the 12 DOE laboratories. We conducted our review
from October 2001 through March 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We did not independently verify the data
provided by DOE?s laboratories.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees, the secretary of energy, the director of the Scope
and

Methodology

Page 19 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard Cheston,
Kerry Hawranek, and Susan Swearingen.

Sincerely yours, John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 20 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Table 5: Active Technology Transfer Agreements with Nonfederal Entities at
DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CRADAs a 13 50 96 147 152 109 78 68 50 48 Technical assistance for small
businesses b 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0 Work- for- others 75 55 80 104 110 192
192 276 299 266 Technology licenses c c 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 342 User
f acilities 000 0 00 11 00

Los Alamos National Laboratory

CRADAs 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 115 Technical assistance for small
businesses b 22 75 180 85 29 0 0 0 0 Work- for- others 202521 14 3950 6174
8183 Technology licenses 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 68 User facilities 17
22 45 60 47 58 54 31 43 42

Sandia National Laboratories

CRADAs 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 140 Technical assistance for small
businesses b 0 302 393 322 292 233 257 210 109 Work- for- others 6 9 22 42
80 126 183 263 351 400 Technology licenses 16 32 49 77 178 240 273 313 362
429 User facilities 0 0 3 24 56 66 89 45 33 22

Office of Science laboratories Ames Laboratory

CRADAs 1 1 5 12 6 5 3 3 4 5 Technical assistance for small businesses 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12 1 0 Work- for- others 0 1 5 0 5 6 9 11 6 5 Technology licenses 5
5 8 9 9 11 12 16 18 18

Argonne National Laboratory

CRADAs 122657 89 8589 6158 5654 Technical assistance for small businesses d
5 4 20 35 16 31 37 40 26 33 Work- for- others 584549 50 6182 7976 7174
Technology licenses 16 17 25 33 39 51 59 78 99 128 User facilities 0 0 0 25
60 128 211 291 360 419

Brookhaven National Laboratory

CRADAs 4 16 23 58 31 41 27 25 25 34 Technical assistance for small
businesses 0 0 4 5 3 4 2 6 4 0 Work- for- others e 110125 1211 1421
Technology licenses 32 e 27 e 43 e 27 e 33 e 52 e 35 e 265 335 383 User
facilities 172 298 316 364 413 471 488 590 629 741

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 21 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

CRADAs 2 10 21 51 55 41 31 33 31 30 Technical assistance for small
businesses 0 0 0 8 6 5 2 6 5 1 Work- for- others 82 70 79 81 138 165 199 176
251 317 Technology l icenses 91416 28 3235 4155 6889 User facilities 21 28
23 41 42 48 53 70 66 86

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

CRADAs 37 74 143 166 205 205 221 246 256 79 Technical assistance for small
businesses fff f ff ff ff Work- for- others 106 142 98 110 130 139 138 170
198 240 Technology licenses 64 68 76 97 122 137 148 150 119 113 User
facilities 42 73 109 158 241 305 354 441 486 533

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

CRADAs 122651 70 6853 4547 4338 Technical assistance for small businesses 0
0 18 64 81 74 72 69 57 53 Work- for- others g 244 3 67 55 59 Technology
licenses 24 30 29 45 52 49 59 64 71 77 User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 30 50
104

Other DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory

CRADAs 9 23 34 45 50 46 38 34 25 32 Technical assistance for small
businesses 3 5 15 42 17 16 18 2 19 17 Work- for- others 0 6 9 11 16 22 38 26
55 82 Technology licenses 2 3 8 16 36 43 51 59 64 64

National Energy Technology Laboratory

CRADAs 131213 11 2731 3723 2315 Work- for- others 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1
Technology l icenses 000 0 01 33 35

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

CRADAs c c c 10 14 15 17 24 22 21 Work- for- others c c c 8 1719 1833 2129
Technology licenses 0 0 4 9 19 7 9 12 11 4

All DOE laboratories CRADAs 195 426 762 1, 088 1, 111 960 838 841 800 606
Technical assistance for small businesses 13 35 440 746 576 490 403 428 348
246 Work- for- others 350 358 367 424 604 813 917 1,126 1,355 1,527
Technology licenses 189 230 396 540 808 944 1,045 1,424 1,589 1,720 User
facilities 252 421 496 672 859 1,076 1,271 1,499 1,667 2,018

a Includes four cost- shared procurement agreements under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation that were used to expedite research and development
contracts at Lawrence Livermore. This table does not include data on cost
shared procurement agreements at any other laboratory. b Funding was made
available beginning in fiscal year 1994 through DOE?s Defense Programs?
Small

Business Initiative.

