Prize for new ventilators

On 4/22/2020 at 11:21 AM, formerfed said:

The Army is using a “game” process to buy ventilators.  They asked for brief papers (not more than 1,500 characters) describing how new lost cost ventilators can be developed.  Participants can also include a 3 minute video describing their solutions.  Winners will receive $10,000 prizes to develop prototypes.  One company will be selected for a $1 million production award.

Pretty slick.  We need more thinking and actions like this.

That is pretty slick. Guessing the $10K is a Grant and the $1 M would be a contract.

Did they release a solicitation or?

Amazing the things we can do if people would just look at problems as puzzles and come up with new ways to solve them.

When I did stuff like this, we just used a purchase order for the $10K.

Constricting Officer said:

Did they release a solicitation or?

Most agencies just post information on www.challenges.gov

Found it:

https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/xTech-COVID-19-ventilator-challenge/

Two awards so far.  Impressive.  
https://www.army.mil/article/234874/covid_19_army_selects_first_two_companies_to_prototype_a_deployable_lightweight_ventilator

On 4/22/2020 at 9:21 AM, formerfed said:

The Army is using a “game” process to buy ventilators.  They asked for brief papers (not more than 1,500 characters) describing how new lost cost ventilators can be developed.  Participants can also include a 3 minute video describing their solutions.  Winners will receive $10,000 prizes to develop prototypes.  One company will be selected for a $1 million production award.

Pretty slick.  We need more thinking and actions like this.

Based on my reading of the contest, all the Army is paying for is paper, not product...I think that’s the wrong focus in times like these.  Moreover, the selection criteria are suspect IMO - there is nothing that captures a company’s past performance or entrepreneurial experience (which I think is crucial for determining if an entity has any clue for how to turn a concept into a capability).  Basically, whoever wows the judges with their pitch gets $105K just to deliver papers and presentations.  Using prize competitions could be a step in the right direction, but I think they’re competing the wrong things.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Based on my reading of the contest, all the Army is paying for is paper, not product...I think that’s the wrong focus in times like these.  Moreover, the selection criteria are suspect IMO - there is nothing that captures a company’s past performance or entrepreneurial experience (which I think is crucial for determining if an entity has any clue for how to turn a concept into a capability).  Basically, whoever wows the judges with their pitch gets $105K just to deliver papers and presentations.  Using prize competitions could be a step in the right direction, but I think they’re competing the wrong things.

I don't know how you counted to $105,000. I only counted to $10,000 per company, which will be used to develop prototypes. I sincerely doubt $10,000 will cover the cost of design and prototyping, but maybe somebody's got a low-cost solution, who knows?

So in my view, the approach is completely appropriate for such a low-cost award. Per FAR Part 13, they probably didn't have to even hold any kind of competition whatsoever, as the award is below the micro-purchase threshold.

And when they get to the $1 million award, I would argue the award has already been competed and has been made to the best technical solution.

Not sure what happened between the difference between $10k to develop prototypes in the article I read and $5K in the announcement.  Regardless the Army felt traditional approaches weren’t working.  Paying $5K or $10K to develop prototypes is routine in these areas. Don’t forget the government is looking for no traditional sources to participate.  You won’t get new sources unless you are willing to compensate for their efforts.  These are mostly companies that don’t have or want to invest sources in something unless they see the value.    

The Army can structure a competition to achieve products instead of paper but that appears fruitless.  Now they are resorting to sources that might show innovativeness and promises.

Did you gentlemen even read the website?: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/xTech-COVID-19-ventilator-challenge/

Prizes will be offered under 10 USC §2374a (Prize competitions). The total prize pool is $1,000,000.00.

• Application Part 1: White Paper - $5,000
• Application Part 2: Technology Pitches - $100,000

Number of winners is to-be determined, with total prizes not to exceed $1,000,000.00.

