Federal Research: Evaluation of Small Business Innovation Research Can Be
Strengthened (Chapter Report, 06/04/1999, GAO/RCED-99-114).

The United States depends heavily on innovation through research and
development. The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982,
which authorized the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program,
emphasizes the benefits of technological innovation and the ability of
small businesses to transform the results of research into new products.
As the program has matured in the 1990s, congressional concern has
focused on the companies' ability to commercialize the results of their
research and on the concentration of awards in certain states and
companies--commonly known as "frequent winners." This report discusses
the (1) distribution of awards by company and geographic area, (2)
extent to which federal agencies are considering commercial potential
and the program's other goals in making their awards, and (3) previous
evaluations of the SBIR program to identify opportunities to improve
measurements of the program's outcomes. GAO summarized this report in
testimony before Congress; see: Federal Research: Evaluation of Small
Business Innovation Research Can Be Strengthened, by Susan D. Kladiva,
Associate Director for Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, before the
Subcommittee on Technology, House Committee on Science.
GAO/T-RCED-99-198, June 17 (11 pages).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-114
     TITLE:  Federal Research: Evaluation of Small Business Innovation
	     Research Can Be Strengthened
      DATE:  06/04/1999
   SUBJECT:  Technology transfer
	     Research program management
	     Small business assistance
	     Authorization
	     Evaluation criteria
	     Performance measures
	     Research and development contracts
IDENTIFIER:  Small Business Innovation Research Program
	     NSF Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
	     Dept. of Commerce Experimental Program to Stimulate
	     Competitive Technology
	     SBA Tech-Net

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Report to the Committee on Science, House of Representatives

June 1999

FEDERAL RESEARCH - EVALUATION OF
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH
CAN BE STRENGTHENED

GAO/RCED-99-114

Evaluation of Small Business Innovation Research

(141228)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOD - Department of Defense
  EPSCoR - Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
  R&D - research and development
  SBA - Small Business Administration
  SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research Program

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-281081

June 4, 1999

The Honorable James F.  Sensenbrenner
Chairman
The Honorable George E.  Brown, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Science
House of Representatives

This report responds to your request for information on the Small
Business Innovation Research program.  It discusses the distribution
of awards, with special emphasis on the 25 companies that have won
the most awards.  It also discusses commercial potential as a factor
taken into consideration by federal agencies when evaluating
companies' proposals.  The report includes a matter for congressional
consideration that may help to clarify the relative emphasis that
agencies, in evaluating proposals, should give to a company's
commercialization record as part of the goal of commercialization and
to the program's other goals.  It also contains a recommendation to
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration that may help
to strengthen the evaluation of the program's commercial outcomes in
response to the Government Performance and Results Act. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Aida Alvarez,
Administrator, Small Business Administration, and to the heads of the
other federal agencies participating in the Small Business Innovation
Research program.  If you have any questions, I can be reached at
(202) 512-3841.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix XIII. 

Susan D.  Kladiva
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0

   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

As a nation competing in a global economy, the United States depends
heavily on innovation through research and development.  The Small
Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, which authorized the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, emphasizes the
benefits of technological innovation and the ability of small
businesses to transform the results of research into new products. 
In its 16 years, the program has provided over 45,000 awards worth
$8.4 billion in 1998 dollars to thousands of small high-technology
companies.  As the program has matured in the 1990s, congressional
concern has focused on the companies' ability to commercialize the
results of their research and on the concentration of awards in
certain states and companies--commonly known as "frequent winners."
SBIR awards, like total federal research and development
expenditures, are heavily concentrated in certain states.  Concern
about frequent winners has arisen, in part, because studies conducted
by GAO and the Department of Defense indicate that frequent winners
achieve lower levels of commercialization than companies winning
fewer awards. 

To facilitate the discussion of these issues, the Subcommittee on
Technology, House Committee on Science, asked GAO to review (1) the
distribution of awards by company and geographic area, with special
emphasis on the share of awards received by the 25 most frequent
winners; (2) the extent to which federal agencies are considering
commercial potential and the program's other goals in making their
awards; and (3) previous evaluations of the SBIR program to identify
opportunities to improve measurements of the program's outcomes. 

   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The act establishing the SBIR program identified four goals for the
program:  technological innovation, commercialization, the use of
small businesses to meet agencies' research and development needs,
and participation by minorities and disadvantaged persons.  Funding
for the program in fiscal year 1997 (the last year for which funding
data are available) amounted to $1.1 billion. 

Federal agencies that have external research and development budgets
of more than $100 million are currently required to use at least 2.5
percent of this budget for the program.  Ten federal agencies
participate in the program.  The Department of Defense accounts for
about 45 percent of the awards, while the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services,
the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation
together account for close to 48 percent.  Each agency makes awards
and manages its own program while the Small Business Administration
(SBA) plays a key administrative role that includes the issuance of
policy directives and the maintenance of a central database on
awards. 

In reauthorizing the program in 1992, the Congress stated its
intention to expand and improve the program, emphasize the program's
goal of increasing the private sector's commercialization of
technology developed through federal research and development,
increase small businesses' participation in federal research and
development, and improve the federal government's dissemination of
information on the program.  One new provision requires agencies,
when evaluating proposals at an intermediate stage (phase II), to
consider each proposal's commercial potential, which includes a
company's commercialization record, commitments accompanying the
proposal for developmental funding from sources other than the SBIR
program, and other factors.  The commercialization record, which
indicates how successful the company has been in developing
commercial applications of SBIR or other research, generally includes
the company's sales, additional developmental funding, and other
results of its SBIR awards.  Another provision requires agencies to
collect information on frequent winners.  This greater emphasis on
the results of the program mirrors the intention of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies
to report on the outcomes of federal programs.  The program is
scheduled to terminate on October 1, 2000. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

From fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1997, the 25 most frequent
winners received over $900 million, or about 11 percent of the
program's awards.  These companies represent fewer than 1 percent of
all the companies that have received awards.  The program has a high
number of first-time participants.  One-third of the companies
receiving awards from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997 were
first-time winners, indicating that the program is attracting
hundreds of new companies annually.  SBIR awards are concentrated in
certain states.  From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996,
companies in one-third of the states received 85 percent of the
program's awards, largely because companies in these states submitted
the most proposals.  Companies from California and Massachusetts won
the highest number of awards.  To broaden the geographic distribution
of awards, agencies have made efforts to encourage the submission of
proposals from companies in states with fewer awards.  For example,
the National Science Foundation has used a program to support
research in states that have received relatively little federal
research funding to increase participation in the SBIR program. 

In response to the 1992 reauthorization, agencies are considering
commercial potential as an explicit criterion when evaluating
proposals.  At the same time, the emphasis on commercial potential
has raised questions for the agencies.  The reauthorization does not
clarify how a company's commercialization record, as part of the goal
of commercialization, and the program's other goals should be used in
evaluations of proposals.  This lack of clarity has led to
differences across agencies in how they evaluate proposals.  For
example, using an approach shared by none of the other agencies, the
Department of Defense planned to give significantly lower scores to
companies perceived as poor commercializers.  Early tests of
Defense's plan indicated that some of the most frequent winners that
have been relatively unsuccessful in commercializing their research
results would not have been penalized if only a few of their awards
had resulted in sales.  At the same time, companies with far fewer
awards and no previous sales might have been subject to penalties. 
Although the Department of Defense has revised its plan to avoid this
problem, the lack of clarity in the legislation remains a concern. 
This report raises as a matter for congressional consideration how
much emphasis the commercialization record as part of the goal of
commercialization should receive relative to the program's other
goals in evaluations of proposals. 

Federal agencies and others have used various methods to evaluate the
program's commercial outcomes.  These methods have used "snapshots"
of sales, data on additional developmental funding for the projects,
"success stories," and other indications of commercial success. 
However, they become quickly outdated and do not provide an ongoing,
consistent, and programwide record.  The use of a single method with
uniform criteria for success focusing on commercial outcomes and
other indicators of success would help to satisfy the requirements of
the Results Act.\1 The Small Business Administration is currently
developing a new database called Tech-Net, which is scheduled for
implementation in 1999.  Tech-Net affords an opportunity to maintain
current, consistent information about commercial and other outcomes
and respond to the Results Act.  This report recommends that it be
used for this purpose. 

--------------------
\1 In December 1997, the Congress specified that information relating
to the SBIR program must be included by each federal agency in
updates or revisions to its strategic plan.  15 U.S.C.  638(t). 

   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

      AWARDS GO TO BOTH FREQUENT
      WINNERS AND NEW APPLICANTS,
      AND AGENCIES ARE TRYING TO
      BROADEN THE GEOGRAPHIC
      DISTRIBUTION OF AWARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Both frequent and first-time winners receive significant funds under
the program.  From fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1997, the 25
most frequent winners accounted for a total of 4,629 awards and
received over $900 million of the $8.4 billion awarded, with $108
million going to one company alone.  These awards contributed
substantially to the companies' annual revenue for fiscal year 1998,
averaging about 43 percent of these companies' total annual revenue,
with variations from a low of 6 percent to a high of 80 percent. 
First-time winners also received a significant portion of the awards. 
From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997, one-third of the
companies receiving an award--over 750 companies each year, on
average--were first-time winners. 

The concentration of awards in certain states tends to reflect the
concentration of federal research resources in general.  A 1998 SBA
study reported that the number of small high-technology firms in a
state, its research resources, and the availability of venture
capital are important factors in explaining the distribution of SBIR
awards.\2 Agencies' efforts to broaden the geographic distribution of
awards have included outreach conferences in states with fewer awards
and a program at the National Science Foundation to support research
in 18 states that have received relatively little federal research
funding.  Since 1994, this program has awarded 82 SBIR grants valued
at over $7 million to numerous small businesses in these states. 

--------------------
\2 An Analysis of the Distribution of SBIR Awards by States,
1983-1996, SBA, Office of Advocacy (Jan.  1998). 

      THE EMPHASIS ON
      COMMERCIALIZATION MAY HAVE
      UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
      RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
      PROGRAM'S OTHER GOALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

One of the purposes of the 1992 reauthorization was to emphasize the
goal of commercialization.  As required by the act, agencies are
weighing the commercial potential of all proposals and are collecting
data on commercialization by frequent winners.  The emphasis on
commercialization has created problems for some agencies in
evaluating proposals.  Measuring the commercial success of companies
is difficult for several reasons.  First, the role of the
commercialization record in judging a company's current commercial
potential remains unclear.  In general, program managers reported
that the commercialization record has played a limited role so far
because it is only one of several factors considered as a part of
commercial potential; however, the Department of Defense planned to
make the record increasingly important in its evaluations of
proposals.  Second, despite the greater emphasis on the goal of
commercialization, according to some of the program managers, the
other goals remain important.  In their view, limited
commercialization by itself may not signal failure if a company has
achieved other goals. 

Because the 1992 act and a 1993 SBA policy directive on implementing
the act do not indicate how the commercialization record should be
used, differences among the agencies have emerged.  The Department of
Defense, for example, developed an approach shared by none of the
other agencies.  It collected information on commercialization by
companies, which it planned to use in evaluating proposals from
companies that had won multiple SBIR awards.  However, early tests of
the plan showed that companies with relatively few awards and no
sales might receive comparatively low scores, whereas the most
frequent winners with only modest sales might not be penalized at
all.  The Department has revised its plan to avoid this problem by
taking into account the concept of statistical significance as it
relates to companies with widely varying numbers of awards. 

      A METHOD EXISTS TO IMPROVE
      THE MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM
      RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

In the 1990s, studies by GAO, individual agencies, and others have
focused on the commercial outcomes of awards, but the program itself
has lacked the ability to measure its accomplishments as the Results
Act directs.  Two of the major methods used so far to survey the
outcomes of SBIR research include GAO's approach\3 and case studies
of companies that have been successful in commercializing the results
of their research.  In response to a congressional mandate, GAO
surveyed companies that had won awards from fiscal year 1984 through
fiscal year 1987 and received information on the outcomes of 1,457
projects.  One of the key questions GAO asked was, "Has the
technology associated with this project led to additional
developmental funding and/or sales, and is further work on this
technology under way?" This question has been used in subsequent
surveys by other agencies, including the Department of Defense in
1996 and SBA in 1998.  In addition, several agencies have presented
success stories stemming from their SBIR awards.  Although the
methods have differed, many of the key criteria for success focus on
common concerns about the level of sales, developmental funding, and
job creation. 

