Posted on

OTAs Boost DOD’s Ability to Acquire nnovative technologies

The Department of Defense (DOD), also known as the Department of War (DOW), is increasingly using Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs or OTs) as a mechanism for research, development, test & evaluation (RDT&E) and initial production activities. DOD’s OTA spending went from under $1 billion in FY 2015 to $18 billion in FY 2024. Issued in April 2025, Executive Order 14265: Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base, directs DOD to make a number of acquisitions reforms focused on improving speed and flexibility, including prioritizing OTAs and similar vehicles.

OTAs are meant to boost DOD’s ability to acquire innovative technologies, especially from nontraditional defense contractors and small businesses. OTAs, not subject to certain federal acquisition laws and requirements, are more agile contracting vehicles with more flexibility in the award process and contract terms and conditions. There are three types of OTAs: research OTAs, prototype OTAs, and follow-on production OTAs. Most are prototype OTAs, which offer a streamlined method for transitioning into production without further competition. All branches of DOD can use OTAs -. The Army has made the most use of OTAs by far, followed by the Air Force. (Some other federal agencies, such as NSF, have similar other transaction agreement authority.)

DOD can award OTAs to individual organizations (for-profit or non-profit) or to consortia—groups of organizations focused on specific technology areas. The majority are awarded through consortia. DOD awards consortia OTAs and directs the consortia to handle different aspects of the awards process for individual projects. An organization must be a member of the consortium to be eligible for project awards through that consortium. Examples of major DOD consortia include:

Download our OTA Report!

Fill out the form to download a copy of our Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) report.

*By submitting this form you agree to receive updates from Dawnbreaker.

Posted on

Defense Portal: A One-Stop Resource for U.S. Navy Insights

In an environment where information changes quickly and accuracy is critical, access to reliable, consolidated resources can be the difference between informed decisions and missed opportunities. Dawnbreaker’s Portals were created with this very challenge in mind: to deliver reliable, concise, and continuously updated information to those working with, or seeking to better understand, the U.S. Navy.

As one of the most complex organizations in the world, the U.S. Navy’s structure includes commands, program offices, and leadership roles that evolve regularly. Finding accurate, up-to-date details about its structure and leadership often required hours of research across multiple websites, reports, and announcements.

Dawnbreaker’s Defense Portal eliminates this challenge by providing:

  • A concise, one-stop summary of Navy organizational structure
  • Details of organizational functions, clarifying the role of offices, commands, and leadership bodies
  • Regular leadership and personnel updates, ensuring users know who is leading and in what capacity

For anyone navigating Navy programs—whether government, industry, or academia—the Defense Portal offers a streamlined path to reliable insights.

The importance of staying current cannot be overstated. Leadership transitions directly impact priorities, decision-making, and program direction. We’re pleased to share that as of September 2025, the Defense Portal has been updated to reflect recent significant leadership changes. As leadership shifts and new challenges emerge, this resource ensures that you stay informed—saving time, reducing uncertainty, and helping you move forward with confidence. Key personnel roles are and will continue to be regularly reviewed and updated to maintain the highest standard of current information.

Visit the Defense Portal
Posted on

Will the Senate allow the SBIR/STTR programs to lapse TODAY?

For over 43 years, the House and the Senate have acted together to assure that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs do not lapse. Now, at the last minute – the Senate appears to be hesitating in approving bill HR 5100 unanimously presented by the House which extends the SBIR/STTR programs for one year. “This bill simply pushes the termination date back to September 30, 2026, and makes no programmatic changes to the program.” This will allow time in the future to evaluate any proposed changes.

However, if the program is allowed to lapse today, no new SBIR/STTR awards can be made, no new solicitations will be released and countless small, advanced technology firms will be damaged. We encourage the Senate to pass HR 5100 today!

