Research Commercialization Program Biosciences

1
Research Commercialization Program- Biosciences -

• November 27, 2007
• 9 a.m. 1100 a.m.
• Columbus, Ohio

2
AGENDA

• Welcome and Introductions
• Commercialization Framework
• Research Commercialization Program
• - Biosciences
• BRCP Q A
• Closing Remarks

3
Purpose of Conference

• To provide an overview of the BRCP and
  requirements
• To describe the review process
• To review the timeline
• To explain procedures for addressing policy and
  administrative questions
• To answer potential applicants questions

4
Third Frontier Commercialization Framework

• Research Commercialization Program
• - Biosciences -

5
What is the Framework?

• The Framework is a guide for the analysis of
  technology commercialization projects from idea
  generation to commercial success
• The Framework helps answer the following
  questions
• In what phase of commercialization is a project
  located?
• Who are the most likely resource providers to
  move the project to the next phase?
• What proof will the resource providers require as
  a condition to funding?
• What are the practical challenges associated with
  securing required funding?
• How should commercialization progress be
  measured?
• The Framework includes
• A commercialization process roadmap
• A description of technology development and
  commercial concept / business plan development
  activities by phase
• A list of drivers of success
• A structured approach (the Analytical
  Framework) to help improve the probability of
  success by identifying opportunities and
  challenges
• A method to develop and apply phase appropriate
  measurements

6
(No Transcript)
7
Identifying Sources of Funding by Phases of
Commercialization
BRCP
8
Steps of the Analytical Framework
9
Resource Providers by Phase of Commercialization

10
The Transition

• Implementing a process to attract the resources
  necessary to engage in the next phase of
  commercialization
• Analogous to a sales plan

11
ABC Metrics Framework

• The Metrics Framework
• A Level direct evidence of success demonstrated
  by a transition (resource acquisition to fund
  next phase of commercialization)
• B Level tangible evidence that you are on the
  path to the A Level metrics
• C Level evidence of performance in achieving
  operating milestones

12
Research Commercialization Program- Biosciences -

• Fiscal Year 2008

13
Program Goal

• The Ohio Third Frontier Commission invites
  proposals for projects that will enhance
  biomedical research and biotechnology in this
  State that would be likely to create jobs and
  business opportunities and produce the most
  beneficial long-term improvements to the public
  health of Ohioans.

14
Program Requirements

• A biomedical/biotechnological theme involving one
  or a combination of
• human genetics and genomics
• structural biology
• biomedical engineering
• computational biology
• environmental biology
• plant biology

15
Program Requirements

• Science of a scale and quality that will move
  Ohio toward a position of national leadership in
  biomedical/biotechnological research
• Research program that is established ready to
  enter next level of international prominence for
  commercial market applications.
• Collaboration among 2 or more Ohio based
  institutions
• Institutional commitments (11 cost share)
• Research results with excellent commercialization
  potential
• One investigator with commercialization
  experience

16
Eligible Lead Organizations

• For-Profit Ohio Company
• Not-for-Profit Ohio Organization
• Ohio Colleges and Universities

17
Program Size

• Proposals will be eligible for financial support
  of costs in the range of a total of 2 - 5
  million over a period of three years. Note that
  with cost share, the total project should
  represent a project of 4 to 10 million in
  activity.
• 26 million is expected to be available
• Anticipate 5 to 7 awards
• Funds are intended for operational expenditure
• Capital expenditures are limited to 20 of the
  award

18
Proposal Evaluation Criteria

• Building on TFP Investments How well does the
  Proposal integrate and build on prior Third
  Frontier Project investments, including developed
  technology platforms, previously acquired
  equipment and research/commercialization
  capacities?
• Consistency with Roadmaps for Success How well
  does the Proposal meet the strategies, including
  identified targets, goals and associated
  milestones, that lead to commercial success
  identified in existing roadmaps?
• Consistency with State and Regional Priorities
  How well does the Proposal reinforce and build on
  identified science and technology priorities and
  assets in one or more regions of the State?
• Degree of Customer Readiness How well does the
  Proposal address the needs of end-users,
  especially by a Collaborator who is considered a
  potential customer?
• Degree of Sustainable Competitive Advantage (Fly
  Wheels) How well does the Proposal demonstrate
  that it can enable the State to maintain a
  leading, competitive advantage in a specific area
  or areas of research and commercialization
  activities beyond the three (3) year Project
  Period?
• Demonstrated Leadership Assets How well does
  the Proposal demonstrate the commitment of the
  Lead Applicant and Collaborator(s) and the
  leadership levels in all critical phases of the
  proposed Project, including research, IP
  protection, regulatory compliance, product
  development, leveraging of additional funding or
  investment capital, and commercialization?