An opportunity exists to improve the measurement of outcomes and
respond to the Results Act.  This opportunity involves the use of
uniform, outcome-related criteria and the expansion of SBA's new
Tech-Net database to provide information about these outcomes.  SBA's
previous central database was developed long before the passage of
the Results Act and focused on inputs, such as company names and
funding, while including virtually no information on results. 
Tech-Net, however, is an Internet database that will enable agencies
to update information on their SBIR awards and companies to update
information on their activities.  Thus, a key feature of the system
will be its ability to show changes in the program over time. 
Standard criteria for measuring commercial success and other
outcomes, such as savings to agencies resulting from SBIR projects,
could be identified and included in the new database.  This approach,
if implemented, will make available--for the first time--a central
database that can be used to produce effective, consistent, ongoing
evaluations of the program's commercial and other outcomes. 

--------------------
\3 Federal Research:  Small Business Innovation Research Shows
Success but Can Be Strengthened, (GAO/RCED-92-37, Mar.  30, 1992). 

   MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

When the Congress considers the reauthorization of this program, it
may wish to clarify the relative emphasis that agencies, in
evaluating companies' proposals, should give to a company's
commercialization record as part of the goal of commercialization and
to the program's other goals.  This clarification would help ensure
uniformity in the program and a clear set of standards for
determining whether, and to what extent, commercialization and the
program's other goals should be considered in evaluations of
proposals. 

   RECOMMENDATION TO THE
   ADMINISTRATOR, SMALL BUSINESS
   ADMINISTRATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

To respond to the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO
recommends that the Administrator develop standard criteria for
measuring the commercial and other outcomes of the SBIR program and
incorporate these criteria into the new Tech-Net database.  The
criteria should include uniform measures of sales, developmental
funding, and other indicators of success. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

GAO provided a draft of this report to and obtained comments from the
Small Business Administration and the 10 program agencies.  GAO has
discussed the specific issues raised by the agencies at relevant
places in the report and incorporated the additional information and
technical corrections from the agencies where appropriate. 

The Small Business Administration generally agreed with the report. 
The Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and the
Environmental Protection Agency generally agreed with the report
while offering additional observations or suggesting specific
technical corrections.  The Department of Defense agreed with GAO's
concern about the unintended consequences of its plan to use a
company's commercialization record in evaluating proposals.  It has
revised its plan to avoid these unintended consequences.  GAO has
updated the report to reflect this revision of the Department's plan. 

Several agencies expressed concerns regarding specific issues and
suggested technical corrections.  The Department of Energy disagreed
with GAO's description of the Department's use of information on
companies' commercialization records in evaluating SBIR proposals. 
GAO has deleted the specific points identified by the Department. 
Only one agency, the National Institutes of Health, commented on the
matter for congressional consideration.  The Institutes expressed
concern about the matter's focus on uniformity, noting that it misses
the fact that different relative emphases may be appropriate to
agencies' different missions.  The Institutes also questioned what
they considered to be the draft report's close association between
success and commercialization.  In general, GAO does not believe that
an effort to clarify the relative emphasis that should be given to
commercialization and to the program's other goals will lead to
insensitivity to agencies' different missions.  Moreover, the report
did not equate success and commercialization. 

The Small Business Administration concurred with the recommendation
but said that, for it to be effective, federal agencies must agree to
provide the information, and the Congress must require the agencies
to provide the information through the Tech-Net database.  GAO notes
that the agencies are already required to report information on
awards to the Small Business Administration and believes that they
could include the additional information on outcomes in responding to
this reporting requirement.  The Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National
Institutes of Health expressed concern about issues related to the
entry, maintenance, safeguards, reliability, and commercial emphasis
of this information.  In general, while GAO recognized that the
implementation of this recommendation would raise these types of
issues, it continues to believe that the recommendation's
implementation will provide a useful opportunity to capture the
results of the program and that these issues can be addressed
effectively by coordination among the agencies.  In response to
concerns expressed by the National Institutes of Health that
commercial potential cannot be based solely on potential dollars in
sales, GAO added a reference to other indicators of success in its
recommendation, reflecting its recognition of the need for
flexibility.  GAO further discusses the agencies' comments on the
matter for congressional consideration and the recommendation at the
end of chapters 3 and 4, respectively.  The agencies' comments appear
in appendixes II through XII, together with GAO's responses. 

INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

As a nation competing in a global economy, the United States depends
heavily on innovation through research and development (R&D).  The
Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, which authorized
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, emphasizes the
benefits of technological innovation and the ability of small
businesses to transform the results of R&D into new products.  The
act designated four major goals for the program: 

  -- stimulating technological innovation,

  -- using small businesses to meet federal R&D needs,

  -- fostering and encouraging participation by minorities and
     disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and

  -- increasing the private sector's commercialization of innovations
     derived from federal R&D. 

The Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992
stated the congressional intention to

  -- expand and improve the program,

  -- emphasize the program's goal of increasing the private sector's
     commercialization of technology developed through federal R&D,

  -- increase small businesses' participation in federal R&D, and

  -- improve the federal government's dissemination of information
     about the program. 

   THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
   PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

In addition to establishing goals, the original legislation
determined federal agencies' participation in and funding for the
program.  By 1986, agencies spending more than $100 million annually
for external R&D were required to set aside not less than 1.25
percent of their total external R&D funds for the program.  The 1992
reauthorization directed agencies to increase the set-aside to not
less than 1.5 percent in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, not less than 2
percent in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and not less than 2.5 percent
in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter.  This requirement has increased
the annual funding to about $1 billion.  At present, 10 agencies
participate in the program.  The five agencies with larger SBIR
programs, accounting for over 90 percent of all awards, include the
Department of Defense (DOD); the Department of Energy; the Department
of Health and Human Services and its National Institutes of Health,
in particular; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
the National Science Foundation.  The five agencies with smaller SBIR
programs include the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Education, the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Agencies are required to issue a solicitation for proposals that sets
the process in motion.  The solicitation, a formal document issued by
each agency, lists and describes the topics to be addressed by each
company's proposals and invites companies to submit proposals for
consideration.  Each agency with a program is responsible for
targeting research areas and administering its own funding
agreements. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for issuing
policy directives for the general conduct of the SBIR programs within
the federal government.  The directives were to provide for
simplified, standardized, and timely solicitations and a simplified,
standardized funding process.  In addition, they were to minimize the
regulatory burden for small businesses participating in the program. 
Issued in January 1993, the current policy directive incorporated
changes made by the 1992 legislation.  Federal agencies were also
required to report key data to SBA, which in turn has published
annual reports on the program. 

SBA's policy directive states that, to be eligible for an award, a
small business must be

  -- independently owned and operated,

  -- other than the dominant firm in the field in which it is
     proposing to carry out an SBIR project,

  -- organized and operated for profit,

  -- an employer of 500 or fewer employees (including employees of
     subsidiaries and affiliates),

  -- the primary source of employment for the project's principal
     investigator at the time of the award and during the period when
     the research is conducted, and

  -- at least 51-percent owned by U.S.  citizens or lawfully admitted
     permanent resident aliens. 

The original law established a three-phase structure for the program. 
The first phase, not to exceed 6 months, was designed to determine
the scientific and technical merit and the feasibility of a proposed
idea.  The second phase, not to exceed 2 years, was designed to
further develop the idea.  The SBA policy directive established
$50,000 and $500,000 as the general limits for phase I and II awards,
respectively.  The 1992 reauthorization directed SBA to raise these
figures to $100,000 and $750,000, respectively, with an adjustment
every 5 years to reflect economic and programmatic considerations. 
When selecting phase I proposals for awards, an agency is now
required under the reauthorization and SBA's directive to consider
the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas that
appear to have commercial potential.  The funding for phase II shall
be based on the results of phase I and the scientific and technical
merit and feasibility of the proposal, including, among other things,
a consideration of its commercial potential.  The third phase is
somewhat more flexible and difficult to define.  In general, it is
expected to result in commercialization or further research and
development.  Unlike phases I and II, phase III has no general limits
in time or dollar amounts.  In addition, a phase III project must
obtain funds from non-SBIR sources in the federal government or in
the private sector. 

   "FREQUENT WINNERS" AND THE
   GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF
   AWARDS HAVE BECOME IMPORTANT
   ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

In the SBIR program, the same companies have often received multiple
awards, creating concerns about the concentration of awards. 
According to one expert, the program was established, in part, to
enable small businesses to compete with large companies for a portion
of the federal R&D funding, but the program has generated its own
internal "corporate giants" against which even smaller businesses
must now compete.  While these "frequent winners" have received a
significant share of the program's resources, they have generally
demonstrated less commercial activity in phase III than companies
with fewer awards. 

We discussed this concern about frequent winners in our 1992 report
on phase III commercialization.\1 At that time, as we pointed out,
the five most frequent winners had received a total of almost $100
million from fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1990. 
Collectively, these five small businesses had received over 700 phase
I and II awards from the program.  For the purpose of further
analysis in our report, we defined a frequent winner as a company
that had won five or more phase II awards.  We compared these
companies with infrequent winners and found that frequent winners
were achieving lower levels of phase III sales and less additional
developmental funding from non-SBIR sources.  The frequent winners
were achieving about $117,000 less in sales and about $86,000 less in
additional developmental funding per phase II award.  In 1998, we
also reported that frequent winners achieved lower levels of sales
and less additional developmental funding.\2

As part of its legislation to reauthorize the program in 1992,
agencies were required to begin collecting data on the
commercialization activity of companies that were submitting phase I
proposals and had won 15 or more phase II awards in a 5-year period. 
Analyses of these data have shown that companies with numerous awards
continue to commercialize at somewhat lower levels than other
companies.  For example, in a 1996 survey following up on our 1992
survey, a DOD contractor found that DOD recipients with nine or more
phase II awards achieved less than half of the sales per project when
compared with the recipients of phase II awards in general. 

The geographic distribution of awards has become a more prominent
issue since both the funding for the program and the number of awards
per year have increased under the 1992 reauthorization.  For example,
a recent SBA study reported that one-third of the states received 85
percent of all SBIR awards and funds from fiscal year 1983 through
fiscal year 1996 but also found that the distribution of SBIR awards
tends to mirror the distribution of R&D funds in general. 

--------------------
\1 Federal Research:  Small Business Innovation Research Shows
Success but Can Be Strengthened (GAO/RCED-92-37, Mar.  30, 1992). 

\2 Federal Research:  Observations on the Small Business Innovation
Research Program (GAO/RCED-98-132, Apr.  17, 1998). 

   THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND
   RESULTS ACT HAS INCREASED THE
   EMPHASIS ON EVALUATING THE
   RESULTS OF FEDERAL R&D
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

In setting forth its findings and reasons for enacting the Results
Act, the Congress stated that congressional policy-making, spending
decisions, and oversight are seriously handicapped by insufficient
attention to programs' performance and results.  One purpose of the
act was to improve federal programs' effectiveness and public
accountability by promoting a new focus on results.  Echoing this
concern about focusing on programs' results, Representative George
Brown stated in September 1997 that information was not available to
answer the most basic question about the effectiveness of the SBIR
program.  In a specific reference to the Results Act, he also
recommended that agencies develop performance measures for their SBIR
programs, collect information on the performance of grantees, and
analyze the data in light of the program's goals.  In December 1997,
the Congress specified that information on the SBIR program must be
included in the updates or revisions of agencies' strategic plans
that are required under the Results Act. 

This emphasis on results raises a question about the availability and
reliability of key data to answer questions about the extent to which
awardees have achieved commercialization and the program's other
goals.  In measuring results, GAO, individual agencies, and others
have developed a variety of evaluation approaches and criteria for
the program's success.  In each instance, the efforts have required
the construction of new databases that permit a "snapshot" of the
program and have become outdated in a relatively short time.  Because
of the growing attention being given to results, we tried to identify
a more convenient and effective way of obtaining data and evaluating
the program. 

   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

As agreed with the Committee, we focused our review on three
objectives.  First, we provided a statistical overview of the
distribution of awards by company and geographic area; we also
identified outreach efforts by federal agencies and other
organizations to broaden this distribution of awards.  Second, we
determined whether federal agencies are considering proposals'
commercial potential in making their awards and what, if any, actions
they have taken in response to concerns about the level of
commercialization by frequent winners.  Third, we reviewed previous
evaluations of the SBIR program to identify opportunities to improve
measurements of the program's outcomes. 