See the link below to…

Urge Your Senators to Support SBIR/STTR 1-Year Extension

Posted on

The Negative Impact of the Department of Energy (DOE) 15% Overhead Rule on SBIR/STTR firms

The Negative Impact of the Department of Energy (DOE) 15% Overhead Rule on SBIR/STTR firms

The implementation of the 15% rule applied to the Department of Energy’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs will inadvertenty cripple the innovation for which this program has been justly recognized. In May 2025, the Department of Energy’s Office of Acquisition Management issued three Policy Flashes (PF) which limit the indirect rates allowed for grants and cooperative agreements. Collectively, these documents affect (1) nonprofits – in particular Institutions of Higher Education (PF 2025-26), (2) for profits – including both large and small business (PF 2025-27) and (3) state and local government (PF 2025-25). The stated purpose of the Policy Flashes is to improve efficiency and curtail costs where appropriate. PF 2025-27 clarifies that “The Department seeks to better balance the financial needs of financial assistance award recipients with the Department’s obligation to responsibly manage federal funds.”

However, what is left out of this balance is the profound and negative impact that this ceiling will have on small, advanced technology firms participating in DOE’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. It will stifle their ability to advance DOE SBIR/STTR funded technologies into cutting edge, commercial products

Funding for the SBIR/STTR programs comes out of extramural research and development funds. The federal government spent approximately $192 billion in FY23 on research and development.  According to the National Science Board two-thirds of the FY23 federal R&D budget ($128 billion) went to extramural performers, while the remainder ($64.1B) went to intramural performers.  Extramural performers include the three categories affected by the DOE Policy Flashes. In FY23, only $4.65B of the $128B spent on extramural R&D went to small business participating in the SBIR/STTR programs[1]. DOE which provides its SBIR/STTR awards as grants, accounted for just 5.89% of the total SBIR/STTR budget in FY23.

 Figure 1: FY2023 SBIR/STTR Budgets by Agency

The amount of R&D funding that went to large business in FY23 is not readily available. However, one can gain insight into this information from a 2019 AAAS report. The following figure represents the distribution of federal R&D funding in FY16. The total amount of federal R&D funding spent on both intramural and extramural performers in FY16 was $113.8B. Of that total, $38B was spent on Intramural R&D, leaving $75.8B or 66% for extramural R&D. The combined SBIR/STTR budget in FY16 was $2.38B[2]. This represents 10.8% of the total extramural funding spent on industry ($24.7B) in FY16.

 Figure 2: Federal R&D by Performer, FY2016

Most extramural R&D funding is awarded to LARGE business, not to small SBIR/STTR funded firms. I can’t speak to the ability of large business to absorb a 15% indirect cost ceiling. However, the mission of small, advanced R&D firms focused on basic and applied research limits their ability to supplement a 15% indirect cost ceiling. A potential side effect of  PF 2025-27 is that DOE will lose some of its more seasoned performers to other Agencies participating in the SBIR/STTR program that use contracts as opposed to grants.

Although large business invests in R&D, studies conducted by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics indicate that the preferred model for large business  is to have high-risk, basic and applied research funded by the federal government and then become involved when the technology is de-risked at the development stage (TRL 6-9). When the technology is sufficiently mature, the smaller entities could be acquired by a larger firm, intellectual property licensed-in, or joint ventures formed.

 Figure 3: Composition of U.S. Basic Research, Applied Research and Development by Funding Sector, 2022.

PF 2025-27 states that “The Department plans to establish a maximum allowable dollar amount (stated in terms of a percentage of the total project award amount) that it will reimburse for allowable, allocable, and reasonable indirect costs under Awards. The percentage that will be reimbursable is inclusive of total indirect costs and fringe benefit costs.”

The 15% which is recommended in PF 2025-27 has historically been the de minimis and applies when the recipient does not have a current federal negotiated indirect cost rate. In practice, this tends to be used by start-ups which are often first-time applicants with minimal infrastructure. Start-ups with 1-3 employees use the de minimis rate as it does not require any back-up data. Fifteen percent of a Phase I DOE SBIR award of $200,000 is $30,000. Although this may sound like a lot to someone who has not run a business – health care benefits alone would take half of that in one gulp. If the company is a start-up working out of their home with minimal infrastructure, they might be able to make that work for their first year.

