Round 1 Results Round 2 Overview Tips for Success

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Round 1 Results Round 2 Overview Tips for Success"

Eustace Phillips
6 years ago
Views:

1 POWERING THE CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY Round 1 Results Round 2 Overview Tips for Success Sarah Truitt, National Renewable Energy Laboratory March 2016

2 Agenda Small Business Vouchers (SBV) Pilot Objectives Round 1 Results Round 2 Overview Tips for Successful Requests for Assistance (RFA) MEP/RTI International s Right & Ready Tool Q&A

3 U.S. SMALL BUSINESS FACTS MORE FACTS ABOUT U.S. SMALL BUSINESSES: * 46% of nonfarm GDP 64% of net new job creation 16 times more patents per employee *Data from Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

www.sbv.org Mission: significantly increase the industrial impact of DOE national labs on the U.S.

4 Mission: significantly increase the industrial impact of DOE national labs on the U.S. clean energy sector Increase and enhance lab-private sector relationships Increase and streamline access to national lab capabilities Demonstrate the value of labdeveloped science and technology

5 SBV Lead Labs 12 DOE National Laboratories participating in SBV over 9 tech areas

6 SBV.org One-stop-shop: from one site, users can learn about lab capabilities and apply to work with any participating lab Streamlined, web-based application process

7 Arizona: 1 California: 8 Colorado: 1 Connecticut: 1 Florida: 1 Georgia: 1 Illinois: 1 Massachusetts: 3 Michigan: 2 Missouri: 2 North Carolina: 1 New Jersey: 2 New Mexico: 1 New York : 1 Ohio : 1 Oregon: 2 Pennsylvania: 1 Texas: 1 Virginia: 1 Washington: 1 Round 1 SBV Awardees

Vouchers www.sbv.org Business Location Partner Labs ibeam Materials, Inc.

Lapeer, MI ORNL GVD Corporation Cambridge, MA ORNL Mithra Technologies,

Ithaca, NY LLNL Lygos Emeryville, CA NREL; LBNL Visolis Cambridge, MA

8 Vouchers Business Location Partner Labs ibeam Materials, Inc. Santa Fe, NM SNL Glucan Biorenewables Madison, WI ORNL Grid Logic, Inc. Lapeer, MI ORNL GVD Corporation Cambridge, MA ORNL Mithra Technologies, Inc. Foley, MO INL Widetronix, Inc. Ithaca, NY LLNL Lygos Emeryville, CA NREL; LBNL Visolis Cambridge, MA NREL; PNNL Be Power Tech, Inc. Parkland, FL ORNL KCF Technologies State College, PA ORNL Lucid Design Group Oakland, CA LBNL

Newark, NJ LANL; NREL Midwest Energy Group Carbondale, IL NREL Sustainable Innovations East Hartford, CT LANL Treadstone Technologies

9 Vouchers Business Location Partner Labs Altergy Systems Folsom, CA SNL Amsen Technologies Tucson, AZ LANL Element One Bend, OR NREL KWJ Engineering Newark, NJ LANL; NREL Midwest Energy Group Carbondale, IL NREL Sustainable Innovations East Hartford, CT LANL Treadstone Technologies Princeton, NJ ORNL; LANL Big Delta Systems, Inc Houston, TX ANL Connected Signals Eugene, OR ANL Cool-X LLC Amherst, MA ORNL Envia Systems Newark, CA LBNL Transient Plasma Systems Torrance, CA ANL United Silicon Carbide Monmouth Junction, NJ ORNL XG Sciences, Inc Lansing, MI LBNL

Center Asheville, NC ORNL FastCAP Boston, MA SNL

Conversion San Luis Obispo, CA SNL SkySun, LLC Bay

Percheron Power Kennewick, WA PNNL Business Location

10 Vouchers Business Location Partner Lab Geothermal Design Center Asheville, NC ORNL FastCAP Boston, MA SNL Business Location Partner Lab Renewable Power Conversion San Luis Obispo, CA SNL SkySun, LLC Bay Village, OH SNL Business Location Partner Lab Percheron Power Kennewick, WA PNNL Business Location Partner Lab Micron Optics, Inc. Atlanta, GA SNL Columbia Power Technologies Charlottesville, VA NREL; SNL

