Testimony of Jere W. Glover, Executive Director, Small Business Technology Council (September 22, 2021)
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Date
- 2021-09-22
Summary
Written testimony of Jere W. Glover, Executive Director of the Small Business Technology Council, before the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship of the United States Senate, dated September 22, 2021. The testimony, headed 40 Years of Success: SBIR drives America's High Tech Economy, argues for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and its sister program STTR. It states SBIR is about 2% of total Federal R&D expenditures and is set to expire on September 30, 2022, and it urges Congress to reauthorize the program this year. It cites economic impact figures, including that the National Cancer Institute produced $26 billion in economic impact from $787 million in SBIR awards. Appendices include tables of GSA SBIR Phase III contracts totaling $809,564,858.10 in obligations and non-SBIR Phase III funding by military service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Testimony of Jere W. Glover, Executive Director, Small Business Technology Council (September 22, 2021).”
Dated 2021-09-22. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-09-22-glover-testimony/
, SHA-256 8068712f44b0005c5d4d3d4402bd63588d3cc8a83f6acde9fdcfa57533c60c62.Full text
Testimony of
Jere W. Glover
Executive Director
Small Business Technology Council
Washington, DC
Prepared by Jere Glover, Kevin Burns, Robert Schmidt and Alec Orban
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS &
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNITED STATES SENATE
40 Years of Success:
SBIR drives America’s High Tech Economy
Technology Innovation, Competitiveness and High Quality Jobs
Contents:
Summary 2
SBIR works 3
Why SBIR works 5
The market loves SBIR 6
National Cancer Institute and DoD summary results 7
Areas for improvement 8
Areas for caution 9
SBIR is often the only source of funding for innovation research 10
Success stories 12
Appendix 13
September 22, 2021
On behalf of
The Small Business Technology Council
www.sbtc.org
SBTC is the nation’s largest association of small, technology-based companies in diverse fields, and represents more companies
that are active in the federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program than any other organization. SBTC is proud to
serve as the technology council of the National Small Business Association.
1
SBIR drives America’s High Tech Economy
Technology Innovation, Competitiveness and High Quality Jobs
We know America’s small businesses (which employ ~35% of our scientists and engineers) are
our primary innovators and job creators, led by entrepreneurs developing new products and
services for our economy, and capable of and focused on building their businesses.
Yet Federal R&D is still done primarily by large businesses, national labs and universities.
Congress realized this disconnect: Federal R&D is not being done by America’s primary
innovators and job creators best able to carry the result forward into U.S.-based products and
services and jobs to strengthen the American economy. Consequently, Congress in 1980
piloted the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and expanded the program in
1982 to make sure that at least a small fraction of Federal R&D is done by small businesses.
The result has become a primary driver of American innovation, economic advantage and good
jobs.
The genius of the SBIR program is it enlists our nation’s small businesses to competitively
convert American science into new scientific breakthroughs and useful technology innovations
that meet Federal R&D needs while enabling entrepreneurs to build businesses and American
jobs. SBIR, and its sister program STTR, draw small businesses into Federal R&D, resulting in
substantially more technology innovation and American-based products, services and jobs
growth.
SBIR firms must be American-based/owned small businesses, with work done in the U.S.
Topics are set by the agencies, which competitively select among small business proposals
based on merit to meet agency objectives. The R&D offers to meet agency-defined market and
societal needs, and create new sustainable high quality, high paying manufacturing and service
jobs in the U.S. while raising living standards and making American industry more competitive.
This highly competitive program is successful in creating both innovations and resulting
products and services for both commercial and Federal requirements.
Competitive merit selection: Only ~1 in 20 Phase I proposals for exploratory proof of
concept work advances to substantial agency R&D support in Phase II.
High quality R&D: The result is high quality R&D in Phase II directed to agency
objectives and transforming American technology for the future.
Commercialization: A primary objective is Phase III transition and commercialization of
the R&D, funded outside the SBIR program. This has driven business and jobs growth
in the small businesses and in larger businesses who acquire or license the new high
tech.
Broad participation: SBIR has helped women and minorities and underserved states to
boost their participation in Federal R&D. SBIR has broadened national access to
America’s tech economy across all 50 states while also boosting participation by
women-owned firms, minority-owned firms, and others to build new businesses, all
based on selecting the best proposed technological for the agency topics.
