Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: 

Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A Report from the

Office of Science and Technology Policy

In Response to the Requirements of the

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010

July 7, 2017
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

i

ABOUT THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) advises the President on the effects 

of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The Office serves as a 

source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect 

to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal government. OSTP leads an 

interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and 

budgets. The Office works with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science 

and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national 

security. For more information, visit www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. 

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

This document is a work of the U.S. Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. 

105). 

DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OFFICE, AND DIVISION ABBREVIATIONS

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory

ASPR Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (part of HHS)

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (part of DOI)

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (part of HHS)

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (part of HHS)

CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

CTTSO Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (part of DOD)

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (part of DOD)

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

Education Department of Education

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDA Food and Drug Administration (part of HHS)

FMC Federal Maritime Commission

FTC Federal Trade Commission

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration (part of HHS)

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IARPA Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

ii

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIH National Institutes of Health (part of HHS)

NIST National Institute of Standard and Technology (part of DOC)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (part of DOC)

NPS National Park Service (part of DOI)

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget (part of the Executive Office of the President)

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy (part of the Executive Office of the 

President)

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (part of HHS)

SBA Small Business Administration

Treasury Department of the Treasury

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation (part of DOI)

USDA Department of Agriculture

USFS United Stated Forest Service (part of USDA)

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services (part of DOI)

USGS United States Geological Survey
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................... iv

Introduction .................................................................................................................1

Section 1. Potential Benefits of Prizes in the Public Sector........................................5

Section 2. Highlights and Trends from Prizes and Challenges in Fiscal Year 2016...8

Section 3. Overview of Prizes Conducted Under the Authority Provided by 

COMPETES in Fiscal Year 2016.............................................................13

Section 4. Summary of Prizes Active in Fiscal Year 2016 Conducted Under 

COMPETES Authority.............................................................................16

Appendix A ... Agency Prizes and Challenges Active in FY 2016 Under the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ........................................... A-1

A.1 Department of Agriculture............................................................................ A-1

A.2 Department of Commerce............................................................................. A-9

A.3 Department of Defense ............................................................................... A-15

A.4 Department of Energy................................................................................. A-19

A.5 Department of Health and Human Services................................................ A-49

A.6 Department of Homeland Security ........................................................... A-137

A.7 Department of the Interior ........................................................................ A-151

A.8 Department of the Treasury ...................................................................... A-168

A.9 General Services Administration .............................................................. A-176

A.10 National Science Foundation .................................................................... A-184

A.11 Small Business Administration................................................................. A-195

Appendix B............ . A Selection of Agency Prizes and Challenges Conducted Under 

Authorities Other Than the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010........................................................................................................B-1

B.1 Department of Commerce ............................................................................B-1

B.2 Department of Energy ..................................................................................B-2

B.3 Department of Health and Human Services.................................................B-4

B.4 Department of the Interior............................................................................B-8

B.5 Environmental Protection Agency ...............................................................B-9

B.6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................B-14

B.7 National Science Foundation......................................................................B-31

B.8 United States Agency for International Development ...............................B-32
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

iv

Executive Summary

On January 4, 2011, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES) 

was signed into law.1 Section 105 of COMPETES added Section 24 (Prize Competitions) 

to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Stevenson-Wydler), 

granting all agencies broad authority to conduct prize competitions to spur innovation, 

solve complex problems, and advance their core missions.

Prize competitions and challenges can enable Federal agencies to:

 Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal without having to predict 

which team or approach is most likely to succeed;

 Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the number of solvers tackling a 

problem and to identify novel approaches, without bearing high levels of risk;

 Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear; 

 Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer dollars; and

 Establish clear success metrics and validation protocols that themselves become 

defining tools and standards for the subject industry or field

In 2010, the General Services Administration (GSA) launched Challenge.gov, a one-stop 

shop for the American people to learn about open innovation challenges that allow them to 

contribute their knowledge, creativity, and expertise to solve complex problems, improve 

service delivery, and advance the missions of Federal agencies. In 2016, GSA and the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), working with the Federal 

Community of Practice on Challenges, launched a new Prizes and Challenges toolkit 

(www.challenge.gov/toolkit) that provides a how-to-guide for launching and administering 

prizes, collects best practices and case studies, and contains extensive resources from the 

public and private sector on prizes. For historical COMPETES reports and other 

background on Federal challenges, visit www.challenge.gov/toolkit/resources.

This report includes a detailed description of the 63 prizes active in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 

under the prize authority provided by COMPETES (as reported by Federal agencies to 

OSTP) and summarizes 46 prize competitions and challenges conducted under other 

authorities voluntarily reported by Federal agencies to OSTP.

In FY 2016, these 109 challenges were conducted by 26 agencies. Analyzing these prize 

competitions shows the following characteristics of public-sector prizes, including:

 Multi-year, multi-phase challenges designed to develop and prototype complex 

solutions;

 Prizes that seek to accomplish multiple goals;

 Expanded partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, 

philanthropic foundations, and the private sector;

 Prizes that serve as one tool in a broader portfolio of actions within a program; and

 

1

Public Law 111-358
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

v

 Prize entries that pursue commercialization in the private sector.

Seventeen agencies offered prizes in FY 2016 enabled by the prize authority provided by 

COMPETES, including the Department of Energy (DOE), Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GSA, Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

National Park Service (NPS), National Science Foundation (NSF), Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Small Business Administration 

(SBA), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As many agencies expand their use of the prize authority provided to them under 

COMPETES, some agencies have continued to administer prize competitions and 

challenges developed under other pre-existing authorities, including agency-specific 

authorities, grant-making authority, and procurement authority, such as that provided by 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), adding additional lessons learned and best 

practices regarding the use of prize competitions and challenges. In addition, agencies have 

used the infrastructure and expertise developed as a result of running prizes under 

COMPETES to operate prize competitions and challenges under other authorities as well.

Most recently, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act2further updates the prize 

authority in Stevenson-Wydler. Among other things, it provides Federal agencies with the 

ability to partner broadly with the private sector and other government entities on incentive 

prizes, which could further expand the scope and sophistication of prize competitions. The 

new law also recognizes that incentive prizes can be comprised of cash awards or nonmonetary incentives. This law also makes some important administrative updates, 

including changing the reporting period to every two years following this report and 

amending the requirement that prize competitions be announced in the Federal Register to 

a publicly accessible Government website, such as www.challenge.gov.

 

2

Public Law 114-329
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

1

Introduction

From the 1714 Longitude Prize that led to the world’s first practical method to determine 

a ship’s longitude, to the Orteig Prize that inspired Charles Lindbergh to fly nonstop from 

New York to Paris, to the 2016 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wave Energy Prize,

which demonstrated a five-fold improvement in technology that captures energy from the 

motion of ocean waves in just 18 months, prizes have become a standard tool that every 

Federal agency can use.

Inspired by the historic success of philanthropic and private-sector prizes, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other Federal agencies have taken important 

steps to accelerate public-sector adoption of these innovative tools. In March 2010, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum that provided a policy 

framework to guide agency leaders in using prize competitions and challenges to advance 

core missions.3In September 2010, the General Services Administration (GSA) launched 

Challenge.gov, a one-stop shop where entrepreneurs and citizen solvers can find and 

engage with public-sector prize competitions and challenges. By January 2017, 

Challenge.gov had featured more than 745 prize competitions and challenges from more

than 100 Federal agencies, departments, and bureaus. Tens of thousands of citizen 

“solvers” have participated in these competitions directly on Challenge.gov, with 

additional entrants joining the competitions through other means. A 2014 Deloitte report4

found that between 2010 and 2014, “incentive prizes have transformed from an exotic open 

innovation tool to a proven innovation strategy” with $64 million in total prize money5

being offered through Challenge.gov.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES) further supported 

these efforts.

6 Section 105 of this Act added Section 24 (Prize Competitions) to the 

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Stevenson-Wydler), providing all 

agencies with broad authority to conduct prize competitions in order to spur innovation, 

solve tough problems, and advance their core missions subject to the availability of funds. 

The COMPETES Act required OSTP to submit an annual report to the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and 

Technology of the House of Representatives on the activities carried out under this prize 

authority during the preceding fiscal year. 

Prior to the enactment of COMPETES, agencies could conduct prize competitions under 

multiple legal authorities. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),7

 

3 ObamaWhiteHouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-11.pdf

4 Deloitte University Press, “The Craft of Incentive Prize Design”; Lessons from the Public Sector, 2014. 

dupress.com/articles/the-craft-of-incentive-prize-design

5 Based on 319 challenges listed on challenge.gov between 2010 and 2014.

6 Public Law 111-358

7

42 U.S.C. § 2459f-1
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

2

the Department of Defense (DOD),8and DOE9all possess the authority to directly 

administer prize competitions and use appropriated funds to provide the prize purse. In 

addition, several agencies can also choose to administer prize competitions through thirdparty contractors, seek outside funding for prize contests from private contributors, offer 

recognition prizes and awards, and elect to run prize competitions through grants and 

cooperative agreements. Several agencies continue to conduct prize competitions under 

authorities other than COMPETES. Reporting of prizes under authorities other than 

COMPETES is strictly voluntary and thereby, not comprehensive in this report.

GSA provides support and assistance to all Federal agencies operating prize competitions 

and challenges. In addition to managing the online platform Challenge.gov, the GSA 

program office manages a Federal community of practice of more than 700 challenge 

practitioners and an active listserv. The program also provides a variety of resources, 

research, best practices, and in 2016 launched the Prizes and Challenges Toolkit 

(www.challenge.gov/toolkit). Through a partnership with GSA’s DigitalGov University, 

the program has developed a comprehensive in-person and digital training curriculum for 

the community, and has trained more than 2,000 people across the Federal government. 

Section 24(n) of Stevenson-Wydler called on GSA to “develop a contract vehicle to 

provide agencies relevant products and services, including technical assistance in 

structuring and conducting prize competitions to take maximum benefit of the marketplace 

as they identify and pursue prize competitions to further the policy objectives of the Federal 

Government.” In response, GSA launched Sub-Schedule 541 4G, “Challenges and 

Competitions Services”10 in July 2011. Contractors on the schedule offer agencies options 

for technical assistance, prize platforms, and access to communities of individuals and 

teams interested in entering prize competitions. GSA continues to assist agencies in taking 

advantage of the available services and to inform private-sector vendors and agencies about 

the schedule and its benefits.

In 2011, OSTP worked with NASA to launch the Center of Excellence for Collaborative 

Innovation (CoECI), a NASA-led, Government-wide center of excellence to provide 

agencies guidance and support in implementing certain types of prize competitions and 

challenges. In 2015, CoECI awarded 10 contracts11 under its fixed-price, indefinite 

delivery/indefinite quantity NASA Open Innovation Services (NOIS) procurement. That 

procurement was a significant milestone in the Federal Government applying a traditional 

procurement mechanism in a novel way to achieve an outcome that forms a foundation for 

expanded use of challenges across the Federal Government through 2020. NOIS provides 

a robust, yet competitive, mechanism to expand the number, variety, and skill sets available 

to continue to mature the successful use of challenges to meet agency missions. 

 

8

10 U.S.C. § 2374a

9

42 U.S.C. § 16396

10www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/sinDetails.do?scheduleNumber=541&specialItemNumber=541+4G

11 8 of the 10 awards were made to small businesses
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

3

In addition, agencies have worked to expand their capacity and institutionalize their ability 

to conduct prizes in a number of different ways including (see Table 1):

 Issuance of department-wide policy or guidance on the use of prize 

competitions and challenges. 

 Establishing common contract vehicles that leverage the work done by GSA to 

develop the Sub-Schedule 541 4G. Several agencies have developed agency-wide 

prize and challenge service contract vehicles to streamline access to vendors to 

support the design and implementation of prize competitions and challenges. 

 Assigning dedicated personnel to lead prize and challenge design and 

administration efforts at their agencies and to provide internal support agencywide to program managers interested in making use of prize competitions and 

challenges. These staff are often responsible for policy and guidance, internal and 

external agency communication strategies for prize competitions and challenges, 

the development of common contract vehicles, and consultation for specific prize

and challenge designs. 

 Assigning an agency prize and challenge point of contact that fill a variety of 

part-time roles including developing guidance, conducting annual reporting, and 

convening communities of practice. 

 Enabling a distributed networks of prize managers and points of contact 

within agencies, which is not mutually exclusive to the roles above, and provides 

for internal mentorship and support for prize designers looking to learn from peers 

to increase the effectiveness of their prize programs. 

 Providing training and design support to agency staff that builds off of support 

provided by GSA and provides agency-specific knowledge, resources, and best 

practices to maximize the approaches found most effective for that agency’s 

mission. 

 Implementing internal communications tools and coordinated external 

communications to increase awareness of prize competitions and challenges. 

Agencies have deployed internal communications tools to reach new users, to 

increase sophistication of use, and to network existing practitioners to ensure that 

best practices and lessons learned are shared. Agencies have also developed 

coordinated communications strategies for engaging with solver communities 

across the various prize competitions and challenges they conduct.

Table 1. Challenges and prizes infrastructure

Agency Practices Agencies in FY 2016

Issuance of department-wide policy or 

guidance on the use of prize competitions and 

challenges 

DHS, DOI, EPA, HHS, NASA, NIST, USAID, 

USDA

Common contract vehicles DHS, Education, EPA, HHS, NASA

Internal communications tools DHS, DOE, EPA, HHS, NASA

Coordinated external communications DHS, EPA, NASA

Dedicated, central prize and challenge leads DHS, EPA, HHS, NASA, USAID
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

4

Agency Practices Agencies in FY 2016

Identified agency prize and challenge point-ofcontact (not dedicated full-time to prizes)AFRL, CTTSO, DOE, DOI, DOJ, IARPA, 

NIST, NSF, USDA

Distributed network of prize managers and 

points of contact within the agency

DARPA, DOD, DOE, EPA, FTC, HHS, 

IARPA, NASA, USAID, USDA

Providing centralized training and design 

support to agency staff

DHS, HHS, NASA, NIST, USAID

Developing centers for the interagency 

challenges in specific topic areas

DOI

In addition to internal support, Federal agencies have also developed interagency centers 

for prize programs on shared topic areas. For example, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 the 

interagency Reclamation Water Prize Competition Center led by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR) at the Department of the Interior (DOI) launched prizes that sought 

innovative solutions related to the several mission-critical areas including infrastructure 

sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and water availability. For this center, USBR forged 

collaborations with other Federal agencies that have a stake in these mission areas to 

collaboratively design, launch, and judge the prize competitions. Federal collaborators 

currently include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST).

This report discusses how Federal agencies have used incentive prizes and innovation 

challenges12 and highlights the prize competitions conducted in FY 2016 under the 

COMPETES prize authority and under all other authorities.

 

12 For historical reports and additional information about incentive prize infrastructure across government, 

see www.challenge.gov/toolkit
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

5

Section 1. Potential Benefits of Prizes in the Public Sector

The unique benefits and diverse outcomes of prizes have been well documented in the 

private, philanthropic, and public sectors.13 Specifically, prizes have enabled the Federal 

government to:

 Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal. With a focus on proven 

results, prizes can empower new, untapped talent to deliver unexpected solutions 

to tough problems. DOE’s H2 Refuel H-Prize14 challenged scientists and engineers 

to develop an on-site hydrogen generation system that uses electricity or natural gas 

and can be used in homes, community centers, retail sites, or similar locations to 

fuel hydrogen vehicles. DOE conducted the competition in two phases. In Phase 1, 

competitors submitted system designs, blueprints, and proposed installation 

locations in order to be considered for Phase 2. Originally, DOE planned to fund 

up to four finalist teams that met the base criteria for proceeding to Phase 2 of the 

competition. However, upon review of the Phase 1 proposals DOE found that only 

one team, SimpleFuel, met the base criteria for Phase 2 funding. SimpleFuel 

continued in the competition as the sole finalist and constructed their hydrogen 

generation system in early 2016. DOE judges performed tests on the system and 

analyzed the data collected during the demonstration phase in late 2016 in order to 

determine if the system met all of the published requirements. In January 2017, 

DOE announced SimpleFuel as the winner of the $1 million H2 Refuel H-Prize.

 Reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’ to increase the number of solvers tackling 

a problem and identify novel approaches, without bearing high levels of risk. 

Prizes are one tool to tap the top talent and best ideas wherever they lie, sourcing 

breakthroughs from a broad pool of both known and unknown sources of 

innovation. For example, the DOE Wave Energy Prize set out to double the stateof-the-art in wave energy conversion technology in 18 months. With 92 teams 

registering, 20 teams qualifying in the first round, and 9 teams advancing to the 

finals, DOE attracted established companies, entrepreneurs, and students to solve

this problem. Of the nine finalist teams, only two teams received any DOE funding 

in the past. The winning team, two engineers from Portland, OR who had never 

before worked with DOE, demonstrated a five-fold increase in the key metric for 

the competition. In addition, four of the top finalists successfully met the original 

goal of doubling the baseline performance. This prize harnessed new solvers, 

validated a range of new solutions, and accelerated the wave energy industry as a 

whole.

 

13 See e.g., McKinsey & Company, “And the Winner Is...”; Capturing the promise of philanthropic prizes, 

2009, www.mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Social-Innovation/And_the_winner_is.pdf and 

Deloitte University Press, “The Craft of Incentive Prize Design”; Lessons from the Public Sector, 2014. 

dupress.com/articles/the-craft-of-incentive-prize-design/

14 See Appendix B, Section B.2.2
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

6

 Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear. Empirical research conducted at the 

Harvard Business School has found that breakthrough solutions to scientific 

challenge competitions are most likely to come from outside the scientific 

discipline or at the intersection of two fields of study The Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services (CMS) A Bill You Can Understand Design and Innovation 

Challenge15 sought to improve patient experience by making patients’ medical bills 

easier to understand. CMS decided a national challenge presented the opportunity 

to support the ongoing efforts of many health care organizations by bringing in the 

perspective of user experience designers, developers, and entrepreneurs from the 

tech industry. CMS reported that many submissions came from entrants new to 

working with the Federal government and outside of the traditional health care 

space. In September 2016, CMS announced two winners of the competition. The 

first winner, a company that operates medical diagnostic imaging centers, designed 

the most concise patient bill. The second winner, a user experience design 

company, designed an online service that allows people to search, browse, and 

compare health care prices prior to selecting a provider.

 Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer dollars. 

Compared to other mechanisms, prizes can be more efficient and cost-effective 

approaches for identifying solutions from the private sector. Teams in prizes and 

challenges compete for not just the cash purse, but also the associated validation, 

prestige, and satisfaction that result from solving important problems. Moreover, 

because the purse is only paid out once the competing team or teams achieve the 

desired results, prize competitions can minimize agency risk. For example, the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought a new, innovative approach to 

develop an adequate buoy mooring system that would have minimal impacts on the 

ocean floor to update the current system. DHS chose to run the Environmentally 

Friendly Replacement for Buoy Mooring Systems16 challenge because previous 

research and development requests for information to the private sector did not 

result in a viable solution. Three phases were originally planned with a total prize 

purse set at $290,000. A total of 98 submissions were received during Phase I of 

the competition. A viable, cost-effective, winning solution constructed from 

existing technology was identified during Phase I of the competition and the 

additional phases were canceled. The winner received a cash prize of $10,000 and 

the winning solution will undergo testing in late 2017. 

 Establish clear success metrics and validation protocols that themselves 

become defining tools and standards for the subject industry or field. In 

running a prize competition, managers sometimes develop clearer success metrics 

and validation protocols than current industry standards in order to evaluate

solutions submitted by applicants. These new methods for measurement can create 

new ways to evaluate solvers and solutions head-to-head, both for the prize 

 

15 See Appendix A, Section A.5.5

16 See Appendix A, Section A.6.2
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

7

competition and the technology more broadly. The NIST Post-Quantum Crypto 

Project17 challenge seeks to leverage the benefit of competition (in this case, 

offering bragging rights and public recognition) in order to establish standards for 

public-key cryptographic algorithms that are resistant to large-scale quantum 

computers. NIST is currently accepting proposals through late 2017 and intends to 

select at least one algorithm providing quantum-resistant public key encryption, 

digital signatures, and key exchange algorithms for standardization. Proposals will 

be subject to three to five years of public evaluation before they are standardized.

Agency use of incentive prizes can offer these benefits as well as other advantages, such 

as the ability for prizes to: inspire risk-taking by offering a level playing field, credible 

rules, and robust judging mechanisms and give entrepreneurs and innovators license to 

pursue an endorsed stretch goal that otherwise may have been considered overly audacious.

Prizes are not the right tool for every problem, but, if aligned with a broader strategy and 

used systematically within an agency, they can be a mechanism for spurring innovation. 

Section 3, Section 4, and Appendix A of this report focus on the prizes developed under 

the specific prize authority provided by COMPETES. Appendix B provides a brief 

summary of prizes conducted under other authorities. Reporting of prizes under authorities 

other than COMPETES is strictly voluntary and thereby, not comprehensive. 

 

17 See Appendix B, Section B.1.1
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

8

Section 2. Highlights and Trends from Prizes and Challenges in Fiscal 

Year 2016

In FY 2016, 26 agencies administered 109 prize competitions. The data analysis included 

in this section is focused on the 77 prize competitions that were newly announced in FY 

2016 and for which agencies provided data.18 A review of all prizes active in FY 2016 

reveals the following characteristics of public-sector prizes used to drive innovation:

 Multi-year, multi-phase challenges designed to develop and prototype complex

solutions. Developing new and effective approaches often takes many years and 

requires multiple phases to generate early stage ideas and further develop mature 

solutions. For example, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) announced the Cyber Grand Challenge in August 2013 and teams were 

put through two years of scored events and qualification rounds to determine a field 

of seven finalists announced on July 5, 2015. The finalist teams of top computer 

security experts developed autonomous cyber reasoning systems that competed 

head-to-head at the Cyber Grand Challenge Final Event on August 4, 2016, where 

judges awarded $3.75 million in prize money. Ultimately the Cyber Grand 

Challenge demonstrated the ability to autonomously discover unintended flaws in 

software, prove those vulnerabilities in other team systems, and develop patches 

for those flaws completely autonomously, represent a groundbreaking leap forward 

in automated network defense.

 Prizes that seek to accomplish multiple goals. The data analysis below 

demonstrates that FY 2016 saw an increase in the percent of new prizes that seek 

multiple goals. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID)’s All Children Reading: A Grand Challenge for Development - Tracking 

and Tracing Books Prize Competition seeks innovation with four main

components: a process for tracking and tracing books, associated software, 

associated hardware and devices, and a method for engaging/easily interfacing with 

users. Moreover, it is a requirement that the proposed solutions cover the whole 

supply chain — tracked from the point where the books are ordered to delivery in 

the classroom or early-learning center. 

 Expanded partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, philanthropic foundations, and the private sector. Among other 

things, partnerships in prize competitions allow Federal agencies to reach new 

audiences, engage communities in new ways, provide expertise to the challenge 

administration, and ensure the long-term implementation and impact of the 

solutions. For example, the CMS “A Bill You Can Understand” Design and 

 

18 The agencies self-reported the primary goals and types of solutions for each prize competition included 

in these data.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

9

Innovation Challenge has 22 partners, including financial sponsors, administrative 

partners, expert advisors, and outreach partners.19

 Prizes that serve as one tool in a broader portfolio of actions within a program. 

The benefits of prizes articulated in Section 1 of this report can be further enhanced 

when combined with a broader set of innovation activities. DOI’s USBR has 

combined traditional research and development with prizes and challenges and

technology transfer authorities to create a more impactful portfolio of agency 

programs. DOI’s annual prize report states: “Knowledge gained from traditional 

[research and development] can be used to inform the design of a prize competition, 

and the knowledge gained from a prize competition can inform the next steps of 

traditional research. Prize Competition authorities provide a tool that solicit ideas, 

concepts, and solutions from the public. With the world connected through the 

internet, prize competitions are an effective tool that allows all the smart people in 

the world to help solve our problems.”

 Prize entries that pursue commercialization in the private sector. Incentive 

prizes are a way for Federal agencies to engage the private sectors, prizes may seek 

to not just develop new ideas or demonstrate new technology, but to spur 

commercialization and stimulate a market. Several prizes result in the foundation 

of new companies in order to commercialize the solutions they develop. For 

example, the EPA Nutrient Sensor Challenge aims to reduce the high cost and 

complexity of measuring nitrogen and phosphorus levels by accelerating the 

development and deployment of affordable nutrient sensors. Next-generation 

sensors developed through the challenge should be easy to use in maintenance-free 

deployments of up to three months, cost less than $5,000 to purchase, and be 

commercially available by 2017. In addition, USDA’s Innovations in Food and 

Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST) Pilot Program designed a publicprivate partnership model to support agricultural innovations from laboratory to 

marketplace concept. The prize competition was structured to provide $50,000 each

to four project teams to fully participate in the National Science Foundation (NSF)

I-Corps program curriculum which is designed specifically to help commercialize 

laboratory technology.20

Agencies use prizes and challenges to achieve a variety of goals, such as improving 

government service delivery, finding and highlighting innovative ideas, solving a specific 

problem, advancing scientific research, developing and demonstrating technology, 

informing and educating the public, engaging new people and communities, building 

capacity, and stimulating markets. 

The most common goals for FY 2016 challenges were Engage new people and 

communities, Solve a specific problem, Find and highlight innovative ideas, and Develop 

 

19 See Appendix A, page A-69, for a complete list.

20 For additional information on I-Corps see www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-corps
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

10

technology and hardware (Figure 1).

21 The goals of the challenges were also tracked in FY 

2014 and FY 2015 so the data can begin to be compared across fiscal years. From FY 2014 

to FY 2016, the biggest changes in occurrence of specific goals is an increase in the ratio 

of challenges that sought to Develop technology and hardware (15 percentage point 

increase) and Solve a specific problem (11 percentage point increase). While Engage new 

people and communities was the most sought after goal in FY2014 and FY 2016, it dipped 

in popularity for new challenges in FY 2015. 

Figure 1. Percent of new challenges with each primary goal, FY 2014 - FY 201622

Note: Each challenge may have multiple goals.

The most common type of solution sought by FY 2016 challenges was Ideas, which was 

sought by 53 percent of the challenges (Figure 2), followed by Software and apps (29 

percent) and Technology demonstration and hardware (25 percent). Ideas and Technology 

demonstration and hardware both increased from FY 2014 to FY 2016. Also notable is the 

 

21 The other primary goals range from 3-25% of the total prizes.

22 Due to their independent challenge designs, the DOE JUMP Prize Competitions are considered as 

separate challenges for the purposes of the FY 2015 and FY 2016 reports. All 10 of the new JUMP Prize 

Competitions list Solve a specific problem, Develop technology, and Engage new people and communities 

as the top three primary goals.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

FY 2014 (n = 83) FY 2015 (n = 80) FY 2016 (n = 77)
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

11

fluctuation in the proportion of challenges seeking Software and apps and Scientific

solutions, both decreasing in FY 2015 and increasing again for prizes introduced in FY 

2016. 

Figure 2. Percent of new challenges with each type of solution, FY 2014 - FY201623

Note: Each challenge may have multiple types of solutions.

In FY 2016, the majority of new prizes (94 percent; 72 prizes) were designed to achieve 

multiple goals (Table 2), an increase from 81 percent in FY 2015 (65 prizes) and 78 percent 

in FY 2014 (64 prizes). However, the average number of goals per prize decreases from 

2.85 goals/prize in FY 2015 to 2.75 goals/prize in FY 2016. The number of new prizes that 

sought multiple types of solutions decreased slightly from 46 percent in FY 2015 (37 

prizes) to 43 percent in FY 2016 (33 prizes). However, the average number of solutions 

per prize increases each year from FY 2014 – FY 2016.

 

23 Due to their independent challenge designs, the DOE JUMP Prize Competitions are considered as 

separate challenges for the purposes of the FY 2015 and FY 2016 reports. All 10 of the new JUMP Prize 

Competitions list Ideas as the only type of solution sought by the competition.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY 2014 (n = 83) FY 2015 (n = 80) FY 2016 (n = 77)
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

12

Table 2. Prizes that seek multiple goals and solutions, FY 2014 – FY 2016

Fiscal Year

Percent of new 

prizes with 

more than one 

primary goal

Average goals 

per prize

Percent of new 

prizes with 

more than one 

solution type

Average 

solutions per 

prize

2014 78% 2.47 35% 1.49

2015 81% 2.85 46% 1.55

2016 94% 2.75 43% 1.79
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

13

Section 3. Overview of Prizes Conducted Under the Authority Provided 

by COMPETES in Fiscal Year 2016

In FY 2016, 63 challenges run by 18 agencies were active under the COMPETES Prize 

Authority.24 While the number of prize competitions under the COMPETES Prize 

Authority increased from FY 2015, the number of agencies decreased. Agencies that did 

not report any prizes active in FY 2016 under the COMPETES Prize Authority include: 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), and OMB. Agencies that did report prizes active in FY 2016 under the 

COMPETES Prize Authority include: DOE, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC), CMS, DARPA, DHS, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GSA, Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIST, National Park Service (NPS), NSF, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), USBR, and the 

USDA.

Table 3. Number of active prize competitions and agencies by authority, FY 2011–FY 2016

Fiscal Year

Number of 

active prizes 

under 

COMPETES 

authority

Number of 

Agencies offering 

prizes under 

COMPETES 

authority

Number of 

active prizes 

reported under 

all prize 

authorities

Number of 

agencies 

offering prizes 

reported under 

all authorities

2011 7 7 Use of other 

authorities not 

reported

Use of other 

authorities not 

reported

2012 27 12 49 16

2013 41 15 90 23

2014 34 17 97 30

2015 46 23 116 41

2016 63 18 109 26

One clear distinction of prize competitions that use the COMPETES authority is the broad 

partnerships that agencies are able to leverage. In FY 2016, 73 percent of COMPETES 

authority prizes (46 of 63) included formal partnerships, compared to 30 percent of prizes 

conducted under other authorities (14 of 46). In total, Federal agencies formed 288

partnerships in challenges conducted under COMPETES. In the future, Federal agencies 

can leverage the expanded partnership authority contained in the 2016 American 

 

24 The method for calculating these numbers was updated in the FY 2014 report from the method used in 

previous reports. Component agencies are counted separately if they use distinct infrastructure to operate 

challenges.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

14

Innovation and Competitiveness Act, which further updates the prize authority granted to 

all agencies in Section 24(n) of Stevenson-Wydler, in order to conduct prize competitions.

A review of prizes conducted under the COMPETES authority in FY 2016 reveals five

major categories of formal partners:

 Other federal agencies: In 30 prize competitions, 12 agencies partnered with other 

Federal agencies in FY 2016. Partnering with other Federal agencies occurs when 

agencies’ missions overlap and Federal employees collaborate to accomplish a 

specific goal. For example, in the GSA’s Government-wide Earth Day Hackathon, 

GSA partnered with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

the EPA, NIST, NOAA, and USDA to design green and sustainable projects for 

citizen hackers to solve. The agencies provided citizen hackers with a variety of 

software coding projects that when solved could improve the way each agency 

collects, analyzes, and displays federal data.

 Non-profit organizations: In 22 prize competitions, 6 agencies partnered with

non-profit organizations in FY 2016. Non-profits aided in the design of prize 

competitions, provided judging services for prizes competitions, provided 

contestants expert feedback on submissions, and provided financial support for 

challenge competitions. In its fifth year, the NIH Design by Biomedical 

Undergraduate Teams Challenge formed a public-private partnership with 

VentureWell, a higher education non-profit whose mission is “to launch new 

ventures from an emerging generation of young inventors driven to improve life for 

people and the planet.”25 VentureWell provided the publicity for the competition, 

maintained an informational and entry submission portal, increased the number of 

prizes available to student competitors, and assisted in the evaluation of the entries.

 Private sector: In 22 prize competitions, 7 agencies partnered with corporate 

entities in FY 2016 to procure additional funding for a prize, facilitate the 

administration of the prize competition, and offer competitors incentives such as 

expert feedback and the potential to collaborate with industry partners postcompetition. The most notable example of private industry collaboration is DOE’s 

series of 13 JUMP prize competitions. Each of the JUMP prizes involved one 

national laboratory partner (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or the Argonne 

National Laboratory) and one industry partner (A.O. Smith, Building Robotics, 

Callida Energy, Clean Energy Trust, CLEAResult, Emerson, the Federal Energy 

Management Program, General Electric, Honeywell, IntelliChoice, Siemens, or the 

United Technologies Research Group). In each competition, the industry partner 

participated in the technical evaluation of submissions and provided the cash or 

technical support prizes for the winners.

 

25 venturewell.org/whatwedo
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

15

 State and local governments: Five prizes among three agencies partnered with 

state or local governments in FY 2016 to solve region-specific problems. For 

instance, the Preventing Rodent Burrows in Earthen Embankments prize led by 

USBR partnered with the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the 

Boise Project Board of Control, the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, and 

the US Army Corps of Engineers to design the prize competition. The prize 

competition produced five promising solutions to stop and prevent rodent burrows 

that can interrupt water delivery across the nation. 

 Academic Institutions: Four prizes among four agencies partnered with academic 

institutions in FY 2016. Academic partners contributed in a variety of ways. In the 

Think and Do Challenge, DHS partnered with Kansas State University to provide 

further grant funding for challenge winners. CMS’s “A Bill You Can Understand”

Design and Innovation Challenge received guidance on patient-centered design for 

medical bills from experts at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Health Care 

Policy.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

16

Section 4. Summary of Prizes Active in Fiscal Year 2016 Conducted Under COMPETES Authority

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

DHS

Environmentally 

Friendly 

Replacement for 

Buoy Mooring 

systems

Ideas; 

Hardware

Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

1/6/2016 2/12/2016 98 3 $290,000 None

Think and Do 

Challenge

Ideas; 

Business 

plans

Improve service 

delivery; 

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

9/30/2015 11/30/2015 33 2 $100,000 Grant consideration 

from the State of 

Kansas

DOC

NIST: Federal 

Impact Assessment 

Challenge

Ideas Highlight ideas; 

Engagement

9/27/2016 3/31/2017 TBD 4 $20,000 Publication in The 

Journal of 

Technology Transfer

NIST: Head Health 

Challenge III

Hardware; 

Scientific

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Engagement

2/2/2015 TBD 125 6 $2,000,000 Opportunities to 

consult and work 

with NIST, Under 

Armour, NFL, and 

GE

DOD

DARPA: Cyber 

Grand Challenge

Software; 

Hardware; 

Analytics

Highlight ideas; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

10/29/2013 8/4/2016 104 4 $6,750,000 None

DOE

Catalyst Energy

Innovation Prize 

formerly known as 

the SunShot 

Catalyst Prize

Software; 

Ideas; 

Hardware; 

Business 

plans

Highlight ideas; 

Develop 

technology; 

Build capacity; 

Stimulate 

market

12/11/2015 6/17/2016 7 7 $490,000 None
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

17

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

DOE

Cleantech University 

Prize

Business 

plans

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

8/14/2015 3/7/2016 255 36 $2,895,000 Entrepreneurial 

mentorship, 

interactions with 

private partners and 

suggestions for 

further funding

EV Everywhere 

Logo Challenge

Creative Educate public; 

Engagement; 

Stimulate 

market

8/13/2015 11/7/2015 89 1 $5,000 None

JUMP Prize 

Competition: 

Accurate, Stable 

Humidity Sensors 

for Buildings 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

4/12/2016 7/31/2016 15 2 $0 Business 

development 

support, expert 

feedback, public 

recognition

JUMP Prize 

Competition: Bring 

Your Own Controller 

for the Internet of 

Things 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

8/1/2016 9/30/2016 13 1 $5,000 None

JUMP Prize 

Competition: 

Distributed 

Temperature 

Sensing for 

Localized Comfort 

Measurement 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

5/22/2016 11/11/2016 9 1 $4,350 Mentorship, 

technical assistance, 

interactions with 

California 

Technology Council, 

Showcase at 

National Clean 

Teach Week

JUMP Prize 

Competition: 

Exhaust-to-Coolant 

Heat Exchanger 

Development for 

Engine Driven Heat 

Pump 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

2/29/2016 6/17/2016 7 0 $0 None

JUMP Prize 

Competition: FEMP 

Call for Innovation 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

5/20/2016 7/10/2016 19 1 $0 In-kind support from 

Oak Ridge National 

Lab
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

18

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

DOE

JUMP Prize 

Competition: LowCost Air Flow 

Sensor for 

Residential Ducted 

HVAC Systems 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

4/12/2016 7/31/2016 17 1 $3,000 None

JUMP Prize 

Competition: LowCost BTU Sensor for 

Use in Building 

HVAC Control 

Systems 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

9/24/2015 4/8/2016 8 1 $5,000 Interactions with 

private partners, Inkind support from 

Oak Ridge National 

Lab

JUMP Prize 

Competition: LowTemperature 

Intrinsically Safe 

Defrost System 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

9/24/2015 4/8/2016 7 1 $3,000 Interactions with 

private partners

JUMP Prize 

Competition: Mean 

Radiant 

Temperature 

Sensing for 

Improved Thermal 

Comfort Building 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

4/12/2016 11/11/2016 12 4 $7,000 Mentorship, 

technical assistance, 

interactions with 

California 

Technology Council, 

Showcase at 

National Clean 

Teach Week

JUMP Prize 

Competition: 

Residential Energy 

Efficiency 

Applications for 

Smart Phones 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

5/20/2016 8/31/2016 27 6 $6,750 Mentorship, 

commercialization 

assistance

JUMP Prize 

Competition: 

Thermal Energy 

Storage in 

Residential Gas or 

Electric Water 

Heaters 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

9/24/2015 4/8/2016 14 1 $5,000 Interactions with 

private partners, Inkind support from 

Oak Ridge National 

Lab
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

19

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

DOE

JUMP Prize 

Competition: Ultra 

High Efficiency 

Compressors for AC 

Applications 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

2/29/2016 6/17/2016 9 1 $0 None

JUMP Prize 

Competition: Ultra 

High Efficiency DX 

System for 

Supermarkets 

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

2/29/2016 6/17/2016 3 0 $0 None

SunShot Prize Race 

to 7-Day Solar

Software; 

Hardware; 

Other

Improve service 

delivery; 

Highlight ideas; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement; 

Stimulate 

market

3/4/2015 8/14/2015 5 24 $10,000,000 Recognition

Wave Energy Prize Hardware; 

Other

Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

4/27/2015 7/15/2015 66 3 $2,250,000 Tank testing, WECSim and MathWorks 

software, recognition

DOI

NPS: Memorials for 

the Future

Ideas Educate public; 

Engagement; 

Other

4/11/2016 8/8/2016 300 4 $60,000 Public exhibition in 

the Hall of Nations 

at the JFK Center 

for the Performing 

Arts

USBR: Detecting the 

Movement of Soils 

Within Earthen 

Dams, Canals, 

Levees, and their 

Foundations

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

3/31/2016 5/10/2016 29 5 $20,000 None

USBR: Downstream 

Fish Passage at Tall 

Dams

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

3/31/2016 5/10/2016 44 4 $20,000 None

USBR: Preventing 

Rodent Burrows in 

Earthen 

Embankments

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

8/29/2016 10/11/2016 75 5 $20,000 None
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

20

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

DOI

USBR: Quantifying 

Drift Invertebrates in 

River and Estuary 

Systems

Ideas Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

10/7/2015 11/16/2015 24 5 $30,000 None

GSA

Digital Innovation 

Hackathon Fall 2015

Software Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement

10/16/2015 10/16/2015 16 3 $15,000 None

Government-wide 

Earth Day 

Hackathon

Software Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement

4/22/2016 4/22/2016 10 4 $15,000 None

HHS

ASPR: "MRC 

Serves!" Video 

Challenge

Creative; 

Ideas

Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

8/4/2016 9/11/2016 12 3 $0 Travel to the 2017 

Preparedness 

Summit in Atlanta, 

GA

ASPR: My 

Preparedness Story: 

Staying Healthy and 

Resilient Video

Creative; 

Ideas

Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

1/4/2016 3/28/2016 94 4 $3,500 Recognition

Consumer Health 

Data Aggregator 

Challenge

Software Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Stimulate 

market

3/1/2016 11/7/2016 30 6 $175,000 Expert feedback, 

recognition

CDC: CDC 2015 

Million Hearts 

Hypertension 

Control Challenge

Ideas; 

Hardware; 

Analytics; 

Other

Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

8/8/2015 10/31/2015 26 18 $0 Recognition

CDC: HealthcareAssociated Venous 

Thromboembolism 

Prevention

Ideas Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

11/2/2015 1/10/2016 19 8 $80,000 Recognition

CMS: "A Bill You 

Can Understand" 

Design and 

Innovation 

Challenge

Software; 

Creative; 

Ideas; 

Hardware; 

Analytics

Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement

5/9/2016 8/10/2016 84 2 $10,000 Recognition, expert 

feedback, user 

feedback

CMS: Merit Based 

Incentive Payment 

System (MIPS) 

Mobile Challenge 

Software; 

Creative; 

Ideas

Develop 

technology; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

5/3/2016 8/15/2016 31 6 $75,000 Public Recognition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

21

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

HHS

FDA: The 2016 FDA 

Naloxone App 

Competition

Software Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement

9/23/2016 11/7/2016 TBD TBD $40,000 None

HRSA: Bridging the 

World Gap 

Challenge 

Software; 

Ideas; 

Hardware

Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Educate public

11/9/2015 8/11/2016 90 15 $225,000 Expert feedback, 

recognition, 

mentorship, 

interactions with 

stakeholders, live 

broadcast Demo 

Day 

Move Health Data 

Forward Challenge

Software; 

Hardware; 

Business 

plans

Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology

5/10/2016 9/8/2016 28 10 $250,000 Recognition

NIH: $100,000 for 

Start a SUD Startup

Ideas Highlight ideas 6/13/2016 9/16/2016 17 10 $100,000 Recognition, Expert 

assistance

NIH: A Wearable 

Alcohol Biosensor 

Challenge

Hardware Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology; 

Stimulate 

market

3/2/2015 12/1/2015 8 2 $300,000 Expert feedback, 

testing

NIH: Addiction 

Research There's 

an App for that

Software Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

11/3/2015 4/29/2016 20 3 $100,000 Recognition

NIH: Antimicrobial 

Resistance Rapid 

Point-of-Need 

Diagnostic Test Step 

1

Scientific Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

9/8/2016 1/9/2017 TBD TBD $50,000 Recognition

NIH: Climate 

Change and 

Environmental 

Exposures 

Challenge

Software; 

Analytics

Educate public; 

Engagement; 

Build capacity

10/1/2015 2/2/2016 11 4 $30,000 Expert feedback, 

recognition, 

published in the 

White House 

Climate Resilience 

Toolkit
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

22

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

HHS

NIH: Design by 

Biomedical 

Undergraduate 

Teams

Hardware; 

Business 

plans; 

Analytics

Highlight ideas;

Develop 

technology; 

Build capacity

3/1/2016 5/30/2016 72 6 $75,000 Recognition

NIH: Follow that Cell Scientific Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

8/11/2014 3/30/2017 33 5 $500,000 Sponsored travel to 

3rd annual Single 

Cell Analysis PI

Meeting

NIH: Innovative 

Tools to Increase 

Public Awareness 

and Knowledge of 

Sickle Cell Disease 

Undergraduate 

Challenge

Software; 

Creative

Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

11/30/2015 4/6/2016 19 4 $21,000 Recognition

NIH: Open Science 

Project

Software; 

Hardware; 

Analytics; 

Scientific

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Engagement

10/20/2015 2/29/2016 96 6 $80,000 Expert feedback, 

recognition

NIH: Pill Image 

Recognition 

Challenge

Software; 

Analytics

Solve specific 

problem; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

4/4/2016 5/31/2016 11 3 $45,000 Recognition

NIH: Up for a 

Challenge 

Stimulating 

Innovation in Breast 

Cancer Genetic 

Epidemiology

Analytics; 

Scientific

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Engagement

6/15/2015 2/25/2016 15 3 $50,000 Recognition, 

invitation to publish 

in PLoS genetics

Provider User 

Experience 

Challenge

Software Solve specific 

problem; 

Engagement; 

Stimulate 

market

3/1/2016 11/7/2016 41 7 $175,000 Expert feedback, 

recognition

The Simple 

Extensible Sampling 

Tool Challenge

Software Solve specific 

problem; 

Educate public

9/29/2016 5/15/2017 TBD TBD $40,000 Recognition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

23

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

HHS

Use of Blockchain in 

Health IT and 

Health-Related 

Research

Ideas Highlight ideas; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

7/5/2016 9/8/2016 77 15 $45,000 Invitation to present 

their papers at the 

NIST/ONC 

Blockchain in 

Healthcare 

Workshop

SAMHSA: Opioid 

Recovery App 

Challenge

Software; 

Creative

Solve specific 

problem; 

Develop 

technology; 

Engagement

3/4/2016 3/27/2016 15 8 $32,500 Recognition

NSF

Community College 

Innovation 

Challenge

Software; 

Ideas; 

Hardware; 

Scientific

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

10/15/2015 2/15/2016 20 10 $41,590 Professional 

development 

workshop, present 

projects on Capitol 

Hill, expert 

feedback, 

recognition

Generation Nano Creative; 

Ideas; 

Hardware

Advance 

science; 

Educate public; 

Engagement

11/19/2015 2/2/2016 115 4 $3,000 Recognition, trip to 

the USA Science 

and Engineering 

Festival, signed 

materials from comic 

creator, Stan Lee

Treasury

2016 Community 

Development 

Financial Institutions 

(CDFI) Fund Prize 

Challenge

Ideas Highlight ideas; 

Solve specific 

problem; Build 

capacity

6/16/2016 7/29/2016 64 8 $1,000,000 None

USDA

E.A.T. School Lunch 

UX Challenge

Software Improve service 

delivery; 

Highlight ideas

12/1/2015 3/1/2016 44 14 $50,000 Recognition

Innovation in Food 

and Agricultural 

Science and 

Technology (IFAST)

Ideas; 

Hardware; 

Business 

plans; 

Scientific

Highlight ideas; 

Advance 

science; 

Develop 

technology

5/26/2016 9/2/2016 6 4 $200,000 None

SBA

Growth Accelerator 

Fund Competition—

2016

Creative; 

Business 

plans

Educate public; 

Stimulate 

market

5/4/2016 6/3/2016 417 85 $4,250,000 None
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

24

Agency Name

Solution 

Type(s)

Primary 

Goal(s) Date Open

Date 

Complete

Entry 

#s

Prize 

#s

Total Prize 

Purse

Non-Monetary 

Incentives

SBA

InnovateHER 

Competition—2016

Ideas; 

Business 

plans

Develop 

technology; 

Educate public; 

8/4/2015 12/2/2015 74 3 $70,000 None

Lean for Main Street 

Training Challenge

Business 

plans

Highlight ideas; 

Build capacity

1/11/2016 2/11/2016 38 5 $125,000 Participation in NSF 

I-Corps
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-1

Appendix A. Agency Prizes and Challenges Active in FY 2016 

Under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010

This Appendix provides a complete summary of all prizes and challenges conducted in FY 2016 

under the prize authority provided to agencies in COMPETES and does not include any of the 

multiple prize competitions conducted under other authorities. 

A.1 Department of Agriculture

A.1.1 E.A.T. School Lunch UX Challenge26

Summary: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National School Lunch Program and 

School Breakfast Program offer free and substantially reduced-price school meals to children from 

low income households. However, due to issues with reporting, calculating, and processing, many 

applications contain errors that result in incorrect eligibility determinations for children. USDA 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) currently does not offer a web-based application. The E.A.T. 

School Lunch UX Challenge asked contestants to develop a working web-based application that 

satisfied a set of minimum FNS-specified requirements. A total of 44 unique solutions were 

received. At the end of the contest, FNS partnered with the Presidential Innovation Fellows to help 

finalize what will be its first web-based model application. The final product, which was released 

in late 2016, takes inspiration from the best contest submissions and contains features that reflect 

lessons from USDA and other research into the nature and causes of applicant error.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Improve government service delivery; and find and highlight innovative ideas

Results: Contestants submitted 44 entries. Thirty met the submission and eligibility criteria to 

compete for prizes. Individuals submitted 16 entries; teams submitted 21; small corporations, 

nonprofits, and other legal organizations submitted 3 entries, and large corporations and other 

organizations submitted 4. First prize was awarded to a team of four individuals with experience 

in design and software development. That team also won awards for “Best Creative Design 

Aesthetic” and “Best Behavioral Design Elements.” The contest’s second place winner was a team 

of two students. That team also won the “Student Award.”

Problem Statement: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National School Lunch 

Program and School Breakfast Program offer free and substantially reduced-price school meals to 

children from low income households. Traditionally, households applied for free or reduced-price 

benefits by submitting paper or web-based/online applications to their schools. Millions of 

 

26 lunchux.devpost.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-2

applications are filed every year, and nearly nine million low income children were certified to 

receive benefits in school year 2015-16 through these applications.

However, due to issues with reporting, calculating, and processing, many applications contain 

errors that result in incorrect eligibility determinations for children. Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) research indicates that certification error due to mistakes by households and school districts 

in filling out and processing applications is the single biggest source of improper payments in the 

school meal programs. FNS offers a prototype paper application on its website, and thousands of 

school districts have adopted or modified that application for their own use. Many districts also 

offer web-based applications. To date, however, FNS has not offered its own web-based prototype. 

Web-based applications have the potential to reduce applicant error by providing prompts and 

feedback to the user during the application process. For example, web-based applications can be 

designed to:

 Guide applicants through a process that prompts for all reportable income types;

 Alert applicants to missing information; and

 Prompt applicants to inform the accuracy of a final household income total.

Without its own web-based prototype, FNS has not had any influence on the content of the webbased applications developed by States and local school districts.

The E.A.T. School Lunch UX Challenge asked contestants to develop a working web-based 

application that satisfied a set of minimum FNS-specified requirements. The contest challenged 

individuals and teams with expertise in UX design, programming, and the behavioral sciences to 

reimagine what a web-based school meal application could look like and how it should function. 

The contest was FNS’s first step in developing a forward-looking, web-based application that 

limits the burden on applicants, facilitates access to program benefits for eligible children, and 

strengthens its program integrity by reducing applicant errors.

Proposed Goals: The immediate goal of the contest was to develop working web-based 

application prototypes for free and reduced-price school meal benefits. Its broader purpose was 

to advance the state-of-the-art in web-based school meal application design to reduce program 

error while protecting and facilitating access to program benefits by eligible children. 

Measures of Success: Contestants submitted 44 applications, all of them unique. Most satisfied the 

minimal integrity promoting concepts outlined in the contest rules and others went further. As a 

group, contestants demonstrated that a more integrity-focused application is fully compatible with 

good user-focused design.

At the end of the contest, FNS partnered with the Presidential Innovation Fellows to help finalize 

what will be its first web-based model application. The final product, to be released in late 2016, 

takes inspiration from the best contest submissions and contains features that reflect lessons from 

USDA and other research into the nature and causes of applicant error.

By its very public nature, the FNS’s America COMPETES Act contest generated interest among 

several of the large vendors that develop and market software systems to school districts. Informal 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-3

feedback from some of these vendors suggests that the private market will quickly adopt the key 

integrity features of the FNS model once it is released.

A short list of the best contest entries includes a few submitted by small and large corporations 

and nonprofits that do not currently market their own applications to school districts. Although it 

remains to be seen, these firms may decide to enter the market for school district software. Market 

stimulation was not among the initial goals of the contest, but may prove to be an unintended 

benefit.

The challenge succeeded in generating interest in FNS’s web-based application initiative, and gave 

people a place to voice their ideas, concerns, and solutions. Individuals made 17,872 visits to the 

contest website over the course of the contest. Registered contestants sent over 1,000 messages 

through a Slack (team collaboration) channel set up on the website to facilitate communication by 

participants and encourage the formation of teams.

Participants: FNS and contest host Devpost, Inc. (Devpost) marketed the contest to individuals, 

teams of individuals, and corporations and nonprofit organizations of all sizes who have an interest 

in human behavior, UX design, interaction design, information design, and front-end software 

development.

The contest was open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents who were at least 18 years old at 

the time of entry. The contest was also open to corporations (including not-for-profit corporations 

and other nonprofit organizations), limited liability companies, partnerships, and other legal 

entities that were incorporated in, and maintained a primary place of business in the United States. 

Corporations, nonprofits, LLCs, partnerships and other legal organizations with fewer than 50

employees (“Small Organizations”) were eligible for a cash prize. Similarly structured 

organizations that employed 50 or more people were eligible only for a non-cash “Large 

Organization” recognition award.

The challenge brought together 105 participants. 

Timeline: Submissions for the challenge opened on November 30, 2015 and closed on March 1, 

2016. Winners were announced March 31, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: FNS and its partner Devpost developed marketing and outreach 

materials that included an agency press release, blog posts, Twitter, and email messages for release 

throughout the contest. Critical to the marketing plan was Devpost’s outreach to its network of 

registered participants from past contests. Both FNS and Devpost contacted a long list of 

individuals in government and the private and non-profit sectors at the outset of the contest. These 

organizations and individuals are primarily from the technology and design worlds or have an 

interest in the agency’s mission.

Devpost and FNS encouraged participation in the contest via:

 Featured placements on the Devpost homepage and Hackathon listings page throughout 

the challenge submission period;

 Featured placement in 18 weekly Devpost newsletters over 9 weeks;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-4

 University outreach via personal email to more than 60 computer science, interaction 

design, UX design, digital media, information design, and human-computer interaction 

programs at research universities and tech training boot camps across the U.S.;

 Influencer outreach via personal email to 60 design thought leaders and 80 Meetup and 

student club organizers;

 Targeted outreach via personal email to more than 1,300 college hackers who participated 

in Devpost’s autumn 2015 hackathon season;

 PR outreach to design and development-focused blogs, newsletters, and podcasts;

 Weekly/bi-weekly targeted emails to the registrants, providing reminders on important 

dates, tips on getting started, introduction of new resources, and webinar invitations and 

recaps (including 23 updates and 3 rounds of personal email correspondence with all 420 

registrants);

 Development and co-hosting of 3 webinars to provide detailed background and open Q&A 

for participants;

 Daily support of participating designers to answer technical questions and questions on 

contest rules;

 Moderating a challenge discussion board and Slack channel, and answering submitter 

questions one-on-one;

 Additional exposure through secured promotional partnerships with Usability.gov and 

Citizen Onboard;

 Press/publicity: UX Notebook, Usability.gov blog, SCVNews.com; and

 Twitter:

oTotal number of impressions across all Tweets: 50,468

oTotal number of ReTweets across all Tweets: 33

oTotal number of Likes across all Tweets: 36

oTotal number of Expands across all Tweets: 43

oTotal number of Link Clicks across all Tweets: 100

oTotal number of Replies across all Tweets: 3

Incentives: FNS used appropriated funds to award $50,000 in prizes. The top prize was $20,000. 

The contest offered a second prize of $10,000, and a third prize of $5,000. To generate additional 

interest, the contest offered five honorable mentions of $2,000 each, and $1,000 prizes for best 

student submission, most popular submission, and each of three technical achievement categories.

Evaluation and Judging: Three FNS officials and two individuals from outside the government 

served as judges. FNS judges were career individuals in the agency’s Child Nutrition Programs. 

The contest’s external judges were from the world of human centered and UX design. Judging 

criteria included UX design and appeal, the effectiveness and efficiency of behavioral prompts to 

reduce applicant mistakes, inclusion of FNS-specified required elements, the quality of program 

code and documentation, and the extent of demonstrated user testing and debugging. A discussion 

of evaluation and judging can be found in the Federal Register notice located at 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-11-30/pdf/2015-30313.pdf.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-5

Resources: FNS contracted with Devpost, Inc. to administer the contest and consult with FNS on 

contest rules. FNS personnel took the lead in much of the contest planning, preparation of the 

materials that appeared on the contest website, development of an outreach plan, and drafting 

communication materials. FNS’s contract with Devpost totaled $92,000, excluding the $50,000 in 

prize money. FNS contributed personnel time worth an estimated $30,000.

Results: Contestants submitted 44 entries. Thirty met the submission and eligibility criteria to 

compete for prizes. Individuals submitted 16 entries; teams submitted 21; small corporations, 

nonprofits, and other legal organizations submitted 3 entries, and large corporations and other 

organizations submitted 4.

FNS asked contestants to report their years of experience as software developers at the time of 

registration. They reported the following:

Nine teams identified themselves as “student” teams. Under contest rules, students must have:

 Been enrolled in at least nine credits or three courses, or the equivalent at the time of entry 

(or must have been enrolled in such credits or courses within the past three months); or

 Graduated in the three months prior to the date of entry from either a secondary school or 

functional equivalent, or an accredited post-secondary institution (e.g., university, 

community college, technical college).

The contest offered eight general prizes (first, second, third, and five honorable mentions) plus a

prize for the best student entry, three prizes for best execution in specific categories, a popular 

choice award, and a non-cash large organization recognition award. With the exception of large 

organizations, all contestants were eligible to win more than one prize.

FNS awarded first prize to a team of four individuals with experience in design and software 

development. That team also won awards for “Best Creative Design Aesthetic” and “Best 

Behavioral Design Elements.” The contest’s second place winner was a team of two students. That 

team also won the “Student Award.”

Individuals and teams invested in sometimes impressive research and testing. Several contestants 

tested their applications with parents of school age children. At least one team tested their 

application with a high ranking official at a major U.S. public school district. A number of 

contestants made their applications mobile-friendly, a feature not required by contest rules. A few 

of those contestants cited research that found greater access to smartphones than desktop 

computers among low income households.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-6

A.1.2 Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST)27

Summary: The I-FAST Pilot Program is a public-private partnership that will help create a stronger 

national ecosystem for innovation that couples scientific discovery with technology development 

to address agricultural and societal needs and support from laboratory to marketplace concept. The 

USDA-NIFA I-FAST prize competition was structured to provide $50,000 each to four USDANIFA funded project teams to fully participate in the NSF I-CorpsTM program curriculum. Selected 

USDA-NIFA I-FAST project teams will have the opportunity to concurrently participate in the 

educational programs with NSF I-Corps awardees.

Solution Type: Ideas; technology demonstration and hardware; business plans; and scientific.

Primary Goals: The goals are to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from 

NIFA supported academic research. The NSF I-CorpsTM is a program specifically designed to 

broaden the impact of select, basic-research projects by preparing scientists and engineers to focus 

beyond the laboratory. The final goal of this opportunity is to facilitate technology transfer of 

innovations that can make an impact in the U.S. marketplace and global economy. 

Results: Four teams were selected to enter into the ongoing I-FAST Pilot Program. The team from 

the University of Houston, Texas developed a toolkit to educate and improve produce handling 

practices. The team from the University of Illinois developed two software packages that allow 

crop advisors to work with farmers on improving their nitrogen fertilizer management strategies. 

The team from Lincoln University developed a pathogen detection biotechnology test kit to 

determine if E. coli has contaminated food. The team from Cornell University developed a 

microtensiometer sensor that will help producers optimize their irrigation needs.

Problem Statement: A majority of NIFA grant funding is provided to academic institutions to focus 

on developing research in the areas of farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable 

energy, forestry (both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural communities and 

entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding. USDANIFA will partner with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps (I-Corps) to 

provide entrepreneurship training to USDA-NIFA grantees under this Innovations in Food and 

Agricultural Science and Technology (I-FAST) Pilot Program. The goals are to identify valuable 

product opportunities that can emerge from NIFA-supported academic research. The NSF ICorpsTM is a program specifically designed to broaden the impact of select, basic-research projects 

by preparing scientists and engineers to focus beyond the laboratory. Leveraging experience and 

guidance from established entrepreneurs and targeted curricula within the NSF I-CorpsTM 

program, USDA-NIFA I-FAST grantees will learn to identify valuable product opportunities that 

can emerge from USDA-NIFA supported academic research. The I-FAST Pilot Program is a 

public-private partnership that will help create a stronger national ecosystem for innovation that 

couples scientific discovery with technology development to address agricultural and societal 

needs and support from laboratory to marketplace concept. The USDA-NIFA I-FAST prize 

competition was structured to provide $50,000 each to four USDA-NIFA funded project teams to 

fully participate in the NSF I-Corps program curriculum. Selected USDA-NIFA I-FAST project 

 

27 nifa.usda.gov/program/innovations-food-and-agricultural-science-and-technology-i-fast-prize-competition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-7

teams will have the opportunity to concurrently participate in the educational programs with NSF 

I-CorpsTM awardees. Over a 12-month period USDA-NIFA supported teams in the I-FAST Pilot 

Program will learn what is required to achieve an economic impact with their particular innovation. 

The final goal of this opportunity is to facilitate technology transfer of innovations that can make 

an impact in the U.S. marketplace and global economy.

Proposed Goals: Innovations and technologies development at the academic laboratory scale is 

often stalled and cannot move out of the academic arena. USDA-NIFA implemented the I-FAST 

Pilot Program as a means to provide valuable entrepreneurship training to university post-doctoral 

graduate students and others with a desire to start a business focused on the technology that was 

funded by NIFA in the laboratory. USDA-NIFA hopes that the four teams that complete the IFAST Pilot Program will apply for a USDA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant to 

continue the growth of the innovation/technology into a commercial market.

Specifically, the USDA/NIFA sought to find and highlight innovative ideas, advance scientific 

research, and develop technology through the contest.

Measures of Success: The four I-FAST Teams began a six-week training program through the NSF 

I-CorpsTM in late October and are expected to complete the training in December 2016. Measures 

of success for the program include their ability to: (i) identify a commercial market for the 

innovation/technology that USDA-NIFA invested in; (ii) develop a Phase I SBIR proposal to 

maintain the commercialization path of the innovation/technology that USDA-NIFA invested in;

(iii) create jobs and new small businesses under the program and; (iv) employ clear opportunities 

for USDA-NIFA funded research to move into commercial markets.

Participants: The I-FAST Competition was open to teams (“Teams” or “Participants”) comprised 

of individuals from academic/university institutions that had received a prior award from NIFA 

(in a scientific or engineering field relevant to the proposed innovation) that were currently active 

or that had been active within five years from the date of the I-FAST Team's proposal submission. 

The lineage of the prior award extended to the Principal Investigators, Co-Principal Investigators, 

Senior Personnel, Post-Doctoral Students, Professional Staff, or others who were supported under 

the USDA-NIFA award. Prior awards could range from students, single-investigators, to large 

distribution centers. A full description of the eligibility requirements can be found in the Federal 

Register notice located at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-25/pdf/2016-12265.pdf.

The challenge brought together a total of 18 participants. 

Timeline: Submissions for the pre-application phase opened on May 26, 2016 and closed on July 

22, 2016. The submission period for the full application phase opened on August 8, 2016 and 

closed on September 2, 2016. Winners were announced on September 23, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: On May 25, 2016, in Vol. 81, No. 101, pp. 33204 to 33207, of the 

Federal Register, USDA published the Announcement of Requirements and Registration for U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Innovations in Food and Agricultural Science and Technology 

(I-FAST) Prize Competition.

28 A press release was issued November 1, 2016 by NIFA. Social 

 

28 www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-25/pdf/2016-12265.pdf
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-8

media tools including Twitter and Facebook were also used. In addition, there was a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) entered into between NSF and USDA-NIFA.

Incentives: USDA-NIFA used funds from the USDA SBIR program under its 3% Administration 

Fund which allows for funds to be used for new programs in the areas of technology transfer and 

commercialization. SBIR funding is obtained by taxing a required percentage of the extramural 

Research/Research & Development (R/R&D) appropriations received by USDA annually. The 

Prize Purse is $200,000. The competition is structured to provide $50,000 each to four USDANIFA funded project teams to fully participate in the NSF I-CorpsTM program curriculum. This 

program did not provide any non-monetary incentives. The program is ongoing and USDA-NIFA 

obligated $200,000 for the Teams to expense against. Since the funding is from the USDA SBIR 

accounts, it is not appropriated funds, but is provided under a taxing authority under the Small 

Business Act. From this percentage, the USDA SBIR 3% Administration Fund mentioned above 

is determined. At this time it is unclear if there will be any unobligated funds once the program is 

completed.

Evaluation and Judging: USDA-NIFA screened all entries for eligibility and completeness. Entries 

from Teams that did not meet the eligibility requirements or failed to include required submission 

elements were not evaluated or considered. Eligible and complete entries were judged by a fair 

and impartial panel of individuals from USDA-NIFA and NSF (the “Judging Panel”). A full 

description of the evaluation and judging requirements can be found in the Federal Register notice 

located at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-25/pdf/2016-12265.pdf.

Partnerships: USDA-NIFA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) with the focus on sharing a common interest in conducting 

technology transfer of U.S. Government-funded research that is ready for commercial applications 

and providing a societal impact. USDA-NIFA's mission is to invest in and advance agricultural 

research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges. The National Science Foundation 

– Innovation Corps (I-CorpsTM) is a set of activities and programs that educates research scientists 

and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory to facilitate the technology transfer of 

U.S. Government-funded research to commercial markets. The MOU established a framework 

between USDA-NIFA and the NSF I-CorpsTM to include participation by USDA-NIFA funded 

research projects through the pilot I-FAST program. Selected I-FAST Teams will have the 

opportunity to concurrently participate in the educational programs with NSF I-CorpsTM awardees. 

Based on the outcomes of the initial pilot program, the Parties will evaluate the benefits and 

feasibility of further collaboration and expansion of the I-FAST program. I-FAST Teams will 

strive to maintain core elements of the I-CorpsTM model. I-FAST will be managed by USDA-NIFA 

with guidance from, and in collaboration with, NSF program directors. For the Pilot Program, 

eligibility is limited to academic principal investigators that received a USDA-NIFA competitive 

grant. The proposal and selection process was structured to closely mimic that in use by NSF, with 

identical team structure requirements.

Resources: USDA-NIFA used funding provided under the USDA SBIR 3% Administration Fund 

to implement this program. USDA-NIFA managed the competition in-house and did not use a 

third-party vendor, contractor or partner.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-9

Results: The following four teams (including the innovations/technology that was funded) were 

selected to enter into the ongoing I-FAST Pilot Program. Each clearly demonstrated the ability to 

participate in the requirements of the I-FAST Pilot Program and had prior USDA-NIFA funded 

innovations/technologies ready to move into commercial markets. 

University of Houston 

Houston, Texas

Developed a behavioral-based, affordable educational toolkit 

with monitoring and augmented reality technology system that 

will educate and improve employee fresh and fresh-cut produce 

handling practices. Using this toolkit will ensure food safety is 

learned and that knowledge is transferred into practice.

University of Illinois 

Champaign, Illinois

Developed two software packages that allow crop advisors to 

work with farmers to run on-farm, whole-field agronomic trials, 

using the data for recommendations to farmers’ profitable 

nitrogen fertilizer management strategies. This will make it 

possible for crop advisors working with farmers to inexpensively 

run large-scale, on-farm agronomic trials and create 

management input strategies.

Lincoln University

Jefferson City, Missouri

Developed a pathogen detection biotechnology test kit to 

determine if E. coli 0157:H7 has contaminated food. This kit 

would terminate the risk of farmers supplying E. coli 

contaminated food to customers, processing facilities, 

distributors, and retailers.

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

Developed a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) 

microtensiometer sensor to monitor minute-by-minute readings 

of both plant water and soil stresses. This monitoring system 

will help producers optimize their irrigation needs by 

maintaining the precise level of water that provides the optimal 

yield or quality for the crop.

A.2 Department of Commerce

A.2.1 NIST: Federal Impact Assessment Challenge29

Summary: The Federal Government invests over $135 billion in research and development 

annually. Many of the technologies developed by Federal researchers are transferred to the private 

sector through formal agreements or through informal exchanges. This challenge asks participants 

to describe a federally developed technology that has been transferred to the private sector and the 

demand environment (e.g., who is using the technology), and uses data to present an assessment 

of the economic and societal impacts that resulted from the technology that was transferred from 

the Federal agency. A $20,000 total prize purse was the incentive for this competition. There will 

be a total of four awards at $5,000 each.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; engage new people and communities. The 

objective of this challenge is to identify and measure economic and societal impacts that result 

 

29 www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-23239/announcement-of-requirements-and-registration-fornational-institute-of-standards-and-technology
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-10

from the transfer of federally developed technologies. The challenge should find and highlight 

innovative ideas and engage new people and communities.

Results: Submission for the challenge opened September 27, 2016 and is open through March 31,

2017. As of October 25, 2016, there are seven challenge followers.

Problem Statement: Every year the Federal Government invests over $135 billion in research and 

development. Almost one-third of these funds support intramural research—by Federal 

researchers within Federal laboratories—covering a wide range of technologies with applications 

in aerospace, biotechnology, chemical engineering, communications, electronics, and much, much 

more. Many of the technologies developed by Federal researchers are transferred to the private 

sector through formal agreements (e.g. patents, licenses, or cooperative research and development 

agreements) or through informal exchanges (e.g. publications, conference presentations, or 

collaborations). Without doubt these Federal investments have yielded extraordinary long-term 

impacts, creating new knowledge and ultimately new industries. 

Despite the proliferation of Federal research and the profound effect that many federally developed 

technologies have upon our everyday life, more effort is needed to assess the impact of these 

technologies—as emphasized in President Obama’s 2011 Memorandum Accelerating Technology 

Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses.

This memorandum called on Federal agencies to establish performance goals, metrics, evaluation 

methods, and implementation plans to improve the effectiveness of Federal technology transfer 

activities. The President's charge stimulated agency interest in studies that assess the impact of 

technologies transferred from Federal laboratories. In an effort to encourage research in this area, 

the Technology Partnerships Office of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

and the Journal of Technology Transfer present a Federal Impact Assessment (FIA) Challenge for 

researchers to develop impact studies of Federal technology transfer activities. Participants are 

required to write a paper that describes a federally developed technology that has been transferred 

to the private sector and the demand environment (e.g., who is using the technology), and uses 

data to present an assessment of the economic and societal impacts that resulted from the 

technology that was transferred from the Federal agency. Successful papers will describe a novel 

approach to capturing the impact of federally funded technology(ies), present a comprehensive 

scope of impacts, and present a high-quality, well-reasoned, and compelling argument for 

capturing the impact of the federally funded technology(ies). 

Proposed Goals: The objective of this challenge is to identify and measure economic and societal 

impacts that result from the transfer of federally developed technologies. The challenge should 

find and highlight innovative ideas, and engage new people and communities. 

Measures of Success: The competition began in late September 2016 and is currently ongoing. It 

is too early to identify success measures.

Participants: This challenge is primarily directed at students and researchers who are interested in 

studying the economic or societal impacts of federally developed technologies, but is open to 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-11

anyone (or any organization) that meets the eligibility requirements described in the Rules.30

Participants do not need to be a technology expert or economist, but should have an appetite for 

research and some familiarity with methods of impact analysis. Teaming is encouraged because of 

the scope and diversity of potential technology transfer studies, from understanding the technology 

to tracking its transfer and assessing its impact. 

Eligibility requirements were listed in the Rules as stated in the Federal Register notice. 