To respond to the first objective, we obtained data on awards from
the start of the program in 1983 through 1997, the most recent year
for which data were available.  Our main source of data was SBA,
which maintains the most complete database on the program.  Because
of our concerns about the reliability of the information, we worked
closely with SBA officials to review and correct the data.  The main
source of errors was the lack of a unique identifier for individual
companies; slight changes in a company's name, caused by entering it
in a slightly different way, resulted in data showing separate
companies.  We reviewed the records for all companies to eliminate
these variations and arrive at a more accurate list of participants. 

Once the data were corrected, we prepared a reliable database that
showed the number of awards to each company since the start of the
program.  We used these data to develop a statistical profile for
three groups of companies--the 25 companies with the most phase II
awards, the infrequent winners with one to four phase II awards, and
the companies with an intermediate number of awards.  We chose the
top 25 companies at the request of the Committee and used the number
of phase II awards as the criterion for identifying them because the
dollar value of these awards substantially outweighs the dollar value
of phase I awards.  However, we included information on the number of
phase I awards to provide a complete picture of the number of awards
and the total funding received by the most frequent winners. 

In analyzing the geographic distribution of awards, we obtained data
from SBA and a consultant who has studied this issue for several
years.  We used these data to determine the distribution of awards
among individual states.  We interviewed program officials and the
consultant to gain insight into agencies' outreach efforts. 

To respond to the second objective, we briefly reviewed the program's
major goals in relation to the growing focus on commercialization. 
We reviewed the 1992 reauthorization act and SBA's directives.  Among
other things, the legislation required agencies to consider the
commercial potential of each proposal when making phase II awards
and, when reviewing proposals for phase I awards submitted by
companies that had received 15 or more phase II awards in the last 5
years, to collect data demonstrating how much previous phase III
funding the companies had received.  We analyzed agencies' efforts as
they related to proposals from all companies; we then analyzed their
efforts as they related to proposals from companies with larger
numbers of awards.  We interviewed officials at all of the SBIR
agencies to learn about their implementation of the legislation.  We
gave particular attention to DOD's efforts because DOD makes about
half of all awards under the program and planned to implement a
significant new policy in May 1999. 

In our discussions of the first two objectives, the definition of
"frequent winners" may vary with the context.  We use the term in
three different ways in our report.  First, it may refer to the top
25 frequent winners, that is, the group of companies that have won
the most phase II awards since the start of the program.  This is the
group that the Committee asked us to analyze.  Second, it may refer
to the group of companies as specified in the legislation that
reauthorized the program in 1992.  This group consists of companies
that have won 15 or more phase II awards during the last 5 years of
the program.  Third, it may refer to companies that have won 5 or
more phase II awards since the start of the program.  We defined
these companies as frequent winners in our 1992 report, and DOD is
using the same criterion in its plans for evaluating the commercial
potential of frequent winners.  To avoid confusion, we have noted the
context for our use of this term wherever necessary. 

To respond to the third objective, we reviewed the main evaluations
of the program's results (primarily commercialization) performed by
federal agencies and others.  We examined their methods and criteria
for success to identify common themes and criteria that could be
applied to future evaluations.  We interviewed SBA officials about
their existing SBIR database and development of a new database,
called Tech-Net, scheduled to replace the existing database in 1999. 
We explored the opportunity to enhance the new database by including
"data fields" on the commercial and other outcomes of the program. 
We attended an SBA-sponsored meeting of database managers in December
1998 to discuss this and other ideas relating to Tech-Net.  We
presented our proposal at this meeting and followed up with a second
presentation on the same issue at a meeting of program managers in
January 1999. 

Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards from July 1998 through March 1999.  Our
work was focused on federal agencies in the Washington, D.  C., area. 
We requested and received comments on our draft of this report from
SBA and the 10 program agencies. 

FREQUENT AND INFREQUENT WINNERS
ARE MAJOR SBIR PLAYERS, BUT
FREQUENT WINNERS AND CERTAIN
STATES HAVE WON A LARGE SHARE OF
THE PROGRAM'S RESOURCES
============================================================ Chapter 2

The 25 companies with the most phase II awards, which represent fewer
than 1 percent of the companies participating in the program, have
won about 11 percent of these awards over the life of the program. 
They have accumulated over $900 million in total phase I and II
awards; the leading frequent winner has received $108 million. 
However, thousands of companies have received between one and four
phase II awards since the start of the program; in addition,
first-time winners accounted for about one-third of the participants
from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997.  This percentage of
first-time participants amounts to about 750 companies annually. 
Concern about the concentration of awards has also focused on their
geographic distribution.  Companies in a small number of states,
especially California and Massachusetts, have submitted the most
proposals and won the majority of awards, although the distribution
of awards generally follows the pattern of distribution of non-SBIR
expenditures for R&D, venture capital investments, and academic
research funds.  In response to congressional concerns about this
concentration, agencies have undertaken efforts to broaden the
geographic distribution of awards.  The National Science Foundation's
use of a special program to support research in states that have
historically received lesser amounts of federal R&D funding has
increased the number of SBIR awards to these states.  Other agencies
also have such programs but have not used them to assist their SBIR
participants.  Several agencies are considering such an initiative to
increase their outreach efforts in the SBIR program. 

   AN OVERVIEW OF AWARDS MADE BY
   THE SBIR PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

We divided participants into three distinct groups of phase II award
winners in order to examine the distribution of awards over the life
of the program.  These groups are (1) the 25 companies with the most
awards, (2) companies with between 1 and 4 awards, and (3) a middle
group with between 5 and 27 awards.  Figure 2.1 highlights the
distribution of phase II awards to these three categories of
companies from fiscal year 1984, when the first phase II awards were
made, through fiscal year 1997, the latest year for which complete
data are available. 

   Figure 2.1:  Percentage of
   Phase II Awards Won by Various
   Program Participants, Fiscal
   Years 1984-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from SBA's SBIR database. 

The companies in the top group have been the focus of concern because
of their large number of awards.  As the figure shows, the 25 most
frequent winners, representing fewer than 1 percent of the
participants, account for about 11 percent of the phase II awards. 
The concentration of awards is also shown by combining this group
with the intermediate group and looking at companies with 5 or more
phase II awards in general.  The two top groups represent 11 percent
of the program's participants and have received almost half of all
phase II awards.  The third group, the infrequent winners,
constitutes almost 90 percent of the program's participants and has
received slightly more than 50 percent of the phase II awards.  Thus,
while a relatively small percentage of companies has received a large
share of the phase II awards, thousands of companies participating in
the program have each won a few awards. 

   FREQUENT WINNERS' SHARE OF THE
   PROGRAM'S RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Table 2.1 provides a detailed view of the top 25 winners, including
the number and total dollar value of their awards over the life of
the program (fiscal years 1983-97), and, when available, the
percentage of their revenue derived from the program in fiscal year
1998. 

                               Table 2.1
                
                   An Overview of the Top 25 Frequent
                     Winners, Fiscal Years 1983-97

                                                            Percentage
                                                            of revenue
                          Phase II       Total      Dollar   from SBIR
Company                     awards      awards       value      (1998)
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Foster Miller                  147         573       108.2          20
Physical Optics                 96         377        71.2          68
Creare                          87         281        61.4          64
Physical Sciences               76         290        57.2          42
Spire                           75         351        59.4          26
Radiation Monitoring
 Devices
                                59         187        43.3          38
Bend Research                   58         166        34.3          23
EIC Laboratories                53         188        38.1          33
Mission Research                50         196        39.8           8
Science Research
 Laboratory                     49         147        33.4          76
Advanced Technology
 Materials
                                48         208        38.4          10
Advanced Fuel Research
                                42         154        27.8          52
Ultramet                        38         140        28.4          37
Aerodyne Research
                                35         134        27.5          36
CFD Research                    35         107        24.7          52
Sparta                          35         162        28.3          \a
TDA Research                    35         127        19.5          70
Thermacore                      35         102        25.8          \a
American Research
 Corp.
 of Virginia                    34         102        19.3          80
Waterjet Technology
                                34         102        21.5          \a
Scientific Research
 Associates
                                33         113        24.0          \a
Giner                           30         110        22.1          70
Schwartz Electro-
 optics                         30         104        20.1           6
Bio-Metric Systems
                                29          89        18.5          \a
Satcon Technology
                                28         119        22.2          44
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Information was not available. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from SBA's SBIR database. 

The 25 companies that have received the most phase II awards account
for a total of 4,629 phase I and II awards worth over $900 million. 
The most frequent winner, Foster Miller, has received $108 million. 
All of these companies have participated in the program for at least
10 years. 

As table 2.1 shows, we also obtained information on the percentage of
total annual revenue that these companies attributed to their SBIR
awards.  These data, provided by a DOD contractor, indicate that the
awards contributed about 43 percent of their total annual revenue, on
average, for fiscal year 1998.\1 However, this figure varied
enormously by company, from a low of 6 percent to a high of 80
percent. 

--------------------
\1 This figure is based on information provided by the 20 companies
for which information on annual revenue from the SBIR program was
available. 

   INFREQUENT WINNERS' SHARE OF
   THE PROGRAM'S RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

We examined two groups of infrequent winners, including (1) companies
with between one and four phase II awards and (2) first-time winners
of phase I awards.  We found that companies with between one and four
phase II awards have also played a major role in the program.  These
4,048 companies constitute almost 90 percent of the phase II award
winners.  They have received over one-half of the program's total
resources (about $4.5 billion out of a total $8.4 billion).  They are
relative newcomers when compared with the 25 most frequent winners. 
Slightly over half of them received their first phase II award in
fiscal year 1992 or later. 

First-time winners have also been successful in obtaining awards,
winning about one-third of the phase I awards in recent years. 
Figure 2.2 shows the percentage of first-time winners in the program
from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997--the last 5 years for
which complete data were available.  On average, 750 companies won an
award for the first time in each of these years. 

   Figure 2.2:  Percentage of
   Companies Winning First-Time
   Phase I Awards, Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from SBA's SBIR database. 

As the figure shows, the percentage of new participants has remained
steady.  In our view, this level of participation by first-time
winners shows the program's substantial capacity to attract new
participants each year.\2

--------------------
\2 In commenting on our draft report, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration noted that about 46 percent of the companies
that received phase II awards from it in award years 1993-97 were
first-time winners. 

   SBIR AWARDS AND THE PROGRAM'S
   RESOURCES ARE CONCENTRATED IN
   SEVERAL STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

SBIR awards, like total U.S.  R&D expenditures, are heavily
concentrated in several states.  A recent SBA study reported that
companies in one-third of the states received 85 percent of all SBIR
awards and funds from fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1996.\3
Companies in two states--California and Massachusetts--received by
far the highest number of awards.  According to the study, the 17
states with companies that won the most awards also have the bulk of
the federal R&D expenditures, venture capital investments, and
academic research funds.\4 Hence, the study observes that the number
of small high-technology firms in a state, its R&D resources, and its
access to venture capital are important factors in the distribution
of SBIR awards and that the distribution of these awards tends to
mirror the distribution of R&D funds in general. 

In fiscal year 1997, the geographic distribution of awards was
similar to their distribution over the life of the program. 
California and Massachusetts had the highest concentrations of phase
II awards, with California companies receiving 326 and Massachusetts
companies receiving 202.  In five states (Virginia, New York,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado), companies won between 55 and
80 awards.  At the bottom of the list were 19 states where companies
received three or fewer awards.\5

For fiscal year 1998, data on the proposal-to-award ratios show that
proposals from companies in states with historically lesser amounts
of federal research funding won awards at almost the same rate as
proposals from companies in other states.  However, these data showed
some variation among the individual program agencies.  Appendix I
provides a snapshot of the proposal-to-award ratios among the
agencies in fiscal year 1998.  The geographic distribution of phase
II awards by state in fiscal year 1997 is presented in figure 2.3. 

   Figure 2.3:  Distribution of
   SBIR Phase II Awards by State,
   Fiscal Year 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from SBA's SBIR database and from the
National Science Foundation. 

--------------------
\3 An Analysis of the Distribution of SBIR Awards by States,
1983-1996, SBA, Office of Advocacy (Jan.  1998). 

\4 The 17 states, listed in descending order by number of awards, are
California, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Connecticut, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey,
Washington, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan, Alabama, and Illinois. 

\5 The 19 states are Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky,
Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, West Virginia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Carolina, South
Dakota, and Vermont. 