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 22 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

c Data were not readily available. d Includes technical services agreements,
which are paid for by the nonfederal partner. e Data are for new agreements
only. f Oak Ridge was unable to provide the number of technical assistance
for small businesses agreements by fiscal year, but estimated that the
laboratory entered into 100 of these agreements over the 10- year period. g
Nearly all industrially funded work at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
is conducted under

Battelle?s contract agreement with DOE and is not included in the work- for-
others data. Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 6: Funding Provided by Nonfederal Entities for Active Technology
Partnerships with DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CRADAs a 0 0 $1,900 $3,200 $2,400 $12,400 $36,700 $42,500 $33,700 $32,200
Work- for- others $4,600 $4,000 15,500 31,800 20,600 16,400 43,800 70,500
19,600 13,400 Technology licenses 400 400 600 1,100 1,300 2,300 2,600 2,200
3,600 3,400 User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal $5,000 $4,400 $18,000 $36,100 $24,300 $31,100 $83,100 $115,200
$56,900 $49,000 Los Alamos National Laboratory

CRADAs $6,100 $300 $600 $1,500 $1,900 $1,900 $2,300 $2,300 $2,600 $4,400
Work- for- others b 8,800 4,100 8,600 12,700 16,800 13,300 16,700 14,800
14,400 Technology licenses 200 100 200 100 300 400 700 900 1,300 1,400 User
facilities 200 1,600 1,600 1,100 700 2,300 800 1,000 600 200

Subtotal $6,500 $10,800 $6,500 $11,300 $15,600 $21,400 $17,100 $20,900
$19,300 $20,400 Sandia National Laboratories

CRADAs $4,400 $5,800 $10,600 $10,600 $12,100 $27,200 $32,800 $30,100 $38,200
$27,650 Work- for- others b b 200 14,000 14,300 17,100 22,700 24,600 29,700
31,610 Technology licenses 100 0 100 400 700 1,700 900 1,200 2,300 3,730
User facilities 0 0 241 804 803 676 972 224 372 149

Subtotal $4,500 $5,800 $11,141 $25,804 $27,903 $46,676 $57,372 $56,124
$70,572 $63,139 Office of Science laboratories Ames Laboratory

CRADAs 0 $200 0 $77 $174 $150 $130 $111 $122 $842 Work- for- others 0 80
$186 0 359 269 584 837 205 473 Technology licenses c $2 3 2 3 3 5 60 22 149
103

Subtotal $2 $283 $188 $80 $536 $424 $774 $970 $476 $1,418

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 23 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Argonne National Laboratory

CRADAs $25 $2,500 $5,368 $6,262 $3,334 $3,023 $3,245 $3,602 $3,307 $1,797
Work- for- others 8, 707 8,771 10,094 26,202 12,114 14,911 18,754 15,691
12,643 22,188 Technical services agreements d 96 22 19 45 44 290 320 373 835
751 Technology licenses 0 0 9 109 33 100 1,289 1,016 713 2,430 User
facilities 0 0 0 0 0 3, 512 1,408 3,717 3,682 3,162

Subtotal $8,828 $11,293 $15,490 $32,618 $15,525 $21,836 $25,016 $24,399
$21,180 $30,328 Brookhaven National Laboratory

CRADAs 0 0 0 $239 $420 $230 $267 $1,756 $972 $4,749 Work- for- others $3,818
$2,892 $1,464 3, 071 1,898 2,726 3,475 3,997 8,962 7,804 Technology licenses
539 678 853 951 889 1,350 1,650 2,800 2,100 2,400 User facilities b bbbb 143
172 162 296 352

Subtotal $4,357 $3,570 $2,317 $4,261 $3,207 $4,449 $5,564 $8,715 $12,330
$15,305 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

CRADAs 850 $1,504 $1,890 $2,448 $3,149 $7,469 $7,714 $7,198 $5,395 $4,329
Work- for- others 7, 773 10,509 15,421 5, 585 15,509 16,205 18,780 25,356
46,542 20,855 Technology licenses 31 83 65 163 133 354 561 667 881 1,107
User facilities 985 550 329 612 1,107 956 1,746 915 1,804 2,633

Subtotal $9,639 $12,646 $17,705 $8,808 $19,898 $24,984 $28,801 $34,136
$54,622 $28,924 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

CRADAs $1,426 $492 $3,065 $2,678 $2,267 $6,305 $16,263 $14,498 $9,077
$11,544 Work- for- others 3, 800 5,200 7,300 8,600 14,700 13,200 15,100
14,700 15,000 21,000 Technology licenses 2,919 376 520 606 888 1,228 1,423
1,480 2,412 1,902 User facilities N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 185 239 291
546

Subtotal $8,145 $6,068 $10,885 $11,884 $17,855 $20,733 $32,971 $30,917
$26,780 $34,992 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

CRADAs $35 $40 $20 $275 $397 $275 $20 $181 $71 $91 Work- for- others e 2,965
273 405 365 929 1,886 221 730 392 750 Technical assistance for small
businesses f 0 0 0 0 600 300 0 0 50 0 Technology licenses 486 977 280 213
283 413 555 633 1,291 1,521

Subtotal $3,486 $1,290 $705 $853 $2,209 $2,874 $796 $1,544 $1,804 $2,362
Other DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory

CRADAs 0 $554 $926 $2,499 $659 $1,572 $2,855 $2,380 $2,994 $4,187 Work- for-
others 0 0 0 3 5, 373 4,476 8,306 13,765 13,577 13,804 Technology licenses
$6 17 49 80 173 347 578 251 257 308

