Pursuing DoDResearch Funding; Notes from June 11, 2014 Briefing

Agenda:

  • Conrad Monson provided a brief overview of DoD funding with backup information that would be of interest to faculty. The backup information includes additional briefings about DoD funding and includes references and links to the DoD labs and funding groups.
  • Tim McLain, Gus Hart and David Clark provide insights from their DoD funding experiences and answered questions

Notes:

Conrad Monson:

  • A few points from his presentation include
  • The DoD is a major funding agency; there are certain disciplines it especially funds and in fields (e.g., Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering), DoD is the major source of federal research funding.
  • At BYU,51% ofDoD proposals submitted have been funded (the 51% doesn’t account for number of white papers submitted), a higher percentage of funding than for other typical funding sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, DOE)
  • Working with one of the 62 DoD research labs is a good way to get connected to funding opportunities
  • If a program officer wants what you have (i.e., it meets that officer’s/agency needs), you will get funded. The funding review process is typically less rigorous than is the process for other agencies such as NSF or NIH and again, if the PO wants to fund you, you will get funded
  • One purpose of this seminar was to interest faculty in developing white papers to submit to potential DoD funders. As we have done with NIH and NSF, we will convene a colleague review to review each other’s white papers before submittal. Tim McLain will lead this “DoD Colleague Review”

Tim McLain:

  • Provide a set of briefing charts to cover the points he wanted to make. Also provided (but didn’t present) a briefing by a DoD Program Officer that provides good advice for obtaining DoD funding.
  • The DoDScience and Technology structure includesDoDresearch labs and program offices. In his experience, labs don’t fund very much but they are very connected to their research offices (i.e. AFOSR, AFRL). For that reason, working in DoD funded labs puts you in contact with people in the funding offices even if it doesn’t directly lead to funding. Working in the labs for short research experiences (e.g., for the summer) is an excellent way to get exposed to potential funders and is an opportunity not fully utilized by faculty researchers – that is, not all funded research slots get filled.
  • Types of Funding
  • Tim reviewed DoDfunding level categories; 6.1 money is for basic research (50% to universities); 6.2 and 6.3 (applied and technology development) has a smaller percentage of funding for universities, and most of that funding is for the “UARCs” (University Affiliated Research Centers) that are relatively large research units funded by the DoD at selected universities (e.g. Johns Hopkins’ Applied Physics Lab; Utah State’s Space Dynamics Laboratory)
  • It’s unusual for BYU to receive 6.2 and 6.3 opportunities (applied and advanced technology development) as the Principal Investigator.However, professors at BYU could be collaborators on these opportunities.
  • Funding Opportunities
  • BAA’s (Broad Agency Announcements) are posted on the web and stay there with little modification. This is the mechanism for a single investigator or team of two to approach the DoD for funding. The BAA provides overall areas of interest to research interest
  • MURI’s (Multi Disciplinary University Research Initiatives)haverelatively largeamounts of funding and involve collaboration among multiple universities across multiple disciplines.
  • DoDwill fund the purchase of expensive instruments. You don’t necessarily have to have funding currently from DoD to receive this award although working on a project related to DoD interests would certainly improves chances for an award.
  • DoD also funds New/Young investigator awards that are similar to the funding levels provided by CAREER awards from NSF
  • SBIR’s (Small Business Innovation Research) and STTR’s (Small Business Technology Transfer) initiatives are another good source of DoD funding. STTR’s are required to give a bigger chunk to the university than SBIR’s are.
  • Phase 1 SBIRS are typically for about $75K for ~ 6-9 months with upwards of $150K for Phase 2 awards. There can be a gap between Phases that can complicate graduate student and post doc funding.
  • For Tim, Randy Beard and other BYU faculty, success rates for SBIR funding have been typically quite high, about 70% for Phase 1 awards and 80% for Phase 2.
  • SBIR’s and STTR’s have higher overhead relative to overhead on other awards. Reporting requirements can include It’s likely there would be a monthly telecons and reportswith the small business and funder.
  • Insights
  • If DoD funders want to fund you and have money, you will be funded.
  • In Tim’s opinion, responding to a BAA without additional inside information is a hopeless endeavor.
  • In response to the question “How do you get inside information”? Tim referred to advice in the slides he presented and also replied
  • Set up appointments and visit program officers, find out where they are at conferences, invite them to BYU, and go to a research lab. Going to a research lab allows you to establish relationships and get to know DoDproblems of interest.
  • BAA’s are a high-level description and you really need to find out what specifically a funder is looking for
  • When meeting with program officers, prepare to talk about your ideas and don’t just ask, “What are you funding?” They will let things slip out that give you a clue about what they’re looking for.
  • Distinguish yourself from competitors by going the extra mile.
  • In response to the question “When you have DoD funding, does the DoD becomesyour master and the university slips to second place?”, Tim replied
  • This hasn’t been his experience, but if you’re receiving tons of money some program officers may treat you like they own you and expect you to drop everything to come to meetings.
  • Money that comes from single investigator awards and MURI’s are limited in reporting requirements. Once a yearyou write a 10-page report and go to a meeting so the demands don’t seem any worse than for other funding agencies.
  • AFOSR has given him money without much overhead/reporting requirements.