-----------------

Part 1: Concept Submission Quad Chart and Video All eligible entities shall submit a concept quad chart and accompanying video up to 3 minutes in length outlining their technology, the technical viability of their approach, human and clinical risk, and speed to production. Please adhere to the following requirements:

• All concept quad charts must be submitted using the template found on the registration page, “xTechCOVID19_QuadChart_Template.ppt”. Any proposals submitted in a format other than that provided by the template will not be reviewed.
• Please include on your quad chart your company name, proposal title, and company logo EXACTLY how you would like them to appear on any contest marketing materials.
• Provide an optional URL on the contest registration page to a video supporting your application. Production value does not matter at all, and the can be used to explain the concept, brief the quad chart, or to otherwise demonstrate the technology concept proposed. MAXIMUM of 3-minutes for the video’s length.

Part 2: Technology Pitches

Selected participants will conduct a virtual pitch to the Ventilator Challenge panel of Army, medical, and manufacturing experts. Detailed pitch instructions and evaluation criteria will be provided to selected applicants. Technology pitches selected to meet the requirements of this posted solicitation will receive a prize of $100,000 and will be invited to develop and demonstrate a concept prototype to potentially receive follow on contracts for additional production and deployment.

When I looked a little deeper the other day, I wanted to find out what happened to the winners.

xTechSearch 1

• Adranos, Inc..  As Paul Harrell would say, You be the judge.

xTechSearch 2.  (Same site)

• Lumineye, Inc.  You be the judge.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Did you gentlemen even read the website?: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/xTech-COVID-19-ventilator-challenge/

Prizes will be offered under 10 USC §2374a (Prize competitions). The total prize pool is $1,000,000.00.

• Application Part 1: White Paper - $5,000
• Application Part 2: Technology Pitches - $100,000

Number of winners is to-be determined, with total prizes not to exceed $1,000,000.00.

-----------------

Part 1: Concept Submission Quad Chart and Video All eligible entities shall submit a concept quad chart and accompanying video up to 3 minutes in length outlining their technology, the technical viability of their approach, human and clinical risk, and speed to production. Please adhere to the following requirements:

• All concept quad charts must be submitted using the template found on the registration page, “xTechCOVID19_QuadChart_Template.ppt”. Any proposals submitted in a format other than that provided by the template will not be reviewed.
• Please include on your quad chart your company name, proposal title, and company logo EXACTLY how you would like them to appear on any contest marketing materials.
• Provide an optional URL on the contest registration page to a video supporting your application. Production value does not matter at all, and the can be used to explain the concept, brief the quad chart, or to otherwise demonstrate the technology concept proposed. MAXIMUM of 3-minutes for the video’s length.

Part 2: Technology Pitches

Selected participants will conduct a virtual pitch to the Ventilator Challenge panel of Army, medical, and manufacturing experts. Detailed pitch instructions and evaluation criteria will be provided to selected applicants. Technology pitches selected to meet the requirements of this posted solicitation will receive a prize of $100,000 and will be invited to develop and demonstrate a concept prototype to potentially receive follow on contracts for additional production and deployment.

You're right. I didn't visit the website. However, let's look at the structure of the contest.

Part 1: $5,000 prize for selected participants. Not all participants will win a prize. Not all participants will advance to Part 2.

Part 2: $100,000 prize for selected participants. Not all participants will will a prize. Those that do win a prize will be invited (but not funded) to develop and demonstrate a concept prototype.

Total prize pool for Parts 1 + 2 (added together) will not exceed $1,000,000. Nobody will get more than $105,000 but many will not get that much. In fact, the maximum number of winners will be 9, 9 x $105,000 = $945,000. (I assume the remaining $55,000 goes to Part 1 winners.)

I'm okay with this. Again, most of the winners will be under the micro-purchase threshold and the 9 winners will still be under the SAP. Further, the procedures here are aligned with what the statute requires.

bob7947 said:

When I looked a little deeper the other day, I wanted to find out what happened to the winners.

xTechSearch 1

• Adranos, Inc..  As Paul Harrell would say, You be the judge.

xTechSearch 2.  (Same site)

• Lumineye, Inc.  You be the judge.