19
Proposal Evaluation Criteria

• Identified Stage of Market Development How well
  does the Proposal demonstrate that the Lead
  Applicant understands the Commercialization
  Framework and where the Project fits in the
  Framework, and what resource providers and
  requirements are necessary for advancing the
  Project to subsequent phase(s) of the Framework?
• Impact on Ohio How does the Proposal impact the
  Ohio economy (e.g., jobs creation, average
  salaries, sales of products, companies created
  and/or attracted, follow-on investments, talent
  recruitment, enhanced recognition)?
• Importance to Key Existing and Emerging Ohio
  Industry Drivers How well does the Proposal
  demonstrate industrial support from the States
  relevant industry sector(s) for the Projects
  potential benefits?
• Involvement of Anchor Companies How well does
  the Proposal involve and engage relevant anchor
  companies within the State that have a
  substantial impact on the States economy?
• Involvement of Statewide Research Capacity How
  well does the Proposal integrate existing
  relevant State research excellence and resources?
• Level of Scientific Merit How well does the
  Proposal demonstrate novel concepts, approaches
  or methods and scientific excellence that will
  further advanced scientific knowledge?

20
Proposal Evaluation Criteria

• Past Performance (if applicable) How well has
  the Lead Applicant performed on any previous
  Third Frontier Project Grants it has received?
• Potential for Leverage Does the proposed
  Project have the potential to leverage additional
  funds from federal agencies, industry
  organizations and private investors during and
  beyond the requested initial State support?
• Potential for Products How well does the
  Proposal demonstrate the potential to result in
  specific products that will be produced in the
  State and provide significant near-term economic
  and industry impacts within Ohio?
• Size of Opportunity How large is the overall
  commercial opportunity of a proposed Project, and
  what impact on the State will it provide?
• Vision for Success How well does the Proposal
  present a Projects overall goals and
  achievements, including why the Project is
  important for the State?

21
Administrative Considerations

• Your indirect costs are capped at 20.
• Un-recovered indirect costs may be used as match
  but only the difference between 20 and your
  federally approved rate (or as otherwise approved
  by BRTT staff).
• Your indirect cost rate may not also be used
  against the direct costs in your cost share.
• All cost share must be backed up by letters of
  commitment signed by authorized officials.
• Cost share must be documented and auditable
  appearing as a verifiable expense on books and
  records.
• You will be held to the cost share ratio
  proposed.

22
Administrative Considerations

• Collaborators/co-investigators must be
  represented by a budget form in the proposal and
  letter of collaboration.
• COI disclosure/management procedures and
  human/animal subject protocol reviews in place.
• Keep proposed budget within targeted award range.
• Forms, format, content, and copies (an unlocked
  PDF version, all sections collapsed within one
  file, signed hard copy original with 1 copy and 2
  CDs).

23
Review Process

• Administrative Review
• ODOD and NAS Staff
• Begin COI process for review panel
• Receive and process proposals for administrative
  compliance
• Technical Review
• National Academy of Sciences
• Conduct Study Panel reviews
• Conduct Second Round Interviews
• Submit recommendations and summary evaluation
  statements to Third Frontier Commission

24
Timeline

• November 8, 2007 RFP published
• December 11, 2007 200 PM LOI due
• January 28, 2008 200 PM Proposals due
• February 2008 Administrative review of proposals
• February - May 2008 Technical Reviews
• Award Announcements June 26, 2008

25
Policy Administrative Questions Response Process

• BRCP will receive all RFP questions via email
• Email 2008_RCP_RFP_at_odod.state.oh.us
• with a subject line RCP QA
• Frequently asked questions will be posted on the
  Third Frontier web site www.thirdfrontier.com

26
Proposal Tricks

• Collaborations
• Failure to consider/involve funded TF grantees
  when you can
• Silo building
• Exclusion of professional rivals
• Involving funded TF grantees when you dont need
  to
• Window dressing a cast of thousands
• Hollow letters of support
• Disengaged commercial advisory board/board of
  directors
• Meaningless partnerships
• Cobbling together individual projects

27
Proposal Tricks

• Cost Sharing
• Not viewing cost share as a true half of the
  whole
• Related cost share
• Bait switch on cost share amounts
• The ratio you propose is the ratio you honor
• Assuming the highest bidder wins
• Confusing cost sharing with leveraged funds

28
Proposal Tricks

• Commercialization/Market
• Overestimating your position in the framework
• Proposing a program in its infancy
• If NSF, NIH, etc. will fund you, TF likely will
  not
• Not having a diverse pipeline
• Not proposing a platform or otherwise limited
  opportunities or limited commercial interest
• Not acknowledging competing/emerging technologies
  or competing business
• Not involving partners such as end users,
  suppliers, manufacturers
• Not being industry driven
• Overly optimistic impacts

29
Proposal Tricks

• Administrative Concerns
• Late proposals
• Falling below the award scope
• Space limitations
• 10 key personnel
• IP boilerplate
• Proprietary information

30
Research Commercialization Program- Biosciences -

• QUESTIONS?