   FEDERAL AGENCIES' EFFORTS TO
   EXPAND THE GEOGRAPHIC
   DISTRIBUTION OF AWARDS INCLUDE
   SPECIAL FUNDING AND OUTREACH
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

To encourage greater participation by companies in the states with
fewer awards, the National Science Foundation has used a program it
established about 20 years ago to support research in states with
historically lesser amounts of federal research funding.  Eighteen
states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico participate in the
program.\6 The Foundation and other agencies have also conducted
outreach conferences in such states and used the Internet to increase
access to the program.  Constraints on the amount of funding
available to administer the program, according to program managers,
have limited the agencies' efforts to reach out to the states with
fewer awards. 

--------------------
\6 The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming. 

      NATIONAL SCIENCE
      FOUNDATION'S EFFORTS HAVE
      BEEN EFFECTIVE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5.1

One effort that has been effective in increasing the number of awards
to small businesses in states with fewer awards is the Foundation's
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR),
which began in 1981 and was funded at about $49 million in fiscal
year 1999.  For nearly two decades, the Foundation has used this
program to support federally funded research in states that have
received relatively little federal research funding and have
demonstrated a commitment to develop their research bases and improve
science and engineering research and education programs at their
universities and colleges.  Since 1994, the Foundation's SBIR program
has used EPSCoR to increase its assistance to potential SBIR
participants in EPSCoR states.  The Foundation assists these small
businesses in two ways.  First, through EPSCoR, the Foundation's SBIR
program offers a "phase zero" award to help small businesses put
together a competitive phase I proposal.\7 Second, phase I proposals
from EPSCoR states that were ranked in the "highly recommended" or
"recommended" category in the proposal review process but were not
selected because of funding constraints receive a second review and
an opportunity to be funded through EPSCoR. 

Since 1994, EPSCoR has awarded 82 phase I SBIR grants valued at over
$7 million.  In the fiscal year 1999 solicitation, EPSCoR awarded 17
phase I grants.\8 According to April 1998 testimony by the director
of the Foundation's Industrial Innovation Program before the House
Committee on Small Business, EPSCoR has enabled a steady increase in
participation in the SBIR program in many of the rural states.  In
June 1998 testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business, a
consultant who conducts SBIR outreach in states in the northern Rocky
Mountains and Great Plains stated that the Foundation's approach is
highly effective and should be considered for implementation at other
agencies. 

DOD, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also have programs
to support federally funded research in states with lesser amounts of
federal research funding.  However, there was no linkage between
these agencies' SBIR programs and their programs to support research
in these states.  Their programs were established in the early to
mid-1990s, have smaller budgets than the Foundation's program, and
generally direct their funding toward researchers in academic
institutions, not small businesses.  Nonetheless, the executive
director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's SBIR
program is currently evaluating how EPSCoR might enable the agency to
expand outreach to potential SBIR participants in states with fewer
awards.  The program manager for the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization, a DOD component with an SBIR program, told us that it
would be appropriate for DOD's SBIR program and its program to work
together to assist such states, but no decision has been made to take
this step. 

Three of the agencies with smaller SBIR programs--the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental
Protection Agency--also have programs to support research in states
with lesser amounts of federal research funding.  As with the
agencies with larger SBIR programs, there was no linkage between the
agencies' SBIR programs and their programs to support research in
these states.  The manager of Agriculture's SBIR program stated that
he maintains a list of states with the fewest awards from the
Department; he is prepared on a case-by-case basis to skip the strict
numerical ranking of proposals and make an award to a company to fill
a geographic gap, provided the company was ranked in the ï¿½should
fundï¿½ category (approximately the top 30 percent) during the regular
review process.  The Department of Commerce, through its Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, recently awarded
$300,000 to the University of Mississippi to increase the state's
competitiveness for the SBIR program.  At the Environmental
Protection Agency, the SBIR program manager is considering whether
and how to link his program with the agency's program that assists
states with lesser amounts of research funding. 

--------------------
\7 Under the phase zero initiative, small businesses may receive
about $5,000 to prepare themselves for the phase I competition. 
Companies use these funds for such things as preliminary data
acquisition, analyses, or visits to SBIR agency personnel. 

\8 Two of the proposals were cofunded using both SBIR and EPSCoR
funds.  In addition, the Foundation funded eight phase I proposals in
EPSCoR states through the normal proposal review process in the
fiscal year 1999 SBIR phase I competition. 

      DESPITE ADMINISTRATIVE
      FUNDING CONSTRAINTS,
      AGENCIES HAVE UNDERTAKEN
      OTHER OUTREACH EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5.2

The program's statute prohibits agency officials from using SBIR
funds to pay for the administrative costs of the program, such as the
costs of salaries, support services, and outreach efforts.  Despite
this constraint, agencies have tried to encourage participation by
small businesses in states with fewer awards.  For example, they have
held outreach conferences, offered help for small businesses in the
proposal preparation and review processes, and used the Internet to
increase access to the program.  According to a consultant who has
specialized in helping small businesses in states in the northern
Rocky Mountains and Great Plains win SBIR awards, the agencies have
been working effectively to broaden the distribution of awards but
could use additional administrative funds to increase their outreach
if the restrictions were lifted.  In his view, additional outreach to
these states could increase the submission of high-quality proposals
from small businesses in these states, a key to improving the
geographic distribution of awards. 

Several participating agencies described outreach trips they have
made to states or regions of the country that have won a relatively
small share of awards.  For example, DOD's program director told us
that in 1998 DOD program managers went to Alaska, Maine, and Oregon
to discuss the SBIR program.  DOD is also cosponsoring regional
conferences.  It has scheduled conferences in Iowa, Kansas, and
Missouri in 1999.  If the regional conferences are successful,
according to the program director, DOD will conduct more of them.  In
addition, DOD plans to use about $20,000 to help companies in such
states prepare effective proposals.  The National Institutes of
Health's former program director told us that in 1998 he traveled to
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Wyoming to discuss the Institutes' program. 

Officials from the departments of Education, Transportation, and
Agriculture told us that maintaining an equitable geographic
distribution of awards is generally not a problem for their agencies'
programs.  However, they also described their special efforts to
reach out to small businesses in states with fewer awards.  For
example, Transportation's program manager has explored ways in which
states can work with small businesses to develop a manufacturing
capability for the results of SBIR research.  Agriculture's program
manager gives small businesses from states that have won the fewest
awards from the Department special consideration for a phase I award. 

Each participating agency has established a Web page on the Internet
to provide up-to-date information on its SBIR program, including
agency contacts, information on preparing a proposal, and upcoming
events.  In addition, some of the agencies have developed state
outreach notebooks used by small businesses and agency officials. 
For example, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization publishes on
the Internet a comprehensive state outreach notebook that provides
key agency and state contacts.  The notebook is used by several
agencies, including those within DOD as well as other program
agencies.  For example, the manager of Education's program told us
that he placed calls to each of the state officials listed in the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's book to inform them about
the program.  The Environmental Protection Agency also publishes a
state outreach notebook with key state and agency contacts. 

Several program directors told us that the prohibition on using the
program's funds for administrative expenses has limited their ability
to conduct outreach to states with fewer awards.  Some of the
agencies with smaller SBIR programs, in particular, have travel funds
that provide for only a few long-distance trips each year.  Several
agency officials told us that if additional administrative funds were
available, they would use the money, in part, to reach out to the
states with fewer awards.  For example, the Department of Commerce's
program manager told us that with a moderate increase in
administrative funds, Commerce could initiate an outreach program
that would focus on broadening the distribution of awards. 

      SBA IS DEVELOPING AN
      OUTREACH PROGRAM FOR STATES
      WITH THE FEWEST AWARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5.3

In 1998, the Congress made available $1 million for SBA to provide
technical assistance to the states that receive the fewest SBIR
awards.  The Congress directed SBA to use the funding for awards to
states that received less than $5 million in awards in fiscal year
1995.  The eligible states may receive up to $100,000 with a $50,000
state match for efforts such as outreach to small businesses and
assistance in applying for awards.  Twenty-three states, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico qualify for the assistance and may
submit proposals.\9 SBA published the program announcement in March
1999 and plans to make the first awards in the spring of 1999. 

--------------------
\9 The states are Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  Sixteen
of the states on SBA's list and Puerto Rico are also on the
Foundation's list of EPSCoR states.  However, two states--Alabama and
Kansas--are not on SBA's list but do receive special assistance in
the SBIR competition from the Foundation because they are EPSCoR
states.  In fiscal year 1997, Alabama was ranked 12th among the
states in the number of phase II awards it received, and Kansas was
ranked 34th.  In addition, SBA's list includes several non-EPSCoR
states, such as Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri,
Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. 

AGENCIES ARE CONSIDERING
COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL IN MAKING
AWARDS, BUT THE EMPHASIS ON
COMMERCIALIZATION RAISES QUESTIONS
============================================================ Chapter 3

In reauthorizing the program in 1992, the Congress emphasized
commercialization.  The act required agencies to consider commercial
potential in making awards and to collect data on companies that have
received more than 15 phase II awards during the preceding 5 years. 
These requirements reflected a concern on the part of some Members of
Congress that certain companies, especially frequent winners, were
poor commercializers.  In response, agencies are weighing the
commercial potential of all proposals and have collected data on
frequent winners.  At the same time, the emphasis on the goal of
commercialization raises questions about the role of companies'
commercialization records and the program's other goals in evaluating
proposals.  First, the role of the commercialization record in
evaluating the commercial potential of new proposals remains unclear. 
In addition, agencies have made little use of their data on
commercialization by frequent winners, in part because of uncertainty
about how to use the information appropriately.  Second, despite the
greater emphasis on commercialization, the program's other goals
remain important to the agencies.  By itself, according to some of
the program managers, limited commercialization may not signal
"failure" because a company may have achieved other goals, such as
innovation or responsiveness to an agency's research needs.  Because
the 1992 reauthorization and SBA's 1993 policy directive do not
define the role of the commercialization record in determining
commercial potential and the relative importance of the program's
goals, different approaches have emerged in agencies' evaluations of
proposals.  For example, DOD was preparing plans that would have
greatly increased the importance of the commercialization record and
resulted in significantly lower scores on companies' proposals,
making it harder for them to win awards, if they were perceived as
poor commercializers.  None of the other agencies was taking such an
approach.  Early tests of DOD's approach indicated that it would have
had the unintended effect of lowering the scores of companies with
relatively few awards and no sales while having no adverse impact on
winners with many awards and only modest sales.  DOD has revised its
approach to avoid these unintended consequences. 

   AGENCIES ARE CONSIDERING
   COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL TO VARYING
   DEGREES IN MAKING AWARDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

As required by the 1992 reauthorization act, agencies are taking into
account four indicators of the commercial potential of all proposals
identified in the legislation.\1 Taken together, these four
indicators, or pieces of evidence, account for a substantial portion
of a proposal's rating, amounting to as much as one-third of the
total score.  However, as just one of the four indicators, a
company's commercialization record plays a limited role in the
evaluation of commercial potential and an even more limited role when
viewed along with the other, noncommercial factors, such as technical
merit, that are also considered in an evaluation.  At DOD, for
example, the commercialization record currently accounts for about
one-fourth of the commercial score and about one-twelfth of the total
score for a proposal; at the Department of Energy it accounts for
about one-eighteenth of the total score.  Hence, even a poor
commercialization record has thus far exercised only a limited
influence on the evaluation process.  The following section discusses
SBA and the participating agencies individually. 

--------------------
\1 Under the 1992 reauthorization legislation, commercial potential
is evidenced by "(i) the small business concern's record of
successfully commercializing SBIR or other research; (ii) the
existence of second phase funding commitments from private sector or
non-SBIR funding sources; (iii) the existence of third phase,
follow-on commitments for the subject of the research; and (iv) the
presence of other indicators of the commercial potential of the
idea." 15 U.S.C.  638(e)(4)(B). 

      SBA'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING
      THE LEGISLATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1

Beyond the 1992 reauthorization's emphasis on commercialization,
SBA's policy directive provides little or no guidance for
participating agencies when considering a proposal's commercial
potential.  The directive states that SBA may monitor whether
follow-on nonfederal funding commitments obtained by phase II
awardees for phase III were considered in the evaluation of phase II
proposals as required by the law.  As of March 1998, according to the
Assistant Administrator for Technology, SBA had taken no steps to
monitor this aspect of the program. 