Subtotal $6 $571 $975 $2,582 $6,205 $6,395 $11,739 $16,396 $16,828 $18,299

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 24 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
National Energy Technology Laboratory

CRADAs $28 0 $15 $55 $10 $16 $51 $8 $35 $5 Work- for- others 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
20 0 0 Technology licenses 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

Subtotal $28 0 $15 $55 $10 $21 $126 $28 $35 $5 National Renewable Energy
Laboratory

CRADAs b bb 0 $50 $50 $100 $210 $555 $343 Work- for- others b bb $500 790
1,119 750 1,220 520 477 Technology licenses 0 0 0 20 37 31 303 690 1,600 950

Subtotal b bb $520 $877 $1,200 $1,153 $2,120 $2,675 $1,770 All DOE
laboratories CRADAs $12,864 $11,390 $24,384 $29,833 $26,860 $60,590 $102,445
$104,844 $97,028 $92,137 Work- for- others 31,663 40,525 54,670 98,726
99,272 105,092 145,845 188,116 161,941 146,761 Technology licenses 4,683
2,634 2,678 3,745 4,739 8,233 10,619 11,859 16,603 19,251 User facilities
1,185 2,150 2,170 2,156 2,610 7,587 5,283 6,257 7,045 7,042 Total $50,395
$56,699 $83,902 $134,820 $134,081 $181,802 $264,192 $311,076 $282,667
$265,191

a Includes funding for four cost- shared procurement agreements under the
Federal Acquisition Regulation that were used to expedite research and
development contracts at Lawrence Livermore. This table does not include
data on funding for cost shared procurement agreements at any other
laboratory. b Data were not readily available.

c Amounts shown are Ames? portion of the total royalties received by Iowa
State University Research Foundation per a formula in the laboratory?s
management and operating contract. d Technical service agreements are
similar to technical assistance for small business agreements; however, the
nonfederal partner pays for them. e Nearly all industrially funded work at
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is conducted under

Battelle?s contract agreement with DOE and is not included in the work- for-
others data. f Represents funding from the Tri- City Industrial Development
Council, provided under section 3161 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, which directed
DOE to provide local assistance to communities affected by the DOE Defense
Nuclear Facilities Work Force Restructuring Plan. Funding for technical
assistance for small businesses is not reported for the other laboratories
because small businesses do not contribute funding to these agreements.

Source: DOE laboratories.

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 25 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Table 7: Active CRADAs at DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001
Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 13 42 53 67 273012 14510 Continuing CRADAs 0 8 43 80
125 79 62 50 41 33

Subtotal 13 50 96 147 152 109 74 64 46 43 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 31 33 69 68 392645 36 14 6 Continuing CRADAs 6 32 55
107 126 106 89 94 102 109

Subtotal 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 115 Sandia National Laboratories

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 38 69 83 65 453330 52 2737 Continuing CRADAs 17 54
112 189 208 160 120 102 126 103

Subtotal 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 140 Office of Science
laboratories Ames Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 1 0 5 11 2 1 1 1 1 3 Continuing C RADAs 0 1 0 1 442 2
32

Subtotal 1 1 512653 3 45 Argonne National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 12 14 37 38 181414 21 1414 Continuing CRADAs 0 12 20
51 67 75 47 37 42 40

Subtotal 12 26 57 89 85 89 61 58 56 54 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 4 12 18 33 3 11 12 13 10 13 Continuing CRADAs 0 4 5 25
28 30 15 12 15 21

Subtotal 4 16 23 58 314127 25 2534 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 2 8 11 30 12 10 11 9 8 7 Continuing C RADAs 02 10 21
433120 24 2323

Subtotal 2 10 21 51 554131 33 3130 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 36 25 55 57 422627 29 2431 Continuing CRADAs 0 49 88
109 163 179 194 217 232 48

Subtotal 36 74 143 166 205 205 221 246 256 79 Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 11 15 30 26 131614 19714 Continuing CRADAs 1 11 21
44 55 37 31 28 36 24

Subtotal 12 26 51 70 68 53 45 47 43 38

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 26 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Other
DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 8 14 21 19 23 10 6 8 5 15 Continuing C RADAs 19 13 26
273632 26 2017

Subtotal 9 23 34 45 504638 34 2532 National Energy Technology Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 8 9 11 5 18 10 17 10 5 6 Continuing C RADAs 5 3 2 6
9212013189

Subtotal 13 12 13 11 27 31 37 23 23 15 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs a a a 5 83711810 Continuing CRADAs a a a 5 6 12 10 13
14 11

Subtotal a a a 10 14 15 17 24 22 21 All DOE laboratories Newly executed
CRADAs 164 241 393 424 250 190 196 223 128 166 Continuing CRADAs 30 185 369
664 861 770 642 618 672 440 Total 194 426 762 1,088 1,111 960 838 841 800
606

a Data were not readily available. Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 8: DOE Funding for CRADAs at DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1992
through 2001