Specifically: 

 The FIA Challenge is open to all individuals over the age of 18 that are residents of the 50 

United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, and to for-profit 

or non-profit corporations, institutions, or other validly formed legal entities organized or 

incorporated in, and which maintain a primary place of business in, any of the preceding 

jurisdictions. An individual, whether participating singly or with a group, must be a citizen 

or permanent resident of the United States.

 Federal employees are not eligible to participate. Any individuals or legal entities that have 

received Federal funds for the development of any part of a submission are ineligible. Any 

other individuals or legal entities involved with the design, production, execution, 

distribution, or evaluation of the FIA Challenge are also not eligible to participate.

 A Participant shall not be deemed ineligible because the Participant consulted with Federal 

employees or used Federal facilities in preparing its submission to the FIA Challenge, if 

the employees and facilities are made available to all Participants on an equitable basis. 

Note that while Federal employees may provide information to Participants, they are not 

obligated to respond to information requests within the time frame of this Challenge. The 

task of gathering information for this Challenge in a timely manner is the sole responsibility 

of the Participant.

 To be eligible to win a Cash Award, a Participant (whether an individual or legal entity) 

must have registered to participate and must have complied with all requirements under the 

COMPETES Act.

 Multiple entries are permitted. Each entry will be reviewed independently. Multiple 

individuals and legal entities may collaborate as a group to submit a single entry, in which 

case all members of the group must satisfy the eligibility requirements, and a single 

individual from the group must be designated as an official representative for each entry. 

That designated individual will be responsible for meeting all entry and evaluation 

requirements. Participation is subject to all U.S. Federal, State and local laws and 

regulations. Individuals entering on behalf of or representing a company, institution, or 

other legal entity are responsible for confirming that their entry does not violate any 

policies of that company, institution or legal entity.

 

30 Rules are stated in the Federal Register notice, see www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-

23239/announcement-of-requirements-and-registration-for-national-institute-of-standards-and-technology. 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-12

Timeline: Submissions opened September 27, 2016 and will close March 31, 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: NIST Technology Partnerships Office is offering $20,000 for four prizes of $5,000 

each. Participant(s) who submitted a paper that is among the top four papers ranked by the Judges 

will receive $5,000 each and an invitation to have the Paper considered for publication in a special 

issue of The Journal of Technology Transfer (“Journal”), or another issue as determined by the 

Journal’s editorial board. This journal provides an international forum for the exchange of ideas 

that enhance and build an understanding of the practice of technology transfer. In particular, it 

emphasizes research on management practices and strategies for technology transfer.

Evaluation and Judging: The evaluation and judging is in process and not yet complete. 

Submissions to the challenge will be completed in May 2017.

Partnerships: NIST is partnering with The Journal of Technology Transfer for this Challenge. The 

Journal is providing the winners an opportunity for their submissions to be considered for 

publication in a special issue of The Journal of Technology Transfer (“Journal”), or another issue 

as determined by the Journal’s editorial board.

Resources: This Challenge is still underway. Thus far, the Challenge Manager Mike Walsh has 

dedicated some of his time to establishing the Challenge, working with relevant NIST offices (i.e., 

Program Coordination Office, Office of Chief Counsel). NIST is using the free web platform 

provided by GSA to host the Challenge. 

Results: This challenge is still in progress, so it is too early to report results.

A.2.2 NIST: Head Health Challenge III: Advanced Materials for Impact Mitigation31

Summary: The National Football League (NFL), Under Armour, General Electric (GE), and the 

National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) established a joint effort to advance the 

state-of-the-art in advanced materials for impact mitigation. Five teams were identified in the First 

Round of the challenge and each received a $250,000 prize purse. Over the coming year, the teams 

will further develop their materials in consultation with the Challenge partners. In early 2017, the 

judges will again come together to select one Grand Prize winner to receive up to $500,000.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware; scientific

Primary Goals: The goal of Head Health Challenge III is to spur creation of innovative impact 

absorbing materials that will result in increased protection for athletes, the warfighter, and 

civilians. NIST is supporting its mission by establishing new material performance tests to advance 

measurement science in this area. In particular, NIST hopes to fill a measurement need—identified 

 

31 www.headhealthchallenge.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-13

through interactions with the Challenge partners—in assessing material response to shearing and 

rotational impacts, which account for a considerable percentage of brain injuries. 

Specifically, the goals associated with this challenge were to find and highlight innovative ideas, 

advance scientific research, and engage new people and communities.

Results: This Challenge is still in process. One hundred twenty-five abstracts were submitted 

initially when the contest began, with a range of backgrounds. The five First Round winners 

announced in December 2015 represent a spectrum of expertise and sectors. They include four 

companies and one academic institution. 

Problem Statement: The National Football League (NFL), Under Armour, General Electric (GE), 

and the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) established this joint effort to 

advance the state-of-the-art in advanced materials for impact mitigation. Head Health Challenge 

III seeks to stimulate the development of a range of materials that provide excellent energy 

absorbing and energy-dissipating properties. The National Football League, Under Armour, GE, 

and NIST are working in partnership on this Challenge, which is offering up to $2 million in prizes. 

The Challenge kicked off February 2, 2015 with an invitation for participants to submit an abstract 

that described a novel material that met specific performance criteria related to maximizing energy 

absorption while minimizing momentum transfer. Technical experts evaluated the abstracts and in 

April 2015 the authors of the top-rated abstracts were invited to submit a more detailed proposal 

along with samples of the material for testing. Considering the results of mechanical tests 

performed by NIST and the attributes of the overall proposal, a panel of judges identified five 

teams to be recognized with a First Round Award of $250,000 each. These winners were 

announced December 15, 2015. In 2016 the teams further developed their materials in consultation 

with the Challenge partners. In early 2017, the judges will again come together to select one Grand 

Prize winner to receive up to $500,000. 

Proposed Goals: The goal of Head Health Challenge III is to spur that creation of innovative impact 

absorbing materials that will result in increased protection for athletes, the warfighter, and 

civilians. NIST is supporting its mission by establishing new material performance tests to advance 

measurement science in this area. In particular, NIST hopes to fill a measurement need – identified 

through interactions with the Challenge partners – in assessing material response to shearing and 

rotational impacts, which account for a considerable percentage of brain injuries. 

Measures of Success: This Challenge is still underway. Initial assessment of success measures 

shows positive indicators. For example, the five first round finalists submitted innovative materials 

that appear to be new strategies for impact absorption. These include 3D-printed lattices, 

innovative textiles, and designed multilayers—structures that absorb energy both because of their 

architecture and their inherent materials properties. NIST testing and data has allowed the 

participants to continually improve their designs over the last year.

Participants: NIST and our Challenge partners understood that the materials experts who could 

produce better materials were from a hugely diverse set of communities, from aerospace to 

automotive to sports medicine. A national prize competition would gain the attention of this 

diverse set of scientists and engineers. This prize seeks to advance the research and technology 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-14

development in this field by tapping into a diverse network of materials scientists and others with 

an interest in answering this call to action. 

The Head Health Challenge III follows the eligibility guidelines outlined in the COMPETES Act 

(i.e.., entrants must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents over the age of 18, and validly formed 

legal entities in the U.S.; entrants could not be NIST employees or guest researchers, or Federal 

employees or entities acting in their official capacity; or anyone affiliated with the Challenge 

sponsors). Because of the demanding material performance requirements and the obligation to

provide a sample of the material if invited to submit a full proposal, many of the participants are 

practicing materials scientists and engineers.

A total of 125 individuals (or teams) entered the challenge. Fifty-five full proposals were received, 

and twenty-one materials were selected for testing by NIST. Five first-round winners were 

identified.

Timeline: Submissions for the challenge opened February 2, 2015 and closed March 13, 2015 for 

abstract submissions. The challenge sponsors issued invitations for full proposals in April 2015, 

and material testing occurred at NIST during July and August 2015. First-round winners were 

announced in December 2015. In 2016, the winning teams refined their materials to compete for 

the $500,000 grand prize that will be announced in early 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: The Head Health Challenge III used a combination of social media, 

email, press releases, and partnerships with outside organizations to reach potential solvers. The 

Head Health Challenge III follows two previous challenges that were issued by NFL, Under 

Armour, and GE as part of a larger program to support head health. This continued programmatic 

set of competitions helped build awareness of the Head Health Challenge III. The Challenge was 

announced during a press conference in Phoenix, AZ, held in conjunction with Super Bowl XLIX. 

Video segments and interviews on news programs (both local and national) helped generate 

awareness of the Challenge and shed light on this important issue. The Challenge platform host, 

NineSigma, shared information about the Challenge with its community of innovators. In addition, 

NIST reached out to representatives of the top materials science and engineering programs in the 

nation, and generated interest through membership of the Materials Research Society and the 

American Chemical Society.

Incentives: Up to $2 million in prizes is being offered in conjunction with the Head Health 

Challenge III. This includes First Round awards of $250,000 each (the judges identified five teams 

to receive this award). The First Round winners will compete for a grand prize of $500,000. 

The First Round awards were issued by the NFL, Under Armour, and GE. NIST will issue the 

$500,000 Grand Prize to the winner when announced in early 2017.

Evaluation and Judging: Evaluation and judging is still in process.

Partnerships: The NFL, Under Armour, and GE partnered with NIST in the design and execution 

of this Challenge. The Challenge was hosted by NineSigma under contract with NFL, Under 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-15

Armour, and GE. Each of the four partners is contributing funds for the prize awards. Other 

findings will be determined after conclusion of the Challenge. 

Resources: In FY 2016, NIST invested $500,000 to support its role in the Head Health Challenge 

III. These funds supported personnel and technical equipment. NIST materials scientists and 

engineers developed material performance tests, and NIST acquired new equipment to perform 

these tests on the submitted materials. By the end of FY 2016, the NIST testing team completed 

two rounds of measurements of the performance of First Round winners’ materials and provided 

performance data and analysis to them. These rounds of testing data provided guidance to the five 

First Round winners to improve their materials over the year, in order to compete for the Grand 

Prize to be announced in early 2017.

Results: This Challenge is still in process. One hundred twenty-five abstracts were submitted 

initially when the contest began, with a range of backgrounds. The five First Round winners 

announced in December 2015 represent a spectrum of expertise and sectors. They include four 

companies and one academic institution.

A.3 Department of Defense

A.3.1 DARPA: Cyber Grand Challenge32

Summary: The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) tests the abilities of a new generation of 

fully automated cyber defense systems. CGC teams created automated systems to compete against 

each other to evaluate software, test for vulnerabilities, and generate and apply security patches to 

protected computers on a network. Three teams won prize money at the final tournament. CGC 

autonomous systems are now transitioning to government partners to be put to use in studying 

software in the national interest. At the completion of the event in August 2016, CGC cash prizes 

totaled up to $6.75 million.

Solution Type: Software; technology demonstration; and analytics, visualizations, algorithms

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; develop technology; and engage new people 

and communities

Results: Three teams won prize money at the final tournament. CGC autonomous systems are now 

transitioning to government partners to be put to use in studying software in the national interest. 

At the completion of the event in August 2016, CGC cash prizes totaled up to $6.75 million.

Problem Statement: The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains information systems using a 

software technology base comprising commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) operating systems and 

applications. This COTS technology base is common to DOD, industry, and the Defense Industrial 

Base, and the continual discovery of potential vulnerabilities in this software base has led to a 

constant cycle of intrusion, compromise discovery, patch formulation, patch deployment, and 

 

32 archive.darpa.mil/CyberGrandChallenge_CompetitorSite
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-16

recovery. This defensive cycle is performed by highly trained software analysts; it is their role to 

determine software function, and identify and remove novel threats. Manual analysis of code and 

threats is a detailed process, often requiring skilled analysts to spend weeks or months analyzing 

a problem. The size of the technology base contributes to the difficulty of manually discovering 

vulnerabilities.

At present, program analysis technologies are able to assist the work of human software analysts. 

These technologies include dynamic analysis, static analysis, symbolic execution, constraint 

solving, data flow tracking, fuzz testing, and a multitude of related technologies. In the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC), competitors 

improved and combined these semi-automated technologies into unmanned cyber reasoning 

systems that could autonomously reason about novel program flaws, prove the existence of flaws 

in networked applications, and formulate effective defenses. The performance of these automated 

systems was evaluated through head-to-head tournament-style competition.

Proposed Goals: The goal of the DARPA CGC was to engender a new generation of autonomous 

cyber defense capabilities that combined the speed and scale of automation with reasoning abilities 

exceeding those of human experts. Entrants were asked to field autonomous systems to compete 

head-to-head in an isolated network testbed environment. The autonomous systems’ performance 

was measured using the same competition rating metrics used to quantify the performance of 

human analysts. The results quantify the systems’ ability to reason and mitigate novel software 

flaws. The ultimate goal was a demonstration of autonomous system performance that exceeded 

human performance.

Measures of Success: The prototype systems created for CGC have proven the feasibility of a new 

generation of autonomous cyber defense capabilities that combine the speed and scale of 

automation with reasoning abilities exceeding those of human experts. In the final event, 

competitor systems were confronted with real-world network security problems of known 

difficulty gathered from the history of the computer security field. By comparing the performance 

of these systems against the abilities of human experts to solve these challenges, the efficacy of 

prototype automation was measured.

Participants: DARPA provided two parallel paths for participation in CGC: the Proposal Track 

and the Open Track. Proposal Track teams were selected competitively on the basis of proposals 

submitted in response to a broad agency announcement (DARPA-BAA-14-05). Open Track teams 

were selected based on applications deemed qualified to compete per Title 15 U.S.C. § 3719 and 

CGC rules. Eligibility requirements can be found in the CGC Rules Section 2.1 (see 

www.darpa.mil/cybergrandchallenge). 

Utilizing prize authority under the America COMPETES Act made it possible to work with 

academic institutions and affiliated teams, large commercial interests not involved in defense 

contracting, small businesses, small teams of experts, and individuals, most of whom had not 

worked with DOD before.

Timeline: Announced on October 29, 2013, applications were due on November 2, 2014. The first 

event was held on December 1, 2014 and the second was on April 16, 2015. The CGC trials ran 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-17

through March and April of 2016, with the CGC Final Event (CFE) on August 4, 2016. Winners 

were announced August 17, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The CGC encouraged the most capable and innovative companies, 

institutions, and entrepreneurs active in the computer security field to produce breakthroughs in 

capability and performance. The DARPA CGC was announced through several methods including 

publication in Federal Register, web features, websites, national media, social media outlets, and 

conference presentations. The CFE was attended by more than 5,000 people, with another 15,000 

viewing via live webcast. Major press outlets attended the event and have written numerous articles 

about CGC.

Incentives: Cash prizes totaling $6.75 million were awarded per Title 15 U.S.C. § 3719 and CGC 

rules. Because DARPA is the sole sponsor of the CGC, no private funds were contributed to the 

program. Nonmonetary prizes were not offered. 

Following the CGC Qualifying Event (CQE) on June 3, 2015, seven competitors qualified as 

finalists; four from the Open Track each received $750,000 in prize money, and three from the 

Proposal Track each received $750,000 in additional funding. At the CFE, cash prizes were 

awarded to the first place ($2 million), second place ($1 million), and third place ($750,000) 

winners.

Cash prizes were drawn from the Program Element (PE) and project as follows:

PE Project Title FY14 FY15 FY16

0602303E IT-05 Cyber Grand Challenge 

(CGC)

$ 0.00M $ 3.00M $ 3.75M

Evaluation and Judging: To ensure objectivity in judging and evaluation at the CFE, custom 

automated scoring software was utilized to provide quantitative measurements for the DARPA 

CGC Program Manager to make the final prize determinations. Prior to the announcement of 

official prize winners, independent verification of the automated scoring was performed to ensure 

the reproducibility and integrity of the prize determination. This was accomplished through the 

use of multiple clean room scoring implementations of a single specification, which provided 

confidence that no adversarial malfeasance or accidental errors occurred during the competition.

Partnerships: DARPA funded various entities within DOD (e.g., Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Command, Air Force Research Laboratory, and Naval Postgraduate School) and federally 

funded research and development centers (e.g., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 

Laboratory) for contracting and specialized technical support in conducting the CGC competition. 

To raise awareness of state-of-the-art automated cybersecurity competition, DARPA entered into 

a cooperative R&D agreement with the DEF CON Hacking Conference, and the CFE was colocated with the DEF CON 24 Conference.

Additionally, the cyber reasoning systems (CRS) created for CGC are transitioning to various 

Government partners for their use in furthering the CGC mission of the autonomous study of 

software in the national interest. These Government transition partners include the Air Force 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-18

Research Laboratory, U.S. Cyber Command, Army Cyber Command, Naval Postgraduate School, 

and the Department of Homeland Security.

Resources: The DARPA CGC was organized by Government staff members and support 

contractors managing logistics, security, infrastructure, administration, information technology 

services, planning, execution, production, visualization, and software development. The CGC was

not executed by a single entity; rather a cross-disciplinary team of experts from across the United 

States was assembled to build the software base of the Challenge and develop its automated scoring 

mechanisms and software platform.33 Visualization experts from the computer gaming industry 

were contracted to build novel visualization capabilities for CGC. Datacenter experts performed 

the physical build of the CRS hardware and supporting infrastructure to include power, cooling 

and staging.

Funds were drawn from the Program Element (PE) and projects as follows:

PE Project Title FY14 FY15 FY16

0602303E IT-05 Cyber Grand 

Challenge (CGC)

$10.438M $16.832M

*

$ 9.864M*

0602303E IT-03 Cyber Grand 

Challenge (CGC)

$0.000M $ 6.233M $11.329M

*includes cash prizes

Results: The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge created the first-ever, all-machine hacking 

tournament for fully automated network defense systems, demonstrating a leap forward in 

autonomous cyber reasoning capability. Over the course of two years, teams were put through

scored events and qualification rounds to determine a field of seven finalists announced on July 5, 

2015. The finalist teams of top computer security experts developed autonomous cyber reasoning 

systems (CRSs) that competed head-to-head at the CGC Final Event (CFE) on August 4, 2016, 

where $3.75 million in prize money was awarded. The competition drew teams of top experts from 

a wide range of computer security disciplines including reverse engineering, formal methods, 

program analysis, and applied computer security competition.

CGC teams were tasked with creating automated systems that could competitively evaluate 

software, search for vulnerabilities, generate and apply security patches to protected computers on 

an isolated test network, evaluate the efficacy of defenses, and prove the existence of 

vulnerabilities by network scanning. Competitors successfully created cyber reasoning software 

that automatically detected and fixed intended and unintended flaws in never-before-seen software 

at machine speed.

Scores from the CFE are provided below. The CGC scoring and forensic infrastructure performed 

as designed, and the results were independently verified prior to final award announcements on 

August 7, 2016.

 

33The Cyber Grand Challenge software platform is available as open source software at 

github.com/CyberGrandChallenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-19

Place Team Affiliation Location Track

1

st ForAllSecure ForAllSecure, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA Proposal

2

nd TECHx GrammaTech, Inc 

University of Virginia

Ithaca, NY

Charlottesville, VA

Proposal

3

rd Shellphish University of California at Santa 

Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA Open

4

th Deep Red Raytheon SIGovs Arlington, VA Open

5

th CodeJitsu University of California at Berkeley

Syracuse University

Berkeley, CA

Syracuse, NY

Proposal

6

th CSDS University of Idaho Moscow, ID Open

7

th disekt disekt Athens, GA Open

Throughout the 9-hour final event, teams’ CRSs evaluated 82 challenge binaries during 96 rounds 

of competition, fielding 296 successful proofs of vulnerability and creating 585 patches for 

vulnerable challenge binaries. The sheer volume of data analysis and software programming 

performed by these autonomous systems greatly exceeds the ability of human experts in terms of 

scale and speed. 

The capability developed for and demonstrated during CFE to autonomously discover unintended 

flaws in software, prove those vulnerabilities in other team systems, and develop patches for those 

flaws completely autonomously represents a groundbreaking leap forward in automated network 

defense. As an example, the total life cycle from a zero-day exploit to a successfully fielded patch 

in the CGC finals occurred in 15 minutes (versus the 312 days a typical zero-day attack lasts34 plus 

24 days it takes to patch in the real world35). In addition, one team was able to find and prove a 

flaw in an analog of the famous “crackaddr” loop satisfaction bug; this level of software analysis 

has been considered the domain of human experts until now. Finally, subsequent to winning CGC, 

the Mayhem CRS participated in the human DEFCON Capture the Flag tournament, where it 

discovered and patched a vulnerability in 22 minutes and created a 2-step exploit in 105 minutes 

of a challenge binary that was considered by human competitors to be too hard to exploit. In sum, 

the technology demonstrated at CGC is poised to ignite an automation revolution in computer 

security.

A.4 Department of Energy

A.4.1 Catalyst Energy Innovation Prize36

Summary: The Catalyst Energy Innovation Prize, formerly known as the SunShot Catalyst Prize, 

is an open innovation program in the Energy Department’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency 

 

34 S. Frei. Security Econometrics: The Dynamics of (In)Security, September 7, 2009.

35 L. Bilge and T. Dumitras. Before We Knew It: An Empirical Study of Zero-Day Attacks in the Real World,

users.ece.cmu.edu/~tdumitra/public_documents/bilge12_zero_day.pdf, August 8, 2012.

36 catalyst.energy.gov
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-20

and Renewable Energy and aims to catalyze the rapid creation and development of products and 

solutions that address near-term challenges in the U.S. solar and energy efficiency marketplaces. 

Through a series of contests, Catalyst helps commercial companies bring mature solar technologies 

to the field by facilitating collaboration with the Energy Department’s tools, data assets, and other 

resources, in order to help lower the costs of financing and acquisition of customers for entry to 

the market. The program transfers business plans to energy startups with products in 90 days. All 

competitors are continuing from the Incubation contest in 2015. 

Solution Type: Software and apps; ideas; technology demonstration and hardware; and business 

plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; develop technology; build capacity; and 

stimulate a market

Results: Three of seven participating teams received the highest available award, and all teams 

received awards to continue with their development. 

Problem Statement: Solar is a relatively new industry that is growing rapidly, but continued growth 

will be dependent on several issues including cost competitiveness and ability to seamlessly 

integrate to the grid and operate with other energy related technologies such as energy storage, 

demand response appliances, and electric vehicles. Through the Catalyst prize program, 

communities of innovators use software, data, algorithms, and automation to drive down nonhardware soft costs—financing and customer acquisition—that today make up significant costs. 

Since its inception, the Catalyst Energy Innovation Prize (formerly known as the SunShot Catalyst 

Prize) has helped hundreds of innovators bring solar solutions to the marketplace. Catalyst’s prize 

challenge framework introduces the business community to the vast array of tools, capabilities, 

data assets, and additional resources developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the 

national laboratories. Catalyst’s open, fast-paced innovation cycle allows crowd-sourced 

engagement and frequent partnerships with the nation’s growing networks of technology mentors, 

incubators, and accelerators.

In 2015, the Catalyst program was expanded to include the Building Technologies Office (BTO), 

with the goal of leveraging the Catalyst innovation cycle to develop innovative startups around 

low energy building design and operation software. In 2016, BTO supported the Catalyst program 

with mentoring services and funding for two of the seven total progress round teams.

Proposed Goals:

 Support new entrants into the solar plus "founder’s club" and buildings software innovation 

community;

 Bring non-traditional entrepreneurs and human capital into solar and building efficiency 

industries;

 De-risk technology development for applicants by providing rapid prototyping services; 

and

 Provide pre-seed stage prize funding, integrating well with other Catalyst and BTO funding 

opportunities including Catalyst’s Incubator program and BTO Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) grants.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-21

Measures of Success: For 2016, success was measured by how successful the competing teams 

were in completing their milestones, growing their business, and their ability to attract private 

funding. Over the past year, the program’s success was also measured in terms of the number of 

online platform participants; the number of problem statements submitted online; the number of 

videos submission of the business innovation contest; the number of engaged incubators and 

accelerates; and finally, the total dollar value of added private funding to the teams supported 

throughout the Catalyst program. In 2016, Catalyst and BTO evaluated the Catalyst program from 

its inception and conducted a number of interviews with participants before final awards were 

granted. The findings of this internal evaluation are highlighted in GAO report published in 

October 2016.37

Participants: For 2016, participation was restricted to continuing teams from the Incubation contest 

in 2015. Seven teams participated.

Timeline: This progress round started December 11, 2015 and ended June 17, 2016, with progress 

awards announced July 12, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: Outreach activities were primarily limited to recruitment of program 

participants during the earlier Ideation and Business Innovation stages of the Catalyst cycle in 

2015. In 2016, Catalyst and BTO press releases announced the progress round awardees.

Incentives: In addition to cash incentives, the teams continued to have access to DOE staff and 

NREL staff to help provide mentoring support and entrepreneurial training as needed for six 

months.

Evaluation and Judging: For the Incubation Evaluation Criteria for the progress round, DOE will 

evaluate submissions by applicants based on the contestant Score Card performance and the extent 

of progress that has been shown during this six-month assessment period. Specifically, DOE will 

evaluate each of the five or more performance metrics provided by each team based on the grading 

scale of A, B, C, or D as further described below.

 Grade A means the team met or exceeded their stated score card metric or met similar goals 

taking into account reactions to market changes.

 Grade B means the team made significant progress towards meeting the goal or will likely 

hit their goals based on current performance.

 Grade C means that teams made enough progress towards hitting their goals.

 Grade D means the level of progress made by the team does not indicate a likelihood of 

future success.

DOE will also evaluate each team’s performance on the following two questions based on the same 

grading scale.

 Did the contestant demonstrate substantial progress to building a viable business in the 

solar and building efficiency industries as outlined in their Seed Round submission?

 

37 www.gao.gov/assets/690/680425.pdf
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-22

 Did the contestant increase their assets by at least $1 million (e.g. revenue exceeded $1 

million, closed equity investors)?

If a team’s most occurring grade is A, the team will receive the full $70,000. If the most occurring 

grade is a B the team will receive $50,000. If the most occurring grade is a C, the team will receive 

$20,000, and if the most occurring grade is a D, then the team will receive no additional funds.

Partnerships: For 2016, there were no new partnerships. In previous years, DOE has partnered with 

NREL and Topcoder.

Resources: In 2016, DOE has provided staff time and support from NREL as needed.

Results: For 2016, seven teams (5 Catalyst and 2 BTO) were participating in the growth round of 

the Incubation Contest with an eligibility to receive up to $70,000 per team. Three teams received 

$70,000 awards, two teams received $50,000 awards, and two teams received $20,000 awards.

A.4.2 Cleantech University Prize38

Summary: The Cleantech University Prize (Cleantech UP) is designed to inspire clean energy 

innovation across the country by creating businesses from best in-class technology research, while 

inspiring and cultivating America’s next generation of entrepreneurs to drive those businesses 

forward. Cleantech UP is a national business plan competition, designed to build a network of 

student-focused business creation contests across the country. 137 teams competed in the 2016 

Cleantech UP regional collegiate competitions. Twenty-four teams were then invited to compete 

in the National Competition, with eight of those teams winning DOE-sponsored prizes at the 

regional collegiate competitions. At the National Competition, three teams won DOE-sponsored 

prizes.

Solution Type: Business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; develop technology;engage new people and 

communities

Results: 137 teams competed in the 2016 Cleantech UP regional collegiate competitions. Twentyfour teams were then invited to compete in the National Competition, with eight of those teams 

winning DOE-sponsored prizes at the regional collegiate competitions. At the National 

Competition, three teams won DOE-sponsored monetary prizes. These three winners were Heila 

Technologies, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; XStream Trucking, from Stanford 

University; and NovoMoto, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Helia Technologies 

developed a universal control hub that automatically monitors and manages disparate microgrids 

at places like company campuses, military bases, and rural villages, for optimal performance. 

XStream Trucking developed a technology that eliminates the gap between a semi-trailer and its 

cab, thereby reducing drag and fuel consumption of trucks at high speeds. NovoMoto developed 

technology that aims to incorporate solar power, control and monitoring software, and local 

 

38 www.cleantechup.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-23

partners to provide renewable, sustainable electricity to communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The 

startups from the competition have seen enormous success. In the past year, companies have been 

acquired, secured joint development agreements with major corporates, attracted crowdfunding 

and traditional investment, and been accepted into prestigious incubators and accelerators.

Problem Statement: Start-ups and innovative technologies are critical to the growth of the clean 

energy economy in the United States and abroad. However, persistent gaps exist between 

innovative technology developers and entrepreneurs. Because of significant barriers to creating 

clean energy technology start-ups, there is a dearth of participants entering the energy 

entrepreneurship pipeline. Traditionally, the nation’s institutions of higher education—where there 

is a strong ecosystem for entrepreneurs and start-ups—have fostered the high-tech innovation 

pipeline. At least 450 colleges and universities across the United States have entrepreneurship 

programs, but they also have a demonstrated need for Federal support.

Cleantech UP aims to inspire clean energy innovation across the country by creating businesses 

from best in-class technology research, while inspiring and cultivating America’s next generation 

of entrepreneurs to drive those businesses forward. Cleantech UP awards prizes to the teams with 

not just the best technology, but the premier teams developing early-stage companies to turn 

technology into products ready for the commercial markets. By working with the private sector, 

through in-kind sponsorship, cash prizes, and having the business and investor community serve 

as judges and mentors, the competition brings together the communities in a way that could not be 

done through a grant alone. 

Participants are required to present business plans at the Cleantech UP collegiate competitions and 

the National Competition. All business plan proposals must fall within DOE’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) mission and technology portfolio, as defined in the 

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA): 

“The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy works to strengthen the United States’ 

energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality in public-private partnerships. It 

supports this goal through (1) enhancing energy efficiency and productivity; and (2) bringing 

clean, reliable and affordable energy technologies to the marketplace.”39

Business plans must fall within EERE’s purview, but they may be based upon technical or servicebased solutions or products. 

Acceptable technology areas are represented by EERE’s ten program offices: 

1. Building Technologies 

2. Advanced Manufacturing

3. Vehicle Technologies

4. Federal Energy Management Program

5. Weatherization and Intergovernmental

6. Biomass Program

7. Geothermal Technologies

 

39 www.eere.energy.gov
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-24

8. Fuel Cells Technologies

9. Solar Energy Technologies

10. Wind and Hydropower Technologies

Proposed Goals: Cleantech UP goals include:

 Catalyze clean energy start-up formation on college campuses;

 Support novel training and educational opportunities that equip the next generation of 

energy entrepreneurs and innovators across the country; 

 Establish a national-level training program and competition for America’s top clean energy 

student entrepreneurs; and

 Create a sustained and diverse community to support student entrepreneurs.

Measures of Success: EERE has had success in supporting initiatives to spur student 

entrepreneurship. Cleantech UP builds on its precursor, the DOE National Clean Energy Business 

Plan Competition (NCEBPC), by leveraging growing interest in energy entrepreneurship to 

expand student engagement in clean energy technologies. Student entrepreneurship prizes are 

critical catalysts for early-stage company formation and serve an important role in supporting 

innovation. The prize incentive draws talented entrepreneurs and technology developers, and the 

prizes help capitalize early stage development by providing funding. However, companies that 

enter competitions are usually at their earliest stage of development, and many students who 

participate in competitions require additional business and technology commercialization training. 

Using prizes as a catalyst for company formation has been a tested and proven model, 

demonstrated through quantitative and qualitative evidence. By enabling open competition, the 

best technologies in all categories are eligible for consideration, rather than creating a single 

technology-focused grant. 

In addition to administering prizes, Cleantech UP also provides students with critical opportunities 

for academic enrichment around entrepreneurship principles. Students are exposed to clean energy 

entrepreneurship training, allowing them to develop the business and commercialization skills they 

need to move clean energy technologies from discovery to market. Cleantech UP increases student 

entrepreneurs’ participation—both in quantity and quality—in clean energy, and closes the 

existing gap in early-stage training.

Since the competition started, participants have formed more than 240 ventures, created over 200

jobs, and raised more than $160 million in follow-on funding, helping to grow the clean energy 

economy and develop innovative and sustainable technologies.

Participants: Cleantech UP targets student entrepreneurs and technologists launching clean energy 

ventures. The program was launched to inspire and promote entrepreneurship, connecting DOE 

with a large group of leading entrepreneurs and innovations in the energy space. As a program 

whose goals include the development of the next generation of entrepreneurs, Cleantech UP 

requires that students be highly involved in each competition’s management and execution. In 

order to participate in the Cleantech UP competition, at least 50% of any participating team’s 

formal team members must be actively enrolled in an accredited U.S. university or college. Formal 

team members are defined as those individuals eligible to directly receive prize money or services 

awarded by the competition. Students are required to present business plans at the Cleantech UP 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-25

collegiate competitions and the National Competition. Three hundred and seventy-nine individuals 

participated from 137 teams. 

Timeline: Specific dates varied across individual regional prizes, but submissions opened late 

2015/early 2016, and were due late 2015/early 2016 dependent on the prize. Winners were 

announced early/mid 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: Cleantech UP used multiple media methods to disseminate information 

broadly about the National Competition and its winners. This included social media, traditional 

press, energy.gov through the EERE and Secretary’s blog, and challenge.gov. Blog posts 

highlighting each winner after each regional competition were released, and connected to social 

media, including Facebook and Twitter. The lead-up to the national event also included blog posts 

and broad distribution. To attract entrants, each region executed their own outreach strategy.

Incentives: Cleantech UP has several prizes associated with the entire competition. DOE directly 

sponsors the eight regional collegiate competition prizes of $50,000 for each regional competition.

The prizes were distributed by regional organizers. The funding was allocated through a 

cooperative agreement, awarded in 2015. Some regional competitions had other prizes, sponsored 

by a variety of private and non-profit organizations. 

The top three teams from each of the eight regional Cleantech UP collegiate competitions are 

invited to compete at the National Competition. The National Competition prizes which amounted 

to $150,000 were sponsored by the DOE.

In addition to cash prizes, student teams are able to access energy entrepreneurship and 

commercialization training, which includes instruction and guidance in preparation for the 

National Competition and supplemental curriculum that focuses on the creation and development 

of student businesses in cleantech.

Evaluation and Judging: A general framework for the Cleantech UP National Competition judging 

criteria is outlined in a policy memo that has remained constant since the program’s inception. The 

Cleantech UP judging criteria among the regional collegiate competitions must be approved by 

DOE in advance of the competitions. The submissions for the National Competition are the 

regional winners from each competition. 

At the regional level, each competition determines selection independently, with the guidelines 

instructed through the eligibility requirements. Independent reviewers hailing from multiple 

sectors, including finance, business, and non-profits, serve as judges at the application and 

competition stages. While the regions can determine their own judging criteria, their criteria are 

subject to DOE approval.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-26

Solutions/Products (30%)

Value Proposition

Teams will be judged on the value their solution/product can deliver to their customers. The value 

of the solution/product might include:

 Offering and benefits

 Exclusivity

 Nature and degree of pain customers currently experience

 Willingness to pay

Teams will be judged on whether their value proposition is superior to every alternative being 

considered. Teams should outline their target customers’ needs and wants and explain how their 

product meets those requirements. 

Differentiation 

Teams will be judged on clear and convincing description of the market differentiation for their 

solution/product. Descriptions should include comparisons to direct competitors and indirect 

substitute products.

Barriers to Competition

Teams will be judged on their ability to identify and capitalize on barriers against others who seek 

to imitate their success (i.e., through intellectual property, first movers’ advantage, compelling 

marketing, and/or strategic partnerships).

Teams with technical solutions/products should briefly describe their IP position and/or their IP 

strategy, including the degree to which they control or are in the process of gaining control of a 

protectable intellectual property or service.

Technical Feasibility

Teams will be judged on the extent to which their solution/product is technically feasible. The 

technical feasibility should be addressed independently of market feasibility.

To demonstrate feasibility, teams should discuss:

 Technology research (e.g., document searches, discussions with experts, etc.);

 Proof of concept (e.g., basic technology tests, design concept tests, prototype 

development, etc.);

 Product development assessments; and

Go-To-Market Strategy (30%)

Feasibility of Go-to-Market Plan

Teams will be judged on the feasibility of achieving market adoption and successful deployment 

of the technology, including likely success in accessing:

 Manufacturing resources;

 Financing requirements;

 Personnel;

 Regulatory environment; and

 Marketing resources

Teams should discuss any barriers (e.g., restrictions, monopolies, unreasonable costs, scarcity, 

energy, equipment, technology, material, process or personnel) that might limit access to required 

factors of production/implementation. Teams should discuss how they will overcome excessive 

capital requirements, financing obstacles, regulatory hurdles, marketing challenges or other nonIP barriers. 

Customer Access and Traction

Teams will be judged on their ability to demonstrate to the best of their ability evidence of customer 

valuation/validation.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-27

Presentations should include a description of the customer research design used to support 

market assessments. 

Teams should identify potential early- and late-adopters of their solution/product and prove they 

can secure customers.

Scalability

Teams shall prove to the best of their ability that their business is scalable.

Proof of scalability will be based on:

 Total addressable market size;

 Plans to achieve economies of scale;

 Investments staging;

 Production strategy; and

 Customer recruitment/management

Team Plan (20%)

Quality

Teams will be judged on how well they are positioned to successfully carry out their business plan. 

Expertise and backgrounds for the team members should be commensurate with the needs of the 

business plan

Successful teams will prove their:

 Relevant experience in all aspects of the project;

 Diversity of expertise and backgrounds (i.e., technological, entrepreneurial, business and 

policy);

 Ability to engage appropriate outside expertise; and

Teams must execute a strong pitch while conveying creativity, confidence and competency. 

Commitment

Teams will be judged on their commitment to the enterprise.

Members must exhibit a high level of enthusiasm for and demonstrable dedication to the company 

and their partners.

Chemistry

Teams will be judged on whether they possess the right competencies for their plan and ability to 

blend those skills to achieve synergies. 

Gaps and Action Plans

Teams will be judged on gaps that currently exist in their organization and their action plan to fill 

the gaps. 

Descriptions should explain the gaps between their present and desired future states. Teams 

should articulate the risk associated with any inadequacies and discuss mechanisms to eliminate 

the gaps. 

Impact on EERE

Mission (20%)

Teams will be judged on how their solution/product will strengthen the economy, protect the 

environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Presenters should identify which of the eleven areas40 of the EERE’s mission space will benefit 

from their solution/product. Teams will be judged on credibility of quantitative assessment of their 

solution/product’s impact in the clean energy space (i.e., increasing efficiency, improving 

transmission, increasing clean energy generation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions) as well 

as its impact in terms of relevance, significance, scale and sustainability.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-28

Partnerships: For the National Competition and the regional collegiate competitions, the National 

Hub and the regional organizers partnered with a variety of private sector and non-profit 

organizations for in-kind support, monetary contributions, judges, facility use, and marketing and 

outreach. DOE encourages these partnerships to support the regional collegiate competitions and 

the National Competition.

Resources: To execute the national and regional prizes, the DOE released a competitive solicitation 

to determine the administrators of the prizes in 2015, establishing a Cleantech UP Hub and eight 

collegiate competitions. 

The Cleantech UP Hub is a national center for student-focused clean energy entrepreneurship 

training and education. This Cleantech UP Hub:

 Develops a premier clean energy entrepreneurship training program, including instruction 

in commercialization and preparation for the Cleantech UP National Competition; 

 Strengthens and expands the clean energy student entrepreneurship community; 

 Facilitates a learning platform for best practices in clean energy entrepreneurship education 

across the Cleantech UP network; 

 Organizes an annual National Competition—the culmination of the regional Cleantech UP 

collegiate competitions—and awards $100,000 in cash prizes from DOE along with inkind awards and services from DOE and other sponsors.

At the 2016 Cleantech UP National Competition, a total of $100,000 in DOE prize money was 

awarded: $50,000 for first place, $30,000 for second place, and $20,000 for third place. The first 

place team also received an additional DOE National Lab Voucher for lab access and services 

equivalent to $50,000 in value. 

Each collegiate competition supports the earliest development of teams and their training by:

 Establishing and running an annual regional competition, to include recruiting applicants, 

mentors, evaluators, judges, and other competition partners, developing a prize competition 

structure, developing an outreach and marketing plan, promoting the event, and collecting

metrics;

 Establishing team development and training;

 Awarding up to $50,000 in prizes at each DOE-supported regional collegiate competition.

Results: Since its inception, Cleantech UP catalyzed the launch of companies, attracted attention 

and private sector support for competitions, and created jobs. The startups from the competition 

have seen enormous success. In the past year, companies have been acquired, secured joint 

development agreements with major corporates, attracted crowdfunding and traditional 

investment, and been accepted into prestigious incubators and accelerators. 

137 teams competed in the 2016 Cleantech UP regional collegiate competitions. Twenty-four 

teams were then invited to compete in the National Competition, with eight of those teams winning 

 

40 The eleven areas that makeup EERE’s mission space include Renewable Energy (Solar, Wind, Water, Biomass, 

Geothermal, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells) and Energy Efficiency (Homes, Buildings, Vehicles, Manufacturing, and 

Government).
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-29

DOE-sponsored prizes at the regional collegiate competitions. At the National Competition, three 

teams won DOE-sponsored prizes.

The winners of the June 2016 Cleantech UP National Competition were: 

1. Heila Technologies, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, won first place 

for developing a universal control hub that automatically monitors and manages 

disparate microgrids at places like company campuses, military bases, and rural 

villages, for optimal performance. 

2. XStream Trucking, from Stanford University, won second place for their technology 

that eliminates the gap between a semi-trailer and its cab, thereby reducing drag and 

fuel consumption of trucks at high speeds.

3. NovoMoto, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, won third place for their 

technology that aims to incorporate solar power, control and monitoring software, 

and local partners to provide renewable, sustainable electricity to communities in 

sub-Saharan Africa.

The winners of the 2016 Cleantech UP regional collegiate competitions were: 

Berkeley Cleantech University Prize (Berkeley CUP)

1. Nelumbo, from UC Berkeley, won the Berkeley CUP for developing a hydrophobic 

coating that provides 25-30% greater efficiency to air conditioning. 

2. Cuberg, from Stanford, developed high-performance solid-state batteries that store double 

the energy of the best batteries currently on the market. 

3. OPUS 12, from Stanford, won third place for developing a technology that recycles carbon 

dioxide into chemicals and fuels using an electrochemical process.

Allegheny Region Cleantech UP Collegiate Competition (Allegheny CUP)

1. DR-Advisor, from the University of Pennsylvania, won the Allegheny CUP for 

developing a data-driven demand response recommendation system that builds predictive 

models based on historical data, while also learning from the actions of the building

operator. 

2. Manta Biofuel, from the University of Maryland, won second place for developing a 

renewable, carbon neutral, and cost-competitive algal crude oil that does double duty to 

replace fossil fuel crude oil.

3. Waven Technology, from Carnegie Mellon University, tied with Manta Biofuel for second 

place for improving the capture and conversion of wave energy to electricity with a novel 

technology that is both affordable and reliable. 

Clean Energy Trust Clean Energy Challenge

1. NovoMoto, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, won first place at the Clean 

Energy Trust Challenge for their sustainable social enterprise that aims to provide clean, 

renewable, and sustainable electricity to communities in sub-Saharan African countries. 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-30

2. Hazel Technologies, from Northwestern University, won second place for their 

technology which utilizes biotechnology to reduce produce waste.

3. INJoo Networks, from Northwestern University, won third place for their next generation 

smart building software, which utilizes a building’s Building Automation System and 

pairs that with external web data to predict and optimize energy usage.

Rice Business Plan Competition

1. Gecko Robotics, from Carnegie Mellon University, won first place at the Rice Business 

Plan Competition for their wall-climbing reusable robots, which change the way power 

plant inspections are performed. 

2. BlueWave Cleaning System, from the University of Florida, won second place for their 

hygienic, water-free, detergent-free, and chemical-free plasma device that cleans items 

that are extremely hard or impossible to clean with a washer and dryer, in as little as five 

minutes. 

3. MDAR Technologies, from Northwestern University, developed a next-generation 3D 

scanner that enables machines to see accurately in full outdoor sunlight at video rates.

Rutgers LaunchR

1. Sail-Based Wind Harvester, from Rutgers University, won first place at the Rutgers 

LaunchR competition for their wind turbine design for commercial buildings, whose 

lifetime cost is 25% less than that of a solar array. 

2. ParaTrees, from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, is a technology-based 

reforestation and sustainability company, whose mission is to innovate and merge the gap 

between technology, people, and nature.

3. Revolution Outboards, from Princeton University, is combatting marine ecosystem 

pollution by developing emission-free, fully-electric outboard boat motors.

MIT Clean Energy Prize 

1. Iron Goat, from George Mason University, won first place at the MIT Clean Energy Prize 

for their vision-guided mobile robotics that remove labor and fossil fuels from cellulose 

feedstock production. 

2. Heila Technologies, from MIT, is making microgrids more efficient and easier to operate 

by giving them the ability to sense, communicate, control, and learn through their 

innovative Heila IQ local controller.

3. Ampér, from Northwestern, is building a smart circuit breaker that allows consumers to 

monitor and reduce their energy use on a per-appliance basis. 

Caltech First Look West (FLoW)

1. XStream Trucking, from Stanford University, won first place at Caltech FLoW for their 

patented GapGorilla technology, which increases the efficiency of trailer trucks by 

streamlining the gap between the cab and the trailer. 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-31

2. Akabotics, from the University of Hawaii, is improving power plant turbine efficiency 

with their Microdredger system, which removes sediment buildups in waterways that 

increase flooding vulnerabilities and impede water commerce.

3. SkyCool Systems, from Stanford University, has engineered a breakthrough in buildingscale chiller and refrigeration systems through a renewable approach to cooling without 

input electricity or evaporating water. 

University of Central Florida (UCF) MegaWatt Ventures

1. Sensatek Propulsion Technology, Inc., from the University of Central Florida, won first 

place at UCF MegaWatt Ventures for their Wireless In-Situ Nexus Sensor, which 

optimizes fuel cell operation by reducing membrane degradation and measures pressure 

and temperature distributions in real-time.

2. Grow Bioplastics, from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is working to improve 

food sustainability by offering farmers and gardeners renewable, biodegradable plant 

containers and mulch films that eliminate oil based plastics from our agricultural system.

3. Capacitech Energy, from the University of Central Florida, combines modern nanoscience 

with coaxial cable and supercapacitors into an innovative, energy effective product easily 

adapted for use in consumer electronics, energy production and storage, transportation, 

and military applications.

Other start-ups from the competition have demonstrated enormous success after participating in 

Cleantech UP. OPUS 12, a runner-up in the 2016 Berkeley Cleantech University Prize, was 

announced as a winner of the Forbes Under 30 Summit Change the World competition, receiving 

$425,000 in prizes. Grow Bioplastics, a runner-up at UCF’s 2016 Megawatt Ventures Cleantech 

Competition, was announced as a finalist in the 2017 Farm Bureau Rural Entrepreneurship 

Challenge and awarded $15,000. They advanced to the next phase of the challenge in January 

2017.

A.4.3 EV Everywhere Logo Challenge41

Summary: The EV Everywhere Logo Challenge was set up in order to produce a logo for EV 

Everywhere, the umbrella activity for all of the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to increase 

the use of plug-in electric vehicles. The ideal logo would be a compelling graphic that 

communicated two main ideas: (1) plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are beneficial and practical; 

and (2) EV Everywhere is the place for drivers to come for data-driven, objective information 

about them. As PEVs can help increase America’s economic, energy, and environmental security, 

the Department of Energy and its stakeholders will be leading the way through EV Everywhere. 

The competition was only the first part of an expanded outreach and education effort to increase 

consumer awareness of the benefits of PEVs.

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia)

 

41 www.challenge.gov/challenge/ev-everywhere-logo-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-32

Primary Goals: Inform and educate the public; engage new people and communities; and stimulate 

a market

Results: The winning design, submitted by Brian Marquis, is being used as the official logo for EV 

Everywhere.

Problem Statement: The EV Everywhere Logo Design Challenge invited designers to create a 

compelling graphic that communicates two main ideas: (1) plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are 

beneficial and practical; and (2) EV Everywhere is the place for drivers to come for data-driven, 

objective information about them. As PEVs can help increase America’s economic, energy, and 

environmental security, the Department of Energy and its stakeholders will be leading the way 

through EV Everywhere. The competition was only the first part of an expanded outreach and 

education effort to increase consumer awareness of the benefits of PEVs. This was specifically a 

creative challenge.

Proposed Goals: The goal was to develop a unique logo for the EV Everywhere program that helps 

consumers become more interested in both PEVs and the information the Department of Energy 

provides about them.

Measures of Success: Besides obtaining a new logo from 89 entries, most of the measures of 

success were in raising awareness of EV Everywhere. On social media, promotion of the contest 

resulted in 499 likes and 172 shares. In addition to the nearly 1500 views of the blog post on 

Energy.gov, there was also an article in The Washington Post that led to much more exposure. The 

logo has been used on EV Everywhere communication materials such as social media, 

publications, and magnetic decals—over 30,000 have been distributed to date.

Participants: The competition was open to all participants generally allowed to participate in 

competitions on Challenge.gov.42 

There were 50 participants with 89 entries (several participants submitted multiple entries). While 

some participants appeared to be associated with a specific company or organization, all of them 

appeared to be entering as individuals. A number of entries appeared to be from professional 

graphic designers, but not all of them.

Timeline: Submissions opened August 13, 2015, closed September 25, 2015, and winners were 

announced November 7, 2015.

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media (e.g., Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 

42 The specific requirements were for an individual to be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States before 

the submission period ends; for a private entity to be incorporated in and maintain a principal place of business in 

the United States; for the participant not to be a Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; 

and to not be an entity with an outstanding, unresolved financial obligation to, or that is currently suspended or 

debarred by, the Federal Government.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-33

 Email Outreach (e.g., listservs).

To advertise the challenge, the EV Everywhere team created a blog post on the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) blog about the contest43, made multiple posts on 

social media (EERE Facebook, DOE Twitter, Challenge.gov Twitter), and sent information to a 

number of plug-in electric vehicle stakeholders via email (PEV Community Readiness listserv 

with 5,000+ subscribers, Clean Cities coordinators). Advertising through stakeholders and social 

media were both fairly successful.

Incentives: A $5,000 prize was awarded to the winning designer. 

Evaluation and Judging: The contest had three major judging criteria:

 Effectiveness of communicating the EV Everywhere mission and brand: This includes the 

idea of plug-in electric vehicles, their benefits and viability for the average driver, and the 

DOE as a source of unbiased, data-driven information. This may be done through a realistic 

or abstract design. This criteria will count for a maximum of 500 out of 1000 points.

 Creativity and originality: Is the visual quality of the design at once informative and 

representative of imagery connected to EV Everywhere? This criteria will count for a 

maximum of 300 out of 1000 points.

 Replicability: Design can be easily replicated, especially as a magnetic decal. Can this 

design be replicated successfully, without excessive cost, for many media formats? This 

criteria will count for a maximum of 200 out of 1000 points.

The judging process followed an abbreviated version of EERE’s process for funding opportunity 

announcements. A team of seven volunteer non-Federal experts each evaluated a selection of the 

logos using the above criteria. A panel of three Federal employees then took these scores into 

account to develop a consensus on three logos that met the above criteria. The panel presented 

these finalists to senior leadership, which made the final decision.

Partnerships: While not formal partnerships, a number of Clean Cities coalitions and other EV 

Everywhere stakeholders advertised the competition to their contacts. These contacts likely 

encouraged a number of submissions that may not have otherwise been received.

Resources: The Department of Energy used only in-house resources and existing funding to 

conduct the competition. The funding for the prize money was under the overall communications 

efforts for EERE’s Vehicle Technologies Office. The Federal employees working on the Challenge 

already focus on communications and EV Everywhere, so this fit into their existing duties.

Results: The winning design, submitted by Brian Marquis, is being used as the official logo for 

EV Everywhere, the umbrella activity for all of the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to 

increase the use of plug-in electric vehicles. It is used on EV Everywhere communication materials 

such as the website, social media, publications, and magnetic decals—over 30,000 have been 

distributed to date.

 

43 energy.gov/eere/articles/ev-everywhere-seeks-your-designs
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-34

A.4.4 JUMP Prize Competitions44

Summary: JUMP is designed to broaden the pool of innovators working with DOE and move 

innovative technology concepts to market more efficiently. The Competition spans 13 separate 

challenges addressing topics from increasing efficiency in commercial air conditioning systems to 

expanding the usefulness of the internet of things, each co-sponsored by an industry partner. 

Winners receive both money from their industry partner and technical support from the DOE 

national laboratory responsible for the challenge. Winners also had opportunities to participate in 

additional programs to accelerate their technologies. 

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Develop technology; solve a specific problem; and engage new people and 

communities

Results: For all 13 calls for innovation, a total of 160 ideas were received. Most of the ideas were 

submitted by individual users or small businesses. A list of winners can be found at 

web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/jump/winners/.

Problem Statement: Below are brief problem statements for each of the 13 calls for innovation the 

JUMP program ran in 2016:

1. Low-Cost BTU Sensor for Use in Building HVAC Control Systems

The challenge is to develop a new BTU sensor that when compared to traditional BTU meters has 

an error of less than 10% full scale and an installed cost of less than 20%. The sensor could be an 

actual physical device or an advanced algorithm using other available system data to accurately 

approximate a measured value.

 

44 jump.ideascale.com/
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-35

2. Low-Temperature Intrinsically Safe Defrost System

The challenge is to develop a low-cost system to remove ice from the evaporator while conforming 

to UL 250 Flammable Refrigerants Addendum. Specifically, the defrost system:

 Must not require substantial physical changes to the existing evaporator or evaporator 

compartment;

 Must meet standard 20-year life requirements (assume 1 defrost per day);

 Must be able to raise an unfrosted evaporator from -10°F to 40°F in 15 minutes or less; and

 Must be spark resistant and surface temperatures should not exceed 680°F.

3. Mean Radiant Temperature Sensing for Improved Thermal Comfort Building

The challenge is to design and develop a proof of concept mean radiant temperature (MRT) sensor 

that can be integrated with Building Robotics’ Comfy offering, with the following functionality 

targets:

 Ability to accurately measure the MRT in the presence of radiant cooling or heating 

systems (for example the effect on MRT of a surface with a temperature of 2-4 K below 

ambient, at 6-8 ft. away);

 Ability to measure shortwave conditions that are a result of solar radiation;

 Deployable solution: the solution is intended to be deployed in commercial buildings that 

are in active use. The sensor cannot just sit on a desk; and

 Response time of <5 min to changes in the environment.

Bonus features:

 Separate identification of short wave radiation (i.e. sunlight).

4. Distributed Temperature Sensing for Localized Comfort Measurement

The challenge is to develop methods for distributed temperature sensing in office buildings 

utilizing existing hardware (i.e. smartphones and laptops) to measure air temperatures at each 

occupant’s location within an office or workspace. The solution should interface with the Callida 

Energy Occupant App solution deployed on smartphones. Accepted solutions should be based on 

smartphones or laptops to measure workplace space air temperatures. The submitter is requested 

to estimate the accuracy of the proposed solution and detail the number of data points and device 

locations required to achieve highly accurate space temperature measurements. A strong solution 

would have a high accuracy with a minimum number of data points and still have adequate 

accuracy for a single person office zone in which there is only one data point on which to base the 

HVAC zone air temperature measurement.

5. Ultra-High Efficiency DX System for Supermarkets

The challenge is to identify a new architecture, the next generation of Direct Expansion (DX) 

supermarket refrigeration systems or modification to current standard DX system, which reduces 

the annual energy consumption by at least 25% compared to a standard distributed DX system 

utilizing R404A in a typical U.S. city (e.g., Atlanta, GA).

6. Thermal Energy Storage in Residential Gas or Electric Water Heaters (WH)

The challenge is to use innovative methods (such as PCM) to deliver as much hot water as a 65 or 

80 gallon tank from a 50 gallon one, representing an increase in first-hour rating (FHR) of between 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-36

15-30%, without increasing water storage temperature. Proposed solutions would be subject to the 

following restrictions:

 must not increase the storage temperature;

 must stay within the existing dimensional footprint of 50 gallon units (diameter and height);

 must not negatively impact the EF as defined in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix E;

 must not negatively impact the service life of the water heater;

 must not negatively impact the safety aspects of the water heater; and

 must increase the manufacturing cost by no more than $150 at high volume.

For example, prior to NAECA III, standard 65 and 80 gallon electric WHs had FHRs of about 75 

and 90 gallons respectively. The goal would be to achieve these same FHRs in the footprint of a 

current compliant 50 gallon WH (EF of 0.95), meaning an increase in FHR of 20-30%.

7. Residential Energy Efficiency Applications for Smart Phones

The challenge is to give the best ideas for ways to leverage the open, programmable, and sensorrich platform that modern smartphones offer to enhance the way we live, manage, and interact 

with our homes today and in the future. For example, how can we use our smartphones to 

accomplish the following tasks:

 Monitor and/or manage energy use and reduce energy costs;

 Conduct low-cost energy assessments;

 Interact with lighting, appliances, and other devices in the home;

 Reduce energy waste by consumer electronics and other plug loads;

 Provide actionable health, safety and comfort feedback about our homes; and

 Integrate and manage multiple systems in the home, including renewables and electric 

vehicles.

8. Bring Your Own Controller for the Internet of Things

Employees, customers, and visitors to commercial and industrial buildings expect the same level 

of automation, control, and ease of use that they might find at home. The challenge is to define the 

concept, use cases, technology stacks, and business models that could support the private control 

and use of public or commercial infrastructure and devices. How might you navigate the issues 

related to interoperability and cybersecurity? What needs or features would you build in to this 

device?

9. FEMP Call for Innovation

The challenge is to identify near commercialization or newly commercialized innovative energy 

saving technologies that are currently underutilized in the Federal building space. The technology 

areas open to the JUMP call would be limited to lighting and lighting controls, and packaged 

HVAC and HVAC control systems. In case of innovations in control systems, interoperability with 

standards based communication protocols will be encouraged to facilitate rapid testing and 

evaluation. Technology areas that require more extensive analysis such as boilers, chillers, 

distributed generation/renewables, etc. will not be considered for this initial call. 

Commercialization efforts of qualifying technologies would benefit from analysis and verification 

by an accredited third party with building technologies expertise, such as Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL).
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-37

10. Low-Cost Air Flow Sensor for Residential Ducted HVAC Systems

The challenge is to develop a new air flow measurement tool or system to measure total system 

airflow across an indoor ducted furnace, heat pump, or central air conditioning (AC) system. The 

tool should be easy to use by a trained technician with average total set up and testing time of less 

than 20 minutes. The measured airflow should meet or exceed an accuracy of +/- 7% and the total 

first cost to the service contractors should be less than $100. The tool or system should be capable 

of measuring 0 to 2000 cfm typical of residential HVAC air flow range and could be an actual 

physical device or an advanced algorithm using other available system data to accurately 

approximate a measured value. 

11. Exhaust-to-Coolant Heat Exchanger Development for Engine Driven Heat Pump

The challenge is to design an exhaust-to-coolant heat exchanger within the following parameters:

 Exhaust temperature: 1100°F Inlet and 200°F Outlet;

 Exhaust flow rate: 16 cfm;

 Maximum allowable exhaust back pressure 1.2 psi;

 Coolant temperature: 165°F Inlet and 180°F Outlet;

 Coolant flow rate: 5 gallons per minute;

 Coolant maximum allowable pressure drop: 2.0 psi;

 Reduce the heat exchanger footprint by at least 30%;

 Heat exchanger life: >40,000 hours or 10 years; and

 The heat exchanger cost target: $500 or less at a production volume of 100 units or more.

12. Ultra-High Efficiency Compressors for AC Applications

The challenge is to identify a new compression technology or improvements in current 

compression technology to reach significantly higher efficiencies. The compressor cooling 

capacity should be in the range of 2-5 tons and the compressor footprint should be equivalent to 

current compressors. The compressor efficiency level required is at least 80% at typical operating 

conditions.

13. Accurate, Stable Humidity Sensors for Buildings

The challenge is to identify an accurate and stable humidity sensor technology that promises 

performance improvements over the market’s existing sensors. The proposed sensor must be able 

to measure relative humidity with an accuracy of +5% and maintain that accuracy to within +1% 

for a minimum period of 10 years. Low cost technologies, low power technologies, and 

technologies that integrate analog-to-digital conversion are of particular interest. While this 

challenge is particularly targeted to innovators who are looking to commercialize the proposed 

technology as a small business, emerging ideas that identify unique technology solutions to this 

challenge will also be considered.

Proposed Goals: JUMP is an online crowdsourcing community launched by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL) and co-hosted by five DOE national laboratories and some of the top private 

companies in the buildings sector. JUMP stands for Join in the discussion, Unveil innovation, 

Motivate transformation, and Promote technology-to-market. The goal is to broaden the pool of 

people from whom DOE seeks ideas and to move these ideas to the marketplace faster.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-38

Measures of Success: JUMP was deemed to be superior to alternative approaches due to the 

inherent flexibility, responsiveness and effectiveness in reaching the widest possible audience of 

nontraditional stakeholders. In FY16, JUMP engaged 1,300 community members and identified 

13 winning ideas primed for advancement toward commercialization. These engagement and 

advancement opportunities would not have been possible without the JUMP platform.

Participants: JUMP aimed to mobilize individuals and small businesses with ideas and/or 

prototypes (though not with products already on the market) addressing the challenges mentioned 

above. JUMP is open to legal residents of the fifty (50) United States and the District of Columbia 

who are at least eighteen (18) years old (or the age of majority in their state, whichever is older) at 

the time of entry. However, non-U.S. residents are welcome to vote and comment on ideas. 1,322 

individuals registered for the call for innovation. Geographical representation is diverse, with 

registrants residing in 44 states.

Timeline: Timelines varied for each of the 13 individual challenges. 

Solicitation and Outreach: In recruiting and engaging campaign participants, the Labs 

leveragedindustry-relevant blogs and social media channels. Additionally, Buildings Technologies 

Office and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy mailing lists were used. Other relevant 

industry associations, coalitions, news outlets, events, and groups were also used. Registered users 

received notifications of deadlines and updates to spur a high quality and quantity of submissions.

Incentives: For all calls for innovation, one or more of the awards below were included:

 A cash award of $3,000–$5,000 from the industry partner co-sponsoring the call for the 

top selected technology submission; 

 In-kind technical support of $10,000– $20,000 from the sponsoring national laboratory to 

enable technical staff to provide prototype development, testing, 3rd party validation, or 

other defined needs;

 Participation in the Clean Energy Trust ”mini-accelerator program designed to help prepare 

the winning teams for participation in the Clean Energy Trust (CET) Challenge;

 Participation in the Clean Tech Open Accelerator Program (open to select winners across 

all labs’ JUMP calls).

Evaluation and Judging: Each JUMP Call for Innovation includes a judging panel with a minimum 

of three judges:

 One or more technical experts representing the industry partner;

 A technical expert from the national laboratory; and

 An independent third party that brings a fresh perspective during the judging process and 

may prevent a tie in the judging

The judges follow a general review process as indicated below:

Step 1: Review the shortlisted ideas and score each idea based on their technical feasibility, 

potential for energy savings, market readiness, economic potential, and novelty of the idea. 

Deployment calls for innovation will involve a different set of judging criterions. 

 Step 2: The judging panel regroups to discuss the compiled scores.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-39

 Step 3: The judges identify the most promising ideas and appropriate next steps. More 

than one winner could be identified and potential collaboration could be initiated 

accordingly.

Partnerships: Each of the 13 JUMP Calls involved one industry partner and one lab partner, 

including: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), or Argonne National Laboratory 

(ANL). Industry partners included United Technologies Research Group, General Electric, 

Building Robotics, Callida Energy, Honeywell, A.O. Smith, CLEAResult, SIEMENS, the Federal 

Energy Management Program, Emerson, IntelliChoice and the Clean Energy Trust. Industry 

partners establish an agreement with a national lab that outlines a commitment to sponsor defining 

JUMP calls for innovation, promote the JUMP community, participate in the technical evaluation 

of ideas, and provide potential cash or technical support prizes. Winning ideas will have the 

opportunity to advance towards potential collaboration with industry partners in an effort to take 

the ideas forward.

Also, the Energy Department’s Building Technologies Office partnered with Cleantech Open, a 

not-for-profit organization that runs the world's largest cleantech accelerator. Select participants 

in DOE’s JUMP program will be advanced into Cleantech Open’s Accelerator Program, based on 

their technical merit and market relevance. Cleantech Open is providing 50% waived fees for up 

to six select winners to their Accelerator Program. LBNL will cover the rest of the 50% fees.45

Resources: DOE EERE BTO allocated a total of $1,060,000 in FY16 for five national laboratories 

to implement the 13 calls for innovation.

Results: For all 13 calls for innovation, a total of 160 ideas were received. Most of the ideas were 

submitted by individual users or small businesses. A list of winners can be found at 

web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/jump/winners/. Below is a chart highlighting the organization size of 

the JUMP community membership.

 

45 For more information on the Cleantech Open’s Accelerator Program, see 

energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/energy-department-partners-cleantech-open-help-startups-bring-technologies.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-40

A.4.5 SunShot Prize: Race to 7-Day Solar46

Summary: The SunShot Prize is designed to streamline the process for the installation of residential 

and small commercial solar panels, in order to create a better process that can take only seven days, 

rather than months. By streamlining this process, the designs from the SunShot Prize allow 

families and small businesses to improve their energy independence.

Solution Type: Other: cross-stakeholder process streamlining and time efficiencies. The solutions 

may involve software and process alignment and integration. 

Primary Goals: Improve government service delivery (local government, and public utility service 

delivery); and highlight integrated innovation solutions or platforms, not just ideas

Results: Three teams won Change Prizes after each deploying at least three megawatts (MW) of 

residential solar systems by March 2016 and experimenting with different approaches to 

streamline the permitting and interconnection processes with partner jurisdictions and utilities. 

These three teams, the Northern and Central California SunShot Alliance, Sunrun, and Connecticut 

Permit to Plug-in challenge, cover areas in California, Oregon, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. 

Problem Statement: Despite unprecedented cost reductions for solar hardware over recent years, 

the total price to install and commission residential and small-commercial scale solar energy 

systems remains high. Designing and implementing practices that enable reductions in the 

 

46 energy.gov/eere/sunshot/sunshot-prize-race-7-day-solar
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-41

associated non-hardware costs of solar is now the greatest challenge to achieving national targets 

for attaining cost-competitive solar by 2020. Customers often wait as long as six months to flip 

the switch on a small residential solar system that could be grid-connected simply and easily if 

these steps were improved. This competition will spur faster, easier, and cheaper solar deployment 

in the U.S. and will offer a total of $10 million in cash awards to make permitting, installation, 

inspection, and interconnection (permit-to-plug-in) processes more efficient than ever before. 

Every one day cut due to process efficiency translates to $2 million of electricity sales at 2013 

deployment level. A positive customer experience in the U.S. will lead to a strong cascading 

network effect for accelerated solar deployment.

Proposed Goals: DOE aims to increase process certainty and reduce the time of permit-to-plug-in 

towards seven days (Small System Contest) or seven weeks (Large System Contest).

Measures of Success: Success is measured by the number of total jurisdictions, utilities, and solar 

installers that actively reduce the total time, from permit to interconnection, for residential systems. 

Success is also measured by the geographic diversity of these jurisdictions as well as reduced 

variabilities /uncertainty in total time. DOE uses a number of statistical metrics to measure impact 

of each participating team. These include: 

 Repeatability: The repeatability criteria measure a team’s ability to complete PV systems 

in set time durations repeatedly. Shorter time durations translate to higher points. Two 

metrics are used to evaluate this criteria: Time-adjusted capacity (in MW) and Normalized 

time-adjusted capacity (in %);

 Time Performance: The time performance criteria measure a team’s ability to consistently 

reduce the Total Time for PV system and increase the certainty of going solar. Two metrics 

are used to evaluate this criteria: Total Time expected value (in days) and Total Time 

variability (in days); and

 Replicability: Replicability criteria measure a team’s ability to apply their innovation for 

time reduction and increased process certainty across wide geographical areas in the United 

States. One metric is used to evaluate this criterion: Diversity of Authority Having 

Jurisdictions (in %).

Participants: There was no restricted eligibility for participating teams except as required by the 

COMPETES authority. DOE envisioned solar developers, local jurisdictions, communities, and 

utility companies forming teams to purse the goals of this competition. No one entity can achieve 

the goal of improving the going solar customer experience single-handedly; close coordination 

among communities, cities, installers, customers, and utility companies is critical. This prize 

competition was designed to create the right conditions and opportunities for collaboration among 

all stakeholders. Five teams participated in the challenge. 

Timeline: Submissions for the challenge opened in March of 2015 and closed in August, followed 

by the announcement of Change prize candidates in September. In May of 2016 the Change Prize 

winners were announced. The Grand Prize winners will be announced in July of 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-42

Incentives: The primary incentive is a $10,000,000 total cash award given to up 20 Change Prize 

winners and a number of Grand Prize winners. The grand prizes will total $4 million for the Small 

System Contest and another total of $4 million for the Large System Contest.

Evaluation and Judging: Final grand prizes have not been awarded. DOE Federal staff with support 

from subject matter experts in the National Labs have helped review and select candidates to 

participate in the competition and receive change prizes.

For final grand prizes DOE will use statistics based approach evaluation and rely on an Evaluation 

Review Committee (ERC) composed of Federal and non-Federal subject matter experts, including 

third-party organizations, to review entries submitted under this competition and determine 

winners. In addition, DOE will use third-party auditing services to conduct record validation in 

order to assist the judging committee in making its selections.

There are three main criteria in judging success: 

 Repeatability: The repeatability criteria measure a team’s ability to complete PV systems 

in set time durations repeatedly. Shorter time durations translate to higher points. Two 

metrics are used to evaluate this criteria: Time-adjusted capacity (in MW) and Normalized 

time-adjusted capacity (in %);

 Time Performance: The time performance criteria measure a team’s ability to consistently 

reduce the Total Time for PV system and increase the certainty of going solar. Two metrics 

are used to evaluate this criteria: Total Time expected value (in days) and Total Time 

variability (in days); and

 Replicability: Replicability criteria measure a team’s ability to apply their innovation for 

time reduction and increased process certainty across wide geographical areas in the U.S. 

One metric is used to evaluate this criterion: Diversity of Authority Having Jurisdictions

(in %). 

In addition to the details provided in the rules document for calculating the quantitative metrics 

and the corresponding point system, an excel sheet was provided.

Partnerships: Challenge organizers partnered formally with the College of Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering at State University of New York at Albany, to promote and provide ongoing outreach 

activities.

Resources: DOE has partnered with the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) at 

State University of New York at Albany as a prize administrator for the duration of the 

competition. Total funds allocated to the prize administrator throughout the competition is 

$222,500. One dedicated DOE staff support all the participating teams as needed.

Results: Three teams won Change Prizes after each deployed at least three MW of residential solar 

systems by March 2016 and experimented with different approaches to streamline the permitting 

and interconnection processes with partner jurisdictions and utilities. These three teams continue 

to compete for the Grand prizes of the small-system contest. Specific highlights from each team 

are as follows: 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-43

 Northern and Central California SunShot Alliance: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Team 

Lead), SolarCity, Qado Energy, Accela. 