11 Rd 1 Distribution of Scores Problem Statement Extent to which the requestor has clearly identified the problem or challenges the company is facing. Market Impact Extent to which the technology included in the request will contribute to the overall clean energy marketplace. Avg = 3.41 Avg =

12 Rd 1 Distribution of Scores Use of Results Quality of the requestor s plan to utilize the results of the assistance. Alignment with EERE Extent to which the technology will contribute to one of more areas within the EERE mission space. Avg = 3.03 Avg =

13 Round 2 Overview ROUND 2 IS NOW OPEN Competition will close on April 10, 2016 Up to vouchers remain Focus on more streamlined application process

14 Round 2 Changes Work Scope will no longer be part of the RFA Greater emphasis on problem statement and deployment plan (6 instead of 12 questions) Two stage review process Phase 1: Non laboratory expert reviewers with focus on problem statement, impact and team Phase 2: DOE Program Office reviewers with focus on alignment with Technology Areas and labs

15 Round 2 Scoring Criteria Potential for impact (33%) Problem Definition (33%) Team and resources (33%) Who reviews submissions: External reviewers EERE Tech Offices See tips for submitting requests: webinar 15

16 Round 2 Schedule March 10 Announcement of Round 2 April 10 April 28 External review coordinated by ORNL May 6 May 13 Tech office soft review Mid-Late June Semi-finalists notified Late July Final selections March 10 April 10 Businesses submit requests for assistance April 28 May 6 Labs are matched to the most promising projects May 13 June 3 Labs and DOE select semi-finalists Late June-Early July Labs and Semifinalists develop work statements Rd 2 SBV Projects are expected to begin in August 2016

17 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE (RFA)

www.sbv.org Alignment with DOE Technology Area is Very Important SBV funding is provided by specific DOE Program Offices.

18 Alignment with DOE Technology Area is Very Important SBV funding is provided by specific DOE Program Offices. Congress has defined the specific technology areas for which Program Office funds may be used. RFAs must have clear alignment with one of the technology areas described in Table 1 of the Notice of Opportunity (at sbv.org) Lack of alignment with DOE technical area priorities was a common shortcoming in Rd 1

19 Rd 2 RFA Elements RFA Elements Company Overview Problem Definition Project Impact Use of Results Team Cost Share Note that although the Company Overview is not specifically scored, it provides context for the entire RFA. This is the first section that the reviewer reads, and sets the stage for the RFA. Successful RFAs provide succinct, compelling company summaries that share the management team s vision for the company with the reviewer.

20 Hypothetical Strong Problem Statement In order to realize the full potential of <company s technology> a critical challenge that has yet to be overcome is <describe challenge>. This challenge is the result of <list issues> which have the effect of <describe consequences>. Company X has worked to resolve this problem by <describe work to date>, but progress has been limited by <describe company capability limitations>. A potentially effective way to address these challenges would be to <describe how national laboratory capability could be leveraged>. By leveraging the capabilities of <identify one or more national laboratories> to <describe capability>, Company X would be able to <describe path to resolution>. A strong problem statement demonstrates an understanding of the market and the underlying technology.

21 Use of Results & Market Impact RFA Elements Describe how the results will be used to advance the development of company s products or services. Describe expected impact on the broader market if the project is successful. When and how will these new or improved products or services be introduced to the market or otherwise benefit your company? The quality of plans to use the results of the RFA-supported work was a consistent area of concern for reviewers. Successful RFAs demonstrated a clear path from the national laboratory work to improvements in the companies products or services.

22 Use of Results & Market Impact RFA Elements Describe how the results will be used to advance the development of company s products or services. Describe expected impact on the broader market if the project is successful. When and how will these new or improved products or services be introduced to the market or otherwise benefit your company? The quality of plans to deploy the results of the RFAsupported work in products or services was a consistent area of concern for reviewers. Successful RFAs provided well conceived plans to introduce project results into the market.

Hypothetical Strong RFA Statements www.sbv.

