ML20141M041
| ML20141M041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/23/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Brown G HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141M040 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706040156 | |
| Download: ML20141M041 (5) | |
Text
. - . - . - . _ , _ . - , . - - . . . - . - . - - . . . - . - . - _ . - - . - . - . - - - . . - . . - .
j# %- UNITED STATES
=
g *g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505-0001 o E
- %...../
CHAIRMAN May 23, 1997 The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.
Ranking Member, Committee on Science United States House of Representatives
. Washington, D.C. 20515-6301 bear Congressman Brown:
I am responding to your May 2, 1997, request for information on the
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Small Business Innovation Research.(SBIR) Program. Please see the enclosed responses to your i questions.
l As you may be aware, the NRC is going through a phased withdrawal from the SBIR program because of budget reductions that have resulted in an extramural research and development budget well below the $100 million i threshold for participation in the SBIR program. On September 19,-1995,
! the NRC requested approval to withdraw from the SBIR program in a letter to Mr. Richard J. Shane, Assistant Administrator, Office of Technology, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). On April 16, 1996, SBA I approved our plan .for a phased withdrawal from.the program. The NRC l
announced its plan for the phased withdrawal in the Federal Register, Volume 61, No. 116, on Friday, June 14, 1996. A copy of that notification is also enclosed, i
j If any'further information is needed in connection with this response, please let me know, or your staff may contact Marianne Riggs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, on (301) 415-5822.
Sincerely,
'fk (
Enclosures:
As stated t
9706040156 970523
l Enclosure 1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NRC'S SBIR PROGRAM
- 1. What amount of your SBIR grants in dollars and percentage are in collaboration with research institutions? How many of those institutions were universities?
No NRC SBIR contracts were in collaboration with research institutions.
- 2. Beginning with 1990 through 1996, provide the names of companies that have received 5 or more SBIR awards - when and how many awards. by phase.
1 Accident Prevention Group - 4 Phase I (FY92, 93, 94, 95), 1 Phase II I (FY93) !
Advanced Systems Concepts Association (also known as ASCA) - 3 Phase I l (FY92, 93, 95): 2 Phase II (FY93, 96)
Analysis & Measurement Services Corp. - 3 Phase I (FY91, two in FY94):
2 Phase II (FY92, 95)
Shonka Research Associates, Inc. - 5 Phase I (FY90, 91, 92, 93, 95):
5 Phase II (FY90, 92, 93, 94, 96)
- 3. The General Accounting Office has found that firms which have received more than one Phase II award have had less success in moving that technology to Phase III avards (they were not as effective in commercializing the technology as were companies with fe.i or one award).
A CRS report stated that there was speculation on the reason - that the companies who were receiving multiple awards were focusing on getting the award not getting the technology developed. Comments?
The NRC has not routinely tracked SBIR Phase II awardees' success in moving their technology to Phase III. However, of the four small businesses receiving 5 or more NRC SBIR awards, we are aware of one company, Shonka Research Associates. Inc., that was successful in commercializing several products developed with NRC SBIR Phase II funds.
- 4. What procedures have you put into place to avoid duplicate funding of Phase II research? What interagency proposals would you like to see put into place that would reduce the possibility of duplicate funding?
SBA issued a SBIR Program Information Notice (SPIN) on arocedures to avoid funding duplicate research on July 27, 1995, whic1 requires an l additional certification from the small business concerning submittal l of duplicate proposals to more than one agency. The NRC has issued no
! solicitation since that notice was received. However, prior to that
2 notification, the NRC SBIR solicitation required all proposers (Phases I and II) to provide extensive information on any related, current or pending, support for work substantially the same as the proposal (s) submitted to the NRC.
S. What is your view on the technical assistance requirement of the SBIR program?
The NRC never utilized this discretionary feature. However. given the j
- specific circumstances of the product being developed, providing a !
l limited amount of technical assistance to the SBIR awardee may be !
warranted in certain circumstances to help meet the full objective of the SBIR program.
l
- 6. What are your views on the increase of the SBIR set-aside from 2.0% to l 2.5% as it pertains to the quality of awards, i.e. , do you feel there will be a diminishment in quality because of the increase or are there a sufficient number of high-quality applications that are turned down due I to lack of funding? If there is a lack of quality firms to meet the l increase in spending will this result in an increase in multiple awards 1 to companies? j The NRC has participated in the SBIR program since its inception in 1982. It has been our experience that ap3roximately one quarter of the Phase I proposals and almost all of the Plase II aroposals each year were of very high quality. More proposals could lave been funded if money had been available. Therefore, we do not believe the increase from 2.0% to 2.5% would have an adverse impact on award quality.
