The presentation covers the basics of securing non-dilutive SBIR/STTR funding for university spinoffs and advanced technology startups

1. SUCCEEDING at Securing Non-dilutive
SBIR/STTR Funding For University Spinoffs
and Advanced Technology Startups
Kirk J. Macolini | President
InteliSpark, LLC | www.InteliSpark.com | Kirk@InteliSpark.com |

2. Intro| InteliSpark

3. INTELISPARK TRACK RECORD
Non-Dilutive Funding Experience
~500 proposals (95%+ SBIR/STTR) selected for award
>$250,000,000 in projects selected for award
39 start-up clients funded in 2020
Clients have had >$1,000,000,000 in
successful exits

4. SBIR BASICS | SBIR/STTR Funding & Why It Is Important

5. WHY ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SBIR/STTR FUNDING?
YOU NEED FUNDING
…AND YOU HAVE WARTS!
 Too risky
 Too early
 Unproven Team
 Unproven Market
 Unproven Technology
 Limited or no resources

6. CHANGING SEED FUNDING DYNAMICS

7. SBIR/STTR FUNDING TO SURVIVE THE VALLEY OF DEATH
~$4 Billion SBIR/STTR
Venture capital Investments
U.S. Federal Government Basic
Research Funding
Valley of
Death

8. SBIR/STTR PROGRAM OVERVIEW
 ~$3.5 BILLION IN SBIR/STTR FUNDING IN FY 2021
 SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1982
 P.L. 112-81 (extended program through F. Y. 2017)
 SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) PROGRAM
 Set-aside program for small business concerns to engage in Federal R&D -- with potential for
commercialization.
 FY 2021 3.2% SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) Set-aside program to facilitate
cooperative R&D between small businesses and research institutions -- with potential for
commercialization.
 FY 2021 SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (STTR) PROGRAM 0.45% of extramural funding

9. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY
 Organized for-profit U.S. business
 At least 51% owned by U.S. individuals or small
businesses and independently operated (NIH, CDC,
ARPA-E (DoE) are exceptions- can be 51% owned by
multiple VC firms)
 Small Business located in the U.S.
 P.I.’s primary employment with small business during
project (NIH allows STTR PI to come from University)
 500 or fewer employees (including affiliates)
 All SBIR-funded work must be done in the U.S.

10. SBIR vs. STTR
SBIR: Permits allows research partners
(non-profit or for profit)
 no more than 33% during Phase I
 no more than 50% during Phase II
STTR: Requires non-profit research institution
partner (e.g., universities)
 A minimum of 40% for small business
 A minimum of 30% for research institution
 Remained 30% can go to either partner or
3rd parties
Despite misconceptions, there is NO Requirement to do Tech Transfer under an
STTR

11. SBIR AND STTR BY AGENCY
DoD NSF NASA DOE HHS (NIH, CDC, FDA)
DHS USDA EPA DOT ED DOC (NIST, NOAA)
SBIR
SBIR/STTR

12. SBIR/STTR PHASES
 PHASE III (Run)
 Continued R&D/Commercialization
 Non-SBIR funded
 PHASE II (Walk)
 Full R&D
 ≤ $1,000,000 and ~24 months
 PHASE I (Crawl)
 Feasibility Study
 ≤ $150,000 and ~6 months (SBIR) or ~12 months (STTR)

13. DOING IT RIGHT | Using SBIR/STTR programs properly
(…or you are not a frog prince)

14. YOU ARE A TOAD WITH WARTS, NOT A FROG PRINCE
SBIR/STTR can help you remove enough warts
so Investors, Partners, & Customers will Shake your hand!
≠
+

15. YOU ARE A TOAD WITH WARTS, NOT A FROG PRINCE
 Remove risk
 Advance technology
 Develop applications for
technology
 3rd party validation
 Too risky
 Too early
 Unproven Team
 Unproven Market
 Unproven Technology
 Limited or no resources
 Investors
 Partners
 Customers
 Future Employees
=
AMERICA’S
WART
REMOVAL
LOTION FOR
START-UPS
+