During the competition, the teams have been collaborating with more than 13 jurisdictions 

in the PG&E service territory (e.g., Antioch, Berkeley, Clovis, Livermore, San Francisco, 

Stockton); demonstrated 1-day solar; and streamlined the grid interconnection to a threeday process in collaboration with Qado Energy. 

 Sunrun: During the competition, the team has deployed residential solar systems in more 

than 100 jurisdictions in California, Oregon, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and in seven 

utility service territories (e.g., National Grid, Silicon Valley Power). The teams have been 

integrating Clean Power Research’s PowerClerk permitting and interconnection.

 Connecticut Permit to Plug-in Challenge: Connecticut Green Bank (Team Lead)

The team has deployed residential systems in 49 jurisdictions in Connecticut working with 

more than eight installers. The team also partnered with Clean Power Research to integrate 

PowerClerk with a number of jurisdictions to expedite the permitting process. 

A.4.6 Wave Energy Prize47

Summary: The Wave Energy Prize was designed to support the development of innovative devices 

to harness wave energy and to give entrepreneurs and small businesses resources to enter this 

emerging market. The challenge pulled in new talent and successfully led to designs that surpassed 

the state-of-the-art in wave energy production. The winning team AquaHarmonics not only 

doubled the baseline metric for the prize, but more than quintupled it; and both the second place 

finisher, CalWave Power Technologies, and the third place finisher, Waveswing America, more 

than tripled it.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware; other: design, build and test

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; develop technology; and engage new people and 

communities

Results: The nine finalists and two alternates spanned the United States and brought in a range of 

new innovators who had not previously worked with wave energy converter technologies (WEC). 

Of the nine finalists, only two teams had received any DOE funding in the past. The finalists put 

forward diverse and technically innovative WEC designs, especially in the areas of geometry, 

materials, power conversion and controls. Of the nine finalists, seven surpassed the state-of-theart performance, and four of the seven doubled the state-of-the-art performance to become eligible 

to win the prize. The winning team, AquaHarmonics not only doubled the baseline ACE for the 

prize but more than quintupled it; and both the second place finisher, CalWave Power 

Technologies, and the third place finisher, Waveswing America, more than tripled it.

Problem Statement: The wave energy industry is an emerging market that has vast potential for 

innovation. However, it is very difficult for entrepreneurs and small companies to secure funds to 

support the design, fabrication and testing of innovative, wave energy converter designs at 

 

47 www.waveenergyprize.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-44

meaningful scale. Consequently, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies 

Office (WPTO) designed an aggressive and ground-breaking design, build and test prize 

competition for wave energy technology, to spur innovation and establish a pathway to sweeping 

cost reductions at commercial scale.

Proposed Goals: The prize measured the performance of wave energy converters (WEC) through 

a new metric created in the prize design process—ACE (Average Climate Capture Width per 

Characteristic Capital Expenditure). ACE represents the energy captured per unit structural cost 

of WECs. This is a proxy metric for levelized cost of energy, LCOE, which is a metric that allows 

for comparison of the costs of electricity produced by different means and sources. The 2014 stateof-the-art value for ACE is 1.5 m per million dollars (1.5 m/$M). A finalist became eligible to win 

the $1.5 million grand prize if they doubled the ACE metric to 3 m/$M during the final round of 

testing.

Measures of Success: Quantitative

 Prize funnel

 At Technology Gate 1: 92 Registered Teams

 At Technology Gate 2: 20 Qualified Teams (down to 17 after three teams withdrew) 

competed to design, build and test a 1/50 scale prototype

 Company (mostly small ones): 10 Teams

 Independent/collaborations: 7 Teams 

 University: 3 Teams 

 At Technology Gate 3: Nine finalists and two alternates were selected to design, build and 

test a 1/20th scale prototype

 At Technology Gate 4: Nine finalists from Technology Gate 3 were evaluated to determine 

the prize winners 

 Four teams exceeded the minimum threshold of doubling the energy captured per structural 

cost from their wave energy device compared to the baseline prior to prize launch

 The grand prize winner quintupled the energy capture per structural cost metric over the 

baseline.

Qualitative

 New metrics were developed to evaluate the performance of wave energy devices. Metrics 

and standards for evaluation in the Prize are now being leveraged by government agencies 

internationally for evaluation of projects funded overseas;

 Finalists’ innovations spanned geometry, advanced control strategies, energy absorption 

and conversion capabilities, and materials;

 The Wave Energy Prize engaged a wide range of registrants ranging from entrepreneurs to 

students to small businesses;

 The small-scale wave testing facilities (University of Iowa, University of Maine, 

University of Michigan, Stevens Institute of Technology and Oregon State University) and 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division gained significant wave energy 

converter technical knowledge and experience during the execution of the testing program;

 Strong and ever-strengthening partnership between DOE and Navy as evidenced by (1) the 

Federal Laboratory Consortium’s awarding DOE and Carderock the 2015 Mid-Atlantic 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-45

region Interagency Partnership Award; and (2) commitments from the Navy for judging 

and facility preparation and use costs;

 The Wave Energy Prize was listed as one of the leading examples presented by the 

Government Accountability Office’s 2016 report Open Innovation Practice to Engage 

Citizens and Effectively Implement Federal Initiatives; and

 Teams contributed between 500 and 6000 hours of labor which included both paid labor 

and volunteer labor time. The teams also received in-kind support which included 

equipment, software, licensing, computational modeling hours, and additional wave tank 

testing time.

Participants: The Wave Energy Prize mobilized engineers, developers, and builders from across 

the entire country. This included universities, small companies, more established players in wave 

energy, and independent entrepreneurs. Eligibility requirements were set according to the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act. Ninety-two teams registered with 66 providing full technical 

entries.

Timeline: Registration for the Wave Energy Prize opened April 27, 2015 and closed June 30, 2015. 

The design submission deadline was July 15, 2015, followed by the announcement of qualified 

teams on August 14, 2015. Finalists and alternates were announced March 1, 2016, and winners 

were announced November 16, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: Several approaches were used to successfully publicize the Prize and 

mobilize potential participants, including:

 Emailing previous applicants to funding opportunities to program office;

 Creating a Prize website (waveenergyprize.org);

 Creating a skill-sharing platform on the Prize website that promoted team-building;

 Creating and disseminating a monthly newsletter that answered frequently asked questions 

about the Prize and presented the technical details of the Prize in simple language, along 

with communicating what DOE is striving to achieve; and

 The public dissemination of all important data generated from the Prize.

The initial outreach was so successful that Prize ended up with 92 registered teams, far above the 

goal of attracting 30 teams.

At the end of prize, there were: 

 More than 170 news stories featured the prize, including channels like Popular Science, 

The Weather Channel and National Geographic;

 Approximately one million social media impressions; 

 Facebook: Followers = 378; Impressions/reach = 89,896;

 Twitter: Followers = 622; Impressions/reach = 447,300;

 LinkedIn: Followers = 366; Impressions/reach = 136,584;

 WordPress and other: Followers = ~50; Impressions/reach = ~60,000;

 Email marketing: 

o Subscribers = 694 (not including Prize Administration or DOE)

o Average open rate = 52.82%

o Average click through rate = 24.87%; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-46

 431 people viewed the live video stream of the Innovation Showcase Event.

Incentives: The Wave Energy Prize attracted developers to compete in the design, build and test 

of innovative wave energy converter devices with a goal of doubling the state-of-the-art 

performance:

 A total of $2.25 million was reserved for the prize purse ($1.5 million grand prize, 

$500,000 for second place, and $250,000 for third place)48; 

 Seed funding for up to 10 Finalists ($125,000 each) and Alternates ($25,000 each)49;

 Small-scale testing to all 20 Qualified Teams valued at close to $45,000 per team50; 

 Testing for all finalists at the MASK Basin at Carderock valued at $180,000–$200,000 per 

test51;

 The creation of a team-building platform (the Marketplace) located on the competition 

website, where teams solicited expert needs, or experts offered services;

 An open-source numerical software package, Wave Energy Converter Simulation (WECSim) developed and supported by the DOE national labs, and supporting software provided 

for free by MathWorks for use by all Qualified Teams choosing to use it for the duration 

of the competition; and

 A team summit with opportunities to engage with technical experts, investors, media, and 

government.

No private or philanthropic funds were used for planning and implementation of the prize (e.g. 

prize seed funding, in planning and execution of testing and evaluation, or for final award purse 

funds).

Evaluation and Judging: A judging panel was comprised of technical experts with diverse 

backgrounds and experience in wave energy from the DOE national laboratories, the Navy, and 

private industry. 

To achieve the prize goals, the participants were required to undertake more and more challenging 

WEC design and build tasks across each stage of the prize—the results of which were evaluated 

by the judging panel. First, registered teams were required to submit a detailed technical 

submission describing their proposed innovative WEC technology. Twenty qualified teams were 

selected by the judging panel based on a rigorous evaluation of their technical submissions. These 

teams were then required to numerically model and build a small scale (1/50th) model of their 

device—a model that would be tested and subsequently evaluated against other devices and against 

performance metrics developed by the prize team. Nine teams and two alternates were selected as 

finalists. Each team was provided seed funding and required to design and build a larger (1/20th) 

scale model of their device with control capabilities. These 1/20th scale models were tested at the 

Naval Surface Warfare Center’s MASK Basin in Carderock, MD. The judging panel evaluated 

 

48 DOE funding dispersed by Prize Administration Team.

49 DOE funding dispersed by Prize Administration Team.

50 DOE funding dispersed by Prize Administration Team to small-scale testing facilities.

51 $1.7 million of DOE funding direct to Carderock through interagency agreement; $600,000 provided by 

Department of the Navy.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-47

whether teams achieved the goal of doubling the ACE metric during this final round of testing and 

determined which teams qualified for the prize funding.

Partnerships: DOE partnered with various branches of the Department of the Navy to successfully 

design and execute the Prize. The Office of Naval Research provided funds to develop the 

technologies and capabilities required to ensure fair and rigorous testing in the MASK Basin; the 

Naval Surface Warfare Center provided in-kind support for the Judging Panel; and the Department 

of the Navy contributed funding for testing three of the nine Finalist teams in the MASK Basin. 

Resources: Through a funding opportunity announcement, DOE selected a Prize Administration 

Team, led by Ricardo, Inc. A total of $6.73 million was awarded to the Prize Administration Team 

to lead the design and execution of the prize. This amount included money for the prize purse, 

small scale testing, and seed funding. $1.7 million was provided to the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center for their involvement in the prize, and a total of $2.2 million was provided to the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories for their technical contributions 

to the prize. The Department of the Navy contributed $600,000 to test three of the nine finalist 

teams at the MASK Basin.

There were several DOE staff, at headquarters and the Golden field office, who were constantly 

and intimately involved with all parties above to ensure the successful coordination and execution 

of the Prize.

Results: The graphic below illustrates the prize funnel:

DOE’s goal was to attract thirty teams to register to compete in the prize during the registration 

period. In the end, 92 teams registered. Of these, 20 were chosen as qualified teams during 

Technology Gate (TG) 1. After TG2, nine finalists and two alternates were selected, and all nine 

finalists proceeded through TG3, with the alternates eliminated.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-48

Below are details on the finalists:

 AquaHarmonics (Portland, OR)

 CalWave Power Technologies (Berkeley, CA)

 M3 Wave (Salem, OR)

 Oscilla Power (Seattle, WA)

 RTI Wave Power (York, ME)

 Sea Potential (Bristol, RI)

 SEWEC (Redwood City, CA)

 Harvest Wave Energy (Research Triangle Park, NC)

 Waveswing America (Sacramento, CA)

As can be seen on the Team Updates webpage (waveenergyprize.org/teams/updates), all finalists 

and alternates successfully designed and built their 1/20th scale devices on time.

The finalists put forward diverse and technically innovative WEC designs, especially in the areas 

of geometry, materials, power conversion, and controls. Some of these included:

 Sea-state-to-sea-state control;

 Wave-to-wave control; 

 Power absorption in multiple degrees of freedom; 

 Optimized float shapes and dimensions for energy absorption for broad bandwidth of wave 

frequencies;

 Survival strategies such as submerging beneath the surface for extreme storms;

 Use of structures and materials that are cost-effective to manufacture; and

 Flexible membranes that react to the wave pressure over a broad area.

Of the nine finalists and two alternates, only two had previously partnered with the Water Energy 

Technologies Office before, thus bringing new and outside-of-the-box ideas and concept designs. 

The DOE would not have been able to partner with many of these entities through traditional 

financial assistance awards.

While the long-term impacts of the prize are still unfolding, the prize successfully achieved several 

of its goals:

 Spur game-changing performance enhancements to WECs: Of the nine finalists, seven 

surpassed the state-of-of-the-art performance, and four of the seven doubled the state-ofthe-art performance to become eligible to win the prize. The winning team, 

AquaHarmonics not only doubled the baseline ACE for the prize, but more than quintupled 

it, and both the second place finisher, CalWave Power Technologies, and the third place 

finisher, Waveswing America, more than tripled it.

 Provide an opportunity for apples-to-apples tank testing and evaluation: The WECs 

proposed by the finalists span diverse WEC archetypes, and each of them had unique 

mooring configurations. The prize team worked with each team to create individualized

test plans for the teams to ensure successful testing campaigns in the MASK Basin for each 

team. Eight of the nine finalists successfully completed testing at Carderock, allowing the 

judges of the prize to fairly and rigorously evaluate the performance of the devices.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-49

 Provide a pathway to sweeping cost reductions: The DOE and the public now have a robust 

data set of device performance for a range of device designs and configurations. The 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories are conducting 

a study of the key advances made by finalists during the prize in geometry, materials, 

controls, configuration, and operations and maintenance. The study will also highlight the 

technical areas in which future work will be necessary to continue reducing the cost of 

wave energy.

 Mobilize new and existing talent: Of the nine finalists, only two teams had received any 

DOE funding in the past. The Prize competition allowed DOE to partner with new entities 

outside of traditional financial assistance mechanisms.

 Increase the visibility of wave energy as a viable energy resource and attract potential 

investors; and successfully enable the top performers to become viable and competitive 

industry members. The prize increased and diversified the number of players in the wave 

energy space. The nine finalists benefitted from strong public communications and 

exposure to potential investors. They also established strong partnerships with the Navy 

and other experts in the field.

A.5Department of Health and Human Services

A.5.1 ASPR: “MRC Serves!” Video Challenge

Summary: This challenge was designed to allow Medical Reserve Corps volunteers to share their 

stories, allowing for greater volunteer engagement and an opportunity to raise awareness of the 

program and its activities. The Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) Program housed under the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) is a national network of volunteers, organized locally to 

improve the health and safety of their communities. Volunteers were asked to create videos 

highlighting why they volunteer, how MRC improves their community’s health, or how MRC has 

made their community more prepared and resilient.

Solution Type: Creative, design, and multimedia

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; engage new 

people and communities

Results: The challenge received 12 submissions from teams across the United States, and three 

winners were selected, one for each question. Winners were invited to attend the 2017 

Preparedness Summit in Atlanta, GA.

Problem Statement: The Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) Program housed under the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) is a national network of volunteers, organized locally to improve the 

health and safety of their communities. MRC volunteers have medical, public health, and 

emergency response (among other) backgrounds and respond to natural disasters and public health 

emergencies, while also supporting community health activities. The MRC Program is continually 

looking for innovative and cost effective ways to promote these activities and demonstrate to local 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-50

and national stakeholders how MRC units and their volunteers make their communities healthier, 

prepared, and more resilient.

The MRC Program created the five-week “MRC Serves!” video challenge as an opportunity to 

engage and encourage MRC volunteers to share their stories of service and demonstrate how the 

MRC is making a difference in their local community. MRC volunteers were invited to create a 

short video from 60-90 seconds long that answered one of the following three questions. Videos 

could be submitted as part of a team, or by an individual.

Video Challenge Categories

1. Why do I/we volunteer with the MRC?

2. How does the MRC make my community healthier?

3. How does the MRC make my community more prepared and resilient?

Submitted videos were judged based on the following criterion:

• Clear and consistent message/Overall impact (35 percent): Is the story clear, educational, 

inspiring, and persuasive? Does it motivate others to serve as MRC volunteers? Is it clear 

how the MRC impacts its community?

• Creativity and originality (25 percent): How creatively does the video answer the challenge 

question? How original is the idea?

• Production quality (25 percent): Does the video effectively use lighting, sound, and editing 

to tell the story? Is the dialogue clear and easy to understand? Do visual effects (if any) 

contribute to the message or detract from it?

• MRC Identity (15 percent): Does the video do a good job of promoting the MRC brand by 

showing the trademarked logo or names Medical Reserve Corps and MRC?

Proposed Goals: The goal of the challenge was to have short, promotional videos created that the 

MRC Program and ASPR Communications can use to highlight why people choose to volunteer 

with the MRC and how MRC units are improving the health, preparedness, and resiliency of their 

communities. These videos can be used for promotional outreach, stakeholder engagement, 

volunteer recruitment, and general MRC informational purposes—both on local and national 

levels.

Measures of Success: The MRC Program has limited resources to dedicate to outreach and 

branding, which is also the case for local MRC units nationwide. The “MRC Serves!” video 

challenge allowed us to incentivize volunteers to share their success stories and help promote the 

MRC in regions across the country. The challenge also served as an opportunity for units to 

showcase innovative projects and model best practices for the MRC network at large. The MRC 

Program now has multiple videos that were received within a month which can be utilized to 

highlight what MRC volunteers do to improve the health and safety of their communities. These 

videos can also be used by local MRC units to engage partners/stakeholders, recruit volunteers, 

and promote the MRC unit’s presence within their local community.

Participants: The video challenge was open to MRC units and their volunteers. Contestants could 

be individuals, public or private entities that are MRC units, or groups. An individual, whether 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-51

participating individually or in a group, must have been a citizen or permanent resident of the 

United States. The challenge received six team entries and five individual entries.

Timeline: Phase 1 submissions were opened August 4, 2016, and closed September 11, 2016. 

Judging opened September 12, 2016, and closed September 26, 2016. Winners were notified 

September 29, 2016, and announced publicly November 15, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The challenge was promoted using no-cost methods (i.e., email 

listservs, word-of-mouth, social media, website).

Incentives: A non-monetary incentive was utilized for the challenge. Winners will receive 

invitational travel, lodging, and applicable conference expenses to attend the 2017 Preparedness 

Summit in Atlanta, GA, valued at about $6,000. Expenses will be covered by MRC Program funds. 

In addition, winners received public recognition with their videos being shared on the MRC 

listservs, website, and social media platforms, as well as the ASPR YouTube channel 

(https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP9YeFRSgIT4IBGOXUfL_qi4YKbo6SBuK). 

Evaluation and Judging: Submissions were judged by a panel of current and former staff from 

within MRC and ASPR, as well as MRC partners (i.e., HOSA – Future Health Professionals). The 

judging criterion was as follows:

• Clear and consistent message/Overall impact (35 percent): Is the story clear, educational, 

inspiring, and persuasive? Does it motivate others to serve as MRC volunteers? Is it clear 

how the MRC impacts its community?

• Creativity and originality (25 percent): How creatively does the video answer the challenge 

question? How original is the idea?

• Production quality (25 percent): Does the video effectively use lighting, sound, and editing 

to tell the story? Is the dialogue clear and easy to understand? Do visual effects (if any) 

contribute to the message or detract from it?

• MRC Identity (15 percent): Does the video do a good job of promoting the MRC brand by 

showing the trademarked logo or names Medical Reserve Corps and MRC?

Partnerships: HOSA-Future Health Professionals served as partners on the judging panel for the 

challenge.

Resources: Two full-time staff members of the MRC Program planned and launched the video 

challenge (as part of their regular program office communication and outreach responsibilities). 

The challenge was run on the no-cost platform Challenge.gov and promoted using no-cost methods 

(i.e., email listservs, word-of-mouth, social media, website).

Results: The MRC Program received a total of 12 submissions from six teams and five individual 

volunteers from local MRC units across the country. (Note: One team submitted two separate 

videos in two different categories.) The team videos ranged from teams of two participants up to 

fourteen. The submissions came from various geographic regions that included the Northeast, 

Midwest, and Northwest areas of the United States (HHS Regions I, V, VI, VIII, IX, X).

The top video for each challenge question was recognized by the MRC Program:
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-52

• The MRC of Eastern Washington is the winner in the category of “Why do I/we volunteer 

with the MRC?” The video demonstrates how the MRC brings together a diverse pool of 

talented volunteers who are looking to listen, make a difference, and give back to the 

community where they live. Their winning video is available here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O23q141BhRc&list=PLP9YeFRSgIT4IBGOXUfL_

qi4YKbo6SBuK&index=2

• The Mercer County MRC in Illinois is the winner in the category of “How does the MRC 

make my community healthier?” Their video demonstrates how MRC volunteers are 

improving the health of Mercer County by creating a community garden and making the 

healthy produce available to local children, adults, and seniors, as well as the community 

food pantry. Their winning video is available here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1Bp3tKk34&index=1&list=PLP9YeFRSgIT4IBG

OXUfL_qi4YKbo6SBuK

• The Rocky Mountain MRC in Colorado is the winner in the category of “How does the 

MRC make my community more prepared and resilient?” Two volunteers highlight how 

MRC volunteers are trained in personal preparedness and emergency response, providing 

them the necessary skills to respond in a moment’s notice and support their community 

during times of emergency. Their winning video is available here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1Bp3tKk34&index=1&list=PLP9YeFRSgIT4IBG

OXUfL_qi4YKbo6SBuK

A.5.2 ASPR: My Preparedness Story: Staying Healthy and Resilient Video52

Summary: In order to better educate the public on disaster preparedness and steps they can take to 

protect themselves, their families, and their communities, this challenge invited young people 

across the country to produce short videos to highlight steps they were taking to make their 

communities more resilient, whether by volunteering in a health center or with a local Medical 

Reserve Corps Unit, learning first aid skills, developing an emergency plan, preparing an 

emergency kit, or educating their family and friends about actions they can take to be healthy.

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia); and ideas

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; and engage 

new people and communities

Results: From a field of 94 eligible videos submitted in the first “My Preparedness Story: Staying 

Healthy and Resilient” video challenge, the top six videos were recognized by the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and 

Response (ASPR). Winning videos ranged from artful to comedic—with one third place video 

using stop motion animation—and covered topics ranging from how emergency preparations differ 

in our nation’s least densely populated state, Alaska, to how young people volunteering in ASPR’s 

Medical Reserve Corps can help propel public health in their communities.

 

52 www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/authority/nhss/myprepstory/Pages/default.aspx
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-53

Problem Statement: Natural disasters and other emergencies can happen anywhere and at any time. 

Taking action ahead of an emergency can help individuals, families, and communities fully prepare 

to prevent or minimize potential health impacts. Young people can help their family, friends, and 

community become stronger by protecting their health during disasters and every day. For 

example, some can do it by volunteering in a health center or with a local Medical Reserve Corps 

Unit, learning first aid skills, developing an emergency plan, preparing an emergency kit, or 

educating their family and friends about actions they can take to be healthy.

Contestants were invited to create a short closed-captioned video—up to 60 seconds long—

showing how they are helping family, friends, and community protect their health during disasters 

and every day. Entries could be submitted as part of a team or by an individual.

Participants were asked to review the following checklist before submitting their video:

 Does your video comply with the official challenge rules? 

 Does your video clearly communicate how your efforts are contributing to the health of 

your family, friends, and community during disasters and every day?

 Does your video provide new ideas that you can share with your peers to help their family, 

friends, and community prepare for a disaster?

 Have you told your story and the impact of your efforts through interesting and creative 

visuals?

 Do you share ideas for next steps that motivate people to take action and get prepared?

Proposed Goals: Share disaster preparedness efforts and promising practices of community 

resilience planning across organizations and communities, by showing how one segment of the 

population—young people—are making important contributions toward resilience.

Measures of Success: Many people do not understand what national health security is, much less 

how it affects their day-to-day lives. This challenge worked to incentivize young people to develop 

and share videos that showcase individuals strengthening national health security by engaging in 

disaster preparedness planning. 

Thousands of young people across the country help their families, friends, and communities 

prepare for disasters and emergencies. For example, they volunteer in health centers or with local 

Medical Reserve Corps units, stay current on first aid skills, develop home emergency plans, 

prepare emergency kits, and educate their families and friends about actions they can take to be 

healthy even when disaster strikes. This competition provided an opportunity for them to showcase 

their efforts.

ASPR leads HHS in preparing the nation to respond to and recover from adverse health effects of 

emergencies, supporting communities’ ability to withstand adversity, strengthening health and 

response systems, and enhancing national health security. HHS is the principal Federal agency for 

protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those 

who are least able to help themselves.

Participants: “Young people are a source of support and resilience during a disaster. The contest 

is a way to highlight that the entire community needs to be involved. This competition gave young 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-54

people an opportunity to display the efforts they’re making to help their families and communities 

be better prepared for an emergency,” said Dr. Nicole Lurie, HHS assistant secretary for 

preparedness and response. “The winners are to be congratulated not just for the quality videos 

they produced but also for the active role they are taking in their communities.”

The video contest was open to people in the United States (U.S.) who were between the ages of 

14 and 23 at the time of entry. Contestants could be individuals, public or private entities, or 

groups. An individual, whether participating individually or in a group, must be a citizen or 

permanent resident of the United States.

There were 111 total participants, producing 94 entries, 14 of which came from teams.

Timeline: Submissions for the challenge opened January 4, 2016 and closed March 28, 2016. 

Public Voting ran for 11 days in April 2016. Winners were announced May 9, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The competition used various methods to market the competition, 

including social media, blog posts, and emails to national youth organizations. To market the 

winners, a press release was issued and the winning video was posted on the agency website 

phe.gov.

Incentives: The total amount of the cash prize offered as part of the challenge was $3,500 and 

ASPR was responsible for providing these funds. Public recognition was used as a way to motivate 

participants and reward the winners through press releases53 and including their work on 

promotional materials. The PHE Evaluation Funds were used to fund the cash prizes and awards.

Evaluation and Judging: ASPR in partnership with CDC were responsible for designating the 

winners. The judging criterion was as follows: 

 Clear and consistent message/Overall impact (40%): Does the video show how the 

contestant/submitter is helping family, friends, community to protect their health during 

disasters and every day? Is the story clear, educational, inspiring, and persuasive? Does it 

motivate peers to be more prepared?

 Creativity and originality (30%): How creatively does the video answer the challenge 

question? How original is the idea?

 Production quality (20%): Does the video effectively use lighting, sound, and editing to 

tell the story? Is the dialogue clear and easy to understand? Do visual effects (if any) 

contribute to the message or detract from it?

 Public rating (10%): How does the public rate the video?

These evaluation methods were effective.

Partnerships: ASPR collaborated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Medical 

Reserve Corps, 4H (Head, Heart, Hands and Health), and Health Occupations Students of America 

to socialize the competition in an effort to draw in more participants. Partner organizations 

 

53 www.phe.gov/Preparedness/news/Pages/prep-story-160523.aspx
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-55

provided in-kind support, expertise, marketing, and outreach to push out messages related to the 

competition. ASPR engaged in partnership with HHS/CDC to support the judging process.

Resources: A total of 115 FTE hours were expended to design and execute the challenge—100 

hours at the GS-14 level and 15 hours at the GS-12 level. Additionally, the challenge was run as 

part of a contract with Capital Consulting Corporation. This challenge was run on the no-cost 

platform Challenge.gov.

Results: Young producers across the country let their cameras roll this past spring to demonstrate 

how they protect the health of their families, friends, and communities during disasters and to 

inspire other young people to do the same. From a field of 94 eligible videos submitted in the first 

“My Preparedness Story: Staying Healthy and Resilient” video challenge, the top six videos were 

recognized by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).The video that was the best overall entry was 

produced by Samantha Johnson, 23, of Anchorage, Alaska, who helped educate viewers about how 

emergency preparations differ in our nation’s least densely populated state. By submitting the best 

video for the challenge, she won $2,000—coincidentally a dollar for each of the 2,000 miles 

between Alaska and the continental United States.

In the video that won second place, Roxanne Scott, 22, of Sierra Vista, Arizona artfully described 

steps each person can take to prepare for disasters of any size. She earned a check for $1,000 for 

winning second.

Two videos tied for third place. In one of these videos, Zain Hashmat, 18, of Meridian, Mississippi 

produced a comedy sketch to show that people can never be too prepared, or too waterlogged.

The other third-place video used stop-motion animation to show how young people volunteering 

in ASPR’s Medical Reserve Corps can help propel public health in their communities. This video 

was submitted by a team from Texas: Michael Truong, 18, and Hung Le, 18, both of Arlington; 

Michelle Alvarez, 18, Vivian Nguyen, 18, and Kyle Vu, 18, all of Grand Prairie. Each video earned 

their producers $250 for their winning submissions.

Two videos also were selected for honorable mentions: My Preparedness Story: Staying Healthy 

and Resilient FL Keys Jr. Medical Reserve Corps by Manuel Calabrese, 18; Claudia Cabrera, 15; 

Jennifer Lopez, 16; Nicole Lera, 16; Claudia Bacallao, 18; and Betsy Estevez, 16, all of Marathon, 

Florida; and My Preparedness Story: Keep Warm Bags for the Homeless by Abby Wist, 18, of 

Centennial, Colorado.

The competition submissions opened on January 4, 2016 and closed on March 28, 2016.

A.5.3 CDC: 2015 Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge54

Summary: Improving hypertension control will directly reduce the number of fatal and non-fatal 

strokes that occur each year in the United States. Antihypertensive therapy is probably the main 

 

54 millionhearts.hhs.gov/partners-progress/champions/index.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-56

reason why stroke fatalities have dropped dramatically in the United States over the past 50 years.

The Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge is a competition to identify clinicians, 

practices, and health systems that have demonstrated exceptional achievements in working with 

their patients to control hypertension. Winners must have a hypertension control rate of at least 

70% during the 12-month reporting period among the practice’s hypertensive patient population.

Solution Type: Ideas; technology demonstration and hardware; analytics, visualizations, 

algorithms; and other: innovative care solutions

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; and engage 

new people and communities

Results: The challenge received 26 entries and awarded 18 winners. To date, Million Hearts® has 

recognized a total of 59 Hypertension Control Champions (56 private, 3 Federal) that serve 13.8 

million people, 4.7 million of whom have hypertension, achieving an average blood pressure 

control rate of 78.2%.

Problem Statement: The Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge is a competition to 

identify clinicians, practices, and health systems that have demonstrated exceptional achievements 

in working with their patients to control hypertension. The Million Hearts® Hypertension Control 

Challenge is open to public and private individual clinicians, practices, and health systems 

providing health care services to patients in a U.S. state or territory. To be eligible to win the 

challenge, the nominee must submit a nomination form.

Winners must have a hypertension control rate of at least 70% among the practice’s hypertensive 

patient population during the 12-month reporting period. They must also have a data management 

system (electronic or paper) that allows for verification of data submitted. The type of systems or 

processes in place that support hypertension control and are likely to endure, such as electronic 

reminder systems or team-based care, is also looked at during the selection of winners.

Proposed Goals: To identify practices, clinicians, and health systems that have worked with their 

patients to achieve hypertension control rates at or above 70% through innovations in health 

information technology, electronic health records, patient communication, and health care team 

approaches.

Measures of Success: Success was primarily measured by the number of qualifying entries and the 

number of winners. Secondarily, the strategies used by the applicants to achieve a hypertension 

blood pressure control rate of 70% or better to either reinforce the tenets of Million Hearts® or 

highlight original care processes used to improve their outcome measure were also assessed. In 

addition, the size of the patient population and the hypertension prevalence were used to assess the 

overall reach of the practices, clinicians, and health systems. Finally, assessment was made on how 

many champions leveraged quality improvement support provided by private or publicly-funded 

entities (i.e., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement 

Organizations (QIOs) or Quality Innovation Network (QIN)-QIOs, CMS Accountable Care 

Organizations (ACOs), or participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-57

innovation models; Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) 

Regional Extension Centers (RECs) and Health Information Technology.

Participants: The Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge was open to public and private 

individual clinicians, practices, and health systems providing health care services to patients in a 

U.S. state or territory. The challenge received 26 submissions from 18 entrants.

Timeline: Submissions for this challenge opened August 18, 2015 and closed October 31, 2015. 

Winners were announced May 5, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The agency marketed the challenge primarily through Million Hearts® 

partners in order to effectively reach the most appropriate and high quality nominees. The 

challenge was prominently displayed on the Million Hearts® website. A flyer and badge were 

created and distributed to provide easy access to the challenge site. Key leaders of agencies and 

organizations such as the American Medical Association were requested to contact their 

constituents and encourage them to apply. Following are highlights of how some partners 

distributed the announcement: 

 Million Hearts® sent out the announcement on August 18, 2015 to all 120 partner 

organizations and 50 state health agency grantees, many of which publicized the 

announcement;

 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announced the opportunity to enter 

into the challenge in their October 2015 issue of the HRSA eNews newsletter sent to 

approximately 1,300 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs);

 The National Association of Community Health Centers featured the notice in their 

newsletter and featured the pending notice at their 2015 Community Health Institute and 

Expo;

 The National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD) announced that the 

challenge was open on their August 18, 2015 general webinar for their 6,000 NACDD 

members; and

 The American Medical Group Association forwarded the letter to all member groups, 

promoted through their monthly webinar, shared through their social media channels, 

posted the challenge badge on their website, and included a notice about the challenge in 

Inside AMGA and Public Policy e-newsletters. 

Future Hypertension Control Challenges intend to use this same method, and will promote the 

challenge through relevant conferences and journal notifications.

Incentives: Incentives included recognition by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

Director Dr. Tom Frieden. In addition to recognition on the Million Hearts® and CDC websites, 

national press releases were developed to recognize and congratulate champions. Plaques were 

delivered to each champion. Documentation of clinical systems and the strategies champions 

adopted that support hypertension control are also housed on the Million Hearts website and 

attributed to champions.

Evaluation and Judging: Nominations were scored using the following criteria: 95% of the overall 

score was attributed to the reported hypertension control rate and 5% of the score was based on 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-58

the systems and process reported that supported hypertension control. The nomination was 

autoscored as it was received. A panel of judges reviewed the top nominations to approve their 

selection as finalists and to identify questions for further investigation. Each finalist participated 

in a process to validate the data submitted which was conducted by an independent contractor. For 

this type of challenge, a more extensive review and minimal validation of the hypertension control 

rate reported is required.

Partnerships: Implementation of the challenge relied heavily upon existing Million Hearts® 

partners to promote and judge the challenge. Partners were very responsive in using their social 

media and web presence to promote and support the challenge. In future challenges, partners 

should be engaged much earlier to plan and promote the challenge and perhaps as a partner in 

funding and recognizing the champions.

Resources: Sensis and their platform partner Skild were hired to host the competition, at a cost of 

$62,000. CDC also established a cooperative agreement at the cost of $179,000 with the National 

Association of Chronic Disease Directors to sub-contract with the National Committee of Quality 

Assurance to provide assistance in data validation and vetting. Total resources for these two 

contracts totaled $241,000.

Results: Improving hypertension control will directly reduce the number of fatal and non-fatal 

strokes that occur each year in the United States. Antihypertensive therapy is probably the main 

reason why stroke fatalities have dropped dramatically in the United States over the past 50 years, 

according to an American Heart Association study published 12/5/2013 in Stroke by DT Lackland, 

MD. The competition awarded 18 winners, including 10 FQHCs 11 small practices (<50,000 

patients), and 7 large practices or health systems. These Hypertension Control Champions also 

include 4 winners who are affiliated with CMS Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), 1 winner 

participating in the CMS Million Hearts® Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model, 12 

winners who had connections to ONC, and 5 winners who participated in the American Medical 

Group Association Measure Up Pressure Down campaign. 

To date, Million Hearts® has recognized a total of 59 Hypertension Control Champions (56 

private, 3 Federal) that serve 13.8 million, 4.7 million of whom have hypertension, achieving an 

average blood pressure control rate of 78.2%.

A.5.4 CDC: Healthcare-Associated Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Challenge55

Summary: This challenge was created to draw attention to venous thromboembolism (VTE), blood 

clots occurring as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or both—an important 

and growing public health issue. Prevention of healthcare associated VTE (HA-VTE) is a national 

hospital safety priority. Many HA-VTEs can be prevented, but VTE prevention strategies are still 

not being applied regularly or effectively across the United States. By highlighting organizations 

with effective VTE prevention techniques, this challenge provides awareness of the problem and 

provides options and motivation for other health care systems to strengthen their VTE prevention 

efforts.

 

55 www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/ha-vte-challenge.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-59

Solution Type: Ideas; and nominations

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public and engage 

new people and communities

Results: The challenge received 19 submissions from across the United States and from Ireland. 

The eight selected champions ranged from a small community hospital to some of the country's 

largest health systems, and they represent both rural and urban areas. Together they cared for more 

than 450,000 patients admitted to hospitals across the United States in 2014. They were able to 

improve VTE prevention within their institutions and organizations by implementing innovative, 

effective, and sustainable VTE prevention strategies, including, among others, engaging teams of 

different healthcare experts to support and promote prevention activities, and using technology 

(such as electronic risk assessment and clinical decision support tools and alerts) to ensure that all 

patients are assessed for their risk for VTE and bleeding.

Problem Statement: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), blood clots occurring as deep vein 

thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or both, is an important and growing public health 

issue. Prevention of healthcare associated VTE (HA-VTE) is a national hospital safety priority. 

Many HA-VTEs can be prevented, but VTE prevention strategies are still not being applied 

regularly or effectively across the United States.

To support and promote HA-VTE prevention, HHS/CDC conducted the 2015 HA-VTE Prevention 

Challenge to bring prestige to organizations that invest in VTE prevention, improve understanding 

of successful implementation strategies at the health system level, and motivate health systems to 

strengthen their VTE prevention efforts.

To participate, interested parties were asked to navigate to www.challenge.gov. On this site, 

nominees had access to the nomination form and the submission link. Information required of the 

nominees on the nomination form included:

 The name, address, and contact information of the organization nominee;

 The size, scope, and general demographic characteristics of the nominees’ patient 

population;

 Details regarding the nominee’s VTE prevention strategy and implementation including 

the population(s) observed, intervention, and methods of implementation. Examples of 

strategies include implementation of sustainable systems or processes that support VTE 

prevention. These may include but are not limited to implementation of VTE protocols and 

order sets, risk assessment, electronic alerts, clinical decision support tools, performance 

monitoring systems and dashboards, patient and/or provider education, and post-discharge 

follow-up;

 A description of the observed results of the VTE prevention strategy including the preimplementation and post-implementation measures for the observed VTE prevention 

activity. Examples of outcome measures include but are not limited to the number of 

patients assessed for VTE risk, the number of at-risk patients receiving appropriate VTE 

prevention, and the number of patients and/or providers receiving education on VTE 

prevention; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-60

 A brief summary of the barriers and successes to implementation.

Proposed Goals: The goal of the challenge was to identify hospitals, multi-hospital systems, 

hospital networks, and managed care organizations that have implemented an innovative and 

effective VTE prevention strategy using one or more interventions (e.g., VTE protocols and order 

sets, risk assessment, electronic alerts, clinical decision support tools, performance monitoring 

systems and dashboards, patient and/or provider education and awareness, post-discharge followup, etc.) designed to increase VTE prevention.

Primary Objectives:

 Identify public and private hospitals, multi-hospital systems, hospital networks, and 

managed care organizations that have implemented innovative and successful VTE 

prevention strategies using one or more VTE prevention interventions;

 Identify Federal and international hospitals, multi-hospital systems, hospital networks, and 

managed care organizations that have implemented innovative and successful VTE 

prevention strategies using one or more specific VTE prevention interventions; and

 Document and highlight successful innovative system-level processes or approaches used 

by high performers to achieve improvement in VTE prevention.

Measures of Success: The HA-VTE Prevention Challenge was very successful at achieving the

goals and objectives for the challenge. Eight hospitals and healthcare systems across the United 

States were recognized as Healthcare-Associated Venous Thromboembolism (HA-VTE) 

Prevention Champions for their success in implementing innovative and effective ways to prevent 

venous thromboembolism in healthcare settings. CDC was able to share best practices for VTE 

prevention at all levels and provide examples of how any health care setting, from a small hospital 

to a large healthcare system, can implement approaches and tools to improve prevention of HAVTE. 

This challenge and the COMPETES authority provided CDC a lower-cost, quicker method to 

receive novel and effective ideas and solutions to prevent VTE in hospitals at different sizes and 

resources. The challenge also allowed CDC to expand its reach beyond its usual partners and 

collaborators. CDC was able to hear from new partners across the nation and internationally,

allowing it to better assess what is working in real world settings to better inform prevention 

activities and future work. Specifically, CDC was able to:

 Identify organizations that have implemented innovative and effective VTE prevention 

strategies;

 Identify and promote exemplary strategies for improving VTE prevention;

 Document the systems, processes, and staffing configurations that contribute to success;

 Reward and congratulate organizations who have achieved successful results; and

 Promote these best practices widely to inform and improve VTE prevention in the nation’s 

hospitals and healthcare settings.

Participants: The challenge was open to hospitals, multi-hospital systems, hospital networks, and 

managed care organizations that have implemented a VTE prevention strategy designed to increase 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-61

VTE prevention and reduce HA-VTE rates in their respective setting(s). There were 19 

submissions.

Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition: 

To be eligible to win a monetary prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:

 Shall have completed and submitted the nomination form in its entirety to participate in the 

competition under the rules promulgated by HHS/CDC;

 Must be a hospital, multi-hospital system, hospital network, or managed care organization, 

incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the United States, that 

provides inpatient medical care for patients;

 May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their 

employment (Federal entities or employees are eligible to participate in the challenge; 

however, they are not eligible to receive a monetary prize. Federal entities are eligible for 

non-monetary recognition only.);

 Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during 

assigned duty hours;

 Shall not be an employee or contractor at CDC;

 Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge 

applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award;

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act 

challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge 

submission;

 Must agree to participate in a data validation process to be conducted by a CDC-selected 

contractor. To the extent applicable law allows, data will be kept confidential by the 

contractor and will be shared with the CDC in aggregate form only (i.e., the VTE 

prevention coverage rate for the practice not individual data);

 Must have a data management system (electronic or paper) that allows HHS/CDC or their 

contractor to check data submitted;

 Individual nominees and individuals in a group practice must be free from convictions or 

pending investigations of criminal and health care fraud offenses such as felony health care 

fraud, patient abuse or neglect; felony convictions for other healthcare-related fraud, theft, 

or other financial misconduct; and felony convictions relating to unlawful manufacture, 

distribution, prescription, or dispensing of controlled substances as verified through the 

Office of the Inspector General List of Excluded Individuals and Entities.56 Individual 

nominees must be free from serious sanctions, such as those for misuse or misprescribing 

of prescription medications. Such serious sanctions will be determined at the discretion of 

the agency consistent with CDC’s public health mission. CDC’s contractor may perform 

background checks on individual clinicians or medical practices;

 Health systems must have a written policy in place that conducts periodic background 

checks as described above on all providers and takes appropriate action accordingly. In 

addition, a health system background check may be conducted, as deemed necessary, by 

CDC or a CDC contractor that includes a search for The Joint Commission sanctions and 

current investigations for serious institutional misconduct (e.g., attorney general 

 

56 oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/background.asp
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-62

investigation). CDC’s contractor may also request the policy and any supporting 

information deemed necessary; and

 Must agree to accept the monetary prize and be recognized if selected, and agree to 

participate in an interview to develop a success story that describes the systems and 

processes that support VTE prevention. Champions will be recognized on CDC websites. 

Strategies used by champions that support VTE prevention may be written into a success 

story, placed on CDC websites, and attributed to champions.

An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal 

facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees 

are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equal basis.

By participating in this challenge, an individual or organization agrees to assume any and all risks 

related to participating in the challenge. Individuals or organizations also agree to waive claims 

against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, 

when participating in the challenge, including claims for injury, death, damage, or loss of property, 

money, or profits, and including those risks caused by negligence or other causes.

By participating in this challenge, individuals or organizations agree to protect the Federal 

Government against third-party claims for damages arising from or related to challenge activities.

Entrants who are a U.S. Federal hospital, multi-hospital system, hospital network, or managed care 

organization that provides inpatient medical care for patients may apply for non-monetary 

recognition. No monetary prize will be awarded.

 

Entrants who are an international hospital, multi-hospital system, hospital network, or managed 

care organization that provides inpatient medical care for patients may apply for non-monetary 

recognition. No monetary prize will be awarded.

Timeline: Submissions were opened November 2, 2015 and closed January 10, 2016. Winners 

were announced March 26, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Partnered with other CDC divisions to reach their partners and stakeholders to advertise 

challenge and announce winners;

 Worked with external partners and other federal agencies to solicit submissions and 

announce winners—AHRQ, NIH/NHLBI, The Joint Commission, National Blood Clot 

Association, American Society of Hematology, Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network of 

America, World Thrombosis Day, International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 

and others; and

 Video announcement of challenge winners by Agency Director.

Incentives: Eight entrants were recognized as HA-VTE Prevention champions and received a cash 

award of $10,000. Additionally four honorable mention awards were identified but did not receive 

a cash award. Other non-monetary incentives received included a formal congratulatory letter from 

Dr. Frieden; national recognition as an HA-VTE Prevention champion or honorable mention by 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-63

CDC through press releases, social media, and awardee profiles on CDC’s website dedicated to 

the challenge winners57; formal recognition at a plenary session at the Thrombosis and Hemostasis 

Summit of America (THSNA) bi-annual meeting; and an in press supplement in the Journal of 

Hospital Medicine.

Evaluation and Judging: Challenge submissions were evaluated by a panel of five judges (three

from CDC, one from AHRQ, and one from NIH). The judges used a rubric based on the following 

evaluation criteria: methods (30% of score), results (50% of score), and feasibility/utility (20% of 

score) of the strategy and interventions associated with the intended outcome of interest. Entrants 

were divided and reviewed within categories so that organizations with similar size (number of

beds, patient admissions, hospitals, etc.) were evaluated together. In addition to the size, we also 

left open the consideration for the final selection to include geographic distribution and scope 

(urban, rural) to ensure a balance of champions.

Category Criteria

Weight

(points)

Methods

Was the problem statement clearly stated?

Was the strategy clearly described and appropriate for the 

organization?

Were the interventions scientifically sound?

Were data collection and evaluation methods, including case 

definitions, patient population, time frame, baseline and 

outcome measures, clearly defined and appropriate?

30

Results

Were pre- and post-intervention measures provided and 

interpreted correctly?

Was the intervention (or interventions) successful in 

increasing VTE prevention? 

Did the organization offer insightful reflection on reasons for 

success, challenges or limitations, lessons learned and future 

steps?

50

Feasibility & 

Utility

Can the intervention(s) be easily and routinely monitored and 

updated?

Can the intervention(s) be applied to diverse populations or 

similar settings?

Will the strategy and intervention(s) employed result in a 

reduction of VTE events over time?

20

Partnerships: Partners included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to 

promote the challenge and its winners. Because of the short timeline there was difficulty creating 

more formal partnerships for this challenge. In the future this challenge would formalize 

partnerships and any MOUs earlier in the development process.

Resources: Using HHS’s blanket purchasing agreement for challenges, SENSIS Agency was 

contracted to help conduct this challenge. Funds were used to develop the submission website, 

judging web-based platform, and pre- and post-challenge materials and promotions, which 

 

57 www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/ha-vte.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-64

included pre-challenge fact sheets and flyers, graphics for the challenge, profile factsheets of the 

winners, payment of prizes, posters for the THSNA meeting, and coordination of the journal 

supplement.

Results: The challenge received 19 submissions from across the United States and from Ireland. 

The eight selected Champions range from a small community hospital to some of the country's 

largest health systems, and they represent both rural and urban areas. Together they cared for more 

than 450,000 patients admitted to hospitals across the United States in 2014. They were able to 

improve VTE prevention within their institutions and organizations by implementing innovative, 

effective and sustainable VTE prevention strategies, including these:

 Engaging teams of different healthcare experts to support and promote prevention 

activities;

 Informing patients and providers about the need for and benefits of VTE prevention;

 Using technology (such as electronic risk assessment and clinical decision support tools 

and alerts) to ensure that all patients are assessed for their risk for VTE and bleeding. These 

tools also help ensure patients, when appropriate, are provided with and use appropriate 

prevention measures for their level of risk; and

 Providing real-time feedback, scorecards, and dashboards for providers and organizations 

to monitor performance and identify areas for improvement.

CDC also recognized four organizations with honorable mentions for their innovative and unique 

approaches to prevention in special populations and settings. These included post-discharge

monitoring, a unique ambulation program for psychiatric inpatients, an innovative prophylaxisdosing protocol for level 1 trauma units, and an international submission on risk assessment for 

obstetric patients.

The HA-VTE Prevention Challenge Champions are:

Large Healthcare Network or Multi-Hospital System 

 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 

 University of California Health, Center for Health Quality and Innovation, Oakland, 

California

Medium Healthcare Network or Multi-Hospital System 

 University of Wisconsin Health, Madison, Wisconsin

 Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah

Large Single Hospital 

 Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois

 The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

Small to Medium Single Hospital 

 Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

 Hutchinson Regional Medical Center, Hutchinson, Kansas

Honorable Mention for Unique Populations and Interventions 

 Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, Ann Arbor, Michigan

 Sheppard Pratt Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

 Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

 University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-65

A.5.5 CMS: “A Bill You Can Understand” Design and Innovation Challenge58

Summary: This challenge aimed to produce designs for more understandable medical bills to 

improve patient experience. Two winners were chosen. RadNet aimed to make bills as concise as 

possible and aligned with patients’ current experiences. Color coding and plain language 

explanations made bills easier to read. Sequence’s “Clarify” provided an online and mobile service 

that allowed patients more opportunity to search and compare options when handling their bills, 

providing a personalized service. 

Solution Type: Software and apps; creative (design and multimedia); technology demonstration 

and hardware; ideas; and analytics, visualizations, algorithms

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; solve a specific problem; and engage new 

people and communities

Results: Two winners were chosen. RadNet aimed to make bills as concise as possible and aligned 

with patients’ current experiences. Color coding and plain language explanations made bills easier 

to read. Sequence’s “Clarify” provided an online and mobile service that allowed patients more 

opportunity to search and compare options when handling their bills, providing a personalized 

service. 

Problem Statement: Patients in the U.S. struggle to understand their medical bills and the medical 

billing process. Providers, payers, and consumers all benefit if we improve the current system. 

This design and innovation challenge sought to tackle a current consumer pain point to help deliver 

solutions that result in clearer, less complex, and more understandable medical bills that ultimately 

improve the patient financial experience. 

Many health care organizations have been doing important work to address the complex problems 

that individuals face when navigating the medical billing process. A national challenge presented 

a unique opportunity to both support these ongoing efforts and catalyze innovation by bringing 

new players to the table—designers, developers, digital tech start-ups, entrepreneurs, and other 

innovators—who may traditionally be outside the healthcare space. 

Participants were asked to submit the following components in order for their submissions to be 

considered complete and eligible to win the challenge:

 A written design brief (not to exceed 2,250 words) describing the concept, the design 

principles it follows, and how it meets the evaluation criteria;

 A brief video (less than three minutes) describing the concept, the design principles it 

follows, and how it meets the evaluation criteria;

 Visual compositions (including information, layout, and aesthetic) of the tools and 

materials the patient may see and interact with, including the medical bill itself; and

 

58 www.abillyoucanunderstand.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-66

 A journey map that illustrates changes to the medical billing process from the patient’s 

perspective in terms of his/her specific experience and what solutions are provided by the 

health care organizations involved.

Proposed Goals: The dual purpose of this challenge was to catalyze private sector innovation to 

redesign the medical bill itself so that it is easier for patients to understand, as well as to innovate 

the experience of medical billing to make the financial aspect of health easier to manage. With this 

challenge, HHS started a national conversation about what steps can be taken to improve the 

medical bill and patients’ experience of the medical billing process—something many Americans 

have voiced that they want addressed. The challenge invited new players that may traditionally be 

outside the health care space, such as designers, developers, digital tech start-ups, entrepreneurs, 

and other innovators, to be part of the solution.

Measures of Success: Success was also measured by lining up a set of pioneering health systems 

and payers, or “pilot partners,” who were willing to work with HHS to develop the challenge, and 

commit to evaluating and testing the concepts that emerged from the challenge for real-world 

implementation. The pilot partners’ commitment allowed HHS to create a path forward for the 

challenge winners and participants receiving honorable mention to further develop and drive their 

solutions toward implementation. The challenge provided pilot partners, and other interested 

stakeholders in health care, the opportunity to uncover new ideas and opportunities to improve 

medical billing for patients and families navigating the U.S. health care system.

Participants: The challenge was open to any contestant, defined as (1) a business or non-profit 

entity or (2) an individual or team of no more than five U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the 

United States who are 18 years of age or older at the time of entry. All individual members of a 

team had to meet the eligibility requirements.

To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:

 Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules issued by Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS);

 Shall have complied with all the requirements under this Notice, the rules for participants 

referenced herein below, and the requirements set forth in 15 U.S.C. 3719;

 In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of 

business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly 

or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; and

 May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their 

employment. Federal employees seeking to participate in this contest outside the scope of 

their employment should consult their ethics official prior to developing their submission.

 May not be employees of CMS, judges of the challenge, or any other party involved with 

the design, production, execution, or distribution of the challenge or their immediate family 

(spouse, parents or step-parents, siblings and step-siblings, and children and step-children);

 May not be the trustees, directors, shareholders, employees, clients (with respect to 

Mad*Pow only), contractors, agents, representatives, and affiliates of AARP, Mad*Pow 

and any entity associated with the funding, administration, judging, or processing of the 

challenge and the members of the immediate family which includes a person’s 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-67

spouse/domestic partner and the parents, siblings, children and grandchildren of the person 

and his or her spouse/domestic partner;

 Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge 

applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award;

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act 

challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge 

submission;

 An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used 

Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition, if the facilities 

and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the 

competition on an equitable basis.

By entering, each contestant agreed to: 

 Comply with, and be bound by, these official rules and the decisions of the challenge and 

judges which are binding and final in all matters relating to this challenge;

 Assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related 

entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of 

property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from the 

contestant's participation in the challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises 

through negligence or otherwise. The contestant/submitter shall be liable for, and shall 

indemnify and hold harmless the government against, all actions or claims for any claim, 

demand, judgment, or other allegation arising from alleged violation of an individual's 

trademark, copyright, or other legally protected interest in challenge entries submitted to 

Mad*Pow. Provided, however, that contestants are not required to waive claims arising 

out of the unauthorized use or disclosure by AARP and/or Mad*Pow of the intellectual 

property, trade secrets, or confidential business information of the contestant;

 Be responsible for obtaining their own liability insurance to cover claims by any third party 

for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out 

in connection with participation in the challenge, and claims by the Federal Government 

for damage or loss to government property resulting from such an activity; and

 Indemnify the Federal Government against third-party claims for damages arising from or 

related to challenge activities.

Based on the subject matter of the challenge, the type of work that it will possibly require, as well 

as an analysis of the likelihood of any claims for death, bodily injury, property damage, or loss 

potentially resulting from challenge participation, no individual (whether competing singly or in a 

group) or entity participating in the challenge is required to obtain liability insurance or 

demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this challenge.

Contestants who are determined at any time to have violated the eligibility criteria will be 

disqualified from the challenge.

Timeline: Submissions were opened May 9, 2016 and closed August 10, 2016. Winners were 

announced September 28, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach:
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-68

 Social Media;

 Email Outreach;

 Press Release;

 High-profile challenge announcements (e.g., HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced the 

challenge at Health Datapalooza, generating national, regional, and trade press coverage; 

HHS Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Karen DeSalvo announced the challenge winners 

at the Health 2.0 Annual Fall Conference, generating regional and trade press coverage); 

and

 Partnership with Outside Organizations.

Incentives: AARP, the financial sponsor for this challenge, provided $10,000 for the prize purse. 

In addition to cash prizes, winners were given national, public recognition. Winners and entrants 

receiving honorable mention for their submissions were able to access health care systems and 

payers committed to improving the patient financial experience, as well as benefit from expert and 

patient input on their designs (provided through the selection process).

Evaluation and Judging: A Federal panel of judges was responsible for the final designation of 

winners.

Judges:

 Dr. Patrick Conway, Deputy Administrator for Innovation & Quality, Chief Medical 

Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services

 Dr. Karen DeSalvo, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services

 Dr. Mary Wakefield, Acting Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services

Submissions that received the highest aggregate score from a ten-point scale for each core and 

applicable additional criterion were selected as winners. The Federal panel had the benefit of 

scores and feedback, including a recommendation on top ten submission (five for each prize) from 

a stakeholder Advisory Panel. These top ten recommendations were also shared with a patient 

focus group, such that the Federal panel could also take input from a diverse set of real patients 

when scoring these submissions.

Winners were selected based on how well they addressed core criteria and additional criteria 

specific to each prize. Core criteria included:

 Most appropriate use of information and data;

 Addresses top concerns associated with the current medical billing experience;

 Usefulness and understandability of patient facing materials and tools (including the 

medical bill and any other patient facing materials and tools);

 Use of human-centered design process in creation of concept;

 Use of plain language; and

 Uniqueness and creativity of solution.

Additional Criteria for Prize 1: Easiest Bill to Understand
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-69

 Addresses issues and opportunities associated with bill design; and

 Incremental innovation—works within existing models (workflow, data, technology, 

patient facing materials, and tools).

Additional Criteria for Prize 2: Transformational Approach

 Addresses issues and opportunities associated with medical cost estimation and billing 

journey;

 Alignment with modern consumer expectations; and

 Future forward innovation—evolves existing models (workflow, data, technology, patient 

facing materials, and tools).

Partnerships: AARP was the financial sponsor, providing funds for challenge administration and 

the $10,000 prize purse. Mad*Pow entered into a memorandum of understanding with HHS to 

administer the challenge, subcontracting Health 2.0. The “pilot partner” health systems and payers 

(Cambia Health Solutions, Geisinger Health System, Integris Health, The MetroHealth System, 

Providence Health & Services, and University of Utah Health Care) provided guidance during 

challenge development and comprised the Advisory Panel alongside other stakeholders. These 

other stakeholders included health experience designers from Mad*Pow, innovators and subject 

matter experts from AARP, health literacy experts, academics, consumer and patient advocates. 

The patient advocacy coalition, Partners for Better Care, facilitated the patient focus group 

leveraged during the evaluation process.

Additional collaborators providing expertise, challenge design, or promotional support include:

 American Hospital Association (AHA);

 American Medical Association (AMA);

 Center on Health Insurance Reforms, Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University;

 Community Catalyst: Center for Consumer Engagement in Health Innovation;

 Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School;

 Families USA;

 Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA);

 Humana;

 Kaiser Permanente;

 Partners for Better Care;

 Roundtable on Health Literacy of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine; and 

 Simplee.

Resources: HHS personnel from the Office of the Secretary were deployed toward the execution 

of this challenge. These personnel secured a memorandum of understanding with Mad*Pow to 

administer the challenge. In turn, Mad*Pow secured AARP as a financial sponsor to fund 

challenge administration and the prize purse.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-70

Results: Participants hailed from health care companies, organizations, design agencies, and/or 

were independent citizens from across the country. Many were new to working with the Federal 

Government and/or outside the traditional health care space.

The challenge was open to any contestant, defined as (1) a business or non-profit entity or (2) an 

individual or team of no more than five U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States

who are 18 years of age or older at the time of entry.

Prize 1 was awarded to RadNet59 of Los Angeles, CA. RadNet’s design aims to make the bill as 

concise as possible. RadNet provides adaptable bills that line up with the patient’s current 

experience, including options for uninsured patients and for patients who are past due on payments. 

Their use of color segments make it easy for patients to locate and read specific information, and 

the bill includes a clear presentation of payment due, payment options, and insurance details. 

Additionally, plain language explanations put charges in context.

Prize 2 was awarded to Sequence60 of San Francisco, CA. Sequence developed “Clarify,” a new 

online- and mobile-based service that extends a retail model of consumer behavior to medical 

billing. “Clarify” presents health care services in new ways that allow people to search, browse, 

weigh their options, compare prices, and decide how they will pay. By modernizing, automating, 

and personalizing the transactional aspect of health care services, “Clarify” could enable better 

relationships among consumers, providers, and payers.

A.5.6 CMS: Merit Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Mobile Challenge61

Summary: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 requires the Secretary to 

establish a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program, which will assist the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accelerating the transition from the 

traditional fee-for-service payment model to a system that rewards health care providers for value 

rather than volume of services provided. One of the most important aspects and challenges of the

program is educating and providing outreach to the potential 1.2 million MIPS clinicians. 

Feedback received from customers/end users is that they want more real-time information and 

access to assistance so they can successfully report to CMS programs. CMS launched a MIPS 

mobile challenge to find innovative ways of improving communication to educate physicians, 

support staff, health organization leadership, data vendors, and other impacted parties. This 

challenge has the potential to make a significant impact as not only are there 1.2 million MIPS 

clinicians but also millions of people who support the success of these MIPS clinicians. Having 

key information and access to the right support at the right time reduces burden and provides 

increased satisfaction for the MIPS clinicians and their supporting entities.

Solution Type: Websites and apps; and ideation/creative (design and multimedia)

 

59 www.abillyoucanunderstand.com/winners-list/prize-1-winner

60 www.abillyoucanunderstand.com/winners-list/prize-2-winner

61 www.challenge.gov/challenge/medicare-program-merit-based-incentive-payment-system-mips-mobile-challengephase-ii
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-71

Primary Goals: Inform and educate the public about a new quality reporting program; build the 

solution around the user community; and engage new people and communities

Results: Five winners were awarded from Phase 1, and one was awarded from Phase 2.

Problem Statement: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114 10, 

enacted April 16, 2015) (MACRA) requires the Secretary to establish a new Merit-based Incentive 

Payment System (MIPS) program, which will assist the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

(CMS) in accelerating the transition from the traditional fee-for-service payment model to a system 

that rewards health care providers for value rather than volume of services provided. The MIPS 

program combines parts of the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value Modifier (VM or 

Value-based Payment Modifier), and the Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive 

Program into one single program that assesses the performance of MIPS eligible clinicians based 

on four performance categories: (1) quality; (2) resource use; (3) clinical practice improvement 

activities; and (4) meaningful use of certified EHR technology. This program has the potential of 

impacting 1.2 million MIPS clinicians.

One of the most important aspects and challenges of the program is educating and providing 

outreach to the potential 1.2 million MIPS clinicians. Feedback received from customers/end users 

is that they want more real-time information and access to assistance so they can successfully 

report to CMS programs.

Proposed Goals: CMS launched a MIPS mobile challenge to find innovative ways of improving 

communication to educate physicians, support staff, health organization leadership, data vendors, 

and other impacted parties. Due to the multiple user types and facets of the MIPS program CMS 

is interested in mobile platforms, which could be a mobile site or application to determine how to 

best keep customers/end users informed and meet their specific needs. CMS also wants to provide 

assistance to help MIPS clinicians learn and get help with specific concerns. This challenge has 

the potential to make a significant impact as not only are there 1.2 million MIPS clinicians but also 

millions of people who support the success of these MIPS clinicians. Having key information and 

access to the right support at the right time reduces burden and provides increased satisfaction for 

the MIPS clinicians and their supporting entities.

Measures of Success: Having key information and access to the right support at the right time 

reduces burden and provides increased satisfaction for the MIPS clinicians and their supporting 

entities. Running the challenge will help CMS evaluate if an app or mobile technology would 

benefit MIPS clinicians. Doing this through the challenge would help CMS better focus contract 

funding to build the right solution the first time.

Participants: Anyone interested in developing a solution to meet the intended audience’s needs. 

Eligibility requirements:

 Entrants shall register to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated below 

by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-72

 In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of 

business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating 

individually or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States;

 HHS Employees may participate in the MIPS Mobile Challenge, but may not submit in the 

scope of their employment and may not pursue an application while in the Federal 

workplace or while on duty;

 Shall not be an employee of the CMS;

 Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop the America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358, enacted January 4, 2011) (COMPETES 

Act) challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award;

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act 

challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge 

submission; and

 Applicants must agree to provide the Federal Government an irrevocable, royalty-free, 

non-exclusive worldwide license in the winning work(s) or component parts thereof, in the 

event that they are prize winner(s). HHS shall be granted the rights to reproduce, distribute 

copies to the public, publicly display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, 

and share the winning work(s) or parts thereof.

Timeline: Phase 1 ran from May 3, 2016 to August 30, 2016, when winners were awarded. Phase 

2 began August 15, 2016, and concluded with the announcement of winners November 15, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: $75,000 was offered as the total prize, originating from E & O MACRA Funds. The 

public announcement of winners also served as a non-monetary incentive.

Evaluation and Judging: The judges were all CMS employees. A standard survey was used, based 

on the criteria, with every judge reviewing the submissions to help eliminate bias.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: The amounts listed above for the contracting with Capital Consulting and then three 

Federal employees to support the challenge.

Results: Five winners were awarded from Phase 1, and one was awarded from Phase 2. 

A.5.7 ONC Consumer Health Data Aggregator Challenge62

Summary: The lack of interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems remains a 

significant barrier to the modernization of health IT, making it difficult to effectively transfer from 

a paper-based to an electronic health record system. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources 

(FHIR), developed by HL7, is a standard designed to improve interoperability. The Consumer 

 

62 www.challenge.gov/challenge/consumer-health-data-aggregator-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-73

Health Data Aggregator Challenge, combined with its partner challenge, the Provider User 

Experience Challenge, is part of ONC’s Connecting and Accelerating a FHIR App Ecosystem 

initiative. This initiative calls on innovators to develop market-ready software apps for consumers 

and healthcare providers in an effort to improve the health and care of the country.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; engage new people and communities; and stimulate a 

market

Results: Phase 1 required the creation of an app development proposal, which included detailed 

technical plans, mockups/wireframes of the proposed app, a business model/sustainability plan, 

and demonstration of agreements to conduct pilot testing with actual users. Twenty-five 

submissions were received for Phase 1. Virtually all submissions were by small technology 

companies that already had a product available or in development, which they planned to modify.

Phase 2 required the actual development of the proposed app (or modification of an existing one). 

Evaluation criteria were similar to those of Phase 1, just modified to reflect review of an app rather 

than a proposal.

Problem Statement: The lack of interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems 

remains a significant barrier to the modernization of health IT. Fast Healthcare Interoperability 

Resources (FHIR), developed by HL7, is a standard designed to increase the liquidity of granular 

patient data.63 The FHIR API allows data to move between vendor systems at different providers 

and to third-party applications for direct use by consumers. The latter use case is key to enabling 

patients to play a more active role in managing their health. Patients’ ability to seamlessly take 

their data with them as they move from provider to provider is one of the main goals of moving 

from a paper-based to an electronic health record system. The Consumer Health Data Aggregator 

Challenge, combined with its partner challenge, the Provider User Experience Challenge, is part 

of ONC’s Connecting and Accelerating a FHIR App Ecosystem initiative. This initiative calls on 

innovators to develop market-ready software apps for consumers and healthcare providers in an 

effort to improve the health and care of the country.

Proposed Goals: The Consumer Health Data Aggregator Challenge has several objectives, the 

primary one being to increase the number of apps available to consumers that can aggregate their 

data from multiple sources. Specifically, this had to be done using the FHIR API, which is the 

most widely-known and developed open API for exchanging patient health data. Even as the open 

API with the highest level of awareness, the challenge was also intended to raise this level higher, 

and to incentivize more developers to work with and familiarize themselves with FHIR.

Measures of Success: The clearest measure of success will be the number of apps available for 

public download and use for consumers by the conclusion of Phase 2 of the challenge. A second 

degree of success will be measured by follow-on actions involving Phase 2 participants and their 

apps—how many times have they been downloaded and are they rated well by users? Do challenge 

 

63 More on FHIR can be found at www.hl7.org/fhir/overview.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-74

participants execute new business arrangements with other health companies? Do they receive 

useful, non-Federal publicity from winning or participating in the challenge?

Participants: While the challenge is open to any developer, the need to understand the intersection 

of EHRs, patient care, and patient data sharing made it most relevant to companies that already 

had working knowledge of those areas and are active in health IT. The challenge was run under 

the authority of Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and therefore had 

the eligibility criteria pursuant to it. The challenge received 25 submissions in Phase 1. 

Timeline: Phase 1 opened March 1, 2016 and closed June 1, 2016, with winners announced July 

18, 2016. Phase 2 opened June 2, 2016, and closed November 7, 2016, with winners announced 

January 11, 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: The Consumer Health Data Aggregator and Provider User Experience 

Challenges were announced by the National Coordinator for Health IT at a prominent industry 

conference, HIMSS, on March 1, 2016. Many of ONC’s communications channels were leveraged, 

including blog posts, social media, press releases, webinars, and listservs.

Incentives: The challenge has a prize purse of up to $175,000. In Phase 1, up to five prizes of 

$5,000 to $15,000 were available; four $10,000 prizes were awarded. In Phase 2, prizes available 

for award include one $50,000 first prize, one $25,000 second prize, and an additional $25,000 

prize for the app demonstrating the highest level of patient data exchange. The primary nonmonetary incentives are the publicity and recognition for winning an ONC challenge. Award funds 

were disbursed by a contractor acquired through the HHS Competes Blanket Purchasing 

Agreement.

Evaluation and Judging: A combined review panel of Federal and non-Federal subject matter 

experts reviewed and scored all Phase 1 submissions; the Federal challenge managers selected the 

winners, factoring in those reviews. In Phase 1, equal co-winners were chosen rather than ranked 

winners because the submissions—written proposals—are steps toward the eventual outcome of 

the challenge, not the outcome itself. The final outcomes of Phase 2—consumer apps—will be 

ranked and awarded. Four evaluation criteria were used to review submissions: the technical 

feasibility of the plan; the adherence to data privacy and security best practices and applicable law;

the strength of the business/sustainability plan; and the provider and/or health IT developer 

partnerships. These criteria captured the most important aspects that needed to be identified in the 

submissions.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: A small ONC team, with one primary challenge manager, developed and executed the 

Consumer Health Data Aggregator and Provider User Experience Challenges. Additional funds 

for the challenge prizes were required on top of the annual ONC challenge funding allocation; 

these were designated to the project from the national coordinator’s discretionary pool. A thirdparty contractor, acquired through the HHS Competes Blanket Purchasing Agreement, provided 

administrative, management, and communications assistance. Given the challenge manager’s 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-75

extensive experience in running prize challenges, challenge development services were not 

needed.