Thanks Bob. I'm judging that winning any type of DOD competition carries with it a "prize" far in excess of what DOD is paying. More importantly, DOD is creating new contractors who have exciting products to sell.

here_2_help said:

I'm judging that winning any type of DOD competition carries with it a "prize" far in excess of what DOD is paying. More importantly, DOD is creating new contractors who have exciting products to sell.

I don't think we can judge how much being a finalist means to a company/start-up.  xTechSearch 2 provides links to each company.  I looked at one called AKHAN Semiconductor Inc.  One can read through the news releases and imagine how the founder is using being selected as one of the finalists.  Read the article on the Samsung Fold near the top of the list.  We can almost feel the peaks and valleys that the founder is going through.  Note a little help from a federal contractor and patent after patent.

here_2_help said:

You're right. I didn't visit the website. However, let's look at the structure of the contest.

Part 1: $5,000 prize for selected participants. Not all participants will win a prize. Not all participants will advance to Part 2.

Part 2: $100,000 prize for selected participants. Not all participants will will a prize. Those that do win a prize will be invited (but not funded) to develop and demonstrate a concept prototype.

Total prize pool for Parts 1 + 2 (added together) will not exceed $1,000,000. Nobody will get more than $105,000 but many will not get that much. In fact, the maximum number of winners will be 9, 9 x $105,000 = $945,000. (I assume the remaining $55,000 goes to Part 1 winners.)

I'm okay with this. Again, most of the winners will be under the micro-purchase threshold and the 9 winners will still be under the SAP. Further, the procedures here are aligned with what the statute requires.

It’s not the amount of money, it’s what companies are getting money for - companies can earn $105K without turning a single wrench or delivering a single piece of product...as John Doerr says “ideas are easy. Execution is everything.”

Just thought I’d share an example of my concern with focusing on paper/pitches of possibilities in times like these: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/nyregion/ventilators-fema-coronavirus-cuomo.html

The two aren’t related.  The prize or games encourage new thinking and development.  Most participants spend more than the price money.  $10,000 buys maybe 1.5 week of research time for a single employee.  The concept doesn’t differ that much from grants where the government spends big money.  The difference is games get very quick ideas.    

The other was NY officials were scammed.

@formerfedDo we want ideas in a time like this or actual solutions? The article’s situation and where the Army could end up aren’t too different if you think critically about it - both selection mechanisms were based on proposals/sales pitches and no credibility related to previous experience or demonstration of an actual product.  I suppose others share the inability to see the similarity between the two which is way the prize was structured the way it was to ask for quad charts (for $5K) and pitches (for $100K) rather than actual products.

Recommend you check out the book “How to Make a Spaceship” which discusses the XPrize and a drastically different way for using prizes to actually deliver tangible innovations rather than just “very quick ideas.”  If you enjoy history, consider looking into the Orteig Prize which Charles Lindbergh won not by talking about how he would fly across the ocean, but actually doing it.

Kind of insulting reply to me in “I suppose others share the inability to see the similarity...”

One is a contract to produce devices.  The other is provide concept papers on something that hasn’t been done before.  The reason prizes    are used is sparking thinking.  Apparently not enough sources were doing enough on their own.  If the Army wanted tangible products, they would pay much more and maybe not see any results.  This exercise took a few weeks and so far didn’t cost much at all and got concept papers from a lot of non traditional sources.    

The safe alternative is buy ventilators from tried and proven sources and wait in line with all the other countries in the world for delivery.

My apologies that you felt insulted by my remarks, that was not my intention. I suppose we’re not going to reach a common understanding on this issue - I think the notion of “sparking thinking” is better done by asking for actual results/prototypes rather than ideas in the form of quad charts and pitches. Some doctor was able to do just that with parts from a hardware store ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/coronavirus-ventilators-mississippi-medical-center-charles-robertson/2966719001/ ) probably for less that $105K too...

