Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Program
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
August 4, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
96-402
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Summary
In 1982, the Small Business Innovation Development Act (P.L. 97-219) established Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs within the major federal research and
development (R&D) agencies designed to increase participation of small innovative companies in
federally funded R&D. Government agencies with R&D budgets of $100 million or more are
required to set aside a portion of these funds to finance the SBIR activity. Through FY2007, over
$22.3 billion in awards have been made for more than 100,016 projects. Extended several times,
the program was scheduled to sunset on September 30, 2008. Although, to date, no specific
legislation has reauthorized the program, the Small Business Administration determined that P.L.
110-235 temporarily extended the SBIR activity through March 20, 2009. Subsequently, P.L. 111-
10 provided an additional extension of the program through July 31, 2009; P.L. 111-43 extended
it through September 30, 2009; and P.L. 111-66 extended the effort through October 31, 2009.
The SBIR program was once again extended through April 30, 2010, by P.L. 111-89 and through
September 30, 2010, by P.L. 111-214. On July 8, 2009, H.R. 2965, a bill to reauthorize and alter
the SBIR initiative, passed the House; the Senate substituted the language of S. 1233 (amended)
and passed its version of H.R. 2965 on July 13, 2009. For further information on SBIR
reauthorization activity see CRS Report RS22865, The Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) Program: Reauthorization Efforts, by Wendy H. Schacht.
Congressional Research Service
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Contents
Program Description ................................................................................................................... 1
Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 2
Awards........................................................................................................................................ 4
Issues for Consideration .............................................................................................................. 5
Tables
Table 1. SBIR Program: Dollars Awarded and Projects Funded.................................................... 4
Table 2. STTR Program: Dollars Awarded and Projects Funded................................................... 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 6
Congressional Research Service
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Program Description
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is designed to increase the participation
of small, high technology firms in the federal R&D endeavor. Congressional support for the
initiative was predicated upon the belief that while technology-based companies under 500
employees tended to be highly innovative, and innovation is essential to the economic well-being
of the United States, these businesses were underrepresented in government R&D activities.
Agency SBIR programs guarantee this sector a portion of the government’s R&D budget to
compensate for what was viewed as a preference for contracting with large firms.
Current law requires that every federal department with an R&D budget of $100 million or more
establish and operate an SBIR program. A set percentage of that agency’s applicable extramural
research and development budget—originally at 1.25%, now at 2.5%—is to be used to support
mission-related work in small companies.
The objectives of the SBIR program include stimulation of technological innovation in the small
business sector, increased use of this community to meet the government’s R&D needs, additional
involvement of minority and disadvantaged individuals in the process, and expanded
commercialization of the results of federally funded R&D. To achieve this, agency SBIR efforts
involve a three-phase activity. In the first phase, awards up to $100,000 (for six months) are
provided to evaluate a concept’s scientific or technical merit and feasibility. The project must be
of interest to and coincide with the mission of the supporting organization. Projects that
demonstrate potential after the initial endeavor may compete for Phase II awards of up to
$750,000 (lasting one to two years) to perform the principal R&D. Phase III funding, directed at
the commercialization of the product or process, is expected to be generated in the private sector.
Federal dollars may be used if the government perceives that the final technology or technique
will meet public needs. P.L. 102-564 directed agencies to weigh commercial potential as an
additional factor in evaluating SBIR proposals.
As of FY2009, 11 departments have SBIR programs including the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense (DOD), Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Each agency’s SBIR
activity reflects that organization’s management style. Individual departments select R&D
interests, administer program operations, and control financial support. Funding can be disbursed
in the form of contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. Separate agency solicitations are
issued at established times.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) created broad policy and guidelines under which
individual departments operate SBIR programs. The agency monitors and reports to Congress on
the conduct of the separate departmental activities. Criteria for eligibility in the SBIR program
include companies that are independently owned and operated; not dominant in the field of
research proposed; for profit; the employer of 500 or less people; the primary employer of the
principal investigator; and at least 51% owned by one or more U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted
permanent resident aliens. A rule change, effective January 3, 2005, permits subsidiaries of SBIR-
eligible companies to participate as long as the parent company meets all SBIR requirements.