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 0 $300 $400 $900 $700 $200 $1,100 $500
$200 $300 Environmental Management 0 0 0 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 Environment,
Safety, & Health 00 0 0 0 01000 00 Defense Programs a $1,600 23,100 32,700
41,300 36,200 15,200 3, 100 2,500 1,800 1,300 Other DOE funding 0 0 0 0 300
0 0 200 300 100

Subtotal $1,600 $23,400 $33,100 $42,600 $37,600 $15,400 $4,300 $3,200 $2,300
$1,700 Los Alamos National Laboratory b

Defense Programs c $4,300 $10,300 d $25,000 d $41,700 $32,900 $13,200
$14,000 $15,600 $2,600 $0 Other DOE funding 2,200 1,800 4,700 7,300 12,000
13,400 10,400 12,200 10,900 7, 900

Subtotal $6,500 $12,100 $29,700 $49,000 $44,900 $26,600 $24,400 $27,800
$13,500 $7,900

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 27 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Sandia National Laboratories

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 0 $458 $58 $658 $1,165 $1,165 $1,254
$1,996 $2,462 $2,159 Defense Programs a $8,111 32,477 72,368 96,696 68,798
28,706 25,794 23,730 8, 835 4,829 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 0 0 0 0 0
0391138092, 105 Other DOE funding 154 1,862 3,026 4,602 6,378 6,996 6,460
5,095 3,119 2,760

Subtotal $8,265 $34,767 $75,452 $101,956 $76,339 $37,317 $33,547 $30,935
$15,225 $11,853 Office of Science laboratories Ames Laboratory

Science e 0 0 $249 $593 $39 0 0 $125 $272 $387 Environmental Management 0 0
0 0 200 $130 $65 191 150 65 Environment, Safety, & Health $60$ 100 0 0 0 0
00 00

Subtotal $60 $100 $249 $593 $239 $130 $65 $316 $422 $452 Argonne National
Laboratory

Science e $1,946 $1,655 $5,774 $9,503 $4,133 $3,496 $2,677 $2,408 $1,318
$2,227 Fossil Energy 0 230 1,486 1,675 1,824 810 472 544 174 269 Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy 31 28 127 787 2,050 2,207 2,139 1,106 1,597
2,414 Environmental Management 0 0 14 148 140 152 8 0 0 0 Nuclear Energy 0 0
0 39 361 307 35 0 0 0 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 0 0 0 54 799 1,075
878 655 0 250

Subtotal $1,977 $1,913 $7,401 $12,206 $9,307 $8,047 $6,209 $4,713 $3,089
$5,160 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Science e $394 $300 $3,404 $7,623 $2,158 $3,634 $2,654 $1,756 $2,207 $1,826
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 0 0 0 0 0 0 001, 5401, 265

Subtotal $394 $300 $3,404 $7,623 $2,158 $3,634 $2,654 $1,756 $3,747 $3,091
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Science e $81 $841 $1,725 $4,951 $4,551 $2,976 $2,073 $2,311 $1,851 $1,669
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0 00588588 Environment,
Safety, & Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 005353 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 0 0 0
049241584434861620

Subtotal $81 $841 $1,725 $4,951 $4,600 $3,217 $2,657 $2,745 $3,353 $2,930

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 28 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oak
Ridge National Laboratory

Science e $1,467 $2,363 $17,677 $11,446 $1,072 $7,891 $5,302 $2,040 $4,349
$2,459 Fossil Energy 20 70 1,670 325 220 750 245 250 310 877 Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy 5,502 5,418 4,664 8,329 7,615 17,475 8, 120
3,245 16,648 26,261 Environmental Management 1,020 2,300 125 50 5,270 100 0
0 0 930 Nuclear Energy 1,075 0 0 1,000 670 1,075 0 0 0 670 Defense Programs
a 0 30,137 13,074 3, 293 352 3,090 0 0 10,182 0 Other DOE funding 0 0 205 30
90 0 20 0 357 0

Subtotal $9,084 $40,288 $37,415 $24,473 $15,289 $30,381 $13,687 $5,535
$31,846 $31,197 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Science e $695 $700 $13,536 $6,207 $3,376 $3,414 $2,485 $2,975 $1,726 $2,346
Fossil Energy 0 200 400 100 75 0 0 200 1,108 2,500 Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy 540 295 950 1,255 1,494 2,590 2,435 2,348 1,775 3,355
Environmental Management 230 1,238 100 1,565 700 0 0 0 0 0 Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation 0 0 0 100 0 72 1, 051 540 922 1,201 Other D OE f
unding1000210 0 0 0 0000

Subtotal $1,565 $2,433 $15,196 $9,227 $5,645 $6,076 $5,971 $6,063 $5,531
$9,402 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory

Science 0 $520 $960 $562 $873 0 0 $30 $392 $330 Fossil Energy 0 250 125 175
500 $350 $750 775 500 403 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 0 525 317
1,825 1,552 1,773 255 4 456 1,211 Environmental Management $455 0 93 900
2,175 1,562 1,275 851 610 150 Nuclear Energy 318 0 400 0 430 50 110 0 0 0
Other DOE funding 20 20 191 1,124 655 0 279 286 300 500