I think I understood your position.  I can’t disagreed with it either.  Lots of various efforts to buy ventilators are going on from multiple agencies.  These including development of lower cost, better performing, and more versatile ones.  It also involves seeking new sources to enter a limited supplier marketplace. 

Perhaps nothing will come out of this.  But considering the stakes, I do believe it and all the other attempts are worth it.

This appears very similar to the original post's subject matter.

DOD Ventilator Challenge: Innovative Response to the Nation’s Need for Rapid Prototyping.

On 5/12/2020 at 3:24 PM, formerfed said:

I think I understood your position.  I can’t disagreed with it either.  Lots of various efforts to buy ventilators are going on from multiple agencies.  These including development of lower cost, better performing, and more versatile ones.  It also involves seeking new sources to enter a limited supplier marketplace. 

Perhaps nothing will come out of this.  But considering the stakes, I do believe it and all the other attempts are worth it.

Agreed.

On 6/13/2020 at 8:14 AM, bob7947 said:

This appears very similar to the original post's subject matter.

DOD Ventilator Challenge: Innovative Response to the Nation’s Need for Rapid Prototyping.

Different team, different competition with a different rule set - looks like the one you posted @bob7947 focused more on getting prototypes than paper...a lesson for the Army, @formerfed, and @joel hoffman : all “innovative” acquisition strategies/procedures are not equal

Yep, different set of rules and more importantly, different objectives.  The Army prize competition is encouraging development by promoting new technologies and innovations with monetary rewards.  SOCOM explained their competition isn’t looking for companies to do research and development of new things.  Rather it’s taking pieces of existing, commercial items and coming up with small, better, and cheaper devices by encouraging teaming and partnering among suppliers.  Crowdsourcing is a key tool.  They felt if there was a way to promote sources to get together and talk, that’s a win.

formerfed said:

Yep, different set of rules and more importantly, different objectives.  The Army prize competition is encouraging development by promoting new technologies and innovations with monetary rewards.  SOCOM explained their competition isn’t looking for companies to do research and development of new things.  Rather it’s taking pieces of existing, commercial items and coming up with small, better, and cheaper devices by encouraging teaming and partnering among suppliers.  Crowdsourcing is a key tool.  They felt if there was a way to promote sources to get together and talk, that’s a win.

(Emphasis added above) - you say “different objectives”...why? To me the objective for both “ventilator challenges” is to get to more ventilators fastest to address the potential shortfall...did I miss something? Everything you detail about “promoting new technologies” vs. “taking pieces of existing, commercial items” are not objectives...those are means to an end (and if the means became the objective during a pandemic then that, to me, is the definition of taking one’s eye off the ball).

Anyone have any idea how the Army’s essay writing and public speaking contest turned out?

I’ll change objectives to purposes then. One purpose is developing and proving some newer technologies to produce ventilators.  The other is encouraging vendors with various commercial components to team up and produce low cost and small ventilators.

If you think the Army is just doing paper essay writing, what do you think proposals are?  The difference is the prize competition pays vendors to do development that I assume the Army won’t get without some prize money.

Edit:  The Army one is reserved for small businesses and educational institutions.  I remember someone saying they needed prize money to encourage responses.

formerfed said:

If you think the Army is just doing paper essay writing, what do you think proposals are?

Exactly - that’s a major problem with the way acquisition professionals conduct competitions - instead of focusing evaluation factors on promises and an offeror’s capabilities that are more likely to predict their performance, we instead ask for fluffy narratives called “technical approaches” or “key personnel plans” or “employee management/retention plans” - none of which provide any value other than making the source selection team feel good about their decision because they liked what they read from the offeror.  Recommend you read Vern Edwards’ exceptional article “A Primer on Source Selection Planning: Evaluation Factors and Rating Methods” in Briefing Papers issue 17-8 - I think it is required reading for all acquisition professionals, especially those involved in conducting competitive acquisitions.

formerfed said:

The difference is the prize competition pays vendors to do development that I assume the Army won’t get without some prize money.