However, to grow a business so that it has the resources to both develop and commercialize a technology requires that a company add business functions and physical infrastructure. Gere Glover,  the Executive Director of the Small Business Technology Council  notes that the average indirect rate for maturing Department of Energy SBIR/STTR companies is approximately 50%. The 7% profit typically allowed to an SBIR/STTR firm by the Department of Energy cannot make up for the shortfall that the imposition of this 15% indirect rate will create. Implementation of this policy will damage their future and the ability of these companies to remain good suppliers of innovative technology to the Department of Energy.

PF 2025-27 states that “In circumstances where the Secretary has determined it is necessary and appropriate, the dollar threshold for payment of indirect costs may be modified for Award(s) to for-profit organizations that are subject to this policy.”

Grouping large and small businesses together that receive extramural R&D funds from the Department of Energy and then applying one indirect rate to all, ignores significant differences between large and small business. Large well-managed companies are financially stable and have an established and diverse infrastructure built over decades.  They have personnel dedicated to product development, marketing and sales, distribution, manufacturing, quality, legal and the like. Large businesses make profit from the products that they sell and have cash reserves.

For small, advanced technology firms to become and remain viable entities on the path to financial independence requires time and resources. Examples of the typical expenses an SBIR firm must cover are available in examples that DOE provides small business on how to develop indirect cost models.[1] In this document a sample ledger provided by DOE depicts a 32% fringe rate and a 12.2% Indirect rate for a total of 44.2%, when combined. Funding is the life blood of a company and a 15% indirect rate is inadequate for a small, advanced technology firm.

Given the importance of the innovation that stems from the SBIR/STTR program to the Trump Administration, it is respectfully suggested that indirect rates for companies participating in the SBIR and STTR program be considered for separate benchmarks established after an analysis of historical data on SBIR/STTR indirect rates.

[1] The FY2011 reauthorization of the SBIR program increased the set aside to 3.2% of the extramural R&D budget and 0.45% for the STTR program.

[2] Small Business Administration, “ SBIR/STTR 2016 Annual Report to Congress,” 2019

[3] DOE National Technology Laboratory, “Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement and Indirect Rate Proposal Guidance,” https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/Negotiated-Indirect-Cost-Rate-Agreement-and-Rate-Proposal-Guidance.pdf

Share this article:

Email
X
LinkedIn
Posted on

The INNOVATE Act: The Problems with Phase 1A

The Innovate act: The problems with Phase 1A


By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

The Department of Defense has developed numerous ways to modify the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to rapidly secure solutions for the warfighter. From Commercial Solutions Offerings (CSO) to $50,000 Phase I awards that make a company instantly eligible for a government Phase III, DoD has demonstrated its ability to use both traditional and nontraditional methods to secure technologies that it needs for the warfighter more rapidly.

However, it appears that some small businesses that have benefited from the application of DoD’s tool kit, often become proponents of applying these same methods to all agencies. For example, the Phase 1A concept in the INNOVATE Act bears a striking resemblance to DoD’s Commercial Solutions Offering (CSO).  This is an optional approach used by DoD – not a mandated one – which enables companies with an existing commercial solution to make modifications to meet a DoD need.“CSO can be used to acquire innovative commercial items, technologies, or services that directly meet program requirements, whereas BAAs are restricted to basic and applied research.[1]”

The proposed Phase 1A is intended to speed upon the entry of new applicants into the SBIR/STTR programs, by asking them to submit a two-page proposal in response to an “open topic” for which they could receive a $40,000 award. The proposed guidelines for the Phase 1A application includes: (1) Identification of the Problem, (2) Description of the Solution, (3) Impact of the Solution, (4) Differentiation and (5) Commercialization Strategy including both the commercial and government markets. The requirement for an “Open Topic” and the proposed outline suggests that very little is known about how civilian agencies differ from the Department of Defense. Here are a few of the differences:

    1. Most of the SBIR/STTR topics from civilian agencies ARE focused on basic and applied research.
    2. Many civilian agencies already have developed their own methods to quickly enable potential applicants to discern if there is a fit between their skills and the agencies needs. The National Science Foundation uses the Project Pitch, the Department of Energy uses the Letter of Intent, and the National Institute of Health uses Aims.
    3. Civilian agencies already conduct outreach to bring in hundreds of new applicants each year and provide support in proposal preparation through federally funded Phase 0 programs. The Department of Energy has provided the DOE Phase 0 support for more than 10 years, as has the National Institutes of Health through its Applicant Assistance Program. These programs are comprehensive and cost effective.
    4. Most civilian agencies have funded I-Corps and make this available in various forms in order to assure that small businesses speak with their potential customers.
    5. Although Government Phase IIIs are theoretically available to all agencies, granting organizations tend not to use this mechanism as their mission is focused on “public good”, as opposed to being focused on a government mission.

The bottom line is that there is no need to substitute effective solutions that agencies have already developed with an approach that will overwhelm their staff and require more taxpayer money. Existing federal Phase 0 programs cost between $5,000 and $7,000 per company, as opposed to $40,000 as proposed by the INNOVATE ACT.  It is important to note that the Department of Defense, which accounts for more than half of the available SBIR/STTR funding, has far more staff to manage and implement its programs than smaller agencies with less resources.

The INNOVATE ACT maintains that “Phase 1A funds will bring thousands of new small business concerns committed to commercialization of critical technologies into the SBIR program.” However, there are no data to substantiate this belief, even though the argument is being made that by placing a cap on the number of awards that frequent award winners receive, an increase in first time applicants winning SBIR/STTR awards will increase.  However, the Annual SBIR/STTR Reports to Congress, provided by the Small Business Administration do not include any data regarding how many first-time applicants submit SBIR/STTR proposals,  how many of these were non-responsive, merited award or received an award. Such data are necessary to substantiate this assumption.

It is therefore suggested that in bill S. 853 “Phase 1A be presented as an option, rather than a mandate and that all agencies be required to use not less than 2.5% of their SBIR budget for either Phase IA or other outreach initiatives aimed at bringing in qualified, first time SBIR/STTR applicants.” Existing Federal Phase 0 programs are funded with “outreach” dollars which would be eliminated by a mandated Phase 1A requirement.

[1] DAU, Commercial Solutions Opening (DFARS 212.70), accessed August 20, 2025

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose!

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose!

By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

In July 2022 Congress passed the sweeping Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing Act[1] to ensure U.S. competitiveness and dominance in this critical technology. This need harkens back to the 1970’s when the same concern regarding U.S. competitiveness gave rise to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. However, the response today is different – in 2022, Congress is heading towards the potential lapse of the SBIR/STTR programs due to its inaction!

What is so unnerving is that Congress apparently doesn’t know the role that the SBIR/STTR programs have already played in strengthening the domestic semiconductor industry – through a small, SBIR-funded company called Arkansas Power Electronics International (APEI) which was acquired by Cree (NASDAQ: Cree) in 2015 and today is known as Wolfspeed.  The future of the semiconductor industry lies with wide band gap materials – SiC and GaN and Wolfspeed is the world leader.

SiC Wafer Market Share

2% 4% 5% 13% 14% 62%
  • Wolfspeed has long-term stable market share of >60%
  • Wolfspeed is recognized as a technology leader in the industry
  • Wolfspeed is leading supplier to world's largest power semiconductor IDMs
  • Wolfspeed continues to add materials capacity to maintain market leadership
  • Wolfspeed
  • II-VI
  • SiCrystal
  • SK Siltron
  • TankeBlue
  • Others

Source: Wolfspeed, pg 80.