23 Hypothetical Strong RFA Statements Use of Results: The results of this work will help Company X to meet our cost target through improvements in Key company products will benefit from Our next generation <product> will leverage these results by We anticipate an X% performance improvement in and a Y% improvement in as a result of this work. Market Impact: The Company X product will deliver <improved performance> at a N% reduction in price, which will enable Company X to deliver market leading performance in We anticipate this new product offering will result in an X% increase in the size of the market, and that Company X will capture Y% of the expanded market. Deployment Strategy: Company X plans to initially directly deploy <technology> in Product A for use in <Market Sector>. Our business plan is to An additional promising approach is to Once the initial market is penetrated, Company X will broaden its deployment into <Additional Market Sectors>. A strong deployment plan demonstrates that the company has a well conceived business plan that will successfully leverage the results of the national laboratory work.

24 Alignment with DOE Priorities RFA Elements Describe how the results will be used to advance the development of company s products or services. Describe expected impact on the broader market if the project is successful. When and how will these new or improved products or services be introduced to the market or otherwise benefit your company? Successful RFAs demonstrate that by successfully deploying the results of the voucherfunded work, the company will help to advance the DOE s Clean Energy Agenda.

25 MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PROGRAM S RIGHT & READY TOOL

26 Who is right and ready? Why should the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) care? The MEP and DOE have agreed to work together to support the SBV Pilot, and MEPs are a critical link in the SBV process. The SBV Pilot will help broaden MEPs reach while also increasing MEP s engagement with small businesses. MEPs can support the SBV Pilot by: Pre-screening small business candidates Recruiting SBV Pilot applicants Answering questions regarding the SBV Pilot If MEPs are actively involved with the SBV Pilot, MEPS will have access to potential new clients in the technology development space, who may require follow on services such as tech scouting and TDMI. 26 INNOVATION ADVISORS

27 Who is right and ready? Example: How competitive is a company for the SBV Pilot using the Who is right and ready tool. 27 INNOVATION ADVISORS

Who is right and ready? MEPs can help small businesses gauge how competitive they are for the SBV Pilot by using the new Who is Right and Ready tool.

28 Who is right and ready? MEPs can help small businesses gauge how competitive they are for the SBV Pilot by using the new Who is Right and Ready tool. The Who is Right and Ready tool is a two page, fill-able PDF designed to be completed by the MEP, with the help of interested companies. The front of the form collects pertinent information and ensures the company is eligible for the SBV Pilot. Companies must check all boxes to be eligible Company must note its challenge AND how the lab will help them overcome the challenge. 28 INNOVATION ADVISORS

29 Who is right and ready? Vouchers are offered for certain R&D technical areas and must provide a specific type of impact. Company s R&D area can fall into more than one technical area, but must fall into one of these nine areas. Company s R&D must lead to one of these technical outcomes. 29 INNOVATION ADVISORS

30 Who is right and ready? The MEP can review the front page to determine if the interested company is eligible for the SBV Pilot. We give the MEP a chance to identify other programs that the company may be better suited for. Working in a lab comes with constraints. Ensure the company understands the following 30 INNOVATION ADVISORS

Who is right and ready? How might the company rate? The back of the form gives the MEP an opportunity to rate how the company might fare in the merit review process.

31 Who is right and ready? How might the company rate? The back of the form gives the MEP an opportunity to rate how the company might fare in the merit review process. There are three sections, each worth 33% of the company s total score. Mark how the company might rate for each merit criteria with a low, medium, or high. Here, the MEP should provide an overall assessment of how the company ranks for this section. 31 INNOVATION ADVISORS

32 Who is right and ready? Is the company likely a competitive submission for the SBV Pilot? Given the overall assessment of the three merit criteria, the MEP should make a recommendation on whether the company should, or should not, apply for the SBV Pilot. Rating of potential for impact (33%). Rating of problem definition (33%). Rating of teams & resources (33%). Recommendation 32 INNOVATION ADVISORS

33 Who is right and ready? Questions about the SBV Pilot, the SBV Pilot process, or the Who is Right and Ready tool? If you have questions about the SBV Pilot or this form, please contact Clara Asmail. Clara Asmail Senior Technical Advisor Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Institute of Standards and Technology E: O: INNOVATION ADVISORS

34 Q & A

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM This file contains detailed projections and information from the article: Eric A. Hanushek, Jens Ruhose, and Ludger Woessmann, It pays to improve school