Subtotal $793 $1,315 $2,086 $4,586 $6,185 $3,735 $2,669 $1,946 $2,258 $2,594
National Energy Technology Laboratory

Fossil Energy $1,123 $260 $4,486 $1,667 $900 $1,102 $925 $1,550 $3,022
$1,472

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy f f f $260 $1,800 $2,500 $1,350 $1,300
$3,700 $4,400

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 29 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 All
DOE laboratories Science $4,853 $6,379 $43,325 $40,885 $16,202 $21,411
$15,191 $11,645 $12,115 $11,244 Fossil Energy 1,143 1,010 8,167 3,942 3,519
3,012 2,392 3,319 5,114 5,521 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 6,073
7,024 6,516 14,014 16,576 28,490 16,718 10,690 27,576 40,753 Environmental
Management 1,765 3,638 332 3,063 8,685 1,814 1,283 851 610 1,080
Environment, Safety & Health 0 0 0 0 0 010005353 Nuclear Energy 1,393 0 400
1,039 1,461 1,432 145 0 0 670 Defense Programs 14,011 95,984 143,142 182,989
138,248 60,196 42,894 41,830 23,417 6, 129 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
0 0 0 154 848 1,388 2,552 1,742 4,132 5,441 Other DOE funding 2,474 3,682
8,332 13,056 19,423 20,396 17,159 17,781 14,976 11,260 Total $31,442
$117,717 $210,214 $259,142 $204,962 $138,139 $98,434 $87,859 $87,993 $82,151

a Includes funding from the Technology Partnership Program. b Los Alamos did
not have readily available data on funding from individual DOE programs. c
Technology Partnership Program funding only. d Planned Technology
Partnership Program funding. Actual data were not readily available. e
Includes funding from the Laboratory Technology Research Program. f Data
were not readily available.

Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 9: Funding and In- kind Support for CRADAs from Nonfederal Partners,
Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) 0 0 $1,900 $3,200 $2,400 $12,400 $28,600 $31,300
$20,900 $19,200 In- kind support from partner( s) a a a a a a a aaa

Subtotal a a a a a a a aaa

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 30 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Los
Alamos National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $6,100 $300 $600 $1,500 $1,900 $1,900 $2,300 $2,300
$2,600 $4,400 In- kind support from partner( s) 5, 700 14,100 36,000 42,700
46,600 43,400 42,500 46,200 35,100 27,900

Subtotal $11,800 $14,400 $36,600 $44,200 $48,500 $45,300 $44,800 $48,500
$37,700 $32,300 Sandia National Laboratories

Funding from partner( s) $4,400 $5,800 $10,600 $10,600 $12,100 $27,200
$32,800 $30,100 $38,200 $27,650 In- kind support from partner( s) 13,200
44,100 79,000 94,600 76,900 77,900 73,300 61,900 41,400 67,130

Subtotal $17,600 $49,900 $89,600 $105,200 $89,000 $105,100 $106,100 $92,000
$79,600 $94,780 Office of Science laboratories Ames Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) 0 0 0 $77 $174 $150 $130 $111 $122 $16 In- kind
support from partner( s) 0 $219 $19 51 96 74 20 125 189 826

Subtotal 0 $219 $19 $128 $270 $224 $150 $236 $311 $842 Argonne National
Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $25 $2,500 $5,368 $6,262 $3,334 $3,023 $3,245
$3,602 $3,307 $1,797 In- kind support from partner( s) 2,109 2,860 49,334
16,844 40,999 4, 573 38,550 14,922 10,895 9, 328

Subtotal $2,134 $5,360 $54,702 $23,106 $44,333 $7,596 $41,795 $18,524
$14,202 $11,125 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) 0 0 0 $239 $420 $230 $267 $1,756 $972 $4,749 In-
kind support from partner( s) $400 $1,460 $5,329 11,800 7, 767 7,616 4,332
4,205 5,163 7,600

Subtotal $400 $1,460 $5,329 $12,039 $8,187 $7,846 $4,599 $5,961 $6,135
$12,349 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $850 $1,504 $1,890 $2,448 $3,149 $7,469 $7,714
$7,198 $5,395 $4,329 In- kind support from partner( s) 0 0 3,650 8,984 6,377
5,178 5,489 6,321 5,437 3,928

Subtotal $850 $1,504 $5,540 $11,432 $9,526 $12,647 $13,203 $13,519 $10,832
$8,257 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $1,426 $492 $3,065 $2,678 $2,267 $6,305 $1,623
$14,498 $9,077 $11,544 In- kind support from partner( s) 6,824 45,324 34,238
27,409 28,498 20,137 8, 580 15,948 33,411 37,229

Subtotal $8,250 $45,816 $37,303 $30,087 $30,765 $26,442 $10,203 $30,445
$42,488 $48,774