SBIR remains a very small program: only ~2% of total Federal R&D expenditures (3.2% of
extramural R&D). Many studies have recommended growing it, based on its outsized
performance (e.g. the EU is investing over 20% of its R&D in small businesses). For
manufacturing and for many other sectors, it is virtually the only source of early stage funding),
2
generating innovation and job creation better than any other innovation program in America.
Internationally, many countries are investing their R&D heavily in small business, with 17
copying the SBIR program.
The result: over 40 years of a clear success story. SBIR has become a primary driver of
American innovation, economic advantage and good jobs. It has brought small business
ingenuity and entrepreneurial drive into Federal R&D, disrupting old approaches and creating
myriad new technologies. The result has been new American industries, new businesses and
high quality jobs while growing America’s technology competitiveness across a more diverse
population and all 50 states.
The SBIR program is currently set to expire on September 30, 2022. The sooner it is
reauthorized, the sooner both small businesses and agencies can begin to plan for the future.
Uncertainty is the enemy of long-term investment. The closer the SBIR program its expiration,
the more all parties think short term and defensively, rather than the strong sustained drive for
future innovations that should be the focus on the program. SBTC urges Congress to
reauthorize SBIR this year, don’t wait until the last minute and leave small businesses guessing
whether or not the program will exist in 2023.
3
SBIR Works
SBIR R&D projects are technology seed corn, planted in small businesses committed to
grow them into new products. Despite only ~2% of overall Federal R&D funding,
SBIR/STTR’s outsized results are a primary driver of American economic strength.
SBIR/STTR firms have created over 20% of the world’s major innovations1, and as many
patents as all universities combined (which receive 10X the R&D funding). SBIR firms
significantly outperform larger firms on patent productivity. High quality R&D tackles Federal
challenges and creates new innovations, while seeding new startups and driving the growth of
small businesses with their new technology products and services. Global giants such as
Qualcomm, Broadcom, Symantic, Biogen, iRobot, Genzyme, Illumina, and Genentech all
emerged from SBIR funding. Other SBIR businesses and technologies were sold or licensed,
revitalizing older industries while cutting costs and growing competitive strength, and generating
new divisions and new jobs located here in America. Follow-on new product investment and
sales have totaled many hundreds of billions of dollars.
SBIR firms have produced life-changing breakthroughs in defense, energy,
communications, information and bioscience - new tech building blocks for American
manufacturing. Agency mission objectives were accomplished. DOD strengthened capabilities
while cutting costs. The National Cancer Institute has produced $33 in economic output for
every SBIR R&D dollar, creating $26 billion in economic impact from $787 million in SBIR
awards. An NIH program for home sleep testing saves health care payers over $34 million per
year. The Air Force’s SBIR program saved the F-35 JSF program over $500 million, while Navy
SBIR projects have boosted performance and saved substantially across the submarine fleet.
The data supports SBIR success, and suggests doing more can increase its success.
The SBIR/STTR program clearly provides a big bang for the federal R&D dollar, an unmatched
economic growth engine.
19 National Academy of Sciences studies have been conducted on the programs, and
have concluded that SBIR has met its goals, and showed SBIR/STTR Phase II awards
commercializing at rates from 45-70 percent.
Economic impact studies at the Navy, Air Force, DOD and the National Cancer Institute
show remarkable impact on America, e.g. in excess of $15 to $23 for every SBIR dollar
over a 14 year period.2 Results included improved military strength and capability,
significant cost-savings, new industries with new products and services, and new life
saving medical techniques and products. Job quality was high, with high average
incomes, e.g. $68,535 in the Navy study.
The studies understate the impact, not capturing the impact of SBIR licenses or
business acquisitions on the licensing or acquiring business’s sales and
competitiveness.
Tax income in the period more than repaid the SBIR R&D funding: up to over $3 in
increased Federal, state and local taxes for every dollar spent on SBIR.
1
Fred Block and Matthew Keller, Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. National Innovation System
1970-2006, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, July 2008.