Results: The challenge has two phases. Phase 1 required the creation of an app development 

proposal, which included detailed technical plans, mockups/wireframes of the proposed app, a 

business model/sustainability plan, and demonstration of agreements to conduct pilot testing with 

actual users. Twenty-five submissions were received for Phase 1, one of which was assessed as 

not eligible. Virtually all submissions were by small technology companies that already had a 

product available or in development, which they planned to modify. Four winners (out of a 

maximum of five) were selected to each receive a $15,000 prize. Phase 2 required the development 

or modification of the app, which was to be submitted along with a video demo and slide deck. 

Five submissions were received, from which two winners were selected, each receiving an award 

of $50,000

A.5.8 FDA: The 2016 Naloxone App Competition64

Summary: This challenge is designed to help address the growing health problem of opioid 

overdose by creating a smartphone app that can help alert persons with Naloxone, a medication 

that reverses the effects of opioid overdose, to individuals suffering from an overdose. 

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; solve a specific problem; and engage new 

people and communities

Results: Registration for the competition closed on October 7, 2016. One hundred fifty-three teams 

registered with a total of 452 individuals. The winning submission was OD Help, submitted by 

Team Pwrdby, a small startup based in Venice, California.

Problem Statement: In 2014, nearly two million Americans aged 12 or older either abused or were 

dependent on opioid- analgesics, and 61% of drug overdose deaths involved either an opioid 

analgesic or heroin. Naloxone reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, whether from prescription 

opioids or heroin. It is a prescription drug with few side effects that works rapidly and can be lifesaving. Although most frequently used in emergency rooms and on ambulances, many states have 

recently taken steps to make it easier for people in the general public, including family and friends 

of drug users, to carry and administer naloxone.

Despite the increasing availability of naloxone, people carrying naloxone are often unaware when 

an overdose occurs nearby. Currently, there are no mechanisms to alert carriers of naloxone to a 

person in need of the medication. 

FDA hosted the 2016 FDA Naloxone App Competition to encourage computer scientists, public 

health advocates, clinical researchers, and entrepreneurs to develop creative solutions to this 

problem. Specifically the goal of the competition was to generate innovative ideas for a 

 

64 www.challenge.gov/challenge/the-2016-fda-naloxone-app-competition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-76

smartphone app that connects people experiencing an opioid overdose to nearby carriers of 

naloxone. FDA sought submissions that were readily scalable, free or low-cost to the end-user, 

and took advantage of existing systems for naloxone distribution and use.

Proposed Goals: The primary objectives of the prize competition were to: spur innovation around 

the development of an app that increases the likelihood of timely naloxone administration by 

connecting opioid users experiencing an overdose with nearby naloxone carriers; propose 

innovative solutions to the opioid overdose epidemic, and foster the development of a multidisciplinary community engaged in addressing this public health issue.

Measures of Success:

Measures of success include registration for the Naloxone App Competition, participation in the 

optional two-day Code-A-Thon event held midway through the Competition, and the number of 

eligible app prototype submissions received.

Participants: A total of 153 teams registered, encompassing 452 participants. 45 submissions were 

evaluated by judges from FDA, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration. The winning team, announced on December 16, 2016, 

was Team Pwerdby.65 A video demonstrating their app can be found at: 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiiNvSLbUgo&feature=youtu.be 

Timeline: Submissions opened September 23, 2016 and closed November 7, 2016. Winners have 

yet to be announced. 

Solicitation and Outreach: Media calls with interested stakeholder communities were held to 

respond to inquiries about the challenge. Social media outlets such as twitter (#naloxoneapp), and 

the FDA website were used to engage interested participants and to communicate up-to-date 

information on the challenge.

Incentives: The highest scoring entrant, based on the aforementioned description, received

$40,000.

Evaluation and Judging: Judging of submissions was based on the minimum requirements outlined 

below along with four equally weighted criteria: innovation, usability, functionality and 

adaptability. The minimum requirements for the proposed app were: use of crowd-sourcing 

technology to identify one or more individuals in close proximity to the overdose who could 

administer naloxone; minimize the time required to identify one or more individuals in close 

proximity to the overdose who could deliver naloxone to an individual experiencing an opioid 

overdose; and compatibility with multiple platforms, including Android and iOS. Submissions 

were required to include a video of the functional app prototype and a supporting summary 

document. 

Partnerships: In-kind support from NIDA and SAMHSA in the form of subject matter experts, 

judges and presenters at the Code-A-Thon.

 

65 www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm533711.htm
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-77

Resources: N/A

Results: A total of 153 teams (452 participants) registered for the Naloxone App Competition. 

Over 30 teams participated, either in-person or virtually, in the two-day Code-A-Thon event on 

the FDA campus, at which participants heard background presentations on topics ranging from an 

overview of the opioid epidemic and the Emergency Medical System, to a discussion of mobile 

health IT. At the close of the Code-A-Thon, twenty teams briefly pitched their ideas to receive 

feedback from other participants. By the submission deadline, FDA received 45 eligible mobile 

app prototypes. Throughout the process, the Competition garnered significant interest from the 

tech community, in the lay press, and from those interested in addressing this public health issue.

A.5.9 HRSA: Bridging the Word Gap Challenge66

Summary: This challenge is designed to address the “word gap,” a term coined to describe research 

that indicates that children from low income families hear approximately 30 million fewer words 

than children from higher income families, leading to children falling behind in vocabulary and 

school readiness before they even start kindergarten, and shaping educational and health outcomes 

for decades to come. This challenge hopes to produce scalable, technology based systems that will 

encourage family members and caregivers to focus on their child’s early language environment, 

and help close the word gap, giving children an opportunity to start their education on a more even 

footing. The challenge has so far brought in tremendous innovation in producing creative, 

effective, scalable systems.

Solution Type: Software and apps; ideas; and technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; develop technology; and inform and educate the public

Results: The prize is currently in Phase 3; five winners from Phase 2 advanced to participate in 

this final phase. These teams’ interventions represent an incredible diversity of approaches and 

expertise, including hardware devices, apps that provide feedback to families, apps that are 

location-based and send prompts to parents in real-time, and apps that are available in English and 

Spanish. The challenge ended on March 26, 2017. The final winner will be announced in May 

2017.

Problem Statement: Research shows that during the first three years of life, a poor child hears 

roughly 30 million fewer words than his or her more affluent peers. This is known as the “word 

gap,” and it can lead to disparities not just in vocabulary size, but also in school readiness, long 

term educational and health outcomes, earnings, and family stability even decades later. In fact, 

children who experience this drought in heard words have vocabularies that are half the size of 

their peers by age three, putting them at a disadvantage before they even step foot in a classroom.

The good news is that technologies now exist to support low-cost, broadly scalable approaches to 

helping parents/caregivers focus on the early language environment, and the technical expertise 

 

66 www.wordgapchallenge.hrsa.gov
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-78

exists to address the issue in creative ways. This challenge was designed to cultivate an 

environment to attract a broad array of innovators from multiple disciplines to propose inventive, 

creative, and effective interventions to address the word gap through technology.

For Phase 1, participants were asked to submit their ideas for a technology-based device that 

encourages more back-and-forth interaction between caregivers and young children. The 10 teams 

with the best ideas were each awarded $10,000, which they used to develop (or adapt) and test 

their intervention in Phase 2. On September 22, 2016, these teams competed in a live Demo Day 

where they demonstrated their devices to a panel of judges, and five finalists were selected to 

advance to Phase 3, each receiving $25,000. Currently in Phase 3, these five teams are 

implementing their device/intervention at larger scale, in a program or community, to test the 

scalability of their intervention at low cost. The final winner will be awarded at the conclusion of 

this phase in March 2017 and will receive a prize of $100,000.

For each stage, the evaluation criteria were adjusted, however the core subjects of accessibility, 

measurability, sustainability, and impact were guides for the judging of submissions.

The challenge works in collaboration with the HRSA-funded Bridging the Word Gap Research 

Network, a collaborative network of more than 100 nationally recognized researchers, 

practitioners, policymakers, and funders working together on a coordinated national research 

agenda that addresses the word gap.

Proposed Goals: The main goal of the challenge, as put forth in the challenge statement, is to spur 

the development of a low-cost, scalable, technology-based intervention that drives parents and 

caregivers to talk and engage in more back-and-forth interactions with their young children (ages 

0-4). But in addition to spurring innovation in technology-based solutions, the larger goals were 

also to raise awareness of the word gap issue, to spur innovation in the market, and to partner with 

non-traditional partners to address this issue through innovative means. Through the challenge, 

HRSA hopes to have one intervention that will win the final prize at the conclusion of Phase 3, 

and also to have spurred multiple promising interventions through the phased approach, from 

teams who have been exposed to multiple non-monetary incentives and support throughout the 

challenge. In addition, through promoting the winners at each phase, HRSA has drawn attention 

to the challenge (especially via a strong social media presence at the Demo Day) and to the word 

gap issue, and has developed partnerships with other agencies and with external groups. HRSA

will continue this collaborative work to address the word gap and maintain these partnerships after 

the conclusion of the challenge.

Measures of Success: The competition is still underway, but HRSA already has some examples of 

success. After advertising the challenge widely, the first phase received 80 excellent submissions, 

and 10 Phase 1 winners were chosen from this pool. The goal was to reach a diverse audience of 

solvers. The submissions were from developers, start-ups, academia, and even high school 

students. The quantity and quality of these submissions was considered a success. In Phase 2, the 

nine winners (one winner declined to compete after Phase 1) were charged with building or 

adapting their proposed intervention, and conducting small scale testing to prove that the 

intervention would indeed result in the intended outcomes. All of the teams achieved positive 

results from their small-scale testing, confirming that these interventions have great potential to 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-79

make a meaningful impact on the word gap. Additionally, the nine interventions represented an 

incredible diversity of approaches and expertise, including hardware devices, apps that provide 

feedback to families, apps that are location-based and send prompts to parents in real-time, and an 

app that is available in English and Spanish.

HRSA held a Demo Day for Phase 2 to showcase the nine winners and what they have developed. 

On Demo Day, held September 22, 2016, each of the nine winners gave a live pitch demonstrating 

their device, and presenting the results from their small scale testing. HRSA organized a Federal 

innovation panel to provide information to the winners about opportunities for further development 

and scaling, and a commercialization panel where representatives from start-ups and incubators 

discussed different avenues for continuing to develop interventions.

While the challenge is still underway, the partnerships that HRSA has established with its

challenge advisors, other agencies, and stakeholders in the field are also considered a success, and 

the plan is to continue these collaborations after the challenge is completed. The collaborations 

were successful, because they contributed to increased public awareness of the challenge and the 

underlying issue it is trying to resolve. Additionally, the advisors and federal colleagues provided 

expertise for the challenge design.

Participants: HRSA used the standard eligibility requirements as suggested in the HHS IDEA Lab 

guidance. The intent was to mobilize non-traditional partners for the agency and to attract a diverse 

array of innovators and solvers, including coders, public health experts, individuals affiliated with 

academic institutions, research and development communities in the private sector, students, and 

others. Phase 1 received 80 submissions, which was narrowed down to 10 winners, nine of which 

participated in Phase 2. Phase 2 had five winners who have proceeded to Phase 3.

Timeline: Submissions were opened November 9, 2015 and closed January 29, 2016, with winners 

announced March 8, 2016. Phase 2 then continued from March 11, 2016 through August 11, 2016, 

with winners announced September 22, 2016. Phase 3 was open from September 26, 2016 to 

March 26, 2017, and winners will be announced May 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: HRSA’s Maternal Child Health Bureau (MCHB), as well as the

contractor Sensis, used social media, email outreach, partnerships with outside organizations, and 

live video streaming of Demo Day to market the competition as well as to promote the winners of 

each Phase. Working with the contractor, HRSA was able to reach diverse populations outside of 

the normal reach of government to garner Phase 1 submissions, as they targeted the technology 

sector, start-ups, and communities of solvers. HRSA also widely promoted the challenge through 

existing grantee networks, which led to greater awareness of the challenge and submissions from 

academia. The nine challenge advisors widely promoted the challenge through their professional 

networks, which include non-profit early childhood organizations, the technology field, and 

pediatric networks.

Incentives: The total cash prize is $325,000 divided among phases as described below:

 Phase 1: 10 winners, $10,000 each;

 Phase 2: 5 winners; $25,000 each; and

 Phase 3: 1 winner; $100,000
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-80

HRSA offered multiple non-monetary incentives to participants. This challenge was announced 

by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and their involvement offered a 

level of national awareness to the challenge. From the beginning of the challenge, nine Federal 

experts were invited to voluntarily serve as advisors. They have not only provided guidance to 

the Federal staff on areas such as structuring the challenge and on the evaluation criteria, but they 

each agreed to serve as a one-on-one advisor to a team they were assigned to in Phase 2. They 

reviewed materials and provided invaluable individualized feedback to their teams throughout 

this phase.

Additionally, opportunities were provided to the Phase 1 winners for networking with members 

of a local start-up (1776) when the winners were in Washington, DC for Demo Day, as well as 

access to panelists who presented during the day. The panelists represented those in Federal 

Government (including the White House) who promote innovation, as well as members of local 

incubators. HRSA MCHB funds the Bridging the Word Gap Research Network, a collaborative 

of 100 nationally recognized researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and funders working 

together on a coordinated national research agenda that addresses the word gap. All 10 Phase 1 

teams’ information is advertised on this website as a mechanism for interested researchers 

affiliated with the network to reach out to them and pursue opportunities for future collaboration.

Evaluation and Judging: A Federal judging panel, with input from the challenge advisors, made 

the judging decisions in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. For Phase 1, both qualitative and quantitative 

goals were set, that allowed for a cohort of the highest-scoring submissions to be discussed and 

evaluated. For Phase 2, the judging was also based on a set of previously established criteria, and 

the judges and advisors used both quantitative and qualitative means to determine the five winners. 

The specific criteria for Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluation are listed below: 

In Phase 1, interventions were judged on the following criteria

 Accessibility: Is the proposed intervention able to be easily utilized by parents of diverse 

economic, social, and cultural backgrounds? Is it functional across disciplines/users?

 Measurability: How easily will the proposed intervention be evaluated in order to 

determine its efficacy (in both lab testing and in the real world)? Is the proposed 

intervention measurable among various audiences?

 Sustainability: Is the proposed intervention “sticky?” Does it fit into daily life? Is it fun to 

use?

 Impact: Does the applicant present a theory or explanation of how the proposed 

intervention would inspire behavior change?

In Phase 2, interventions were judged on the following criteria

 Impact: How did the intervention impact target outcomes for parents/caregivers and 

children? What did the data show?

 Evidence base: Is the intervention grounded in existing science related to the word gap, 

behavior change, etc.?

 Sustainability: Was the intervention “sticky” among users? Did users want to continuously 

engage with the program?
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-81

 Implementation: How feasible is the intervention? How much support for implementation 

will the intervention require (estimated financial and time commitment)?

Partnerships: HRSA partnered with nine expert advisors, who provide insight and guidance on all 

aspects of the challenge, including design and evaluation criteria. They served as individual 

advisors to the nine Phase 2 winners.

HRSA partnered with other agencies to develop the Federal judging panel; Federal judges include 

staff from the Department of Education and HHS’s Administration of Children and Families and 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. They also helped to promote the 

challenge.

The primary lesson learned from these partnerships is the incredible value of a diverse set of expert 

advisors. They provided unique insights into multiple aspects of the challenge, and their feedback 

to the teams improved the quality of their interventions as they proceed through the stages of the 

challenge. 

Resources: HRSA’s MCHB worked with a contractor to implement the challenge. Sensis was 

awarded approximately $300,000 for three years in September 2014 to administer the challenge.

These funds are separate from the $325,000 prize purse. HRSA’s MCHB also supported travel of 

the nine Phase 1 winners to attend and compete in the in-person Demo Day held at HHS, where 

the five winning teams were announced for Phase 2.

Additionally, multiple Federal staff has been involved in managing the project. 

Results: For Phase 1, the challenge received 80 submissions, of which 10 were selected to move 

forward to Phase 2. One of these teams declined to compete in further stages, and the nine

remaining Phase 1 winners competed in a live Phase 2 Demo Day on September 22, 2016. At the 

conclusion of Demo Day, five winners were selected to advance to Phase 3, the final phase of the 

competition. These teams’ interventions represent an incredible diversity of approaches and 

expertise, including hardware devices, apps that provide feedback to families, apps that are 

location-based and send prompts to parents in real-time, and an app that is available in English and 

Spanish. The challenge completed Phase 3 on March 26, 2017. The final winner will be announced 

in May 2017.

A.5.10 Move Health Data Forward Challenge67

Summary: As health IT adoption continues to grow and mobile health technology becomes more 

accessible, consumers are playing an even greater role in how and when their health information 

is exchanged or shared. Unleashing this data is one of the Office of the National Coordinator for 

Health Information Technology’s (ONC) top priorities, as outlined in the Nationwide 

Interoperability Roadmap, which aims to improve individuals’ ability to send, receive, find, and 

use their health information in the near term. This challenge is designed to produce apps that will 

 

67 www.challenge.gov/challenge/move-health-data-forward-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-82

allow patients to access their health data safely and securely, based on the implementation 

specifications of the HEART working group.

Solution Type: Software and apps; technology demonstration and hardware; and business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; solve a specific problem; and develop 

technology

Results: The challenge has completed two of three phases. The challenge received 28 submissions 

for Phase 1. The submissions included organizations that have not previously submitted to ONC 

challenges, reflecting a broad applicant pool. Submissions mostly came from small technology 

companies that were familiar with the HEART working group implementation specifications and 

planned to use them as part of their solution.

Problem Statement: The Move Health Data Forward Challenge encourages participants to create 

an application programming interface (API) solution that uses the implementation specifications 

created by the HEART Workgroup (HEART WG) to allow people to securely authorize the 

movement of their health data to destinations they choose.

The HEART WG was developed to advance the process of gathering representatives from many 

different health-related technical communities worldwide (private-sector, government and nongovernmental organizations) working in areas such as patient authentication, authorization, and 

consent to collaborate on developing open-source specifications.

The HEART WG has created a set of privacy and security specifications (HEART implementation 

specifications) using the following open standards: OAUTH 2.0, OpenID Connect and User 

Managed Access (UMA). These specifications empower people to control the authorization of 

access to health-related data sharing APIs.

Participants are expected to engage people to test the implementation of the solution and make 

possible processes that need consumers to authorize the release of their health data to a destination 

they choose. Participants must recruit individuals and obtain their authorizations to test the 

implementation of the solution using their health data. The data for the API and solution was

provided by Phase 2 finalists.

The challenge has three phases and two finalists each winning $75,000. Phase 1 awarded $5,000

for 10 finalists each based on the proposals they submitted to the challenge. Phase 1 winners moved 

to Phase 2, which awarded $20,000 to five finalists each based on the prototype of their solution. 

Phase 2 winners moved to Phase 3, which will award $50,000 for up to two winners each based 

on the participants’ ability to implement their solution.

This multi-phased approach allows participants to assemble, implement and test their solutions. 

The final phase of the challenge will require finalists to show a consumer-facing solution that 

incorporates the HEART implementation specifications and uses an API that empowers consumers 

to control the movement of their health data.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-83

Phase 1 submission requirements included a business case and a presentation describing the 

solution and use case for the project. Phase 1 submissions were selected on the strength of their 

business case and a presentation describing their team capabilities, their proposed solution and use 

case for the project.

Phase 2 submission requirements included an implementation plan and a live demo presentation 

of prototypes. Phase 2 submissions were selected on the strength of their implementation plan and 

a presentation demonstrating the effectiveness of their Solutions and their potential impact on 

health records accessibility and data exchange.

Proposed Goals: As health IT adoption continues to grow and mobile health technology becomes 

more accessible, consumers are playing an even greater role in how and when their health 

information is exchanged or shared. Unleashing this data is one of ONC’s top priorities, as 

outlined in the Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap, which aims to improve individuals’ ability 

to send, receive, find, and use their health information in the near term.

To stimulate this work, sometimes referred to as “consumer-mediated exchange” between and 

among their clinicians, hospitals, or even family members, the Move Health Data Forward 

Challenge was launched. The objective of the challenge is to create application programming

interface (API) solutions combined with new implementation specifications that have the potential 

for individuals to securely and electronically authorize the movement of their health data to 

destinations they choose. This work builds on ONC’s work with a number of security, privacy,

and health information technology stakeholders to develop a set of privacy and security 

specifications that enable an individual to control the authorization of access to health data.

Measures of Success: The competition is underway and Phase 1 and 2 winners have been publicly 

announced. Early success measures for the challenge include the number of submissions (28) for 

Phase 1 which is a high number given the complexity of the requirements and the duration of the 

challenge. Additionally, ONC received submissions from a diverse array of organizations, 

including organizations that have not previously submitted proposals for other ONC challenges. 

An important measure of success for this challenge will be whether the winning solutions are able 

to demonstrate a consumer-facing solution that incorporates the HEART implementation 

specifications and uses an API that empowers consumers to control the movement of their health 

data.

Participants: The challenge is open to the public and targeted technology developers and health 

care organizations. Phase 1 required participants to describe the technical, operational, financial 

and business aspects of their proposed solution. The main goal of Phase 1 was for participants to 

show feasible and executable plans for innovative solutions and prove its impact potential. Phase 

1 received 28 submissions. The challenge was run under the authority of Section 105 of the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and therefore had the eligibility criteria pursuant to it.

Timeline: Submissions opened for Phase 1 May 10, 2016, and closed September 8, 2016. Winners 

were announced on November 2, 2016. Phase 2 submissions were due January 16, 2017 and 

winners were announced February 21, 2017. Phase 3 submissions will be due May 1, 2017, and 

winners will be announced May 31, 2017.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-84

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media;

 Email Outreach;

 High-profile challenge announcement (e.g. National Coordinator for Health Information, 

Dr. Karen DeSalvo announced the challenge at Health Datapalooza)

 Blog posts

Incentives: The challenge has a prize purse of up to $250,000. In Phase 1, up to 10 prizes of $5,000 

are available. In Phase 2, up to five prizes of $20,000 are available. In Phase 3, up to two prizes of 

$50,000 are available. The primary non-monetary incentives are the publicity and recognition for 

winning an ONC challenge. Awards will be disbursed by a contractor acquired through the HHS 

Competes Blanket Purchasing Agreement.

Evaluation and Judging: A combined review panel of Federal and non-Federal subject matter 

experts reviewed and scored all Phase 1 and 2 submissions and the Federal challenge managers 

selected the winners, factoring in those reviews. The review was based on adherence to submission 

requirements and the judging criteria outlined in the Federal Register notice. In Phases 1 and 2 the 

Federal challenge managers selected the top 10 and 5 winners respectively, based on quantitative 

results provided by the review panel and their own review of submissions.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: A small team of ONC Federal employees, with one primary challenge manager, 

developed and executed the Move Health Data Forward Challenge. Sensis was acquired through 

the HHS Competes Blanket Purchasing Agreement. The competition used FY15 ONC funding. 

ONC worked with Sensis, a third-party contractor, who provided administrative, challenge 

development, management and communications assistance. 

Results: The challenge has three phases and to date two phases have been completed. The 

challenge received 28 submissions for Phase 1, however not all of the submissions met the 

eligibility criteria to make it to the judging process. The submissions included organizations that 

have not previously submitted to ONC challenges, reflecting a broad applicant pool. Submissions 

were from individuals, single organizations, and teams with representation from multiple 

companies. Submissions mostly came from small technology companies that were familiar with 

the HEART working group implementation specifications and planned to use them as part of their 

solution. Completion of the challenge is expected by June 2017.

A.5.11 NIH: Up For A Challenge (U4C)-Stimulating Innovation in Breast Cancer Genetic 

Epidemiology

Summary: In order to better understand genetic factors that play a key role in the risk of breast 

cancer, this challenge incentivizes scientists to shift their focus from identifying individual gene 

variants to better understanding the pathways that contribute to breast cancer. The winning teams 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-85

developed innovative methods and discovered novel connections with pathways leading to breast 

cancer risk. 

Solution Type: Scientific; and analytics, visualizations, algorithms

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; advance scientific research; and engage new 

people and communities

Results: There were three winning teams, two tying for the grand prize and one placing second. 

Team UCSF not only identified novel associations, but suggested possible biological mechanisms. 

UMN-CSBIO used a novel computational method to identify a major hub of interactions 

associated with breast cancer, one which would have been missed using traditional approaches. 

The second place team, Team Transcription, identified novel associations and developed a 

framework that can be used to identify candidate causal variants for disease risk.

Problem Statement: Despite knowing that genetic factors play a key role in determining who is at 

increased risk of developing breast cancer, results to date explain only a small proportion of the 

estimated genetic contribution to the risk of breast cancer. Participants were challenged to shift 

their focus of analysis from individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to pathways, 

ideally leading to the identification of novel gene sets involved in breast cancer risk. Participants 

will submit a project narrative, which addresses the challenge evaluation criteria, including 

identification of novel findings, replication of findings, innovation of approach, evidence of novel 

biological hypotheses, and collaboration. Currently this is a single challenge but NIH is 

considering additional challenges.

Entries were scored by the U4C Evaluation Panel, 10 extramural expert scientists from diverse 

fields including biostatistics/statistics, breast cancer biology, breast cancer genetic epidemiology, 

computer science, functional research, genetic epidemiology, informatics, and population genetics. 

Scoring was based on the following scoring criteria: Identification of Novel Findings (25 points), 

Replication of Findings (25 points), Innovation of Approach (25 points), Evidence of Novel 

Biological Hypothesis(es) (10 points), and Collaboration (15 points). After the U4C evaluation 

panel provided scores, the highest scoring applications were evaluated for reproducibility, or 

ability to reproduce the novel findings. NIH judges reviewed summaries from the U4C evaluation 

panel, scores, and results from the reproduction to make recommendations to the NCI Director. 

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Director made the final selection of entries for award.

Proposed Goals: The goals of U4C included (1) making breast cancer genetic epidemiologic data 

more widely available (when consistent with participant informed consent); (2) increasing the 

number and diversity of minds tackling a tough scientific problem; (3) shifting the focus of analysis 

from individual genetic variants (i.e., single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) to pathways (i.e., 

combinations of genes, genetic variants, or sets of genomic features); (4) encouraging the use of 

innovative approaches to identify novel pathways, which might lead to the discovery of additional 

gene sets involved in breast cancer risk; and (5) exploring the heritable contribution to breast 

cancer disparities.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-86

Measures of Success: Winners were recently selected, so the complete evaluation of the impact of 

the competition is still underway. The first measure was enhanced data sharing. Seven breast 

cancer genetic datasets were designated for the challenge, four of which were newly available for 

the U4C for a total of approximately 13,000 cases and 13,000 controls. Thirty-three teams were 

approved for access to one or more U4C datasets (through dbGaP application process). Second, 

NIH aimed to broaden the expertise examining the problem. Eighty-seven individuals participated 

in the competition and only 44% of these individuals had previously had an NIH grant. Participants 

in the U4C were from a variety of fields of expertise including bioinformatics, biology, 

biostatistics, computational biology, computer science, genetics, genetic epidemiology, 

epidemiology, population genetics, statistics and statistical genetics. Furthermore, several entries 

were from investigators who had not worked with this type of data previously. Third, the 

competition seemed to encourage formation of new collaborations as the teams participating in the 

challenge had a median of seven new pairwise collaborations. Fourth, the challenge was cost 

effective. The U4C received 15 entries, which represented a substantial amount of work by each 

team. When compared to a grant mechanism that might support this type of work (R21, maximum

budget of $275K or $4.1 M for 15 projects), the challenge was cost effective. Finally, teams were 

able to identify novel findings using new approaches in these datasets. This demonstrated an 

opportunity to advance research using existing data.

Participants: NIH hoped to engage genetic epidemiologists as well as participants from other 

disciplines such as bioinformatics and computer scientists. Participation was limited based on 

COMPETES and NIH requirements. Eighty-seven individuals in 14 teams produced 15 

submissions. 

Timeline: Submissions opened June 15, 2015 and closed February 25, 2016. Winners were 

announced October 20, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: NIH used the following methods of outreach. NIH aimed to mirror the 

innovation of the challenge mechanism in its approaches and believes the outreach was very 

successful. NIH worked with its NCI Offices of Communication to develop detailed 

communication plans.

 Social Media—posted to Twitter, performed a thunderclap campaign, posted to Facebook, 

and LinkedIn. NIH asked many researchers and colleagues to post on social media;

 Email Outreach (such as listservs)—included posting to several listservs and asking many 

key investigators to reach out to their communities. Also utilized contractor lists of 

challenge participants. NIH also emailed innovation hubs, relevant advocacy groups, and 

educational institutions directly;

 Press Release—NIH’s contractor issued a press release;

 Other (please specify)—blog posts, newsletter posts, flyers at several largely attended 

meetings, and meeting presentations.

Incentives: The NCI will award up to $50,000 in prizes based on identification of novel findings, 

replication of findings, innovation of approach, evidence of novel biological hypothesis(es), and 

collaboration. The two grand prize entries will be awarded $20,000. The second place entry will 

be awarded a runner-up prize of $10,000. The top five entries (grand prize, second place, and the 

next two runner-ups) are highlighted on the challenge and DCCPS EGRP websites. The top five
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-87

entries were invited to prepare a manuscript for publication in a special issue of PLoS Genetics 

describing their approach and results.

Evaluation and Judging: Entries were scored by the U4C Evaluation Panel, 10 extramural expert 

scientists from diverse fields including biostatistics/statistics, breast cancer biology, breast cancer 

genetic epidemiology, computer science, functional research, genetic epidemiology, informatics, 

and population genetics. Scoring was based on the following scoring criteria: Identification of 

Novel Findings (25 points), Replication of Findings (25 points), Innovation of Approach (25 

points), Evidence of Novel Biological Hypothesis(es) (10 points), and Collaboration (15 points).

68

After the U4C evaluation panel provided scores, the highest scoring applications were evaluated 

for reproducibility, or ability to reproduce the novel findings by NCI contracted data scientists. 

NIH judges reviewed summaries from the U4C evaluation panel, scores, and results from the 

reproduction to make recommendations to the NCI Director. The NCI Director made the final 

selection of entries for award.

Overall, these evaluation methods were largely effective. The main lesson learned was in regards 

to reproducibility. The process of reproducing submitted findings was more difficult and lengthy 

than initially anticipated. While it was possible to reproduce the main findings, it was necessary to 

consult the entry investigators numerous times to collaboratively solve reproducibility issues 

which arose. In addition, there was tremendous variation in the quality of meta-data and 

instructions for reproduction provided with each application. In some cases, details essential for 

reproduction (e.g. files used, documentation on order of running the provided scripts, and versions 

of software requirement) were not initially provided. This may reflect field-specific conventions. 

In future challenges, NIH suggests considering the following options to facilitate reproduction: 

improving instructions regarding required annotations, designing the competition using dockerized 

tools, and considering a phased approach with a results submission following a submission of 

clearly annotated code.

Partnerships: NIH formed many informal partnerships to ensure a successful prize competition. 

Most partnerships were focused on sharing challenge best practices marketing and outreach.

Resources: Several resources were used to support the prize competition. Internal resources, or 

specifically staff time, led the management and coordination of the challenge. Moreover, staff 

supported the outreach and communications and data access for the challenge. In addition to 

internal resources, funding was used to support a contractor, Sage Bionetworks ($188,000 plus 

$50,000 for the prize) for assistance with coordination. Specifically, Sage advised NCI on the 

development of the challenge, provided and supported the web-based infrastructure for the 

challenge (included registration, entry submission, and evaluation), assisted with addressing 

questions from registrants and participants, managed two webinars, performed the reproduction of 

top scoring entries, and will provide the monetary award to winners. Another contractor, an expert 

research scientist ($44,000), was used to provide scientific insight and leadership to the challenge.

Results: At the end of the competition, there were 201 registrants, 33 teams were approved access 

to the datasets, and 15 entries were submitted from 14 teams (one team made two separate 

 

68 www.synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn3157598/wiki/232618
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-88

submissions). Eighty-seven individuals participated as part of the 14 teams; 44% (N=38) of these 

individuals had previously been a recipient of an NIH grant, and 44% (N=38) of the individuals 

were graduate students. The median number of participants on a team was five (range: 2–13 

members) with a median number of new pairwise collaborations of seven (range: 1–60). Teams 

originated from nine different states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas). Participants in the U4C were from 

a variety of fields of expertise including bioinformatics, biology, biostatistics, computational 

biology, computer science, genetics, genetic epidemiology, epidemiology, population genetics, 

statistics and statistical genetics.

Three entries were selected to win the U4C prize competition. Team UCSF and UMN-CSBIO 

were tied for the grand prize, and Team Transcription was awarded second place.

Team UCSF used all the designated GWAS datasets provided and performed a traditional GWAS 

to replicate previous findings, a genome-wide association of gene expression and admixture 

mapping. Using the genome-wide association of gene expression approach, they identified novel 

associations with the ACAP1 and RTKN2 genes and breast cancer, which was replicated using 

data from the UK biobank. ACAP1 and RTKN2 are in the same gene family. Moreover, ACAP1 

interacts with the third cytoplasmic loop of SLC2A4/GLUT4, while RTKN2 is implicated in the 

activation of NF-κB pathway, suggesting possible biological mechanisms for these findings.

The second grand-prize winner, UMN-CSBIO applied a novel computational method, developed 

initially to analyze yeast data, called BridGE (Bridging Gene sets with Epistasis) for explicitly 

searching for pathway level interactions guided by annotated gene sets from the Molecular 

Signatures Database (MSigDB). By examining pathway interactions using two of the U4C 

designated GWAS datasets, the team identified steroid hormone biosynthesis as a major hub of 

interactions and was implicated as interacting with many pathways, including a gene set previously 

associated with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Most existing studies have reported that 

chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer was a risk factor for AML. Importantly, these 

interactions would have been missed using traditional approaches.

Team Transcription employed a novel integrative genomics approach to explore the hypothesis 

that many of the non-coding single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified by GWAS alter 

transcription factor (TF) binding sites and mediate effect on disease by modulating TF binding and 

gene regulation. This team identified a SNP, rs4802200, in perfect linkage disequilibrium (LD) 

with a GWAS-identified SNP, which is predicted to disrupt ZNF143 binding within a breast 

cancer-relevant regulatory element. This SNP is a strong expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) 

of ZNF404 in breast tissue. This work flow and analysis pipeline can be used as a general 

framework to identify candidate causal variants with regulatory regions and TF binding sites that 

confer phenotypic variation and disease risk.

A.5.12 NIH: A Wearable Alcohol Biosensor Challenge69

 

69 www.challenge.gov/challenge/a-wearable-alcohol-biosensor
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-89

Summary: NIAAA sought the design and production of a wearable device to monitor blood alcohol 

levels in real time and inconspicuous, low profile, and appealing to the wearer. Current technology 

for continuous alcohol monitoring takes a reading every 30 minutes. NIAAA sought a solution 

that improved on this interval and most closely approximated real-time monitoring and data 

collection.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; stimulate market; development of technology

Results: NIAAA received eight submissions. The working prototypes were tested for accuracy and 

reliability in a laboratory setting. The winning prototype and recipient of the $200,000 first prize 

was submitted by BACTrack, and second-prize ($100,000) was awarded to Milo, a Santa Barbara 

technology startup of graduate students. Both devices were noninvasive, worn on the wrist, and 

connected with smartphones.

Problem Statement: NIAAA sought the design and production of a wearable device to monitor 

blood alcohol levels in real time and inconspicuous, low profile, and appealing to the wearer. The 

design could take the form of jewelry, clothing, or any other format located in contact with the 

human body. A non-invasive technology was preferred. Current technologies for real-time 

monitoring of alcohol consumption, used in criminal justice applications, have performed 

adequately, but have disadvantages for broader use. Current technology for continuous alcohol 

monitoring takes a reading every 30 minutes. NIAAA sought a solution that improved on this 

interval and most closely approximated real-time monitoring and data collection. The device was 

to be able to quantitate blood alcohol level, interpret and store the data, or transmit it to a 

smartphone or other device by wireless transmission. Data storage and transmission had to be 

completely secure in order to protect the privacy of the individual. The device was expected to 

have the ability to verify standardization at regular intervals and to indicate loss of functionality. 

The power source was to be dependable and rechargeable. A form of subject identification was an 

added benefit. The device could be removable. This was a reduction to practice challenge that 

required written documentation and a working prototype of the submitted solution. NIAAA was 

open to a range of design forms which could accomplish the above tasks. This remains part of a 

larger portfolio which aims to spur the creation of a wearable biosensor through both this challenge 

and the SBIR program.

The award was contingent upon experimental validation of the submitted solution by the seeker. 

Submissions were judged by a qualified panel selected by NIAAA. The panel evaluated 

submissions based on the following judging criteria: 

 Accuracy, reliability, and frequency of blood alcohol measurement;

 Functionality, accuracy, and integration of data collection, data transmission, and data 

storage;

 Safeguards for privacy protection and data integrity;

 Plans for process of manufacture;

 Marketability and likelihood of bringing the product to market;

 Appeal and acceptability to wearers; and

 Feasibility.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-90

During the judging period, the expert panel was allowed to request additional information or 

clarification in order to evaluate the entry.

Proposed Goals: NIAAA sought the creation of a prototype of a wearable device to monitor blood 

alcohol levels in real time.

Measures of Success: This competition furthered the NIAAA mission in several ways. First and 

foremost, the outreach and press served to increase NIAAA's presence in not only traditional 

circles but also in areas of industry and academia that have historically been less aware of the 

institute and its mission. Secondly, the competition has led to interest from others outside of the 

competition and the possibility of more novel and innovative solutions to monitoring and tracking 

alcohol use and its effects. Thirdly, NIAAA was able to successfully select two working prototypes 

as winners. These will have profound effects on every area of NIAAA's programs, science, and 

ability to achieve its mission. The speed with which NIAAA was able to do this is profound. 

Traditional mechanisms (i.e., grants, or contracts) would not have produced such innovation at 

such a speed.

Participants: NIAAA required that the individuals be U.S. citizens, or that the companies be 

registered as U.S. companies, and not a U.S. Federal employee. The intent was to incentivize 

innovators, be they academics, individuals, or commercial entities. Eight submissions were 

entered.

Timeline: Submissions were open from March to December 2015, and the winners were 

announced May 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: NIAAA actively attended trade shows, lectures, and conferences that 

were attended by innovators, academics, and technology companies. This helped to amplify the 

outreach NIAAA did through the use of email, a press release, and social media. NIAAA did not 

hire a third party and feels that its individual presence at such conferences worked to mobilize 

submissions by attaching significance to its need.

Incentives: 1st Prize $200,000, 2nd Prize $100,000. This money was allocated from NIAAA’s

unconditional gift fund and electronically transferred to the winning companies. They were 

obligated through the use of the public voucher SF-1034.

Evaluation and Judging: Judges included the NIAAA Director, a senior staff member from the 

NIAAA, senior staff members from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 

Bioengineering (NIBIB), a member from the National Advisory Council of the NIAAA, and 

program staff from the NIAAA. The challenge judges were advised by a technical panel consisting 

of individuals with expertise in the following areas:

 Alcohol Pharmacokinetics;

 Chemistry;

 Engineering;

 Information technology and information system security;

 Behavioral and social sciences;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-91

 Development of vehicular alcohol detection systems; and

 Wearables.

The submissions were evaluated based on the following judging criteria:

 Accuracy, reliability, and frequency of blood alcohol measurement as validated by 

NIAAA;

 Functionality, accuracy, and integration of data collection, data transmission, and data 

storage;

 Safeguards for privacy protection and data integrity;

 Plans for process of manufacture;

 Marketability and likelihood of bringing the product to market;

 Appeal and acceptability to wearers; and

 Feasibility.

Each entry was lab tested using human subjects, and approved by the NIAAA IRB, by a leading 

researcher within NIAAA. Data was collected and compared to existing well-established methods 

and models for detecting blood alcohol levels. The results were compared to each other and used 

a key indicator of the prototype’s viability. Each entry was consulted and their individual data was 

shared only with that entry in order to protect intellectual property.

Judges scored each entry based upon the results and evaluation of the criteria.

Partnerships: No partnerships were formed.

Resources: Prize money was allocated from NIAAA’s unconditional gift fund. Personnel costs 

were covered under allocated resources already budgeted for activities related to the NIAAA’s 

mission and the job descriptions of the managers of the competition. An estimated total of 820 

FTE hours were expended to design and execute the challenge: 128 hours at the GS–12 level, 226 

hours at the GS–13 level, 286 at the GS–14 level, and 180 hours at the GS–15 level. Approximately 

$10,000 was spent on travel to pertinent conferences, trade shows, and conventions to perform 

outreach and research for the challenge.

Results: The winning prototype and recipient of the $200,000 first prize was submitted by 

BACTrack, a company known nationally for designing and selling portable breath alcohol testers 

for consumer and professional use. Their entry, the BACTrack Skyn, is worn on the wrist and 

offers continuous, passive, and non-invasive monitoring of a user’s BAC. Alcohol is detected 

using a fuel cell technology similar to that in devices used by law enforcement for roadside alcohol 

testing. The device connects via Bluetooth to a smartphone to store data.

Second Prize: Second-prize ($100,000) was awarded to Milo, a Santa Barbara technology startup 

of graduate students, for their design for a wearable blood alcohol sensor. Milo's wrist-worn 

wearable pairs with a smartphone and uses disposable cartridges to continuously track BAC.

Because the solutions were also novel, NIAAA made two Honorable Mentions: BioInk (a colorchanging tattoo design by a company of the same name), and TAMS (transdermal alcohol 

monitoring system from a team affiliated with Florida International University).
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-92

NIAAA received eight submissions. The working prototypes were tested for accuracy and 

reliability in a laboratory setting. Most of the designs took the form of fitness tracker-type watches 

that estimate blood alcohol content (BAC) based on the amount of alcohol escaping through 

perspiration (known as “transdermal monitoring”). One notable exception was a color-changing 

temporary tattoo applied directly to the skin.

Entries were judged based on accuracy, reliability, and frequency of blood alcohol measurements; 

ability to accurately collect and store data or transmit data to a wireless device; data security and 

privacy safeguards; and plans for manufacturing. The designs were also evaluated for 

marketability, appeal to wearers, and overall feasibility.

With wearable technology becoming ever more popular, NIAAA believes that the Wearable 

Alcohol Biosensor Challenge will continue to stimulate public and private investment in alcoholmonitoring devices. Well-calibrated alcohol biosensors will provide an objective measure of 

alcohol consumption for research studies, with participants being able to avoid the inconvenience 

and discomfort of having blood drawn at regular intervals. The data collected would also be more 

accurate than self-report. Alcohol biosensors have commercial appeal as well; members of the 

public concerned with their personal drinking, or in the counsel of a therapist, would be able to 

use the discreet device without stigma.

A.5.13 NIH: Addiction Research: There’s an App for that70

Summary: This challenge’s goal was to develop apps that could be used in addiction research to 

better understand the roots of drug abuse and addiction. Apps allow for collection of data from a 

wider range and larger number of participants, improving research methods to help address this 

public health crisis.

Solution Type: Software/apps

Primary Goals: Develop technology/app; find and highlight innovative ideas; and advance 

scientific research

Results: From 20 submissions, three developed apps were awarded prizes: ICF International Inc., 

Rockville, MD, “Track the Crave”; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, “Substance Abuse 

Research Assistant (SARA)”; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 

“Genomics of Addiction (GENA) App.” The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) concluded 

that functional mobile prototypes could be successfully developed using challenge as a funding 

mechanism, and this mechanism allowed for combining the cost-effective, below R-type, funding, 

interdisciplinary team building, and adoption of the most relevant technological innovations.

Problem Statement: Because the problems stemming from drug abuse and addiction affect almost 

every community and family to some degree, NIDA issued this challenge with the hope that 

contestants will actively mobilize around the need to know more about the roots of drug abuse and 

 

70 nida.ideascale.com/a/pages/addiction-research-theres-an-app-for-that
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-93

addiction. The causes and consequences of addiction are multi-faceted, involving biological, 

behavioral, social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors. These factors likely interact, 

with no single factor exerting substantial independent influence on drug use and addiction risk. 

Unfortunately, most NIDA-funded research addresses these factors separately because it is 

difficult to collect data on the large numbers of participants needed to understand the multi-factor 

relationships. Mobile technology offers the capacity to recruit large numbers of participants, in 

diverse and distant places, and to collect prospective data on a broad range of variables as these 

study participants go about their daily lives.

The recently unveiled ResearchKitTM developed by Apple Inc. was chosen as the available and 

sustainable platform designed specifically for biomedical research.

71 ResearchKitTM is an opensource software, which makes it easy for researchers and developers to create apps for specific 

biomedical research questions by circumventing development of custom code. NIDA’s choice of 

ResearchKitTM as the platform was a response to Apple’s release of a set of tools specifically 

intended for use in health research.

NIDA aimed at coders, data scientists and physicians to develop a novel mobile application (app) 

for future addiction research.

NIDA expected that research questions to be answered could include, but were not limited to: 

Would tracking lifestyle choices, behaviors, nutrition, stress, social participation, work, school, 

home, neighborhood, genetics, exposure to technology, etc. help to understand why some people 

manage to stay away from drug abuse and addiction? What contributes to the choice to abuse 

prescription drugs? How can we systematically collect the experience of patients recovering from 

addiction? Are there innovative approaches to recording patients’ experiences of impact and 

burden of drug addiction over time? Can the benefits of reduced drug use be meaningfully 

detected? Can we reveal and collect the participant-identified disease impacts and the preferences 

for treatment impacts to identify meaningful, significant, perhaps novel, and potential measures of 

benefit?

Proposed Goals: The challenge had three goals:

 NIDA aimed to develop novel apps for future addiction research explicitly created on 

Apple Inc.'s ResearchKitTM framework.

NIDA was seeking to engage communities to envision and to create an app which will help 

advance scientific research in areas of nicotine, opioids, cannabinoids (including 

marijuana), methamphetamines, and prescription drug use. NIDA was also interested in 

further understanding abstinence and wellness as it relates to drug addiction. The app must 

be explicitly created for future scientific research purposes, and not for self-help, education, 

or self-wellness monitoring like other apps already available on iTunes.

 NIDA aimed to test if research apps can be developed using the challenge funding 

mechanism.

 

71 www.apple.com/researchkit
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-94

 NIDA aimed to confirm that the challenge and prize competition funding authority is a 

good funding mechanism for NIDA. This challenge aimed to test “best practices” in 

partnership and outreach.

Measures of Success: The general purpose of NIDA is to conduct and support biomedical and 

behavioral research, health-services research, research training, and health-information 

dissemination with respect to the prevention of drug abuse and the treatment of drug abusers. Apps

developed as a result of this challenge could help NIDA to gain strides in behavioral addiction 

research. NIDA plans to develop a subsequent funding program for a future research study with 

real human subjects that will help researchers to better understand drug abuse and addiction.

Participants: The challenge received 20 entries. The eligibility requirements included U.S.

citizenship or permanent residency. The submission package included:

 A white paper describing the app built upon the proposed design of future scientific 

research studies;

 A video of the app prototype; and

 App working software using Apple’s ResearchKitTM framework.

Although Apple’s ResearchKitTM lowers the barriers for medical researchers in terms of custom 

coding, NIDA hoped that the creation of new apps will be done best by contestants with a 

combination of IT skills and clinical research expertise.

NIDA encouraged addiction researchers to use the newly available technical capabilities of 

ResearchKitTM and seek collaboration(s) with app developers and engineers to create the winning 

research app.

Timeline: Submissions opened November 3, 2015 and closed April 29, 2016. Winners were 

announced August 19, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media (Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (NIH/NIDA grantees listserv; Facing Addiction listserv);

 Press Release (29 publications including Apple ResearchKitTM website and Fortune);

 Conference presentations (mHealth summit 2016, Washington, DC; BHI-2016 

International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics, LA); and

 Partnership with Outside Organizations.

NIDA has learned that the level of the public interest to the challenge strongly correlates with the 

level of outreach activities.

Incentives: The total amount of the cash prize was $100,000 (NIDA FY16 Appropriation 

Extramural funds): $50,000 for first place, $30,000 for second place, and $20,000 for third place.

Non-monetary incentives included:

 Public recognition on Ideascale, NIDA, and Apple ResearchKitTM Blog websites; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-95

 Invitation of the first place winners to the Open Data Innovation Summit on September 28, 

2016.

Evaluation and Judging: The challenge review panel included Federal employees from National 

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The judging panel made recommendations to the award approving official based upon eight

success criteria. Each criterion was scored with the maximum of five points.

 Quality of the research agenda; 

 Proposed ResearchKitTM modules;

 Add-apters;

 Compliance with applicable legal policies;

 Study participants’ engagement;

 Durability of study participation; 

 Clarity of the app context; and

 Data quality for researchers.

The partners from Scripps Translational Science Institute and Sage Bionetworks Inc. served as 

executive consultants for technical questions.

NIDA found that involvement of judges in the process of challenge development was valuable in 

order to increase the quality of submissions and review expectations.

Partnerships: NIDA was partnering with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Innovation, Design, Entrepreneurship and Action Lab program; U.S. General Services 

Administration; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Sage Bionetworks; Scripps Translational 

Science Institute; and IdeaScale.

The partnering organizations provided voluntary in-kind support to design review criteria, 

marketing the challenge through the public media, email outreach, and blogs.

Resources: The challenge was executed by:

 NIDA challenge manager, GS–15 (10 % efforts), 168 FTE hours;

 NIDA challenge administrator, GS–14 (35% efforts), 588 FTE hours; and

 NIDA contractor (15% efforts), 252 hours.

Additionally, IdeaScale was used as the platform at a cost of $17,104.

Results: The “Addiction Research: There’s an App for that” challenge became the 700th challenge 

launched on Challenge.gov.

NIDA received 20 submissions;

 18 submissions were compliant with eligibility criteria and reviewed;

 14 developed apps were found well responsive to the challenge goals; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-96

 3 developed apps were selected for the cash prizes

The challenge participating teams were from U.S. academic institutions, small business 

companies, and public. Only 25% of submitted ideas came from NIH/NIDA researchers.

Winners:

 First place: ICF International Inc., Rockville, MD. The team of three ICF employees was 

awarded for the submission entitled “Track the Crave.”

 Second place: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The team of five undergraduate 

and master’s students was awarded for the submission entitled “Substance Abuse Research 

Assistant (SARA).” Five UM faculty served as the consultants to the team.

 Third place: Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. The team of two

WU faculty and a small business partner (Slickers Inc.) was awarded for the submission 

entitled “Genomics of Addiction (GENA) App.”

NIDA concluded:

 Functional mobile prototypes could be successfully developed using challenge as a funding 

mechanism;

 The challenge mechanism allows for combining the cost-effective, below R-type, funding, 

interdisciplinary team building and adoption of the most relevant technological 

innovations; and

 Challenge mechanism is more suitable for the solving of discrete, persistent scientific 

problems in the research portfolio.

A.5.14 NIH/ASPR: Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Need Diagnostic Test72

Summary: Given the escalating crisis of antimicrobial resistance, this challenge is designed to 

develop in vitro diagnostic tests to better inform clinical treatment decisions in antibiotic use and 

addressing antibiotic resistant pathogens found in patients. More rapid diagnostic tests could 

significantly improve patient outcomes and combat the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Solution Type: Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; advance scientific research; and develop 

technology

Results: As of October 24, 2016, the challenge has eight registrants. Step 1 remained open through 

January 9, 2017, and the entire challenge will run through July 2020.

Problem Statement: Through the “Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Need Diagnostic 

Test” challenge, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Biomedical Advanced Research 

and Development Authority (BARDA) of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness 

and Response (ASPR) are searching for novel and innovative in vitro diagnostic tests that would 

 

72 www.challenge.gov/challenge/antimicrobial-resistance-rapid-point-of-care-diagnostic-letter-of-intent
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-97

rapidly inform clinical treatment decisions and be of potential significant clinical and public health 

utility to combat the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Tests of interest will 

provide novel, innovative solutions for use in inpatient and/or outpatient settings. The goal of the 

challenge is to identify a diagnostic test that when utilized would lead to more rapid clinical 

decision-making such that antibiotic use and/or outcomes of patients infected with resistant 

pathogens are fundamentally improved compared to current standard of care, and/or reduce 

transmission of resistant pathogens such that population infection rates significantly decrease. The 

challenge competition seeks to incentivize a broad range of scientists, engineers, and innovators 

to develop diagnostic tests that would enable health care providers to make more informed 

decisions on appropriate antibiotic use and infection prevention. 

This challenge, structured in three steps, will complement existing BARDA and NIH research 

portfolios by reaching out to a diverse population of innovators and solvers, including not only 

those from academic institutions, but also those from research and development communities in 

the private sector, and others who are outside biomedical disciplines. This challenge will stimulate 

investment from both public and private sectors in rapid, point-of-need in vitro diagnostic assay 

research and product development, which, in turn, could lead to the development of more sensitive, 

accurate, robust, and cost-effective assay approaches and devices for clinical diagnosis.

The prize-winning in vitro diagnostic(s) must meet a set of predefined technical criteria and 

performance characteristics based on the intended use(s). Solutions submitted to this challenge 

should have the potential to significantly improve clinical decision-making compared to the 

current standard of care. Solutions also should be novel, innovative, rapid, and appropriate for use 

at the point-of-need. Ultimately the solution should be an in vitro diagnostic assay(s) that can

improve antibiotic decision-making by health care providers and be effective in reducing 

inappropriate use of antibiotics; demonstrate a clinically significant advance in diagnostic test 

performance; and address gaps or deficiencies in current capabilities that may include, but are not 

limited to ease of use, time to result, significant advances in sensitivity and specificity, and ability 

to process a broad range of specimen types.

Proposed Goals: The goal of the challenge is to identify a diagnostic test that when utilized would 

lead to more rapid clinical decision-making such that antibiotic use and/or outcomes of patients 

infected with resistant pathogens are fundamentally improved compared to current standard of 

care, and/or reduce transmission of resistant pathogens such that population infection rates 

significantly decrease. The challenge competition seeks to incentivize a broad range of scientists, 

engineers, and innovators to develop diagnostic tests that would enable health care providers to 

make more informed decisions on appropriate antibiotic use and infection prevention.

Measures of Success: As this competition is still ongoing, it is not possible to measure its success 

in incentivizing the development of innovative, rapid, point-of-care in vitro diagnostics for the 

detection of drug resistant bacteria. We have received a number of inquiries from potential 

submitters from academic institutions, medical schools, and the medical diagnostic industry. 

These inquiries have provided NIH the opportunity to provide information on other relevant 

funding opportunities in the area of AMR research and to share information on our existing 

research programs. Another benefit resulting from this competition is the ongoing discussions 

between the NIH and BARDA in regards to the complementary portfolios each is supporting in 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-98

the area of AMR diagnostics, as well as the advantage to participate in technical discussions with 

FDA and CDC about AMR diagnostics. Additionally, this competition has provided NIH the 

opportunity to become familiar with the U.K. Longitude Prize and the European Union Horizon 

Prize—both of which are prize competitions for the development of novel in vitro diagnostics for 

AMR bacteria. 

Participants: The AMR Diagnostic challenge seeks to incentivize a broad range of scientists, 

engineers, and innovators, including not only those from academic institutions, but also those from 

research and development communities in the private sector and others who are outside biomedical 

disciplines, to develop diagnostic tests which will enable health care providers to make more 

informed decisions on appropriate antibiotic use and infection prevention. As the contest is 

ongoing the total participant pool has not yet been established.

Timeline: Step 1 of the challenge opened September 8, 2016 and closed January 9, 2017. Winners 

of Step 1 will be announced March 27, 2017 and Step 2 opens March 28, 2017. Step 2 will be due 

September 4, 2018. Winners will be announced on December 3, 2018. Step 3 will open December 

4, 2018. Step 3 will be due January 3, 2020. Winner(s) will be announced July 31, 2020.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: A total of $20 million in cash prizes will be offered. In Step 1, up to 20 awards of up 

to $50k each are offered; in Step 2, up to 10 awards of up to $100k are offered; in Step 3, up to 

three awards totaling $18 million are offered. Additionally, access to expert feedback, a national 

platform, and future market opportunities are expected to drive additional participation.

Evaluation and Judging: Judging will occur in three steps. In the first two steps, a panel of judges 

(yet to be identified) will select winners. In the final step, an additional laboratory testing element 

will be added, likely conducted by a third-party laboratory testing facility. 

Partnerships: NIH and HHS/ASPR’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority 

(BARDA) have partnered with other HHS Agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in designing and operationalizing the 

challenge. Additionally, informal discussions are ongoing with UK’s NESTA, which is running a 

similar prize competition globally called the Longitude Prize.

Resources: In addition to the $20 million in cash prize obligations, NIH has obligated $1m in 

contractor costs to help operationalize the challenge. Additionally, several FTEs have been 

dedicated to managing the internal collaborations and the design.

Results: The AMR Diagnostic challenge opened September 8, 2016, and is ongoing. As of October 

24, 2016, the challenge has eight registrants and each has submitted the mandatory letter of intent. 

The deadline for Step 1 submissions was January 9, 2017. The deadline for Step 2 submissions is 

September 4, 2018, and the deadline for Step 3 submissions is January 3, 2020. The winner(s) of 

the AMR Diagnostic Challenge will be announced on July 31, 2020.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-99

A.5.15 NIH: Climate Change and Environmental Exposures Challenge73

Summary: This challenge is designed to help visualize and share data on the effects of increasing 

exposures to extreme heat, air pollution, flooding, and other effects of climate change on 

communities. These kinds of tools can help cities reduce risk and prioritize efforts to protect 

communities from these effects. Participants were asked to produce submissions that could help 

identify potential areas or zones of increased exposure and/or the degree of changes in exposure 

or health risk resulting from climate change.

Solution Type: Software and apps; and analytics, visualizations, algorithm

Primary Goals: Inform and educate the public; engage new people and communities; and build 

capacity

Results: A total of 11 entries were submitted. Participants ranged from academic teams to public 

health departments, students, and unaffiliated individuals. Participants came from all across the 

United States. In general, the winning entries were novel and interesting in the quality of 

presentation and the creative juxtaposition of datasets for produce visualizations, and called for in 

the challenge description. One national and one local first place winner were selected, and there 

was a tie for the local second place winners.

Problem Statement: Research into the effects of climate change on environmental exposures is 

growing, but data from such studies needs real world application. This challenge asked innovators 

to develop visualizations, analytics, and/or apps that show how particular exposures (e.g., 

pesticides, toxic waste, etc.) would affect a particular location. Awards were offered for solutions 

at both the national and the local/municipal levels. This challenge was part of the larger Climate 

and Health Innovation Challenge Series, a collaboration among Esri, the HHS Office of Business 

Management and Transformation, and NIEHS.

Participants were asked to use existing tools or platforms or create their own application to produce 

these visualizations. The geographic scale of the visualization could be as small as the 

neighborhood or community level or as large as the regional or national level. Participants were 

asked to produce submissions that could help identify potential areas or zones of increased 

exposure and/or the degree of changes in exposure or health risk resulting from climate change. 

Participants could consider a short-term time scale (e.g., 0 to 20 years) for impacts associated with 

extreme events, or a longer time scale (e.g., 2050 or beyond) for impacts associated with sea level 

rise or other phenomena whose greatest impact will clearly be decades from now.

Proposed Goals: The primary objectives of the prize competition were to engage new technical 

communities in considering the health implications of climate change; to better inform and educate 

the public; and to build capacity to inform local and national decisions regarding environmental 

exposures.

 

73 www.niehs.nih.gov/funding/challenges/climate_change
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-100

Communities can face health risks from a variety of environmental exposures, including hazardous 

wastes and deposits of industrial chemicals, air pollution, harmful algal blooms, toxic 

contaminants in food, and exposures to pesticides. The effects of climate change may exacerbate 

these health risks. Fortunately, newly released data and tools, in combination with other publicly 

available datasets, allow for innovative approaches to demonstrate and assess such risks.

Better information about climate change’s potential impacts on environmental exposures would 

improve a wide range of important protective decisions. At the local level, such decisions might 

include where to build structures for potentially vulnerable populations, like day care centers or 

new housing. This information could also assist local decision makers on critical infrastructure 

questions, such as where to place new water intakes for drinking water systems, design or siting 

of urban waste water drainage or green infrastructure, or placement of monitoring equipment or 

other sensors.

At the national level, greater understanding of climate change’s influence on the magnitude and 

spatial distribution of environmental exposures could inform decisions about prioritizing efforts to 

remove or control pollution and contaminants.

Measures of Success: Because the goals of the challenge were qualitative in nature, a qualitative 

narrative is provided to illustrate the challenge’s success with respect to its goals.

Inform and educate the public

The challenge, its results, and the tools that were recognized as winners were all conveyed to a 

broad general audience. The challenge winners were announced at a public meeting of the NAEHS 

Council, which was also webcast. The announcement of winning tools was disseminated on 

NIEHS websites74 as well as through multiple listservs and networks inside and outside the Federal 

Government.

Stories about the challenge appeared in widely disseminated government newsletters and websites, 

including:

 White House Climate and Health Fact Sheet75;

 The NIEHS Environmental Factor, June 201676;

 PEPH newsletter77, webinar78;

 Challenge.gov79; and

 The HHS COMPETES newsletter (April 28, #3)

The challenge and individual winners were also written up in:

 

74 www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/climatechange/index.cfm; 

www.niehs.nih.gov/funding/challenges/climate_change/index.cfm

75 Obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/04/fact-sheet-what-climate-change-means-your-healthand-family

76 www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter//2016/4/feature/feature1-climate/index.htm

77 April 2016 at www.niehs.nih.gov/PEPH

78 www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/peph/webinars/climate_change

79 www.challenge.gov/challenge/the-niehs-climate-change-and-environmental-exposures-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-101

 Non-governmental blogs and articles, including the American Lung Association blog80;

 A TV and web story81; and

 Web story.

82

In addition, NIEHS staff are demonstrating and discussing the winning tools in numerous 

professional society and academic settings, including the American Public Health Association, 

American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, lectures at UNC and other 

academic institutions, NIEHS webinars.

Engage new people and communities

The challenge was broadly disseminated to data science/engineering/visualization/mapping 

communities, including undergraduate and graduate programs that had not previously engaged 

with NIEHS directly on the issue of climate change. Entrants included people from fields of 

technology and engineering, data and climate science, modeling and mapping, data visualization, 

and others that are not traditionally engaged on environmental health research questions. Judges 

included professionals from data science/mapping (Esri) who were relatively new to the nexus of 

environmental exposures and climate change.

Build capacity

With the winning tools only recently being published and demonstrated, it is still early to evaluate 

the challenge’s success with respect to the goal of building capacity. The tools have been well 

placed on the internet, however, for communities to be able to access and use them. These sites 

include the NIEHS website Resources for Scientists and Climate Change and Health webpages; 

and the Climate Resilience Toolkit www.toolkit.climate.gov, a Federal repository of publicly 

available data and information tools to build individual and community resilience on climate 

change. In addition, the winning tools are posted on entrant organization websites.

83,84,85,86

Participants: The agency hoped to mobilize students of public health, environmental sciences, 

geography, and computer science, as well as professionals working in those fields, to address 

issues at the nexus of climate change and environmental exposure assessment. Eleven submissions 

were received from 10 teams.

The rules for participating in the challenge and eligibility were as follows:

 To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:

o Shall have registered to participate in the challenge under the rules promulgated by the 

NIEHS as published in this notice;

o Shall have complied with all the requirements set forth in this notice;

 

80 www.lung.org/about-us/blog/2016/04/protecting-our-climate-earth-day.html

81 www.wdbj7.com/news/local/new-technology-provides-data-for-first-responders-ahead-of-disasters/38863794

82 news.medicine.iu.edu/releases/2016/03/environmental-climate-change-challenge-wang.shtml

83 upwiththewaters.wustl.edu

84 www.sfclimatehealth.org

85 sites.google.com/site/iumdcat

86 ndssl.vbi.vt.edu/gis/pieviz
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-102

o In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of 

business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating 

singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States 18 

years of age or older;

o May not be a Federal entity;

o May not be a Federal employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment 

and further, in the case of HHS employees, may not work on their submission(s) during 

assigned duty hours;

o May not be an employee of the NIH, a judge of the challenge, or any other party 

involved with the design, production, execution, or distribution of the challenge or the 

immediate family of such a party (i.e., spouse, parent, step-parent, child, or step-child).

 Federal grantees may not use Federal grant funds to develop their challenge submissions 

unless use of such funds is consistent with the purpose of their grant award and specifically 

requested to do so due to the challenge design, and as announced in the Federal Register.

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop their challenge 

submissions or to fund efforts in support of their challenge submission.

 Submissions must not infringe upon any copyright or any other rights of any third party.

 By participating in this challenge, each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) 

and entity agrees to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal 

Government and its related entities (as defined in the America COMPETES Act), except 

in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, 

revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from participation in 

this challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or 

otherwise.

 Based on the subject matter of the challenge, the type of work that it will possibly require, 

as well as an analysis of the likelihood of any claims for death, bodily injury, property 

damage, or loss potentially resulting from challenge participation, no individual (whether 

competing singly or in a group) or entity participating in the challenge is required to obtain 

liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this 

challenge.

 By participating in this challenge, each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) 

and entity agrees to indemnify the Federal Government against third-party claims for 

damages arising from or related to challenge activities.

 An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used 

Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during the challenge, if the facilities 

and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the 

challenge on an equitable basis.

 By participating in this challenge, each individual (whether participating singly or in a 

group) and entity grants to the NIH an irrevocable, paid-up, royalty-free nonexclusive 

worldwide license to post, link to, share, and display publicly on the Web the submission. 

Each participant will retain all other intellectual property rights in their submissions, as 

applicable.

 NIH reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to (a) cancel, suspend, or modify the challenge;

and/or (b) not award any prizes if no submissions are deemed worthy.

 Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) or entity agrees to follow all 

applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-103

 Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) and entity participating in this 

challenge must comply with all terms and conditions of these rules, and participation in 

this challenge constitutes each such participant's full and unconditional agreement to abide 

by these rules. Winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein.

Timeline: Submissions opened October 1, 2015 and ran through February 2, 2016. Winners were 

announced February 23, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: The total amount of prize money available was $35,000, which was obligated in FY

2015. A total of $30,000 was awarded by the judges in FY 2016 after evaluating the entries. The 

source of the funds was NIEHS Office of the Director Research and Development allocation. All 

participants received reviews and written feedback from a panel of expert advisors as well as from 

the Federal judges. Winners of the challenge also received publicity, including a formal 

announcement at the publicly webcast NIEHS Advisory Council meeting in February 2016, as 

well as mention in the NIEHS eFactor newsletter, the NIEHS Global Environmental Health 

newsletter, the NIEHS Partnerships for Environmental Public Health (PEPH) newsletter and a 

podcast, and other outlets. Finally, winning entries were posted to the White House Climate 

Resilience Toolkit, affording extra visibility and credibility.

Evaluation and Judging: A panel of three Federal employees served as judges for the challenge. 

The judges were aided by evaluations of the entries by a panel of five technical advisors who 

represented a diversity of technical expertise and included community perspectives. Because of 

the diversity of topics and approaches, the judging was based on a rubric that weighed scientific 

validity (34%), innovative use of data (33%), and clarity/accessibility (33%). 

The use of non-Federal advisors and Federal judges worked well for this challenge. The use of a 

standard rubric and evaluation form also helped with making the evaluation and judging process 

objective and transparent, as well as providing a useful means for giving feedback to all the 

participants.

Partnerships: The primary partner for NIEHS was Esri, which provided technical guidance, 

including two of the technical advisors on the panel, as well as support for publicity (through Esri 

websites and Twitter accounts) and the offering of the Esri ArcGIS developer platform for 

participants to use.

The HHS Office of Business Management and Transformation provided assistance with setting up 

and managing the Challenge.gov website and providing additional publicity for the challenge.

Resources: Permanent staff were utilized to design, implement, judge, communicate with 

participants, and publicize the results for this challenge. A small amount of contractor support was 

also utilized to create forms and reports and to facilitate conference calls and meetings. The 

challenge was run on the no-cost Challenge.gov platform.

Results: A total of eleven entries were submitted. Participants ranged from academic teams to 

public health departments, students, and unaffiliated individuals. Participants came from all across 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-104

the United States. It is unknown whether all participants had worked with the Federal Government 

previously. Several participants had separate grants from HHS for work on climate change and 

health. In general, the winning entries were novel and interesting in the quality of presentation and 

the creative juxtaposition of datasets for produce visualizations, and called for in the challenge 

description.

Here is a description of the winners:

National First Place Winner: PIE VIZ: Populations, Infrastructures, and Exposures Visualization 

Tool (Virginia Tech University)87

Developed by a team at Virginia Tech, PIE VIZ combines datasets on power outages, air pollution 

levels, and extreme heat across the contiguous United States and includes tools to incorporate 

social isolation metrics. It allow users to visualize county-level extreme heat and dangerous air 

pollution days and to view county specific attributes including numbers of isolated persons.

Local First Place Winner: Effects of Climate Change on the Future of Local Communities in 

Indianapolis: A Prototype (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis)88

Created by a team at IUPUI, this tool leverages climate and health data in an interactive web portal 

that displays and communicates potential health and environmental effects of climate change 

including flooding, extreme heat, and air pollution, on a low income, disadvantaged Indianapolis 

neighborhood, the Near West Neighborhood.

Local Second Place Winner (Tie): The San Francisco Climate and Health Profile (San Francisco 

Department of Public Health)89

Developed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the San Francisco Climate and 

Health profile is an innovative web-based tool that links climate change projections with their 

associated health outcomes and identifies populations and locations most vulnerable to these health 

outcomes. By centralizing and formalizing the collection of neighborhood-level data, the Climate 

and Health Profile provides neighborhood organizations, city departments, and direct service 

providers a simple, streamlined way to access information on climate and health.

Local Second Place Winner (Tie): Up with the Waters: Climate Change, Flooding and 

Contamination in the River City (Washington University)90

Developed by a team based at Washington University in St. Louis, Up With the Waters is a series 

of maps that help residents identify areas of greatest potential risks of exposure in future flooding 

events. The tool includes various maps highlighting the number of St. Louisans that live and work 

near contamination sites within the floodplain. Visualizations also identify public parks that have 

high likelihood of becoming contaminated. This tool is intended to help government and land 

managers prioritize clean-up of the most heavily contaminated and populated areas within the 

flood plain in order to minimize exposure risks to the people of St. Louis.

 

87 ndssl.vbi.vt.edu/gis/pieviz

88 sites.google.com/site/iumdcat

89 www.sfclimatehealth.org

90 upwiththewaters.wustl.edu
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-105

A.5.16 NIH: Design by Biomedical Undergraduate Teams (DEBUT)91

Summary: This challenge encourages undergraduate students to pursue solving biomedical 

problems. Not only does this challenge produce useful biomedical developments, many of which 

are translated into patents and startups, the challenge encourages students to push their boundaries 

and strengthens the future STEM workforce.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware (main); business plans; and analytics, 

visualizations, algorithms

Primary Goals: Build capacity; develop technology; and find and highlight innovative ideas

Results: In 2016, DEBUT engaged 354 students in 72 teams from 30 universities in 17 states and

Washington, D.C. Not only the winners, but a majority of the submissions were noted by the judges 

to be of very high quality suggesting that DEBUT had succeeded in encouraging students to push 

their boundaries. Five prizes were awarded, along with four honorable mentions. Winning teams 

included smart pills for sample collection from TB patients, improved cervical cancer detection, 

and devices to help better sterilize and guide standard hospital work. Several of the winning teams 

of this year’s competition are in the process of applying for patents or forming startups to 

commercialize their products. 