A pilot effort to encourage commercialization of university and federal laboratory R&D by small
companies was created by P.L. 102-564 and reauthorized several times through FY2009. The
Congressional Research Service
1
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) provides funding for research proposals
that are developed and executed cooperatively between a small firm and a scientist in a research
organization and fall under the mission requirements of the federal funding agency. Up to
$100,000 in Phase I financing is available for one year; Phase II awards of up to $750,000 may be
made for two years. Currently funded by a set-aside of 0.3% of the extramural R&D budget of
departments that spend over $1 billion per year on this effort, the Departments of Energy,
Defense, and Health and Human Services, NASA, and NSF participate in the STTR program.
Implementation
The Government Accountability Office (GAO; formerly the General Accounting Office) is
legislatively directed to assess the implementation of the Small Business Innovation Development
Act, as amended, and has issued a series of reports documenting its findings. A 1987 study found
that both the evaluation and selection processes were sufficient to “reasonably” insure awards
were based on technical merit. It was also determined that the majority of agencies were not
awarding Phase I grants and contracts within the six-month time frame required by the SBA
guidelines. Another GAO report the following month surveyed the participants and noted that
most were “generally satisfied” with the administration of SBIR programs.
In 1989, GAO reported that agency heads found the SBIR effort to be beneficial and met the
organization’s R&D needs. Most indicated that the “SBIR programs had developed new research
areas, placed more emphasis on the application of research results, and led to wider use of small
businesses as research performers.” The study concluded that projects were, for the most part, of
high quality. At DOD and NASA, however, SBIR efforts stressed R&D to meet agency mission
requirements in contrast to other SBIR programs that focused on commercialization for private
sector markets. All of the departments stated that SBIR projects, when compared with other
research activities, had greater potential to result in new products and processes.
Testimony presented by GAO in 1991 stated that the program “clearly is doing what Congress
asked it to do in achieving commercial sales and developmental funding from the private sector.”
An SBA study found that approximately one in four SBIR projects will result in the sale of new
commercial products or processes. Another GAO report issued in May 1992 noted that despite a
short time frame and the fact that many SBIR projects had not had sufficient time to mature into
marketable technologies and techniques, “the program is showing success in Phase III activity.”
As of July 1991, almost two-thirds of the projects already had sales or received additional funding
(primarily from the private sector) totaling approximately $1.1 billion.
The 1992 study also identified several issues for possible further congressional exploration.
According to GAO, DOD placed less emphasis on commercialization than other agencies and
utilized the SBIR program primarily to address the department’s R&D needs. Questions were
raised about the requirements for competitive bidding when companies looked to federal
departments for Phase III contracts after successfully completing Phases I and II. GAO noted that
clarification of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (as amended) might be necessary. In
addition, there was disagreement over whether the federal agency or the small firm should
continue to work on technology development after the cessation of SBIR project funding. GAO
also concluded that firms receiving multiple Phase II awards tended to have lower Phase III sales
and less additional developmental support. The reasons for this remained unclear, but the
suggestion was made that these companies may have focused on securing funds through SBIR
awards rather than through commercialization of their R&D results.
Congressional Research Service
2
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
A March 1995 GAO report found that multiple Phase II funding had become a problem,
particularly at NSF, NASA, and DOD. Among the reasons cited were the failure of companies to
identify identical proposals made elsewhere in violation of the mandatory certification procedure;
uncertainty in definitions and guidelines concerning “similar” research; and lack of interagency
mechanisms to exchange information on projects. Several recommendations were made to
address duplication. GAO testimony presented in March 1996 indicated that the SBA had taken
steps to implement these suggestions. The study also determined that the quality of research
appeared to have “kept pace” with the program’s expansion, although it was still too early to
make a definitive judgment. Factors supporting this assessment included the substantive level of
competition, more proposals deemed meritorious than could be funded by agencies, and
appraisals by departmental SBIR personnel indicating the high quality of submissions.
Another GAO study, released in April 1998, noted that between 35% and 50% of SBIR projects
had resulted in sales or additional private sector investment. Despite earlier indications of
problems associated with multiple award winners, this report found that such firms have similar
commercialization rates as single awardees. Critical technology lists were being used to
determine agency solicitations and there was little evidence of participation by foreign firms.