Swearingen, Will and Jeffrey Peterson, “National Economic Impacts from Air Force and Navy SBIR/STTR Programs, 2000-
2
2013”; “1998-2018 National Economic Impacts from the National Cancer Institute SBIR/STTR Programs”; and “National
Economic Impacts from the DOD SBIR/STTR Programs 1995-2018” Techlink
4
Depending on agency, 45-70% of SBIR small business awardees include university
faculty. 70% of all university licenses are issued to SBIR and other small/startup firms.3
SBIR supports and drives American technology transformation: Further American
economic infrastructure revitalization offers further opportunity for improved performance via
SBIR/STTR innovation and new STEM impacts further transforming the defense, energy,
bioscience, communication, and information industries. SBIR/STTR infusion offers the potential
for simultaneous performance improvements and dramatic cost reductions throughout our
economy as we reinvigorate and grow our economy, export base and competitive strength,
building a stronger American internationally competitive base. Further, small businesses have a
far greater tendency to locate their resulting new jobs in the United States, compared to large
businesses.
In many sectors, SBIR/STTR funding is the primary source of external R&D funding:
SBIR/STTR invests at the innovation R&D stage – well before Venture Capital (VC) and banks
will provide risk capital. Successful SBIR technologies advance to use VC and bank lending as
they mature towards products as well as to advance to larger non-SBIR Federal agency support
where this is appropriate (e.g. for larger, more advanced agency needs using regular program
support). Also SBIR innovation is directed across America’s innovation opportunities, well
beyond the VC-focused sectors such as software, internet, telecommunication and healthcare
(which receive 83% of VC deals). The broader sectors SBIR primarily supports include
manufacturing, defense, energy, and the environment, all key to growing America’s economy.
This is increasingly important as VC funding and VC-created jobs increasing move out of the
United States. Over 90% of VC money used to be invested in the US, that is now halved to
44.9%; $156B worldwide, of which $70B invested in the US.4 And small businesses have a
great record on keeping their jobs in the U.S., being much less likely to outsource their jobs after
product development.
Those who can’t find funding in the U.S. are turning overseas for help commercializing their
research. One Chinese organization, BICI, has developed 158 U.S. research projects and has
funded over $616 million for commercialization of U.S. funded research, moving the commercial
jobs from U.S. research to China. So far BICI has commercialized 108 such projects.1
SBIR/STTR is a force for diversification and broadening of America’s technology base.
SBIR reaches out to underserved states and groups, broadening the impact and
strengthening national STEM results. This is the result of merit-based selections and
openness to new entrants. In making award decisions based upon supporting the best
technologies, helps open broader competition and break down geographic, ownership and
existing market power restrictions in America’s technology’s sector. VC funding is concentrated
in just a few areas of the US; SBIR reaches all the states and far outstrips VC investment in
terms of women and disadvantaged minority participation. The SBIR program is critical to
providing startup capital to all parts of the nation.5
3
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), FY2016 AUTM US Licensing Activity Survey, 2018
“State of Venture Report, Global Q2 2021, CB Insights
4
5
Of $70B VC funding in the US, $23.7B was in Silicon Valley, $11.2B in New York, $7.8B in Boston, and $6.0B in LA
(State of Venture Report, Global Q2, 2021 CB Insights). These four regions used $48.7B, leaving only $21.2B (30%)
for the rest of the country. $13.5B went to the next 10 metro areas. So, the top 14 metro areas received $62.2B,
which leaves $7.8B for the other 378 metro areas; 11.2% of the VC investments for 96.4% of U.S. metro areas.
5
In addition, the SBIR program works to actively boost opportunities among geographically
disenfranchised regions and disadvantaged businesses, as well as women-owned small
businesses, such as by leveraging the nation’s dramatic spread of “innovation hubs” in
geographically disenfranchised regions, led by regional industry/academic/ government
partnerships, and redefining STEM. In one example, GSA’s new transition support for Phase III
transitions has led to 45% women-owned small business participation in Phase III awards.
New products meeting important American STEM challenges are energizing new generations
looking for better and more sustainable jobs. Increased heartland investment in SBIR/STTR
can become a keystone of America’s manufacturing revival. This said, more should be done to
support outreach to underserved areas and underrepresented groups.
The SBIR program works well. But it works not simply because the results have been good, but
also because the program is structured to work well.
SBIR is Designed for Success
It is important to realize why SBIR works – it is not just accident or the tapping into the small
business capabilities, but also in the structure of the program that ensures technology
relevance, keeps the focus on the quality of the R&D, and provides checks and balances.