- 7. How much of your extramural R&D budget in dollars and percentage does your agency expect to award under SBIR in FY 1997? How much did you award in dollars and percentage in FY 1996? I l
The NRC will not have any SBIR awards in FY 1997. In FY 1996, as a part i of our phased withdrawal from the program, we funded four new Phase II's (50% of the Phase II proposals submitted) and incrementally funded one Phase II awarded in FY 1995 for a total of $706.112. (Approximately 1.2% of the extramural R/R&D budget.)
- 8. We have heard that it costs high tech small businesses with sophisticated SBIR proposals more to prepare an SBIR award proposal than is received in a Phase I grant. Then the solicitor is faced with a time
! lag to get to Phase II. Have you considered alternative certifications i
of small business research proposals to allow quality proposals to move directly to Phase II?
NRC SBIR Phase I awardees generally have had a one-third to one-half chance of receiving a Phase II award in any given year. As such, we i have had no way of predicting which of the Phase I awar' dees would receive a Phase II contract prior to the submittal and the NRC's technical review and evaluation of all Phase II proposals. We do not i
3-see how the process could be altered to award Phase II's more quickly and still maintain equity and fairness in the award process.
- 9. How do you measure success in terms of the projects you make awards to?
What are the : valuation techniques used?
l
- Although, the NRC has no formal evaluation techniques, success is measured in terms of the extent to which Phase II proposal objectives l are achieved. When the Phase II reports are received, they are reviewed by the lead technical aerson in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to determine low well the objectives were satisfied.
- 10. What number and percentage of your Phase I awards have gone on to Phase
- II? To Phase III?
In Phase III it is intended that small businesses pursue commercial applications of the research or research and development and that non-l Federal capital be used. NRC has not kept statistics on this phase, i
For Phases I and II in the period FY 1990 through FY 1996, the following information is provided:
Phase II awards as t j I II of Phase I proposals FY 1990: 6 i FY 1991: 5 2 33.3 FY 1992: 17 3 60.0 4
FY 1993: 8 8 47.0 i
FY 1994: 12 6 75.0 FY 1995: 9 5 42.0 4 FY 1996: 4 44.0 l
1 O
=.. -- - , ._ - . - -- _-_ . - - . .. - . - - - ~ - _ _ _ ~ .
- Enclosure 2 I
(Federal Register: June 14, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 116))
[ Notices)
(Page 30263]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais. access.gpo. gov]
l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Phased Withdrawal From the Small Business Inncvation Research
! (SBIR) Program in FY 1996 l AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY
- The NRC has participated in the SBIR program since its
- inception in 1982. However, due to significant reductions in the NRC's FY 1996 budget, the extramural research and development (R&D) budget falls substantially below the $100 million threshold for mandatory participation in the SBIR program. This current trend is expected to continue into future fiscal years. The NRC must focus its limited research funds on high priority work needed to support, confirm, or refine judgments used in regulatory decisions affecting public health I and safety. Therefore, the NRC requested, in a letter to the U.S. Small Business Administration, Of fice of Technology dated September 19, 1995, approval for a phased withdrawal from the SBIR program in FY 1996 and beyond. SBA responded on April 16, 1996, that the NRC's phased i withdrawal was approved. Should the NRC's extramural R&D budget ;
increase above the $100 million threshold in the coming years, the NRC would again participate in the SBIR program.
The phased withdrawal is being accomplished as follows: (1) A SBIR Phase I solicitation will not be issued in FY 1996 or future years while the,NRC is below the mandatory threshold for participation in this program; (2) in FY 1996 the NRC will fund between one-third and ene-half of the Phase II proposals resulting from its FY 1995 SBIR Phase I awards; and (3) the NRC is informing the small business community of this action through this Federal Register Notice and will 1 issue letters to the small businesses on its SBIR mailing list.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marianne Riggs on (301) 415-5822 or ;
Deborah Neff on (301) 415-8160.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: T *. . . NRC continues to support small business opportunities. For further information regarding the NRC small business program, you may contact the Office of Small Business and Civil Rights on (301) 415-7380, Dated at Rockville, MD this 10th day of June 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mary H. Mace, Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15152 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am) ,
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ,
l 0G/14/96 09:03:05 1 of 1 .
.