16. FAMOUS SBIR COMPANIES
None received more than $9 million in SBIR/STTR funding
Total combined funding less than $20 million
Market Cap: $160B Market Cap: $3.4B
Market Cap: $2.6B
Market Cap: $109B

17. INFAMOUS SBIR COMPANIES
???
 Physical Optics Corporation
 [1,219 Phase I, 451 Phase II, $433M]
 Physical Sciences
 [821 Phase I, 341 Phase II, $320M]
 Creare
 [674 Phase I, 353 Phase II, $302M]
*(353/644 (55%) N.H. Phase IIs)
 Intelligent Automation
 [624 Phase I, 225 Phase II, $225M]
 Radiation Monitoring Devices
 [495 Phase I, 247 Phase II, $230M]

18. INFAMOUS SBIR COMPANIES
1-10
55%
11-24
17%
25-99
19%
100+
9%
PHYSICAL OPTICS CORPORATION AWARDS BY YEAR
(1,975+ awards worth over $570,000,000)
45% OF PHASE II’S
GO TO FIRMS > 10 PHASE II AWARDS

19. AN INEFFICIENT MARKET | Understanding Federal Agencies
You can exploit discontinuities in the funding probabilities

20. EVERY AGENCY IS UNIQUE
 R&D Topic Areas
 Dollar Amount of Award (Phase I and II)
 Receipt Dates / Number and Timing of Solicitations
 Proposal Review Process
 Proposal Success Rates
 Type of Award (Contract or Grant)

21. GO FISHING WHERE THE FISH ARE
DoD NIH DoE NASA NSF All Others

22. GO FISHING WHERE THE FISH ARE, BUT….
AVOID THE CROWDED FISHING HOLES
DoD
Operational
Medicine BAA
$100 Million
for ~100
projects
NIH Challenge
Grants
$200 Million
for 200
projects

23. NIH Challenge
Grants
$200 Million
for 200
projects
DoD
Operational
Medicine BAA
$100 Million
for ~100
projects
CASE STUDY: THE CROWDED FISHING HOLE
24,000+ applications for ~200 awards
= >1% probability
~800 applications for ~100 awards
= 12.5% probability

24. NARROW VS. OPEN TOPICS
NARROW
TOPICS
OPEN
TOPICS

25. SOLICITATIONS
GRANTS
CONTRACTS
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

26. SELECTING OPPORTUNITIES IS CRITICAL
 SBIR/STTR awards aren’t random drawings
 Preparing a winning SBIR/STTR proposal is a mountain of work.
 The key is to pick battles that can be won
 Choosing the right topic/agency is the most overlooked (and perhaps most
important) ingredient of success

27. SBIR/STTR IS NOT MONOLITHIC
+ MORE

28. AGENCY/TOPIC SELECTION
 Seems obvious – but it’s not
 Lot’s of overlap in projects funded by various
agencies
 Each agency takes a different perspective
 EX: DoD, NASA are trying to solve problems
 EX: NIH, DoE are trying to promote research in
general
 EX: NSF is trying to promote research AND stimulate
successful commercialization
 This leads to varying levels of acceptance by
different agency
 Where to apply can be extra challenging when
considering multiple granting agencies

29. NSF IS THE MOST START-UP FRIENDLY
 COMPANY SIZE:
 ~ 92% of awardees have 10 or fewer employees
 HISTORY:
 ~ 87% of awardees had never had a prior SBIR/STTR Phase II
award from any agency
 COMPANY AGE:
 ~ 78% of awardee companies were incorporated within the
past 5 years

30. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
IMPACT OF SOLICITATION SCHEDULES

31. THE WORLD IMPACTS PROPOSAL VOLUME

32. NAVIGATING NIH
SBIR/STTR Budget Allocations
Cancer
Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
Aging
Heart, Lung, and
Blood
General Medical
Neurological
Disorders and
Stroke
Diabetes, Digestive,
and Kidney
Mental Health
Drug Abuse
Child Health
Eye
Translational Sciences
Environmental Health
NIAMS
NIAAA
NHGRI
NIDCD
NIDCR
NIBIB
NIMHD
ORIP
NINR
NCCIH
NLM