Taps small business entrepreneurship, innovation, drive and competitive flexibility
Small businesses themselves are creative, flexible, innovative, entrepreneurial,
and employ 35% of America’s scientists.
Small businesses are inherently capable of growing and driven to grow
Small businesses almost exclusively create their new jobs here in the US,
whereas larger businesses and VC-driven firms tend to create most of their jobs
worldwide.
Earliest stage innovation funding while performing R&D for Federal purposes.
SBIR/STTR is a unique seed fund for American technological innovation, investing in
innovations before Venture Capital or banks are interested while doing R&D wanted by
the agencies.
3 stage program: Phase 1 is proof of concept. Phase 2 focuses on R&D. Phase 3 is
follow-on R&D and commercialization. SBIR funding is for Phases 1 and 2. Phase 3 is
not done with SBIR funding.
Agencies control the R&D: Directed to agency challenges supporting agency missions
Agencies select topics, select winners, make awards to meet their needs
Topics are selected by the agencies to focus the competition among the small
businesses, so that specific agency challenges can be addressed.
As best run, e.g. at Navy, SBIR is aligned with programs of records’ interests and
the programs needs drive R&D selection.
Merit selection based on science and technology and performance
Highly competitive: Only 5% of Ph 1 proposals advance to main Phase 2 R&D
work.
The unwavering use of merit, “pick the best solution”, ensures that Federal R&D
is always directed to the best potential solution for the best potential outcome.
6
Leverages university research: some 50-70% of SBIR work is done either with direct or
former university faculty involvement either in the business or at the university. STTR is
focused on encouraging company-university partnership.
Small business innovation will grow high quality manufacturing and service jobs, reduce our
dependence on imports, reduce debt, improve American competitiveness, and better spread
good American jobs throughout all 50 states. See state by state data in Appendix B.
The Market loves SBIR
It is well established that the Federal government benefits tremendously from SBIR technology,
but the commercial market also values SBIR technology. Some facts that show that SBIR
makes a difference include:
Over 50% of Phase II projects have advanced to commercialization.
Of the 15 leading Biotech Firms then identified in a Forbes article, 11 were SBIR
Awardees (see Appendix F)
829 SBIR related firms have gone public
2,120 SBIR firms have been acquired, invigorating the acquiring businesses
Many SBIR companies have licensed their technologies, with the licenses reinvigorating
the technologies of the larger and older-technology firms that are granted licenses.
Large Prime contractors have acquired over 100 SBIR firms for $35 billion. L3 Com, GE,
SAIC, BAE, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Gen Dynamics, Philips, Teledyne have each
acquired 10 or more SBIR Firms. L3 Com alone has acquired 43 SBIR Firms
Universities license 70% of all their technology to small business and are using SBIR
and STTR to help get their technology into the market.
VC have invested twice as much as the Government in SBIR firms. 10% of all VC
investments go to SBIR firms
For every dollar invested the Navy gets two dollars of follow-on Phase III contracts in
addition to subcontracts, licenses and additional investments for a 22:1 ROI.
There have been 137,443 patents issued to SBIR firms. In most years SBIR firms
receive more patents than all colleges and universities combined.
The SBIR/STTR Programs have been copied by seventeen countries around the world,
with other small business R&D investment by many. Including China. The European
Union is investing over 20% of its R&D in small businesses.6
6
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/area/smes
7
National Academy of Sciences: Repeated Stamps of Approval for SBIR
While the Government Accountability National Academy of Sciences have scrutinized and
reported on SBIR/STTR Program mechanics more than 25 times since 2000, NRC made a
definitive SBIR assessment in a series of reports from 2004 to 2009, comprising thousands of
pages, on the SBIR programs at the Department of Defense (DoD), National Institutes of Health
(NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DoE),
and National Science Foundation (NSF)—the five agencies responsible for 96 percent of SBIR
operations. The Rate of technology commercialization across these agencies were found
to be from 45 to 70 percent, and direct university collaboration in between 33 and 63 percent
of SBIR awards.