      DOD'S EVALUATION OF
      COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2

DOD evaluates proposals according to (1) their scientific and
technical merit and degree of innovation, (2) the qualifications of
key investigators, and (3) the proposals' commercial potential. 
According to the program director, the commercial potential typically
accounts for about one-third of the total score, although its weight
varies somewhat across DOD agencies.  One part of the commercial
potential is the commercialization record, whose weight also varies
somewhat from one DOD agency to another.  The main tool for
ascertaining the record is a form, Appendix E, contained in DOD's
solicitation.  Appendix E requires information from all companies on
their commercialization record for each of their phase II awards. 

In evaluating the commercial potential of a current proposal, DOD
reviews the proposal's funding commitments, if any, and the company's
commercialization strategy (a 1- or 2-page document that must
accompany the proposal).  DOD also affords a special opportunity to
companies that obtain a cash investment linked with their phase II
proposal; in such cases, companies qualify for a "fast-track" review
that greatly boosts their chances of winning an award.  The
percentage of phase II proposals receiving an award rises from 40
percent without a fast-track review to 90 percent with such a review. 
The threshold for the additional investment that qualifies a proposal
for a fast-track review is one-fourth of every DOD dollar if the
company has never won a phase II award and one-for-one matching
dollars if the company has previously won a phase II award. 
Discussing the relative weight that DOD gives to a company's
commercialization record and the commercial potential of the current
proposal, the program director said that the commercial potential
accounts, on average, for about one-third of the total score, as
noted above, and past performance accounts for about one-fourth of
the total commercial potential.  Thus, the actual weight of the
commercialization record accounts for only about one-twelfth of the
total score. 

The program director told us that deliberations at higher
policy-making levels indicate a trend toward greater emphasis on
commercialization.  He said that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology intends to focus the program more directly
on phase III sales to DOD and the private sector.  In response to
this effort to enhance commercialization, the program director
briefed the Under Secretary in September 1998 and presented three
approaches:  (1) making more effective use of data on past commercial
performance, (2) establishing measures of success for phase III
(which will rely on our 1992 report), and (3) increasing the
involvement of DOD's acquisition programs.  The Under Secretary has
approved these plans.  Their implementation is scheduled for May
1999.  As part of their implementation, the program director will
report semiannually to the Under Secretary on commercialization
results in phase III. 

      THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
      FOUNDATION'S EVALUATION OF
      COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.3

The Foundation uses only two criteria, the quality and impact of
research, in evaluating proposals.  The latter criterion includes
commercial potential.  No specific percentage is assigned to either
criterion.  As part of its evaluation of commercial potential,
according to the program director, the Foundation reviews the history
of phase II awards to companies that submitted proposals.  Attachment
N of its solicitation, which was modeled on DOD's Appendix E and
introduced in 1997, is one of the means of obtaining this
information.  Technical reviewers do not see it, but program managers
use it when factors besides the strict technical review of quality
are taken into account.  The 8 to 10 program managers are able to
provide special expertise in the selection process because of their
detailed knowledge of the proposals and the companies. 

The program director said that, for the selection of phase I awards,
the information in Attachment N functions mainly as a tiebreaker if
the technical merit of two proposals has been judged as equal.  He
noted that the agency's reliance on a broad nonnumerical rating
system gives the program managers more flexibility to use Attachment
N as a tiebreaker.  He could not say how often the commercialization
record plays a tie-breaking role, but he told us that it could do so
for about half of the Foundation's awards.  He added that, if two
companies submit proposals of equal technical merit and one company
has a poor commercialization record while the other company is a
newcomer with no record, he will choose the newcomer. 

      THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
      SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S
      EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL
      POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.4

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's program manager
stated that commercial potential accounts for about 25 percent of the
total possible score, although the solicitation does not specifically
indicate this percentage.  In evaluating this area, consideration is
given to (1) the commercial potential of the technology, (2) the
demonstrated commercial intent of the company, and (3) the capability
of the company to bring successfully developed technology to
commercial application.  In evaluating the company's
commercialization record, the program manager told us that he applies
a subjective sense of a company's record in general.  He added that
the agency has conducted an extensive survey of phase II commercial
outcomes that may enable it to take a more structured approach in
evaluating the record.  The results of the survey, which covered
companies that won phase II awards from 1984 through 1994, are
currently being tabulated and analyzed.  To date, the survey data
have been used in an aggregate way to answer questions about
commercialization.  The program manager told us that although little
emphasis has been placed so far on the records of individual
companies, the data could provide this information.  The agency is
now weighing what influence the survey data should have on future
awards. 

      THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
      EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL
      POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.5

Energy's scoring system for selecting proposals focuses on three
criteria:  the strength of the technical approach, the company's
ability to carry out the project, and the project's impact (which
includes commercial potential).  Each criterion counts as one-third
of the overall rating.  The program manager commented that a company
with poor commercial potential needs to be judged as almost perfect
under the other two criteria to receive an award.  He added that
Energy does not require a commercialization plan in connection with
phase II proposals, in part because he believes that (1) it is too
early for such a plan to be meaningful, (2) agency personnel are not
qualified to review it, and (3) important information concerning
possible commercialization is included with the proposal in a section
called ï¿½Anticipated Benefits;ï¿½ this section discusses the expected
product or process, the likelihood that it could lead to a marketable
product, and the significance of the market. 

In evaluating commercial potential, the program manager told us that
he interprets the four points in the 1992 legislation literally.  He
noted that only one of the four refers to a company's
commercialization record and this record, in turn, is weighted
proportionally in the evaluation of commercial potential.  (The
impact criterion is divided into two parts.  The commercialization
record accounts for one-third of one of these parts, or one-sixth of
the impact criterion.  This impact score then accounts for one-third
of the total score.  Thus, the commercialization record accounts for
about one-eighteenth overall.) He added that although the
commercialization record accounts for only a small percentage of the
total score, it could make an important difference in a tight
competition. 

In obtaining data on commercialization, Energy requires companies, as
a condition of their phase II grant, to provide the program manager
with an annual report on phase III funding at the end of phase II and
for 3 years after their project's completion.  This report is to
detail the sources and amounts of the nonfederal funding used to
continue support for, or commercialize the research funded by, the
award.  The program manager said that 1994 was the first year that
Energy began to formally use commercial potential as a criterion in
evaluating proposals.  Prior to 1994, information on
commercialization was used only as a tiebreaker in specific
instances. 

      THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
      HEALTH'S EVALUATION OF
      COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.6

The Institutes' current solicitation includes commercial potential as
one of its criteria, but neither commercial potential nor any of the
Institutes' other six criteria is assigned a definite weight in the
grants program, which provides about 95 percent of the Institutes'
SBIR awards.  For the contract awards that constitute the remaining 5
percent, the program manager told us, commercial potential accounts
for 10 percent of a proposal's score.  All proposals receive a peer
review in which an average of three reviewers represent the small
business community and 10 to 15 doctors and scientists represent the
biomedical community.  The small business representatives are
included for scientific balance and special business-related
knowledge, according to the program manager, but the other peer
reviewers (research scientists and physicians) can also comment on
the proposals' commercial potential.  Each peer review leads to a
summary statement that incorporates the major comments, including
those relating to commercial considerations.  The program manager
said the scoring of commercial potential was subjective.  He was
unaware of any instances in which a company's commercialization
record had influenced the choice of proposals.\2

--------------------
\2 In commenting on our draft report, the National Institutes of
Health stated that some of their staff take past commercialization
success into account.  However, those data have not been tracked by a
central office in the Institutes, which may be why the program
manager was unaware of any instances. 

      THE FIVE SMALLER PROGRAMS
      AND THEIR EVALUATION OF
      COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.7

The five smaller programs are emphasizing commercial potential, but
only the Environmental Protection Agency indicated that the
commercialization record plays a potentially significant role in
making awards. 

At the Environmental Protection Agency, the director of the
Environmental Engineering Research Division told us that the biggest
single change in the agency's program since the 1992 reauthorization
has been the increased emphasis on commercialization.  He said that
commercialization used to be one of six criteria used in judging
proposals; now, it is one of five.  For phase I proposals, the agency
requires a 2- to 3-page commercialization plan.  For phase II
proposals, it requires a fully developed plan.  In a peer review of
phase II proposals, a commercialization reviewer is responsible for
rating the quality of the complete plan.  One effect of this
increased emphasis is that a company's commercialization plan and
record play a greater role in the peer review's final rating of a
proposal.  Specifically, according to the director, if a company has
a poor plan and record, its proposal will have much more difficulty
obtaining a ï¿½very goodï¿½ or ï¿½excellentï¿½ rating (required for the
proposal to be eligible for funding), particularly if, technically,
the proposal is in the borderline area between ï¿½goodï¿½ and ï¿½very
good."

Agriculture sent a questionnaire to all phase II winners from the
start of the program through 1995 and found that more than 50 percent
reported some commercial sales.  The Department's SBIR program
manager said that it would be rare for a company with a poor
commercialization record to be penalized on a phase I proposal;
instead, he said, a commercially successful company might receive a
boost from its previous success.  At phase II, more attention is
given to commercial potential, but the two most important review
criteria are (1) the degree to which phase I objectives were met and
technical feasibility was demonstrated and (2) the technical merit of
the phase II proposal. 

Transportation's program manager stated that Transportation reviewers
consider technical merit and commercial potential when reviewing
proposals.  He added that a company's commercialization record has
little, if any, bearing on the selection of proposals and that the
record has never been used to make or break a proposal.  Commerce has
developed guidelines for a commercialization plan to be included in
phase II proposals.  The program manager said that this plan, which
documents how the company will convert its research into a commercial
product, is critical to winning a phase II award.  Commerce has not
found the commercialization record to be a significant factor in its
selections.  Education's criteria for phase I awards include the
potential commercial applications of the research.  Past
commercialization success is among the criteria for phase II awards. 

   PENALTIES FOR POOR
   COMMERCIALIZATION RECORDS MAY
   HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Agencies have collected data on commercialization by companies,
including frequent winners.  According to SBA's Assistant
Administrator for Technology, the 1992 reauthorization directs
agencies to collect information on commercialization by companies
with 15 or more phase II awards but does not clarify how they are
supposed to use it.\3 Without such clarification, agencies may
establish different sets of rules that will be confusing to
companies, many of which have received SBIR awards from more than one
agency.  For example, as discussed later in this chapter, DOD planned
to implement an approach that would have greatly increased the
importance of the commercialization record.  In addition, DOD's
approach would have led to unintended consequences, as early tests of
its plan indicated.  None of the other agencies developed such an
approach. 

--------------------
\3 The act requires agencies in their annual reports to include an
accounting of the phase I awards made during the reporting period to
entities that have received more than 15 phase II awards during the
preceding 5 fiscal years.  15 U.S.C.  638(l)(2).  The act also
required SBA to modify the SBIR program directive to provide for
procedures to ensure that these companies, when they submit phase I
proposals, are able to demonstrate the extent to which they have been
able to secure phase III funding for their previous phase II awards. 
15 U.S.C.  638(j)(2)(H).  The policy directive requires that
companies document the extent to which they have secured phase III
funding to develop concepts resulting from their phase II awards and
for agencies to collect and retain such information.  SBIR Policy
Directive para.  15c. 

      SBA'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING
      FREQUENT WINNERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

In response to a requirement in the 1992 legislation, SBA included a
section in its 1993 policy directive requiring agencies to collect
and retain documentation on companies receiving 15 or more phase II
awards in the previous 5 years.  The section restated the law while
furnishing no additional details.  The Assistant Administrator for
Technology told us that, in his view, the legislation requires
agencies to collect information on commercialization but provides no
guidance on what should be done with it. 

      DOD'S RESPONSE TO FREQUENT
      WINNERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

DOD's program director told us that all companies' proposals are
given equal scrutiny when being ranked for commercial potential.  The
only way "frequent winners" will be given somewhat greater scrutiny
is connected with the development of a past performance index.  This
index applies to companies that won five or more phase II awards from
fiscal year 1984 through fiscal year 1995.  DOD's focus on companies
with five or more awards during this period is broader than the focus
on multiple winners specified in the 1992 act.  DOD's approach
potentially includes hundreds of companies, whereas, according to an
SBA official, the law leads to a list of only 24 frequent winners for
fiscal years 1993-97, the latest period for which data were
available. 

DOD has had difficulty making effective use of the commercialization
records obtained from frequent winners.  The problem has arisen
because of the large number of phase II awards and the volume of
information.  For example, the program director told us that the
company with the most phase II awards over the life of the SBIR
program has submitted information on 94 completed phase II awards in
a 19-page document.\4 According to the program director, many of the
technical reviewers have little familiarity with the program and
therefore lack the background to grapple with so much information and
reach a "bottom line" about the company's commercialization record. 