While several agencies had new programs to assure continuity in funding, there were indications
of possible inaccuracies in defining the extramural R&D budgets upon which the set-aside is
based.
The June 1999 GAO analysis reported that SBIR awards tend to be concentrated both
geographically and by firm despite widespread participation in the program. “The 25 most
frequent winners, which represent fewer than 1 percent of the companies in the program, received
about 11 percent of the program’s awards from fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1997.”
Businesses in a small number of states, particularly California and Massachusetts, were awarded
the most number of projects. The study also noted that while commercial potential is considered
by all agencies, each has developed different evaluation approaches. Other goals, including
innovation and responsiveness to agency mission, still remain important in determining awards.
A more recent report by GAO (June 2005) found that it is still difficult to adequately “assess the
performance of the SBIR program” although the effort appears to be achieving its goal of
“enhanced” participation of small business in the R&D enterprise. Utilizing “commercialization”
as a measure may not be sufficient because other agency goals were being met such as research
needs or expanded innovation. Success in the commercial market did not take into account the
R&D requirements of departments like DOD or NASA. In a report the following year (October
2006), GAO noted that the agencies reporting to the SBA did not always provide the necessary
data in the format required by SBA. GAO concluded that the “agencies need to strengthen [their]
efforts to improve the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of awards data.”
GAO also has evaluated the STTR program. A January 1996 report found that, in general, federal
agencies favorably rated the quality of winning proposals (in the first year) and that most projects
had commercial potential, although the costs might be high. The government had taken steps to
avoid potential conflicts of interest between federal laboratories and departmental headquarters.
There was no indication that this pilot effort was competing for proposals with the established
SBIR activity or “reducing the quality of the agencies’ R&D in general.” Instead it was credited
for encouraging collaborative work. Yet, GAO noted that because the programs are so similar,
there are questions whether or not a separate activity is necessary. Any real evaluation of success
in technology transfer, however, could not be accomplished for several years because of the time
Congressional Research Service
3
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
needed to bring the results of R&D to the commercial marketplace. These findings were
reiterated in testimony given by GAO in May and September 1997.
A June 2001 GAO study of all companies which received STTR awards between FY1995 and
FY1997 noted the participant’s belief that both the firms and the research institutions contributed
to expanded R&D although the private sector was more influential in determining the direction of
the research. The companies “reported about $132 million in total sales and about $53 million in
additional developmental funding.” They identified 41 new patents and the creation of 12 new
spin-off firms. Further, the awardees preferred that the STTR program remain separate from the
SBIR activity.
Awards
From its inception in FY1983 through FY2007, over 100,016 awards have been made totaling
more than $22.3 billion. Table 1 summarizes the funding and the number of projects selected for
the SBIR program as provided by the SBA; information on the STTR program is contained in
Table 2. (Figures for FY2008 are not yet available from the Small Business Administration.)
Table 1. SBIR Program: Dollars Awarded and Projects Funded
Dollars Awarded (millions)
Awards
Fiscal Year
Phase I
Phase II
Total
Phase I
Phase II
Totala
FY1983 44.5 — 44.5
686 — 686
FY1984 48.0 60.4 108.4 999 338 1,337
FY1985 69.1
130.0
199.1
1,397 407
1,804
FY1986 98.5
199.4
297.9
1,945 564
2,509
FY1987 109.6
240.9
350.5
2,189 768
2,957
FY1988 101.9
284.9
389.1a 2,013 711 2,724
FY1989 107.7
321.7
431.9a 2,137 749 2,886
FY1990 118.1
341.8
460.7a 2,346 837 3,183
FY1991 127.9
335.9
483.1a 2,553 788 3,341
FY1992 127.9
371.2
508.4a 2,559 916 3,475
FY1993 154.0
490.7
698.0a 2,898 1,141 4,039
FY1994 220.4
473.6
717.6a 3,102 928 4,030
FY1995 232.1
601.9
834.1a 3,085 1,263 4,348
FY1996 228.9
645.8
916.3a 2,841 1,191 4,032
FY1997 277.6
789.1
1,106.7a 3,371 1,404 4,775
FY1998 262.3 804.4 1,066.7
3,022 1,320 4,342
FY1999 299.5 797.0 1,096.5
3,334 1,256 4,590
FY2000 302.0
888.2b 1,190.2 3,166 1,330 4,496
FY2001 317.1 977.3 1,294.4
3,215 1,533 4,748
FY2002 411.5
1,023.4b 1,434.9 4,243 1,577 5,820
Congressional Research Service
4
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Dollars Awarded (millions)
Awards
Fiscal Year
Phase I
Phase II
Total
Phase I
Phase II
Totala
FY2003 445.4
1,214.7
1,660.1
4,465
1,759
6,224
FY2004 498.7
1,368.7
1,867.4
4,638
2,013
6,651
FY2005 461.2
1,404.7
1,865.9
4,300
1,871
6,171
FY2006
411.2
1,472.0
1,883.2
3,836
2,026
5,862
FY2007 447.3
1,197.4
1,644.7
3,814
1,542
5,356
Source: Small Business Administration Data.