National Cancer Institute
One agency’s remarkable success story
The SBIR/STTR economic impact study for the National Cancer Institute showed a return of
$3.68 in taxes for every dollar invested. Unleashing small businesses in the health care field
has proven successful, like printing money without the inflationary effect. New innovations,
good jobs, and we get back more in taxes than we invested. The study looked at 12 years and
690 NCI Phase II SBIR/STTR awards totaling $787 million dollars to develop new medical
devices, drugs, research tools and in-vitro diagnostics for treating cancer. The results were
$9.1 billion in sales, $2.9 billion in tax revenues, and 107,918 new jobs, as well as 45 spinouts,
103 licenses, $4.26 billion in added outside investment, and 103 of the companies being sold to
invigorate the larger companies looking for new technologies. SBIR is a GDP and jobs engine
producing high leverage economic power. SBIR success stories were for Breast, Lung, Prostate
and multiple other cancers. There are literally thousands of success stories here. All of our lives
are better for them.
*dollar amounts in millions NCI ('98-'10)
Total Awards 690
Total SBIR/STTR Award Investment $787
Rate of Commercialization 53%
Cumulative Sales $9,144 $11:1
Follow-on R&D $957 $1.2:1
Total Value of Acquired Firms $21,630 $27:1
Total Outside Investment Funding $4,260 $5:1
Total Economic Output $26,100 $33:1
8
Areas for Improvement
Congress has driven improvements to the SBIR program: Congress created the SBIR
program and has been a primary force driving its evolution and improvement. Congress has
made a number of improvements to the program in recent years, such as pilot programs to
streamline and simplify the award and contracting processes, allowing GSA to do Phase III
contracting, meeting competition in contracting requirements and sole source contracts, and
increasing the allocation amount. More can be done to continue to improve and strengthen
SBIR/STTR, keeping what has been successful about the programs while working to improve
overall effectiveness.
Greater focus on simplifying and streamlining the proposal and contracting processes
Better alignment of topics with the longer-term R&D interests of the agency. Greater
alignment with the agency primary programs of record.
Broader outreach to better attract high quality minority, women and rural technology
companies and to improve their ability to submit proposals that win based on merit.
Greater focus on improved and speedier commercial transition of SBIR technologies into
commercial market entry or regular Agency R&D programs and purchase programs.
Look for best practices across programs to help improve the SBIR program. E.g. the
Navy SBIR Program is a model of excellence with a proven record of success involving
its Program Managers, trained contracting personnel, purposefully making advanced
regular program transition investments to rapidly convert the best SBIR projects into
products for the warfighter. Other programs have also developed good best practices
that could be shared among agencies.
Even now, with all of the program’s successes, many say the program is too small.7 It
still only uses 3.5% of Federal external R&D $, whereas small businesses employ some
35% of American scientists and engineers.
The DOD Section 809 Panel recommends doubling SBIR and RIF for DOD8
7
For example, see 809 Report, Supra.
DOD Section 809 Panel, Jan. 2018: “Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations”, Sub
8
recommendation 21b.
9
Areas for Concern
Congress should ensure that new changes do not weaken the drivers that have supported high
SBIR performance and potential. We have some concern that changes may be introduced into
the program that could harm the high effectiveness of the program. Some see SBIR as a pool
of money that their special interest would like to use, some look to tap the funding for use in
non-small business R&D, and in other cases some agencies haven’t worked their SBIR program
to get the most out of them. We suggest that potential changes be evaluated to ensure they are
not weakening the reasons that make SBIR work, that are the cores of its success.
Make sure the focus stays on merit-selection and the technical R&D: SBIR
success has been the result of sustained investment into merit-selected R&D projects in
a two-Phase structure that encourages high quality selection in support of agency
objectives and that encourages proof of performance prior to substantial investment.
The focus should stay on innovations rather than already-commercialized
technologies: Some groups have looked to invest R&D in already-commercial
technologies – we’d argue that SBIR funding isn’t for commercialization and is best
spent to create the commercial technologies of tomorrow, not to help advance existing
commercial technologies. It’s the Small Business Innovation Research fund – make
sure to use the program to fund small business innovation research, not other things. If
an agency wants to advance an already-commercial technology without focus on
innovation, this might be considered the role for regular agency program funding for
highly advanced technologies where innovation is no longer a key R&D focus.
We believe jumbo awards should be funded by regular agency program funding
for advanced programs, not SBIR funds: The system currently supports many high
quality R&D investments in Phase II. We are concerned that jumbo Phase II awards
(beyond the current limits in the SBIR Policy Directive) sap money away from many
other potential awards to over-invest in just a few projects. If an agency considers a
project deserving of an unusually large follow-on award, this is better drawn from regular
program funds rather than overconcentrating the agency’s SBIR program investment
into fewer projects. Remember that every SBIR dollar spent on something big means
less is spent on multiple potential solutions to agency challenges.
