Sign In

Kirk Macolini

President at InteliSpark, LLC, SBIR & STTR Expert

Kirk Macolini is the Founder, President, and Principal Consultant of InteliSpark, LLC, a consulting firm specializing in securing non-dilutive funding for startups through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. With over 20 years of experience in this field, he has developed proposals that have resulted in more than 500 funded projects across various federal agencies. His work has been recognized in the journal Nature and includes collaborations with leading research institutions such as MIT, Cornell, and Princeton University.135

Macolini holds both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He has also served in technical, management, and business development roles in software and biotech firms. Additionally, he has eight years of military experience in intelligence and combat engineering roles.245

Under Macolini’s leadership, InteliSpark has helped clients secure significant funding—over $400 million as of recent reports—making it a leader in SBIR/STTR proposal success rates. The firm's approach combines data-driven strategies with personalized client engagement to maximize return on investment.134

Highlights

Jul 19 · linkedin

We are starting to see the impacts of The National Institutes of Health's implementation of Foreign Disclosure and Risk Management policies mandated by the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022. This requires NIH to deny awards due to security risks associated with connections to China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran. Unfortunately, NIH has adopted the policy that they “will not provide Small Business Concern (SBC) applicants the opportunity to address any identified security risks prior to award”.  Additionally, it seems that the NIH is not disclosing the specific reasons for a company's award denial. This essentially makes it impossible for SBC’s to correct potential flaws. 1)     the NIH SEED office should rethink these policies.  a.     If the goal is to prevent the flow of intellectual property to these countries, disclosure of reasons is important to stop that flow. If SBC’s are not able to correct these security vulnerabilities, many of these projects will instead be funded by private funding – and the flow of IP will occur regardless. b.     Tales of award denials will spread and discourage the inclusion of individuals from the countries of concern in projects and companies. Small business concerns (SBCs) lack a reliable method to determine whether someone associated with their company or project is part of a "talent recruitment program" from those nations. To avoid risk, it may seem safer to not involve people from these countries as founders, staff, or colleagues. Considering the sizable population of Chinese-born scientists within the life sciences, this exclusion has the potential to notably negatively impact innovation by leaving out leading experts. Of course, this will also be in direct conflict with federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on national origin.  The current policy incentivizes discrimination. c.     In many cases, the denied award will be the continuation of work done at a University under an NIH funded R01 or R21, by the exact same team. All the security risks were already there, all you have done is hampered commercialization of technology that NIH already has invested in significantly. Would it not be wiser to give SBC’s an opportunity to correct security issues and not undermine commercialization?

2)     NIH SEED should also publish a list of problematic CROs (eg WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics). Help SBCs out by letting them know who to avoid. These are start-ups not counterintelligence agencies!

We know other federal agencies are working with companies to fix issues – the laws intent would be better served by doing so at NIH.

It would be great to get the thoughts of any or all off the following:

  • NIH Director - Monica Bertagnolli
  • NIH's Deputy Director for Extramural Research - Michael Lauer
  • NIH SEED Office Director - Matthew McMahon
  • NIH Small Business Program Director - Stephanie Fertig

#nih #policy #security #innovation #startupfunding #autm #techtransfer #sbir #sttr

Jun 17 · linkedin

Here are key changes in new National Science Foundation (NSF) Phase I SBIR/STTR solicitation:

Budget Increase from $275K to $305K. Though this is less impactful than it seems. The new number includes: ·        $6,500 in TABA (Technical And Business Assistance). Awardees can now decide how to spend these funds more freely. ·        NSF is recommending that awardees budget $25K for participation in I-Corps. The beat the odds bootcamp has gone away. There will also no longer be supplements to the Phase I award to cover I-Corps.

Removal of the option to provide letters of support: I have reservations about this change. Based on my cohort's experience, the capacity to secure high-quality letters of support for Phase I proposals is a sign of being able to attract equity funding and establish early partnerships and customers. The change likely reflects the NSF desire to focus on projects with higher tech risk.

Proposal Format Changes: The proposal format has changed substantially. The more technical sections have shifted to the front, while the commercialization sections have shifted to the back. The change likely reflects the NSF desire to focus on projects with high tech risk. I suspect they are trying to focus reviewers more on the technical aspects of the project.

Less time for submission after invite. Now small businesses that receive an official invite must submit their full proposal within the next two deadlines of the email date of their invite. Previously applicants had a full year. Not clear how this effects legacy pitches who were told they had 1 year. This is for the best, sitting on a pitch for a year is probably indicative of other execution problems at a start-up.

Personnel Documents: A new Synergistic Activities document is required for all personnel. Each Senior/Key person must provide a document of up to one-page that includes a list of up to five distinct examples of synergistic activities that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. I don't like the standardized way of presenting biographical information. This is a clear example of why. The NSF Biographical Sketches form is mainly for academics, and it doesn't fit well with the intended start-up audience. So, a different form is made. I wish they would get rid of the standard Biosketch and give everyone one page to show their qualifications (in any way they wanted).

Deadline Clarity: We now have deadline clarity on the next five deadlines. September 18, 2024,     November 06, 2024, March 05, 2025, July 02, 2025, and November 05, 2025. Thank you NSF for not having a July 5th deadline like there was on 2023!

#sbir #sttr #nsf #startupfunding

Related Questions

What are some of the most successful projects Kirk Macolini has led at InteliSpark?
How does InteliSpark's success rate compare to the national average for SBIR/STTR proposals?
What is the Project Fee + Incentive Fee Business Model that InteliSpark uses?
Can you provide examples of successful exits for clients of InteliSpark?
What is the role of Kirk Macolini at ArchieMD, and how does it differ from his role at InteliSpark?
Kirk Macolini
Kirk Macolini, photo 1
Kirk Macolini, photo 2
Add to my network

Location

Ithaca, New York