a. Includes modifications to previous awards and funds set aside for proposals in negotiation.
b. Dollars obligated can include modifications to previous year’s awards.
Table 2. STTR Program: Dollars Awarded and Projects Funded
Dollars Awarded (millions)
Awards
Fiscal Year
Phase I
Phase II
Total
Phase I
Phase II
Total
FY1994 18.9 — 18.9
198 —
198
FY1995 23 10.7
33.7
238 22
260
FY1996 22.7 41.8
64.5
238 88
326
FY1997 24.2 44.9
69.1
260 89
349
FY1998 19.7 45.1
64.8
208 109
317
FY1999 24.3 40.6
64.9
251 78
329
FY2000 23.9 45.9
69.8
233 95
328
FY2001 24.2 53.2
77.4
224 113
337
FY2002 36.4 55.4
91.8
356 114
470
FY2003 41.1 50.7
91.8
397 111
508
FY2004 79.7 110.3
190
674 195
869
FY2005 73.9 146.4
220.3
611 221
832
FY2006
74.0
152.3
226.3
644
234
878
FY2007 83.5 159.4
242.9
634 213
847
Source: Small Business Administration data.
Issues for Consideration
The SBIR program was scheduled to sunset on September 30, 2008. Although, to date, no
specific legislation has reauthorized the program, the Small Business Administration determined
that P.L. 110-235 temporarily extended the SBIR activity through March 20, 2009. Subsequently,
P.L. 111-10 provided an additional extension of the program through July 31, 2009; P.L. 111-43
extended it through September 30, 2009; and P.L. 111-66 extended the effort through October 31,
2009. The SBIR program was then extended through April 30, 2010, by P.L. 111-89 and through
September 30, 2010 by P.L. 111-214. On July 8, 2009, H.R. 2965, a bill to reauthorize and alter
Congressional Research Service
5
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
the SBIR initiative, passed the House; the Senate substituted the language of S. 1233 (amended)
and passed its version of H.R. 2965 on July 13, 2009.
Certain issues might be considered if the program is to be reauthorized. (For further information
on SBIR reauthorization activity see CRS Report RS22865, The Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) Program: Reauthorization Efforts, by Wendy H. Schacht.) Much of the current
debate revolves around the existing regulations that require at least 51% ownership by an
individual or individuals. Some experts argue participation by small firms that are majority-
owned by venture capital companies should be permitted. Proponents of this change maintain
that, particularly in the biotechnology sector, the most innovative companies are not able to use
the SBIR program because they do not meet these ownership criteria. Opponents of altering the
eligibility requirements argue that the program is designed to provide financial assistance where
venture capital is not available. They assert that the program’s objective is to bring new concepts
to the point where private sector investment is feasible.
An additional concern is the extent to which program participants are mandated to report
activities and results. P.L. 106-554 placed added requirements on companies to provide
information; it remains to be determined if these requirements have been successfully
implemented. Other issues that might be addressed include whether the problems identified by
GAO associated with the duplication of awards has been adequately resolved. Are the SBIR and
STTR programs meeting their different mandated objectives or are they serving an identical
purpose? Does the focus on commercialization raise concerns by those who argue that the
government has no role in directly supporting industrial research and development? These and
other questions may be explored as the 111th Congress considers reauthorization of the Small
Business Innovation Research program.
Author Contact Information
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
wschacht@crs.loc.gov, 7-7066
Congressional Research Service
6