Problem Statement: DEBUT challenge is open to teams of undergraduate students working on 

projects that develop innovative solutions to unmet health and clinical problems. The main 

requirement was a working technology solution to a real-world problem in healthcare. Specific 

judging criteria were significance, impact, innovative design, and working prototype. The entrants 

had the option of including an additional section that addressed patentability, market potential and 

economic feasibility of the project in order to be eligible for Venture and Design Excellence prizes 

awarded by partner VentureWell.

Proposed Goals:

 To provide undergraduate students valuable experiences such as working in teams, 

identifying unmet clinical needs, and designing, building, and debugging solutions for such 

open-ended problems;

 To generate novel, innovative tools to improve healthcare, consistent with NIBIB’s 

purpose to support research, training, the dissemination of health information, and other 

programs with respect to biomedical imaging and engineering and associated technologies 

and modalities with biomedical applications;

 To highlight and acknowledge the contributions and accomplishments of undergraduate 

students; and

 

91 www.nibib.nih.gov/training-careers/undergraduate-graduate/design-biomedical-undergraduate-teams-debutchallenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-106

 To encourage students to think about the patentability, market potential, and economic 

feasibility of the solutions they developed.

Measures of Success: In 2016, DEBUT engaged 354 students in 72 teams from 30 universities in 

17 states and Washington, D.C. Not only the winners, but a majority of the submissions were noted 

by the judges to be of very high quality suggesting that DEBUT had succeeded in encouraging 

students to push their boundaries. Biomedical Engineering (BME) Capstone Design instructors 

around the country use DEBUT as a galvanizing tool and require/encourage their students to 

prepare/submit entries to DEBUT. Several of the winning teams of this year’s competition are in 

the process of applying for patents or forming startups to commercialize their products. Having 

successfully completed the fifth year of the DEBUT challenge, NIBIB is in the process of reaching 

out to past winners to determine how many of the teams have taken further steps to translate their 

innovation.

Participants: Seventy-two teams composed of a total of 354 students competed in DEBUT. 

DEBUT is geared toward undergraduate students in BME. Teams made up of at least three

undergraduate students can compete in the competition. At least one student must be in a BME 

department. Foreign students can compete and receive public recognition if their team wins. 

However, they are not eligible to receive prize money.

Timeline: Submissions for DEBUT opened March 1, 2016 and closed May 30, 2016. The winners 

were announced August 22, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: $75,000 was distributed in total prizes. Six prize winners and four honorable mentions 

were recognized at an award ceremony held at the 2016 Biomedical Engineering Society 

Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota in October. Public recognition also included press releases, 

website, and social media postings.

All cash prizes were obligated to NIBIB's Direct Appropriation Account, TAFS 75-16-0898.

Evaluation and Judging: The NIBIB director was responsible for the final designation of winners 

of the NIBIB prizes. He based this decision on the evaluation of a judging panel made up of NIH 

staff with related expertise. This panel took into consideration the evaluation of a panel of experts 

our partner VentureWell convened in order to make its selections for Venture and Design 

Excellence prizes. All judging was based on the review criteria announced for the prizes. The most 

important lesson learned was that in evaluating biomedical design projects, judges with technical 

and clinical backgrounds can place emphasis on different aspects of a product. Hence it is 

important to have sufficient representation from both groups.

Partnerships: In this fifth year of the DEBUT challenge, NIBIB formed a public-private 

partnership with VentureWell, a higher education non-profit that describes its mission as “to 

launch new ventures from an emerging generation of young inventors driven to improve life for 

people and the planet.” The joint competition was able to enhance the set of prizes available to 

students as well as offer a single portal for submitting entries. In addition to maintaining this 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-107

informational and entry submission portal, VentureWell contributed to publicizing the competition 

as well as the receipt and evaluation of the entries.

Resources: Three members of NIBIB staff were mostly responsible for the management of the 

competition and the awarding of prizes. Eight others were involved in the judging of the entries. 

Agency funding was used for the prizes. As mentioned above, NIBIB’s partner VentureWell 

contributed to publicizing the competition, maintaining an informational and submission website, 

and the receipt and evaluation of the entries.

Results: In 2016, DEBUT engaged 354 students in 72 teams from 30 universities in 17 states and

Washington, D.C. The teams were made up of 3 to 20 students, with most teams comprising 4 to 

6 students. Most entrants were seniors in BME departments. However, many teams included 

students from other departments as well as students from different years (freshman, sophomore, 

and junior). This was in line with our goal of engaging students in complex, interdisciplinary 

teams. Additionally, engaging of students in sophisticated design projects in the initial years of 

their education introduces them to design concepts early and allows them to build on this 

foundation in subsequent years.

This year’s first prize winner was a smart pill that collects a gastric acid sample from pediatric 

patients who cannot cough forcefully enough to produce a sputum to be used in the diagnosis of 

Tuberculosis (TB). TB, which inflicted 9.6 million people around the world in 2014, can be treated 

with high success rate if diagnosed early. Hence the smart pill has the potential for significant 

impact on global health. Other winning projects included a point-of-care device for the improved 

diagnosis and staging of sepsis, which is critical for proper treatment; a system that improves 

sensitivity and specificity of cervical cancer detection in LMICs by integrating a speculum-fitted 

custom camera system with a lesion detection algorithm on a smart phone, with a projected cost 

of $22/device; a practical and safe device that eradicates 99.9% of bacteria in a central venous 

catheter (CVC) hub using germicidal ultraviolet-C rays; a device for the single-handed insertion 

of CVCs that allows the physician to use the other hand to hold an ultrasound probe for image 

guidance, helping to prevent the needle tip from puncturing nearby structures; and a custom nasopancreatic stent for localized cooling of the pancreas for the treatment of acute pancreatitis.

A.5.17 NIH: Novel, Innovative Tools to Increase Public Awareness and Knowledge of Sickle

Cell Disease Undergraduate Challenge92

Summary: Lack of awareness of sickle cell disease (SCD) contributes to stigma and sub-optimal 

patient care. For that reason, this challenge targets undergraduate students, encouraging them to 

develop tools, apps, and designs that spread awareness of SCD. Three winning solutions were 

identified from the challenge. The winning designs are continuing on to be spread to larger 

audiences and communities, creating greater awareness of SCD.

Solution Type: Software and apps; and creative (design and multimedia)

 

92 www.nhlbi.nih.gov
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-108

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; and engage 

new people and communities

Results: Three winners were selected from a total of six entries. These solutions ranged from new 

cellphone apps to songs. The teams proposed to continue to improve functionality and extend 

access of their tools to larger audiences. The Institute plans to utilize challenges on a consistent 

basis to engage the next generation in solving difficult public health problems in heart, lung, and 

blood diseases and sleep disorders.

Problem Statement: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), a component of the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced the “Novel, Innovative Tools to Increase Public 

Awareness and Knowledge of Sickle Cell Disease Undergraduate Challenge” to help address the 

lack of awareness about sickle cell disease and its associated complications. Sickle cell disease 

(also known as sickle cell anemia) (SCD) is the most common genetic disorder in the United States. 

About 100,000 Americans are thought to be living with SCD, and each year another 1,000 babies 

are born with the disease. Sickle cell disease is an inherited disease that results in abnormal 

hemoglobin, the protein in human red blood cells that carries oxygen to all tissues in the body. 

Hemoglobin is essential for life. A specific single mutation in the gene (DNA) for hemoglobin, 

when inherited from both parents, causes SCD. The sickle hemoglobin distorts the shape of the 

red blood cell into a “sickle” or crescent moon shape that flows poorly through small blood vessels. 

This can cause problems in virtually any organ by reducing the delivery of oxygen and inflaming 

the surrounding tissue. These abnormal sickle cells usually die after only about 10 to 20 days (as 

compared to normal red blood cells that live about 120 days). Over time, organ damage occurs, 

possibly resulting in a stroke in the brain, kidney damage, or complications in other organ systems. 

SCD also causes significant pain in the affected tissues. This pain, which can begin in childhood, 

often escalates into adulthood, severely affecting the quality of life of individuals with SCD. Sickle 

cell disease not only affects the individual but also his or her family and communities.

Proposed Goals: There is a lack of awareness about SCD and its associated complications among 

the general public and affected communities. This unawareness can contribute to the stigma 

associated with SCD, the lack of understanding of how the disease affects individuals and families’ 

daily lives, and to less than optimal care experienced by many patients. Through this challenge, 

the NHLBI challenged undergraduate students to create novel, innovative information 

dissemination tools that may be used to increase the general public’s awareness of SCD, and to 

provide information on SCD and its complications (particularly pain) to individuals, caregivers, 

families, and communities affected by SCD in an easily comprehensible manner.

More specifically, the goals of the challenge were to: (1) generate novel, innovative tools that may 

be used to increase public awareness and knowledge of SCD and associated complications that 

could potentially improve patient care; (2) advance the field of implementation science research 

through training, mentoring, and highlighting the contributions of a new generation of 

undergraduate researchers using a systems science approach to address multi-faceted problems; 

and (3) encourage “team science” by providing undergraduate students valuable experiences to 

pursue science collectively as they engage in complex problem solving to improve outcomes.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-109

Measures of Success: The “Novel, Innovative Tools to Increase Public Awareness and Knowledge 

of Sickle Cell Disease Undergraduate Challenge,” was a prize competition designed to inspire 

undergraduate students to value and use transdisciplinary skill sets to solve important public health 

challenges. The incentive was to promote the development of innovative information 

dissemination tools that may be used to (1) increase the general public’s awareness of SCD; (2) 

provide information on SCD and its complications to individuals, caregivers, families, and 

communities affected by SCD in an easily comprehensible manner; and (3) improve patient care 

and outcomes. Since this is a new area of research for undergraduate students, the challenge also 

aimed to advance the field of implementation science research through training, mentoring, and 

highlighting the contributions of a new generation of undergraduate researchers using a systems 

science approach to address multi-faceted problems.

Participants: Six submissions were received for this challenge, which was open to any Student 

Team—defined as a group of at least three and no more than five individuals, each of whom is at 

least 18 years of age and currently enrolled as a full-time student pursuing an undergraduate or 

associates degree.

The Student Team had to be transdisciplinary, that is, composed of undergraduate students from 

diverse disciplines such as fine arts, performing arts, humanities, psychology, science, engineering, 

graphic design, IT (hardware, software), mathematics, statistics, environmental science, 

computational modeling, and others.

The Student Team had to be mentored by an individual from the teaching staff at the academic 

institution. The mentor could be a Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, 

or a Teaching Assistant within the same academic institution as the Student Team. The teaching 

staff member could mentor only one team; however, a team could have more than one mentor (comentors could be located at a different institution).

Timeline: Submissions opened November 30, 2015 and closed April 6, 2016. The winners were 

announced August 16, 2016. 

Solicitation and Outreach: A massive outreach campaign was employed to reach undergraduate 

students, which included: development of an NHLBI web page with a description of the challenge;

posting on Challenge.gov; development of an NHLBI Ideascale page for applicants to get detailed 

information on the challenge and to register and post their submissions; an NHLBI social media 

campaign; more than 300 emails to undergraduate institutions; notification of the challenge to 

individuals who work with undergraduate students; and an NHLBI webinar on the challenge so 

that potential submitters could learn about sickle cell disease and ask questions about the disease 

and the challenge.

Incentives: The NHLBI awarded up to three prizes: first prize of $7,000, second prize of $5,000, 

and third prize of $3,000. An additional $2,000 was awarded to each team for travel to the 

NHLBI/National Sickle Cell Disease meeting (August 2016) to present and demonstrate their 

winning entry. Prizes were shared equally by team members.

Evaluation and Judging: N/A
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-110

Partnerships: N/A

Resources: N/A

Results: The Institute announced three winning teams and one honorable mention for the 

challenge. 93

First Place: University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh won the first place prize of $7,000 for their mobile phone application 

named “Sickle Share.” This team designed Sickle Share as a platform for sharing information 

about SCD. The application includes resources, facts, and videos featuring researchers and 

patients. The University of Pittsburgh team created a video to present their idea.94

Second Place: University of Notre Dame

The University of Notre Dame won second place, earning them $5,000. Their project, “Snap Out 

of Sickle Cell,” leverages a social media application called Snapchat to disseminate information 

about sickle cell disease. This team also created a video to present their idea.95

Third Place: Connecticut College

In third place, Connecticut College won $3,000 for their hip hop song, “Blood Red Crescent 

Moon.” The song addresses various misconceptions surrounding SCD and how it affects the 

everyday life of individuals living with SCD.96

Honorable Mention: City College of New York

This team proposed a model for a grassroots sickle cell awareness campaign that could be scaled 

nationally. The campaign involved word-of-mouth, social media, and on-campus events.

The first, second, and third place teams were invited to present and demonstrate the winning tools 

at the NHLBI Annual Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research Meeting in August 2016.97 The 

presentations were given to a packed audience with an opportunity to network with the SCD 

experts at the NHLBI and the SCD research community. The teams proposed to improve 

functionality and extend access of their tools to larger audiences.

The Institute plans to utilize this mechanism on a consistent basis to engage the next generation in 

solving difficult public health problems in heart, lung, and blood diseases and sleep disorders.

 

93 The announcement can be found at www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/spotlight/fact-sheet/nhlbis-novel-innovative-toolsincrease-public-awareness-and-knowledge-sickle-cell-disease

94 www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s3a55c0U3g&feature=youtu.be

95 www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIM7GQIXyQk&feature=youtu.be

96 soundcloud.com/conncollege/blood-red-crescent-moon

97 More information on the meeting can be found at www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/events/annual-sickle-cell-diseaseclinical-research-meetings
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-111

A.5.18 NIH: $100,000 for Start a SUD Startup98

Summary: This challenge is designed to fund “would be” biotech startups working to further an 

understanding of substance abuse disorders (SUDs), in order to mitigate this ongoing public health 

crisis. This challenge is unique because NIDA intends to fund the startup founders much earlier 

than most investors, incubators, or traditional modes of research funding (e.g. small business 

grants).

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas

Results: The 10 winning teams encompassed biosensors and optogenetics, natural language 

processing, biofeedback and brain stimulation, data mining of proteomics, and many others. These 

teams will continue to work towards providing minimum viable proof six months after the prize’s 

conclusion.

Problem Statement: This challenge is unique because NIDA intends to fund the “would be” startup 

founders much earlier than most investors, incubators, or traditional modes of research funding 

(e.g. small business grants).

NIDA expects that the team or an individual must have a research idea that could further the 

understanding of substance use disorders (SUDs) and is intended to be the basis of the development 

of a new and potentially successful startup. The research “idea” is the product that a future startup 

will offer. The research idea must be broad enough to address multiple conditions, diseases, or 

indications consistent with SUD or be specific for prevention and treatments of SUD. Product is 

any source of value for the people who become customers. Services, subscriptions, software as a 

service (SaaS), physical/tangible products, aggregations, etc. could all provide value and thus be 

considered startup products. The startup product could be the result of novel scientific discoveries, 

repurposing an existing technology for a new use, extending a research observation into a different 

area, devising a new business model or distribution/delivery channel that unlocks value currently 

concealed, or simply bringing a product or service to a previously underserved set of customers. 

The founder (the teams or an individual) must demonstrate through the submission the passion, 

drive, discipline, ability to work collaboratively, and willingness to push forward under conditions 

of extreme business uncertainty.

The winners of this challenge are encouraged to use the prize funds to develop a minimum viable 

proof (MVP) as quickly as possible and to obtain customer feedback to discover if MVP meets the 

customer needs. If the product prototype is successfully validated, winners are encouraged to 

create or further advance their biotech startup no later than six months after the prize is awarded. 

Proposed Goals: The challenge goal is to support research ideas that would further an 

understanding of neurobiology as it relates to substance use disorders and that are intended to be 

the basis for the development of a new and potentially successful start-up. NIDA hopes that 

 

98 www.challenge.gov/challenge/100000-for-start-a-sud-startup
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-112

participation in the contest will enable scientists to test the hypothesis that their research idea can 

be fostered into a biotech startup, and that eventually any newly created startups will contribute to 

the pool of innovative small business companies that can successfully compete for NIDA’s Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funding.

Measures of Success: The general purpose of NIDA is to conduct and support biomedical and 

behavioral research, health-services research, research training, and health-information 

dissemination with respect to the prevention of drug abuse and the treatment of drug abusers. This 

challenge is consistent with and advances the mission of NIDA as described in 42 U.S.C. 285o in 

that it supports new and potential biotech start-ups in the development of research ideas that would 

further an understanding of neurobiology as it relates to substance use disorders.

Participants: The eligibility requirements included U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. A 

challenge participant (“founder”) may be an entity or an individual or group of individuals (i.e., a 

team assembled with the purpose of participating in this challenge). A founder must be a potential 

start-up (i.e., not yet formed) or a new start-up (i.e., in the early stage of formation and 

development). Seventeen teams encompassing 41 people entered the challenge.

Winners are encouraged to submit the minimum viable proof (MVP) report six months after the 

prize payment.

Each submission for this challenge requires a completed submission package that includes a fourpage written proposal describing an idea and a five-minute video introducing the team.

Timeline: Submissions ran from June 13, 2016 to September 16, 2016, with the winners announced 

November 8, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Contacting Outside Organizations to promote outreach (JLAB incubator; BHI incubator,

QB3 incubator, NSF hubs); and

 NIDA Social Media (Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts) and email outreach 

(NIH/NIDA grantees listserv).

Incentives: Ten monetary prizes were awarded, $10,000 each. The total prize award pool was up 

to $100,000. The names of the winners and the titles of their submissions are posted on the NIDA 

web site.

Post Challenge, NIDA staff will provide dedicated assistance and guidance about development of 

a minimum viable proof.

Evaluation and Judging: The challenge review panel included Federal employees from National 

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). 

The challenge has five success criteria for selection of winners. Each criterion is scored with the 

maximum of 10 points.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-113

 Significance and Unmet Needs: Are there significant needs for your product or service? 

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field 

of drug abuse research? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific 

knowledge, technical capability, service, or clinical practice be improved?

 Innovation: Does the submission seek to shift current paradigms by utilizing novel 

theoretical concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, service, or interventions 

for drug abuse research? Is your product novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, 

improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches, or methodologies 

instrumentation or interventions proposed? 

 Approach: Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and 

appropriate to test the proposed idea? Has feedback from end users been incorporated into 

the validity of the idea proposed?

 Team expertise: Does the individual or team demonstrate high level of ability, perseverance 

and grit?

 Commercialization: Is there a clear path for the product/service to reach the market? Are 

the product users and purchasers clearly identified?

Partnerships: No partnerships were formed for this challenge.

Resources: The current estimated efforts are: 

 NIDA challenge manager, GS–15 (5% efforts); 44 FTE hours;

 NIDA challenge administrator, GS–14 (20% efforts), 176 FTE hours; and

 NIDA contractor (10% efforts), 88 hours.

NIDA is hosting this challenge on Challenge.gov platform at no cost.

Results: NIDA received 17 submissions; 15 submissions were compliant with eligibility criteria 

and reviewed. The idea submitting teams were from U.S. academic institutions, newly-formed 

small business companies, and the public. Only two submisisons came from NIH researchers.

Based upon the challenge criteria, the judging panel has selected 10 submissions for the challenge 

awards:

 Team 1: PainQx Inc. (Frank Minella, Leslie Prichep, Alejandro Zamorano)

Submission Title: PQX Objective Pain Measurement

 Team 2: Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Vlad Verkhusha and Daria Shcherbakova)

Submission Title: Near-infrared biosensors and optogenetics to advance preclinical studies 

in neurobiology

 Team 3: Florida International University (Francisco R. Ortega, Armando Barreto, Jules 

Calella, Alain Galvan, Santiago Bolivar)

Submission Title: Bio-Interactive Device for SUD

 Team 4: Beacon Health. Co (Shrenik Jain)

Submission Title: Applying Natural Language Processing to Increase Provider Efficiency 

in SUD group therapy setting

 Team 5: Joseph Insler, Scott Weiner, John Moustoukas, Ajoy Basu, Michael Gilbert 

(Boston, MA)
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-114

Submission Title: Opioid Recovery Bracelet

 Team 6: JADE Biotech (John Lowman, Randall Brenn, Elora Hilmas, Dan Charytonowicz)

Submission Title: Developing a Solution to Prevent the Diversion, Abuse, and Addiction 

to Hospital Narcotic Waste

 Team 7: University of Kentucky College of Medicine (Michael Wesley, Josh Lile, Arit 

Harvanko, David Hempy)

Submission Title: Biofeedback and brain stimulation Device

 Team 8: Care Analytics, University of Texas Health Science Center (Benson M Irungu, 

Mon-Ju Wu, Phillip Beckett)

Submission Title: A software tool to predict relapse-related readmissions and provide postdischarge care coordination.

 Team 9: Clare Zhu and Anin Sayana

Submission Title: Blockchain-Based Healthcare Data Management

 Team 10: Viralchemy Bioscience (Trevor Gale, Tim Horton, Ben Bradley)

Submission Title: Proteomics, Informatics, & Data Mining to Reduce Costs of Drug 

Development for Substance Use Disorders

A.5.19 NIH: Open Science Prize99

Summary: The amount of digital publications, datasets, codes, and other research outputs publicly 

available is greater than ever before. In order to best allow for the public to take advantage of this 

data, this challenge is intended to support the development of new systems that will make this data 

more accessible and usable. The challenge is necessary to accelerate the field of “open” biomedical 

research beyond what current funding mechanisms can achieve.

Solution Type: Software and apps; technology demonstration and hardware; analytics, 

visualizations, algorithms; and scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; advance scientific research; and engage new 

people and communities

Results: Six finalists were selected from 96 teams for entry into Phase 2. These six teams were 

submitted from eight countries. Submissions to date have been innovative and have fostered many 

international collaborations, and the challenge is considered to have succeeded in its goals.

Problem Statement: The volume of digital objects for research available to researchers and the 

wider public is greater now than ever before, and so, consequently, are the opportunities to mine 

and extract value from existing open content and to generate new discoveries and other societal 

benefits. A key obstacle in realizing these benefits is the discoverability of open content, and the 

ability to access and utilize it.

The Open Science Prize provides funding to encourage and support the prototyping and 

development of services, tools, or platforms that enable open content—including publications, 

 

99 www.openscienceprize.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-115

datasets, codes, and other research outputs—to be discovered, accessed, and reused in ways that 

will advance research, spark innovation, and generate new societal benefits. The challenge is 

necessary to accelerate the field of “open” biomedical research beyond what current funding 

mechanisms can achieve.

Proposed Goals: The goal of this challenge is to stimulate the development of novel and groundbreaking tools and platforms to enable the reuse and repurposing of open digital research objects 

(e.g., data, publications, and other research outputs) relevant to biomedical or health applications. 

The prize also aims to forge new international collaborations that bring together open science 

innovators from the United States and abroad to co-develop services and tools of benefit to the 

global research community.

Measures of Success: At the midway point of the competition, the prize is succeeding in the goals 

described above. Submissions to date have been innovative and have fostered many international 

collaborations. The full array of initial solutions and six Phase 1 finalists can be found on the Open 

Science Prize website.100 As the competition nears the demonstration of Phase 2 prototypes, the 

NIH will gain a better understanding of the potential impact on human health, a key measure of 

the success of the prize, and the enablement of Open Science.

Participants: The agency hoped to mobilize teams of solvers from around the world and to build 

new international collaborations in the field of Open Science. Competitors had to be teams with at 

least one member from the United States and one member from outside the United States. This 

requirement was put in place to achieve the goal of encouraging international collaboration in the 

field of Open Science. Ninety-six teams composing 450 individuals submitted entries. 

Timeline: Phase 1 opened October 20, 2015 and closed February 29, 2016. Winners were 

announced April 30, 2016. Phase 2 entries were due December 1, 2016, and winners were to be

announced February 28, 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: The NIH utilized social media, email outreach, webinars, and press 

releases in its initial marketing of the prize. An important aspect of the outreach strategy has been 

showcasing results at public events that garner media attention. For example, the NIH and 

Wellcome Trust announced the Phase 1 winner at the Health Datapalooza (a three-day conference 

supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) on May 9, 2016, and as a result

received press coverage from more than three dozen news organizations in over a dozen languages. 

In Phase 2 of the prize competition, NIH plans to showcase the finalists’ solutions at the Big Data 

to Knowledge Open Data Science Symposium, a full-day event celebrating uses of open data and 

open science at NIH. For this event, NIH will utilize live streaming and social media as way of 

engaging diverse audiences. NIH and Wellcome Trust will also utilize this meeting to launch five

weeks of public voting as a way to engage diverse audiences and expose the public to the 

prototypes developed by the six finalist teams. Throughout this prize competition, NIH has worked 

closely with partner organizations (such as the Federal Community of Prizes and Challenges) and 

Open Data and Open Science Organizations to help educate the public about the prize and the 

resulting solutions.

 

100 www.openscienceprize.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-116

Incentives: The total amount of prize money was $710,000, of which $355,000 came from the 

National Institutes of Health and $355,000 came from its partner, the Wellcome Trust (with a 

portion of the funds ($80,000) contributed to the Wellcome Trust by the Howard Hughes Medical 

Institute). The NIH funded the U.S. solvers only. The prize money from the NIH is being awarded 

to the prize winners through a contract vehicle NIH established with the Capitol Consulting 

Corporation, who is overseeing prize administration. In additional to a monetary reward, it is 

anticipated that the participants were also motivated by the potential publicity and recognition 

offered by National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 

Evaluation and Judging: Participants were given wide latitude to choose their project and build 

their prototype accordingly. Judging has been based on the following criteria: 

 Impact: What level of impact and benefit could the proposal—if successful—deliver to the 

research enterprise and health/healthcare research? Does the proposal/prototype address 

implementation in multiple settings in a cross-national manner?

 Innovation: What level of creativity and technological innovation does the entrant 

demonstrate?

 Originality: Is the technology or service genuinely novel and targeting an unmet need? Has 

the applicant evaluated other existing or alternative approaches, or delineated their 

approach in comparison to existing approaches (if applicable)?

 Technological viability: Is the approach proposed viable? Can the proposed technology 

deliver?

 Resource feasibility: Does the team have the required skills and resources?

 Advancement of Open Science: To what extent does the proposal/prototype advance the 

goals of open science in biomedical/health research, and fulfill the goals of openness in 

terms of the product and way of working? To what extent would it move the field forward?

Judges from NIH and the partnering organizations scored all of the Phase 1 solutions using a fivepoint scale, based on these factors. The most promising solutions were submitted to a panel of 

external advisors for additional review. After considering the panel’s viewpoints, NIH, Wellcome 

Trust, and HHMI judges selected the top six solution for Phase 1. 

In Phase 2 of this competition, public voting will help to determine the top three prototypes. Judges 

from NIH and Wellcome Trust will review these top three prototypes and also seek input from the 

expert advisors. A single finalist will be selected with the aforementioned criteria. 

Partnerships: This competition is a collaboration with the Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes 

Medical Institute. These partners provided substantial monetary contributions, in-kind support, 

expert advice, marketing, and outreach assistance. Wellcome Trust estimates their costs at 

$275,000 in prize money plus an extra $50,000 in logistical support. Howard Hughes Medical 

Institute contributed $80,000 in prize money. This partnership has been very successful, and as a 

result, the funding organizations are exploring future types of collaborations.

Resources: The NIH utilized one and a half staff persons to oversee conceptual development of 

the prize, develop judging materials and judging processes, and coordinate all promotional and 

outreach activities. The Wellcome Trust utilized roughly the same number of employees for these 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-117

tasks, focusing particularly on development of the website and on-line tools such as the public 

voting site. In addition, NIH utilized a contractor to assist with the logistical aspects of the prize, 

including meeting coordination, webinars, travel of participants to events, etc.

Results: Registration and Phase 1 of the competition is complete. Ninety-six teams, representing 

450 entrants from 45 countries, submitted entries to the Phase 1. A summary of all 96 entrants’ 

submissions can be found here: https://www.openscienceprize.org/p/.

Phase 2 has six teams competing, representing eight countries around the world. Teams varied in 

size from 2 to 12 people. A summary of the six finalist teams and their innovations can be found 

here: https://www.openscienceprize.org/res/p/finalists/.

It is estimated that at least a third of the solvers had not been previously funded by the National 

Institutes of Health prior to this challenge competition.

A.5.20 NIH: Pill Image Recognition Challenge101

Summary: Unidentified and misidentified prescription pills present challenges for patients and 

professionals. The nine out of 10 U.S. citizens over age 65 who take more than one prescription 

pill can be prone to misidentifying those pills. Taking such pills can result in adverse drug events 

that affect health or cause death. In order to reduce misidentification of prescription pills, this 

challenge sought to build a system that could use patient photographs of pills to match their pills 

against a database and identify them for the patient.

Solution Type: Software and algorithm

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; advance scientific research; and develop technology

Results: Eleven teams encompassing 37 individuals participated in the challenge, none of whom 

had worked with the Federal Government previously, indicating that this challenge successfully 

expanded the reach of NIH innovation and brought in new communities. This challenge did not 

result in a solution reliable enough to be used by the general public, but it did raise the 

consciousness level within the appropriate communities and increased awareness of new 

technologies. Like the original DARPA Driverless Vehicle Challenge many years ago, a second 

challenge, after an appropriate lessons learned interval, has a much better chance for complete 

success.

Problem Statement: Unidentified and misidentified prescription pills present challenges for 

patients and professionals. The nine out of 10 U.S. citizens over age 65 who take more than one 

prescription pill can be prone to misidentifying those pills. Taking such pills can result in adverse 

drug events that affect health or cause death. To reduce such errors, any person should easily be 

able to confirm that a prescription pill or a refill is correct. For example, a person should be able 

to easily verify (or not) that a refill that has a different color, shape, or text imprinted on the pill is 

 

101 pir.nlm.nih.gov/challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-118

a different generic version of equivalent drugs he or she was already taking. To help address these 

problems, the NLM Computational Photography Project for Pill Identification (C3PI) is 

developing infrastructure and tools for identifying prescription pills. The infrastructure includes 

photographs of such pills taken under laboratory lighting conditions, from a camera directly above 

the front and the back faces of the pill, and at high resolution. Specialized digital macrophotography techniques were then used to capture JPEG pill images. The NLM RxIMAGE 

database contains these high-quality images and associated pill data such as appearance (color, 

shape, size, text imprinted on the pill, etc.), ingredients, and identifiers such as its National Drug 

Code (NDC).102 RxIMAGE images and data are freely available. The freely accessible RxIMAGE 

API provides text-based search and retrieval of images and data from the RxIMAGE database. By 

contributing their algorithm and software, challenge participants took part in a broader National 

Library of Medicine (NLM) effort to develop a freely usable software system and a freely 

accessible API for image-based search and retrieval from a mobile device. Challenge participants 

were required to submit a virtual machine (VM) which included the executable software for 

ranking how well consumer images of pills taken by digital cameras matched the reference images, 

and a source code for the executive files, as well as documentation describing the results of their 

work. To evaluate the results, NLM ran each submission software on a database of consumerquality and reference images different from the ones provided to participants. The score was 

computed as the Mean Average Precision (MAP) of the ranking matrix. The challenge entries were 

ranked by their MAP scores, and the entries with the highest scores were selected as winners. The 

challenge was part of the overall work of the C3PI and its efforts to research image recognition.

Proposed Goals: The objective of the challenge is the development and discovery of high-quality 

algorithms and software that rank how well consumer images of prescription pills match reference 

images of pills in the authoritative NLM RxIMAGE database. NLM may use all or part of any 

challenge entry (i.e., algorithm and software) to create a future software system and a future API 

(Application Programming Interface) for pill image recognition; the system will be freely usable 

and the API will be freely accessible. The NLM Computational Photography Project for Pill 

Identification (C3PI) is a research and development project in the Office of High Performance 

Computing and Communications (OHPCC) within the NLM Lister Hill National Center for 

Biomedical Communications (LHNCBC). C3PI computer scientists conduct computer vision

R&D in text- and image-based search and retrieval. C3PI’s overall goal is to help improve the 

prescription drug information made available to health professionals and consumers.

Measures of Success: The objective of this challenge was to research and develop high-quality 

algorithms and software that match consumer quality images of prescription pills to reference 

images of pills in the authoritative NLM RxIMAGE database. There are several technically 

different ways to potentially solve this problem. NLM does not have in-house expertise in any of 

these. The solution requires advanced research as well as development. The technical literature 

has not recorded a solution reliable enough to be used by the general public for healthcare. It is 

therefore impossible to know what a reliable enough contract-based solution might cost or if it 

would have been found under a single fixed contract. This challenge did not result in a solution 

reliable enough to be used by the general public but it did raise the consciousness level within the 

appropriate communities and made NIH aware of a very promising brand new technology of which 

 

102 www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm142438.htm
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-119

it was not aware. Like the original DARPA Driverless Vehicle Challenge many years ago, a second 

challenge, after an appropriate lessons learned interval, has a much better chance for complete 

success.

Participants: The challenge was designed to attract the image recognition community, especially 

those interested in facial recognition and text recognition, and the Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

community including those interested in Deep Learning. The only eligibility requirement was that 

a member of each team must be a U.S. Citizen or an employee of the U.S. corporation sponsoring 

the team. Eleven teams encompassing 37 people sent in entries. 

Timeline: Submissions for this challenge were opened April 4, 2016 and closed May 31, 2016. 

Winners were announced August 1, 2016. 

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: The total amount of the cash prizes awarded was $45,000 taken from the NLM research 

budget. No non-monetary incentives were used to motivate participants and reward winners.

Evaluation and Judging: The final designation of award winners was determined by the highest 

quantitative test score on a Mean Average Precision (MAP) test described in the FRN 

announcement. This method worked well and will be reused for future challenges.

Partnerships: There were no formal partnerships or informal collaborations.

Resources: The entire challenge was conducted by in-house personnel. About $100,000 in 

personnel time and $45,000 for prizes were spent.

Results: There were 37 entrants making up 11 teams. On average each team was made up of three

or four individuals. The 11 teams came from locations all across the United States. All of the 

entrants had not worked with the Federal Government previously or the National Library of 

Medicine. The entrants were largely students and amateur programmers. All of the winning teams 

used Deep Learning technology, which is still in its infancy. There was a great variation in the 

reliability of the results.

A.5.21 Provider User Experience Challenge103

Summary: The lack of interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems remains a 

significant barrier to the modernization of health IT, making it difficult to effectively transfer from 

a paper based to an electronic health record system. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources 

(FHIR), developed by HL7, is a standard designed to improve interoperability. The Provider User 

Experience Challenge, combined with its partner challenge, the Consumer Health Data Aggregator 

Challenge, is part of ONC’s Connecting and Accelerating a FHIR App Ecosystem initiative. This 

initiative calls on innovators to develop market-ready software apps for consumers and healthcare 

providers in an effort to improve the health and care of the country.

 

103 www.challenge.gov/challenge/provider-user-experience-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-120

Solution Type: Software and app

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; engage new people and communities; and stimulate a 

market

Results: Phase 1 required the creation of an app development proposal, which included detailed 

technical plans, mockups/wireframes of the proposed app, a business model/sustainability plan, 

and demonstration of agreements to conduct pilot testing with actual users. Thirty-four

submissions were received for Phase 1. Virtually all submissions were by small technology 

companies that already had a product available or in development, which they planned to modify. 

Phase 2 entailed the development of the proposed app or modification of an app that already exists. 

Seven submissions were received in Phase 2.

Problem Statement: The lack of interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems 

remains a significant barrier to the modernization of health IT. Fast Healthcare Interoperability 

Resources (FHIR), developed by HL7, is a standard designed to increase the liquidity of granular 

patient data. The FHIR API allows data to move between vendor systems both within and across 

different providers, not to mention through third-party applications for direct use by both clinicians 

and consumers. Among several opportunities now enabled by this interoperability standard are the 

new channels being opened up for improving a provider’s user experience when interacting with 

EHRs and the “consumability” of interrelated health data. The Provider User Experience 

Challenge, combined with its partner challenge, the Consumer Health Data Aggregator Challenge, 

is part of ONC’s Connecting and Accelerating a FHIR App Ecosystem initiative. This initiative 

calls on innovators to develop market-ready software apps for consumers and healthcare providers 

in an effort to improve the health and care of the country.

Proposed Goals: The Provider User Experience Challenge has several objectives, the primary one 

being to increase the number of apps available to providers that can aggregate patient data from 

multiple sources into one place, and utilize modern web and information design to simplify and 

enhance the user experience. Specifically, this had to be done using the FHIR API, which is the 

most widely-known and developed open API for exchanging patient health data. Even though 

FHIR is the open API with the highest level of awareness, the challenge was also intended to raise 

this level higher, and to incentivize more developers to work with and familiarize themselves with 

FHIR.

Measures of Success: The clearest measure of success will be the number of apps available for 

public download and use for providers by the conclusion of Phase 2 of the challenge. A second 

degree of success will be measured by follow-on actions involving Phase 2 participants and their 

apps—how many times have they been downloaded and are they rated well by users? Do challenge 

participants execute new business arrangements with other health companies? Do they receive 

useful, non-Federal publicity from winning or participating in the challenge?

Participants: While the challenge is open to any developers, the need to understand the intersection 

of EHRs, patient care, and patient data sharing made it most relevant to companies that already 

had working knowledge of those areas and are active in health IT. The challenge was run under 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-121

the authority of Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and therefore had 

the eligibility criteria pursuant to it. Phase 1 received 34 entries.

Timeline: Phase 1 of this challenge opened March 1, 2016 and closed June 1, 2016. Winners were 

announced July 18, 2016. Phase 2 opened June 2, 2016, and closed November 7, 2016. Winners 

were announced January 11, 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: The Consumer Health Data Aggregator and Provider User Experience 

Challenges were announced by the National Coordinator for Health IT at a prominent industry 

conference, HIMSS, on March 1, 2016. Many of ONC’s communications channels were leveraged, 

including blog posts, social media, press releases, webinars, and listservs. 

Incentives: The challenge has a prize purse of up to $175,000. In Phase 1, up to five prizes of 

$5,000 to $15,000 were available; four $10,000 prizes were awarded. In Phase 2, prizes include

one $50,000 first prize, one $25,000 second prize, and an additional $25,000 prize for the app 

demonstrating the highest level of patient data exchange. The primary non-monetary incentives 

are the publicity and recognition for winning an ONC challenge. Award funds were disbursed by 

a contractor acquired through the HHS Competes Blanket Purchasing Agreement.

Evaluation and Judging: A combined review panel of Federal and non-Federal subject matter 

experts reviewed and scored all Phase 1 submissions; the Federal challenge managers selected the 

winners, factoring in those reviews. In Phase 1, equal co-winners were chosen rather than ranked 

winners because the submissions—written proposals—are steps toward the eventual outcome of 

the challenge, not the outcome itself. The final outcomes of Phase 2—health provider apps—will 

be ranked and awarded. Five evaluation criteria were used to review submissions: the technical 

feasibility of the plan; the adherence to data privacy and security best practices and applicable law;

the strength of the business/sustainability plan; the impact potential in a clinical setting; and the 

provider and/or health IT developer partnerships. These criteria captured the most important 

aspects that needed to be identified in the submissions.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: A small ONC team, with one primary challenge manager, developed and executed the 

Consumer Health Data Aggregator and Provider User Experience Challenges. Additional funds 

for the challenge prizes were required on top of the annual ONC challenge funding allocation; 

these were designated to the project from the national coordinator’s discretionary pool. A thirdparty contractor, acquired through the HHS Competes Blanket Purchasing Agreement, provided 

administrative, management, and communications assistance. Given the challenge manager’s 

extensive experience in running prize challenges, challenge development services were not 

needed.

Results: The challenge has two phases. Phase 1 required the creation of an app development 

proposal, which included detailed technical plans, mockups/wireframes of the proposed app, a 

business model/sustainability plan, and demonstration of agreements to conduct pilot testing with 

actual users. Thirty-four submissions were received for Phase 1, five of which were assessed as 

not eligible. Virtually all submissions were by small technology companies that already had a 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-122

product available or in development, which they planned to modify. Four winners (out of a 

potential maximum of five) were selected, each receiving a $15,000 award. Phase 2, the app 

development phase, received seven submissions, of which two were selected; each received an 

award of $50,000.

A.5.22 SAMHSA: Opioid Recovery App Challenge104

Summary: This challenge seeks to help give patients tools in recovering from opioid addiction, a 

chronic brain disease. Those who suffer from a substance use disorder need help to change their 

behavior and learn new strategies to maintain health. They can get this help with treatment—with 

the care of doctors and substance use disorders treatment providers. This challenge intends to help 

support this treatment by designing apps that can help patients learn more about managing 

recovery outside of treatment sessions, and remind them of their motivation for sticking with their 

recovery programs. This challenge received a range of submissions, the majority of which will 

continue to be developed and made available to those who will benefit from them.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; develop technology; and engage new people and 

communities

Results: From 15 submissions, three winning products were selected. Teams participating in the 

challenge included individuals currently in recovery, those with personal connections to addiction, 

and behavioral health care providers. Team members who were not currently in recovery had the 

opportunity to learn more about treatment and recovery, and in one case reached out to other 

individuals in recovery for input into their application. A majority of the teams wrote that they 

would continue to improve, enhance, research, and make their apps available for download to the 

people who need them.

Problem Statement: Addiction is a chronic brain disease. Those who suffer from a substance use 

disorder need help to change their behavior and learn new strategies to maintain health. They can 

get this help with treatment—with the care of doctors and substance use disorders treatment 

providers. Treatment can help people stop using substances. It helps them get through withdrawal 

and cope with cravings. Treatment also helps address other harmful behaviors that are not 

conducive to recovery.

Just as important, treatment helps people address life issues they might have that can trigger 

relapse, such as feelings of low self-worth, a bad situation at work or home, a co-occurring mental 

disorder, or spending time with people who use drugs. In short, treatment helps people move into 

healthy lifestyles—into a new way of living which is referred to as recovery.

Treatment may include medication. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is treatment that 

includes the use of medication along with counseling and other types of support. Treatment that 

includes medication-assisted treatment is an important option for opioid use disorder. Medication-

 

104 samhsaopioidrecoveryapp.devpost.com/?ref_content=default&ref_feature=challenge&ref_medium=discover
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-123

assisted treatment can reduce problems of withdrawal and craving. Research also shows 

maintenance treatment typically leads to reduction or cessation of illicit opioid use and its adverse 

consequences, including cellulitis, hepatitis, and HIV infection from use of non-sterile injection 

equipment, as well as criminal behavior associated with obtaining drugs. These changes can give 

the person the chance to focus on the lifestyle changes that lead back to healthy living. People in 

outpatient MAT could benefit from a mobile app for smartphones that provides features and 

information that supports their maintenance in recovery.

Below are some ideas and information on the insights regarding what patients receiving MAT 

might need, and what an app like this might do to respond to those insights. There are some 

required features and resources that must be included in the final product. They have been provided 

in an assets file. The rest is up to the participants. Participants were asked to be creative and 

innovative, and to develop a good user experience. Participants were encouraged to collaborate 

with an existing recovery tool already on the market, or think of a recovery-related use to an 

existing tool.

What does someone in recovery from opioid use disorder need and what type of mobile app could 

you create? 

 Insight one: Since medication-assisted treatment is likely an important part of an 

individual’s recovery, patients may need drug interaction and side effect information for 

methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone that they can access on their own, 24/7. For 

instance, an individual may have started methadone treatment a couple of days ago but is 

suddenly feeling some side effects and can’t reach a doctor to ask them about these side 

effects. With the app, they can look up side effects, how long they might last, and what 

else they can anticipate—all via the privacy of their smartphone.

 Insight two: Patients receiving MAT need education and psychoeducational materials for 

opioid recovery support, such as how to manage their time, information on parenting skills,

and the effects of drug use on their family. Perhaps they haven’t told their friends yet that 

they’re receiving MAT, and aren’t sure how to go about it. Access to information that 

explains to friends and family what MAT is and how it helps with recovery could be made 

available, or shared with a friend, via their smartphone. While a person receiving MAT has 

a doctor, case manager, and addiction counselor, the provider may not have enough time 

in an appointment to provide all of the resources that a patient may need. A patient could 

use a one-stop shop for psycho-educational resources that provide tips, facts, and 

worksheets on how to deal with common issues and concerns that occur in opioid recovery, 

such as problems sleeping; dealing with drug triggers; avoiding relapse; dealing with guilt; 

managing time, life, money, and emotions; repairing relationships; and dealing with other 

health issues. Having these resources on a smartphone, a tool many people carry with them 

everywhere, means that they are available for use and referral in down time, waiting time, 

or crisis time.

 Insight three is related to relapse prevention, an important component of recovery. One of 

the main ways to prevent relapse is getting involved in healthy activities by replacing 

unhealthy habits with new habits that have emotional, physical, and/or social wellness 

benefits, such as participating in peer support groups, and exercise. An app feature that 

helps patients find local recovery support meetings easily and anonymously, or online peer 

support groups they could access via their phone, would put recovery support at their 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-124

fingertips. The second important component of relapse prevention is being aware and 

avoiding triggers for drug use. Triggers could be certain people, places, or situations. 

Perhaps a feature that reminds patients, via a call or text when a trigger is present, would 

be useful to help keep their recovery at the forefront of their awareness.

 Insight four describes how individuals in MAT need support in relapse prevention such as 

warning signs, trigger alerts, and motivations for recovery. Could recovery motivation 

reminders in a calendar tool, with links to personal motivations such as photos of family, 

friends, pets, or goals help patients stay focused on their reasons for recovery? Could a 

trigger response feature be created with contacts when a person needs support? Perhaps 

they could link other motivational materials to reminders like links to inspiring YouTube 

videos, songs, talks/podcasts, fitness links, memes, or photos from their photo gallery. 

Another important component of relapse prevention is being aware and avoiding triggers 

for drug use. Triggers could be certain people, places, or situations. Perhaps a feature that 

reminds patients, via a call or text when a trigger is present, would be useful to help keep 

their recovery at the forefront of their awareness.

 Insight five shows that individuals in MAT maintenance are often juggling their work, 

personal, and treatment schedules. Maintaining recovery means finding new ways to live 

a healthy lifestyle just as other individuals with chronic health conditions must do. How 

could an app help with this? Could a time management tool, with daily reminders for 

doctor, counselor, and treatment appointments help? 

Proposed Goals: The primary objective of this challenge was to spur innovation and expose the 

tech development field to the possibilities of creating mobile apps for people in treatment and 

recovery from substance use disorder, specifically those receiving medication-assisted treatment 

services. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) also 

intended to bring further awareness of the opioid crisis to technologists and those disciplines 

outside of the traditional behavioral health field to stimulate development, growth, and 

conversation about behavioral health IT. SAMHSA wanted to award an app that would have the 

potential to enhance treatment services and improve the lives and the quality of engagement of 

people in recovery using medication-assisted treatment.

Measures of Success: Success was measured in the amount of developed apps produced to address 

this issue, and the quality of those apps based on a stringent set of criteria (see judging section). 

SAMHSA received 15 completed apps, all which met the requirement and judging criteria of the

requirement sections. Many of the apps are easy to use, creative, engaging, and address the five 

“insights” related to MAT and recovery care management for people in recovery. This prize 

competition advances the mission of SAMHSA and the Health Information Technology Strategic 

Initiative goals of creating space for technological development of tools that will advance and 

enhance the lives of Americans in recovery from substance use disorders. SAMHSA was 

successful in engaging a myriad of disciplines and stakeholders in the creation of these apps, and

received positive feedback from the applicant pool on developing tools that address substance use 

disorders and recovery (see results section). The 15 apps submitted in this competition reflected 

the uniqueness and diversity across the app development world and how different disciplines and 

personal experiences can affect creativity in problem-solving through technology. This 

competition was also successful in its ability to bring awareness and education to the app 

development community on addiction and recovery. One hundred and twenty-two teams registered 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-125

for this challenge and it is hoped that it may have inspired future development, open-mindedness, 

and exposure to problem-solving for an important public health crisis.

Participants: The agency aimed to mobilize app and software developers with an interest in solving 

behavioral health problems. SAMHSA used Devpost.com and the Challenge Post platforms to 

accomplish this goal. This contest required a long list of criteria to apply, including eligibility 

requirements, submission and registration requirements, requirements around text descriptions and 

imagery/video, content requirements, and application requirements which can be found here: 

https://samhsaopioidrecoveryapp.devpost.com/rules. One hundred and twenty-two teams 

registered for the hackathon with 15 submissions to this specific challenge.

Timeline: SAMHSA accepted submissions for this challenge ran through from March 4—March 

27, 2016 and winners were announced in July 2016. 

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media (Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (sent to a Health IT listserv);

 Press Release by SAMHSA;

 Personal outreach to SAMHSA stakeholders with relationships to the opioid recovery 

community and stakeholders in the behavioral health IT industry; and

 Outreach to Federal partners to encourage participation in judging and cross-promotion of 

the competition.

The team also developed a communications plan for promoting the winning app (this was not 

included in the publicized incentives to challenge applicants):

 Posting winners on SAMHSA’s Twitter and Facebook accounts;

 Presenting on the challenge and winners at the AATOD and APHA conferences (and all 

other relevant presentations for the Health IT Team);

 Distributing a one-page document on the winning apps to the Recovery Month Planning 

Partners; and

 Sending an email about the winning apps to 1,400 treatment providers and physicians.

Lessons Learned

The Health IT team would like to provide some lessons learned in addition to the required reporting 

material. Due to running three challenges in the past two years, the SAMHSA Health IT has 

tracked lessons learned and best practices for quality control and process improvement purposes. 

Based on this “study,” the team has added some new elements to the process and surmised further 

recommendations based on how the Opioid App challenge ran. These recommendations can be 

applied to multiple areas in the challenge process.

On the development of the challenge concept:

 Provide more information to allow developers to better solve problems: For the Opioid 

Recovery App Challenge, this recommendation from the 2015 challenges led to the 

development of the five Insights. The team utilized a report on research conducted about 

the recovery support needs of individuals receiving treatment for MAT. The team then 

determined which of those needs could be met in an app, and developed five “insights”
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-126

into what individuals receiving MAT might need to help support their recovery. These 

insights were provided to the developers; some of the insights were required to be answered 

in the app and some were optional.

 Employ a technology specialist for the challenge: The Rules and Regulations are the legal, 

binding, public language that specifies all of the requirements of the challenge. They are 

critical to protecting the sponsor, the administrator, the participants, and the winners from 

any legal issues that could arise during the challenge or how and when the solution is 

utilized by the public. For the Opioid Recovery App Challenge, a technology expert was 

involved in the development of the challenge concept and the rules and regulations. The 

Technology Expert participated in the challenge concept meetings to help the team 

understand what was technically feasible in the concepts that were being considered. This 

provided valuable insight as the concept was being developed and contributed to a more 

efficient concept development process. The technology expert then provided detailed 

direction for the technology requirements of the entries, including submission 

requirements, privacy requirements, and application requirements.

 Explain requirements with more detail: For this challenge the Health IT team tried to clarify 

requirements with more detail and learned where to apply even more detail as a result of 

the answers received. State what is required in each field in the entry form. For example: 

Insights should have stated, “Please specify how your app answers the insights.” Many 

responded with “Yes” rather than providing the information. The team then had to go back 

to them and ask for specific information via email. The form has to be updated by Devpost 

staff, so be clear with Devpost about what is being asked. Develop a standard form the 

developers must complete that explains how to install their app.

For the required videos that accompany submissions, be clear what content the video must 

include. For example:

o How the app/entry responds to or meets the requirements/insights

o What is unique about the app?

o The name of the app

o Security/confidentiality features

o Each feature

On Judging Process

 Consider technology needs in judging: Utilize the same devices for the technical review as 

for the final/judging review process. It cuts down on the time needed to download and test 

the apps. Use a projector to project and demo the apps on devices for the in-person judging 

meeting, rather than sharing devices around the table. This will save costs and allows the 

judging team to review the apps together.

On Relationship with Developers

 In this challenge, the team also included a requirement that winning app developers 

provide occasional updates on app downloads and progress to SAMHSA throughout the 

year indicating that they were made available for free to the public. This information will 

help SAMHSA better understand how the apps are meeting the goals of the challenge with 

the end-users; and to continue to refine the process and requirements for issuing future 

technology challenges.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-127

Incentives: Cash prizes totaled $32,500. Prizes were awarded through a contract task dedicated to 

behavioral health IT challenge competitions in the FY 2016 Behavioral Health Information 

Technology and Standards contract (FY 2016 BHITS Optional Task 3.4), overseen by the 

SAMHSA Health Information Technology Team. The first place winner was also invited to copresent on a SAMHSA Health IT panel at the 2016 AATOD conference in Baltimore, MD. 

Winners also received digital “banner awards,” icons to use in their own marketing material that 

verified they were winners of this SAMHSA challenge. Cash prizes were distributed from a thirdparty contractor, FEI, who is the primary contractor on the SAMHSA BHITS contract.

Evaluation and Judging: SAMHSA and the contractor/sub-contractor team were responsible for 

the proper analysis of scores from two rounds of judging. Judges were recruited across SAMHSA 

and other Federal agencies with expertise in substance use disorders, MAT, mental health, and 

other health care disciplines, public health, and Health IT. The first round of judging, held June 6–

13, 2016, judges were asked to review up to five app submission demo videos (up to five minutes 

long each) on their own and with a total time commitment to review all of the videos of no more 

than two hours. Scoring sheets, information on assessing the five Insights, links to videos, conflict 

of interest forms, and instructions were provided. Judges were invited to attend a one-hour 

orientation webinar. All apps that met the submission requirements of the video challenges 

(addressed insights and technical requirements) went on to round two, where judges were asked to 

attend an all-day in-person meeting at SAMHSA on June 24, 2016. Judges reviewed apps in person 

on devices and a large screen, scored them, and open-forum discussion was held with subject 

matter experts in the room to determine final scores.

Scoring Criteria: Quantitative values were assigned to multiple criteria for assessment (see below). 

Qualitative assessment was done through identifying strengths and weaknesses on the judging 

forms for free text explanation of scoring, and any other points judges felt necessary to factor into 

scores that was not captured through the criteria. The numeric point system/scores and the openforum discussion on the apps were used to affect score, were used to identify strong applicants and 

decide on the winners and honorable mention awardees.

Quantitative Score Forms:

PATIENT VALUE (up to 70 points)

In determining the patient value, consider the following questions:

Criteria Score

Does the app provide solutions to patient needs? (Score a. –e. below)

How well does the solution address insight 1 (10 points)?

How well does the solution address insight 2 (10 points)?

How well does the solution address insight 3 (10 points)?

How well does the solution address insight 4 (5 points)?
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-128

How well does the solution address insight 5 (5 points)?

Could a patient use this app for ongoing recovery support? (10 points)

Could a patient use this app in discussion with their support team? (10 points)

Do you feel the app has the potential to have a meaningful impact on the patient’s recovery? 

(10 points)

TOTAL SCORE PATIENT VALUE 1-4

CREATIVITY (up to 15 points)

Creativity applies to how imaginative the overall app is in providing recovery support. In 

determining creativity, consider the following factors:

Criteria Score

Does the proposed app offer an original approach to address recovery needs? This could 

include approaching an old idea in a new way. (5 points)

Is the overall feeling of the proposed app fresh and interesting? (5 points)

Does the app consider the specific health and confidentiality needs of the end user? (5 

points)

TOTAL SCORE CREATIVITY 1-3

INNOVATION (up to 15 points)

Innovation applies to the implementation of the creative idea. While you are judging based on the 

summary and video, please consider how the applicant is implementing the idea. For example, if 

a submission proposes to provide all drug interaction, but suggests implementation with links to 

external sites, the creativity may be high, but the innovation is low. In determining innovation, 

consider the following factors: 

Criteria Score

Does the app present the required information in interesting, engaging, and/or innovative 

ways? (5 points)

Does the application use design and visual assets to increase the creativity and user 

experience? (5 points)

Does the application exhibit interactive and engaging features or qualities? (5 points)

TOTAL SCORE INNOVATION 1-3

Quality of Idea Final Score Summary

Evaluation Criteria Possible

Points

Final

Scores

Patient Value 70

Creativity 15
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-129

Innovation 15

TOTAL RATING 100

HONORABLE MENTION: ADDRESSING INSIGHTS ($1,000 prizes to the highest scoring 

team in each Insight).

Partnerships: SAMHSA had informal partnerships with other agencies who participated on our 

judging panels. This team was proud of the vast array of disciplines, expertise, and agency 

participation that reviewed and scored these submissions in the two-part judging process. Federal 

partner-judges came from across SAMHSA centers/offices, the White House Office of National 

Drug Control Policy, HRSA, ONC, FDA, NIDA, NIAA, ACF, and DOJ.

SAMHSA did not have formal partnerships with other agencies in administering or funding this 

challenge. It has been this team’s observation that cross-funding cash prizes may be a challenging 

arrangement with other agencies due to the lack of guidance on administering challenges, and due 

to time constraints in one-year contracts to launch, administer, judge, and award challenges. The 

team opines that planning to collaborate with other agencies may take up to a year in advance due 

to negotiations, securing funding, and working out contract mechanisms and the transfer of dollars, 

and will continue to investigate ideas on how to do cross-agency collaborative challenges with 

cash prizes in the future.

Resources: The SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), Performance 

Measurement Branch (PMB), and Health Information Technology (HIT) Team used an optional 

task (Task 3.4) out of the Behavioral Health Information Technology and Standards (BHITS) 

contract to fund this challenge. This task was funded by the CSAT Division of Pharmacological 

Therapies (DPT). A third-party contractor, FEI, who is the primary contractor on the SAMHSA 

BHITS contract, was used acquire the correct sub-contractor/consultant services to create materials 

and project manage, distribute funds to winners, and run security, compliance, and debugging 

reviews of the apps. Challenge administration, contractor oversight, and Health IT and recovery 

subject expertise was managed by one SAMHSA FTE on the Health IT team. Subject matter 

expertise was contributed by one SAMHSA FTE in the CSAT Division of Pharmacological 

Therapies. Management and administrative support was provided by two Abt Associate subcontractors with experience in running challenges on DevPost, creation of marketing materials, 

and management of the judging process. Cash prizes were released as cheques after the apps were 

analyzed for bugs/security issues by the prime contractor’s IT personnel and assessed for accuracy 

Insight Score

How well does the solution address Insight 1: Drug Interaction Info and Drug Side 

Effects Info for Methadone, Buprenorphine, Naltrexone (10 points)?

How well does the solution address Insight 2: MAT education and 

Psychoeducational Materials (10 points)?

How well does the solution address Insight 3: Peer support/mutual aid groups 

meeting finder open API and other resources (10 points)?

How well does the solution address Insight 4: Relapse prevention, trigger alerts, 

motivations for recovery are included (10 points)?

How well does the solution address Insight 5: Support for juggling work, personal 

life, and treatment schedules are included (10 points)?
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-130

to challenge criteria. In addition, affidavits were distributed to be signed before money was 

released to winners.

Results: On the closing day of the challenge admission period, SAMHSA received 15 products to 

review. The 15 teams who submitted a video and technology all consisted of one- or two-person 

teams according their DevPost profiles, however some “stories” indicated there were more team 

members who were not named on the applications. Many submission stories revealed information 

that a majority of the developers/team members are in recovery from substance use disorders, or 

have personal connections to addiction and substance abuse, or were behavioral health care 

providers. One provider stated that he learned the process of building an app for the purpose of 

competing in this challenge. Multiple stories relayed that team members were inspired by the 

process of learning about people with substance use disorders, medication-assisted treatment, and 

the recovery process through their studies to better understand the challenge and the solutions. One 

team said that they reached out to people in recovery for input. A majority of the teams wrote that 

they would continue to improve, enhance, research, and make their apps available for download 

to the people who need them.

Applicants submitted a myriad of ideas and concepts. SAMHSA received everything from 

traditional health app devices (which of course incorporated the five Insights) to innovative 

approaches using film and art to engage people in recovery and MAT.

Winners were selected based on two rounds of judging. A preliminary score to determine the top 

submissions was based on the video demonstration and a second round of judging by subject matter 

expertise on the applications.

First Place: FlexDek for MAT by Sober Recovery Network

Second Place: RePear by Sara Du (Student at University of California Los Angeles)

Third Place: Recopia by Jae Jang

Honorable Mention, Insight 1: Recopia

Honorable Mention, Insight 2: Recopia

Honorable Mention, Insight 3: FlexDek for MAT

Honorable Mention, Insight 4: FlexDek for MAT

Honorable Mention, Insight 5: FlexDek for MAT

A.5.23 The Simple Extensible Sampling Tool Challenge105

Summary: Statistical sampling of the hundreds of millions of Medicare and Medicaid claims HHS 

handles is necessary for effective oversight of those claims. The current statistical package used, 

RAT-STATS, does not meet Federal accessibility standards. This challenge is designed to produce 

a statistical package that can meet RAT-STATS performance while being 508 compliant and user 

friendly.

Solution Type: Software and apps

 

105 www.challenge.gov/challenge/statistical-software-for-healthcare-oversight
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-131

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; and inform and educate the public

Results: This challenge was only recently opened, it is too soon to report results.

Problem Statement: Each year HHS handles hundreds of millions of Medicare and Medicaid 

claims valued at more than a trillion dollars. Due to the high volume of claims, statistical sampling 

provides a critical tool to ensure effective oversight of these expenditures. Sampling is used by the 

providers in their own efforts to monitor their performance and by the various organizations within 

HHS. There are a wide range of different software tools for performing statistical analysis. The 

RAT-STATS software package, which was originally developed by HHS/OIG, has a unique niche 

in that it provides a straightforward tool for individuals who need a simple but robust method for 

selecting and analyzing statistical samples. Unlike a full statistical package that attempts to answer 

all types of questions for a wide range of users, RAT-STATS serves as a streamlined solution to 

help users develop valid statistical samples and estimates within the health care oversight setting. 

For example, an OIG investigator may pull a simple random sample in order to estimate damages 

for a provider suspected of fraud. RAT-STATS generates valid pseudo-random numbers and 

outputs all of the information needed to replicate the sample. Once the investigator finishes 

reviewing the sample, he or she can then enter the results into RAT-STATS to get the final 

statistical estimate. While the investigator may need some basic training in statistics, he or she 

would not need the same level of expertise as would be required to navigate the many options 

available in a full-service statistical or data analysis package.

In order to complete the challenge, participants must submit a 508 compliant software package 

(source code and executable) that replicates the operation of four of the functions of the original 

RAT-STATS software: (1) Single Stage Random Numbers; (2) Unrestricted Attribute Appraisal; 

(3) Unrestricted Variable Appraisal; and (4) Stratified Variable Appraisal. The participants also 

must submit an explanation of how their program can be extended to include additional functions 

beyond the four that have been listed here.

Proposed Goals: The objective of the current challenge is to develop the foundation for an 

upgraded version of RAT-STATS software that is 508 compliant with a user-friendly design. The 

current version of RAT-STATS is well validated; however, its user interface can be difficult to 

navigate and does not meet Federal accessibility standards. OIG needs a new, modern version of 

the software that is easier to use and is 508 compliant. In addition, by using a competition, OIG 

hopes to increase public awareness about the RAT-STATS software.

Measures of Success: The core objective measure of success will be the creation of a software 

package that is 508 compliant and can replicate the four target functions from the original RATSTATS software. Other key objective measures include the decrease in time needed to train new 

employees on the use of the RAT-STATS software and the decrease in effort required by users to 

execute common program functions. The most important subjective measure of success will be the 

user satisfaction that is reported for the winning software package compared to the original RATSTATS.

Participants: The contest is open to the public and anyone who could provide a solution. HHS

targeted individuals who are knowledgeable about programming and software design. Rules for 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-132

participation in the challenge can be found at: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/statisticalsoftware-for-healthcare-oversight/. The challenge is still ongoing and so the total number of 

participants has not yet been established. 

Timeline: Submissions opened for this challenge September 29, 2016 and will close May 15, 2017.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: This challenge involves the identification of up to five finalists who will each receive 

$3,000. A grand prize winner, who will be selected from these finalists, will receive an additional 

$25,000. The total potential prize purse is $40,000. The grand prize winner will be recognized 

within the software that results from the competition. The grand prize winner will also be listed on 

the agency website and within the instruction manual for the software. No private sector or 

philanthropic funds were contributed for the prizes. All funds were obligated from HHS OIG 

appropriations.

Evaluation and Judging: The first five eligible submissions that are complete, follow the 

competition rules, and are able to fully replicate RAT-STATS on the 60 target cases will each be 

declared a finalist. The grand prize will be selected by a committee of 12 HHS OIG employees 

who represent the type of individuals who would be end-users for the new software. Each of the 

12 individuals will vote on which of the software packages they would prefer to use moving 

forward. The finalist with the most votes will be declared the grand prize winner.

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: The challenge has been run using only internal agency resources. To date, these include 

IT resources and 60 FTE hours, including 10 hours at GS–13 level and 50 hours at GS–15 level.

Results: No entries have been received yet, and there are no preliminary results to report. We do 

not expect winners to be announced until summer 2017.

A.5.24 Use of Blockchain in Health IT and Health-related Research106

Summary: Blockchains are distributed databases that are secure by design and resist retroactive 

editing. This security makes them desirable for use in protecting patient health data, however the 

work on this concept has not been proportionate to the hype. Participants in this challenge were 

asked to submit white papers examining how blockchain can be used to improve health data 

sharing and interoperability.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; and engage 

new people and communities

 

106 www.cccinnovationcenter.com/challenges/blockchain-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-133

Results: A total of 77 white papers were received. Submission types included 42 business and 35 

individual papers. Approximately 40% of the individual submissions were unaffiliated with any 

organization. Submissions included 16 universities, five hospitals or health systems, 12 health IT 

vendors, 12 large consultancies or general technology providers, three blockchain technology 

vendors, one pharmaceutical company, and five nonprofit organizations. The 15 winning 

submissions were publicly announced and posted to healthit.gov on August 29th, 2016.

Problem Statement: A tremendous amount of hype existed around the use of blockchain for 

healthcare yet, at the time, there was no real substantive effort or work to reference or point to. 

The Ideation Challenge solicited white papers that investigated the relationships between 

blockchain technology and its use in Health IT and/or health-related research. Participants were 

asked submit a white paper that discussed the cryptography and underlying fundamentals of 

blockchain technology, examined how the use of blockchain can advance industry interoperability 

needs expressed in the ONC’s Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap, as well as for Patient 

Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR), the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), delivery system 

reform, and other health care delivery needs, as well as provide recommendations for blockchain’s 

implementations.

Proposed Goals: The goals were to inform and educate the public and Health IT policy makers, 

highlight innovative uses of blockchain and engage the innovation community with Health IT 

policy, technologist, and implementers. Papers from the Ideation Challenge were used to shape the 

agenda and provide presenters for the public Blockchain and Healthcare workshop co-sponsored 

by NIST, held at the NIST campus in Gaithersburg. 

Measures of Success: Before the challenge, only three public references could be found regarding

the use of blockchain for healthcare.107 Only one of them was in the United States. Challenge 

organizers expected 20 submissions at best and received 77. A number of workshops, initiatives,

and collaborative efforts have launched since the launch of the challenge and hosting of the 

workshop. The combination of ONC and NIST taking notice has spurred those in the market to 

step up, or at least to be vocal about their work.

Participants: The challenge targeted designers, developers, investigators, patient privacy experts, 

and others to submit white papers on the topic of “Use of Blockchain in Health IT and HealthRelated Research.” Participation was open to all members of the community who agreed to the 

terms and conditions of the challenge and who were eligible for participation under the challenge 

guidelines. Seventy-seven teams, made up of 105 total individuals, submitted entries to the 

challenge.

To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity had to meet the following 

eligibility rules:

 Shall have registered to participate in the challenge under the rules promulgated by the 

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

 Shall have complied with all the stated requirements of the “Blockchain and Its Emerging 

Role in Healthcare and Health-Related Research Challenge.”

 

107 MIT, Phillips and Estonia
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-134

 In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of 

business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly 

or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

 May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their 

employment.

 Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during 

assigned duty hours. 

 Shall not be an employee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 

Technology.

 Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge 

applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award.

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act 

challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge 

Submission.

 An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used 

Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a challenge, if the facilities 

and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the 

challenge on an equitable basis.

 Submissions must not display HHS’s or ONC’s logos or official seals and must not claim 

endorsement.

 Accuracy: A white paper submission may be disqualified if it provides inaccurate or 

incomplete information.

Timeline: Submissions for this challenge opened July 5, 2016 and closed August 8, 2016. Winners 

were announced August 29, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media;

 Email Outreach;

 Two-Day Long Event at the conclusion of the Competition; and

 Partnership with Outside Organizations.

Incentives: The total available prize money was $45,000; 15 winners received cash prizes of 

$3,000 each. Additionally, eight of the challenge winners were invited to present their white papers 

at the “Use of Blockchain in Health IT and Health-Related Research Workshop.” Awards and 

travel for presenters were managed thorough a contractor under the HHS Idea Lab BPA which was 

awarded a contract to manage up to five challenges on behalf of ONC. The funding for the 

challenges was provided by a projected funded through Patient Center Outcomes Resource Trust 

fund.

Evaluation and Judging: The judging panel rated each submission based upon:

 Potential of the overall concept to help foster transformative change in the culture of health 

IT;

 Viability of the proposed recommendations;

 Innovativeness of the approach; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-135

 Potential for achieving the objectives of ONC.

Although equal weight was given to each criterion in the initial rounds of judging, a greater 

emphasis, during the final selection process, was given to the viability of the proposed solution 

and potential to help foster transformative change.

Partnerships: NIST co-sponsored the associated blockchain workshop with ONC, provided staff 

to assist with the reviews of the papers, presented at the workshop, and provided funding to 

increase the number of registrations for the workshop (257 registered). 

Presentations, briefings, and panels were delivered by the White House Office of Science and 

Technology and Policy (WH OSTP), the NIST Cryptographic Technology Group of the Computer 

Security Division, and the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) Identity Innovation Project. 

A total of 27 reviewers from DHS, GSA, USPS, USPTO and leaders in the blockchain community 

provided initial reviews of the white papers. Additionally, representatives from Ping Identity, 

Constellation Research, and Respect Network provided private sector perspectives regarding the 

strengths and weaknesses of blockchain and alternative distributed ledger technologies.

The challenge sponsors found that by combining various communities in both the ideation 

challenge and associated workshop, an enormous amount of sharing of information and 

perspectives occurred.

Resources: This challenge was managed from initiation to completion by ONC staff, with the 

assistance of contractors as well as two support staff from NIST. The operational cost paid by HHS 

was estimated at $16,000, and an estimated $3,000 was provided by NIST for supporting the 

workshop.