33. NIH PHASE I SBIR 2019
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
2019 NIH Phase I SBIR Success Rates

34. SUCCESS RATE DOES NOT DIRECTLY CORRELATE TO PROBABILITY
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
2019 NIH Phase I SBIR Success Rates
34
34
30
~27

35. LOOKING AT SUCCESS RATES…
NIDCR SBIR Phase I 56 17 30.4% $3,432,933
NIDCR SBIR Phase II 7 4 57.1% $1,864,889
NIEHS SBIR Phase I 72 22 30.6% $3,868,457
NIEHS SBIR Phase II 24 12 50.0% $5,972,947
What matters is the future and how the past shapes it!

36. BEING SMARTER THAN THE NUMBERS
NIDCR SBIR Phase I 56 17 30.4% $3,432,933
NIDCR SBIR Phase II 7 4 57.1% $1,864,889
NIEHS SBIR Phase I 72 22 30.6% $3,868,457
NIEHS SBIR Phase II 24 12 50.0% $5,972,947
Published Data is Backward looking…project forward!!!
PHASE II APPLICATIONS
NIDCR Last year 7 Next year 17 --funding probabilities will drop
NIEHS Last year 24 Next Year 22 -- funding probabilities will be similar expected

37. CASE STUDY: NAVIGATING NIH
 Developing an intervention targeted at
reducing smoking rates
 National Cancer Institute has largest
budget within NIH
 National Cancer Institute runs most
smoking cessation research
 An obvious choice, but…..

38. CASE STUDY: NAVIGATING NIH
 The WRONG choice
 Proposal was targeted at National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA), and was funded…based on a score
that would not have been funded at NCI
 What?! NIDA has 11th largest budget, ~1/5 of NCIs
 Need to do homework on NIH agencies
 Understand overlap between agencies
 Look at success rates (data available on NIH SBIR
homepage)
 Look at competitiveness of funded projects
 Look at funding commitments

39. MATCHING |SCOPING YOUR PROJECT
UNDERSTAND THE STEP FUNCTIONS OF VALUE

40. UNDERSTAND THE STEP FUNCTIONS
RARE TYPICAL
Infection points
You need to understand the inflection points that change the perspective of
investors, customers, and partners…and build your SBIR/STTR around them

41. Project Scoping
 Phase I
 lowest level of preliminary data to be competitive
 Fast-track
 slightly higher requirement for preliminary data
 Need clear post Phase I success criteria
 Need clarity in Phase II objectives
 D2 Phase II
 Have the equivalent of a Phase I already completed
 Overall Bullish on Fast-track and D2 Phase II projects
due to federal budget reasons
 Avoid terminal Phase Is
 Understand disconnect between reviewers’ reality
and the commercial reality

42. NOW WRITE | Writing an SBIR/STTR Proposal

43. UNDERSTANDING REVIEWER’S POINTS OF ENTRY
GRAPHICS
TITLE
ABSTRACT
FIRST PAGE

44. RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
Text
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
proposal
s
Ideas
proposal
s
proposal
s
Ideas
proposal
s
proposal
s
Text
EFFECTIVE RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING
HOW YOU ARE TAUGHT TO WRITE IN SCHOOL
SLOW BUILD
PUNCH FIRST

45. TYPICAL ART OF GRANT WRITING APPROACH
“ART” OF GRANT WRITING
Tends to be Focused on the Company’s
perspective
Investigator Driven Perspective

46. INTELISPARK DATA DRIVEN APPROACH
Data Driven Perspective
DATA DRIVEN APPROACH
Focused on using data to understand reviewers
to match company’s story to the reviewers