Open topics weaken competition: Some groups have looked to heavily use so-called
open topics where there really is no topic but instead a scrum where all ideas compete
with all others rather than seeking competition towards specific topics. This misses the
opportunity to use the SBIR Phase I process to have companies compete with each
other in proposing specific solutions to specific problems, and so have to in Phase I
actually prove their proposed solutions. The result is weakened competition and,
combined with jumbo awards, increased return on agency lobbying.
10
SBIR is often the only source of funding for innovation research
SBIR innovations reflect the needs of America across the nation. In many cases there is no
other source of funds for developing early stage technology in America, and this holds true even
for advanced stage technologies outside of the favored venture capital/angel industry sectors of
software, internet, telecommunications, and healthcare that comprise 83% of the VC deals. All
other industry sectors combine for only 17% of the total funds VC invests in seed and angel
stage deals. VCs are also focused on only a few states, with most flowing to California and
Massachusetts. SBIR funded 7000 deals last year with $3,700,000,000 dollars across a wide
spectrum of technology, industries and regions.
SBIR/STTR invests at the innovation stage – well before VC and banks will provide risk capital.
Successful SBIR technologies do advance to use VC and bank lending as they mature towards
products. Also SBIR innovation is directed across America’s innovation opportunities, not just in
VC-investing sectors such as software, internet, telecommunication and healthcare (receiving
83% of VC deals) but also in higher jobs-producing areas such as manufacturing, defense,
energy, and the environment, that are key to building America’s good job economy. And small
businesses have a great record on keeping their jobs in the U.S.
VC Seed & Angel Deals By Industry Sector,
2011-2020
Everything Else
17%
Software, Internet,
Telecomm, Health
83%
Source: PwC/CBInsights MoneyTree™ data
explorer http://www.pwc.com/moneytree
Many universities and government labs have had difficulty translating their research into
inventions. A recent Association of University Technology Managers study shows that less than
1% of their licenses generate more than $1 million, and that 70% of university licenses are with
SBIR firms.2 Small business and SBIR/STTR are now a huge part of how universities and their
professors advance their technologies out of the lab.
11
But those who can’t find funding in the U.S. are turning overseas for help commercializing their
research. One Chinese organization, BICI has developed 158 U.S. research projects and has
funded over $616 million for commercialization of U.S. funded research, moving the commercial
jobs from U.S. research to China. So far BICI has commercialized 108 such projects.3
Success stories
You probably use technologies initially funded by the SBIR/STTR Program on a daily basis, and
probably have at least two of these in your pocket or purse right now. The technology that
allows your cell phone to use GPS on a chip was developed by Dr. Reza Rofougaran under an
SBIR award. And the fast CMOS camera technology used by most cell phones and digital
cameras was developed for military use under an SBIR award as well.
Successful alumni of the SBIR program include: Qualcomm (cell phone communications),
Symantec (computer security), Genzyme (biotech therapies), Affymatix (GeneChip), Amgen
(biopharmaceuticals), Jarvick Heart (artificial heart), Titan (now Intersection, interactive
computer graphics), Chiron (pediatric vaccines), AMTI (advanced materials, radars), Amorworks
(military armor), Biogen (Idec, neurological, autoimmune therapies), American Biophysics
(mosquito control), Millennium Pharma (gene databases), Geron (telomerase inhibitors for
cancer treatment), Neocrine Bioscience (neurological and endocrine pharmaceuticals),
ABIOMED (world’s smallest heart pump), Aerovironment (unmanned aircraft), iRobot
(unmanned robotic vehicles, vacuum cleaning, Roomba), JDS Uniphase (fiber optics, lasers,
software), Stem Cells Inc. (cell based therapies for CNS and liver disorders), and Nanosys
(quantum dot displays), as well as thousands of others. (For more success stories see Appendix
D).
Phase III is another area of success. In recent years, the Navy has entered to $2.5 billion
dollars of Phase III contracts, the Air Force over $1.5 billion contracts and the GSA has entered
into contracts that could be worth $4 billion. All three agencies have shorten the time it takes to
get some Phase III contracts awarded.