At the time APEI was acquired in 2015, the Executive Vice President of Cree stated,

“Adding this expert team of innovators and portfolio of patents will enable us to further disrupt and expand the market,” said Frank Plastina, executive vice president, Cree Power and RF. “Extending our research and development capabilities with APEI, a leader in wide bandgap power R&D, will help us accelerate delivery of a full spectrum of SiC power modules to meet customer requirements for performance and cost.”[2]

Two days ago Wolfspeed announced a ”$5 Billion investment in Chatham County, largest in NC History”[3] to build a new semiconductor plant.

To put the role of the SBIR program in perspective here are a few data points. Arkansas Power Electronics International was founded in 1997 and between 2002 and 2015 received 59 Phase I and Phase II awards which included: 29 awards from the Department of Defense; 13 awards from the Department of Energy, 14 awards from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, one award from the Department of Transportation and one award from the National Science Foundation. This level of support for revolutionary technologies by the SBIR/STTR programs is necessary. To simply assume that providing multiple awards to a small business is a waste of tax-payer money or that this practice prevents other companies from winning SBIR/STTR awards is simply false.  

This is one of the many SBIR/STTR successes that goes unheralded as federal agencies lack sufficient funding and tools to track the success of SBIR/STTR awardees over an extended timeframe.  Since 1982, many successful technologies funded though the SBIR/STTR programs have enhanced U.S. competitiveness, created jobs, and commercialized new products. Congress needs to take appropriate measures immediately to keep the SBIR/STTR programs in place. To let this program lapse will hinder U.S. competitiveness – which is the reason the SBIR program was initially created [4] and should be allowed to flourish!

[1] H.R. 6359 – Investing in Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing Act

[2] Wolfspeed. “Cree Acquires APEI (Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc.”  July 09, 2015.

[3] WRAL News. Wolfspeed announces $5 billion investment in Chatham County, largest in NC history”, September 9, 2022.

[4]  Public Law 97-219 – July 22, 1982.

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Why SBIR/STTR should be reauthorized NOW

Why SBIR/STTR should be reauthorized NOW

By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

Small, advanced technology firms have suffered enough! What they don’t need now is a death blow from the federal government. During COVID these firms weathered delays in their research due to supply chain issues and illness in their staff. Today, many contend with the loss of employees to large enterprises that view firms funded by the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs as ripe for harvesting qualified, experienced staff. Now is NOT the time to orchestrate the demise of these programs and put at risk the survival of the companies nurtured by participating agencies. Delays in reauthorization of the SBIR/STTR programs and the uncertainty regarding funding will severely damage this vital sector of the U.S. economy.

Let me address some misinformation that is being bantered around.

Some maintain that potential, new entrants to the SBIR/STTR programs fail to secure awards because these are gobbled up first by frequent award winners. Indeed, the threshold for winning an SBIR/STTR award is intentionally high. After all, funding for these programs comes from each participating agency’s extramural R&D budget. Solicitation topics vary widely and are directed at each agency’s mission. Awards are made with taxpayer money and those responsible for making award decisions critically evaluate each proposals’ goodness of fit with the solicitation topic, as well as the ability of the proposed team to conduct the research. Because the threshold is high, new entrants to these programs often need support in preparing their first SBIR/STTR applications. Agencies such as the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health have therefore instituted a Phase 0 program to assist new applicants in proposal preparation. The results indicate that such programs have a positive impact on assisting new applicants to win SBIR/STTR awards.

