Bill Overview
Title: SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2025 and modifies the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, and related pilot programs. The SBIR and STTR programs are administered by various federal agencies and provide competitive awards for domestic small businesses to conduct research and development projects that have the potential for commercialization. The bill requires agencies with an SBIR or STTR program to assess the security risks presented by applicants with financial ties or obligations to certain foreign countries. The programs may not make awards to businesses with certain connections to foreign entities. Additionally, businesses with more than a specified number of prior awards must meet expanded minimum performance standards. The Small Business Administration's Office of Inspector General must audit the small businesses subject to these expanded performance standards. The bill also establishes various reporting requirements, including directing the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation to assess the national security and research and integrity risks of the SBIR and STTR programs. The Government Accountability Office must evaluate and report on aspects of the programs such as the subcontracting practices of award recipients.
Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: U.S.-based small businesses engaged in research and development
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill impacts small businesses engaged in research and development projects with potential commercial applications, as these businesses are eligible to participate in the SBIR and STTR programs.
- The SBIR and STTR programs are U.S.-based programs, meaning the primary target population is domestic small businesses within the United States.
- There are specific agencies like the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation involved, which suggests additional impacts on stakeholders associated with these departments.
- The stipulation about financial ties to certain foreign countries and security assessments implies that small businesses with international connections could be critically impacted.
- Expanded minimum performance standards will affect small businesses with a history of multiple awards, who need to comply with stricter criteria.
Reasoning
- The SBIR and STTR programs primarily impact small businesses in research and development, with around 90,000 small businesses participating annually, potentially impacting about 1% of total U.S. businesses.
- The impact of the policy largely falls on small businesses according to their alignment with new security requirements and performance standards.
- Those with international connections affected by new security regulations could see a decrease in opportunity for awards.
- Expanded performance standards will disproportionately affect small businesses with numerous prior awards, as they will face stricter compliance requirements.
- Interviewees will likely reflect a mix of experiences, ranging from businesses with no international ties to those needing to adapt in response to expanded criteria.
Simulated Interviews
Research Scientist (Silicon Valley, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our firm has greatly benefited from SBIR awards in the past. The new performance standards seem manageable for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Startup Founder (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're exploring SBIR for potential funding; however, the increased scrutiny might reduce flexibility for innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Boston, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The performance standards will ensure only the most capable businesses utilize these programs, which is beneficial for industry standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Entrepreneur (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative makes it tough due to new constraints on international ties, challenging our expansion prospects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Chief Operating Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our internal processes can adapt to these new standards. The program changes align with our development goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We depend heavily on SBIR funding. While the increased standards could pose challenges, we see merit in the development focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Biomedical Researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As first-time SBIR applicants, the policy adds more checks, which adds an extra step but enhances credibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Mechanical Engineer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our international projects are significant. This policy challenges us, potentially limiting international cooperative advancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Business Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Observing industry impact closely. The policy could refine focus but might exclude potentially innovative international partners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
CEO (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stricter compliance ensures that serious innovators participate, ensuring quality and focus in development projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The potential for increased funding security mitigates risks but adds administrative obligations.
- Performance standards changes may alter the qualification landscape for some businesses, impacting ongoing R&D projects.
- Economic contributions from innovations funded by these programs are uncertain and depend on market success.