Results: A total of 77 white papers were received. Submission types included 42 business and 35 

individual papers. Approximately 40% of the individual submissions were unaffiliated with any 

organization. Submissions included 16 universities, five hospitals or health systems, 12 health IT 

vendors, 12 large consultancies or general technology providers, three blockchain technology 

vendors, one pharmaceutical company, and five nonprofit organizations.

The 15 winning submissions were publicly announced and posted to healthit.gov on August 29, 

2016. The following table displays the winning submissions, their author(s), and organizational 

affiliations:

Note: Submissions listed in alphabetical not rank order.

Title Link Authors Organization

A Blockchain 

Profile for 

Medicaid 

Applicants and 

Recipients

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/14-38-

blockchain_medicaid_solution

.8.8.15.pdf?version=1&modifi

cationDate=1472657517000&

api=v2

Kathi Vian, Alessandro Voto, 

and Katherine HaynesSanstead

Blockchain 

Futures Lab -

Institute for the 

Future
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-136

Title Link Authors Organization

A BlockchainBased Approach 

to Health 

Information 

Exchange 

Networks

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/12-55-blockchainbased-approach-final.pdf

Kevin Peterson, Rammohan 

Deeduvanu, Pradip 

Kanjamala, and Kelly Boles

Mayo Clinic

A Case Study for 

Blockchain in 

Healthcare: 

“MedRec” 

Prototype for 

Electronic Health 

Records and 

Medical 

Research Data

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/5-56-

onc_blockchainchallenge_mit

whitepaper.pdf

Ariel Ekblaw, Asaph Azaria, 

John D. Halamka, MD, and 

Andrew Lippman

MIT Media Lab, 

Beth Israel 

Deaconess 

Medical Center

Adoption of 

Blockchain to 

enable the 

Scalability and 

Adoption of 

Accountable 

Care

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/13-71-

blockchain_for_healthcare_p

aper_final.pdf?version=1&mo

dificationDate=147265749200

0&api=v2

Ramkrishna Prakash Unaffiliated

Blockchain & 

Alternate 

Payment Models

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/15-54-

kyip_blockchainapms_08081

6.pdf

King Yip Unaffiliated

Blockchain and 

Health IT: 

Algorithms, 

Privacy, and Data

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/1-78-

blockchainandhealthitalgorith

msprivacydata_whitepaper.pd

f

Allison Ackerman Shrier, 

Anne Chang, Nadia DiakunThibault, Luca Forni, 

Fernando Landa, Jerry 

Mayo, Raul van Riezen, and 

Thomas Hardjono

Project 

PharmOrchard of 

MIT’s 

Experimental 

Learning “MIT 

FinTech: Future 

Commerce.”

Blockchain for 

Health Data and 

Its Potential Use 

in Health IT and 

Health Care 

Related

Research

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/11-74-

ablockchainforhealthcare.pdf

?version=1&modificationDate

=1472657425000&api=v2

Linn L., and Koo M. Unaffiliated

Blockchain 

Technologies: A 

Whitepaper 

Discussing how 

Claims Process 

can be 

Improved

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/3-47-

whitepaperblockchainforclaim

s_v10.pdf?version=1&modific

ationDate=1472657193000&a

pi=v2

Kyle Culver Unaffiliated

Blockchain: 

Opportunities for 

Health Care

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/Deloitte%20Blockch

ain%20in%20Healthcare%20-

%20HHS%20White%20Pape

r%20-

%20August%202016%20-

%20vF.pdf?version=1&modifi

RJ Krawiec, Dan Barr, Jason 

Killmeyer, Mariya Filipova, 

Allen Nesbitt, Adam Israel, 

Florian Quarre, Kate 

Fedosva, and Lindsay Tsai

Deloitte 

Consulting LLP
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-137

Title Link Authors Organization

cationDate=1475076762000&

api=v2

Blockchain: 

Securing a New 

Health 

Interoperability 

Experience

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/2-49-

accenture_onc_blockchain_c

hallenge_response_august8_

final.pdf?version=1&modificati

onDate=1472657006000&api

=v2

Brodersen C, Brian Kalis, 

Emily Mitchell, Eril Pupo, 

and Andy Truscott

Accenture LLP

Blockchain: The 

Chain of Trust 

and its Potential 

to Transform 

Healthcare – Our 

Point of View

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/8-31-blockchainibm_ideationchallenge_aug8.pdf?version=

1&modificationDate=1472657

336000&api=v2

Srinivas Attili, Susheel K 

Ladwa, Udit Sharma, and 

Anthony F. Trenkle

IBM Global 

Business Service 

Public Sector

ModelChain: 

Decentralized 

PrivacyPreserving 

Health Care 

Predictive 

Modeling 

Framework on 

Private 

Blockchain 

Networks

Tsung-Ting Kuo, PhD,

Chun-Nan Hsu, PhD,

Lucila Ohno-Machado, MD, 

PhD

Health System 

Department of 

Biomedical, 

University of 

California San 

Diego and 

Division of Health 

Services 

Research & 

Development

Moving Toward a 

Blockchain-based 

Method for the 

Secure Storage of 

Patient Records

oncprojectracking.healthit.gov

/wiki/download/attachments/1

4582699/9-16-

drew_ivan_20160804_blockc

hain_for_healthcare_final.pdf

?version=1&modificationDate

=1472657370000&api=v2

Drew Ivan Unaffiliated

Powering the 

Physician Patient 

Relationship with 

‘HIE of One’ 

Blockchain 

Health IT

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/7-29-

poweringthephysicianpatientrelationshipwithblockch

ainhealthit.pdf

Adrian Gropper Unaffiliated

The Use of a 

Blockchain to 

Foster the 

Development of 

Patient-Reported 

Outcome 

Measures

www.healthit.gov/sites/default

/files/6-42-

use_of_blockchain_to_develo

p_proms.pdf

Jason Goldwater National Quality 

Forum

A.6 Department of Homeland Security
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-138

A.6.1 Think and Do Challenge: Enhancing Collaboration, Innovation, Talent and 

Training108

Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate’s 

(S&T) Office of National Laboratories (ONL) sought solutions that propose instruments to help 

seed collaboration, and innovation. ONL also enhanced the new National Bio and Agro-Defense 

Facility’s (NBAF) ability to establish strong bonds with related communities of interest, and spur 

innovation and success. The NBAF will open in 2022 in Manhattan, Kansas, and will be a stateof-the-art biocontainment facility for large animal agricultural research, training, and diagnostics. 

The facility will strengthen the Nation’s ability to conduct research, develop vaccines, diagnose 

emerging diseases, and train veterinarians. To capitalize on the benefits of the NBAF, ONL 

pursued novel, smart strategies to advance the innovation, collaboration, training, and talent 

required to support this future facility. The prize competition sought business plans that improved 

the NBAF’s mission to shape and advance bio/agro security. The competition generated a total of 

33 proposals. The first place winning solution was submitted by Dawn Krause on behalf of the 

Manhattan Area Technical College (MATC). The second place winning solution was submitted 

by Gina Becker on behalf of DynaSim Technical Services, INC. The total prize amount to the two 

winners was $92,306 and both winners applied for additional grant funding from Kansas State 

University.

Solution Type: Ideas; and business plans

Primary Goals: The prize competition’s primary objective was to encourage innovation and

promote and find novel approaches to building one or more pieces of the innovation ecosystem 

that enhances the NBAF’s mission and role in shaping bio/agro security.

The desired outcomes included:

 Advance scientific research

 Improve government service delivery

 Find and highlight innovative ideas

 Engage new people and communities

 Build capacity

Results: Over 4,300 individuals viewed the prize competition website, 221 individuals from 37 

countries registered for the competition, and 33 proposals were submitted. The first place winning 

solution was submitted by Dawn Krause on behalf of the Manhattan Area Technical College 

(MATC). This solution will kick-start new training programs at MATC and will provide a pool of 

individuals to recruit to the lab. The second place winning solution was submitted by Gina Becker 

on behalf of DynaSim Technical Services, INC. This solution will provide a collaborative data 

platform which will enhance the research collaboration potential of projects at the lab. Both 

winners have entered into agreements with DHS S&T and have applied for further grant funding 

with the State of Kansas. 

 

108 www.dhs.gov/nbafchallenge; www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933727
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-139

Problem Statement: The National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) will open in 2022 in 

Manhattan, Kansas, and will be a state-of-the-art biocontainment facility for large animal 

agricultural research, training, and diagnostics. The facility will strengthen the Nation’s ability to 

conduct research, develop vaccines, diagnose emerging diseases, and train veterinarians. To 

capitalize on the benefits of the NBAF, ONL pursued novel, smart strategies to advance the 

innovation, collaboration, training, and talent required to support this future facility. A new 

approach will build one or more pieces of the innovation ecosystem—an ecosystem consisting of 

people, institutions, policies, and resources that promote research.

The prize competition sought business plans that improved the NBAF’s mission to shape and 

advance bio/agro security. A successful solution had to contribute and enable a highly integrated 

bio/agro security innovation ecosystem, and was expected to meet a five-step success critera to:

1. Engage: Reach out to stakeholders throughout private industry, livestock producers, animal 

health companies, research universities, local/State/Federal Government;

2. Align: Pinpoint nature alignments that exist within the stakeholder network and determine 

which alignments may provide a foundation for more significant and committed 

partnerships;

3. Enable: Connect needs with system capabilities offered by others within the network to 

begin creating a symbiotic framework for protection of animal health, public health, and 

the food supply, while also promoting economic growth;

4. Advance: Secure key partnerships by identifying specific shared goals within each aligned 

relationship, ascertaining progressive benchmarks for success and operationalizing each 

partnership; and

5. Enrich: Mature ecosystem elements that support regional economic growth and further 

develop the partnerships nationally and internationally as appropriate.

This was a single-phase ideation prize competition that required a written business plan. Winning 

solutions were expected to enter into an agreement with DHS S&T to implement their business 

plan and provide periodic progress reports.

Proposed Goals: The prize competition’s primary objective was to encourage innovation, promote 

and find novel approaches to building one or more pieces of the innovation ecosystem that enhance 

the NBAF’s mission and role in shaping bio/agro security.

Measures of Success: Success was measured in three ways:

1. Interest in the prize

a. 4,346 views on the prize competition page

b. 221 opened project rooms (participating solvers)

c. 33 submitted solution proposals

d. 2 winning solution proposals

2. Quality of ideas (enhanced collaboration, training, research, or talent)

a. DynaSim enhanced collaboration

b. MATC provided training program

3. Establish long-term partnerships

a. Both solvers completed agreements with DHS S&T

b. Both solvers applied for the State of Kansas grants
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-140

Participants: With this prize competition, DHS S&T was trying to reach a new and diverse group 

of individuals and organizations interested in agricultural research and potential long-term facility 

partners. The competition provided an opportunity to reach new innovators and partners that do 

not normally participate in the government contract and grant process and also known individuals 

and entities that previously expressed interest in the facility. Most of the outreach was targeted to 

the Animal Health Corridor because of their national presence and ability to assist DHS S&T with 

marketing the competition to a broader audience. A majority of submissions and those of the 

winning solutions were submitted from that area of the United States. A total of 221 individuals 

from 37 countries registered for the competition, and 33 proposals from 5 countries were received.

Timeline: The prize competition opened the submission period on September 30, 2015, and 

stopped accepting submissions on November 30, 2015. Winners were announced February 8, 

2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: On September 29, 2015 DHS S&T announced the National Bio and 

Agro-Defense Facility Think and Do Challenge: Enhancing Collaboration, Innovation, Talent and 

Training prize competition with the goal of reaching a non-traditional audience of innovators and 

advancing bio/agro security. The competition was announced in the Federal Register, posted on 

Challenge.gov and went live on the InnoCentive Prize Competition page. The S&T team 

developed a communications and outreach package which defined which outreach methods should 

be used, and contained a rollout schedule for content.

Twitter was used for both the initial competition announcement in September 2015 and the winner 

announcement in February 2016. S&T staff posted tweets for the S&T Twitter account 

(@dhsscitech) using the hashtags: #NBAFChallenge, #Innovation, #training, #NBAF, and #talent. 

The S&T Facebook page (www.facebook.com/dhsscitech/) also posted twice, linking to the 

competition page on the DHS website. 

InnoCentive also posted content to their Twitter account, Facebook page, and LinkedIn page. S&T 

sent locally targeted email blasts, and InnoCentive promoted the prize competition through their 

weekly challenge Bulletin. This Bulletin was sent to over 140,000 solvers every Thursday during 

the competition for a total of nine bulletins.

S&T utilized press releases during the Open Submission Period. After the Federal Register notice, 

Challenge.gov post, and InnoCentive prize competition page went live, S&T announced the 

beginning of the NBAF ‘Think and Do’ prize competition submission period via press release. The 

S&T prize competition press release was issued on Wednesday, September 30, 2015. The 

announcement was picked up by the following sites:

 KSU: Homeland Security offers $100K to support Think and Do competition for NBAF;

 Global Biodefense: DHS Launches New Biosecurity Lab Prize Competition;

 Duke University, Research Funding: National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) 

Think and Do Challenge: Enhancing Collaboration, Innovation, Talent and Training; and

 Homeland Security News Wire: DHS S&T launches $100,000 prize competition to support 

NBAF facility.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-141

The S&T prize winners’ announcement press release was issued on Monday, February 8, 2016. 

InnoCentive cross-posted the S&T press release and the Manhattan Area Technical College 

announced their win for the competition.

Web Content—customized web content was developed by both the S&T and InnoCentive teams.

 The following pages went live shortly before the press release was issued:

o DHS NBAF Challenge page

o NBAF Prize Competition Video

 In addition to the content at the start of the submission period, S&T also published a blog 

on November 17, reminding potential solvers of the upcoming November 30 deadline.

 A blog from the Under Secretary for Science and Technology was also posted announcing 

the winners.

 InnoCentive tracked the traffic of visitors to the InnoCentive prize competition page. A 

total of 4,346 people visited the competition page. The landing pages visitors came from 

and the number of page views per landing page, are listed below:

Visitor Landing Page Number of Page Views

InnoCentive.com 3430

DHS.gov 526

Challenge.gov 256

InnoCentive Marketing 134

Grand Total 4346

Conference and Events

 The Executive Director of the NBAF Program Executive Office attended two national 

conferences to promote the prize competition.

 The NBAF Partnerships Director launched the competition at the Animal Health Corridor 

Reunion Banquet.

Lessons Learned: There are several lessons learned that S&T can implement in future prize 

competitions. There was an intentional strategic decision to use the regional contacts to market 

this prize competition to entities with a national presence. This found success in meeting the intent 

of the competition. Now that the ecosystem concept is branded and accepted, next time S&T 

should consider a broader national campaign. There was also confusion as to which site to link 

potential participants to: the S&T competition page or the InnoCentive website. S&T linked to 

their page in their social media outreach but determined there should be more clarity on which site 

link to use for future competitions. DHS S&T will begin using the Challenge.gov website as the 

primary prize competition, information, social media, and registration website. Enhancements to 

the Challenge.gov website will provide future prize competition managers with a dynamic, flexible 

tool for promoting their prize competition, interacting with solvers, and cross-populating social 

media information. The site will also provide the ability to directly link a solver to a third party 

vendor for registration and submission. This enhancement will help to reduce confusion between 

the various websites used for prize competitions.

Incentives: A total cash prize pool of up to $100,000 with a guaranteed award of at least $15,000, 

and no award to be less than $15,000. Along with the cash prize, winning solvers would enter into 

an agreement with DHS S&T to implement their proposed solution and provide periodic progress 

reports. Winners could opt for their solution to be considered for grants from the State of Kansas, 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-142

administered by Kansas State University. The grant would match the S&T prize award for solvers 

to continue their project.

Evaluation and Judging: A total of 33 submissions were received and filtered by InnoCentive 

based on non-U.S. citizenship, non-U.S. permanent resident status, non-U.S.-based entities, lowquality submissions, and submissions that did not provide a cover page. This left 18 proposals for 

DHS S&T to evaluate. Then, seven competent judges from S&T and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture rated each of the 18 submissions using a point system (0-100 points) against three 

weighted criteria: impact, method/feasibility, and cost realism. The judges populated a spreadsheet 

with the ratings and comments from their evaluation which S&T consolidated. A three-hour 

conference call was held between the seven judges to discuss each submission and reach a 

consensus on the top five submissions. Only two submissions were chosen as winners due to the 

limited prize pool of $100,000. The subjective and objective method to evaluate the submissions 

was deemed effective.

Criteria: Solutions for this competition were evaluated by a judging panel using the criteria and 

rating scales described below. A total of 100 points was possible for each proposed solution. 

Judges individually scored accepted proposed solutions that met the eligibility and submission 

criteria of this challenge.

Solution Rating System (1-10 points for each criterion)

 Excellent: Fully addressed all elements of this criterion (10 points).

 Very Good: High quality, addressed most significant elements of this criterion (8-9 points).

 Good: Quality, adequately addressed some important elements of this criterion (6-7 points).

 Fair: Solver failed to address one or more critical aspects of this criterion (4-5 points).

 Poor: this criterion has serious deficiencies (1-3 points).

Scoring: Criterion Score X Weighted Importance = Total

Judging Criteria:

Impact (Weighted Importance: 5) (50 possible points)

Proposed solutions were evaluated on their plan’s ability to effectively develop and 

implement/commercialize solutions that enhance innovation, education, training, and the 

improvement of skills within the (NBAF) ecosystem.

 A clear understanding of a real or persistent problem or an unaddressed opportunity, its 

urgency, and the ability of the proposed solution to solve the problem or capitalize on the 

opportunity;

 Creative or even potentially transformative solutions based on an understanding of their 

role, benefit, and best practices within the innovation ecosystem;

 A clear understanding of the current and future challenges facing the Nation’s agricultural 

system;

 Alignment with current and future needs for the success of the NBAF;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-143

 Quantifiable benefits that go beyond the solver and benefit the innovation ecosystem and 

the NBAF; and

 The extent to which innovation, collaboration, training, or talent aligned to the NBAF 

visions will be enhanced.

Method/Feasibility (Weighted Importance: 3) (30 possible points)

The extent to which the proposed solution demonstrates:

 An understanding, use and incorporation of the five-step success criteria in developing and 

implementing the solution:

o Step 1 (Engage): Reach out to stakeholders throughout private industry, livestock 

producers, animal health companies, research universities, local/State/Federal 

Government;

o Step 2 (Align): Pinpoint natural alignments that exist within the stakeholder network 

and determine which alignments may provide a foundation for more significant and 

committed partnerships;

o Step 3 (Connect): Link needs with system capabilities offered by others within the 

network to begin creating a symbiotic framework for protection of animal health, public 

health, and the food supply, while also promoting economic growth;

o Step 4 (Advance): Secure key partnerships by identifying specific shared goals within 

each aligned relationship, ascertaining progressive benchmarks for success and 

operationalizing each partnership; and

o Step 5 (Enrich): Mature ecosystem elements that support regional economic growth 

and further develop the partnerships nationally and internationally as appropriate.

 Successful execution of the idea with a reasonable degree of success in the next year and 

demonstrated sustainability;

 Qualified personnel: Demonstrated project management expertise; the education, 

experience, and accomplishments of key personnel; adequacy of the individual/entity to 

carry out the proposed work and achieve success; previous performance; quality of any 

partnerships and extent of partnership commitments; and

 Appropriateness, quality, and availability of any facilities, materials and resources to be 

used in implementing the proposed solution.

Cost Realism (Weighted Importance: 2) (20 possible points)

 Adequate financial resources to ensure robust institutional capacity;

 Strong potential to become self-sustaining, even without significant future Federal funding;

 Extent to which prize funding will support implementation of the idea;

 Access to venture capital, angel financing, or other funding needed to implement/transition 

the solution;

 Business plan presents accurate, well-founded, and reasonable estimate of costs to kickstart the idea; and

 A long-term, broad, and deep commitment to implement/commercialize the solution with 

buy-in from stakeholders.

Partnerships: DHS S&T informally partnered with the State of Kansas and Kansas State University 

for this prize competition to support potential grants for the winning solvers. USDA provided two 

judges to evaluate submissions. A representative from the ONL and DHS S&T’s prize competition 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-144

program office met with the DHS National Protection and Program Directorate’s (NPPD) 

Agricultural Sector, which included interagency, private sector, and academic members, to 

promote the competition.

Resources: InnoCentive, Inc. was utilized as a third party vendor to help plan and conduct the prize 

competition.

The following DHS resources were utilized in the planning and conduct of the prize competition.

 DHS S&T, Prize Competition Manager;

 DHS S&T, Program Manager provided overall planning and support of the prize 

competition;

 DHS S&T and a third party contractor provided communications and marketing plan;

 DHS Office of Corporate Communications developed support material and approval for 

all public affairs announcements, supported a public facing website for the prize 

competition, addressed inquiries from the public, and created a marketing pamphlet; 

 DHS S&T General Counsel provided legal review and support to the planning and 

execution process; and

 DHS S&T and USDA provided judging support.

Prize Competition Resources

Category Work (hours)

DHS S&T 355

DHS HQ Review 10

Third Party Contractor 338

Office of Corporate Communication 29

Judging Support 138

KSU Video Support 2

TOTAL 952

The chart represents approximately $133,280 of administrative support required to conduct this 

prize competition.

Results: The prize competition advanced the NBAF mission by generating public interest and 

gathering novel ideas for the innovation ecosystem. DHS S&T measured the success of this prize 

competition by using three criteria: interest in the prize, quality of the ideas submitted, and the 

establishment of long-term partnerships. The competition generated much interest as over 4,300 

individuals viewed the prize competition website; 221 individuals from 37 countries registered for 

the competition, and 33 proposals from 5 countries were submitted.

The quality of ideas was high. One prize winner will kick-start new training programs at a local 

community college near the facility and will provide a pool of individuals to recruit to the lab. The 

other prize winner will provide a collaborative data platform which will enhance the research 

collaboration potential of projects at the lab. Both winners have entered into agreements with DHS 

S&T and have applied for further grant funding with the State of Kansas. In addition to the two 

winners, S&T will further discuss and collaborate with other participating solvers.

The first place winning solution was submitted by Dawn Krause on behalf of the Manhattan Area 

Technical College (MATC). The college specializes in workforce skills training that leads to a 

viable career and supports industry needs and skill requirements. MATC’s business plan presented 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-145

a concept to develop a biohazardous risk reduction training program with a goal of obtaining 

industry-endorsed Biosafety Level 4 certification. MATC currently offers science degree 

applicants an Advanced Biotechnology certificate and non-science degree applicants an A.A.S. for 

Biotechnology Laboratory Technicians. MATC further identified gaps in workforce training that 

need to be addressed and groups that require an understanding of biological safety. Training and 

understanding will reduce community risk and fear and will better prepare future NBAF staff. 

MATC will provide training for facility staff prior to employment and will promote understanding 

within the surrounding community. The key elements and competencies to be taught during the 

two-part curriculum include: (1) pathogenic environment online training; (2) biohazardous risk 

reduction face-to-face training. This challenge submission requested prize seed funding of 

$53,106; the awarded prize matched the full amount requested.

The second place winning solution was submitted by Gina Becker on behalf of DynaSim Technical 

Services, INC. DynaSim is a research and technical development company that provides 

petrochemical and other businesses’ R&D efforts with custom software and mathematical models. 

The prize competition submission tackled the problem of managing complex data and facilitating 

intense dynamic collaboration throughout the innovation ecosystem. The winner will use a new 

data management technology, RefItTM. This data management system uses a database structuring 

method to make disparate data tolls generically useful for any type of data. This technology, when 

fully developed, will allow the facility’s scientists and others to adapt quickly, create a secure 

database and data management strategy, and gain secure access internally and externally to the 

NBAF. DynaSim identified multiple problems associated with current database technologies such 

as the rigidity of a custom database making it difficult to change or modernize, and the dependence 

on a supplier to maintain and support the database. The proposal included an implementation plan 

that outlined how they would use the prize money to develop, implement, and test a prototype 

along with resources required and risk factors with implementing the solution. The challenge 

submission requested prize seed funding of $39,200; the awarded prize matched the full amount 

requested.

The total prize amount to the two winners was $92,306 and both winners applied for grant funding.

Post-Challenge Progress (as of September 2016): The development of the MATC’s specialized 

NBAF training curriculum is currently underway and embedded in the NBAF Operational Standup Branch. MATC has managed to secure additional grant funding and will expand their effort 

beyond the initial proposal.

DynaSim Technical Services’ collaborative research support tool project is pending prioritization 

of pilot research and available funding. The NBAF program embedded the project within its 

Program Support branch while a permanent solution toward establishing the collaborative research 

project continues to materialize. In the interim, NBAF has held several meetings to establish 

requirements for a complimentary stakeholder tracking tool that uses the same technology platform 

pitched in DynaSim’s winning proposal.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-146

A.6.2 Environmentally-Friendly Replacement for Buoy Mooring Systems Challenge109

Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate’s 

(S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division, in conjunction with the United States Coast Guard 

Research and Development Center (USCG RDC), was looking for a new, innovative approach to 

develop an adequate buoy mooring system that would have minimal impacts on the ocean floor, 

especially in environmentally-sensitive areas. Three phases were originally planned with a total 

prize purse set at $290,000. A total of 98 submissions were received during Phase I of the 

competition. A viable, cost-effective, winning solution was identified during Phase I of the 

competition and the additional phases were canceled. The winner received a cash prize of $10,000 

and the winning solution will undergo testing in late FY 2017.

Solution Type: Ideas; and technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: The prize competition’s primary objective was to encourage innovation, promote 

and find novel approaches to develop a buoy mooring system that would update the current system, 

while having minimal environmental impact. The challenge also provided the USCG with 

innovative technologies and ideas that could be engaged outside of a traditional contract. A viable 

solution will significantly enhance environmental stewardship for this crucial subset of the 

Nation’s navigational system.

The USCG RDC and DHS S&T wanted to use this competition to engage a new and diverse group 

of problem solvers. The desired outcomes were:

 Develop a new approach and technology solution;

 Solve a specific problem;

 Advance scientific research;

 Find and highlight innovative ideas;

 Engage new people and communities; and

 Inform and educate the public.

Results: Phase I generated 98 total submissions. A winning solution was identified during Phase I 

of the competition. The winner received a cash prize of $10,000 and the winning solution will

undergo testing in late FY 2017. The winning solution proposal was submitted by Cole Santos 

from Maui, Hawaii. His solution addressed all of the ten criteria for the competition.

Problem Statement: The United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center (USCG 

RDC), in conjunction with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Borders and Maritime 

Security Division, was looking for individuals and entities to submit a new, innovative technology 

approach for fixing a navigational buoy in a body of water. The goal was to develop an adequote 

buoy mooring system that would have minimal impacts on the ocean floor, especially in 

environmentally-sensitive areas. The technology for mooring buoys—the use of a concrete anchor 

and a heavy chain—has not changed substantially in decades.

 

109 www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933728
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-147

The prize competition sought a new, innovative, buoy mooring system. Buoys are an important 

part of the U.S. Aids to Navigation system. They convey information to boats by their visual or 

audible characteristics. The current system secures the floating buoy with the use of a chain and 

concrete sinker that causes damage to the marine life and habitat. Therefore, a new system 

approach requires a solution that is environmentally sensitive in order to protect the coral reefs and 

seagrass areas.

Solutions submitted to the prize competition could suggest alternative methods for using the 

current technology but would need to address and overcome the drawbacks associated with each 

method.

Aspects of a successful environmentally-friendly mooring system must consider the following:

1) The method to fix or anchor a buoy marker to a precise location on the seafloor or bottom 

that minimizes environmental damage.

2) The method that physically connects the surface marker to a precisely located anchor that 

allows for motion in a seaway due to winds, waves, tides, or other forces, while minimizing 

or eliminating any contact with the seafloor or adjacent vegetation.

3) A technique to install, inspect, remove or replace any parts of the system. Ideally, the

installation should be as simple as possible, and only use a ship with a boom. For example, 

methods requiring the use of drills, barges, or drivers might be scored lower than other 

proposed solutions.

4) These mooring systems may be fixed or moveable, passive or active, etc., with the goal of 

deployment in the following operating conditions:

a. Hull Type: 6 x 16 or 8 x 22 LFR (foam buoy);

b. Water Depth: 30 ft.–50 ft.;

c. Bottom Type: Sand or Mud;

d. Current: 2 kts. – 4 kts.;

e. Wind/Seas: 0 kts./0 ft.–70 kts./14 ft.; and

f. Tide: < 5 ft.

5) Additionally, proposed mooring systems should have the following properties:

a. Ability to withstand occasional allisions by vessels and not sustain damage; and

b. Ability to be deployed and retrieved using existing USCG resources, specifically: 175 

foot Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM; Beam: 36 ft.; Buoy Deck Area: 1335 sq. ft.; Crane: 

10 ton hydraulic with a 42 ft. reach; Dynamic Positioning System); or a 225 foot 

Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB; Beam: 46 ft.; Buoy Deck Area: 2875 sq. ft.; Crane: 20 

ton hydraulic with a 60 ft. reach; Dynamic Positioning System).

6) Prototype installation and assessment areas of particular interest to the USCG include the 

St. Johns River outside of Jacksonville, Florida, and the area around Guayanilla, Puerto 

Rico.

Proposed Goals: The prize competition’s primary objective was to encourage innovation, promote 

and find novel approaches to develop a buoy mooring system that would update the current system, 

while having minimal environmental impact. The challenge also provided the USCG with 

innovative technologies and ideas that could be engaged outside of a traditional contract. A viable 

solution will significantly enhance environmental stewardship for this crucial subset of the 

Nation’s navigational system.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-148

Measures of Success: USCG measured the success of this prize competition in the following ways:

1) Interest in the competition

a. 4,886 views on the prize competition page

b. 498 opened project rooms (participating solvers)

c. 98 submitted solution proposals

d. 53 submitted solution proposals eligible for award

e. 1 winning solution proposal

f. Received submissions from solvers of all backgrounds who wanted to participate

2) End result

a. Received a feasible, environmentally-friendly concept solution to the problem.

b. Proposed concept will enter into RDT&E by the USCG R&D Center in FY17.

c. The prize competition ended after Phase I and a cost savings of $240,000.

Participants: With this prize competition, the USCG RDC was trying to reach a diverse set of nontraditional and traditional innovators that could contribute novel approaches for an 

environmentally-friendly mooring system. This prize competition also sought a core audience of 

innovators involved in marine operations and marine engineering. This competition attracted a 

diverse set of innovators and ideas from persons with little to no background in marine operations 

or marine engineering. A total of 498 individuals participated in this challenge.

Eligibility Rules: Eligibility requirements are those as detailed by the Federal Register notice in 

the eligibility section from the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Timeline: The prize competition opened the submission period on January 6, 2016, and stopped 

accepting submissions on February 12, 2016. Winners were announced May 23, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: On January 6, 2016, DHS S&T announced the EnvironmentallyFriendly Replacement for Buoy Mooring Systems prize competition with the goal of discovering 

a new, innovative method for the buoy mooring system. The competition was announced in the 

Federal Register, posted on the DHS S&T Prize Competition page, posted on Challenge.gov, and 

went live on the InnoCentive prize competition page. The S&T Office of Corporate 

Communications managed the outreach and marketing of the challenge. The team developed a 

communications and outreach package which identified which outreach methods should be used, 

and contained a rollout schedule for content.

Social Media: For both the initial competition announcement in January 2016 and the winner 

announcement in May 2016, S&T staff posted tweets for the S&T Twitter account (@dhsscitech) 

using the hashtags: #prize, #ideas, #tech, and #ecosystem. Additionally, the S&T Facebook page 

(www.facebook.com/dhsscitech/) posted information about the competition using the hashtags: 

#prize, #ocean, and #technologies. InnoCentive also posted content to their Twitter account, 

Facebook page, and LinkedIn page.

Email Outreach: InnoCentive promoted the prize competition through email blasts and their 

weekly challenge bulletin. This bulletin was sent to over 140,000 solvers every Thursday during 

the competition for a total of five bulletins.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-149

Press Releases: Open Submission Period—The S&T prize competition press release was issued 

on Thursday, January 7, 2016. The press release was cross-posted on InnoCentive and a local Maui 

news site. DHS S&T and the USCG R&D Center are planning additional press announcements 

related to this competition when the R&D Center begins testing of proposed solution and upon 

successful completion of the pilot. The USCG R&D Center anticipates beginning testing in late 

FY 2017.

Prize Winners Announcement—The S&T prize winners announcement press release was issued 

on May 23, 2016. InnoCentive cross-posted the S&T press release.

Other:

Web Content—Customized web content was developed by both the S&T and InnoCentive teams.

 A blog from the Under Secretary for Science and Technology was also posted announcing 

the challenge.

 InnoCentive tracked the traffic of visitors to the InnoCentive prize competition page. A 

total of 4,886 people visited the competition page. The landing pages visitors came from 

and the number of page views per landing page, are listed below:

Visitor Landing Page Number of Page Views

InnoCentive.com 4447

Challenge.gov 345

InnoCentive Marketing 50

DHS.gov 44

Grand Total 4886

Lessons Learned: Although the outreach for this prize competition was less extensive than the 

previous two prize competitions conducted by DHS, it generated more public interest and 

participation. This competition had over 150 more registrants and over 40 more submissions. The 

marketing and outreach was successful and effective as a winner was selected and the idea was 

received that can be moved into government research, development, test, and evaluation.

Incentives: The prize competition was originally planned for three phases with a total prize purse 

for $250,000. Phase II and III were optional phases that the USCG could leverage if Phase I 

submission resulted in a promising solution and the submitter was able to enter into the 

development of the prototype.

Evaluation and Judging: InnoCentive, Inc., the DHS S&T contracted prize competition 

administrator, filtered 98 submissions to the contest based on non-U.S. citizenship, non-U.S. legal 

permanent resident status, non-U.S.-based entities, low quality submissions, and submissions that 

did not provide a cover page, leaving 53 proposals for judging.

Seven Federal employee judges from the USCG and one S&T technical advisor divided 

themselves and the submissions into three groups having at least one subject matter expert in each 

group to ensure across-the-board knowledge. The judges rated the submissions using a point 

system (0-100 points) against three criteria:

 Clear discussion of the solution;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-150

 Implementation plan and feasibility; and

 Cost analysis.

The judges also reviewed the proposals based on those with the capability to participate in future 

competition. The S&T technical advisor collected each group’s top three rated submissions and 

one additional submission for consensus judging.

Of the ten submissions discussed during the consensus judging phase, only one clear submission 

provided a feasible solution. The judges to this prize competition collectively provided 275 hours 

to determining the winner.

Partnerships: DHS S&T, Borders and Maritime Security Division partnered with the United States 

Coast Guard Research and Development Center for this prize competition. This was the first time 

both the USCG R&D point of contact, Danielle Elam, and the DHS S&T point of contact, Charlotte 

Sullivan, partnered together. Danielle Elam commented that the partnership was greatly beneficial. 

Resources: InnoCentive, Inc. was utilized as a third party vendor to help plan and conduct the prize 

competition.

The following DHS resources were utilized in the planning and conduct of the prize competition:

 DHS S&T InnoPrize Program Office

 DHS S&T General Counsel, Intellectual Property Attorney and legal review 

 DHS S&T, Prize Competition Manager

 USCG Research and Development Center provided overall planning and support of the 

prize competition.

 DHS Office of Corporate Communications developed support material and approval for 

all public affairs announcements, supported a public facing website for the prize 

competition, and addressed inquiries from the public. 

 DHS S&T and USCG provided judging support.

Prize Competition Resources

Category Work (hours)

DHS S&T Prize Program Office 90

USCG R&D Center Personnel 240

DHS S&T BMD Prize Competition Manager 130

Office of Corporate Communication 40

Judging Support 275

TOTAL 775

The chart represents approximately $57,498 of administrative support required to conduct this 

prize competition.

Results: The prize competition advanced the USCG’s research and development of an approach 

for mooring buoys in environmentally-sensitive areas. The winning idea for Phase I of the 

competition provided a potential solution using commercially available items configured in a new 

system not previously envisioned. The proposed system uses an ultra-high strength poly-fiber rope 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-151

with inner elastic cords and screw anchor that potentially causes less damage to the coral reefs and 

seagrass areas. The idea also proposes the use of a more secure anchor that may decrease the 

chance of the buoy moving off its station. Since the proposed idea uses commercially available

materials, the judges recommended that the winning solution receive a $10,000 cash prize and that 

the USCG move forward with procuring the recommended material and independently conduct 

test and evaluation.

The competition generated a lot of interest from all over the world with 4,886 individuals viewing 

the prize competition website, 498 individuals registering for the competition from 62 countries, 

and 58 proposals competing for an award. There were an additional 40 proposals that were 

submitted that could not be considered as a solution to the competition due to eligibility rules.

The overall quality of ideas was considered by the judges as high. The USCG is not continuing a 

partnership with any of the participating solvers but considers the competition a success since a 

probable solution may have been discovered through the prize competition process. Testing of the 

concept will be conducted by the USCG R&D Center in FY17.

Eco Mooring by Cole Santos:

The winning solution proposal was submitted by Cole Santos from Maui, Hawaii. He submitted 

as an individual and is self-employed. In the solution, he proposes using elastic components 

protected by ultra-high strength poly-fiber rope with inner elastic cords instead of the traditional 

chain. For an anchor, he suggests using a screw anchor or Manta anchors with GPs which allows 

for more precise installation and a stronger hold than the current concrete weights. The elastic rope 

would float above the marine habitat instead of dragging on the ground as the current slack chain 

does. The screw anchor has a smaller footprint and would cause less damage to the marine habitat. 

The solution also proposes the use of reef balls that create a fish habitat in areas that are already 

damaged or could be damaged from anchors. The solution addressed all of the ten criteria for the 

competition and was selected for an award of $10,000.

About the winner:

Cole Keaoulu Santos is a native Hawaiian from Maui. He is a scuba dive instructor and selfemployed real estate professional, and has experience building and maintaining moorings locally 

on Maui, where mooring conservation is an important topic. He developed his winning proposal 

after observing several different types of mooring and anchoring techniques, including using divers 

to install manta moorings locally, screw-type anchors used in Australia, and elastic mooring cables 

employed in New England. Santos is a founding member of a makerspace organization, Maui 

Makers LLC. One of his life goals is to build artificial islands for seasteading and space habitats.

A.7 Department of the Interior

A.7.1 NPS: Memorials for the Future

Summary: This challenge called for new ways to create memorials in Washington, DC, honoring 

our diverse histories, heritage, and culture. This challenge looked beyond the boundaries of 

existing memorial landscape, seeking options that were thematically different and less landintensive.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-152

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Solve as specific problem

Results: From over 300 submissions from 90 teams, a winner and three runners up were selected. 

The winning concept, Climate Chronograph, would allow visitors to interact with the space as it 

creates a personal experience of climate change. Designs were showcased at the John F. Kennedy 

Center for the Performing Arts.

Problem Statement: Memorials for the Future called for designers, artists, and social scientists to 

develop new ways to commemorate people and events that are more inclusive and flexible, and 

that enrich Washington’s landscape while responding to the limitations of traditional 

commemoration. As the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated its centennial in 2016, Memorials 

for the Future created new ideas for honoring our diverse histories, heritage, and culture.

Memorials enshrine what a society wants to remember. But the places, people, and stories that it 

memorializes, and the audiences that engage with them, are in fact constantly changing. A 

memorial tells its story through subject matter and design. This story is often complex and multidimensional as a memorial’s interpretive elements embody ideas of identity, culture, and heritage, 

and each have intensely personal interpretations for every individual.

As the national capital, Washington is a focal point for commemorations of the nation’s collective 

memory. Monuments sited throughout the city take on heightened significance as they reflect 

relationships among nations, of national remembrance, and of many important events and figures 

in our history. Often the traditional and fixed nature of memorial design does not allow for 

adaptation and redefinition over time, or encourage more than one interpretation of a given 

narrative.

Memorials for the Future was a conscious effort to look beyond the traditional approach to 

developing memorials in Washington, an approach which has resulted in a commemorative 

landscape that is thematically similar and increasingly land-intensive, poses challenges for 

Washington’s urban park system, and has long-term implications for the potential uses of a 

memorial's surrounding park setting.

Proposed Goals: The goals of the competition were to create new approaches to and forms of 

memorializing that would:

• Advance a framework for the planning and design of commemorative works in the 21st 

century;

• Demonstrate how temporary, mobile, interactive, or adaptive displays can provide 

powerful and memorable experiences that are cost-efficient; 

• Develop ways to commemorate that are inclusive of multiple narratives and have the 

potential to be flexible as perspectives change; 

• Honor the scale, context and national significance of Washington, DC.

Measures of Success: Proposals presented:
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-153

• Exciting possibilities for future memorials;

• New ways to engage diverse new subject matter;

• Ways for reinterpretation over time;

• Ways to enable and respect multiple narratives;

• Considerations of technology;

• Ways to honor national contexts and local experiences; and

• Designs that can adapt and evolve, are sometimes ephemeral or temporary, and often 

engage the public directly as part of the memorial.

All of these will be used as lessons learned and provided to memorial sponsors as examples of 

ways to commemorate in ways that do not require granite and stone.

Participants: The challenge received over 300 submissions from 90 teams. The challenge sought 

participation from designers, artists, and social scientists.

Timeline: Submissions were opened April 11, 2016, with the first deadline on May 4, 2016. The 

top four finalists were announced June 8, 2016, and then began their proposals with a design 

framework working session on the same day. Final presentations were August 3, 2016 and final 

deliverables were due August 8, 2016. The competition winner was announced September 8, 2016, 

and the exhibition was launched the same day.

Solicitation and Outreach: Van Alen Institute assisted with outreach.

Incentives: Total Cash Prize: $60,000

The submissions were offered recognition, rather than a cash prize or monetary incentive. The four 

finalists each received a $15,000 stipend to participate in a research and design process. Teams 

were required to convene in Washington, DC four times so each team was offered a reimbursement 

stipend of up to $5,200 for flights, hotel, and ground transportation.

Evaluation and Judging: Jurors, drawn from experts in the art, history, and architecture 

communities and among the project partners, helped select finalist teams and winning teams. They 

also provided feedback during the design framework working session and the final presentation.

Evaluation criteria included:

• Responsiveness to the goals of the competition;

• Overall strength and quality in approach to developing initial concept, design, and 

narrative;

• Multidisciplinary nature of team members and partners;

• Experience working on research and design projects that incorporate understanding of local 

context and narratives;

• Experience engaging diverse public audiences;

• Clear communication of a process to relate conceptual narratives to a general audience;

• Commemoration subject is a recognizable part of the American story, reflective of our 

heritage, history, and culture;

• Clear communication of a process to engage the surrounding community with the proposed 

concept design; and
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-154

• Location selected (locations NOT on the National Mall were given preference).

Partnerships: NPS partnered with National Capital Planning Commission and the Van Alen 

Institute. 

Resources: Appropriations to NPS and National Capital Planning Commission funded the prize 

competition. Agency staff was involved in the design and conduct of the competition. Prize 

competition contracting services from Van Alen provided prize competition design, outreach, and 

administration services. National Capital Planning Commission provided all the staff and 

resources required for the production of the competition website, videos, and photography, as well 

as for the panel discussion. Total operational costs from the agency are valued at $124,233.05 and 

partner contributions are estimated at $65,000.

Results: As part of the event announcing the four finalists, NPS hosted a panel discussion at the 

National Archives on June 8, 2016. The panel, moderated by Jason Schupbach, Director of Design 

Programs, National Endowment for the Arts, examined new approaches for commemoration. The 

full panel discussion is available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FemGqG6mcw8; or view the 

highlights at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVtYz3lbj-4.

The winning concept, Climate Chronograph, is a forward-looking memorial that takes a complex 

global process—climate change—and turns it into a personal experience. While memorials 

conventionally commemorate a moment in the past, this initially traditional-looking memorial 

offers a reimagined landscape and a living observatory that allows people to interact with the space 

as it evolves unpredictably over time.

Figure 3 Climate Chronograph, Photo by Azimuth Land Craft

A free public exhibition showcasing the winner and finalists’ design concepts opened September 

8, 2016, in the Hall of Nations at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and ran 

through October 20, 2016.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-155

Figure 4 Exhibit at the Kennedy Center, Photo by NPS

A video documents the competition and its key findings. It is available at 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28fBhj0mKU/

A.7.2 USBR: Detecting the Movement of Soils (Internal Erosion) Within Earthen Dams, 

Canals, Levees, and their Foundations

Summary: The structural integrity of dams and other earthen embankments are important to protect 

the public and their property. Internal erosion is a threat to the structural integrity of dams, and 

often remains invisible until it is a serious threat. Better detection of early internal erosion can 

allow for reduction of these risks by enabling effective early intervention. This challenge is 

designed to seek out new solutions for improved detection of early internal erosion.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Build capacity; engage new people and communities; solve a specific problem

Results: From 29 submissions, five prizes were awarded, and all submissions are eligible for 

further pursuit. Two winning submissions—a phased array seismic tomographic anomaly solution 

and a superconducting quantum interference device—are highlighted as novel applications of 

existing technology. Two other non-winning solutions are highlighted as useful for further pursuit.

Problem Statement: Are there better methods for detecting directly the movement (erosion) of soils 

in earthen structures and foundations, or detecting indirect indicators of soil movement as internal 

erosion initiates or is in the early stages of propagation? The goal is to detect soil movement earlier 

than occurs by current visual inspection and instrumentation methods.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-156

The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and State agencies 

inspect, and assess the condition and performance of dams and other earthen embankments. While 

inspection and condition assessment programs are effective ways to protect the public and 

property, these current methods are resource intensive and cannot reliably detect internal erosion 

early in the process. Internal erosion can take place over a long period of time, but often remains 

invisible (inside or below the structure) until serious damage occurs, placing lives, property, 

critical water supply or flood retention capabilities at risk. The ability to reliably detect internal 

erosion early in the process would help Reclamation, USACE, and all dam, levee, and canal 

owners to reduce risks by encouraging early intervention.

Proposed Goals: Find better, affordable, and more effective ideas/methods that will help the

Bureau of Reclamation—as well as other Federal, State, and local organizations—improve the 

safety and reliability of earthen embankments designed to store and convey water.

Measures of Success: The ability to solicit solution concepts from the broader public demonstrated 

the merit of prize competitions to introduce new or improved ideas into the thinking of our subject 

matter experts, and stimulated our thinking about other ways to make some of these ideas work.

Some of the awarded solutions proposed variations or improvements to existing methods, while 

other awarded approaches had not been previously considered or known by the panel of expert 

judges. While each solution had novel elements, each will also require additional development and 

testing before merit can be fully accessed. But the need for additional development and testing is 

expected for prize competitions seeking new ideas.

Participants: The challenge received 29 submissions. Participation requirements were as follows:

ELIGIBILITY RULES: To be able to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity 

must:

1. Agree to the rules of the competition (15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(1));

2. Be an entity that is incorporated in and maintains a primary place of business in the United 

States, or, in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States 

(15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(3));

3. Not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; 

(15 U.S. Code§ 3719(g)(4)); 

4. Assume risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (15 

U.S. Code § 3719(i)(1)(B)); and,

5. Not use Federal facilities, or consult with Federal employees during the competition unless 

the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating 

in the competition on an equitable basis.

The following individuals or entities are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria 

set forth above:

1. Any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel or otherwise has a material 

business relationship or affiliation with any Judge;

2. Any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-157

3. The Seeker, participating organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor, or other 

individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or 

distribution of the prize competition; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and 

all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, 

representative, or agent;

4. Any individual or entity that uses Federal funds to develop the proposed solution now or 

any time in the past, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable 

Federal funds awarding document. NOTE: Submissions that propose to improve or adapt 

existing federally funded technologies for the solution sought in this prize competition are 

eligible.

Timeline: Submissions were opened March 31, 2016, and submissions were due May 10, 2016. 

Winners were announced July 29, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: Total Cash Prize: $20,000

Source: Funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program 

specific for prize competitions.

Evaluation and Judging: Winning submission recommendations are made to Reclamation’s 

Science Advisor by a judging panel. Reclamation’s Science Advisor is Reclamation’s delegated 

official with the authority to implement prize competitions under 15 USC 3719.

Submissions required solvers to submit a concept paper explaining why their proposed solution 

could meet stated technical performance specifications. Submissions were evaluated by a judging 

panel composed of scientists, engineers, and other related technical experts. Solutions that meet 

the requirements will also be judged on the following items in order of priority:

• Adaptability

• Scalability

• Readiness

• Originality

Partnerships: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of Colorado provided prize competition 

design and judging assistance.

Resources: Reclamation used the contracting services of InnoCentive to help design and 

administer this competition, and to distribute the challenge to the InnoCentive curated solver 

community.

Reclamation funded InnoCentive and Reclamation staff. All other agencies/organizations funded 

their own contributed collaboration.

Results: Reclamation received 29 submissions and awarded monetary prizes to 5 submissions. The 

rules of the competition provided the Federal Government with a license to use all 29 ideas and 

allow others to do so. A synopsis of the winning solutions is provided below:

$6,250 Award: Phased array seismic tomographic anomaly imaging
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-158

$6,250 Award: Superconducting quantum interference device

$2,500 Award: Robot enabled underwater flowmeter

$2,500 Award: Brine seepage tracer

$2,500 Award: Shear-wave reflection seismic imaging

The phased array seismic tomographic anomaly solution is the most solid and well-presented 

solution relative to the prize competition criteria. The approach uses existing technologies. 

However, Reclamation is unaware of any prior applications of this technology by the dam safety 

and engineering community. The submission reinforces and strengthens the concepts considered 

to be technically viable by the judging team. Implementation introduces cost, maintenance, and 

vandalism concerns, which require further consideration, but it is the most implementation-ready 

solution.

The superconducting quantum interference device has a high probability for implementation as an 

indirect method to detect internal erosion. It is believed that the proposed solution could feasibly 

detect new concentrated seepage pathways prior to initiation of internal erosion. It proposes using 

existing technology in a novel way/application that is untested for effectiveness in detecting 

concentrated seepage and/or the movement of soils in embankment structures. It is theoretically 

sound and does not require permanent installation on an embankment. Additional research and 

testing is needed to evaluate its capabilities and reliability. Equipment cost could be a limiting 

factor, but costs are expected to be lower in the near-future.

Two additional solutions included noteworthy components that may be worth carrying forward 

even though the solution itself did not qualify for an award. These are an infra-red thermography 

and statistical analysis of sinkholes (as a basis for remote sensing detection). Both may be 

interesting topics to explore further. Judges discussed the citizen science component offered by 

another solution which would allow visitors to an embankment to formalize their observations by 

submitting text and photographs to a website or a database. Often, indications of internal erosion 

are noticed by visual inspection.

A.7.3 USBR: Downstream Fish Passage at Tall Dams

Summary: Passage across tall dams is important for increasing habitat availability for threatened 

and endangered fish populations. While options exist for some fish populations, moving juvenile 

fish downstream around tall dams remains a challenge. This Challenge seeks out successful and 

cost-effective solutions for the downstream movement of juvenile fish around tall dams.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Build capacity; engage new people and communities; solve a specific problem

Results: From 44 solutions submitted, four prizes were awarded. The solutions proposed were 

novel and merit further investigation, but all face technical challenges. While work with these 

solutions will continue, the broad conclusion is that the current, collective efforts of Reclamation 

and other Federal and State collaborators largely represent best known practices.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-159

Problem Statement: Is there a better way to pass downstream-moving juvenile fish over or around 

tall (i.e. high-head) dams?

While downstream passage over high-head dams for some fish species and life history stages has 

been achieved to a limited degree, significant improvement in downstream juvenile fish passage 

is still needed. Effective downstream passage, paired with effective upstream passage, would 

increase habitat availability that many threatened and endangered fish populations need to rebuild 

resilient populations. New ideas for gaining successful and cost-effective downstream passage of 

juvenile fish at tall dams are being sought by this Challenge.

Proposed Goals: Find better, affordable, and more effective ideas/methods that will help the 

Bureau of Reclamation, as well as other Federal, State, and local organizations, protect and recover 

threatened and endangered fish species.

Measures of Success: The prize competition approach enabled us to engage individuals with 

impressive credentials that work in other technical domains. The ability to solicit solution concepts 

from the broader public demonstrated the merit of prize competitions to introduce new or improved 

ideas into the thinking of our subject matter experts, and stimulated our thinking about other ways 

to make some of these proposals effective.

Some of the awarded solutions proposed variations or improvements to existing methods, while 

other awarded approaches had not been previously considered or known by Federal fish recovery 

subject matter experts. While each solution had novel elements, each will also require additional 

development and testing before merit can be fully accessed. However, the need for additional 

development and testing is expected for prize competitions seeking new ideas.

The prize competition generated very favorable press coverage in Northern California where 

salmon passage past dams is a major problem. As such, the prize competition successfully 

demonstrated to the public and our stakeholders that the Bureau of Reclamation and our Federal 

and State collaborators are trying everything to find new or better solutions to this difficult 

problem.

Participants: 44 teams participated in this challenge. Eligibility requirements were as follows:

ELIGIBILITY RULES: To be able to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity 

must:

1. Agree to the rules of the competition (15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(1));

2. Be an entity that is incorporated in and maintains a primary place of business in the United 

States, or, in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States 

(15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(3));

3. Not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; 

(15 U.S. Code§ 3719(g)(4));

4. Assume risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (15 

U.S. Code § 3719(i)(1)(B)); and,
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-160

5. Not use Federal facilities, or consult with Federal employees during the competition unless 

the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating 

in the competition on an equitable basis.

The following individuals or entities are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria 

set forth above:

1. Any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel or otherwise has a material 

business relationship or affiliation with any Judge;

2. Any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household;

3. The Seeker, participating organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor or other 

individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or 

distribution of the prize competition; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and 

all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, 

representative, or agent;

4. Any individual or entity that uses Federal funds to develop the proposed solution now or 

any time in the past, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable 

Federal funds awarding document. NOTE: Submissions that propose to improve or adapt 

existing federally funded technologies for the solution sought in this prize competition are 

eligible.

Timeline: Submissions for this challenge opened March 31, 2016, and were due May 10, 2016. 

Winners were announced July 29, 2016,

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: Total Cash Prize: $20,000

Source: Funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program 

specific for prize competitions.

Evaluation and Judging: Winning submission recommendations are made to Reclamation’s 

Science Advisor by a judging panel. Reclamation’s Science Advisor is Reclamation’s delegated 

official with the authority to implement prize competitions under 15 USC 3719.

Submissions required solvers to submit a theoretical paper explaining why their proposed solution 

could meet stated technical performance specifications. Submissions were evaluated by a judging 

panel composed of scientists, engineers, and other related technical experts. Solutions that met the 

requirements were also judged on the following items in order of priority:

• Feasibility

• Flexibility to changing conditions (water level, temperature, debris)

• Overall costs

• Scalability

Partnerships: U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the State of California provided prize competition design and judging 

assistance.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-161

Resources: The Bureau of Reclamation used the contracting services of InnoCentive to help design 

and administer this competition, and to distribute the challenge to the InnoCentive curated solver 

community.

Reclamation funded InnoCentive and Reclamation staff and a portion of the USGS assistance. All 

other agencies/organizations funded their own contributed collaboration.

Agency costs included about $16,000 in contract costs and about $42,000 in labor costs. Partner 

contributions totaled about $30,000.

Results: Reclamation received 44 submissions and awarded monetary prizes to four submissions. 

The rules of the competition provided the Federal Government with a license to use all 44 ideas 

and to allow others to do so.

$10,000 Award: The top submission is a system that utilizes a drag conveyor system, similar to 

the systems used to transport delicate solids, to pass fish downstream. A person that worked as 

food manufacturing process engineer proposed this solution. The system could manage pressure 

within the chambers, minimizing barotrauma. This concept should be investigated further to see if 

the pipe diameter could be scaled up, and to see the applications for which it is being used 

currently. The other concepts presented for attraction and discharge are similar to existing methods 

used. The team agreed that this was the top submission.

$4,000 Award: The use of an Archimedean internal helical “de-elevator” device to move small 

fish downstream past high head dams is novel and worth further investigation. There may be 

difficulty in scaling this concept to the size needed to move the anticipated volume of water, and 

the ability to attract fish to the entrance of the bypass remains unresolved based on this submission.

$3,500 Award: The solution uses nets to guide fish to multiple extractions points, and flexible pipe 

attached to buoy to convey fish through the dam abutment to the river downstream in atmospheric 

pressure conditions. This is a simple solution with not many moving parts, which provides a 

volitional method to convey fish downstream in atmospheric pressure conditions.

$2,500 Award: This proposal described innovative ways of attracting fish to a collection location, 

particularly the use of cover, and protecting them from predators at that location. The use of cover 

to congregate fish at a collection location has not, to Reclamation’s knowledge, been used in a fish 

passage situation. It may have merit in the future.

Although we found a few new ideas that have some merit for parts of the problem, the prize 

competition results also demonstrates that the current, collective efforts of Reclamation and other 

Federal and State collaborators largely represents best known practices.

A.7.4 USBR: Preventing Rodent Burrows in Earthen Embankments

Summary: The structural integrity of dams and other earthen embankments are important to protect 

the public and their property. Rodent burrows can lead to internal erosion in such embankments, 

leading to failures causing property damage, loss of life, and interruptions to crucial deliveries of 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-162

water in the West and across the nation. While short term solutions exist, this challenge seeks to 

gather novel, long-term, cost effective solutions to this problem.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Build capacity; engage new people and communities; solve a specific problem

Results: Of 75 entries, five were awarded prizes. Solutions ranged from new surface materials, 

natural methods including plant and predator management, to robotic smart traps, among others. 

While solutions still require further development, all are innovative and several have advantages 

in cost effectiveness and requiring limited maintenance.

Problem Statement: Is there a way to stop and prevent rodents from burrowing into earthen 

embankments of dams, canals, and levees?

Rodent burrows can fill with water when the water levels change, creating seepage paths which 

can lead to internal erosion in embankments resulting in the potential for catastrophic failure. 

Embankment failures can cause property damage, cause loss of life, and interrupt crucial deliveries 

of water in the West and across the nation.

Trapping or baiting rodents on earthen embankments are short term remedies, and experience has 

shown that within a short time, the rodents inevitably return. Annual programs of rodent removal 

over thousands of miles of earthen embankment are cost prohibitive and only marginally 

successful. Solvers are asked for creative, cost effective, long-term solutions to this very real and 

serious problem.

Proposed Goals:

a. Reduce by 95% the ability of rodents to burrow in the embankments; 

b. Be able to be applied at discrete, remote locations where power is not available; 

c. Work reliably for a minimum of five years without interruption or major repairs; 

d. Requires maintenance labor activities no more than every six months; 

e. Be cost effective to treat or cover earthen embankments that are one mile long, but be 

scalable to treat embankments that are 50 miles long.

Measures of Success: The ability to solicit solution concepts from the broader public demonstrated 

the merit of prize competitions to introduce new or improved ideas into the thinking of our subject 

matter experts, and stimulated our thinking about other ways to make some of these ideas work 

Some of the awarded solutions proposed variations or improvements to existing methods, while 

other awarded approaches had not been previously considered or known by the panel of expert 

judges. While each solution had novel elements, each will also require additional development and 

testing before merit can be fully accessed. But the need for additional development and testing is 

expected for prize competitions seeking new ideas.

Participants: 75 entries were received for this challenge. Participation requirements were as 

follows:
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-163

ELIGIBILITY RULES: To be able to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity 

must:

1. Agree to the rules of the competition (15 U.S.C. 3719(g)(1));

2. Be an entity that is incorporated in and maintains a primary place of business in the United 

States, or, in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States 

(15 U.S.C. 3719(g)(3));

3. Not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; 

(15 U.S.C. 3719(g)(4));

4. Assume risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (15 

U.S.C. 3719(i)(1)(B)); and,

5. Not use Federal facilities, or consult with Federal employees during the competition, unless 

the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating 

in the competition on an equitable basis.

The following individuals or entities are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria 

set forth above:

1. Any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel or otherwise has a material 

business relationship or affiliation with any Judge;

2. Any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household;

3. The Seeker, participating organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor, or other 

individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or 

distribution of the prize competition; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and 

all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, 

representative, or agent;

4. Any individual or entity that uses Federal funds to develop the proposed solution now or 

any time in the past, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable 

Federal funds awarding document. NOTE: Submissions that propose to improve or adapt 

existing federally funded technologies for the solution sought in this prize competition are 

eligible.

Timeline: Submissions were opened August 29, 2016, and closed October 11,. 2016. Winners were 

announced December 27, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: Total Cash Prize: $20,000

Source: Funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program 

specific for prize competitions.

Evaluation and Judging: Winning submission recommendations are made to Reclamation’s 

Science Advisor by a judging panel. Reclamation’s Science Advisor is Reclamation’s delegated 

official with the authority to implement prize competitions under 15 USC 3719.

Submissions required solvers to submit a concept paper explaining why their proposed solution 

could meet stated technical performance specifications. Submissions were evaluated by a judging 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-164

panel composed of scientists, engineers, and other related technical experts. Solutions that meet 

the requirements will also be judged on the logistical feasibility, applicability to varying 

environments, readiness, overall costs, and scalability.

Partnerships: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Colorado Department of Natural 

Resources and with Federal canal operating entities—including the Boise Project Board of Control 

and the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District—provided prize competition design and judging 

assistance.

Resources: Reclamation used the contracting services of InnoCentive to help design and 

administer this competition, and to distribute the challenge to the InnoCentive curated solver 

community.

Reclamation funded InnoCentive and Reclamation staff. All other agencies/organizations funded 

their own contributed collaboration.

Results: Reclamation received 75 submissions and awarded monetary prizes to five submissions. 

The rules of the competition provided the Federal Government with a license to use all 75 ideas 

and allow others to do so. A synopsis of the winning solutions is provided below:

$5,500 Award: Subsurface cut-off wall barrier using hydro-excavation

$5,500 Award: Surface geotextile with embedded steel wool

$4,000 Award: Combination of predators and hydro-seeded plant deterrents

$2,500 Award: Simple machine for subsurface acoustic deterrent

$2,500 Award: Robotic smart trap

The subsurface cut-off wall barrier using hydro-excavation is a solid and well-presented solution 

relative to the prize competition criteria. The approach uses existing cut-off wall applications. 

However, Reclamation is not aware of any prior uses of hydo-excavation applications to create 

narrower trenches in embankments. The submission reinforces and strengthens the concepts 

considered to be technically viable by the judging team. Implementation description addresses the 

technical requirements, and is one of the most implementation-ready solutions.

The surface geotextile with embedded steel wool is a solid solution that is likely to have a high 

initial cost but likely to be a very effective and cost-effective long-term solution. The solution is a 

surface treatment that still allows vegetation to become established on the embankment for erosion 

control and would still allow visual observation of the embankment for inspection purposes. 

Further investigation would be needed to determine actual costs and long-term effectiveness.

The combination of predators and hydro-seeded plant deterrents solution is considered to be a 

viable combination solution that is inexpensive, easy to install, and requires little overall 

maintenance. This proposal incorporates certain agricultural techniques in combination with native 

wildlife predator management, such as owls, to ensure effective rodent control in water

embankment areas with minimal intrusion to the ecosystem. Because it requires growth of 

particular vegetation, it may not be suitable for all climates; however, with the combination of 

predator management and vegetation establishment, it could be adapted to many, if not most 

climates. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the appropriate combinations of vegetation 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-165

and predator establishment for different climates and regions. If suitable habitat can be established 

for threatened and endangered birds of prey, such a solution might also assist with the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species in certain areas.

The simple machine for subsurface acoustic deterrent is activated by wind and has potential to be 

inexpensive, easy to install, and low-maintenance. There were many proposed solutions using 

acoustics and this one stood out to the judges because of the simple method to develop random 

acoustics without a power source. Random acoustic emissions are not as susceptible to rodent 

habituation, which is a weakness of acoustic methods. Further investigation is needed to determine 

the effectiveness of this random acoustic method and the transmission distance.

The robotic smart trap is the most innovative solution. This solution provided an outside-the-box 

idea that addressed all of the technical requirements, but requires further investigation and 

development of the ability to avoid non-target species. Although addressed by the solver, 

additional innovation of the robot will be necessary to ensure the movement of the robot on steep 

embankment slopes, refining the design to limit O&M costs of the robot, and ability of the trap to 

attract rodents.

A.7.5 USBR: Quantifying Drift Invertebrates in River and Estuary Systems

Summary: Zooplankton and drift invertebrates are key sources of food for fish. Having an accurate 

count of these organisms is vital in evaluating and restoring fish habitat. While technology for 

these counts exists for ocean habitats, rivers, streams, and estuaries present challenges not 

addressed by existing technology. This challenge was designed to gather novel technologies and 

methods for collecting counts in rivers, streams, and estuaries. Five prizes were awarded, each 

providing novel approaches which continue to be pursued by the Bureau.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Build capacity; engage new people and communities; solve a specific problem

Results: Five solutions were awarded. Only the first place solution met the technical requirements 

of the challenge and continues to be pursued; however, the remaining ideas all had sufficient merit 

for further development and testing and are also continuing on. All awarded solutions were 

proposals not previously considered by Federal subject matter experts.

Problem Statement: The Bureau of Reclamation wanted to identify devices and methods that can 

detect, count, and identify zooplankton and drift invertebrates in an economical way in rivers and 

estuary systems.

Accurate food counts, such as counts of zooplankton and drift invertebrates, are instrumental in 

evaluating and restoring fish habitat in our rivers and streams. Although technologies have been 

developed for automated detection and identification of zooplankton and drift invertebrates in 

oceanographic settings, they have not been developed for the unique environmental conditions in 

rivers and estuaries. High flow rates and turbidity cause problems with the automated visual 

systems used today. The main obstacle in estuaries is turbidity; while the main obstacle in river 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-166

systems is flow velocity. In addition, the horizontal nature of rivers invokes problems not 

encountered in deep ocean waters (e.g., sunlight effects at the surface of water and the mixing of 

food sources throughout the water column in rivers due to turbulence, as opposed to more stratified 

food webs in ocean waters).

Proposed Goals: Find better, affordable, and more effective ideas/methods that will help the 

Bureau of Reclamation, as well as other Federal, State, and local organizations protect and recover 

threatened and endangered fish species.

Measures of Success: The prize competition approach enabled us to engage individuals with 

impressive credentials that work in other technical domains. The ability to solicit solution concepts 

from the broader public demonstrated the merit of prize competitions to introduce new or improved 

ideas into the thinking of our subject matter experts, and stimulated our thinking about alternative 

methods to make some of the proposed ideas effective.

All of the awarded solutions proposed approaches that had not been previously considered by 

Federal fish recovery subject matter experts. While each solution has novel elements, each will 

also require additional development and testing before its merit can be fully accessed. However, 

the need for additional development and testing is expected for prize competitions seeking new 

ideas.

Participants: Twenty-three teams participated. Eligibility requirements were as follows:

ELIGIBILITY RULES: To be able to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity 

must:

1. Agree to the rules of the competition (15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(1));

2. Be an entity that is incorporated in and maintains a primary place of business in the United 

States, or, in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States 

(15 U.S. Code § 3719(g)(3));

3. Not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; 

(15 U.S. Code§ 3719(g)(4)); 

4. Assume risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (15 

U.S. Code § 3719(i)(1)(B)); and,

5. Not use Federal facilities, or consult with Federal employees during the competition unless 

the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating 

in the competition on an equitable basis.

The following individuals or entities are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria 

set forth above:

1. Any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel or otherwise has a material 

business relationship or affiliation with any Judge; 

2. Any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household; 

3. The Seeker, participating organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor, or other 

individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or 

distribution of the prize competition; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-167

all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, 

representative, or agent; 

4. Any individual or entity that uses Federal funds to develop the proposed solution now or 

any time in the past, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable 

Federal funds awarding document. NOTE: Submissions that propose to improve or adapt 

existing federally funded technologies for the solution sought in this prize competition are 

eligible.

Timeline: Submissions were opened October 7, 2015, and closed November 16, 2015. Winners 

were announced January 29, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: Total Cash Prize: $30,000

Source: Funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program 

specific for prize competitions.

Evaluation and Judging: Winning submission recommendations are made to Reclamation’s 

Science Advisor by a judging panel. Reclamation’s Science Advisor is Reclamation’s delegated 

official with the authority to implement prize competitions under 15 USC 3719.

Submissions required solvers to submit a theoretical paper explaining why their proposed solution 

could meet stated technical performance specifications. Submissions were evaluated by a judging 

panel composed of scientists, engineers, and other related technical experts.

Solutions that meet the technical requirements were also judged on the following items in order of 

priority:

• Practical feasibility

• Detection precision

• Manufacturing cost

• Required power source

• Extra weight/space

• Time to market

Partnerships: The NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided prize competition design and 

judging assistance.

Resources: The Bureau of Reclamation used the contracting services of InnoCentive to help design 

and administer this competition, and to distribute the challenge to the InnoCentive curated solver 

community.

The Bureau of Reclamation funded InnoCentive and Reclamation staff and a portion of the USGS 

assistance. All other agencies funded their own contributed collaboration.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-168

Operational costs for the agency included about $36,000 in contract costs and $25,000 in 

reclamation labor cost. Partner contributions totaled about $39,000.

Results: The Bureau of Reclamation received 24 submissions and awarded monetary prizes to five

submissions. The rules of the competition grant the Federal Government a right to use only the 

awarded submissions.

The two top-ranked solutions were submitted by Edem Tsikata, Ph.D. Tsikata has a Ph.D. in 

physics from Harvard University and is currently working as a researcher at Harvard Medical 

School and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. His top ranked solution proposed using 

commercially available digital holographic imaging equipment with modifications that would 

enable successful identification and quantification of invertebrates in rivers and estuary 

environments. This was the only submission meeting all the solution technical requirements stated 

in the prize competition. A team of Federal researchers are now considering approaches to further 

develop, scale-up, and test this concept.

Tsikata's second place solution proposed using high resolution sonar. Although not readily 

apparent that this solution could meet all the stated technical requirements, it demonstrated 

sufficient merit for the Bureau of Reclamation to further explore how it can make this concept 

work. He received $17,500 for submitting the two ideas.

Other solutions identified to have sufficient merit to be awarded prizes include:

• Matt Vaillancourt submitted a design for an examination chamber where water could be 

collected and processed with the capability to electronically identify and quantify the 

various drift invertebrates in the water. A $5,000 prize has been awarded to secure a license 

that will allow the Federal government to further develop, test and use this concept. 

Vaillancourt has a degree in mechanical engineering from California Polytechnic State 

University with an emphasis in mechatronics and is now working on projects that integrate 

complimentary technologies such as microcomputers, motion control, and 3D modeling.