Then there’s the “elephant in the room.” Is money being wasted by giving multiple SBIR/STTR awards to frequent award winners? All different types of companies apply for SBIR/STTR awards. There are start-ups with one or two employees. There are small businesses that have between 10-15 employees who have just heard about these programs for the first time. There are companies that have been around since the 1980’s which have applied to the SBIR/STTR program since that time and have less than 500 employees (threshold for small business). All of these companies win SBIR/STTR awards. However, the infrastructure of each of these firms differs greatly. A start-up with one or two employees is not going to have a laboratory, or the facilities to engage in low-rate production.  True start-ups don’t have differentiated departments and lack considerable business expertise. There are a myriad government programs, many funded through the Small Business Administration designed to assist such companies to develop their infrastructure. The SBIR/STTR programs are for R&D and although it will pay some of a company’s overhead, the small business has to find its own way to secure funding for business growth from other sources. In response some companies seek equity investment, while others pursue other government contracting vehicles and do whatever they can to grow their business engine.

Some of the agencies that participate in the SBIR/STTR programs are actual customers for the technologies that the SBIR/STTR awardees develop. They need the small businesses to be capable of delivering what they are contracted to develop. This leads contracting agencies such as the Department of Defense to focus on the ability of the company to deliver the technology/ solution/product that it is funding in an expeditious manner. By comparison, granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the United States Department of Agriculture are NOT customers for the R&D that they fund. The mission and the criticality of what is being produced are different in contracting and granting agencies. The SBIR/STTR programs are dynamic and appropriately vary in implementation at the agency level.

Commercialization success comes in all shapes and sizes – some are small successes, while others are large and have tremendous impact. It is short-sighted of those who sit in judgment of the SBIR/STTR programs to expect and mention only large commercialization successes. This is after all “seed funding” – the earliest stage of funding, often avoided by venture capital, and a niche which the SBIR/STTR programs have uniquely filled. All commercialization successes should be tracked, celebrated, and publicized. However, there is often insufficient funding for the SBIR/STTR program offices to employ the staff to make this a priority. The successes that truly exist, large and small are under-counted and need to be tracked over an extended period.

Procurement by the federal government of SBIR/STTR funded technologies through the Phase III award mechanism remains a gap. The FY20 NDAA Sec 880 added language to the Small Business Act (15 USC 638) which indicates that Senior Procurement Executives, Procurement Center Representatives (PCR) and Directors of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) should, “consult with appropriate personnel from the relevant Federal agency to assist SBCs participating in a SBIR or STTR program particularly in Phase III…” However, how to do that remains unclear.

It is important to the U.S. economy that support continues, without interruption for advanced technology firms providing needed R&D solutions through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. It has taken decades to grow and mature these programs. As we emerge from the struggles which everyone had endured with COVID, this fragile and valuable program could be destroyed with a single blow. Re-authorize the SBIR/STTR programs by whatever means possible. Small business innovation depends on it!

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Dawnbreaker Unveils its 2020 Updates to the Defense, Energy, Medical and Space Portals

ROCHESTER, NY (November 25, 2020) – How does a great market research team give thanks?… by freely sharing information. Recognized for the hundreds of reports it prepares annually, this proficient and highly skilled team has just completed its 2020 update of Dawnbreaker’s Defense, Energy, Medical and Space portals. Each portal is chocked full of information selected for high tech small businesses seeking information related to Federal initiatives within these sectors.

Dawnbreaker’s popular Defense Portal is newly updated and designed to provide information for those seeking Phase III funding from the Department of the Navy. A limited domain of topics which frequently arise when discussing Phase III has been selected. Here you will find up-to-date information for individuals and organizations including the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), OPNAV Resource Sponsors, ASN(RDA), United States Marine Corps, as well as Resources and Reports.

The Energy Portal focuses on alternative energy. Up-to-date information is readily available regarding technology gaps, roadmaps, legislation, current projects, advantages and disadvantages for the alternative energy sources which will define our future. Lists of Trade Shows and Conferences extending into 2021 is also available, as well as Climate Change and Foreign Energy Reports.

The Medical Portal is built around the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory processes. Highlighted are descriptions of relevant FDA centers, as well as information on vaccines, blood and biologics, biotechnology, medical devices and veterinary products.

The fourth in this series, the Space Portal highlights NASA’s activities, beginning with an overview of the FY 2021 Budget Request and the NASA organization. Additional sections are dedicated to technology development, commercial space, partnership development, current opportunities and featured missions.