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 31 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $35 $40 $20 $275 $397 $275 $20 $181 $71 $91 In-
kind support from partner( s) 1,375 2,198 14,829 8, 842 5,492 6,146 6,956
6,746 5,929 8,251

Subtotal $1,410 $2,238 $14,849 $9,117 $5,889 $6,421 $6,976 $6,927 $6,000
$8,342 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) 0 $554 $926 $2,499 $659 $1,572 $2,855 $2,380 $2,994
$4,187 In- kind support from partner( s) $618 1,353 2,557 9,821 17,702
12,634 5, 001 4,501 6,775 7,016

Subtotal $618 $1,907 $3,483 $12,320 $18,361 $14,206 $7,856 $6,881 $9,769
$11,203 National Energy Technology Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) $28 0 $15 $55 $10 $16 $51 $8 $35 $5 In- kind
support from partner( s) 252 $369 12,328 1, 571 686 816 1,318 1,035 5,297
3,857

Subtotal $280 $369 $12,343 $1,626 $696 $832 $1,369 $1,043 $5,332 $3,862
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Funding from partner( s) 0 0 0 0$ 50$ 50$ 100 $210 $555 $343 In- kind
support from partner( s) a a a $250 1,700 2,500 1,350 1,300 3,500 4,341

Subtotal a a a $250 $1,750 $2,550 $1,450 $1,510 $4,055 $4,684 All DOE
laboratories Funding from partner( s) $12,864 $11,190 $24,384 $29,833
$26,860 $60,590 $79,705 $93,644 $84,228 $78,311 In- kind support from
partner( s) 30,478 111,983 237,284 222,872 232,817 180,974 187,396 163,203
153,096 177,406 Total $43,342 $123,173 $261,668 $252,705 $259,677 $241,564
$267,101 $256,847 $237,324 $255,718

a Data were not readily available Source: DOE laboratories.

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 32 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Table 10: Active CRADAs by the Type of Financial Support That Nonfederal
Partners Provided, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA
laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Partner( s) provides all funding 0 0 1 13 20 22 21 32 28 30 Partner( s)
provides some funding 0 0 0 3 4 6 7210 Partner( s) provides only in- kind
contributions 13 50 95 131 128 81 46 30 17 13

Subtotal 13 50 96 147 152 109 74 64 46 43 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 0 55 3 1 3787 Partner( s) provides some
funding 1 2 510 8 8 81177 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions
36 63 114 160 154 123 123 112 101 101

Subtotal 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 115 Sandia National Laboratories

Partner( s) provides all funding 35 76 104 96 86 70 42 40 41 48 Partner( s)
provides some funding 6 19 29 36 41 31 37 49 49 41 Partner( s) provides only
in- kind contributions 3 16 53 102 110 77 64 53 49 37

Subtotal a 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 140 Office of Science
laboratories Ames Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 0 00 0 0 1000 Partner( s) provides some
funding 1 1 01 4 2 1112 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions 0 0
511 2 3 1233

Subtotal 1 1 512 6 5 3345 Argonne National Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 2 35 6 6 81098 Partner( s) provides some
funding 1 1 4 5 2 3 6636 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions 11
23 50 79 77 80 47 42 44 40

Subtotal 12 26 57 89 85 89 61 58 56 54

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 33 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 0 01 2 0 2239 Partner( s) provides some
funding 0 0 0 2 0 2 2521 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions
4121830 1 9 4653

Subtotal b 4 16 2358 31 41 27252534 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding1 1 12 8 8 4786 Partner( s) provides some
funding 1 6 6 16 15 12 12 13 11 12 Partner( s) provides only in- kind
contributions 0 3 14 33 32 21 15 13 12 12

Subtotal 2 10 2151 55 41 31333130 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Partner( s) provides all funding 000 7 17 21 29334320 Partner( s) provides
some funding 17 16 21 23 34 44 51 54 69 0 Partner( s) provides only in- kind
20 58 122 136 154 140 141 159 144 59

Subtotal 37 74 143 166 205 205 221 246 256 79 Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 1 00 2 1 0112 Partner( s) provides some
funding 1 0 1 2 1 1 1340 Partner( s) provides only in- kind 11 25 50 68 65
51 44 43 38 36

Subtotal 12 26 51 70 68 53 45 47 43 38 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 0 34 4 4 1156 Partner( s) provides some
funding 0 4 5 2 8 9 5447 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions 9
19 2639 38 33 32291619

Subtotal 9 23 3445 50 46 38342532 National Energy Technology Laboratory

Partner( s) p rovides all f unding0 0 00 0 0 0000 Partner( s) provides some
funding 2 0 2 2 1 2 5364 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions 11
12 11 9 26 29 32 20 17 11

Subtotal 13 12 13 11 27 31 37 23 23 15 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Partner( s) provides all funding c c c 0 0 0 2333 Partner( s) provides some
funding c c c 0 2 2 4688 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions c
c c 10 12 13 11 15 11 10

Subtotal c c c 10 14 15 17 24 22 21

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 34 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 All
DOE laboratories Partner( s) provides all funding 36 80 117 132 146 133 111
134 146 130 Partner( s) provides some funding 30 49 73 100 120 120 137 152
163 87 Partner( s) provides only in- kind contributions 116 269 540 778 798
651 556 518 452 341 Total 195 426 762 1,088 1,111 960 838 841 800 606

a Some agreements at Sandia did not fall into any of these categories, but
are reflected in the subtotal and the total for all laboratories. b
Brookhaven was only able to provide a breakdown by type of financial support
for new agreements,

but all agreements are included in the subtotal and the total for all
laboratories. c Data were not readily available.

Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 11: Types of Organizations Entering into Technology Transfer
Agreements with DOE Laboratories, Fiscal Year 1999 through 2001

CRADAs Work for others Fiscal year Fiscal year Facility 1999 2000 2001 1999
2000 2001 NNSA laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Small business 20 18 20 84 87 64 Intermediate or large business 39 23 20 65
82 78 University or other nonprofit 5 5 2 127 130 124 Consortium o r m
ultiparticipant a greement 0 0 1 000

Subtotal 64 46 43 276 299 266 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Small business 52 46 36 6 11 5 Intermediate or large business 74 66 55 12 8
3 University or other nonprofit 2 4 3 10 8 8 Consortium or multiparticipant
agreement 21 17 12 0 0 0

Subtotal 149 a 133 a 106 a 28 b 27 b 16 b

Sandia National Laboratories c Small business 49 43 42 46 73 83 Intermediate
or large business 111 115 101 204 268 284 University or other nonprofit 7 6
2 24 29 42 Consortium or multiparticipant agreement 30 28 17 2 4 7

Subtotal 197 192 162 276 374 416

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 35 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

CRADAs Work for others Fiscal year Fiscal year Facility 1999 2000 2001 1999
2000 2001 Office of Science laboratories Ames Laboratory

Small b usiness 1 1 2 222 Intermediate or l arge b usiness 1 1 1 531
University o r other n onprofit 0 0 0 412 Consortium o r m ultiparticipant a
greement 1 2 2 000

Subtotal 3 4 5 11 6 5 Argonne National Laboratory

Small business 25 24 23 13 14 17 Intermediate or large business 12 16 17 30
28 22 University or other nonprofit 3 4 2 33 29 35 Consortium or
multiparticipant agreement 18 12 12 0 0 0

Subtotal 58 56 54 76 71 74 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Small business 7 5 9 0 2 2 Intermediate or large business 3 5 3 2 0 5
University or other nonprofit 1 0 0 6 7 13 Consortium or multiparticipant
agreement 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal c 11 10 12 8 9 20 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Small business 15 12 12 14 17 21 Intermediate or large business 17 18 17 14
10 20 University or other nonprofit 0 0 0 93 31 124 Consortium or
multiparticipant agreement 1 1 1 0 0 0

Subtotal 33 31 30 121 58 165 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Small business 8 10 9 5 11 13 Intermediate or large business 19 13 17 7 7 9
University or other nonprofit 0 0 0 10 10 18 Consortium o r m
ultiparticipant a greement 2 0 4 544

Subtotal b 29 23 30 27 32 44 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Small business 18 13 7 0 0 0 Intermediate or large business 17 20 22 2 4 8
University o r other n onprofit 2 1 0 311 Consortium o r m ultiparticipant a
greement 10 9 9 000

Subtotal 47 43 38 5 5 9

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 36 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

CRADAs Work for others Fiscal year Fiscal year Facility 1999 2000 2001 1999
2000 2001 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory

Small b usiness 9 6 8 632 Intermediate or large business 12 10 13 18 48 75
University o r other n onprofit 1 1 1 245 Consortium or multiparticipant
agreement 12 8 10 0 0 0

Subtotal 34 25 32 26 55 82 National Energy Technology Laboratory

Small b usiness 13 9 3 31 1 Intermediate or large business 9 11 9 1 1 0
University o r other n onprofit 1 3 3 11 0 Consortium or multiparticipant
agreement 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 23 23 15 5 3 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Small business 10 9 8 13 8 12 Intermediate or large business 11 10 10 17 12
14 University or other nonprofit 2 2 2 2 1 2 Consortium or multiparticipant
agreement 1 1 1 1 0 1

Subtotal 24 22 21 33 21 29 All DOE laboratories Small business 227 196 179
192 229 222 Intermediate or large business 325 308 285 377 471 519
University or other nonprofit 24 26 15 315 252 374 Consortium or
multiparticipant agreement 96 78 68 8 8 12 Total 672 608 547 892 960 1,127

a The number of CRADAs for Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, and
the number of work for other agreements for Sandia, are greater than the
totals for these laboratories reported in other tables in this report
because Los Alamos and Sandia have agreements with partner types that they
consider to be in more than one category. b Data are for new agreements
only.

Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 12: Active Work- for- Other Agreements at DOE Laboratories, Fiscal
Years 1992 through 2001 Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
1998 1999 2000 2001 NNSA laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements a a a aa a a a a a Continuing agreements a a a aa
a a a a a

Subtotal 75 55 80 104 110 192 192 276 299 266

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 37 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Los
Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 11 13 8 8 22 38 39 42 35 44 Continuing agreements
9 12 13 6 17 12 22 32 46 39

Subtotal 20 25 21 14 39 50 61 74 81 83 Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 2 3 13 21 39 54 93 152 155 139 Continuing
agreements 4 6 9 21 41 72 90 111 196 261

Subtotal 6 9 22 42 80 126 183 263 351 400 Office of Science laboratories
Ames Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 0 1 4 05 2 3 6 0 2 Continuing a greements 0 0 1
00 4 6 5 6 3

Subtotal 0 1 5 0 5691165 Argonne National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 28 21 28 26 35 57 41 33 32 45 Continuing
agreements 30 24 21 24 26 25 38 43 39 29

Subtotal 58 45 49 50 61 82 79 76 71 74 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 1 1 0 1 2512111421 Continuing a greements 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 1 1 0 1 2512111421

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 35 36 37 32 67 69 84 99 91 143 Continuing
agreements 47 34 42 49 71 96 115 77 160 174

Subtotal 82 70 79 81 138 165 199 176 251 317 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 6 4 10 8 16 17 15 27 28 39 Continuing agreements
100 138 88 102 114 122 123 143 170 201

Subtotal 106 142 98 110 130 139 138 170 198 240 Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 2 4 1 03 1 0 2 2 6 Continuing a greements 0 0 3
33 6 5 3 3 3

Subtotal 2 4 4 36 7 5 5 5 9 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 0 6 7 11 16 19 34 18 36 48 Continuing a greements
00200 3 4 81934

Subtotal 0 691116 22 38 26 55 82

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 00000 0 3 2 0 0 Continuing a greements 00000 0 0
3 3 1

Subtotal 00000 0 3 5 3 1

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 38 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Newly executed agreements a aa 614 13 13 29 16 23 Continuing agreements a aa
23 6 5 4 5 6

Subtotal a aa 817 19 18 33 21 29 All DOE laboratories Newly executed
agreements 85 89 108 113 219 275 337 421 409 510 Continuing agreements 190
214 179 207 275 346 408 429 647 751 Total 350 358 367 424 604 813 937 1,126
1,355 1,527

a Data were not readily available. Source: DOE laboratories.

Table 13: Active Licenses of DOE Laboratory Technology, Fiscal Years 1992
through 2001 Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 NNSA laboratories Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements a a 36 57 81 64 49 35 33 36 Continuing agreements
a a 64 101 158 196 241 277 291 306

Subtotal a a 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 342 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 9 12 6 5 15 11 11 38 30 20 Continuing agreements
12 22 32 36 34 47 54 59 85 48

Subtotal 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 68

Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 8 17 17 27 102 64 38 49 57 69 Continuing
agreements 8 15 32 50 76 176 235 264 305 360

Subtotal 16 32 49 77 178 240 273 313 362 429 Office of Science laboratories
Ames Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 10 4 11 4 2 4 21 Continuing agreements 4 5 4 8 8
7 10 12 16 17

Subtotal 55899 11 12 16 1818 Argonne National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 2 1 8 8 6 14 10 20 21 29 Continuing agreements 14
16 17 25 33 37 49 58 78 99

Subtotal 16 17 25 33 39 51 59 78 99 128 Brookhaven National Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 3227 43 2733 52 35 63 5980 Continuing agreements
aa a aa a a 202 276 303

Subtotal aa a aa a a 265 335 383

Appendix I: Technology Transfer Activities of 12 DOE Laboratories

Page 39 GAO- 02- 465 Technology Transfer

Fiscal year Facility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 2 10 4 13 7 10 9 20 18 24 Continuing agreements 7
4 12 15 25 25 32 35 50 65

Subtotal 914 16 2832 35 41 55 6889 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 13 18 23 28 23 23 19 13 7 18 Continuing agreements
51 50 53 69 99 114 129 137 112 105

Subtotal 64 68 76 97 122 137 148 150 119 123 Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 2 10 4 17 10 8 9 12 6 8 Continuing agreements 22
20 25 28 42 41 50 52 65 69

Subtotal 24 30 29 45 52 49 59 64 71 77 Other DOE laboratories Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 2 1 5 8 22 9 14 10 10 13 Continuing agreements 0 2
3 8 14 34 37 49 54 51

Subtotal 2 3 8 16 36 43 51 59 64 64 National Energy Technology Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 Continuing agreements 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 3 3 3

Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 5 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 0 0 4 6 11 1 4 6 7 2 Continuing agreements 0 0 0 3
8 6 5 6 4 2

Subtotal 0 0 4 9 19 7 9 12 11 4 All DOE laboratories Newly executed
agreements 71 96 154 197 311 261 202 270 250 302 Continuing agreements 118
134 242 343 497 683 843 1,154 1,339 1,428 Total 189 230 396 540 808 944
1,045 1,424 1,589 1,730

a Data were not readily available. Source: DOE laboratories.

(360139)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***