•Ted Ground submitted a design for a continuous sampling device that uses air bubbles to lift 

and concentrate invertebrates at the water surface where imaging and cataloging could 

occur with an array of cameras. Mr. Ground has also received a $5,000 prize to secure a 

license that will allow the Federal Government to further develop, test, and use this 

concept. Ground has a Master of Science degree in Aquatic Biology from Texas State 

University and is currently an independent technical consultant working on a wide variety 

of aquaculture, water quality, and natural resources related projects.

•Michael May, Ph.D., proposed using an array of lensless cameras to search a volume of water 

backlit by a commercial flat-panel display. Lensless camera technology is low cost and has 

an infinite depth of focus. The Federal Government also secured a license to further 

develop, test, and use this concept by awarding May a $2,500 prize. May earned his Ph.D. 

in physics from Johns Hopkins University and is currently the president of the technology 

and strategy consulting firm Dana Point Analytics.

A.8 Department of the Treasury
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-169

A.8.1 2016 Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Prize Challenge

Summary: The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund solicited applications 

in the form of a prize challenge to discover innovative opportunities to disburse the $1 million 

appropriation for FY 2016. Applicants were asked to submit a description of the problem(s) 

creating barriers to accessing capital in specified rural areas and a strategy to address the problem.

Applicants were judged upon their innovative idea or strategy, the depth or need of the targeted 

areas, any partnerships that would leverage private, public, and philanthropic capital, and the 

scalability and/or replicability of the idea or strategy.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; find and highlight innovative ideas; build capacity

Results: Contestants submitted 64 entries. The CDFI Fund awarded the $300,000 each to Virginia 

Community Capital and the National Federation of Community Development; $200,000 to First 

Nations Oweesta; $100,000 to Community Ventures; and $25,000 each to Craft3, the Community 

Development Corporation of Brownville, Hope Credit Union, and the Appalachian Community 

Federal Credit Union.

Problem Statement: The FY 2016 Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund 

Prize Challenge was a single challenge that sought to stimulate innovative proposals to increase 

access to CDFI capital in rural areas, as laid out in the Congressional appropriation of the CDFI, 

with a particular focus on areas characterized by persistent poverty. Applicants were asked to 

submit a description of the problem(s) creating barriers to accessing capital in specified rural areas 

and a strategy to address the problem. Applicants were judged upon their innovative idea or 

strategy, the depth or need of the targeted areas, any partnerships that would leverage private, 

public, and philanthropic capital, and the scalability and/or replicability of the idea or strategy. 

Bonus points were awarded to proposals that were targeted predominantly to areas characterized 

by persistent poverty.

Proposed Goals: The CDFI Fund’s primary objective was to stimulate innovative strategies aimed 

at building capacity to expand CDFI investments and increasing access to capital in underserved 

rural areas, particularly those that are characterized by persistent poverty. In addition, the prize 

competition would allow the CDFI Fund to showcase and support prize winners so as to 

disseminate best practices, as well as encourage other CDFIs that serve rural areas to develop new 

skills or practices that may have beneficial effects on the rural areas they serve.

Measures of Success: The FY 2016 Prize Competition received 64 applications compared to 39 

applications for a similar FY 2015 Innovation Challenge—a 64% increase. In addition, the CDFI 

Fund noticed an increase in the volume of on-line posting and re-postings throughout the CDFI 

industry about the launch of the Prize Challenge.

The CDFI Fund also was very encouraged not only by the large number of applications but also 

by the diverse range of proposals, which spanned technological innovations, impact investing, data 

collection, job training, environmental remediation, housing, and many others. This diversity 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-170

demonstrated that the industry is actively thinking and working on a number of creative and 

innovative solutions to the problems facing rural communities, and that the CDFI Fund can play a 

critical role in enabling these solutions.

The CDFI Fund will continue to measure the success of the winners and honorable mentions 

through detailed progress reports. The four winners will submit two progress reports detailing 

progress in implementing the application proposal and/or any outcomes, due one year and two 

years after distribution of their prize award. Honorable mention winners are required to submit a 

progress report only one year after distribution of their prize award. Each progress report will be 

about ten pages in length and will include an overview of the solution described in the proposal, 

the efforts of the winner to implement the proposal, and any outcomes derived from the 

implementation of the proposal. The progress reports will specifically address any challenges, 

successes (supported by data, where possible), and/or failures encountered during implementation,

any revisions made to the original proposal, as well as lessons learned. The CDFI Fund also expects 

to promote the winning solutions to the public through a series of blog-posts, webinars, and other 

events which can help build the overall capacity of the CDFI Fund, individual CDFIs, and the 

industry at large.

Finally, using a prize challenge over traditional contracting vehicles allowed the CDFI Fund to 

reduce the administrative burden, both pre and post-award. CDFI Fund staff reduced time in preaward development by not having to go through the sometimes arduous process of contract 

development.

Participants: The challenge mobilized 64 participants from across the United States. The CDFI 

Fund hoped to mobilize certified CDFIs, regulated and non-regulated financial institutions, 

academia, and any other organization or person that has a vested interest in building capacity to 

expand CDFI investments and increase access to capital in underserved rural areas, particularly 

those that are characterized by persistent poverty.

To be eligible to win a prize under the Challenge, an individual or entity must have complied with 

the following rules: 

 In the case of a private entity, the applicant must be incorporated in and maintain a primary 

place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether 

participating singly or in a group, the applicant must be a citizen or permanent resident of 

the United States.

 The applicant may not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of 

their employment.

 Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop Challenge applications unless 

consistent with the purpose of their grant award.

 Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop Challenge 

applications or to fund efforts in support of a Challenge submission.

 All applications must propose or present ideas or solutions that have been implemented or 

are proposed to be implemented in rural areas; bonus points shall be given to ideas or

solutions that have been implemented or are proposed to be implemented in rural persistent 

poverty areas.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-171

 All applications must propose or present an idea or solution that directly addresses the issue 

of increasing CDFI investments and access to capital in underserved rural areas and/or rural 

persistent poverty areas.

 Applicants must be certified CDFIs, a collaboration of CDFIs, or a non-CDFI partnering 

with certified CDFIs. Joint applicants as part of any collaboration or partnership should 

select a primary applicant to submit the application.

An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal 

facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition, if the facilities and employees 

are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the Challenge on an equitable 

basis.

Entrants must agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government, 

its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss 

of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from 

participation in the Challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence 

or otherwise.

Entrants must also agree to indemnify the Federal Government against third-party claims for 

damages arising from or related to Challenge activities.

Timeline: Submissions were opened June 16, 2016 and were due July 29, 2016. Winners were 

announced September 23, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: N/A

Incentives: The total prize purse was $1,000,000. Two top winners received $300,000, with second 

and third place winners receiving $200,000 and $100,000 respectively, and four runners up were 

awarded $25,000. The CDFI Fund noted that all winners and honorable mentions would be 

promoted on the CDFI Fund’s website and could be asked to participate in public webinars, blogposts, or other external activities.

All winners were notified of their selection and the funds were obligated in September 2016. 

Winners were asked to sign an award letter and set up an account in SAM.gov. Once the award 

letter was received and their organization was approved in SAM.gov, a one-time ACH payment 

was executed.

Evaluation and Judging: The review process was divided into two phases. In the first phase, 

reviewers drawn from CDFI Fund and Treasury staff were divided into teams of three and assigned 

a set of applications to score. Teams scored each application based on a set of criteria that included 

such factors as Depth of Need, Design, Scalability or Replicability, Outcomes, Innovativeness, 

and Community Involvement, the sum of which added up to a total numerical score of 100. The 

three team member scores were then averaged to provide a team score for each application. 

Applicants that targeted rural areas that were predominantly in counties designated as experiencing 

persistent poverty were given an additional ten bonus points as part of their final score resulting in 

a maximum possible score of 110.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-172

The top ten scoring applications were then forwarded to a panel of five judges who met in person 

to discuss and rank the applications. The judges consisted of representatives from the CDFI Fund; 

the Office of Small Business, Community Development, and Housing Policy at the Department of 

the Treasury; the Department of Interior; the Department of Agriculture; and Cobank, a national 

cooperative bank serving rural America. For this phase of the review, judges were asked to 

evaluate applications as a whole rather than the sum of the parts, while keeping in mind each 

proposal’s potential to meet the requirements to build capacity to expand CDFI investments and 

increase access to capital in underserved rural areas; innovativeness; potential impact on targeted

areas; replicability; as well as other considerations based on the judge’s experience and expertise 

that might strengthen or weaken the application. Applications were not given an individual score 

but rather ranked in order of preference and presented to the Director of the CDFI Fund along with 

recommendations for those to be recognized as winners or honorable mentions. The Director then 

made final decisions on monetary awards.

As this was the first time conducting a Prize Challenge, CDFI staff were not sure of the number of 

responses to expect. Creating a two-step review process allowed the prize leadership to bring in 

an appropriate number of staff to do an initial review and create a ranking in a short amount of 

time, and then forward the top applications to the second level reviewers for a more nuanced and 

holistic review. The more qualitative focus of the second phase review also allowed for selection 

of the most innovative proposals in a way that would have been missed by a strictly quantitative 

review. Overall, CDFI staff viewed this process to be very effective.

Partnerships: The CDFI Fund did not partake in any formal or non-formal partnerships to co-host the 

competition itself.

Resources: The CDFI Fund used two internal staff to manage the development and then 

implementation of the Prize Challenge. A third person, from the U.S. Treasury Department, was 

assigned to provide additional help throughout the Prize Challenge. Those three staff relied heavily 

on other staff from the CDFI Fund, Treasury Department, and Challenge.gov team to get the Prize 

Challenge up and running. For example, the CDFI Fund used its legal team to help develop the 

rules and participation criteria, other CDFI Fund and U.S. Treasury staff to review all applications 

during its Phase I review process, and the Challenge.gov team to set up the website. The 

operational cost paid by the agency was $50,000.

The CDFI Fund did not use any third party contractor, vendor, or partner to conduct the prize 

competition.

Results: The FY 2016 CDFI Fund Prize Challenge received 64 applications, of which 55 were 

deemed eligible, and awarded four winners and four honorable mentions. Overall, the eligible 

applicants came from 27 states and Washington, DC. Fifty-one of the 55 eligible applications 

were certified CDFIs or had previous contact with the CDFI Fund. Below is a listing of all 

eligible applications and their location:

State

Number of 

Applications State

Number of 

Applications

California 5 New Mexico 1
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-173

Colorado 4 New York 1

Washington, DC 2 Ohio 1

Georgia 1 Oklahoma 1

Iowa 1 Pennsylvania 1

Kentucky 4 South Carolina 1

Massachusetts 1 South Dakota 2

Maine 2 Tennessee 1

Minnesota 3 Texas 5

Mississippi 2 Virginia 1

North Carolina 3 Vermont 1

North Dakota 1 Washington 2

Nebraska 2 Wisconsin 1

New Hampshire 3 West Virginia 1

Below is a summary of each winning proposal:

1. Virginia Community Capital (VCC)

To address a lack of banking or financial knowledge and expertise among foundations that are 

interested in impact investing, VCC has created a social enterprise called Direct Investing for Good 

(DIG), a service providing fund aggregation, underwriting, investment servicing, and 

monitoring/tracking services to foundations so they can invest directly in CDFIs or co-invest with 

local CDFIs for community development projects. According to the proposal, through DIG, “VCC 

will provide outsourced financial expertise that adds capacity for foundations and helps them to:

1. Aggregate impact funds;

2. Source and structure community and economic development projects;

3. Evaluate the financing;

4. Conduct due diligence;

5. Service the investment including tracking performance, both financial and social impact.

“As a result, foundations will have the financial expertise to: (1) Invest in CDFIs directly; (2) 

Invest alongside a CDFI in a specific project; (3) Fully or partially guarantee a CDFI loan; or (4) 

Provide early stage investments in preparation for later capital from CDFIs.”

VCC intends to pilot the proposal to serve nine foundations that are members of the Appalachian 

Funders Network (AFN) and eventually scale the program to include all 80 members of the AFN 

to increase access to new capital for CDFIs and rural communities throughout Appalachia.

2. National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions

To enable CDFI credit unions to extend their reach and provide access to secure, affordable 

financial services and products in underserved rural communities, the Federation is building CU 

Impact, what they describe as “the first and only core system created specifically for CDFIs.” 

According to the application, “CU Impact will enable the credit unions [to] interact with customers 

through smartphones and support the credit unions to roll out features including remote deposit 

check capture and affordable and immediate wire transfer services for remittances.” 

Initial priorities for the initiative include developing and implementing automated lending 

platforms, mobile banking apps, and automating incentivized savings plans. Credit unions enrolled 

on CU Impact will be able to share common marketing materials and content, as well as 

standardized products and services designed for low-income communities.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-174

The initiative will be piloted with Red River Mill FCU and Shreveport FCU, two CDFIs serving 

persistent poverty counties in Louisiana and Mississippi, and they anticipate expanding to 30 CDFI 

credit unions within five years.

3. Community Ventures

Community Ventures proposes to create “an innovative new capitalization approach to [attack] the 

loss of coal-related jobs [in Central Appalachia] through its soon-to-be-launched Build Appalachia 

loan fund.” The strategy is to capitalize a community facilities loan pool and product with an initial 

focus on health care, “given that much of the region is medically underserved and there is strong 

demand for qualified professionals.” According to the application, “Build Appalachia’s borrower 

focus will be on change agents such as colleges and universities that will create or expand academic 

programs to prepare Appalachian residents who have lost jobs in the coal industry for new careers 

in high-paying, economically stable sectors.”

The proposed loan fund also would address what the application describes as “a dearth of lending 

capital in the $2 to $5 million range to support non-business essential community facilities” in the 

region. Community Ventures is submitting an application for $10 million to USDA through the 

newly expanded Intermediary Community Facilities Loan Fund and has set a goal of growing the 

loan fund to $40 million in capital availability. They also claim the new fund “will promote 

increased New Markets Tax Credit investment, multi-CDFI partnerships, and increased private 

sector lending throughout Central Appalachia.” 

4. First Nations Oweesta

Oweesta’s application argues that “One major cause of Native CDFI capital access issues is low 

organizational capacity to measure outcome and impact.” To address the lack of experience and 

staff resources among many Native CDFIs to collect and analyze data, Oweesta has begun 

developing Opportunities Through Impact System (OTIS), an impact tracking platform, designed 

specifically for Native CDFIs.

According to the application, “The goal of the OTIS platform is to provide the technological 

resources—combined with the technical assistance of Oweesta—to help Native CDFIs show their 

longitudinal impact on their communities.... This platform will also contribute to their financial 

strength and enhance organizational capacity to secure capital and debt capital investments by (1) 

lowering the cost of developing impact tracking systems for Native CDFIs through streamlining 

the process, and creating a scalable platform to allow for better program design and monitoring; 

(2) providing better access to impact data for individual funding proposals; (3) demonstrating 

industry viability to a broader range of investors through better access to industry-wide data; and 

(4) standardizing impact and evaluation metrics across the industry, allowing for increased 

collaboration in fundraising efforts.”

The initiative will be piloted with five identified Native CDFIs “serving American Indian, Alaska 

Native, and Native Hawaiian communities.” Oweesta notes that it has a growing waiting list to 

join the platform and have a goal of adding 10 Native CDFIs a year until they “are serving the 

entire industry.”

5. Craft3
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-175

With widespread need to finance the replacement of failing septic systems in rural areas, Craft3 is 

undertaking a regional approach to offering their existing Clean Water Loan product. Although 

Craft3 has been working with local officials to offer the product on a county by county basis since 

2003, the new strategy, more recently implemented in 2015, calls for a regional approach to 

maximize their reach to rural homeowners in poverty in Washington State.

Craft3 describes several benefits to this new strategy. By standardizing the loan program and 

offering it at a regional level, they are able to enable scale; streamline county-level reporting and 

create a single-administering entity to oversee the CDFI’s use of government appropriated grant 

funding, reducing administrative burden; and allow on-site sewage systems professionals that 

work in multiple counties to discuss the same financing option with potential borrowers regardless 

of physical location. According to the application, “The new program [serves] five new counties 

(for a total of twelve) and consolidate[d] multiple, disparate county-level partnerships into a 

regional, standardized program that better served rural and poor homeowners. Further, it [allowed 

the state Department of] Ecology to work with one group of counties, rather than develop 

programs, grant agreements, and contracts for 14 separate counties.”

6. Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB)

Working with Rio Grande Valley Multibank, CDCB has created the MiCASiTA loan pool and 

product to address the lack of access to both safe and affordable housing and financing in rural and 

colonia areas of South Texas. The strategy is “to implement a phased or staged construction 

solution that meets the immediate housing needs of residents and can ‘grow’ or expand as the 

family’s financial situation improves and/or as their housing size needs increase.” Financing for 

the home will be similarly structured, “with an initial loan and/or grants for the core structure and 

then subsequent loans/grants (two to three) to complete the home over time.”

7. Hope Credit Union

To address the lack of access to capital in rural areas, Hope Credit Union has developed a strategy 

of taking over donated bank branches in persistent poverty counties and offering products and 

services appropriate to the community. With the high cost of operations in rural areas, some profitseeking financial institutions are making decisions to leave a community, adding to the existing 

problem of bank deserts. Taking advantage of the abandoned infrastructure, in 2015 Hope was 

able to receive a donation of branch facilities in four small Mississippi Delta towns. According to 

the application, “HOPE has combined [its] expanded physical infrastructure, robust products and 

services, user friendly mobile technology, and a clear commitment to community development to 

attract previously unbanked and underbanked rural residents into the financial mainstream.”

8. Appalachian Community Federal Credit Union (ACFCU)

To protect underserved communities in eastern Kentucky from predatory lenders and provide 

access to affordable financial products and services, ACFCU has developed a strategy to “provide 

services designed to meet the unique needs of underserved rural communities, and use technology 

to remotely deploy those services.” The approach includes offering what they describe as “stair 

step” services and products that can build credit, consolidate debt, and provide affordable 

alternatives to predatory loan products. ACFCU has branded this approach as 

“myMoneyTrackSolutions,” which also incorporates financial wellness services and workshops as 

well as financial coaching.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-176

In combination with the suite of products and services, to create greater access to accounts and 

banking services, ACFCU will be installing three Virtual Teller Machines (VTMs) in strategic 

locations in rural eastern Kentucky. “VTMs are ATM-like machines with a video screen and 

microphone that allow the customer to video chat with a credit union employee in a remote 

location. They have electronic signature capability, which facilitates loan applications and 

closings. They also function as a depository ATM, accepting deposits of checks and cash, and 

dispensing cash down to the dollar.” ACFCU claims to be “the only financial institution in the 

country,” to their knowledge, using VTMs to “sustainably reach underserved rural communities.”

Applicant

Winner/Honorable 

Mention Award Amount

Virginia Community Capital Winner $ 300,000.00

National Federation of Community Development Credit 

Unions

Winner $ 300,000.00

First Nations Oweesta Winner $ 200,000.00

Community Ventures Winner $ 100,000.00

Craft3 Honorable Mention $ 25,000.00

Community Development Corporation of Brownsville Honorable Mention $ 25,000.00

Hope Credit Union Honorable Mention $ 25,000.00

Appalachian Community Federal Credit Union Honorable Mention $ 25,000.00

TOTAL $1,000,000.00

A.9 General Services Administration

A.9.1 Digital Innovation Hackathon Fall 2015110

Summary: Coders, developers, designers, engineers, data scientists, and subject matter experts 

from industry, academia, and the Federal Government were invited to participate in a Digital 

Innovation Hackathon on October 16, 2015. GSA provided three challenges for participants. A 

total of 72 individuals took part in the hackathon.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; engage new people and communities; and find and 

highlight innovative ideas

Results: A total of 138 individuals were registered and 72 actually took part in the hackathon.

Problem Statement: This competition asked the public and academia to develop smart technology 

solutions in the form of an application, application programming interface (API), and/or data 

mashup that has the capability to provide GSA with key insights and recommendations for future 

enhancements.

 

110 open.gsa.gov/events/digital-innovation-hackathon
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-177

Participants were presented with the following projects for this competition:

 Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction Visualization: The Office of Government-wide Policy 

(OGP) has been working to create an analytical framework and tool to support agencies in 

meeting the goals outlined in a recent Executive Order 13693 “Planning for Federal 

Sustainability in the Next Decade”, regarding greenhouse gas emission reductions. The 

model currently uses several variables to help agencies examine how increasing their use 

of E-85 capable vehicles and replacing gas-powered vehicles with E-85 capable vehicles 

would affect their total greenhouse gas emissions. Skills desired include database coding 

ability (e.g., SQL language), analytical research, and experience using data visualization 

software.

 Data Center Consolidation Mashup and Tool: Multiple stakeholders including the White 

House, Congress, and government agencies share a common interest in better utilizing 

government data centers. This has led to multiple report generation from multiple sources 

to better understand power consumption and data center utilization and efficiency. The 

purpose of this challenge is to mashup different datasets into visualization and application 

for all stakeholders to utilize. Skills desired include web and application developers, user 

experience (UX) designers, data scientists, and data center SMEs.

 Travel Challenge 2.0 App Development: As a continuation of a Travel Challenge held in 

2014, GSA is looking for developers to take the Travel Application to the next level. 

Developed in Python code, this tool is close to production quality and needs some finishing 

code and design ideas. Skills desired include Python developers and UX designers.

Participants were provided with specific guidelines in order for their solutions to be eligible for 

submission and judging as follows:

Any solutions submitted should accomplish the following two tasks: 

1. Visually display or transmit data in a way that will enhance the way GSA works;

2. Through analysis of the data, identify relationships, if they exist, and provide valuable 

insights that could be gained through improved data collection efforts.

All final solutions are to be Open Source Code and placed on GSA’s GitHub site specified to all 

participants. The Hackathon was a single challenge and the solution being sought was Software 

and Apps.

Proposed Goals: The primary goals and desired outcomes from the Hackathon were to have 

participants:

1. Design and build an application, API, or data mashup using GSA data mashup that has the 

capability to provide GSA with key insights and recommendations for future 

enhancements;

2. Develop a technology-driven solution using publicly available GSA data that allows an 

agency to identify opportunities for improvements and transparency;

3. Create a solution using GSA data that could be replicated across government to every 

agency, using their own data.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-178

Measures of Success: The competition had many objectives including engagement with the public; 

gain the public’s insight regarding our data; identify areas where we can improve how we use our 

data; and establish public engagement.

Participants: Working with the GSA General Counsel and reviewing other challenges posted on 

Challenge.gov, the organizers created the following eligibility requirements for participants.

Participants must:

1. Have registered to participate in the competition and complied with the rules of the 

competition;

2. Been incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in 

the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, the participant must 

be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

Participants may not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of 

employment. However, an individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible to win prize money 

because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during 

a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities 

participating in the competition on an equitable basis.

Pre-determined teams of up to five members are welcome to include a stand-alone or mix of private 

industry, non-profit, and academia. Modification to team make-up may occur based on team skill 

make-up at the direction of the competition host.

Participants agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government 

and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or 

loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from 

participation in this competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arose through 

negligence or otherwise. Participants also agree to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate 

financial responsibility, to cover a third party for death, bodily injury, property damage, or loss 

resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in this competition, with the 

Federal Government named as an additional insured under the registered participant’s insurance 

policy and registered participants agreeing to indemnify the Federal Government against third 

party claims for damages arising from or related to the competition activities, and the Federal 

Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.

As GSA is under a strict duty not to give preferential treatment to any private organization or 

individual, participants must agree to take diligent care to avoid the appearance of Government 

endorsement of competition participation and submission. Participants must agree not to refer to 

GSA’s use of your submission (be it product or service) in any commercial advertising or similar 

promotions in a manner that could reasonably imply (in the judgment of a reasonable person) that 

the GSA or the Federal Government endorses, prefers, sponsors, or has an affiliation with 

participants’ products or services. Participants agree that GSA’s trademarks, logos, service marks, 

trade names, or the fact that GSA awarded a prize to a participant, shall not be used by the 

participant to imply direct GSA endorsement of participant or participant’s submission. Both 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-179

participants and GSA may list the other party’s name in a publicly available customer or other list,

so long as the name is not displayed in a more prominent fashion than any other third-party name.

Participants who attended:

The competition had a total of 138 registered participants, from organizations that included: Alpha 

Tech Global, Booz Allen Hamilton, CGI Federal, Department of Agriculture, Department of 

Labor, Forum One, GSA, George Washington University, ITG Firm, National Institutes of Health, 

New York University, Noblis, Octo Consulting, Office of Management and Budget, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, and the Ventera Corporation. Teams were pre-determined and selforganized into 16 teams.

Participants brought unique and varied skill sets to the competition (this list was voluntarily 

supplied by registrants): subject matter expertise, database coding (SQL language), analytical 

research, experience with data visualization software, application development, user experience 

(UX) design, data science, data architecture, and Python programming.

Timeline: The Hackathon was held on October 16, 2015. Participants had from 8:30 AM–4:30 PM 

to work on their projects and winners were selected at the end of the day.

Solicitation and Outreach: The competition used the following methods to share information for 

the Hackathon event:

 Social Media (such as Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (such as listservs);

 Federal Register notice. 



Incentives: The Hackathon offered a total of $15,000, stating no more than $1,000 to each team 

member of a winning team would be awarded. A total of 14 winners from 3 teams were selected 

for a total prize amount of $14,000. Funding for this competition came from GSA. A single 

appropriation account (2016-G-00-262X-CSD1-S00W0800-CSO40-I) was used to pay the 

winners of this competition. Winners were required to complete an Electronic Funds Transfer 

(EFT) form, and payment was to be made within 60 days of announcing the winners. 

Non-monetary incentives were not used for this competition to motivate participants or reward 

winners.

Evaluation and Judging: Judges were GSA Senior Career Officials with Government-Wide Policy, 

Travel, and Information Technology and/or Acquisition. Judges awarded a score to each 

submission against a total of 4 criteria: (1) Technical Competence and Capabilities 50%; (2) Use 

of Data to Provide Effective Outcomes 20%; (3) Creativity/Innovation 10%; (4) Valuable 

Information and Insights regarding Data 20%. Each of the criteria above contained a point value 

ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. Judges selected a point value for 

each criterion and the scores were added up after all solutions were presented. The winner(s) of 

the competition were decided based upon the highest average overall score, and if their solution 

met the requirements stated for each project presented.

The project requirements along with the criterion were used to assign a point value to each solution 

presented.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-180

Partnerships: No partnerships were utilized.

Resources: The total personnel and other costs for the Hackathon were $14,632 (including two 

Federal employees and the Federal Register notice publication). 

Results: A total of 14 winners from three teams were selected for a total prize amount of $14,000.

Government-wide Earth Day Hackathon111

Summary: Coders, developers, designers, engineers, data scientists, and subject matter experts 

from industry, academia, and the Federal Government were invited to participate in a Governmentwide Earth Day Hackathon on April 22, 2016. GSA, along with CEQ, EPA, NIST, NOAA, and 

USDA, provided specific challenges for participants. A total of 63 individuals took part in the 

hackathon.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; engage new people and communities; and find and 

highlight innovative ideas

Results: A total of 105 individuals were registered and 63 actually took part in the hackathon.

Problem Statement: GSA’s Office of Citizen Service and Innovative Technologies (OCSIT) and 

18F Organization—partnered with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the General Services Administration 

(GSA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA—

presented a Government-wide Earth Day Hackathon, on Friday, April 22, 2016.

GSA, along with the agencies listed above, presented the following green and sustainable projects 

for participants to work on:

 CEQ Challenges:

 Create a visual dashboard on sustainable purchasing, by agency, using data captured in 

the government-wide procurement system.

 Create a website and/or app that allows Federal agencies and/or the public user, if 

appropriate, to assess whether or not their property is located in an area of wildfire risk.

 EPA’s Challenges:

 Develop a method to identify fraudulent reporting to the EPA using Benford’s law of 

statistical probability.

 Develop a mobile app that improves environmental awareness through the use of geofences.

 

111 open.gsa.gov/EarthDayHackathon
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-181

 Develop code that can be deployed on Android and iOS mobile apps that displays UV 

Index Forecast information specific to a defined beach.

 Develop improved data visualizations or a consolidated dashboard associated with the 

climate change indicator data.

 GSA’s Challenges:

 Create a browser extension or add-on (for IE or Chrome) that allows users to determine 

whether the product they are viewing meets Federal and agency sustainability 

requirements. 

 Develop a streamlined management tool to help teams collaborate and incorporate 

sustainability into any building project.

 Build an app that allows a user to take a photo of products, building materials, and 

systems and receive green tips and sustainable purchasing information.

 Create a phone application (Android or iOS) that allows a user to scan a barcode, or 

look up a product, and then notifies the user if the product meets the latest sustainability 

requirements.

 NIST Challenge:

 Create an environmentally-friendly product selection Web Interface API.

 NOAA Challenges:

 Create an API, browser extension or add-on (for IE or Chrome) that allows users to 

compute their custom normals from NOAA’s records of surface temperature and 

precipitation.

 Create an API or tool that allows users to easily find Next-Generation Radar 

(NEXRAD) data on Amazon AWS 33.

 Create an app, browser extension or add-on (for IE or Chrome) that allows users to 

visualize and/or compute on NOAA’s current Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS).

 USDA Challenge:

 Develop methods to present and compare performance on energy and water use in 

USFS facilities.

 Develop a prototype of a tool available on the web or as a phone app, that allows users 

to quickly and easily access shade scores for any neighborhood in the United States for 

the USFS.

Participants were provided with specific guidelines in order for their solutions to be eligible for 

submission and judging as follows:

Any solutions submitted should accomplish the following two tasks: 

1. Visually display or transmit data in a way that will enhance the way GSA works;

2. Provide solutions for improved data collection efforts.

All final solutions are to be Open Source Code and placed on GSA’s GitHub site specified to all 

participants. The Hackathon was a single challenge and the solution being sought was Software 

and Apps.

Proposed Goals: The primary goals and desired outcomes from the Hackathon were to have 

participants:

1. Utilize GSA data to create an application, API, and/or data mashup.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-182

2. Provide GSA a better understand of use and needs of current and future data assets.

3. Post all open source solutions on the GSA GitHub site for future use by the Federal 

Government developer community and GSA.

Measures of Success: The competition had many objectives including engagement with the public; 

gaining the public’s insight regarding our data; identify areas where we can improve how we use 

our data; and establish public engagement.

Participants: Working with the GSA General Counsel and reviewing other challenges posted on 

Challenge.gov, the organizers created the following eligibility requirements for participants.

Participants must:

1. Have registered to participate in the competition and complied with the rules of the 

competition.

2. Been incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in 

the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, the participant must 

be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

Participants may not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of 

employment. However, an individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the 

individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a 

competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities 

participating in the competition on an equitable basis.

Participants agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government 

and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or 

loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from 

participation in this competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arose through 

negligence or otherwise. Entrants are not required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate 

financial responsibility in order to participate in this Hackathon.

As the Federal Government is under a strict duty not to give preferential treatment to any private 

organization or individual, participants must agree to take diligent care to avoid the appearance of 

Government endorsement of competition participation and submission.

Participants must agree not to refer to GSA’s use of their submission (be it product or service) in 

any commercial advertising or similar promotions in a manner that could reasonably imply (in the 

judgment of a reasonable person) that the GSA or the Federal Government endorses, prefers, 

sponsors, or has an affiliation with participants’ products or services. Participants agree that GSA’s 

trademarks, logos, service marks, trade names, or the fact that GSA awarded a prize to a 

participant, shall not be used by the participant to imply direct GSA endorsement of participant or 

participant’s submission.

Both participants and GSA may list the other party’s name in a publicly available customer or 

other list, so long as the name is not displayed in a more prominent fashion than any other thirdparty name.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-183

Participants who attended:

The competition had a total of 63 registered participants, from organizations that included: Booz 

Allen Hamilton, CGI Group Inc., District of Columbia Government, EPA, Forum One, GSA, 

George Washington University, ICF International, Incentive Technology Group, Mainstay 

Consulting, National Institutes of Health, REI Systems, and the United States Army. Teams were 

pre-determined and self-organized into ten teams.

Participants brought unique and varied skill sets to the competition (this list was voluntarily 

supplied by registrants): database coding (SQL language), analytical research, experience with 

data visualization software, application development, user experience (UX) design, data science, 

data architecture, and Python programming.

Timeline: The Hackathon was held on April 22, 2016. Participants had from 8:30 AM–4:30 PM 

to work on their projects and winners were selected at the end of the day.

Solicitation and Outreach: The competition used the following methods to share information for 

the Hackathon event:

 Social Media (such as Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (such as listservs);

 Federal Register notice.



Incentives: The Hackathon offered a total of $15,000, stating that no more than $1,000 to each 

team member of a winning team would be awarded. A total of 15 winners from four teams were 

selected for a total prize amount of $15,000 ($3,750 was awarded to each of the four winning 

teams, to be split equally among the number of members within each team). Funding for this 

competition came from GSA/OCSIT/18F. A single appropriation account from OCSIT 

(105X.S00I0110.CA51.25.CAH40.J55/OC 25/No Year/IX020230) was used to pay the winners 

of this competition. Winners were required to complete an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) form, 

and payment was to be made within 60 days of announcing the winners. Non-monetary incentives 

were not used for this competition to motivate participants or reward winners.

Evaluation and Judging: Judges were GSA Senior Career Officials with expertise in Governmentwide Policy, Travel, Information Technology, and/or Acquisition. Judges awarded a score to each 

submission. The winner(s) of the competition were decided based upon the highest average overall 

score, and if their solution met the requirements stated for each project presented.

Partnerships: OCSIT/18F partnered with the following agencies for this event to obtain “green” 

projects for our participants to work on: White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the General Services Administration 

(GSA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Resources: GSA worked with the partner agencies to obtain “green” projects for the event. All 

planning and logistics, room reservations, and meetings were handled by the Digital Services 

Division.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-184

The total personnel and other costs for the Hackathon were $14,632 (including two Federal 

employees and the Federal Register notice publication). 

Results: A total of 15 winners from four teams were selected for a total prize amount of $15,000 

($3,750 to each team).

A.10 National Science Foundation

A.10.1 Community College Innovation Challenge112

Summary: The Community College Innovation Challenge (CCIC) is designed to encourage and 

provide space for community college students to participate in innovation. This year the challenge 

focused on creating solutions in the food-energy-water nexus. Ten teams participated in the 

“innovation boot camp”, and three teams were awarded prize money. 

Solution Type: Software and apps; ideas; technology demonstration and hardware; and scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; advance scientific research; and develop

technology

Results: Twenty teams applied, with one winner and two second place finishers selected from ten 

finalists at Innovation Boot Camp. Solutions proposed ranged from improvements to solar 

greenhouses to creating biofuels from waste apples. Collaboration between teams is continuing in 

order to pursue their solutions. 

Problem Statement: In Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, NSF sought science, technology, engineering

and mathematics (STEM)-based solutions for issues of local to global concern within the foodenergy-water nexus through CCIC. NSF, in partnership with AACC, invited teams of 3–5

community college students, alongside a faculty mentor and community/industry partner, to

identify key problems and propose innovative solutions within the food-energy-water trilemma.

The 2015/2016 challenge theme complements the FY 2016 NSF-wide INFEWS (innovations

at the nexus of food, energy, and water systems) investment.

For the CCIC competition, teams of community college students are charged with proposing

STEM-based solutions to real-world problems within one of three themes: Maker to

Manufacturer; Energy and Environment; and Security Technologies. A complete entry

consisted of two components: a written entry and a video entry. The short written entry

described the problem entrants were to address, the solution they’ve crafted, and its impacts

and benefits. The 90-second video served as a creative outlet to clearly articulate in an original

way the problem, what could happen if the problem is not resolved, and the team’s proposed

solution. A successful entry excelled in innovation and impact, feasibility and clarity of

communication. In order to be eligible to enter CCIC, students had to be at least 18 years old,

be enrolled in a two-year, degree-granting institution in the U.S., and be in academic good

 

112 www.nsf.gov/CCchallenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-185

standing.

Teams must have included a faculty mentor and a community/industry partner. This is the

second annual CCIC. NSF plans to continue CCIC as an annual competition in the future, with

each year varying in theme but intending to capture innovation genius at the community college

level.

Proposed Goals: CCIC’s primary objective is to create space for community college students,

an often underrepresented population, at the innovation table and in the innovation economy.

The United States leads the world in scientific discovery and innovation. NSF and AACC

are calling on community college students—the nation’s future scientists and engineers—to

support U.S. scientific progress through CCIC. CCIC provides students with an opportunity to

begin using science to make a difference in the world by transferring knowledge into action

through the latest entrepreneurial and communication techniques.

Measures of Success: CCIC advances NSF's mission by specifically aligning with NSF’s

strategic plan for FYs 2011-2016:

 Innovate for society (goal 2): Build the capacity of the nation’s citizenry for addressing

societal challenges through science and engineering.

o “A growing body of research in learning and STEM education serves as the basis

for guiding NSF programs and creating the links among schools, community

colleges, colleges and universities, workplaces, and informal education mechanisms

that are critical to workforce preparation and STEM literacy.”

 Transform the frontiers (goal 2): Prepare and engage a diverse STEM workforce

motivated to participate at the frontiers.

o “NSF’s primary approach to address in this performance goal is the integration of

research and education. Thus, the development of talented young people includes

connection to the frontiers of knowledge and direct experience in the conduct of

research in the United States and in other countries.”

In addition, the competition achieves NSF’s strategic goal for open innovation.

NSF routinely receives thank you notes from finalist teams continuing careers in STEM or

furthering their education. One top-placing team received financial backing to further their

novel idea in the innovation economy and received significant congressional attention at the

CCIC winners’ reception on Capitol Hill. Six congressional members attended and delivered

remarks at the reception, including vice presidential candidate and Senator Tim Kaine (DVA).

One of the finalist teams from the FY 2015 CCIC competition applied for, and was admitted

to, an NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) cohort. This STEM-based entrepreneurial program

provides an excellent opportunity to strengthen their project and successfully propel it into

the marketplace. This same team has received funding from a venture capitalist to implement

their project. And an FY 2016 CCIC winning team has spoken on several panels at community

college conferences about the experience and their innovation. They are working on

commercializing their solar nanotechnology greenhouse product and are considering
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-186

incorporating their company.

As an unanticipated off-shoot, the second place team has actually been in close contact with

the first place team and are planning on using the greenhouse on the second place team's

campus as a lab for their technology—a highlight of the collaboration coming from this event.

Participants: For the CCIC competition, the agency sought to mobilize community college

students who were 18 years old and older, enrolled in a two-year, degree-granting institution

in the United States, and in academic good standing. Teams were comprised of 3-5 community

college students, one faculty mentor, and one community/industry partner to provide realworld, entrepreneurial/societal advice. Students who advanced to finalist status and participated

in a past Innovation Boot Camp were not eligible to re-enter. NSF and AACC especially hoped

to garner participation from nontraditional students, veterans, and other underrepresented

populations.

Timeline: The Community College Innovation Challenge opened for submissions in October 

2015, with the preliminary judging at the end of February 2016. Innovation Boot Camp ran from 

June 20-23, with winners selected at the end. 

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media (such as Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (such as listservs);

 Press Release;

 Day-Long Event(s) Prior to the Competition;

 Partnership with Outside Organizations (potentially including private companies, nonprofit organizations, or other Federal agencies); and

 Other (please specify): Sessions/announcements at appropriate conferences, promo toolkit 

on the website, mailing materials (postcards, posters) to appropriate contacts.

Incentives:

Max Prize Total: (depending on size of teams, and not including travel, room, and board for 

Innovation Boot Camp)—up to $41,590

 First place team with up to 5 student members ($1,500 each)

 Second place team with up to 5 student members ($1,200 each)

 Finalist student team member award up to 50 students ($500 each)

 Each team (10 in total) received $200 each to develop their Capitol Hill reception display

 Each team (10 in total) received a plaque to take back to their home institution ($109 each).

Funding sources: No private sector or philanthropic contributions. Funding came from the NSF 

Directorate for Education and Human Resources' Division of Undergraduate Education.

Additional operational incentive: Ten finalist teams attended an Innovation Boot Camp, a 

professional development workshop on innovation, communication, and entrepreneurship. The 

first and second place teams were chosen out of the ten teams at the final judging during the

Innovation Boot Camp. Each student member on the finalist teams received $500 but the first- and 

second-place teams received additional cash prizes (in the amounts stated above). Each team was
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-187

reimbursed up to $200 to create a display to showcase at the Capitol Hill reception as part of the 

final judging process. Travel, room, and board costs associated with attending the Innovation Boot 

Camp were paid on behalf of the students and faculty mentors.

Non-monetary incentive: Public recognition for 30 semifinalist and finalist teams on the 

competition website, via press releases and social media, and by invitations to community 

college conferences and forums, giving them access to experts, etc.

Evaluation and Judging: NSF recruited different populations for the three rounds of judging

as follows:

 Preliminary (online): AAAS fellows across agencies

 Semifinal (online): Program officers with thematic expertise

 Final (in person): High-profile researchers and business people with expertise in the

three themes: Maker to Manufacturer, Energy and Environment, and Security

Technologies.

The preliminary and semifinal rounds followed a simple sliding scale to judge the innovation

and impact, feasibility and clarity of communication. Online judging also includes a

mandatory comments section.

Evaluation was based on the following criteria:

 Innovation and impact: An assessment of the proposed solution’s use of science

to address the problem, potential impact (potential to be transformative in the areas

of national security, economy, quality of life, education, environment, etc.) and

uniqueness (how the proposed solution differs from existing efforts in its use of

novel concepts, methods and/or instrumentation);

 Feasibility: An assessment of the likelihood that the solution will work as presented,

based on scientific laws and theories, and economic, political, and social constraints.

Can the innovation be replicated? Evaluation of the team’s recognition of potential

barriers/challenges and suggestions for ways in which these might be surmounted; 

and

 Clarity of communication: An assessment of the team’s adherence to the entry

guidelines (written and video entries), as well as grammar, structure, organization

of the facts and data, etc. The entry should have a clear, consistent message.

Final judging is based on the following criteria.

Does the display:

 Identify a societal need;

 Demonstrate how the innovation satisfies this need;

 Communicate the innovation’s novelty, feasibility and viability; and

 Substantiate the innovation’s ability to produce measurable benefits.

Does the team:

 Exhibit enthusiasm;

 Knowledgeably represent the innovation;

 Proactively seek out and engage with visitors;
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-188

 Ask questions of visitors and actively listen to answers; and

 Align their responses and interactions to the interests of the audience.

Do the team’s interactions:

 Convincingly champion their innovation’s value and significance;

 Effectively explain the science behind, and the uniqueness of, their innovation;

 Make clear how society benefits;

 Express optimism and vision;

 Reflect positively on their team and their institutions; and

 Convey a roadmap for moving the project forward.

For the Formal Presentations

Does the presentation:

 Clearly identify the societal problem, need, or opportunity that the innovation addresses;

 Concisely explain how the idea solves this problem, meets the need, or pursues the 

opportunity;

 Succinctly convey the benefits the idea can or will produce;

 Tell a complete story that persuasively signals the idea’s novelty, feasibility and viability;

 Reveal the idea’s uniqueness and differentiate it from other existing or possible 

approaches; and

 Actively urge the listener to support further development of the idea.

Lessons learned: Based on the 2016 Innovation Boot Camp final judging, it became clear that 

there was disagreement about which team should claim second place. It ultimately came to a 

deadlock tie. One half of the panel wanted to focus on marketability and the other half on pure 

scientific feasibility (which had previously been evaluated in semifinal reviews by NSF experts). 

In developing the rubric for the 2017 Innovation Boot Camp, challenge organizers will take this 

into account and emphasize the focus of the final round. The CCIC team aspires to increase 

participation and submission numbers by bolstering promotion and outreach, and the team is

currently searching for ways to support teams to carry out their innovations beyond the boot

camp and through prototype and/or implementation. Unique to this year, the NSF CCIC team

piloted a science coaching program for the ten final teams for six weeks prior to the boot

camp. NSF program officers and science policy fellows paired up to provide one-on-one

mentoring to the teams as they prepared for the final judging round at the boot camp. This

program proved successful; however, the team plans to prepare NSF mentors more this year

and be clearer about expectations. Each year, participants complete an evaluation that greatly

informs the CCIC with what and how things can be improved for the following year.

Partnerships: NSF partners with AACC to run the CCIC competition. AACC has partnered

with the foundation since the competition's inception. AACC provides expertise with the

community college population in challenge development and theme identification; contributes

to outreach and marketing aids in developing materials and curriculum for the Innovation Boot

Camp; helps recruit expert evaluators for all judging rounds; and performs major logistical lifts

in coordinating logistics and travel for the Innovation Boot Camp, including the finalist

reception on Capitol Hill.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-189

NSF and AACC have worked with the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) for the past two CCIC

cycles to provide entrepreneurial coaching to teams. This has proven to be invaluable and has

opened up future opportunities for CCIC finalist alumni to go on to apply for admittance into

an I-Corps cohort. NSF and AACC hope to work with them again in the FY 2017 CCIC cycle.

Resources: Personnel and funding used to execute the CCIC prize competition entailed:

NSF staff time: Most aspects of the competition are handled in-house, with one or two NSF

staff members managing the competition. Activities include:

 Challenge creation, year-to-year updates based on lessons learned and agency

priorities;

 Updating content on the online entry platform;

 Developing the challenge website;

 Designing ads and other marketing material for the competition;

 Using social media to promote the competition;

 Recruiting expert judges;

 Responding to participant, judge and public inquiries;

 Ensuring entries are complete and meet eligibility criteria;

 Preparing correspondence and notifying participants of entry status;

 Preparing/arranging publicity for winners;

 Planning all aspects of the Innovation Boot Camp program; and

 Handling Innovation Boot Camp follow-up.

Partners: AACC provides expertise with the community college population in challenge 

development and theme identification; contributes to outreach and marketing; aids in developing 

materials and curriculum for the Innovation Boot Camp; helps recruit expert evaluators for all 

judging rounds; and performs major logistical lifts in coordinating logistics and travel for the 

Innovation Boot Camp, including the finalist reception on Capitol Hill.

Judges time: The judging process occurs in three rounds (two online, one in person). Each judge 

is allotted approximately two weeks to submit their scores, except for finalist judges, who submit 

their scores immediately in order to determine the winners at the Innovation Boot Camp. Judges 

volunteer their time.

Third party contractors: Skild provided the following components for $83,730 (includes all prize 

costs):

 Skild platform (Pro version for eight months);

 Support–client services (50 hours);

 Creative design services;

 Strategic consulting/oversight;

 Engineering;

 QA testing;

 Prizes; and

 Prize distribution.

Products and services: $20,930

Prize distribution fees: $29,500
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-190

Prize funds: $33,300

Expert presenters at Innovation Boot Camp:

 Curricula development

 Materials development

 Presenting at entire event 

Fees: $36,200

NSF works through a contract to provide AACC with funds to support the Innovation Boot Camp. 

AACC provides all logistics costs (travel, lodging, food, per diem, etc.) and provides essential 

curricula development.

Funds provided to AACC: $235,814

Total cost to NSF: ~ $375,000

Results: Competitors in the FY 2016 CCIC competition were a multidisciplinary group, with 

participants ranging from farmers to scientists to accountants. Team members ranged in age and

were comprised of nontraditional students, veterans, women, and minorities. Teams hailed from 

ten U.S. states and the majority of team members had never worked with NSF before, let alone 

with the Federal Government.

The innovations that the teams brought forward were original, practical, and potentially very

impactful. Here’s a snapshot of the FY 2016 CCIC winners and their projects:

First place: Forsyth Technical Community College, North Carolina

Energy Efficient Nanotech Solar Greenhouse

The Forsyth Technical Community College team proposed a way to modernize today’s

greenhouses to fit individual customer needs by incorporating the use of renewable

energy sources. By utilizing innovative nanotechnology applications, solar-powered

greenhouses can be developed to be more energy efficient, and enable sustainable plant

growth while drastically reducing energy bills.

Second place (tie): Virginia Western Community College, Virginia

Efficient Mechanical Collection Method of Recovering Waste Apples

The Virginia Western Community College team proposed an efficient mechanical collection

method of recovering waste apples to produce an efficient and environmentally-friendly biofuel.

Doing this would allow several thousand acres of apple orchards in the United States to be

used more efficiently, as both a source of food and a source of energy, as well as reduce

economic losses suffered by U.S. apple producers.

Second place (tie): Normandale Community College, Minnesota

Wastewater Hydrokinetic Turbine

A team of engineering students from Normandale Community College proposed to install

and implement hydrokinetic turbines in wastewater treatment plants to generate renewable

energy to advance our society one step closer to a sustainable lifestyle.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-191

A.10.2 Generation Nano113

Summary: Given a lack of understanding of the implications of nanotechnology among the general 

public, and the importance of scientific engagement in students in order to build a strong STEM 

workforce, NSF runs Generation Nano in order to create awareness and engagement in 

nanotechnology among students. Generation Nano is a challenge for high school students to learn 

about nanotechnology and use creative design to come up with a new technology rooted in the 

concepts of nanotechnology that could be used by a superhero of their own design. Interest in the 

challenge was built by the involvement of celebrities in the science fiction and comic book 

communities—Wil Wheaton and Stan Lee. Three finalists received prize money based on the 

creativity, artistic and technical quality, and the use of technology in the entrant’s concept and 

proposal. 

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia); ideas; technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; inform and educate the public; and engage new 

people and communities

Results: Generation Nano generated 115 entries with 11 semifinalists, and three finalists won cash 

prizes totaling $3000. Finalists’ presentations covered nanomedicine to nanotechnology in fabrics.

Problem Statement: There is a lack of understanding among the public, including high school

students, about nanotechnology and its implications. In addition, science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training is vital to meet the needs of the national

workforce. This competition aimed to engage high school students in nanotechnology research

while encouraging their creative ideas and thoughts in a science-multimedia avenue.

Participants were asked to create a novel superhero with nanotechnology-enabled gear. A

complete entry consisted of two components: a written entry and a video or comic strip entry.

The short written entry introduced the superhero, described the nanotechnology-driven gear and

addressed any unexpected uses or consequences of the gear and how society could mitigate

those risks. The 90-second video or one-page comic served as a creative outlet that was used

to tell the hero’s story and emphasized how the gear is useful in overcoming the story’s conflict.

The comic or video also gave insights not provided in the written entry to create a novel

presentation.

This initiative was part of a single challenge that was very successful and thus is being continued

for a second year for Fiscal Year 2017. Students were required to be between the ages of 13

and 19 years old, enrolled in high school or the homeschool equivalent, and be in academic

good standing to enter Generation Nano. Evaluation was based on the following criteria:

 Creativity: The originality and quality of both the superhero and their story, as well as

the application of nanotechnology through the accessory;

 Use of Nanotechnology: How accurately the entrant incorporated nanotechnology into

their story, possible unexpected societal consequences of the technology, as well as

 

113 www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/gennano
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-192

ways to mitigate those risks; and

 Artistic and Technical Quality: The visual appeal and refined execution of each entrant’s

comic or video.

Proposed Goals: Generation Nano intended to challenge individual high school students to

research nanotechnology advances and then creatively apply those ideas to generate unique

gear for a superhero. The competition was an opportunity to generate an early interest in, and

excitement for, STEM in students, as well as provide reputable resources to guide their research.

Measures of Success: The competition advances NSF's mission by specifically aligning with

the following goals in the foundation's strategic plan:

 Innovate for society (goal 2): Build the capacity of the nation’s citizenry for addressing

societal challenges through science and engineering.

o “A growing body of research in learning and STEM education serves as the basis

for guiding NSF programs and creating the links among schools, community

colleges, colleges, and universities, workplaces, and informal education mechanisms

that are critical to workforce preparation and STEM literacy.”

 Transform the frontiers (goal 2): Prepare and engage a diverse STEM workforce

motivated to participate at the frontiers.

o “NSF’s primary approach to address in this performance goal is the integration of

research and education. Thus, the development of talented young people includes

connection to the frontiers of knowledge and direct experience in the conduct of

research in the United States and in other countries.”

In addition, the competition achieves NSF’s strategic goal for open innovation.

The Generation Nano competition inspired entrants from across the United States, and their

creative uses of nanotechnology and artistic caliber was widely praised by our expert judges.

The three finalists came to Washington, D.C. to participate in the USA Science & Engineering

Festival, where they each staffed a table display depicting their hero. Each student engaged

with festival attendees, mostly children and their parents, and described the nanotechnology

behind their superheroes. This experience had a significant impact on the students, all of which

are considering pursuing STEM majors in college, as well as continuing their love of art.

Additionally, each student was interviewed for a nanotechnology podcast hosted by the NSFsupported Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology.

Participants: NSF hoped to engage high school students in STEM, specifically in

nanotechnology. The competition had the following eligibility criteria:

 All entries must be received during the competition submission window;

 Each submission must be made by an individual;

 All students must be enrolled in a high school or be home schooled in the United States,

its territories or possessions at the time of entry (e.g., the fall 2015 semester or the

spring 2016 semester) and be in good standing;

 Students are limited to participating in one project for this challenge;

 Students must be U.S. citizens, nationals or permanent residents;

 Each entrant certifies, through submission to the contest, that the entry is their own
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-193

original creative work and does not violate or infringe the creative work of others, as

protected under U.S. copyright law; and

 Each entrant must submit a Parental/Guardian Permission Form and Photo Consent

Form, available on the competition platform.

Timeline: Submissions for Generation Nano opened November 19, 2015, with preliminary judging 

beginning in February 2016. Winners were announced April 17, 2016. 

Solicitation and Outreach:

 Social Media (such as Twitter posts and Facebook posts);

 Email Outreach (such as listservs);

 Press Release;

 Partnership with Outside Organizations (potentially including private companies, nonprofit organizations, or other Federal agencies); and

 Other (please specify): Sessions/announcements at appropriate conferences, promo

toolkit on the website, mailing materials (postcards, posters) to appropriate contacts.

Evaluation and Judging: For the Generation Nano competition, NSF recruited individuals from

different populations to act as judges for the three rounds of judging:

 Preliminary (online): Fellows across agencies

 Semifinal (online): Nanotechnology researchers and members of the

comic/entertainment community

 Final (in person): High-profile nanotechnology researchers, and prominent education

and entertainment leaders.

The preliminary and semifinal rounds follow a simple sliding scale to judge the innovation and

impact, feasibility and clarity of communication of the entry.

Evaluation during each judging round was based on the following criteria:

 Creativity: The originality and quality of both the superhero and their story as well

as the application of nanotechnology through the accessory;

 Use of nanotechnology: How accurately the entrant incorporated nanotechnology

into their story; and possible unexpected societal consequences of the technology,

as well as ways to mitigate those risks.

 Artistic and technical quality: The visual appeal and refined execution of each

entrant’s comic or video; and

 For the finalist round only: The students’ ability to interact and engage with the public

to effectively describe their superhero’s use of nanotechnology.

Lessons learned: Many students submitted entries based on nanotechnology that was not

sound, but often popularized by pop culture. Future efforts will be made to direct students to

reputable sources and, if possible, allow them opportunities to ask nanotechnology experts

their questions.

Partnerships: The agency partnered with the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and is

already benefiting from their technical knowledge base.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-194

In addition, the prominent comic creator Stan Lee partnered with the competition to help

promote it on social media and contributed to the prizes distributed at the conclusion of the

final judging round; actor Wil Wheaton hosted the awards ceremony. The support of these

celebrities allowed NSF to reach populations not familiar with the foundation and encouraged

their participation.

Resources: Personnel and funding used to execute the prize competition entailed:

NSF staff time-–Most aspects of the competition are handled in-house, with one or two NSF

staff members managing the competition. The activities include:

 Updating content on the online platform;

 Developing competition website;

 Designing ads and other marketing material for the competition;

 Using social media to promote the competition;

 Recruiting expert judges;

 Responding to participant, judge and public inquiries;

 Ensuring entries are complete and meet eligibility criteria;

 Preparing correspondence and notifying participants of entry status;

 Preparing/arranging publicity for winners; and

 Planning all aspects of the final judging presentation at the 2016 USA Science &

Engineering Festival.

Partners:

 Help develop competition content; and

 Help promote competition via social media, newsletter, announcements, and at

conferences; recruit judges, etc.

Judges time: The judging process occurred in three rounds (two online, one in person). Each

judge was allotted about two weeks to submit their scores except for finalist judges, who

submitted their scores immediately in order to determine the winners at the USA Science &

Engineering Festival. Judges volunteer their time.

Third party contractors: Skild provided the following components for $40,000 (includes all prize

and logistical costs):

 Software subscription professional services (set up, testing, training, support);

 Website;

 Winner management;

 Prizes funds, travel, and logistics; and

 Miscellaneous (such as aiding in promotion).

Products and services: $28,848

Prize distribution fees: $1,500

Prizes funds, travel, and logistics: $9,659

Total Cost to NSF: $40,000
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-195

Results: One-hundred and fifteen entrants from across the United States submitted a complete

entry to the Generation Nano competition. Of the semifinalists, 11 came from seven different

states. All the entrants were individuals and high school students. The exceptional caliber of

the students’ entries were widely praised by the expert judges from each round of judging.

Although the majority of entrants chose to enter a comic strip over a video, the video entries

were well edited and executed.

Here is a snapshot of the three finalists:

First place winner: ‘Nanoman’ by a junior at Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and

Technology in Virginia.

‘Nanoman’ is the “personification of nanomedicine” and fights “'Cancer,' the malignant crabmonster.” Using tracking nanosensors inspired by current work conducted on olfactory

sensors, ‘Nanoman’ can deliver drugs specifically to the site of carcinogenesis.

Second place and people’s choice winner: ‘Radio Blitz’ by a sophomore from Bergen County

Academies in New Jersey.

‘Radio Blitz’ wears a skirt lined with nanowires that can produce electricity by movement, a

magnetron bow that can create a plasma around herself to fight nearby villains, and heatresistant fabrics to protect herself from the heat of the plasma. This entrant also participated

at the USA Science & Engineering Festival and came dressed as her hero.

Third place winner: ‘Nine’ by a junior at Martha Ellen Stilwell School of the Arts in Georgia.

‘Nine’ designs a nanosuit to help him fight crime. The suit includes self-healing glass, colorchanging textiles and shock-absorbing polymers.

A.11 Small Business Administration

A.11.1 Growth Accelerator Fund Competition—2016114

Summary: In August 2016, SBA completed the third installment of the Growth Accelerator Fund 

competition with a total prize purse of $4.25 million in order to continue building the support 

structure needed to help startups become commercially viable and create more jobs quickly. This 

extra infusion of capital to qualified accelerators and the burgeoning ecosystem in which they play 

provides resources to expand the startup and entrepreneurship communities around them in order 

to provide a much needed and sustainable economic impact.

In running this competition, SBA hoped to support both new and existing accelerators from all 

over the country that were not yet familiar with the SBA’s services and that were not being fully 

served by the traditional venture capital or angel capital community. In addition to providing funds 

 

114 www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/ooi/resources/1428931
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-196

to underserved groups and geographic areas with less access to capital, this year’s competition had 

a new emphasis on accelerator models that include support for manufacturing.

Solution Type: Business plan; Creative (design & multimedia)

Primary Goals: Stimulate a market; Inform and educate the public

Results: SBA awarded $4.25 million of Congressionally appropriated funds to 85 accelerators 

located in 39 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. 

Problem Statement: In 2016, the SBA conducted the third round of the Growth Accelerator Fund 

contest. SBA awarded $50,000 prizes to the winners of the contest. These funds will be used to 

fund operating budgets, not for investing in startups in ecosystems. The winners of this year’s 

contest were required to demonstrate the ability to raise (or have plans to raise) a 4 to 1 match of 

prizes awarded. This match can be in the form of cash, in-kind donations, or sponsorships. For this 

contest, “accelerators” are defined as: organizations that provide networking opportunities, 

mentorship, space (can be physical or virtual), and sometimes capital to startups. All models are 

expected to have a prescribed timeline after which startups “exit” or “graduate” their organization 

to function independently in the small business economy.

Judges gave particular attention to applicants that filled geographic, industry, and economic gaps 

in the accelerator and entrepreneurial ecosystem space. Through this competition, SBA sought to 

support the development of accelerators and thus startups in parts of the country where there are 

fewer conventional sources of access to capital (e.g., venture capital and other investors).

In addition to accelerators which fill these gaps, SBA also sought accelerators that are run by or 

support women or other underrepresented groups. New to this year, special consideration was 

given to any accelerator models that will support manufacturing and the White House POWER 

Initiative.

To summarize, the main premise of the competition is to ensure that a diverse set of entrepreneurs 

from all walks of life have the opportunity to participate in the American innovation economy. 

The more startup ecosystems that emerge in every corner of America and that enhance 

opportunities for those underrepresented in entrepreneurship, the more competitive the United 

States will become.

Proposed Goals: The proposed goals of the challenge were to infuse capital into qualified 

accelerators and the burgeoning ecosystem in which they play, which, in turn, provides resources 

to boost the startup and entrepreneurship communities around them.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-197

Measures of Success: Success was measured by the geographic spread of awarded accelerators, in 

this year’s competition that was across 39 states and Washington, DC. Importantly, the SBA was 

also able to reach some of the most overlooked areas for startups given there was an explicit focus 

on giving prizes to accelerators that support: the underserved racial groups, women, the maker 

community and geographic regions which traditionally have limited access to capital.

Participants: The participants included underserved groups, geographic areas with less access to 

capital and organizations focused on supporting manufacturing and making. SBA accepted entries 

from both existing and newly launching accelerator models. The competition received 417 

applications in the first round from 39 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico

Timeline: The prize was launched May 4, 2016, accepted submissions until June 3, 2016, and 

awarded on August 5, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The organizers solicited submissions through press release, social 

media, blog posts, stakeholder outreach (Growth Accelerator Network), and previous applicants.

Incentives: The competition offered a $50,000 prize for each winner, for a total $4.25 million prize 

purse.

Evaluation and Judging: Judging was conducted in two rounds. The first round was public sector 

focused (with SBA and government-wide judges). The second round was private sector focused. 

“Solvers” submitted a 10-slide PowerPoint for the first round and 2-minute video for the second 

round.

To award the prizes, several panels composed of over 40 judges considered each applicant’s stated 

mission, impact, implementation, and success metrics. The panel gave particular attention to 

accelerators that filled current geographic gaps in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, those that were 

run by and support women or other underrepresented groups, and accelerator models that support 

manufacturing. For the purposes of this competition, Growth Accelerators include accelerators, 

incubators, co-working startup communities, shared tinker-spaces or other models to accomplish 

similar goals.

Partnerships: This year SBA partnered internally with SBA’s Office of Native American Affairs 

and Office of Veterans Business Development, as well externally with Department of Education, 

the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Resources: SBA staff time and the $4,250,000 prize money composed the resources expended.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-198

Results: SBA awarded $4.25 million of Congressionally appropriated funds to 85 accelerators 

located in 39 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. The winning 85 accelerators were located 

in 39 states and Washington, DC with 30 being in rural counties, 20 focusing on manufacturing, 

70 owned by women, 20 focused on Native American communities,72 focused on women, 60 

focused on the underserved, and 20 focused on veterans. A list of the winners with links to their 

accelerators can be found at www.sba.gov/accelerators. 

A.11.2 InnovateHER Competition—2016

Summary: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted the second annual 

InnovateHER competition for entrepreneurs to create a product or service that has a measurable 

impact on the lives of women and families, has the potential for commercialization, and fills a 

need in the marketplace.

Solution Type: Ideas; Business plan

Primary Goals: Develop technology; Inform and educate the public

Results: SBA local host organizations received 194 applications. The top three teams were 

awarded $70,000 in prize money provided by Microsoft.

Problem Statement: The InnovateHER Challenge provides an opportunity for entrepreneurs to 

showcase products and services that:

 Have a measurable impact on the lives of women and families (30%);

 Have the potential for commercialization (40%), and,

 Fill a need in the marketplace (30%).

Proposed Goals: The American workforce looks different from 50 years ago. Women make up 

nearly half of the labor force and play a critical role in the nation’s economic prosperity. Most 

children live in households where all parents work. As the population ages, families are 

increasingly caring for aging parents while balancing the needs of work and home. As the demands 

on women and families grow, the need for products and services that address these unique 

challenges increases. The InnovateHER Challenge provides that platform.

Measures of Success: By leveraging the resources of the private sector, through cash prizes and 

local competitions, and having the business and investor community serve as judges and mentors, 

the competition brings together the communities across the country in a way that could not be done 

through a grant or contract alone. Additionally, the competition itself showcased the need for these 

types of products and services in the marketplace and the opportunity for increased investment in 

them.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-199

Participants: Over 100 local organizations held InnovateHER competitions across the country. 74 

applications were submitted to the SBA from these local competitions. 

This Challenge was open only to: 

1. Citizens or permanent residents of the United States who were at least eighteen (18) years of 

age at the time of their submission of an entry (or teams of such individuals); and 

2. Private entities, such as corporations or other organizations that were incorporated in and 

maintained a primary place of business in the United States. Individuals submitting on behalf of 

corporations, nonprofits, or groups of individuals (such as an academic class or other team) had to 

meet the eligibility requirements for individual contestants. 

An individual could belong to more than one team submitting an entry in this Challenge.

Individuals or organizations that were currently suspended or disbarred by the federal government 

were not eligible for this competition.

Timeline: The initial round of the InnovateHER Challenge took the form of local competitions that 

began August 4, 2015 and ended December 2, 2015. The host organizations running the local 

competitions selected and submitted one winner from each local competition to SBA, along with 

a Nomination package, by December 4, 2015. Winners were announced during a live pitch 

competition on March 17, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: The second round of InnovateHER consisted of local business 

competitions hosted by SBA Resource Partners, universities, accelerators, clusters, scale-up 

communities and other organizations that have been approved by SBA to host as part of 

InnovateHER. 

With the help of SBA resource partners and Regional Administrators, the SBA made a concerted 

push to secure a diverse range of organizations, as reflected in hosts such as the National Latina 

Business Women Association-Los Angeles, Cosmo Latina, Go Africa Network Inc. in New York, 

and many others

The organizers heard from participants and stakeholders that with more lead time, more local 

organizations and entrepreneurs could be engaged and spur greater conversation, collaboration, 

and cooperation at all levels to support women, families, and entrepreneurs. 

Incentives: Cash prizes totaling $70,000, funded by the private sector, were awarded to the three 

highest-rated contestants in the final round of the competition; first place received $40,000, second 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-200

place $20,000, and third place $10,000. For winning entries submitted by teams of competitors, 

prize money was awarded to the self-identified project leaders for distribution to the rest of the 

teams at their discretion and independently from SBA. There were no non-monetary incentives 

involved and supported by SBA at the local level. Host locations had the autonomy to provide 

local prize incentives at their discretion.

Evaluation and Judging: SBA selected four judges with experience and expertise in product 

innovation and venture capital. The judges participated pro bono and SBA greatly appreciates their 

contributions to this contest and advancing consumer awareness of product safety recalls. 

Contestants must have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the judges that their product or service 

met the criteria of the Challenge. The full judging criteria were advertised in the Challenge Rules 

openly posted to the event website:

1. Have a measurable impact on the lives of women and families (30%);

2. Have the potential for commercialization (40%); and

3. Fill a need in the marketplace (30%).

Partnerships: SBA partnered with Microsoft Corporation to provide prize money and support for 

the event. The Washington Post provided space and digital support for live broadcasting online. 

Resources: SBA provided staff time; Microsoft funded the competition prize money; and the 

Washington Post provided the space and digital support. 

Results: SBA local host organizations received 194 applications. The top three teams were 

awarded $70,000 in prize money provided by Microsoft. The three winners of the InnovateHER 

2016 Challenge, selected by a panel of expert judges were:

1. Elizabeth Caven, UpCraft Club ($40,000)

UpCraft Club is changing the way digital goods are found and sold using a patent-pending 

process allowing brick and mortar retailers to receive revenue from the sale of a digital 

good. Because the founder's deep industry connections and experience, the 

technology/process is being introduced in the emerging digital sewing pattern market. 

2. Dawn Dickson, Flat Out of Heels ($20,000)

One in ten women wear high heels, and 48% have shoe related injury. Flat Out of Heels

are the most convenient way for women to relieve stiletto sore feet on the go. 

3. Dr. Agnes Scoville, Scoville & Company ($10,000)

Pacidose by Aggie MD allows mothers and caregivers to accurately dose and deliver 

medicine to babies through its patented device. The product uses a standard hospital-grade 

oral syringe which measures the liquid precisely and delivers it through a soft pacifier 

nipple that has a narrow tube down the center to prevent wastage.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-201

A.11.3 Lean for Main Street Training Challenge

Summary: SBA launch the Lean for Main Street Training Challenge in January 2015 to give 

representatives from SBA’s resource partner network—Small Business Development Centers 

(SBDCs), SCORE chapters, Women’s Business Centers (WBCs), and Veteran Business Outreach 

Centers (VBOCs)—the opportunity to adapt an existing curriculum to help small businesses and 

entrepreneurs utilize the insights of lean business methodologies and become “Main Street” 

businesses. Contestants selected as winners participated in the development and deployment of 

innovative “lean startup” resources that can be delivered to small businesses in sectors or regions 

that have not had significant exposure or access to these resources. Winning Contestant 

representatives participated in an in-person and virtual train-the-trainer program and forum with ICorpsTM national instructors to develop an innovative framework for exposing lean methodology 

to businesses in traditional sectors. Winners implemented these newly-developed lean training 

resources to businesses in their respective communities on a pilot basis and provided SBA with an 

assessment of their effectiveness

Solution Type: Business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Build capacity

Results: 5 winning teams were selected from 38 submissions and 6 pilot curriculums have been 

submitted to the SBA for use by the wider Resource Partner network.

Problem Statement: Given the success and growing popularity of the National Science 

Foundation’s I-CorpsTM program115, the SBA is interested in the potential for using adapted 

versions of that program as a means to assist a broader array of small businesses and aspiring 

entrepreneurs operating outside the I-CorpsTM program’s current focus on technology-based 

businesses or commercialization concepts. For reference, the I-CorpsTM program involves expert 

business trainers helping teams of scientists and entrepreneurs apply “lean principles”—a 

collection of practices and concepts for business model analysis—to those scientists’ and 

entrepreneurs’ nascent entrepreneurial efforts. Given the SBA’s esteem for the success of this 

program, the SBA partnered with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to offer the Lean for 

Main Street Training Challenge to current SBA Women’s Business Centers, Small Business 

Development Centers, and SCORE Chapters (“Contestants”). 

Proposed Goals: The proposed goals of the challenge were train SBA Resource Partners on lean 

methodology and give them the tools to adapt a curriculum for their clientele.

 

115 www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-corps/about.jsp
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-202

Measures of Success: For 2016, success was measured by how many teams successfully completed 

the training, piloted a curriculum of lean methodology, and delivered that adapted curriculum to 

SBA. 

Participants: For 2016, participation was restricted to members of the SBA’s Resource Partner 

network, which is comprised of Small Business Development Centers (Lead and Service Centers), 

Women’s Business Centers, SCORE Chapters, and Veteran’s Business Outreach Centers. 