Take a moment to explore the Dawnbreaker portals and refer back to them in the future when you need key information regarding federal initiatives in these sectors.

Posted on

Dawnbreaker Expands its Team to Meet Growing Demand

Rochester, NY, November 2020 – Dawnbreaker, Inc. has added three new members to its team. Chris McCray, Karen Mesolella, and Jill Porter joined Dawnbreaker to provide its clients with more top-notch talent to meet the demands of working with over 600 advanced technology companies each year.

Chris McCray, MBA brings years of experience in several industries as a U.S. Navy veteran in cryptology, an experienced healthcare clinic manager, an IT entrepreneur, and a small business consultant. Prior to joining Dawnbreaker, McCray leveraged this experience as a Business Consultant at the Florida Small Business Development Center (SBDC) at the University of Southern Florida (USF) where he provided one-on-one confidential counseling to current and potential small business owners. In his role as a Business Strategist at Dawnbreaker, McCray will work with a variety of clients to fulfill their diverse commercialization needs.

Karen Mesolella, MBA, MS has a background in Healthcare IT and chemistry applied to both materials science and healthcare coupled with extensive experience in marketing, sales, IT, supply chain and manufacturing. Most recently, Mesolella was the U.S. Commercial Operations Manager for a leading global provider of products and systems that contribute to quality enhancement and cost efficiency within healthcare and life sciences – her commercialization expertise comes from working across four fortune 500 companies leveraging DMAIC Six Sigma principles. As a Business Strategist at Dawnbreaker, Mesolella will assist small, advanced technology firms by leveraging her strong background in healthcare informatics, software, lifecycle management, and manufacturing as they transition their technologies to the market.

Jill Porter brings years of management experience to Dawnbreaker in her new role as the Contract Administrator for Dawnbreaker’s Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) services – a component of the business that is growing quickly. TABA provides SBIR/STTR awardees the option of selecting a vendor of its own choice to assist in the commercialization of agency- funded technology. Through her extensive experience in contract administration, Porter interacts directly with small businesses and the Dawnbreaker team to facilitate the processing of TABA requests, as well as the record keeping associated with this initiative.

Posted on

Dawnbreaker Expands its Team with New Business Strategist

Rochester, NY (August 22, 2019) – Dawnbreaker, Inc. is proud to welcome Dan Keeley who joins the team as a Business Acceleration Manager bringing with him an extensive background in biomedical engineering, innovation and technology commercialization. Most recently, Dan worked for the University of Rochester at UR Ventures and Nextcorps (formerly High Tech Rochester). In both roles Dan helped professors, medical professionals and entrepreneurs develop strategic plans to commercialize their technologies.

Mr. Keeley spent six years at Johnson & Johnson working in new product development and technical project management and has worked on a number of portfolio development projects performing business case analysis and developing a pipeline of products from a single platform technology. Working at Becton Dickinson and Co. Dan helped develop the strategic plan to launch a new segment of their Biosciences division.

“Having worked at a university and in the startup community, I believe strongly in the SBIR and STTR programs’ ability to accelerate innovation. Joining Dawnbreaker, I’m proud to be working for a company that helps make these programs successful,” said Mr. Keeley. “I enjoy the business problem solving that goes into transitioning technologies from the lab to the marketplace and am excited to be able to leverage my expertise in product development, engineering and technology commercialization to help startups and small companies create value from their scientific innovations.”

Throughout his career, Mr. Keeley has worked with a range of biotechnology products including implantable biomaterials, stem cell technologies, high molecular weight growth factors, combination devices and more. He has been awarded 3 patents with 8 patents pending, a publication in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods and was a 2008 Michael J. Fox Foundation Award recipient. Dan has an BS and MEng in Biomedical Engineering from Cornell University’s School of Engineering in addition to an MBA from Cornell’s Johnson School of Management.