Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: National Science Foundation (NSF) #4680
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi!

    To your first question for wages, it is always advisable to benchmark wages against the average wages reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as you already suggest to be doing. Of course, PI is not a reported code, so a management position most closely related to the expertise of the PI is often the best approach. The 11-9041 SOC for Engineering Managers seems to be a good fit and within an acceptable range for PI salary.

    To your second question of switching PI’s: contact the cognizant NSF Program Director as soon as possible of this change. They will likely request additional information if the new PI is not included in the original proposal, as well as some form of justification for this change. Changing PI’s is not all that uncommon, but it is best to start this discussing as soon as possible with the Program Director.

    Let me know if there are any other questions!

    Best,
    Wout

    in reply to: NSF SBIR Timeline #3850
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    NSF usually takes between 6 to 9 months to fully complete the proposal review and decision process. Any updates from will be sent to your email address on file, and you can also check the status of your proposal by logging in on your Research.gov account.

    – Wout

    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi Shoba,

    For any subaward (whether SBIR or STTR), if Faculty are involved, ownership guidelines from the University might apply (depending on their input). For that reason, it is difficult to give a more complete statement based on the information I have available, and I would advise to reach out to the subaward PI and inquire about their ownership guidelines at their institution.

    – Wout

    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi Shoba,

    As per SBIR/STTR guidelines, the Federal Government may, use, modify, reproduce, perform, display,release, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data within the Government. However, they will not use, release, or disclose any of that data for procurement, manufacturing, or commercial purposes; or release or disclose the SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government except as permitted by paragraph 10(B) of the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive’s Data Rights Clause or by written permission of the Awardee.

    Furthermore, with NSF Phase I SBIR/STTR proposals, the standard Data Management Plan states that “all data generated in this SBIR Phase I project is considered proprietary”.

    A more extensive write-up on SBIR/STTR and Data Rights by sbir.gov can be found here.

    As for ownership between the Small Business and the University, this will depend on the ownership guidelines from the University and in what capacity the University is involved with the IP management.

    Hope this helps!

    -Wout

    in reply to: Existing Funds for Proposed Project #2644
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    Are the research activities that will be funded part of the proposed work for the Phase I, or can they be seen as research activities that are generating preliminary data/support and will be finished before the start of the Phase I R&D? Ideally, these would be wrapped up before the Phase I, and can be described in your preliminary data section.

    The project description should definitely indicate clearly where and how these funds are used in connection with the proposed Phase I work. This is to ensure that there is no “double” funding of research activities. You should also include these funds in your “Current and Pending Support” documentation.

    in reply to: Indirect Costs #2506
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    Without additional detail on your indirect budget needs, it is not straightforward to give advice in this case. The standard indirect cost rate of 50% is the most common way of requesting indirects. If that would be too much for your needs, you can always opt for a lower rate (e.g. 30%) so you free up some extra funds for other costs on the proposal. However, going for an indirect cost rate that is higher than 50% will likely trigger a rate negotiation at time of award.

    in reply to: Company & Team #2022
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    Biosketches only need to be included for Key Personnel at the Small Business that will be doing work on the grant, as well as consultants that will do work for the grant, and for Key Personnel on any subaward or subcontract you might have. Biosketches are not needed for “Other Personnel”, or for anyone who is not working on the grant (as indicated by the budget sheet).

    Within the company and team section, the main focus should be on the individuals that will actively be working on the R&D described within the proposal, what tasks or objectives they will be responsible for, and why they are the right person for the task (this provides some overlap with the biosketches for these individuals as well).

    If you have space, you can include scientific advisory board members but clearly note their involvement (if any) in the R&D. However, a more appropriate place for describing the scientific advisory board would be within the “Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources” documentation, where they would fall under “Other Resources”.

    – Wout

    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    This page links to recent Phase I awardees, and this page links to an overview of all NSF funded projects and allows you to filter and keyword search to find specific grants or topics.

    – Wout

    in reply to: Letters of Support #1910
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    It is best to provide a variety of background in your Letters of Support. Having an industry expert voice their support is generally good for supporting the commercial traction of your proposal/innovation. Having an academic expert voice their support for your innovation generally helps support the innovation section and technical description. Other popular angles for Letters include potential customers and beneficiaries.

    One note on soliciting letters from your advisory board, while this may help express confidence in the scientific rationale behind the innovation, it may be perceived as lacking outside enthusiasm as that individual has already some degree of vested interest in your innovation. An outside academic expert would be preferred in this case.

    -Wout

    in reply to: Budget and CROs #1909
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    Depending on the scope of work, CROs can either fall under subcontractors or Fee-for-service (see Line item G6 for NSF budget guidelines). Most of the times, fee-for-service is the best category as CROs are often used to complete work tasks that require specialized equipment or facilities that are not available to the applicant, but the work is carried out to the applicant’s specifications and is considered “routine”. However, if the CRO would contribute a considerable amount of original input (innovation), it would be best captured under a subcontract.

    As for the domestic requirement, any funds for a CRO that is included in the budget will have to be substantiated with an invoice or price quote in the budget justification. This will have to be provided by a US-registered company that is doing business in the United States. If that entity also has offices or sites in other countries, this does not disqualify them as long as the work you request from them is completed in the US. The only requirement that NSF states is that “Additionally, NSF SBIR/STTR only supports work that is performed in the United States (including work performed by subawardees and consultants).”

    -Wout

    in reply to: Project Pitch Win Rate? #1902
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    NSF does not release official acceptance rates for Project Pitches, but informally a ~60% acceptance rate seems to be applicable to pitches. The main goal of the Project Pitch is to ensure that the R&D goals and technology align with NSF’s mission, as envisioned by the Program Director for each of the different portfolio topics.

    -Wout

    in reply to: Letters of Support #1901
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    Letters of Support are usually addressed to the PI for a NSF SBIR.

    -Wout

    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi,

    That direction is related to uploading additional documentation outside of what is captured within the research proposal itself. Most grant mechanisms do not allow for unlimited attachments to avoid reviewers being overwhelmed with extra documentation.

    However, within the proposal itself, you have the space to discuss any preliminary (initial) data you have available. For a NSF Phase I SBIR (where it seems that you have highlighted the directions from), this is usually provided at the beginning of the Technical Discussion section. If your initial data is published, you can also reference it in relevant sections.

    Hope this helps, and let us know if you have any other questions!

    -Wout

    in reply to: National Science Foundation (NSF) #1533
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi Michael,

    NSF only supports SBIR/STTR research that is performed within the United States. This also includes any work or research completed by subaward organizations and consultants.

    Hope this helps!

    Best,
    Wout

    in reply to: HHS/NIH #1317
    Wout@EGC
    Moderator

    Hi!

    While it is indeed not required to have preliminary data available for a Phase I submission, it does greatly improve your chances of securing funding. Of course, this also varies with the type of innovation you are aiming to develop, and the feasibility of generating preliminary data for your specific innovation at this stage of development. At a minimum, you will want to have extensive literature support compiled or some proof of concept data available to support the underlying scientific premise of your innovation.

    Let us know if you have any other questions!

    Best,
    Wout

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)