To alleviate this problem, the program director plans to create a
past performance index for the program's frequent winners.  Each of
these companies will be required to submit an electronic file of the
commercialization results of its phase II awards that will be used to
calculate how the company's sales and additional developmental
funding compare with the DOD-wide average per award.  The output will
be a number showing a company's commercialization record as a
percentage of the DOD-wide average.  The company will be asked to
include this figure in each new proposal so that the technical
evaluators will see for the first time a snapshot of the company's
past commercial performance level.  In discussing the weight that
will be given to the index in evaluating proposals, the program
director said that, in general, DOD would not prescribe any
particular use for the data. 

According to the program director, the only requirement that will
govern all of DOD's SBIR agencies applies to companies that have
received five or more phase II awards since the start of the program
and have achieved only 5 percent or less of the DOD-wide average for
sales and additional developmental funding per award.\5 For these
companies, at the agency's discretion, the rating on commercial
potential may be "capped" at half of the total possible score.  This
cap will increase the weight for the commercial record from the
current one-twelfth of the total score to one-sixth, a change that
could reduce the number of awards to this group of companies.  (On a
100-point scale, DOD's "cap" would decrease a proposal's score by
about 16 points, a substantial penalty).  This policy, however,
permits an exception if the program manager recommends that the
company be exempted from this requirement and the contracting officer
approves the exception. 

In November 1998, the DOD support contractor implementing the index
pointed out some difficulties in making the index work effectively
and set the stage for the revised approach.  The contractor noted
that two-thirds of all phase II awards in DOD show no sales.  Against
this backdrop, even frequent winners with relatively low sales could
turn out to be "above average." The leading frequent winner, for
example, came out above average simply because it had achieved
limited sales with its numerous phase II awards.  The support
contractor pointed out that the index did not allow for important
factors, such as recent awards to companies that have not had time to
commercialize them.  In addition, it did not distinguish between
technologies such as software, which may be commercialized quickly,
and hardware, which may require a manufacturing step that takes
longer to commercialize.  The support contractor concluded that much
more testing needed to be done before the index could become an
effective tool.  The support contractor expressed concern about the
number of companies that might be affected and said that if it was
too high, the threshold would need to be adjusted.  Further work by
the support contractor in April 1999 increased DOD's concern about
the unintended consequences of the Department's plan and led to
important revisions, including the lowering of the threshold.\6

--------------------
\4 He noted that the company should also have provided information on
its 54 ongoing phase II awards but did not do so. 

\5 Initially set at 25 percent, this figure was lowered to 5 percent
under DOD's revised approach.  As a result, significantly fewer
companies are potentially affected by DOD's plan, and their level of
commercialization is significantly lower than under the earlier plan. 

\6 In commenting on the draft report, DOD's SBIR program director
stressed that the past performance index is one among many
informational tools that DOD will use in evaluating proposals.  He
further noted that, for a company with a strong commercialization
record, the index offers an opportunity for a favorable rating that
may lead to a higher score on the company's proposals. 

      THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
      RESPONSE TO FREQUENT WINNERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Energy has collected data on commercialization by its awardees,
including frequent winners.  The program manager told us that these
data do not indicate a significantly lower level of commercialization
by frequent winners in general.  For example, awardees with five or
fewer phase II awards from fiscal year 1984 through fiscal year 1996
averaged $1 million in sales per project.  Companies with nine or
more phase II awards during the same period averaged $854,000 per
project.  If the frequent winner with the poorest record among the 10
companies with nine or more phase II awards is removed from the
calculation, the average rises to $939,000.  Of the two companies
that received the most phase II awards from Energy from fiscal year
1984 through fiscal year 1996, the company with 16 awards averaged
$1.3 million and the company with 17 awards averaged $1.7 million in
sales per project. 

Because Energy has developed detailed commercialization data on its
frequent winners, we asked the program manager whether this
information might have led to penalties during evaluations of
proposals from frequent winners with poor commercialization results. 
He told us that he has not used this information to penalize any
company beyond considering commercial potential in phase II, as
discussed previously.  He said that the law instructs the agencies to
collect the data but, in his view, does not tell them how to use it
effectively in dealing with frequent winners, even those that are
clearly poor performers.  He concluded that if the Congress wants the
agencies to monitor frequent winners and have the data make a
difference in the award process, then the law itself may have to be
clarified. 

      OTHER AGENCIES' RESPONSES TO
      FREQUENT WINNERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4

Other agencies have given only limited attention to the concern about
frequent winners.  For example, program managers at the National
Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration were uncertain whether the legislation defined a
frequent winner as a company with 15 awards in a 5-year period from a
single agency or from all agencies combined.  They interpreted the
law to mean awards from a single agency and found virtually no
companies that belonged in this category at their agencies, so they
did not focus further on the issue.  The program manager at the
National Institutes of Health told us that his agency collected the
information, as required, but that officials were uncertain how to
use the information effectively and said that it played a minimal, if
any, role in the evaluation of proposals.  In general, the five
agencies with smaller programs have taken no special steps to focus
on frequent winners. 

   THE EMPHASIS ON
   COMMERCIALIZATION RAISES
   QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF
   OTHER GOALS IN EVALUATING
   COMPANIES' PERFORMANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

Despite the greater emphasis on commercialization, the program's
other goals remain important to the agencies when evaluating
companies' accomplishments and subsequent proposals.  According to
some of the program managers, a relatively low level of
commercialization may not signal failure because a company may have
achieved other goals.  The difficulty, for agencies, of using any
particular goal as a key criterion for selecting future proposals for
funding stems from their not having (1) a clear definition of the
program's goals, (2) information on the relative weight that should
be given to these potential goals, and (3) criteria for judging
whether these goals have been achieved. 

Finding practical ways to define and measure the SBIR program's goals
in order to evaluate proposals has been difficult.  For example,
efforts to define and measure technological innovation, which was one
of the program's original goals, have posed a challenge.  Although
definitions vary, there is widespread agreement that technological
innovation is a complex process, particularly in the development of
sophisticated modern technologies.  Technological innovation can
involve many steps, including research, engineering, prototype
testing, and product development.  Because technological innovation
occurs in many different ways, no one indicator is an accurate
measure of it.  Differences among firms' operating styles can also
create measurement problems.  Some innovative firms will file many
patent applications (which are sometimes used as measures of
innovation), while others will prefer to retain trade secrets. 
Similarly, according to SBA's Assistant Administrator for Technology,
the 1992 reauthorization lacks a clear definition of
"commercialization," and he has sometimes differed with agencies on
its meaning.  This absence of a definition makes it more difficult,
in his view, to determine when a frequent winner is "failing" to
achieve a sufficient level of commercialization and how to include
this information in an agency's review of the company's proposal. 

The relative weight that should be given to the goals when evaluating
proposals remains unclear.  Innovation and responsiveness to an
agency's needs, for example, may compete with the achievement of
commercialization.  In the view of many program managers, innovation
involves a willingness to undertake R&D with a higher element of risk
and a greater chance that it may not lead to a commercial product;
responsiveness to an agency's needs involves R&D that may be aimed at
special niches with likewise limited commercial potential.  Striking
the right balance between encouraging new, unproven technologies and
achieving commercial sales is, according to the program managers, one
of the key ingredients in the overall success of the program.  A
former director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's
program told us that commercialization could be significantly
boosted.  He added, however, that he would oppose the use of
commercial success as an exclusive measure for the program because
innovation and support for higher-risk projects would then be
virtually eliminated as goals. 

Agencies have also not agreed on criteria for what constitutes
"success" in relation to these goals.  The former program manager of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization put the problem clearly: 
How much commercialization is "enough?" If an exclusive focus on
commercial success might signal that the program was "picking
winners" and sacrificing innovation, then what is the appropriate mix
of higher-risk projects that lead less frequently to commercial
outcomes and lower-risk projects that lead more frequently to
successful products? 

The difficulty caused by this lack of criteria is compounded by other
factors, such as the high concentration of commercial success in only
a handful of projects in the program.  For example, as shown by our
1992 report, 1.5 percent of the projects accounted for almost half of
all the sales at that time.  A 1996 survey by the DOD support
contractor of DOD projects from 1984 to 1992 also found that 1.5
percent of these projects accounted for 50 percent of the sales and 4
percent accounted for 75 percent of the sales.  For a program in
which the great majority of projects achieve no sales or only very
limited sales, the evaluation of subsequent proposals from individual
companies becomes more difficult if commercialization is considered
the primary goal.  As the SBA contractor stated in a presentation at
the National Academy of Sciences in November 1998, this high
concentration of success necessitates large-scale surveys of the
program because the outcomes achieved by smaller subsets of winners
or individual companies may be significantly influenced by the
presence or absence of just a few major successes.  In a separate
discussion, the SBA contractor noted that Creare, one of the most
frequent winners mentioned in chapter 2, generated $110 million in
actual and $90 million in anticipated sales through a single phase II
award entitled "Numerical Modeling for Chemical Vapor Deposition."

As the emphasis on commercialization has grown, so have concerns that
noncommercial successes may not be captured at all.  For example, the
president of the Innovation Development Institute in Massachusetts
expressed concern that the growing emphasis on commercialization was
occurring at the expense of innovation and agencies' R&D needs.  She
believed that some of the higher-risk projects that received awards
in the mid-1980s and led to "technology leaps" would not now be
seriously considered for awards because they would be judged too
time-consuming and too risky.  She was also disturbed by the
suggestion that firms doing high-quality work and meeting the needs
of a federal agency in an innovative manner are somehow deficient. 
There was no suggestion, however, of a valid methodology for
assessing success in meeting the program's other goals. 

Program managers also expressed concern that noncommercial
accomplishments may not be adequately recognized.  For example, the
Navy program manager described a software project for a special
military need with limited sales potential; he said it was very
helpful in reducing the agency's expenditures but believed that the
savings would not be captured in typical measurements of
commercialization.  Likewise, the program manager at the National
Institutes of Health cited instances of special medical equipment,
such as pediatric heart devices, with limited markets.  He pointed
out that emphasizing commercialization as the primary goal would
discount achievements in these areas.  In general, we found that
program managers valued both noncommercial and commercial successes
and feared that the former might be ignored in emphasizing the
latter. 

   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

The existing legislation has generally increased participating
agencies' consideration of the commercial potential associated with
new phase II proposals.  It directs the agencies to consider the
commercial potential (including the company's commercialization
record as one of four types of evidence) of each phase II proposal
but does not clarify the extent to which this potential should be a
factor in making awards.  This lack of clarity about the role of
commercialization is further evident in the provision dealing with
frequent winners.  It directs the agencies to collect information
from companies submitting phase I proposals that have received more
than 15 phase II awards during the preceding 5 years to demonstrate
the extent to which they have been able to secure phase III funding
for these awards.  However, the law provides no guidance on how this
information should be used.  In turn, the emphasis on
commercialization has raised questions about the role of the
program's other goals in the evaluation of companies' proposals. 
Program managers and others have expressed concern that the other
goals and accomplishments may not be sufficiently recognized. 

Lacking guidance on these issues, agencies must determine their own
responses, and differences among agencies have emerged.  In
particular, DOD developed a unique approach that would have led to
lower scores on proposals from companies with 5 or more phase II
awards if they were perceived as poor commercializers.  DOD has
revised its approach to account for differences in the number of
awards to specific companies and to avoid the unintended consequences
of its plan.  Despite this improvement, the lack of clarity in the
legislation remains a concern. 

   MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

When the Congress considers the reauthorization of this program, it
may wish to clarify the relative emphasis that agencies, in
evaluating companies' proposals, should give to a company's
commercialization record as part of the goal of commercialization and
to the program's other goals.  This clarification would help ensure
uniformity in the program and a clear set of standards by which to
determine whether, and to what extent, commercialization and the
program's other goals should be considered in evaluations of
proposals. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

Only the National Institutes of Health expressed concern about the
matter for congressional consideration.  The Institutes believed that
the matter's focus on uniformity would miss the fact that different
relative emphases on the commercialization record may be appropriate
to agencies' different missions.  The Institutes also questioned what
they considered to be the report's close association between success
and commercialization.  In general, we do not believe that an effort
to clarify the relative emphasis on commercialization and the
program's other goals will lead to a focus on uniformity or
insensitivity to the agencies' divergent missions.  Moreover, the
report does not equate success and commercialization.  This chapter
discussed the way in which the emphasis on commercialization raises
questions about the role of the program's other goals and stated that
despite the greater emphasis on commercialization, these other goals
remain important to the agencies when evaluating a company's
accomplishments and subsequent proposals.  We made no changes to the
matter as a result of the comments provided by the National
Institutes of Health. 