I re-read the Army’s competition - it didn’t pay a penny for development...it Instead paid up to $5K for an idea presented on paper and up to $100K for an idea presented as a pitch, neither of which required the presenter to do any development (at least based on the stated evaluation method on their website). The recipients of that prize could choose to spend it on developing a ventilator based on the idea they presented...or they could choose to do literally anything else with it because I saw nothing requiring recipients to spend the prize money on ventilator development (unless I missed it). Assuming I didn’t miss that fine print, what makes that an effective approach to encourage small businesses and educational institutes to develop ventilators? I would think a more effective prize competition would be something like this: we’ll pay $250K to the first 4 small businesses or educational institutes who show up with a functioning ventilator prototype that meets these standards...

Matthew,  you seem to have a rigid idea of how things should be and don’t want to change from that.   You also suggests in a couple posts that I read articles.  Let me just say I know a lot about source selections and don’t need lecturing type responses here.

The Army chose to use the approach they did because of the anticipated benefits.  It had the scrutiny and approval at very high levels.  If you see faults, why don’t you offer your advice?

The motivation for the small businesses to produce viable products is follow on production contracts.  The competition allows for those awards.

I’m done with this thread.  You seem to think the Army is all wrong.  That’s your choice.

@formerfed Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...This forum is supposed to be for the exchange of ideas and effective exchange of ideas in many cases requires us to challenge the ideas others present. If that makes you feel lectured to the point that you just say “I’m done” that’s unfortunate.

formerfed said:

The Army chose to use the approach they did because of the anticipated benefits.  It had the scrutiny and approval at very high levels.  If you see faults, why don’t you offer your advice?

 This is an appeal to an authority which is a logical fallacy - there are plenty of DoD acquisitions that had scrutiny and approval at very high levels that were not sound and did not achieve the desired objectives...

Matthew,

Ok, fair enough about me leaving the thread.   Let me add some additional information on why I think the Army’s prize competition makes sense or at least worth the experiment.  The government in general, and military in specific, has a need for small, portable ventilators that work in rural and remote locations.  The government received lots of ideas, many from very small businesses including single inventors.  Many seemed promising but government officials the regular procurement process wouldn’t work.  One barrier is many suggestions came from sources without any experience in government contracting and lacked capital.  The Army decided after talking more with these sources that some type of government endorsement of their ideas might prompt teaming or partnerships.  So the prize competition came about.

150 concepts were submitted.  Several were selected to proceed on.  One was from a company headed by a former AF medic involving hand pumped bellows.  Another was to a consortium of five businesses that may not even be involved without the prize approach.The $100,000 awards were made and sources developed prototypes.  The Army also issued an ATO solicitation on May 7 for productions of ventilators.

Perhaps your suggestion of announcing 4 $250,000 contract awards for prototypes might be better.  Who knows.  What did happen is the Army got to pick from 150 ideas and many of those would make it into a response to a solicitation.  Only time will tell if the prize competition was successful or not.  But I personally feel it was worth the effort considering the stakes involved.

On 6/18/2020 at 6:10 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

Exactly - that’s a major problem with the way acquisition professionals conduct competitions - instead of focusing evaluation factors on promises and an offeror’s capabilities that are more likely to predict their performance, we instead ask for fluffy narratives called “technical approaches” or “key personnel plans” or “employee management/retention plans” - none of which provide any value other than making the source selection team feel good about their decision because they liked what they read from the offeror.

You’re preaching to the choir.   I’ve said for a long time most agencies do source selections wrong.  The process should start with comprehensive market research to identify best performers and what they do that makes them the best.  That translates into evaluation factors and includes things like methodologies, processes, and other items that the very best do and other competitors don’t.  Past performance Is also essential.  I don’t mean CPARS or sending questionnaires to offeror provided references.  I mean digging and finding the most relevant customers and then asking pointed and direct questions about satisfaction and delivered results.  As you said technical approaches and key personnel aren’t that valuable.