At the other extreme, nine (9) states received no awards Fifteen (15) states took between 1 4 awards Eight (8) states took between 5 - 9 · Five (5) states took 10 - 14 Broken out by state, analysis of the numbers shows up some interesting conditions. See Table 1). Included in this Table are also the previous award records of the fifty states and the District of Columbia in the NSF and DESAT programs (column 2). Given the significant increase in the scale of the program, in my judgement, of more interest than a numeric calculation of how many more less did firms in a particular state receive, is how does that total compare with what, on the basis of previous track record, they might have been expected to achieve. In making this calculation, for each state an estimate was made of what number of awards they might reasonably be expected to take in the FY 83 program. Column 4 = column 5 X 1.5 Column 5 the percentage variation of actual from estimate. Using this method, the point of reference becomes 100 i.e. representing the breakeven condition at which the number of received awards equals the number which one might have expected firms in that state to achieve. Of particular note in making this assessment is the achievement of firms in seven states Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia - performing well beyond forecast, making them strong contenders in what can be perhaps labelled the SBIR Come-from-nowhere-stakes. Come-from-nowhere stakes Alabama Arizona Illinois Indiana New Jersey Tennessee • ratio of submitted proposals to awards made, by state Though quality is the primary factor in the SBIR program, awards can be made only to projects that are submitted. In this first full year of the expanded program, therefore, as noted earlier, the implementation emphasis has been on getting out the word to eligible firms. The number of received applications by state is not available from all the agencies this year. From the figures that are available, however, it seems that the pattern established in the early years of the NSF SBIR program has continued i.e. that in some states, the proportion of submitted proposals to received awards is not favorable. (See Table 11, Pilot Program Figures 1977-1982). In states with previously low submission rates, the calculated percentage of Award to Proposal is not useful. Nevertheless, the favorable rates achieved by the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina and Utah (in alphabetical order) are worthy of comment. In contrast, note the comparatively poor achieved percentages of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington all states with an available resource base which would suggest the capacity to do well, but where, in the NSF program, quantity outstripped quality. Of particular note is the condition of California, a state with a strong SBIR presence and achievement, but from which 570 proposals were received for a total of 78 awards (a calculated Award Rate of only 14%). In contrast, in Massachusetts, the other strong state in the program, applicant firms submitted 366 proposals, of which 76 were selected for support, rendering an award rate of 21%. Numbers alone are clearly no guarantee of success in SBIR. The highly competitive condition of the program is no place for the poorly designed project(s). In program implementation efforts, and particularly in the development of support structures within the states, therefore, the emphasis must be on the achievement of quality and not merely on quantity. Indicative of the competition that exists in SBIR is the data included in Figure 11 (over page). Prepared for publication before announcement of the actual awards, the figures in columns (3) and (4) were calculated from estimates and are therefore no longer entirely accurate. In the larger agencies, more awards were made than were originally indicated (in Defense, for |