47. HOW SHOULD I WRITE A PROPOSAL?
 A proposal is written in a similar style as a peer-
reviewed journal article…
 …BUT is NOT an academic exploration – it needs
concrete goals, objectives, and measures of success
 Write concisely
 Use visuals to convey big ideas
 Mock-up interfaces to software
 Cite your peers (especially if they might be reviewers)
 Show you understand the field
 Avoid sloppy mistakes

48. EVEN SMART PEOPLE ARE BAD WITH NUMBERS
A telling example of innumeracy levels in society involves a study of clinicians
(who represent a sample with education levels representative of reviewers) who
were asked to consider the release of a psychiatric patient. When told that that
20 of 100 similar patients could be expected to commit an act of violence if
released, 41% refused to discharge the patient. However, when instead told that
20% of similar patients could be expected to commit an act of violence if
released, only 21% refused to discharge the patient.
Slovic, P., J. Monahan, and D.G. MacGregor, Violence risk assessment and risk
communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and
employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav, 2000. 24(3): p.
271-96.
20/100 or 20% or 0.2 or 1/5

49. CONTROL THE NARRATIVE
50% reduction in
recovery time
FUNCTIONAL ABILITY
FUNCTIONAL ABILITY

50. PARTNER, PARTNER, PARTNER!
 IMPROVE THE CALIBER OF PERSONNEL WITH
CONSULTANTS
 Universities are great sources of talent
 IMPROVE CAPABILITIES WITH SUBAWARDS
 Large and Small Businesses, Universities

51. STRATEGY: INVEST IN A PROPOSAL
 WINNERS VIEW PROPOSALS AS AN INVESTMENT, NOT A BINARY EVENT
 LESS PROPOSALS FOR MORE AWARDS
 This is a quality game not a quantity game
 A PROPOSAL IS A PRODUCT THAT HAS BEEN INVESTED IN – THE KEY IS
CAPITALIZE ON THAT INVESTMENT
 A REJECTED PROPOSAL MAY BE
 Submitted to another agency
 Resubmitted to the same agency

52. KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL PHASE II
 STARTS WITH A GOOD PHASE I
 HAVE A PHASE I DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE
NARRATIVE AND PRODUCE INTERESTING DATA
(which may change the order in which you do things
 EVERYTHING YOU DO IN PHASE I IS ABOUT
WINNING PHASE II!!!
 Adjust plans as required
 Create data that supports Phase II proposal
 Understand tradeoff between submission time and
success rate

53. IMPORTANCE OF COMMERCIALIZATION
MINIMAL VERY

54. HOW IT FITS| THOUGHTS ON FUND RAISING

55. RAISE MONEY FROM POSITION OF STRENGTH
END OF POSITIVE
PHASE II
END OF NEGATIVE
PHASE II
PRE PHASE I
PHASE II PROPOSAL REJECTED
PHASE I AWARD
PHASE II AWARD

56. UNDERSTAND THE STEP FUNCTIONS
RARE TYPICAL
Infection points
You need to understand the inflection points that change the perspective of
investors, customers, and partners…and build your SBIR/STTR around them

57. YIKES | So, you won an award…now what?

58. OTHER ISSUES
 Government Data Rights
 Government Accounting Rules
 Reporting Requirements
 Cashflow Issues (most awards work on reimbursement basis)
 SBIR/STTR funding is sloooooooooow!!!
 Relying Solely on Government Grants is a Bad Strategy

59. OTHER ISSUES
Phase II
Award
(24 Months)
Awaiting
Award
(6 Months)
Phase II
Prep
(3 Months)
Phase I
Award
(6 Months)
Awaiting
Award
(6 months)
Phase Prep
(3 months)
3.5-4 Year Process

60. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20
NIH SBIR/STTR Awards Issued By Month of Fiscal Year
Theoretical Start Dates for NIH SBIR/STTR Proposal submitted in:
APR 2019 SEP 2019 JAN 2019
Q1: 2% of awards Q2: 11% of awards Q3: 28% of awards Q4: 60% of awards
Requested Start Dates vs. Actual start dates