12
Appendix A
SBIR Impact on Job Creation & STEM Employment
SBIR involved firms – current or previous - collectively have been factor in some 9.26%
of US STEM jobs
…yet as firms, SBIR Awardees in almost every state consistently factor to significantly
less than One-Quarter of ONE percent of establishments.
13
Appendix B
FAST Programs in Oklahoma and Montana Provide a
roadmap for SBIR Success in Underserved States
14
15
Appendix C
State-by-State SBIR/STTR Figures for Senate Small Business Committee
All 50 states have small high technology businesses developing innovation, products and
services based on Federal SBIR R&D. Each project provides the opportunity for a state to birth
a new product or service, and to further build their tech sector.
Colorado Hawaii
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 261 $117,195,547 2016 23 $13,034,134
2017 269 $115,208,773 2017 44 $17,111,879
2018 280 $143,951,628 2018 36 $25,449,603
2019 332 $165,647,584 2019 53 $26,824,476
2020 336 $164,828,203 2020 47 $35,853,778
2016-2020 1478 $706,831,737 2016-2020 203 $118,273,870
Delaware Idaho
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 36 $17,628,004 2016 10 $3,944,169
2017 48 $23,593,900 2017 4 $3,710,758
2018 43 $24,436,685 2018 6 $2,474,308
2019 41 $20,752,825 2019 7 $2,840,858
2020 42 $20,371,210 2020 14 $5,389,211
2016-2020 210 $106,782,624 2016-2020 41 $18,359,304
Florida Illinois
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 153 $62,352,880 2016 137 $59,315,299
2017 176 $75,328,717 2017 137 $59,186,158
2018 177 $84,842,189 2018 126 $69,659,960
2019 211 $119,737,967 2019 159 $70,261,176
2020 200 $94,615,785 2020 145 $77,194,992
2016-2020 917 $436,877,538 2016-2020 704 $335,617,585
16
Indiana Kentucky
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 49 $18,165,132 2016 40 $19,900,156
2017 56 $25,787,032 2017 39 $20,664,349
2018 47 $23,536,414 2018 42 $23,127,802
2019 67 $22,635,050 2019 33 $22,182,782
2020 56 $31,697,851 2020 39 $24,079,844
2016-2020 275 $121,821,479 2016-2020 193 $109,954,932
Iowa Louisiana
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 23 $9,866,603 2016 11 $3,739,876
2017 21 $13,178,114 2017 14 $7,373,076
2018 23 $9,357,882 2018 21 $8,049,202
2019 24 $8,203,051 2019 28 $9,716,725
2020 20 $14,834,720 2020 30 $12,482,119
2016-2020 111 $55,440,370 2016-2020 104 $41,360,998
Kansas Maryland
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 9 $5,930,196 2016 254 $134,642,799
2017 14 $6,549,569 2017 300 $141,846,940
2018 22 $6,914,915 2018 274 $148,513,218
2019 21 $8,003,117 2019 303 $174,584,237
2020 24 $9,679,956 2020 346 $191,074,380
2016-2020 90 $37,077,753 2016-2020 1477 $790,661,876
17
Massachusetts Nevada
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 551 $302,188,905 2016 14 $8,450,112
2017 665 $331,008,323 2017 12 $5,795,176
2018 592 $354,303,552 2018 10 $4,644,449
2019 726 $408,526,202 2019 11 $6,573,137
2020 718 $406,770,283 2020 14 $6,717,333
2016-2020 3252 $1,802,797,265 2016-2020 61 $32,180,207
Minnesota New Hampshire
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 79 $37,954,870 2016 73 $33,219,396
2017 97 $50,338,415 2017 83 $39,266,112
2018 78 $43,648,405 2018 91 $45,658,021
2019 96 $62,420,237 2019 111 $60,618,779
2020 77 $53,046,237 2020 87 $57,367,599
2016-2020 427 $247,408,164 2016-2020 445 $236,129,907
Missouri New Jersey
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 40 $17,554,613 2016 122 $56,448,477
2017 44 $23,364,320 2017 121 $60,681,490
2018 60 $27,263,342 2018 101 $49,584,048
2019 62 $31,680,401 2019 146 $71,147,862
2020 56 $30,876,151 2020 128 $61,782,493
2016-2020 262 $130,738,827 2016-2020 618 $299,644,370
18
Oklahoma Washington
