2008 Proposal Writing Workshop

2008 Proposal Writing Workshop Presented by the August 12, 2008 1251 Dublin Road - Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 291-2229 Fax: (614) 291-2867 Important Points to Remember • ODOD’s goal is to stimulate technology-based economic development in Ohio • Funding recommendations are made based upon Ohio economic development potential and fit with TFP objectives in the RFP – – – – – Not based on preference for large or small applicants Not based on location of applicant Not based on favoritism toward a particular technology Not based on favoritism toward a particular applicant Not based on “good for society” • Reviewers will include both Taratec staff and external reviewers who may not be familiar with your company, staff, past projects, or history • Assume that your proposal will be read by at least three individuals with technical backgrounds and business experience, but who are not necessarily experts in your technology field • Limit the use of unfamiliar acronyms and scientific equations Proposal Writing Workshop 2 Workshop Structure I. Parts of the Proposal II. Content Issues Proposal Writing Workshop 3 Narrative • Brief description of how the proposed project addresses TFP intent and aligns with regional priorities • Clear long-term objectives and project goals • Work plan that identifies level-of-effort for each task, lead organization, and key participants • Tangible deliverables that provide evidence of progress, not just reports; they should be tied to A, B, and C metrics • Cost and performance targets and an explanation and evidence of where the technology is now • Identification of technical and commercialization leads and their relevant experience Proposal Writing Workshop 4 Commercialization Strategy • Requirements include: business strategy, resources, and sources of funds for both the near-term and long-term • Market potential and a realistic assessment of market share obtainable • Value proposition to explain why customers will buy • Competition and the advantages of the proposed technology • IP status, plans, and discussion of how technology advantages will be sustained and protected Proposal Writing Workshop 5 Projected Economic Impacts • Include jobs directly created, sales revenues, and other Ohio tangible benefits for the time periods stated in the RFP (2011 and 2016) • Tables are frequently the best approach • Impacts to the Ohio-based product commercializer are most important • Indirect job creation is not counted (multiplier effect) • Unrealistic job or revenue projections are discounted Proposal Writing Workshop 6 Budget • Properly fill out the prescribed budget forms and check math • Detailed budget narrative – – – – Personnel cost breakdown by job category, hours, and salary Hours tied to tasks in work plan Major equipment to be purchased and its cost Costs proposed for state funding and cost share Proposal Writing Workshop 7 Past Performance • Becoming increasingly important • Failure to demonstrate progress or capacity issues will adversely impact a high-scoring proposal • Commercialization status of prior TFP awards • Success in securing additional funding • Economic development impacts of prior project • Explain any perceived scope overlap with earlier TFP projects or federal awards Proposal Writing Workshop 8 Linkage with Prior TFP Awards • Demonstrate an awareness of Ohio TFP investments made in the technology area proposed • Identify previously funded projects and their synergy with the proposed project • Explain how this award will enhance previously claimed ED impacts • Explain equipment requests and work tasks that appear duplicative Proposal Writing Workshop 9 Experience and Qualifications • Bios should be brief (1 page or less) and include only those of key project participants • Evidence of training and experience related to the role in this project • Limit publications to recent ones that are directly relevant • Commercializer should describe previous commercialization success Proposal Writing Workshop 10 Letters of Commitment • Commitment letters for applicant and all other collaborators • Letterhead stationary • • • • • Name and title of individual authorized to commit Dollar value of commitment Detailed description of in-kind contribution Source of funding for cash contribution Authorization to use funds from federal awards for the proposed project • General letters of support are not helpful or encouraged • Intent-to-purchase letters provide external validation if they state the conditions under which purchase will occur Proposal Writing Workshop 11 Cost Share • Must represent a specific new commitment to the project • Cash is preferred (unrestricted use) • Percentage of cash is considered • Who has “skin in the game?” • In-kind contributions from applicant and collaborators in order of preference – – – – – – New hires for project Time from existing staff that fits project schedule Summer release time Foregone overheads Tuition fees Collaborator fees to use equipment purchased with state funds – Partial value of existing equipment Red flags associated with Cost Share – In-kind salaries that appear excessive – Full value of existing equipment – Value of previous research – Excessively valued IP – Excessive overheads • In-kind contributions must be auditable Proposal Writing Workshop 12 Key Issues Market Characterization Impact Projections Collaborations Cost Share Approach Proposal Writing Workshop 13 Market Characterization STRONGER PROPOSALS • Identifies appropriate target market niches • Market estimates from multiple external sources • Understands customer needs • Has made contact with customers and end-users • Complete product performance requirements - technical and cost • Shows in-depth understanding of competition and presents competitive positions WEAKER PROPOSALS • Overly broad description of market • Claims target market is “billions of dollars in size” • Depends on secondary reports of needs • Has not contacted customers or endusers • Understands technical performance requirements • Identifies some competitors • Compelling value proposition • Competitive advantage • “Build it and they will come!” • Very early stage - undefined value proposition Proposal Writing Workshop 14 Impact Projections STRONGER PROPOSALS • Revenue growth rates that are consistent with similar companies at same point in product life cycle WEAKER PROPOSALS • Explosive growth rates for sales • Revenue projections based on target market size, share, and captured share • Realistic ratios for revenues per employee that are consistent with industry • Job creation projections built from sales estimates and labor categories • Plan to manage 5-year growth of company • Business model that shows commitment and attachment to Ohio (physical facilities) • “We only need 1% share to be successful.” • Unrealistic ratios for revenues per employee • No detail on how job creation projections were developed • “Demand for our product will cause us to be successful.” • Plan to acquire revenue by licensing technology to out-of-state company Proposal Writing Workshop 15 Collaborations STRONGER PROPOSALS • Team demonstrates experience working together • All team members make substantial contributions to the project and are committed to its success • Team contains representation from key points along the value chain, including suppliers, customers, and end-users • Team members interact strongly and have mechanism to manage the collaboration • Team demonstrates access to a path to market WEAKER PROPOSALS • Use of advisory panel to build collaboration team • Team members are subcontractors (fee for service) • No time commitment evident for a team member • Team consists of only technology developers • Little team interaction; sequential participation • No substantive interest by a technology commercializer or end-user Proposal Writing Workshop 16 Cost Share STRONGER PROPOSALS • Details on the source and nature of the cost share • Inclusion of the cost share in the overall project budget • High percentage of cash cost share WEAKER PROPOSALS • Failure to describe the cost share and its source • No linkage between the cost share and the project plan/budget • A major portion of cost share is foregone overhead on award Proposal Writing Workshop 17 Approach STRONGER PROPOSALS • Complete plan (success in developing the technology, converting it into a product, and selling it) • Evidence of current technology status • Realistic estimate of dollars and resources needed for current project • Specific estimate of and plans to obtain resources after project ends • Team with a blend of technical and commercialization experience • External validation of technology (investments, grants, partnerships) WEAKER PROPOSALS • Technology development plan not complemented by comparable product and business plan • No validation of current technology status • Incomplete estimates or very low values for needed resources • “We will seek venture capital and additional grants.” • One-dimensional team—strong technical experience but no business expertise • ODOD as the main source of support • Quantifiable goals based on needs to obtain next round of funding (Level A metrics) • Reports or activities (Level C metrics) Proposal Writing Workshop 18