SBA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
STANDARDIZE EVALUATIONS OF THE
PROGRAM'S OUTCOMES
============================================================ Chapter 4

Commercialization is only one of the program's objectives but has
become the main outcome for measuring its effectiveness.  Studies of
commercialization have proliferated as agencies have tried to obtain
data on commercial activity.  In the 1990s, studies by GAO,
individual agencies, and academic specialists have focused on sales,
developmental funding, "success stories," and a variety of other
measures.  A review of these studies shows that although they rely on
different approaches, they contain some common criteria for success,
and it suggests a further opportunity for standardizing the
measurement of commercialization.  Two of the main steps toward
establishing a standard approach would involve the development of
uniform criteria for success and an improved SBIR database at SBA
that captures information on commercial outcomes.  Established before
the passage of the Results Act, SBA's database contains information
emphasizing input data (such as company names and awards) while
giving virtually no attention to results.  As SBA develops a new
database, called Tech-Net, which is scheduled for full implementation
in 1999, it has an opportunity to include outcome-related measures
that can be used to track commercialization and other indicators of
success. 

   VARIOUS METHODS WITH SIMILAR
   CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS HAVE BEEN
   USED IN ATTEMPTING TO MEASURE
   OUTCOMES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Various methods have been used to quantify commercialization and
related outcomes of the program.  Some of the major methods include
the approach in our 1992 report on commercialization, the Department
of Energy's emphasis on a company's products and services (derived
from SBIR technology) rather than on individual SBIR projects (an
approach that sometimes has the effect of "clustering" awards),
reliance on "success stories," and an academic approach.  A frequent
winner has also developed a method of its own.  Although the methods
have differed, many of the key criteria for success focus on common
concerns, such as levels of sales and developmental funding.  The
following section gives an overview of these methods but is not
intended to include every study of commercialization in the program. 

      SURVEY CRITERIA FOR THE 1992
      REPORT IDENTIFIED OUTCOMES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1

Our 1992 report responded to a congressional mandate that we report
on the commercial outcomes of the program.  We surveyed companies
that had won phase II awards from 1984 through 1987 and received
information on the outcomes of 1,457 projects.  The survey instrument
contained about 40 questions.  One of the key questions was the
following:  "Has the technology associated with this project led to
additional developmental funding and/or sales, and is further work on
this technology under way?" This question was intended to divide
projects into four major categories according to their phase III
outcomes.  It identified projects that (1) had achieved funding
and/or sales and had further work under way, (2) had not yet achieved
funding and/or sales and had further work under way, (3) had achieved
funding and/or sales and had no further work under way, or (4) had
achieved no funding and/or sales and were discontinued.  The
remainder of the questionnaire focused mainly on obtaining further
information about projects falling into each of these categories. 
For example, for projects that remained active in phase III, we asked
detailed questions about the amounts of additional developmental
funds and sales, the sources of their funds and the markets for their
sales, and the levels of financial activity expected in the future. 

This approach has also been used in later surveys of the program.  In
1996, a DOD support contractor used it to survey all of DOD's phase
II awards.  The contract manager kept the basic structure intact but
streamlined it by eliminating certain questions that had not led to
findings in our own 1992 review.  In 1997, SBA asked the same DOD
support contractor to conduct a governmentwide survey of SBIR
commercialization using the same questionnaire.  Additional use of
this approach is being made by individual agencies.  In 1998, USDA
sent a questionnaire to its phase II awardees that uses similar
outcome-related criteria.  The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration has also focused on the outcomes associated with
individual phase II awards.  Its survey asks for information on sales
to government agencies and the private sector, additional
developmental funding, the number of spin-off firms and patents, and
other measures of outcomes.  As mentioned in chapter 3, the agency
has sent the questionnaire to its phase II awardees.\1

--------------------
\1 In commenting on our draft report, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration stated that its survey of phase II projects
provides relatively current information on commercial activities.  It
stated that its survey is being implemented as an ongoing effort
rather than as a single effort that would quickly become outdated. 

      ENERGY'S APPROACH DIFFERS,
      PERMITTING THE CLUSTERING OF
      AWARDS TO MEASURE OUTCOMES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2

The Department of Energy's approach differs from GAO's 1992 approach
in that a company is asked to report on products and services derived
from SBIR technology instead of on individual awards.  (As noted in
ch.  3, Energy has required its phase II awardees to provide annual
reports on phase III fundingï¿½i.e., on sales and further developmental
fundingï¿½at the end of phase II and for 3 years.) The data summary
that Energy sends to companies includes a list of all of their
previous phase II awards.  For each product or service identified,
the companies are instructed to identify which phase II projects (as
many as appropriate) contributed to that product or service.  As a
result, Energy found, multiple SBIR projects sometimes contributed to
the same product or service, and, conversely, multiple products and
services were sometimes derived from the same SBIR project.  The
program manager believes that companies find it easier and more
reliable to trace their commercial results to their own products and
services rather than to a single award.  He is concerned that the
attempt to capture the results of each award individually may lead to
"double counting," since more than one award sometimes leads to the
same product and, thus, to the same commercial result. 

Despite the difference in methodology, Energy's approach relies on
outcome-related criteria for success.  For example, it asks about
products or services, sales and developmental funding, partners, and
abandoned projects.  In addition, the program manager noted that, in
most cases, companies responding to the form have ascribed their
products and other commercial outcomes to an individual award, which
further reduces the apparent difference between the two approaches. 
At our request, he reviewed the responses from a sample of 143
companies (about half of all companies with phase II awards in the
first 10 years of the program) and found that about four-fifths of
the companies responded in terms of individual awards. 

      THE "SUCCESS STORIES"
      APPROACH HAS SIMILAR BASIC
      CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS BUT
      ALSO HAS IMPORTANT
      LIMITATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.3

The National Science Foundation, DOD, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and other agencies have presented success
stories stemming from their awards.  The purpose of these stories
varies from agency to agency.  For example, the National Science
Foundation has used this approach to document the most significant
results of its awards.  By contrast, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration places little value on the approach as a measure
of the program's results and uses it primarily to help companies
market their technologies. 

The National Science Foundation has used this approach three times. 
Its first review of success stories was completed in September 1996
and was entitled "50 Examples of SBIR Commercialization." In carrying
out the study, the Foundation's contractor obtained the information
through telephone and personal interviews, usually with the company
president at the time of the original award and through the early
growth period.  The key questions included the following:  (1) Did
any of the Foundation's SBIR research awards make a significant
difference to the performance and growth of your company?  (2) Did
the project result in commercial sales?  As a follow-up question for
discussion, the person being interviewed was asked to include results
that probably would not have occurred without the SBIR program or the
Foundation's SBIR award, or sales, investment, and other actions that
would not have taken place in the same period.  The survey used these
criteria for success to explore the results in an "open-ended" way
rather than relying on a more detailed and structured set of
questions. 

This approach led to summaries of 50 of what the Foundation
considered its major successes showing a wide variety of commercial
outcomes.  Overall, as the program director testified in April 1998,
the success stories approach led the Foundation to find that, with
respect to the private sector's commercialization of technology, the
top 50 successful small business grantees (representing about 10
percent of the Foundation's phase II grantees) have grown until they
account for direct sales of $2.7 billion and 10,000 jobs created. 
Given that the Foundation's total investment in the SBIR program
throughout its history is $350 million, the program manager concluded
that the Foundation had received a 7-to-1 return on its investment. 

The program director told us that a second contractor is resurveying
the same 50 companies to verify the original information and gain
more insight into these companies.  The Foundation has also let a
third contract to study 20 additional companies.  The program
director said that these studies of 70 companies would capture a
significant percentage of the success achieved with the Foundation's
awards. 

DOD's program director told us that all of DOD's major SBIR agencies
have used the success stories approach.  He cited problems with this
approach, including the lack of a consistent method among DOD's
separate agencies and the vagueness of the resulting information.  He
said that each component, including the SBIR headquarters office in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, goes its own way in asking
questions of companies and that no systematic approach or evaluation
has been attempted.  Moreover, he said that the resulting
information, when companies are asked to describe their outcomes,
frequently leads to vague phrases such as "advancing the state of the
art." He commented that, if the success stories approach is to prove
valuable, companies should be asked a better set of questions. 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has relied on its
questionnaire survey to obtain information on commercial outcomes; by
contrast, according to the SBIR program manager, the agency's use of
success stories has served mainly to market companies' technologies
rather than to measure results.  The agency lets the companies
prepare and publish their success stories in such publications as its
Tech Briefs magazine, which reaches an audience of about 220,000
readers.  The agency's only role in this effort has been to provide a
common format for the stories.  The format requires the companies to
present their stories in a four-step series:  (1) a description of
the innovation, (2) the accomplishments, (3) commercialization, and
(4) government/science applications. 

In general, our review of the "success stories" approach indicated
that it is being used extensively but that its purpose varies.  The
National Science Foundation's approach is intended to provide a
comprehensive survey of commercialization results, whereas the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration uses "success stories"
mainly to help its winning companies market their technologies.  In
addition, the success stories approach has not led to the development
of carefully structured questions.  The approach is "open-ended,"
meaning that it can be used to develop a detailed story for
individual companies but does not lend itself to greater
systemization.  A further shortcoming is its omission of less
successful projects, which tends to bias the results of this
approach. 

      AN ACADEMIC APPROACH
      ILLUSTRATES A DIFFERENT SET
      OF METHODS BUT CONTAINS
      SIMILAR CRITERIA ABOUT SALES
      AND JOB CREATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.4

Academic studies have also focused on the program's commercial
outcomes.  One of the leading specialists in this area stated in a
paper presented in October 1998 at a National Research Council
workshop on SBIR that, as the number of public venture capital
programs such as SBIR has grown, policymakers and economists are
increasingly grappling with the question of how to assess these
programs.  The paper pointed out that one of the main academic
approaches is to examine the long-run impact of participation in
public venture capital programs on the growth of the firms
themselves, relative to a matched set of firms. 

This approach is directly related to the discussion of
commercialization in this chapter.  The specialist at the workshop
provided an example of it in another paper.\2 The paper analyzed a
sample of firms that had received SBIR awards and compared them with
a closely matching set of firms that had not received awards during
the same time period.  The comparison focused on the impact of
participation in the program on sales and employment.  The analysis
found that the mean increase in both employment and sales from the
end of 1985 to the end of 1995 was higher for SBIR firms (a boost of
26 versus 5 employees and $5 million versus $2 million in sales). 
The specialist pointed out several limitations of this approach,
including the fact that it does not measure the increase in a firm's
value.  Because over 98 percent of the firms were privately held,
assessing the valuation and profitability of the awards was very
difficult. 

--------------------
\2 Josh Lerner, The Government as Venture Capitalist:  The Long-Run
Impact of the SBIR Program, Working Paper 5753, National Bureau of
Economic Research (Sept.  1996). 

      A FREQUENT WINNER HAS
      DEVELOPED A METHOD FOR
      EVALUATING COMMERCIALIZATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.5

The chief executive officer of a frequent winner developed a new
approach in a March 1998 paper.\3

The paper states that although numerous methods could be used to
gauge the SBIR program's success, his approach focuses on the
follow-on funding, or sales, achieved.  It also states that SBIR
awards span a wide range of commercial potential, from those awards
aimed at highly commercializable technologies to those that address
narrow, mission-specific requirements with little or no follow-on
potential.  It adds that, for awards in the latter category, it is
important not to penalize the contractor who successfully responds to
such solicitations.  It then separates projects into agency-specific,
commercially viable, and dual-use categories and contends that the
ability to accurately apply such classifications was confirmed by
relatively little deviation among various observers, including an
advisory board representing six venture capital firms.  Subsequently,
in calculating the company's return on the SBIR investment, it
eliminates the "agency-specific projects" that are judged at the
outset to have virtually no commercial potential.  It concludes that
when these projects are deducted, the company shows a successful rate
of return on the SBIR investment.  A more detailed analysis,
according to the paper, reveals that only three or four of the phase
II awards in the "commercially viable" category accounted for more
than two-thirds of all follow-on funding over a 10-year period and
that, in each of these cases, the follow-on business could not have
been reliably predicted.  At the end, the paper strongly recommends
that an analysis of other multiple-award winners be carried out in
this manner. 

