Innovative Partnerships Program Goals

2. Innovative Partnerships Program Goals Create partnerships and projects that support Mission Directorates by: • Providing more technology solutions • Broadening NASA’s technology portfolio • Reducing mission costs • Accelerating development and maturation of technologies • Establishing a larger pool of qualified commercial providers

3. Seed Fund Overview • Seed funding to enable external partnerships that advance development of technology of interest to NASA • Four winning Ames’ proposals in 2006 • Total budget for 2007 IPP Seed Fund is $9.2 million (From $6.6 million in 2006) • Each project $50K to $250K • Each Center may submit up to 8 proposals • Proposals prioritized for each Mission Directorate • ESMD, SOMD, SMD, ARMD • Executive Summary due June 29

4. Proposal Selection Criteria • Relevance and Value to NASA • Relevance and value to current and future NASA missions, alignment with IPP objectives, linkage to Mission Directorate Technology Focus Areas. 2.Scientific/Technical Merit and Feasibility 3. Quality of Cost-Share and Leveraging of Resources • Level and quality of the cost share and resources contributed by the non-NASA partner • Degree to which the proposed project leverages other NASA funding. 4.Capability and Strength of Partnership Team 5.Budget/Schedule • Realism of the proposed schedule and level of funding requested relative to the anticipated goals, objectives and outcomes of the partnership

5. Partnership Objectives and Outcomes • Define clear objectives and anticipated outcomes for the proposed partnerships • Demonstrate how successful projects will transition to the next phase of the technology development life-cycle or funding opportunity in support of NASA missions. • Relevance and perceived value of the proposed outcomes to Mission Directorates will be significant factors in the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of proposals.

6. IPP Product Area Alignment • Emergent Technologies: • Advance low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) technology that is of strategic importance to future NASA missions. • Joint Technology Partnerships: • Dual Use tech development: e.g. Develop mid-range TRLs (4 to 6) to fill technology needs of Mission Directorates, Programs and Projects. • SBIR/STTR: Move Phase I and Phase II development to Phase III for insertion into NASA missions. • Intellectual Property Management: • Licensing to develop a commercial product, process or capability that directly benefits NASA • Non-Traditional Partnerships: • Public/private partnerships with non-traditional partners that lead in science, engineering and innovative technology, bringing value to NASA. • Partnerships may be complex, cross-agency and broader based, and will not follow traditional procurement paths.

7. Cost Share Requirements • Non-NASA Partner • Provide cost-sharing equal to or greater than IPP Seed Fund contribution • Cost-sharing may be “in-kind” contributions • Labor, expertise, facilities, equipment, materials, SW, testbeds, intellectual property, etc. • IPP prefers seed funds used for internal NASA efforts, although some funding of external partners allowed • NASA Program, Project or Center • In-kind contributions count • Innovative Partnerships Program

8. Ames Selection Process Changes • Two Step Process for Proposal Submission: • Executive Summaries used to screen and select semi-finalists • One page limit. Format described on the next slide - Format and Frequently Asked Questions are on the Technology Partnerships web site: http://technology.arc.nasa.gov • Executive summaries are due to our office by June 29 • Ames Internal Evaluation Team selects semi-finalists - Broad representation • Final Proposals: 5 page limit excluding title page, resumes, letters of reference, endorsement or intent • Format similar to last year • Full Proposals are due August 1 • Ames Internal Evaluation Team Selects 8 Finalists

9. Seed Fund Executive Summary Format (1 Page) • Title: • Partnership Manager and Co-PI(s) with contact info: • External Partner(s) (note team strengths & capabilities): • Mission Directorate(s) Supported: • Relevance and Value of project to NASA (specify technology focus areas): • Amount Requested from IPP: • Leverage/Cost-Sharing from Partners (by $ amount & type): • NASA Program, Project, Center contributions (by $ amount & type): • Performance Metrics (At least one clear and measurable indicator of how well proposed objectives and outcomes achieved): --------------- • Abstract or Summary of Project (Identify need or problem, summarize approach, benefits to NASA, scientific/technical merit):

10. Proposal Submission Schedule Event Date Centerwide Announcement May 23 Executive Summaries Due June 29 @ 3:00pm Internal Panel Selects Semi-finalists July 6 Full Proposal Submission August 1 Eight Proposals Selected for Final Preparation August 9 Eight Proposals Submitted to IPP Headquarters August 13

11. Final Proposal Format 1. Project Title: 2. PM and Co-PI(s): Center IPP office, Program/Project representative, non-NASA partner principal participants 3. Mission Directorate(s) Supported – ARMD, ESMD, SMD and SOMD 4. Scope or Abstract – Identify the need or problem that is being addressed and summarize the overall approach to be undertaken and the value and benefits to NASA. 5. Technical Approach – Identify technical approach, current state-of-the-art work related to what’s being proposed, identify related prior or current work being done in this area, and expertise and capabilities of technical team (attach short resumes). Include a schedule and key milestones for proposed work. 6. Approach to Partnering – Identify the partner(s) and their proposed contributions to the project (both financially and technically), identify NASA’s contributions to the project, roles and responsibilities of each party, the proposed partnership mechanism and potential commercialization opportunities.

12. Final Proposal Format (continued) 7. Benefit to NASA – Identify alignment to IPP elements and Mission Directorate technology focus areas, identify future value to NASA (return on investment, cost savings/cost avoidance, increased safety, reduced development time, etc.), identify next steps (exit strategy) for the technology or partnership. 8. Budget – Provide a detailed full cost budget (follow IPP new format) 9. Performance Metric(s) – Clear and measurable indicator of successful performance (e.g. advance technology from TRL 5 to TRL 6) 10. Letter of intent from an authorized official of the proposed external partner(s) 11. Concurrence signature from a cognizant NASA Program Office Representative – The concurring official must have authority to commit program/project resources in support of the proposal.

13. Technology Partnerships Division Support • Develop partnerships • Solidify partner relationships • Help structure the deal • Review and advise on proposal, including IP and business aspects • Implement post-selection agreements • Distribute IPP award funds to investigators • Look for ways to grow partnership opportunities

14. Points of Contact • Code A: • Robin Orans 604-5875 rorans@mail.arc.nasa.gov • Code S: • Dani Goldwater 604-5554 dgoldwater@mail.arc.nasa.gov • Code T: • Phil Herlth 604-0625 pherlth@mail.arc.nasa.gov • Other Codes: • Mario Perez 604-3778 mmperez@mail.arc.nasa.gov

15. Possible Benefits Beyond Seed Fund • Creates opportunities for team and partnership building that can lead to: • Other funding proposals • SBIR/STTR proposals • Reimbursable and other Space Act Agreements • Interagency Agreements • Exchange of ideas with other innovators, possible new concepts, technology infusion

16. New Business Office Role

17. New Business Opportunities IPP Role • Work with investigators to strengthen proposals through • technical writing/editing/proofreading • cost estimating, pricing and cost templates use • proposal graphics and formatting • Help ensure consistency in use of pricing template & costing • check that the appropriate template & values are used correctly • assist with representation of cost-sharing/in-kind contributions • Develop standardize format for Ames proposals • Help polish final Ames proposals being sent forward to HQ