SBIR/STTR SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 19 $7,546,360 2016 114 $63,413,248
2017 17 $11,997,731 2017 110 $60,519,129
2018 16 $7,545,586 2018 104 $59,459,677
2019 26 $11,156,481 2019 125 $62,592,823
2020 25 $13,221,342 2020 151 $84,348,352
2016-2020 103 $51,467,500 2016-2020 604 $330,333,230
South Carolina
SBIR/STTR
Year # Awards $ Amount
2016 22 $12,936,200
2017 26 $14,575,458
2018 24 $11,566,001
2019 33 $17,902,975
2020 40 $18,639,883
2016-2020 145 $75,620,517
19
Appendix D
SBIR/STTR Success Stories
The SBIR and STTR programs have experienced considerable success in meeting agency needs
as reported by National Research Council (NRC). The agencies first provided reports of these
successes and later developed web sites listing their successes. In some cases they improve agency
research, in others they resulted in new products that could be commercialized, and for DoD,
there were new products that provided advanced technology to the warfighters on a quick-
reaction basis. Almost all of the SBIR/STTR agencies post their SBIR/STTR success stories on their
web sites as follows:
a. SBIR Success Stories: https://www.sbir.gov/news/success-stories
b. DOD: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/about/success-stories.shtml
c. NIH : https ://sbir.nih.gov/statistics/success-stories
d. DOE: http://science.energy.gov/sbir/highlights/
e. NIST/DOC: http://www.nist.gov/tpo/sbir/sbir-success-stories.cfm
f. USDA: http://nifa.usda.gov/impacts
g. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/sbir/sbir-success-stories-and-highlights
h. Tibbett’s Award & SBIR Hall of Fame: https://www.sbir.gov/about-tibbetts-
awards
i. Overall, if one performs a web search for “SBIR Success Stories” there are
approximately 59,600 responses on Google and 146,000 on Yahoo (of course,
some are redundant).
20
Appendix E
GSA SBIR Phase III Assisted Acquisition Contracts and Spending
No. of Contracts, Obligations, and Combined Ceiling by Fiscal Year:
# Contracts
Fiscal Year Obligations Total Value
Awarded
FY18 1 $13,354,952.70 $2,260,720.00
FY19 19 $91,368,632.71 $774,891,303.60
FY20 29 $356,159,459.02 $2,117,542,118.03
FY21 15 $348,681,813.67 $1,707,618,772.13
Total 64 $809,564,858.10 $4,602,312,913.76
The data reflects SBIR Phase III contracts awarded between May 30, 2018 - Sep 14,
2021. The 64 Phase III contracts include 36 IDIQs, 25 Stand-Alone Contracts, and 3 Purchase
Orders.
Breakout by Socioeconomic Class:
Socioeconomic Category Obligations Total Value
8(a) $63,721,554.96 $574,612,522.80
EDWOSB $64,232,405.26 $715,000,000.00
HUB Zone $3,926,891.70 $12,260,720.00
OTSB $53,632,797.30 $401,934,657.61
SB $755,932,060.80 $4,200,378,256.15
SDB $123,110,873.78 $1,228,194,583.19
SDVOSB $62,576,885.88 $410,438,034.27
VOSB $152,081,826.34 $808,897,888.54
WOSB $256,611,377.63 $1,758,976,907.34
21
Appendix F
DOD SBIR/STTR Has Been Tremendously Successful
22
Non-SBIR Phase III Funding by Service, 2018-2021
Phase III by First 3 Qs
Service 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Per Agency
Navy $743,134,063 $674,313,088 $893,977,509 $535,807,710 $2,847,232,369
Air Force $391,936,154 $528,850,815 $855,060,886 $359,015,078 $2,134,862,933
Army $151,651,706 $113,341,936 $170,912,517 $135,925,090 $571,831,249
AF 1st 3 Qs 2020: $541,662,803
Source: AF SBIR/STTR Year in Review 2018
23
Over 20% of Key innovations Come From SBIR Firms
24
11 Out of 15 Top Biotech Firms Won SBIR Awards
25
26
File and source
- File
- Glover_Testimony.pdf
- Size
- 2,217,809 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8068712f44b0005c5d4d3d4402bd63588d3cc8a83f6acde9fdcfa57533c60c62
- Our copy
- Glover_Testimony.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.