Gus Hart:

  • Experience with the DoD: He wrote two white papers for MURI’s last year, one was accepted, a proposal was requested and then funded.
  • His DoD funding opportunity came through a connection to a potential DoD PO who heard Gus talk at a conference. The funder said he was interested and that connection eventually lead to a request for a proposal. This experience illustrates what was previously discussed - the human component is key to successful DoDfunding assuming you are doing research that is relevant to what the program officer wants
  • The DoDproposal Gusand his colleagues prepared for the MURI effort was high-quality and a lot of work (25 page technical section, 2-3 weeks of intensive proposal preparation). After it was funded, he and his collaborators had a two-day meeting with the PO in DC and had to “sell” their ideas again. The MURI requires yearly progress reviews.
  • For the MURI, there was a lot of interaction between the head PI who is at Duke and the program officer.
  • In answer to the question “To what degree did you have to bendyour research interests to fit the program?”, Gus replied that not at all – the PO wanted exactly what he could give them.
  • For the MURI project,the program officer’s desire is to have lots of computation and not much experimentation. Their team consists of 5 computationalists and 1 experimentalist.
  • Program officers collect scientists almost like Berkshire and Hathaway collects stocks(on PO describe the scientists he has funded as part of his portfolio). Becoming one of the “portfolio scientists” helps in securing funding.
  • In his experience with the MURI, the ONR (Office of Naval Research) wants him to spend down the funding and not get behind on spending plans (i.e., don’t let unspent funds accumulate)

David Clark:

  • David had 20 years of continual funding from the ONR (Office of Naval Research) starting in 1967.
  • His research used sediment cores to determine the earth’s magnetic field reversals. Accountability consisted of a phone call in April each year and they would ask how much money he needed and he would tell them and they provided it. Proposals were a breeze.
  • After Ice Island T3 grounded in 1974, The navy found other interesting things for them to do related to glaciation and the shear strength of soil (as part of an idea to put missiles under the ice)
  • In 1987 Dr. Clark’s program officer called and said “are you going to study these forever?” He said “yes, if you keep paying us.”
  • During this time he had 30 students (master’s and PhD) who got degrees doing work on the sediment cores.
  • After the long stint of DoD funding, Dr. Clark went to the NSF and got half a million a year to study the water chemistry to determine geologically what happened to the oceans.
  • His final word of advice—“The same thing these two gentleman have told you.” Cultivate relationships with people who have connections in what you’re doing. Then think big!

Additional Discussion:

  • DARPA is willing to take chances, wants to take on risk. The timeframe for DARPA support can be relatively short since many PO have 3 year terms. POs want to show they have accomplished something during their 3 years.
  • Even though DARPA program officers are very results-driven, those with DARAP funding experience have not found POs oppressive and overly demanding as they havebeen reputed to be.
  • Marc Killpack mentioned that during his DARPA-funded doctoral studies, the program officer was from academia, not military. DARPA overhead/accountability involved twice yearly reporting on progress.
  • DARPA is supposed to take on projects that the military R&D doesn’t want to fund because they are too risky or conceptual. If a project proves successful and there is a follow on, then DARAP hands the project off to a military R&D office (e.g., before the Air Force and Navy started developing Unmanned Combat Vehicles, DARPA contracted with Boeing to prove the technical capabilities and build a prototype).
  • DARPA does use BAAs for funding and also has areas of emphasis. The DARPA website has good descriptions of their research interests.
  • Tom Sederberg mentioned that nationally, DoD funding is about 70 percent of the NSF total. DoD funding only makes up 20 percent of the funding in CPMS suggesting DoD funding might be a source of funding growth for the college.