--------------------
\3 Robert F.  Weiss, "Analysis of Follow-on Funding Generated by
Major SBIR Award Winners--The Case of Physical Sciences Inc.",
Physical Sciences, Inc.  (Mar.  1998). 

   A STANDARD APPROACH INVOLVES
   THE USE OF UNIFORM CRITERIA FOR
   SUCCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN
   SBA'S NEW DATABASE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

The methods we identified do not provide consistent information
across agencies on the program's results.  The use of a single method
with uniform criteria for success focusing on outcomes would produce
such information, enabling SBA and the agencies to satisfy the
requirements of the Results Act.  The expansion of SBA's SBIR
database affords an opportunity to standardize the reporting of
results.  The previous SBA database contained two general data fields
for the results of SBIR awards, but they were vague, optional, and
seldom used.  To overcome this limitation, standard criteria can be
identified and turned into specific data fields, capturing a variety
of commercial and other measures.  This approach, if implemented,
will make available--for the first time--a central database for the
program that allows for the effective evaluation of its commercial
outcomes and other measures of success. 

      AN OPPORTUNITY EXISTS TO
      RESPOND TO THE RESULTS ACT
      BY USING STANDARDIZED
      CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS AND
      CAPTURING OUTCOMES IN SBA'S
      NEW TECH-NET DATABASE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 was intended,
among other purposes, to improve the effectiveness of federal
programs and enhance public accountability by promoting a new focus
on results.  In 1997, the Congress specified that information on the
SBIR program must be included by each federal agency in the updates
or revisions to its strategic plan required by the Results Act.  (15
U.S.C.  638(t)).  As the central administrative agency for the
program, SBA has maintained a governmentwide database that brings
together the data submitted by the individual agencies participating
in the program.  According to the Assistant Administrator for
Technology who oversees the program, SBA has used the database
primarily to develop its annual reports on the program and to
accomplish other purposes as required by the SBIR legislation. 
Currently, however, SBA is developing a new database called Tech-Net. 
This effort provides a unique opportunity to address the shortcomings
of the previous database.  It may also help agencies respond to the
Results Act by using standardized criteria for success and capturing
the commercial and other outcomes of SBIR activities. 

For the purpose of measuring these outcomes, the original SBA
database has had two major shortcomings.  First, because it was
developed long before the Results Act emphasized the measurement of
outcomes, the database reflects the earlier attention given to
inputs.  It consists of 62 "fields," or specific pieces of
information, such as the name of each company and the amount of
funding that it received.  Although the database includes two fields
for information on the results of awards, according to the database
manager, these fields capture only the companies' general
expectations of benefits (such as cost savings or more efficient
service) at the time of receiving a phase I or phase II award.  In
addition, the use of these data fields was optional, so some of the
companies did not fill them out.  In general, companies have not
provided information on the actual (as opposed to the anticipated)
results of their research.  Second, the database contains unreliable
information.  One key reason for unreliable data is the lack of a
unique identifying code for each company in SBA's current database. 
Identification has depended simply on the company's name.  Slight
variations in spelling, however, have created difficulty because the
database is not able to recognize these differences and thus counts
each separate spelling as a separate company. 

In June 1998, SBA announced the introduction of a new database called
Tech-Net at a meeting of program managers.  This new system is an
Internet-based database containing SBIR awards, as well as awards and
information associated with other technology programs.  SBA describes
Tech-Net as an electronic gateway of technology information and
resources for and about small high-technology businesses.  It
provides a search engine for researchers, scientists, and government
officials; a marketing tool for small firms; and a potential link to
investment opportunities for investors and other sources of capital. 
It will enable agencies to update their information on SBIR awards
and companies to update key information on their activities.  The
previous information will be preserved in a special archive.  The
entire abstract of each award will be a source of keywords, allowing
searches not only of the current information but also of the data
saved in the archives.  Thus, a key feature of the system will be its
ability to show changes in the program over time. 

SBA is taking steps to implement Tech-Net and to ensure that it keeps
a more accurate record of company names than the previous database. 
SBA's Assistant Administrator for Technology emphasized that
implementing Tech-Net by the spring of 1999 was a priority.  As part
of this effort, he plans to send a letter to every company that has
received an award since the start of the program.  The letter will
contain a unique user-identification number for each company to
prevent confusion over the identity of participants.  In December
1998, SBA sponsored a technical meeting of SBIR database managers
representing numerous agencies to determine how much difficulty, if
any, they would have in submitting the data required by Tech-Net in a
common electronic format.  The managers, whose agencies are required
by law to submit data on the program to SBA, were optimistic about
their ability to provide whatever data SBA requested.  In talking
with us about the inclusion of outcome-related data fields, the
database managers at SBA were also optimistic about their ability to
expand Tech-Net to capture this information. 

   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

The commercial outcomes of the SBIR program have been the subject of
numerous evaluations that have not followed the same approach but
have focused on many of the same criteria for measuring the program's
success.  An opportunity exists to identify the most useful and
uniform criteria for success and to build the answers to them into
the new Tech-Net database at SBA. 

   RECOMMENDATION TO THE
   ADMINISTRATOR, SBA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

To respond to the Government Performance and Results Act, we
recommend that the Administrator develop standard criteria for
measuring the commercial and other outcomes of the SBIR program and
incorporate these criteria into the new Tech-Net database.  The
criteria should include uniform measures of sales, developmental
funding, and other indicators of success. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

SBA said it concurred with the recommendation, adding that for the
recommendation to work, the participating federal agencies must agree
to provide SBA with information on the outcomes of their projects. 
It also stated that any action by the Congress must include a
provision that will require the participating federal agencies to
provide this critical information to SBA through the new Tech-Net
database system.  However, agencies are already required to report
information on their SBIR awards to SBA.  Additional information on
the outcomes of projects could be included with this submission.  Our
recommendation would simply provide for consolidating the information
in a uniform format in the Tech-Net database. 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health commented on
this recommendation.  In general, their concerns focused on the
entry, maintenance, safeguards, reliability, and commercial emphasis
of the data to be captured in the Tech-Net database.  The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration expressed concerns about data
safeguards, data reliability, and incentives to firms to provide the
data.  It also asked us to furnish specific measurements and details
for implementation.  The Environmental Protection Agency questioned
its ability to require information from the companies.  The National
Institutes of Health expressed concern that the Tech-Net database is
assumed to be the correct and single approach even though agencies
have widely varying missions and preferences for evaluating their own
programs.  The Institutes raised questions about the commercial
emphasis of the data to be entered, who is responsible for entering
and validating the data, what level of compliance is to be expected,
what incentives exist for grantees to submit data, and how reliable
the data are likely to be. 

In making this recommendation, we recognized that issues about its
implementation such as the agencies have identified would arise.  We
did not include additional detail because we believe that SBA and the
program agencies are in the best position to identify and resolve
these issues.  The effective implementation of this recommendation
will require close cooperation among the participating companies, the
program agencies, and SBA. 

Our recommendation may be helpful in addressing concerns about the
reliability of the data to be submitted.  Previous approaches, such
as questionnaire surveys, were labor-intensive and the results were
difficult to verify.  The information in a current, centralized
database could be sampled more easily in a systematic way to verify
its accuracy.  In response to the concern expressed by the National
Institutes of Health about the widely differing missions of the
agencies, we added a reference to other indicators of success in our
recommendation that reflects our recognition of the need for
flexibility in identifying successful outcomes. 

SBIR PHASE I AWARD/PROPOSAL RATIOS
IN FISCAL YEAR 1998, BY AGENCY
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                               Award/
                                             proposal                              Award/
                    Proposals      Awards   ratio, in   Proposals                proposal
                     received     made to    percent,    received      Awards   ratio, in
                    from non-        non-    for non-        from     made to    percent,
                       EPSCoR      EPSCoR      EPSCoR      EPSCoR      EPSCoR  for EPSCoR
Agency                 states      states      states      states      states      states
-----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Department of
 Defense                8,543       1,200        14.0         557          59        10.6
National
 Institutes of
 Health (grants
 only)                  2,311         667        28.9         129          25        19.4
National
 Aeronautics
 and Space
 Administration         2,183         318        14.6         152          27        17.8
National
 Science
 Foundation             1,439         212        14.7          95          22        23.2
Department of
 Energy                 1,120         191        17.1          71          13        18.3
Department of
 Commerce                 351          39        11.1          23           6        26.1
Department of
 Agriculture              324          57        17.6          96          20        20.8
Environmental
 Protection
 Agency                   294          35        11.9          27           2         7.4
Department of             232
 Transportation                        19         8.2          14           2        14.3
Department of
 Education                218          39        17.9          13           2        15.4
=========================================================================================
Total                  17,016       2,777        16.3       1,176         178        15.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of data from agencies participating in the
SBIR program. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

   GAO COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The following is GAO's comment on the Small Business Administration's
letter dated May 11, 1999. 

1.  This concern is addressed in the discussion of agency comments at
the end of the executive summary and of chapter 4. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)

   GAO COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The following is GAO's comment on the Department of Defense's letter
dated April 20, 1999. 

1.  We agree with the Department's revision of its plan and believe
that the new approach will help avoid the unintended consequences
that we discussed in our report.  We have updated our report to
reflect the Department's revision. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)

   GAO COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The following is GAO's comment on the Department of Agriculture's
letter dated April 26, 1999. 

1.  While we recognize the commercial breadth exhibited by the
Department's reported results, governmentwide surveys performed in
1996 and 1998 by a support contractor for the Department of Defense
and SBA showed that only 39 percent of the projects responding to the
surveys reported sales.  The concern about using commercialization as
the primary goal for evaluating SBIR proposals remains valid in view
of the great concentration of commercial success in a very small
percentage of projects. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

   GAO COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

The following is GAO's comment on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's letter dated April 22, 1999. 

1.  We agree with this point about the need for close cooperation and
have made additional comments at the end of the executive summary and
of chapter 4. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IX
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)

   GAO COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

The following is GAO's comment on the Environmental Protection
Agency's letter dated April 21, 1999. 

1.  We have noted the Environmental Protection Agency's concern at
the end of chapter 4.  SBA and the program agencies will have to
coordinate their efforts to resolve this and other issues. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix X
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

   GAO COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Energy's letter
dated April 22, 1999. 

1.  We revised the report to delete these references. 

2.  We revised the report to reflect the Department's specific
suggestions. 

3.  The Department commented that our use of the term
ï¿½commercialization recordï¿½ to describe information required for
evaluating commercial potential and information required from
companies with 15 or more phase II awards may be confusing.  To avoid
any confusion, we continue to use the term in connection with the
evaluation of commercial potential and revised the report to avoid
the use of the term in connection with frequent winners.  The
Department notes that the policy directive does not define what is
meant by the potential for commercialization with regard to phase I
proposals, nor does it suggest how this potential should be
evaluated.  However, the reauthorization act specifies that phase I
ideas ï¿½appear to have commercial potentialï¿½ as described in the law
under phase II. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XI
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
=========================================================== Appendix I

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

   GAO COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

The following are GAO's comments on the National Institutes of
Health's letter dated April 27, 1999. 

1.  While we recognize the inherent differences between grants and
contracts, these differences do not eliminate the need to clarify the
relative emphasis on commercialization and the program's other goals. 
We made no changes in response to the Institutes' comment.  We also
recognize that agencies differ in their evaluations of proposals but
believe that, without such clarification, these differences may lead
to unintended consequences, such as those that would have resulted
from DOD's emphasis on the commercialization record. 

2.  We addressed this issue in our evaluation of agency comments at
the end of the executive summary and of chapter 3. 

3.  The Institutes express concern about developing standard criteria
to measure commercial outcomes while at the same time acknowledging
that the database appears to have some merit as a useful tool. 
Certain criteria, such as sales and additional funding, that agencies
might agree upon would increase the ability of Congress to evaluate
the program across agencies.  Nevertheless, we do not envision this
database being used to circumvent the judgments of individual
agencies in making awards. 

4.  The draft report reviewed by the National Institutes of Health
also noted that the concentration of SBIR awards in certain states
tends to reflect the concentration of federal research resources in
general.  The report acknowledges the Institutes' and other agencies'
efforts to reach out to businesses in states with comparatively few
SBIR awards. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XII
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix XIII

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Dennis Carroll
Curtis Groves
Kathy Hale
Brad Hathaway
Victor Rezendes

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Mindi Weisenbloom

*** End of document. ***