Timeline: This challenge opened on January 11, 2016 and ended February 11, 2016, with progress 

awards announced March 10, 2016.

Solicitation and Outreach: Outreach activities included notifications of the upcoming challenge in 

regular newsletters to resource partners and information given on monthly calls with resource 

partners. Weekly “how to apply” webinars were also advertised and executed. 

Incentives: In addition to cash incentives, the teams would have the professional development 

opportunity to attend NSF’s I-Corps and train with I-Corps master instructors. 

Evaluation and Judging: The challenge submissions were judged on the following criteria

 Audience: SBA’s Resource Partners interact with a diverse group of small business owners 

and entrepreneurs. While lean materials aimed towards tech startups are commonly 

available, entrepreneurs in different industries, with different backgrounds, or from 

different geographies may find these materials less applicable to their immediate 

circumstances. In order to be successful, a Contestant should clearly identify the specific 

audience for which their solution would be developed. Contestants are free to define their 

audience according to their own parameters (e.g. Sector, Business Phase (pre-venture, 

startup, existing businesses) Geography, Historically Disadvantaged or Underserved 

Status, etc.)

 Adaptation: To kick off the adaptation of the I-Corps program, each winner will send two 

representatives to NSF’s I-Corps gathering in Washington, DC, where they will work in 

dedicated groups with I-Corps instructors as part of a specialized Train the Trainer 

program. Applications should outline exactly how representatives intend to benefit from 

this experience, including any specific knowledge gaps that representatives are looking to 

fill through their participation. They should also give a clear idea of the demonstrated 

ability of each representative to adapt and deliver new resources to small businesses. Please 

note that while SBA is interested in your knowledge and experience with lean methods, 

preexisting expertise in lean methodology is NOT a requirement for this Competition.

 Implementation: An entrepreneurial development program is only as good as the people 

it can reach. While the ability to adapt and customize entrepreneurial development 

resources is clearly important, equally important will be the Contestants’ solution to 

delivering their curriculum to small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs in their target 

audience. An application should delineate, as clearly as possible, how the Resource Partner 

intends to leverage their existing relationships, the curriculum that they will develop, and 
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

A-203

the funds awarded to bring lean methods into their communities on a pilot basis. 

Applications should also give a clear idea of how they intend to assess the effectiveness of 

their program, including specific metrics that the Resource Partner will track.

Judging consisted of two rounds. For the first round of judging, the Office of Entrepreneurial 

Development (OED) put together a panel of 9 individuals. These individuals included members of 

OED’s Strategic Initiatives team, as well as representatives of the four offices in charge of SBA’s 

Resource Partner Network, viz. the Office of Small Business Development Centers (OSBDC), the 

Office of Women’s Business Ownership (OWBO), the Office of Entrepreneurial Education (OEE), 

and the Office of Veterans’ Business Development (OVBD). Each member of the first round 

judging panel was asked to review all 38 applications. 

Based on these compiled, normalized scores, OED rated the top 15 submissions as “excellent” and 

advanced them to the Second Round of judging. For the Second Round of judging, OED convened 

a panel of top-level representatives, including the head of OED and representatives from OSCBD, 

OWBO, OED, and OVBD, as well as a representative from the White House’s Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP). All panel members were given access to the semifinalist 

applications, as well as the brief synopses of each application. The Second Round Judging Panel 

convened on February 25, 2016, during which time the five winning applicants were selected from 

among the 15 semifinalists.

Partnerships: SBA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Science 

Foundation for this challenge. 

Resources: In 2016, SBA has provided staff time with support from NSF and their I-Corps team. 

Each team received the prize payment of $25,000 and in return, attended the 6 week I-Corps 

session in the Spring of 2016, adapted the lean methodology curriculum for their target audience, 

piloted the curriculum, and submitted the pilot curriculum to SBA. Additionally, an $11,000 

contract NSF’

Results: Five winning teams were selected from 38 submissions and 6 pilot curriculums have been 

submitted to the SBA for use by the wider Resource Partner network; they include:

 Community Business Partnership (SBDC) – Springfield, Va.

 McLennan SBDC – Waco, Texas

 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center (WBC) – San Francisco, Calif.

 University of Pittsburgh (SBDC) – Pittsburgh, Pa.

 Mississippi State University (VBOC) – Mississippi State, Miss.
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-1

Appendix B. A Selection of Agency Prizes and Challenges 

Conducted Under Authorities Other Than the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010

This Appendix provides a summary of select prizes and challenges conducted in FY 2016 under 

agency prize authorities other than COMPETES. Agency reporting on prizes conducted under nonCOMPETES prize authorities was optional, therefore the selection presented here is itself based 

on an incomplete list.

B.1 Department of Commerce

B.1.1 NIST: Post-Quantum Crypto Project116

Summary: The Post-Quantum Crypto Project is an effort by NIST to solicit, evaluate, and 

standardize public-key cryptographic algorithms resistant to large-scale quantum computers, also 

known as quantum-resistant cryptography, by working closely with the cryptography community. 

NIST is currently accepting proposals through November 30, 2017 and intends to select at least 

one algorithm providing quantum-resistant public key encryption, digital signatures, and key 

exchange algorithms for standardization. Proposals will be subject to three to five years of public 

evaluation before they are standardized.

Solution Type: Analytics, visualizations, algorithms; Scientific

Primary Goals: The goal of NIST’s Post-Quantum Crypto Project is to develop cryptographic 

systems that are secure against both quantum and classical computers, and are interoperable with 

existing communications protocols and networks. The challenge aims to incentivize cryptography 

experts to develop and assist in the vetting of these systems. 

Specifically, the goals associated with this challenge are to solve a specific problem, advance 

scientific research, and engage new people and communities.

Results: This challenge is still in progress, so it is too early to report results. 

 

116 csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/post-quantum-crypto/cfp-announce-dec2016.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-2

B.2 Department of Energy

B.2.1 Collegiate Wind Competition117

Summary: The Collegiate Wind Competition is an effort by the Energy Department to engage 

students in multidisciplinary areas of higher education in the wind industry. This competition 

invites college students in 2 or 4 year institutions to build and test a wind turbine, deliver a business 

plan, and establish a deployment strategy for their wind turbine. The Energy Department began 

accepting proposals from colleges and universities in fall 2014 and announced the teams it would 

fund for the competition in spring 2015. Teams had until May 2016 to execute their proposals and 

present at the competition held on May 25, 2016. The overall winning wind turbine was put on 

display at DOE headquarters in June 2016. 

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia; Ideas; Technology demonstration and hardware;

Business plans; Public presentation

Primary goals: Engage new people and communities; Build capacity; Stimulate a market

Results: Twelve student teams were selected to compete across the United States and Puerto Rico. 

Teams were composed of a diverse range of majors. There were four new teams who did not

compete in the 2014 competition. Below are the winners of the 2016 Collegiate Wind Competition.

Award Team Merit

Overall First Place The Pennsylvania State

University

Cumulative Score 

Overall Second Place The University of

Massachusetts Lowell

Cumulative Score

Overall Third Place Boise State University Cumulative Score

Turbine Testing The Pennsylvania State

University

Most efficient turbine in wind 

test tunnel 

Technical Design The University of

Massachusetts Amherst

Presentation and written design 

report 

Deployment Strategy California State University,

Chico

Presentation and written 

deployment strategy

Business Plan The Pennsylvania State

University

Presentation and written 

business plan 

People’s Choice Universidad del Turabo (Puerto

Rico)

Generated the most votes from 

the public

Bonus Challenge Universidad del Turabo The winning load system was 

the most creative, functional, 

informative, and elegant 

 

117 wind.energy.gov/windcompetition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-3

Award Team Merit

representation and display of 

the power being generated by 

the turbine in the wind tunnel, 

while also properly acting as the 

load on the turbine.

B.2.2 H2 Refuel H-Prize118

Summary: The H Prize challenges engineers and scientists to develop an on-site hydrogen 

generation system that uses electricity or natural gas and can be used in homes, community centers, 

retail sites, or similar locations to fuel hydrogen vehicles. The competition opened in October 2014 

and contestants had one year to submit a preliminary design and data to DOE. DOE announced 

the sole finalist team in January 2016. The team constructed and demonstrated their system from 

January to October 2016. DOE awarded the final prize to the finalist in January 2017 to the finalist.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary goals: Develop technology; Stimulate a market; Engage new people and communities

Results: In January 2016, one team advanced to Phase 2. DOE funded the construction and 

demonstration of their hydrogen generation system through October 2016. The competition 

concluded in fall 2016 and DOE reviewed the data produced by the sole finalist team’s design. In 

January 2017, DOE awarded $1,000,000 to team SimpleFuel.

B.2.3 Solar Decathlon

Summary: The Solar Decathlon is designed to develop new ideas for fully solar powered houses 

while incentivizing and developing the STEM workforce of the future by encouraging college 

students to participate in this engineering and architectural challenge. Running since 2002, this 

competition has now been structured as a prize, increasing the incentives for top-performing teams.

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia); ideas; technology demonstration and hardware; 

analytics; visualizations; algorithms; scientific; and other: innovative houses

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; inform and educate the public; and other: 

workforce development

Results: This prize is ongoing. Current participants are college teams that have been working on 

this project for about two years.

 

118 hydrogenprize.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-4

B.2.4 Voucher for Work at a DOE National Laboratory for Winner of National Cleantech 

University Prize Competition

Summary: The Cleantech University Prize Competition119 seeks to address multiple challenges in 

the clean energy sector, including underutilization of university resources, lack of funding for clean 

energy technologies, and a dearth of entrepreneurs working in the clean tech space. Lab Impact 

efforts within DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Tech-to-Market program 

aim to increase the impact of DOE’s national laboratory investments via a number of objectives, 

including facilitating access to DOE national lab resources. As an initial pilot of these efforts, Lab 

Impact awarded a voucher, worth $50,000 in resources at a DOE lab, to the first place winner of 

the Cleantech University Prize National Competition. This voucher can provides access to the 

resources at a National Laboratory for the commercialization of the winning technology. 

Solution Type: Technology Demonstration

Primary goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Develop technology; Engage new people and

communities

Results: Heila Technologies, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, won first place for 

developing a universal control hub that automatically monitors and manages disparate microgrids 

at places like company campuses, military bases, and rural villages, for optimal performance. They 

are the recipient of the $50,000 voucher.

B.3 Department of Health and Human Services

B.3.1 ACF: Domestic Violence Awareness Month YouTube Challenge120

Summary: The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Program is seeking videos 

to raise awareness of the services and supports available for victims of domestic abuse. In one to 

three minutes, video submissions should highlight innovative approaches to improve safety, 

promote healing, and build resilience of victims of domestic abuse. The Challenge implores 

applicants to develop practices, policies, programs, safe spaces, activities, or strategies that are 

innovative, creative, and inclusive. 

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia)

Primary Goals: Inform and educate the public; Engage new people and communities; Other: Learn 

about and share innovative ways the community is supporting this population.

 

119 See Appendix A, Section A.4.2

120 www.challenge.gov/challenge/domestic-violence-video-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-5

Results: Twenty-four videos were submitted online for the contest. In November 2016, the public 

rated the submissions and the 15 highest rated videos advanced to be evaluated by a panel of 

judges. FVPSA awarded the top three videos in January 2017: Marion L. Steele High School 

Medical Health Tech Student Wellness: Genesis House Teen Street Team ($5,000), The Compass 

Center-Play Therapy in Sioux Falls, SD ($3,000), Children’s Art Therapy Program: An innovative 

Strategy to Serve Children Exposed to Domestic Violence ($2,000).

B.3.2 FDA: Counterfeit Detection Device121

Summary: FDA has developed and validated a basic portable device to detect counterfeit drugs 

and other adulterated pharmaceutical products. While the device has proven to be to be extremely 

effective, it is not convenient for field use. To develop a new prototype of this counterfeit detection 

device, the FDA is using a multiple award and multiple phase contract. Specifically the new 

prototype should increase durability, be water resistant and dustproof, and have the ability to 

interface with a mobile device. The challenge is currently in Phase I, which requires entrants to 

submit proposals that demonstrate a capability to develop both hardware and software, test, and 

calibrate a prototype for a counterfeit detection device.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology

Results: This is Phase I of this challenge. The review of submissions is still in progress, and it is 

too early to report results.

B.3.3 NIH: Nanotechnology Startup Challenge122

Summary: NIH cancer-related technologies are typically very early stage, and there is a need to 

find development partners. However, potential commercial partners can be reluctant to form 

partnerships around early-stage discoveries because of lengthy developmental timelines and high

financial risk. Based on the startup challenge model created by the Breast Cancer Startup 

Challenge and the Neuro Startup Challenge, the Nanotechnology Startup Challenge in Cancer 

provides a new channel to advance cancer nanotechnologies through the creation of startup 

companies that would further develop and commercialize those technologies.

 

121www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=279c4e891dfc7f7e757200b84b5286eb&tab=core&_cview=

1

122 www.nscsquared.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-6

Challenge teams selected one of eight NIH inventions or a third-party cancer nanotechnology as 

the basis of their startup, and developed a business plan and video for their submission. Teams 

were provided with free training by leading experts from the biotechnology industry, venture 

capital, universities, foundations, and government. Winning teams received further mentoring 

coordinated by NIH’s challenge partner, CAI, on launching their startup, incorporating a business, 

licensing, forming a management team, and raising seed investment.

Solution Type: Business plans; Scientific; Commercialization

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; Develop technology; Stimulate a market

Results: Twenty-nine teams entered the challenge with an average of 13.5 members per team (or 

a total of approximately 390 total participants). The majority of entrants were from the United 

States, while 27.5% were from countries such as Israel, Canada, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, 

Brazil, and Australia. Thirty percent of participants were women and 7 teams were led by women. 

In terms of team expertise: 53% had previous scientific background (graduate degree or higher), 

22% had business backgrounds, 22% had and entrepreneurial background (previously founded a 

startup), and 3% had legal backgrounds. The participants represented 58 distinct universities, a 

majority of which had participants from previous NIH startup challenges. 

Ten teams were announced in July 2016 as winners or finalists, and are advancing five NIH 

technologies as well as one third-party invention. The winners and finalists are in varying stages 

of launching their startups, including applying for a license to the technology and seeking inventor 

funding.

B.3.4 Program Focused Enabling and Supporting Early Innovation to Advance Adolescent 

Health and Prevent Teen Pregnancy123

Summary: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Early 

Innovation Grant Program (TPP Tier2A – Enabling and Supporting Early Innovation to Advance 

Adolescent Health and Prevent Teen Pregnancy) aims to spur innovative program-based 

interventions to prevent teen pregnancy, advance adolescent health, and fill the current evidencebase of TPP programs. The ultimate goal of the TPP Tier2A funding is to enable and support early 

innovation to prevent teen pregnancy and advance adolescent health. One of the program’s 

objectives is to incentivize well designed, innovative interventions that are medically accurate, age 

appropriate, LGBTQ inclusive, trauma-informed, and ready for a rigorous evaluation.

In 2015, Texas A&M University, a Tier2A fund recipient, created iTP3, a funding program jointly 

administered by the College of Education and Human Development and the School of Public 

 

123 itp3.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-7

Health. iTP3 launched a competition in January of 2016 which seeks innovative programs that are

focused on high-risk populations. Applicants were judged on the following: innovation; project 

justification; significance; project approach and design; project management; challenges and risks; 

partnership and collaboration; environment and resources.

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia); Ideas; Pilot programs

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Build capacity; Develop new and innovative 

programs

Results: iTP3 received 51 applications, consisting of on average 3 people per team (153 individuals 

total).In April 2016, iTP3 awarded up to $100,000 to 15 proposed programs from a wide 

geographic distribution: Be Legendary (TX), Capacity Building for Foster Care Organizations 

(NY), Chrome to Color (PA), Healthy Pathways (NM), Momentary Affect Regulation Safer Sex 

Intervention (MA), Omega Gents Sexual Health Module (CA), Online Health 4 Young Adults 

(AK, HI, ID, WA), Peers Advocating for Safer Sex Program (IA), Peer Mentors for Pregnancy 

and Parenting Youth (TX), Rural ImPACT (CA), Sexual Health Equity for Individual with 

Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities (OR), Testing and Adolescent-Centered Model of 

Contraceptive Care (PA), The ♥Beat Project (MD), Transition to Success: Preventing Unplanned 

Pregnancy Among Older Youth in Foster Care (DC), Waikiki Health (HI).

B.3.5 Tech Focused Enabling and Supporting Early Innovation to Advance Adolescent 

Health and Prevent Teen Pregnancy124

Summary: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Early 

Innovation Grant Program (TPP Tier2A – Enabling and Supporting Early Innovation to Advance 

Adolescent Health and Prevent Teen Pregnancy) aims to spur innovative technology-based 

interventions to prevent teen pregnancy, advance adolescent health, and fill the current evidencebase of Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) programs. The ultimate goal of the TPP Tier2A funding 

is to enable and support early innovation to prevent teen pregnancy and advance adolescent health. 

One of the program’s objectives is to incentivize well designed, innovative interventions that are 

medically accurate, age appropriate, LGBTQ inclusive, trauma-informed, and ready for a rigorous 

evaluation.

Innovation Next...The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (National 

Campaign), a Tier2A technology-focused fund recipient, created Innovation Next, an accelerator 

program, in partnership with IDEO, a product design company. Innovation Next launched a twophase competition which seeks innovative technology-based solutions to preventing teen 

pregnancy. Prior to Phase 1, challenge competitors applied to participate in teams of three. In Phase 

 

124 innovationnext.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-8

1, 10 teams received $80,000 to participate in the first Innovation Next cohort. In September 2016, 

Innovation Next and the National Campaign selected the top five teams from Phase 1 to receive 

additional funding to further develop their technology-based solutions to prevent teen pregnancy.

Solution Type: Software and apps; Creative (design & multimedia); Ideas; Technology 

demonstration and hardware; Business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Develop technology; Build capacity

Results: Innovation Next had 127 teams apply, consisting of 3 people each on a team (381 

individuals), and selected 10 teams to participate in Phase 1. Winners in Phase I produced a pitch 

and prototype after a 6-month period of design-thinking workshops and capacity-building 

assistance (CBA) and support. In September 2016, Innovation Next awarded the top five teams 

from Phase 1 up to $325,000 to fully develop their technology-based solutions to teen pregnancy. 

B.4 Department of the Interior

B.4.1 BSEE: High School Offshore and Technology Stars Challenge125

Summary: The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) seeks to engage high 

school students in science and technology projects to increase their awareness of employment 

opportunities in the natural resources sector. Students competing in the High School Offshore and 

Technology Stars Challenge learned the basics of electrical engineering and harnessed energy 

generated by underwater soundwaves to power a remote control helicopter and fly it to a mock 

offshore platform. 

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Build capacity; Engage new people and communities

Results: There were 120 participating high school students in the Houston area. Top teams were 

awarded prizes and teaching grants for their schools, and the winning team, “The Underdogs” from 

Westside High School — was featured at the Offshore Technology Conference in May. It is 

anticipated that the Tech Challenge will be expanded in 2017 beyond Houston to include schools 

and competition sites in California and Louisiana.

B.4.2 FWS: Crushed Ivory Design Challenge126

Summary: In November 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) destroyed approximately 

six tons of illegal elephant ivory – all seized as a result of law enforcement investigations and at 

 

125www.bsee.gov/newsroom/feature-stories/tech-challenge

126 www.fws.gov/international/ivory-challenge.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-9

U.S. ports of entry. This action was intended to send a clear message to ivory traffickers and buyers

that the United States does not tolerate the illegal ivory trade. It was also designed to educate 

consumers and to urge them not to buy illegal ivory products. 

Subsequently, the FWS, in partnership with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA),

launched a global design challenge that sought creative ideas on how to use the 2013 crushed ivory, 

and further efforts to raise awareness and reduce the demand for illegal wildlife products.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem

Results: Two winners were selected from 44 submissions. AZA will assist with the production of 

the winning designs and help distribute final products to zoos, aquariums, airports, schools and 

other public facilities, as appropriate. A detailed list of measurable results will be available after 

the final designs have been constructed and distributed.

B.5 Environmental Protection Agency

B.5.1 2016 Toxics Release Inventory University Challenge127

Summary: The 2016 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) University Challenge aims to (1) increase 

awareness of the EPA TRI Program within academic communities; (2) expose students to TRI 

data, tools, and analysis; and (3) generate innovative programs, activities, recommendations, or 

research that improve the accessibility, awareness, and use of TRI data. Through this challenge, 

the EPA is soliciting help from academic institutions to build a diverse portfolio of practical and 

replicable projects that benefit communities, the environment, academic institutions, and the TRI 

Program. The two theme areas of the 2016 TRI University Challenge were “promoting broader 

use of TRI data by academics” and “using TRI to measure program effectiveness.”

Solution Type: Ideas; Technology demonstration and hardware; Analytics, visualizations, 

algorithms; Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Inform and educate the public; Engage new 

people and communities

Results: Six universities were selected to collaborate with the TRI Program for the 2016-2017 

academic year, including: Arizona State University, Drexel University, Lincoln University, 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, the University of Arizona, and the University of 

West Florida. 

 

127 www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-university-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-10

B.5.2 Campus RainWorks Challenge128

Summary: EPA’s Campus RainWorks Challenge engages students to demonstrate climate resilient 

water infrastructure and water management solutions in their local college and university 

communities. As part of this challenge, students learn about the impacts of climate change and 

how green infrastructure practices can increase resiliency while effectively managing stormwater 

runoff. EPA invited student teams to compete in one of two design categories—the Master Plan 

category, which examines how green infrastructure can be integrated into a broad area of a school’s 

campus, or the Demonstration Project category, which focuses on how green infrastructure can be 

integrated into a particular site on the team’s campus.

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia); Ideas; Technology demonstration and hardware; 

Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Build capacity

Results: There are currently 135 university teams from 30 states registered. Submissions were due 

December 16, 2016 and winners will be announced in Spring 2017. Two 1st place student teams 

will be awarded $2,000 to be split evenly among the members. The faculty advisors will receive 

$3,000 for their institution. Two 2nd place teams will be awarded $1,000 to be split evenly among 

the members. The faculty advisors will receive $2,000 for their institution.

B.5.3 Nutrient Recycling Challenge129

Summary: EPA’s Nutrient Recycling Challenge aims to (1) accelerate the development of nutrient 

recovery technologies for pork and dairy farms that produce environmental and economic benefits; 

(2) increase awareness of issues and opportunities related to nutrients and manure management; 

(3) connect innovators and agricultural stakeholders; and (4) stimulate markets for products 

generated by nutrient recovery technologies.

The EPA has taken interest in developing nutrient recovery technologies due to potential positive 

impacts on the environment, agriculture, and the economy. Nutrient recovery technologies have 

the potential to improve water quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide animal 

agriculture producers with a product they can use or sell. Producers would be incentivized to adopt 

these technologies if they become economically viable by efficiently converting manure into 

fertilizers. 

Solution Type: Ideas

 

128 www.epa.gov/campusrainworks

129 www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-11

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Engage new people and 

communities

Results: A total of 75 submissions were received at the end of Phase I (January 15, 2016), and a 

total prize amount of $30,000 was given out. Each of the six Phase I winners were awarded $6,000 

each and each of the four honorable mentions received $1,000 each. The Phase I concepts outlined 

mechanical, biological, chemical, thermal, and hybrid types of technologies to extract nutrients 

from pork and dairy manure, some of which aim to be compatible with anaerobic digesters. Sixtytwo percent of concepts were categorized as suitable for both pork and dairy operations, 29% for 

just dairy operations, and 9% for just pork operations. 

Phase II began October 2016 and is anticipated to end in March 2017. Phase II of the Nutrient 

Recycling Challenge is a non-competitive incubation and technical support program which is only 

open to the 34 teams selected in Phase I, to develop technology designs based on the concept 

papers they submitted.

Innovators registered for the challenge through InnoCentive’s platform from every continent 

except Antarctica; submissions came from teams registered from North America, Europe, Asia, 

Africa, and Australia; and there were also innovators from South America involved in the teams. 

Concepts were submitted by both individuals and teams, and ranged in development level from 

concept to technologies already being piloted. Many innovators are newly applying nutrient 

recovery concepts to manure management that were previously used in the wastewater treatment 

and other industrial sectors.

B.5.4 Nutrient Sensor Challenge130

Summary: Current methods for measuring nutrient loads and tracking nutrients throughout 

ecosystems are costly and do not capture the full complexity of how nutrients exist in space and 

time within ecosystems. The Nutrient Sensor Challenge aims to address the need to reduce the 

high cost and complexity of collecting data to better measure nutrients and track progress by 

accelerating the development and deployment of affordable nutrient sensors. Next-generation 

sensors developed through the challenge should be easy to use in maintenance-free deployments 

of up to three months, cost less than $5,000 to purchase, and be commercially available by 2017. 

This initiative is part of a larger staging and portfolio of competitions under the Challenging 

Nutrients Coalition.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware; Scientific

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; Develop technology; Stimulate a market

 

130 www.act-us.info/nutrients-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-12

Results: This challenge took place in two phases. Five winners from the Phase I of the challenge 

entered into Phase 2 of the challenge. Teams were international small businesses, representing 

England, Canada, USA, Italy, and Ireland. In February 2017 EPA awarded first place to Systea, 

an Italian water quality analysis company, and granted an honorable mention to the National 

Oceanography Centre, a research institution in the United Kingdom.

B.5.5 Smart City Air Challenge131

Summary: The EPA’s Smart City Air Challenge aims to help communities develop and implement 

plans for collecting and sharing data from air quality sensors. The EPA will award up to $40,000 

a piece to two communities in the United States. The EPA expects the challenge to yield several 

benefits, such as identifying best practices for managing big data at the community level, engaging

citizens in collecting data about their community, and using data from many sensors to understand 

environmental condition and its relationship to human health.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware; Business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; engage new people and communities; and 

build capacity

Results: A total of 22 submissions were received during Phase I of the competition. The EPA found 

all submissions to be of excellent quality, though several have technical, institutional and financial 

barriers for the implementation of their projects.

The EPA selected Baltimore, MD and Lafayette, LA as the winners of the Smart City Air 

Challenge. After a year, the EPA will evaluate the two cities’ projects and award up to $10,000 to 

each of the winners based on their accomplishments in implementation. In addition, the EPA 

recognized the following cities with an honorable mention based on their innovation and potential

to help other communities: Mesa, CO; Minneapolis, MN and St. Paul, MN; New York, NY; and 

Raleigh, NC.

B.5.6 Transform Tox Testing Challenge132

Summary: In this challenge, the EPA seeks to find new ways to incorporate physiological levels 

of chemical metabolism into high-throughput screening (HTS) assays. The primary objective of 

this competition is to find innovative technological solutions to retrofit existing HTS assays to 

allow both chemicals and their metabolite products to be evaluated, and the intent is to apply this 

technology to future chemical evaluation. 

 

131 www.challenge.gov/challenge/smart-city-air-challenge

132 www.challenge.gov/challenge/transform-tox-testing-challenge-stage-1
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-13

In the first stage, ten submissions were selected as semi-finalists, awarded a prize of $10,000 each,

and participated in semi-finalist workshop discussions. In the second stage, semi-finalists were 

charged with putting their ideas into practice by meeting a general level of performance, 

technically characterizing the metabolic ‘competence’ of their system, and functionally 

characterizing their system in pilot screens. The target requirements and success criteria of Stage 

3 are to be determined.

Solution Type: Ideas; Technology demonstration; Scientific

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Advance scientific research; Develop technology

Results: All 10 winners produced innovative concepts for retrofitting high-throughput screening 

HTS assays to include metabolic competence. 

B.5.7 Visualize Your Water Challenge133

Summary: As nutrient pollution is one of America’s most widespread and costly environmental 

problems, the EPA is seeking better tools to communicate this issue. This challenge engages high 

school students in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay watershed states to create compelling 

visualizations about nutrient pollution using GIS software and water quality data collected by 

federal, state, and local efforts. The In addition, the EPA aims to cultivate career-oriented skills in 

students, and have students learn about local nutrient pollution issues while encouraging 

environmental stewardship.

Solution Type: Creative; Visualizations; Other: Storytelling

Primary Goals: Inform and educate the public; Engage new people and communities

Results: A total of 88 high school students entered complete submissions to the competition. There 

were six awardees, all of whom created compelling visualizations of nutrient pollution. A total of 

$7,500 in cash prizes were awarded. The grand prize winner, first place Chesapeake Bay winner, 

and first place Great Lakes winner each received a $2,500 award.

 

133 www.challenge.gov/challenge/visualize-your-water
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-14

B.6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

B.6.1 3D Printed Habitat134

Summary: NASA and its partners are holding a $2.5 million competition to build a 3D-printed 

habitat for deep space exploration, including the agency’s journey to Mars. The multi-phase 

challenge is designed to advance the construction technology needed to create sustainable housing 

solutions for Earth and beyond. 

Shelter is among the most basic and crucial human needs, but packing enough materials and 

equipment to build a habitat on a distant planet would take up valuable cargo space better used for 

other life-sustaining provisions. The ability to manufacture a habitat using indigenous regolith, the 

layer of loose, rocky material covering bedrock, in combination with material that would otherwise 

be waste from the spacecraft would be invaluable.

Solution Type: Creative; Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Stimulate a market

Results: This challenge has not yet been competed, however, a partnership with Bradley University 

that included three sponsors (Caterpillar, Bechtel, and Brick & Mortar Ventures) has been secured. 

Level 2 registration opened October 2016 through January 2017. Five teams are currently 

registered. There are 4 International Teams and 5 U.S. teams. Respectively, registrants include: 

Richard Bettridge (Canada), Joginderpal Simgh (India), Raja Sekhar (India), BIOME (Malaysia), 

CTL Group Mars (IL), Peter Castelanos (CA), Thomas Alan Kell (FL), Purdue University (IN), 

and University of Colorado, Boulder (CO).

B.6.2 AGU Visual Based Scientific Storytelling Competition135

Summary: NASA’s American Geophysical Union (AGU) competition aims to provide advanced 

visualization experience to college STEM students. Visual storytelling is a powerful means for 

explaining NASA scientific research and aspects of NASA satellite and model data products 

available to the scientific community. While high-impact animations and graphics can provide a 

deeper level of engagement with the data and subject matter, most undergraduate and graduatelevel scientists have relatively little experience in the use of advanced visualizations. 

Solution Type: Creative; Ideas; Scientific

 

134 3dpchallenge.tumblr.com

135 education.agu.org/grants/data-visualization-storytelling-competition
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-15

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; Inform and educate the public; Engage new people 

and communities

Results: AGU announced the winners of the contest in October 2016. Five grand prize winners 

received a $2,500 grant and complimentary registration to attend the 2016 AGU Fall Meeting, 

complimentary registration to the $2,500 grant to attend and Earth and space meeting in 2017, 

$1,000 travel stipend to visit a NASA center to collaborate with NASA scientists in 2017, and the 

opportunity to present their project at the 2016 AGU Fall Meeting and other AGU affiliated 

meetings. Five runner-up winners received a $1,000 grant and complimentary registration to attend 

the 2016 AGU Fall Meeting.

B.6.3 Asteroid Grand Challenge Video136

Summary: The Asteroid Grand Challenge is focused on identifying threats posed by asteroids to 

human populations. Estimates suggest less than 10% of objects smaller than 300 meters in diameter 

and less than 1% of objects smaller than 100 meters in diameter in space have been discovered. 

Therefore, it will take a global effort with innovative solutions to accelerate the survey of 

potentially hazardous asteroids. For this challenge, NASA seeks to develop a suite of videos to 

inform the public about the Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC) program. The AGC aims to engage 

the broadest audience possible to help accelerate the hunt for hazardous asteroids. The AGC team 

is targeting a creative community of artists, designers, filmmakers, and visual communicators to 

develop exciting visual content to be shared through the AGC website and associated social media. 

This visual content will be used to help enlist an entirely new community in the cause of planetary 

defense. 

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia)

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Engage new people and communities

Results: NASA, through Tongal, received over 600 ideas, which were narrowed down to 4 possible 

pitch concepts. Cascadium Pictures of Brooklyn, NY, submitted the winning pitch to produce the 

final video.

B.6.4 Big Idea Challenge137

Summary: The primary objective of the FY 2016 BIG Idea competition was to engage the 

university community in a real-world NASA challenge which seeks novel and robust applications 

of hypersonic inflatable Aerodynamic deceleration (HIAD) technology to generate lift. Future 

 

136 tongal.com/project/NASAAsteroidGrandChallenge

137 bigidea.nianet.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-16

Mars missions could greatly benefit from HIAD-based entry vehicles as they would provide 

additional mission flexibility. 

To participate in the FY 2016 challenge, university teams of 3-5 students submitted white papers 

on ideas for generating lift using Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) 

technology. Based on a review of the white papers, 10 teams were selected submit full technical 

papers on their concept. After reviewing the technical papers, the BIG Idea judges selected four 

final teams to present their concepts to the judges at the 2016 BIG Idea Forum, held at the NASA 

Langley Research Center, April 18-19, 2016.

Solution Type: Ideas; Analytics, visualizations, algorithms; Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Engage new people 

and communities

Results: Thirteen teams entered the competition from universities from across the country. Six

students went on to accept a summer internship offer at NASA’s Game Changing Development 

Program (GCD). The winning submission, “Cable-Controlled Aeroshell Deceleration System,” 

was submitted by Aerospace Engineering students at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Team members included: Sashank Gummella (sophomore), Steven Kosvick 

(sophomore), Austin Scott (sophomore), Jose Tuason (senior), and Sam Wywrot (sophomore). 

Their faculty advisor was Zachary Putnam, Assistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering. 

B.6.5 Bio-Inspired Advanced Exercise Concepts138

Summary: NASA's Orion spacecraft, or Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), is designed to hold 

four astronaut crewmembers for up to 21 days and will take humans farther than they've ever gone 

before. During space missions, the astronaut crews' health is a key priority which requires regular 

resistive and aerobic training, even on short missions. With this challenge, NASA seeks to expand 

the trade space of options and exploit potential bio-inspired approaches which have not been 

traditionally employed. The winning proposal developed a solution inspired by structures 

underlying a chameleon’s tongue. 

Solution Type: Ideas; Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Advance scientific research; Engage new 

people and communities

 

138 www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933803
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-17

Results: The winning submission, "Bio-Inspired Micro-Gravity Exercise Concept" (BIMGEC), 

was developed in Ireland and awarded $15,000. The solution was inspired by the spiral structure 

of a chameleon’s tongue that stores energy. BIMGEC is a collagen catapult structure that uses 

constant torque springs. BIMGEC consists of 3 major systems: Force Generation, Force Variation, 

and Load Profile Variation. The design met the weight, size, and range of motion requirements 

along with providing aerobic and resistive exercises. BIGMEC runs on a lithium polymer battery. 

B.6.6 CineSpace 2016: NASA Imagery - Your Vision139

Summary: NASA makes publicly available film that it has collected over 50 years of exploring the 

universe. This competition offers film makers from around the world a chance to share their work 

inspired by and using that imagery to foster content that highlights the intersection of art and 

science. Selected submissions were shown to audiences at the 2016 Houston Cinema Arts Festival 

(HCAF) hosted by the Houston Cinema Arts Society (HCAS). The challenge exceeded its planned 

measures of success and drew in artists from a range of backgrounds. 

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia)

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Engage new people and communities

Results: CineSpace 2016 had 133 pre-registrations, 904 registered competitors, 13 teams, and 459 

submissions from a pool of 68 countries with registered competitors and 50 countries with 

submissions. This more than double the 2015 CineSpace entries. The challenge community had 

diverse backgrounds ranging from middle school students to professional filmmakers and the 

majority identify themselves as artists.

The 2016 winners in first, second, and third place respectively are “1950DA” by Sébastian Tulard 

(France), “Music of Spheres by Joe Bougher and Kohl Threlkeld (U.S.), and “Voyager” by Loïc 

Mager and Roman Veiga (France). “Exploration” by Ryan J Thompson (U.K.) received an 

Honorable Mention.

B.6.7 Cube Quest Challenge140

Summary: The Cube Quest competition offers a total of $5.0 million to teams that meet the 

challenge objectives of designing, building and delivering flight-qualified, small satellites capable 

of advanced operations near and beyond the moon. Cube Quest teams have the opportunity to 

compete for a secondary payload spot on the first mission of NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which will 

launch atop the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.

 

139 www.nasa.gov/feature/cinespace-nasa-imagery-your-vision-2016

140 www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/cubequest/index.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-18

The competition includes three stages: Ground Tournaments, Deep Space Derby, and Lunar 

Derby. Teams may compete in any one of the four Ground Tournaments and those rated high on 

mission safety and probability of success can receive incremental awards. The Ground 

Tournaments will be held every four to six months, leading to an opportunity to earn a spot on the 

first integrated flight of Orion and SLS. The Deep Space Derby focuses on finding innovative 

solutions to deep space communications using small spacecraft, and the Lunar Derby focuses on 

advancements in small spacecraft propulsion and near-Earth communications. Together, these 

competitions contribute to opening deep space exploration to non-government spacecraft. This 

challenge is ongoing.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Develop technology; Engage new people and communities

Results: Ten teams participated in the second Ground Tournament competition with 5 winners 

awarded $30,000 each. Through the first two Ground Tournaments, 7 teams qualified for the 

Exploration Mission-1 launch opportunity and 6 remain in the competition. The teams were a mix 

of university and industry groups from all over the U.S. All 6 remaining teams qualified for 

Exploration Mission-1, including the 5 winners of the second Ground Tournament which plan to 

compete in the third.

Exploration Mission-1 qualified teams include: CIS Lunar Explorers, Cornell University (NY); 

MIT KitCube, MIT (MA); SEDS Titeria, University of California, San Diego (CA); CU Earth 

Escape Explorer (CU-E3), University of Colorado, Boulder (CO); Team Miles, Fluid & Reason 

LLC (FL); and Ragnarok, Ragnarok Industries, (DE). 

B.6.8 Experiment Attachment System (EAS) Challenge141

Summary: In support of the Logistics Reduction project, NASA challenged the GrabCAD 

Community to design an Experiment Attachment System (EAS), a mechanism to attach a future 

experiment to the International Space Station (ISS) that meets logistics reduction, mass, and 

assembly requirements.

The main goal of the NASA Logistics Reduction project is to decrease the dependence on earth 

resupply for space missions. This can be done via direct mass reduction, re-purposing logistics, 

and conversion of waste into useful by-products (gases, water, and solids) in order to maximize 

the use of items, and create new uses beyond an item’s original purpose. Logistics includes crew 

consumables (food, packaging, clothing, etc.), automation of logistics management, and waste 

 

141 grabcad.com/challenges/nasa-experiment-attachment-system-eas-challenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-19

management. Logistics reduction is of particular benefit for the ISS, where, in a remote, zero 

gravity environment, adapting mechanisms and devices to manage components of an experiment 

can prove challenging.

Solution Type: Scientific

Primary goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Advance scientific 

research

Results: Five winning designs from 50 entries were selected, and will be used to inform final ISS 

designs. Designs included manufacturing considerations and stress analysis, system description, 

3D models in Standard for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP)/Initial Graphics Exchange 

Specification (IGES) formats, renderings, load calculations, and assembly procedure.

The winning designs demonstrated a wide range of approaches to address requirements for 

stowage, crew assembly ease, and structural integrity. The creativity and diversity of approaches 

significantly increased the optimization of the design (and decreased the time and effort required 

to optimize the design).

B.6.9 Freelancer Micro Purchase Challenges

Summary: Following the success of a pilot conducted on the Freelancer platform in 2015, several 

new challenges were launched in FY16 via a government purchase card to acquire solutions that 

meet short-term needs for several NASA projects. NASA sought to provide the following results 

for the following NASA projects:

 Astronaut Smartwatch Application Development Task142

 Design a Patch/Graphic for NASA’s Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS)143

 Design a Patch/Graphics for the In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) project144

 Design a Patch/Graphics for NASA’s RFID-Enabled Autonomous Logistics Management 

(REALM) project145

 Design a User Interface Theme for NASA’s Robotic Systems (Currently active, estimated 

values)146

 

142 www.freelancer.com/projects/Mobile-Phone/Develop-NASA-Astronaut-Smartwatch/#/details

143 www.freelancer.com/contest/NASA-Challenge-Create-a-Graphic-Design-for-NASA-Center-for-ClimateSimulation-NCCS-536887.html

144 www.freelancer.com/contest/NASA-InSpace-Manufacturing-Logo-Challenge-376284.html

145 www.freelancer.com/contest/contest.php?project_id=770728

146 www.freelancer.com/contest/NASA-Contest-Robotic-Systems-User-Interface-Theme-766578.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-20

 NASA System Architecture Study Challenge (Free Flyer Robotic Arm System 

Architecture Contest)147



This challenge continues to show high value for NASA, with a large participant pool and a range 

of new solutions produced for small prize values. 

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia); Software and apps; Analytics, visualizations, 

algorithms; Scientific

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Engage new people and communities

Results: Micro-purchase challenges demonstrate potentially high value to NASA with savings as 

high as 85-95% when compared with traditional forms of acquiring similar products. NASA 

provides successful/winning submissions with awards ranging from $3,000 to $10,000. 

Combined, these contests included over 4,200 participants from over 150 countries providing over 

1,400 submissions. Winners included:

 Robotics UI Theme submitted by Sanja Zakovska (Macedonia)

 ISM graphic submitted by Franklin Corneau (Canada) 

 NCCS graphic submitted by Mario Jon Atom (Indonesia)

 REALM graphic submitted by Switchedau (Australia)

 Smartwatch App submitted by Anton Bredykhin (Ukraine)



The products resulting from these challenges include:

 A complete user interface theme to be used for robotics controls displays

 Three different project graphics to be used on project patches and presentations

 A working smartwatch application with functioning displays for crew timeline, caution and 

warning, and communications status (and a data emulator to drive the smartwatch displays 

across a wireless network)

 Multiple sets of system architecture decompositions used to study novel and innovative 

approaches to traditional systems engineering approaches to systems architectural 

decomposition

B.6.10 Future Engineers 3D Design Challenges148

Summary: Future Engineers 3-D Space Challenges are designed to inspire and involve the next 

generation of scientists and engineers with 3-D printing technology, space exploration, and digital 

 

147 www.freelancer.com/contest/contest.php?project_id=329981

148 www.futureengineers.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-21

design. The “Star Trek Replicator Challenge,” in collaboration with the 50th anniversary of Star 

Trek and the replicator technology, asks students to design a non-edible, food related object for 

astronauts to 3-D print by the year 2050. The “Think Out of the Box Container Challenge” asks 

students to design a useful object for astronauts on a future space exploration mission that could 

be expanded or assembled to be larger than available volume of a 3D printer.

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia)

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Inform and educate the public; Engage new 

people and communities

Results: The Star Trek Replicator Challenge winner from the Teen Group (ages 13-19) was Kyle 

Corrette from Desert Vista High School in Phoenix, Arizona, who designed a Melanized 

Fungarium. The winner of the Junior Group (ages 5-12) was Sreyash Sola from Eagle Ridge 

Middle School in Ashburn, Virginia, who designed an Astro Mini Farm.

The Think Out of the Box Challenge winner from the Teen Group (ages 13-19) was the Expanding 

Pod designed by Thomas Salverson, of Gretna, Nebraska and currently a freshman at the 

University of Alabama in Huntsville. The winner of the Junior Group (ages 5-12) is the Space 

Anchor designed by Emily Takara of Cupertino, California.

B.6.11 Human Exploration Rover Challenge149

Summary: The NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge engages high school and college 

students in the design, construct, and testing of technologies for mobility devices for use in 

extraterrestrial environments. NASA challenged high school and college students to design and 

race human-powered rovers that could carry two students over a half-mile obstacle course of 

simulated extraterrestrial terrain including craters, boulders, ridges, inclines, crevasses, and 

depressions. In April 2016, teams convened with their constructed rovers at the US Space and 

Rocket Center to race and compete in optional challenges. The competition garnered participation 

from a large range of teams, seeing both new teams and improvements from teams that have 

participated in previous years.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Build capacity

 

149 www.nasa.gov/roverchallenge
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-22

Results: A total of 67 teams of which 36 (48%) were college students and 31 (52%) were high 

school students participated in the 2016 Challenge, representing 18 states, Puerto Rico and five 

countries (India, Italy, Russia, Germany and Mexico). Eleven of the teams were new this year. 

The competition involved nearly 500 students and faculty, nearly 300 volunteers, and hundreds of 

community helpers and supporters. 

NASA awarded the top three teams with the shortest course completion times in the high school 

and college divisions. In addition, NASA awarded the following specialty awards: Sample 

Retrieval Challenge Award, Neil Armstrong Best Design Award, Technology Challenge Award, 

Featherweight Award, Telemetry and Electronics Award, Crash and Burn Award, Spirit Award 

Rookie of the Year Award, Jesco von Puttkamer International Team Award, Best Report Award, 

Most Improved Award, and the International System Safety Society Award. 

B.6.12 Improving NASA Enterprise Search Capabilities150

Summary: In 2014, the NASA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) sponsored a 

challenge to develop a user interface for their new Enterprise Search Portal. The objectives were 

to (1) develop a search interface that was intuitive for beginner to advanced search users and (2) 

have an internal search interface that allows users to search against NASA's intranet as well as 

public internet data sets. 

Participants successfully developed a prototype in a previous challenge that is integrated with the 

search.gov application programing interface (API), includes a responsive design, and is iPhone 

and iPad-friendly. The OCIO is now integrating a new search engine that will serve as a back-end 

to the Enterprise Search User Interface (UI) and aims to expand capabilities while enriching the 

overall NASA Enterprise Search experience.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Improve government service delivery; Develop technology

Results: The Topcoder community successfully developed an enterprise search capability that 

utilizes SolrCloud as the search engine/index, integrates SolrCloud with the front-end web app, 

and implements a robust recommendation engine. The results included the development of 

functionality to support charts, tabs, content type search, geolocation filtering, date range filtering, 

and Section 508 compliance. The challenge also included a security review and vulnerability 

remediation.

 

150 www.topcoder.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-23

The OCIO was especially pleased with the innovation that resulted as part of the challenge process 

and the ability to tap into a nearly unlimited amount of potential solutions/approaches.

B.6.13 In Situ Materials Challenge151

Summary: In situ resource utilization (ISRU), or the harnessing of natural resources at mission 

destinations, has the potential to enhance the capabilities of future space exploration. To illustrate 

this, for every kilogram of native materials used on Mars, 11 kg of transportation propellant and 

spacecraft mass would be saved. The In Situ Materials Challenge aims to design and produce 

proof-of-concept modular structural elements that can be configured for multiple purposes, 

including: launch/landing pads and blast protection berms; roads and walkways; radiation, thermal, 

and micro-meteorite shielding insulation and structures; dust free hangars and equipment shelters; 

etc. The challenge engages the creativity of the scientific community in developing innovative 

advancements for the use of situ materials for regolith-based fabrication and construction 

techniques. Each of the winning designs provided features and elements that help to move this 

technology forward. 

Solution Type: Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Advance scientific 

research

Results: This challenge received in 61 submissions from 26 countries, and three prizes were 

awarded. Behrokh Khoshnevis of the University of Southern California was awarded first place, 

and the submissions by Aronax Technologies Group, LLC of Spain and Patrick Donovan of the 

United Stated tied for 2nd place. 

In reflection, NASA noted that the challenge format provided an excellent method to survey and 

connect with existing technology development efforts around the world. Given the advanced 

nature of this work, knowledge of these efforts provided a strategic advantage for NASA’s future 

planetary systems development.

B.6.14 International Space Apps Challenge152

Summary: NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA)’s International Space Apps Challenge 

is an open innovation incubator and hackathon that encourages innovation, creativity, and 

collaborative problem solving around open data and tools. Mission-relevant challenges are crafted 

with NASA and ESA subject matter experts who gather and clean up the data, and set citizens free 

 

151 ninesights.ninesigma.com/web/nasa-hub

152 2016.spaceappschallenge.org
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-24

to create innovative data and hardware solutions. Teams form around like-minded interests and 

pull in complementary skills to craft a weekend project that is presented to local judges at each of 

the 161 cities across the globe at the conclusion of the event. Local judges present awards and 

forward to NASA two project nominees for global award, and one People’s Choice nominee. 

This year, over 15,000 citizens around the world donated a weekend (in addition to the 25,000 

volunteer hours of local organizers of the event) to engage with NASA’s data. The event has gotten 

larger every year, and citizens have reported a positive experience of taking part in this endeavor 

and feeling part of the NASA family.

Solution Type: Software and apps; Creative; Ideas; Technology demonstration and hardware; 

Nominations; Business plans; Analytics, visualizations, algorithms; Scientific 

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Other: Make open 

data accessible and usable, and spur innovation at the local level

Results: The competition garnered 15,409 participants from 61 countries. Across 25 challenges 

1,300 team solutions were entered. At the conclusion of the event NASA announced the following 

awards: Best Use of Data, Best Use of Hardware, Best Mission Concept, Galactic Impact, Most 

Inspirational, and People’s Choice

B.6.15 Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV)153

Summary: When NASA returns samples from Mars, there will be a requirement for a special rocket 

system — the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) — to launch capsules from Mars’ surface into orbit 

and rendezvous with a spacecraft that will return them to Earth. The competition mimicked a MAV 

mission. Teams were asked to build a robot that can locate and collect a cache of samples and 

autonomously load a sample into a rocket. The rocket must then launch the load 5,280 feet into a 

simulated orbit around Mars. The MAV Prize was open to both academic and non-academic teams. 

This challenge produced a several unique solutions which met NASA’s goals, and the top three 

teams were awarded prize money.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Engage new people and 

communities

 

153 www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/mav.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-25

Results: Competitors from 17 universities and 1 high school team participated, with 11 returning 

to the competition from 2015. Roughly half of the teams successfully met the challenge goals and 

three were awarded prize money: Cornell University ($25,000), Madison West High School 

($15,000), and Tarleton State ($10,000).

B.6.16 Rice Business Plan Competition154

Summary: NASA, through its various Human Health and Performance (HH&P) activities, is 

constantly seeking new ideas for health-related technologies that will improve medical care 

capabilities on Earth and have potential application to human spaceflight. The Rice Business Plan 

Competition provides another means to find new innovative technology ideas that complement

current methods of addressing the health-related technology needs of NASA. In this challenge, 

participants are asked to prepare an Executive Summary and Business Plan and present their 

technology or innovation to judges. To win the HH&P award, teams must demonstrate (1) support 

to NASA’s current or future mission, (2) how well the technology addressed an identified human 

systems risk, (3) when the technology would be ready for NASA’s use, and (4) how realistic the 

technology would be for human spaceflight.

This competition has stimulated innovative technology development for the past 9 years. This year, 

the competition provided a solution for continuous blood pressure measurement, from a team from 

Northwestern University, with clear applications to NASA’s mission. 

Solution Type: Business plans

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Advance scientific research; Engage new 

people and communities

Results: The HH&P team judged the first round of the competition in several categories based on 

Earth and space benefits. Bold Diagnostics, a team from Northwestern University, won based on 

their ability to obtain accurate, continuous blood pressure from a novel platform using pulse wave 

timing. This technology has immediate applications to clinical care and research within HH&P. 

Bold Diagnostics finished fourth in the overall competition out of the final 42 teams, taking home 

a total of $125,000 in prize money.

 

154 www.ricebusinessplancompetition.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-26

B.6.17 Sample Return Robot (SRR)155

Summary: The Sample Return Robot Challenge offers a total $1.5 million to teams that could 

demonstrate an autonomous capability to locate and retrieve specific sample types from various 

locations over a wide and varied terrain and return those samples to a designated zone in a specified 

amount of time with limited mapping data. Demonstration of autonomous operation would be 

proof of concept and could open new mission operation scenarios (e.g., future sample return and 

planetary robotic exploration missions). 

The competition is broken up into two levels. Level 1 takes place outdoors, over a large area with 

multiple courses, each with flat terrain and limited obstacles. For a team to advance to Level 2, the 

robot must return one undamaged, pre-cached sample and one easy sample within 30 minutes. A 

pool of $50,000 will be split among all qualifying teams at the end of Level 1. Level 2 takes place 

outdoors, over a large area, with both open, rolling terrain and large immovable obstacles. Level 

2 teams earn points based on the number of samples and the difficulty of samples retrieved by the 

robots. If applicable, only the top three scoring teams in Level 2 will be awarded prize money 

based on the number of points earned in the Level 2 competition. This is an annual competition 

that allows previous competitors to return for the Level 2 portion in subsequent years.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware; Software and apps

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Engage new people and 

communities

Results: Five (5) teams qualified in the 2016 Level 1 competition while only 2 teams qualified in 

the previous 4 years. Team AL, Alabama Astrobotics, MAXed OUT, Mind and Iron, and Sirius 

won $5000 in Level 1 and qualified to move on to Level 2. Winner: West Virginia University 

(qualified for Level 2 in FY 2015 competition) collected enough samples to win $750,000 from 

the $1,500,000 prize purse in the Level 2 competition. 

B.6.18 Sky For All156

Summary: The current U.S. airspace system handles roughly 10,000 vehicles per day with human 

control and is reaching saturation. The airspace of the future will be orders of magnitude more 

complex, with the envisioned load of around 10 million vehicles per day (personal air vehicles, 

passenger jets, unmanned vehicles of various sizes and speeds, stationary objects, space vehicles, 

etc.), with complexity and uncertainty due not only to high numbers and diversity of aircraft, but 

to autonomy of individual vehicles. A strictly evolutionary approach to the future transportation 

 

155 www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/sample_return_robot/index.html

156 herox.com/SkyForAll
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-27

system would carry along the current architectural constraints and may not have the necessary 

scalability to support the airspace of 2035 and beyond. The Big Sky for All challenge is intended 

to solicit innovative ideas to support the development of clean-slate concepts of operations for the 

airspace in 2035 and beyond, at any appropriate level (aircraft, groups of aircraft, the entire 

system), to ensure system safety, robustness, and efficiency. Five teams were awarded prizes: 

three top place winners, and two honorable mentions. Winning entries integrated known methods 

and brought new perspective and articulation to the problem.

Solution Type: Ideas

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas

Results: Five teams were awarded in this challenge. 

 The first place team, Dávid Sziroczák, György Bicsák and Aaron Latty from the United 

Kingdom was awarded $10,000 for their entry entitled “Autonomous Hierarchical 

Adaptive Air Traffic Control System”, a dynamic, distributed control strategy based on the 

types of autonomous vehicles in the system. 

 Second place ($3,000) was awarded to a team from France. Thomas Dubot, Antoine Joulia 

and Judicaël Bedouet submitted “Clustered Self-Separation out of 4D Bubbles” which 

proposed integration of many known aspects of the system, including self-separation, 

clustering, and low-altitude traffic. 

 The third place ($2,000) team hailed from Australia. Jade and Kieren Chantrell proposed 

“DAS: Dynamic Airspace System” which considered a flocking approach to global flight 

organization, with reliance on segregated airspace constructs. 

 Additionally, two $500 honorable mentions were awarded to Eduardo Acosta of the United 

States for “ZenithNet: A New Foundation for the 2035 Airspace” and another U.S. team 

from The Vreeland Institute for “Airspace 2035: An Open, Distributed Network System”.

B.6.19 Space Robotics Challenge157

Summary: NASA’s missions, including the Journey to Mars, will require increasing the autonomy 

of dexterous mobile robots—particularly those of humanoid format—so they can complete 

specific tasks in a dynamic environment. Eventually, these robots will be required to assist with 

tasks such as deploying and preparing habitats, power systems and other infrastructure on Mars 

before humans arrive, and disaster relief and industrial plant maintenance on our own planet. In 

this challenge, teams are asked to develop software to control a simulated, NASA-developed 

humanoid that could autonomously move on the surface of planet with gravity, called R5. The 

challenge seeks to push technologies that will advance the autonomy and dexterity of the R5 robot 

 

157 www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/space_robotics/index.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-28

for functioning in a dynamic environment, with special attention to the improvement of perception 

and manipulation. This challenge has not yet concluded.

Solution Type: Software and apps

Primary Goals: Develop Technology; Build Capacity

Results: Registration for this challenge closed on October 7, 2016. To date, 405 teams have 

registered from across the country and around the world.

B.6.20 Student Launch Challenge158

Summary: The NASA Student Launch (SL) is a research-based, competitive, and experiential 

exploration project that provides relevant and cost-effective research and development to support 

the Space Launch System, or SLS. Additionally, SL connects learners, educators, and communities 

in NASA-unique opportunities that align with STEM Challenges under the NASA Education 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Engagement line of business. The 

project involves reaching a broad audience of middle schools, high schools, informal 

organizations, colleges, and universities across the nation in an eight-month commitment to design, 

build, launch, and fly payloads and vehicle components that support NASA research on highpower rockets to an altitude of 5,280 feet above ground level. During launch week, teams visited 

Marshall Space Flight Center research and development facilities and demonstrate their project to 

NASA during the Rocket Fair and technical poster presentation. While the middle school/high 

school component was not a competition, the college/university challenge allowed teams to 

compete for various prizes including an overall grand prize of $5,000 sponsored by Orbital ATK.

In addition to the development of a rocket and research requirements, SL teams were challenged 

to educate others in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). 

Teams completed these project requirements in a variety of ways including classroom visits, 

presentations, rocketry challenges, and hands-on STEM activities with students and teachers in 

their communities. Although middle school students and educators were prioritized, participants 

of all grade levels are impacted by the team’s Educational Engagement (EE) events. With 54 teams 

in 2016, this would equate to a minimum of 8,800 students or educators reached; however, our SL 

teams go above and beyond expectations each year, and reached over 46,113 in FY 2016. 

Solution Type: Creative (design & multimedia); Ideas Research Technology demonstration and 

hardware; Analytics, visualizations, algorithms; Scientific 

 

158 www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/studentlaunch/home/index.html
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-29

Primary Goals: Develop technology; Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific 

problem

Results: Orbital ATK provided participation trophies for each team. Additionally, trophies for best 

vehicle design, payload design, website award, educational engagement award, design review 

presentations, altitude award, rookie award, safety award, and two peer awards were given. The 

overall winner, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, received a check for $5,000 from Orbital 

ATK. This was the fourth year in a row Vanderbilt has earned the top prize in the NASA Student 

Launch challenge. 

B.6.21 Swarmathon159

Summary: Through a grant to the University of New Mexico, NASA Swarmathon is a challenge 

to develop cooperative robotics to revolutionize space exploration. Students from Minority 

Serving Institutions (MSIs) are challenged to develop search algorithms for robotic swarms. 

Swarmathon participation was designed to (1) improve students’ skills in robotics and computer 

science and (2) further advance technology for future NASA space exploration missions. The 

Swarmathon project used small, robotic vehicles called Swarmies to challenge programming skills 

of students at select minority-serving institutions. Swarmies are small robotic vehicles equipped 

with a Wi-Fi antenna, GPS, webcam, and sensors. Inspired by observing the foraging behavior of 

ants, Swarmies were developed to “forage” for resources in a manner similar to that of ants and 

have the potential to be used in space exploration to search for resources.

With regard to engaging new people and communities, this competition has been extremely 

successful at engaging Minority Serving Institutions that have not previously participated in 

NASA-sponsored competitions, or other NASA education activities. 

Solution Type: Algorithms written and uploaded by student teams; Technology demonstration of 

algorithms on robotics hardware provided by NASA

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; Engage new people and communities; Build capacity

Results: In total, there were 24 teams (26 schools) that competed in the 2016 Swarmathon. 425 

students participated in either the Physical or Virtual Swarmathon Competitions. These students 

represented 16 States. 

The first, second, and third place winners of the Physical Competition were Fayetteville State 

University. Central New Mexico Community College, and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

University, respectively. 

 

159 nasaswarmathon.com
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-30

The first, second, and third place winners of the Virtual Competition were Cabrillo College, 

Durham Tech, and Texas A&M International University, respectfully. 

B.6.22 Textile Test Methods Challenge160

Summary: Space suits used today offer multi-layered protection from harsh space environments. 

As NASA moves forward with human exploration, the outer protective layer’s function must 

expand to withstand widely varying types of dirt in planetary environments like the moon, Mars, 

or large asteroids. To expand to handle these new environments, new tools will be required for 

assessing the viability of candidate space suit textiles. No repeatable/standard test methodology 

for assessing candidate environmental protection garment (EPG) textile lay-ups with respect to 

damage during use in planetary exploration currently exists. The goal of the Textile Test Methods 

Challenge is delivery of a standardized test protocol(s) to assess damage to any proposed EPG layup for lunar and Martian exploration environments along with documentation for the fabrication 

of any specialized equipment required for the proposed protocol(s). While none of the winning 

solutions completely fulfilled NASA’s needs, each provided features of insight that may be of 

future value.

Solution Type: Scientific

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Advance scientific research; Develop technology

Results: This challenge received 23 submissions from 7 countries. Three prizes of $5,000 each 

were awarded to: 

 Christopher Daniels from the University of Akron (U.S) with his proposal the “Cylindrical 

Abrasion Method.” 

 Ahilan Anantha Krishnan from India won with his proposal “Test Methodology for 

Evaluating Space Suit Textile Layup Abrasion.”

 John Holler, a metal worker with Vinland Forge (U.S.) won with his proposal “A Complete 

System for Textile Abrasion Testing.” 

While none of the submissions provided a complete solution for NASA’s needs, all of the selected 

designs provided features and elements that may help in developing a repeatable method for testing 

EVA suit materials.

 

160 ninesights.ninesigma.com/web/nasa-eva-test
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-31

B.6.23 Vascular Tissue Challenge161

Summary: NASA’s objective for the Vascular Tissue Challenge is to produce technologies capable 

of creating viable thick (>1cm) vascularized metabolic tissues that can be used to promote medical 

applications in space and on Earth. Successful development of these tissues would result in a 

significant breakthrough in the state of the art and would advance research on human physiology, 

fundamental space biology, and medicine taking place both on the Earth and the ISS National 

Laboratory. Specifically, technology innovations may enable the growth of de novo tissues and 

organs on orbit that may address the risks related to traumatic bodily injury, improve general crew 

health, and enhance crew performance on future, long-duration missions. 

Success of the Vascular Tissue Challenge would result in a breakthrough in the state of the art 

described by some experts as the “Holy Grail” of tissue engineering. It would advance lifesaving 

medical research, especially related to organ diseases of the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, and 

muscles, and would offer important new tools in for medical research supporting NASA’s Journey 

to Mars, promote medical research on the International Space Station for terrestrial benefit, and 

promote partnerships with allied organizations.

The Vascular Tissue Challenge is a “first-to-demonstrate” challenge that is open through FY19 or 

until the challenge is met, whichever comes first.

Solution Type: Technology Demonstration

Primary Goals: Solve a specific problem; Engage new people and communities; Stimulate a 

market

Results: So far, this challenge has developed a partnership with the Methuselah Foundation’s New 

Organ Alliance, and hosted a successful workshop that focused on identifying new research 

directions, barriers to progress, new funding opportunities, new collaborative opportunities, and 

new directions for space research. Teams from 6 different universities have submitted “Intent to 

Compete” forms.

B.7 National Science Foundation

B.7.1 The Vizzies162

Summary: As the need to increase science literacy grows more urgent, illustrations can provide 

immediate and influential connections between scientists and other citizens. Utilizing these 

 

161 www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/vascular_tissue.html

162 www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/scivis/
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-32

visualizations may be the best hope for nurturing popular interest, helping scientists explain 

complex problems, and demonstrating to the public the illustrative aspects of science and 

engineering. In the Vizzies challenge, NSF asked participants to submit creative, science 

visualizations that promote understanding of scientific and engineering research. These entries 

were submitted in one of five categories: photographs, illustrations, posters/graphics, videos or 

interactive media. The competition received 277 entries for this cycle consisting of both individual

and team submissions from academia and private organizations, with winners across five 

categories awarded cash prizes totaling $15,000. The images and visualizations from the Vizzies

challenge are treasured by the foundation and are used to promote NSF and the research the

agency funds beyond just advertising the next cycle of Vizzies. A new innovation, a moving

.gif image of one of the winning videos, “Coral Bleaching: A Breakdown of Symbiosis,” has

been featured prominently on the NSF Vizzies website—one of the first .gif images to be used

on the site.

Solution Type: Creative (design and multimedia); Analytics, visualizations, and algorithms; 

Scientific

Primary Goals: Advance scientific research; Inform and educate the public; Engage new people 

and communities.

Results: The Vizzies competition received 277 entries for this cycle consisting of both individual

and team submissions from academia and private organizations. The competition received

entries from 36 states and nine countries. Sixty-six entries were self-identified by their submitter

as being the result of NSF funded research. Team size varied from 2-19 members.

NSF values the visualizations from the Vizzies competition and uses the submissions to promote 

NSF and NSF-funded research. Vizzies images have been featured on the covers of NSF 

brochures, in NSF directors’ speeches, and (with permission) as backdrops for foundation press 

and televised events. Winning images from the 2016 cycle as well as their titles and descriptions

can be seen here: www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/scivis/winners_2016.jsp. 

B.8 United States Agency for International Development

B.8.1 EduApp4Syria163,164

Summary: As part of USAID’s All Children Reading partnership program, the Norwegian Agency 

for Development Cooperation has partnered with USAID and the Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology to catalyze the development of a smartphone application that can significantly 

 

163 www.norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/education/innovation/eduapp4syria

164 allchildrenreading.org/challenge/grant_prizes
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-33

increase literacy levels in Arabic and improve psychosocial wellbeing for children (aged 5-10) in 

Syrian households that use the application. The application is primarily meant to supplement the 

formal and non-formal educational programs that exist, even though it could also be used within 

these programs. This is important because the Syrian conflict is causing disruption to the education 

of millions of children, in addition to threatening their physical safety and psychosocial wellbeing. 

Almost three million Syrian children are out of school, which creates hurdles to achieving the

reading and writing fluency (literacy) that is foundational for lifelong learning. As such, it is 

important to provide opportunities to develop this skill for children who may be transient and do 

not have the opportunity to learn in a classroom. Smartphones have been a key survival tool used 

by many refugees, and reports and findings from field trips indicate high availability of 

smartphones among Syrian refugees. A factor that compounds the learning challenge is that Syrian 

children, both inside and outside of school, and inside and outside of Syria, are living under the 

extreme stress of protracted conflict. Elevated and prolonged stress levels can impede brain 

development and result in learning disabilities, memory problems and emotional regulation 

difficulties.

Solution Type: Software and apps 

Primary goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Find and highlight innovative ideas

Results: The competition had three finalists and two runners up from 78 submissions: Kukua 

(finalist), Cologne Game Lab (finalist), The Center for Educational Technology (finalist), Creative 

Associates International (runner-up), and Creuna (runner-up).

B.8.2 Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition165

Summary: The Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition seeks to catalyze new 

technological and design advancements in high-efficiency, low-cost refrigeration solutions. By 

inspiring greater participation and innovation in the market, the competition will contribute to 

improving access to affordable refrigeration technology that is compatible with off-grid energy 

sources. Off-grid refrigeration holds unique potential to unlock economic and social progress for 

the billions of un- and under-electrified people globally. However, existing solutions are largely 

either too inefficient or too expensive to serve off-grid consumers and the market remains nascent.

The competition asks for late-stage prototype or commercially available refrigerators or

refrigerator/freezer combination units that are either compatible with off-grid energy systems such 

as solar home systems or mini-grids or solar direct drive refrigerators. Two prizes will be awarded 

after laboratory testing for Energy Efficiency and Overall Value. A subset of products will move 

onto to field testing, where they will be evaluated on the above criteria in a real-world setting, as 

well as additional user-oriented factors, including impact of the product, perceived value, and 

 

165 globalleap.org/refrigerators
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-34

usability. A third prize for Appropriate Design and User Experience will be awarded based on the 

Field Testing outcomes.

Solution Type: Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary goals: Solve a specific problem; Develop technology; Stimulate a market 

Results: As of November 1, 2016, 16 organizations have submitted applications, although not all 

are complete. The 16 applications have come from 10 different countries, including Uganda, 

Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, and Bangladesh. Many other organizations have signaled an intent 

to participate, including one company which indicated while they originally planned to introduce 

a refrigeration product in 2-3 years, they are accelerating their development timeline in response 

to the competition. In addition, a small innovation-focused engineering and product design 

company, has mobilized a team of four engineers to fast-cycle development of a prototype product 

explicitly for the purposes of entering the competition. The competition partners had no preexisting relationship with them—they heard about the competition via our general outreach.

B.8.3 Tracking and Tracing Books166

Summary: Books are essential to early grade reading instruction. However, often times when books 

(both textbooks and supplemental reading materials) are ordered for low income countries, they 

do not end up in the hands of the students who need them. Textbooks and materials can go astray 

at any stage in the delivery process--from the point-of-entry for imported textbooks, to central 

warehouses for nationally produced materials, to transportation across difficult and sometimes 

insecure routes or even during final distribution to regional offices and classrooms. 

Experience in developing countries suggests that when parents, teachers, and other local 

stakeholders know what books are to be delivered and when, they will advocate for on-time 

delivery. But they rarely have this information and even when they do, they are not able to track 

books while in transit. Government and donor agency officials may discover that materials have 

not arrived at schools, but without the availability of tracking information, they do not know where 

they were lost in transit. The first step in solving this problem is to source innovations to track 

books in transit and trace them to their destination. As such, All Children Reading: A Grand 

Challenge for Development launched the Tracking and Tracing Books Prize Competition. 

The Tracking and Tracing Books competition seeks innovations with four main components: a 

process for tracking and tracing books, associated software, associated hardware and devices, and 

a method for engaging/easily interfacing with users. Moreover, it is a requirement that the 

proposed solutions cover the whole supply chain – tracked from the point where the books are 

 

166 allchildrenreading.org/innovation/prize-winners/#tracking_tracing_books
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-35

ordered to delivery in the classroom or early-learning center. The Track and Trace systems 

submissions that were considered were supply chain solutions comprised of software and 

hardware.

Solution Type: Software and apps; Technology demonstration and hardware

Primary goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Solve a specific problem; Develop 

technology; Improve coordination and communication; Improve government service delivery

Results: The Tracking and Tracing Books competition was completed in November 2016. Two 

winners were selected: Community Systems Foundation (CSF) and John Snow Inc. (JSI). CSF a 

non-profit organization, was awarded a total of $110,000 for their open source solution, 

OpenEMIS Logistics, a software that tracks the delivery of textbooks to schools. JSI, a for profit 

company, was also awarded $110,000 for their software system which uses simple barcodes to 

support tracking and tracing of textbooks by education officials throughout the system and enable 

parents, teachers, and local officials to receive up-to-date information on the status of books and 

materials. 

The Tracking and Tracing Books team believes that both solutions should be available for 

Ministries of Education, multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies, international non-government 

organizations. These two, independent systems allow for the desired end goal to be realized in 

more locations, since one solution might fare better than another in a particular country. In 

addition, competition between two solutions produced better and more cost effective products as 

both organizations learned from each other during the Scoping Trip and alpha testing in Malawi. 

B.8.4 Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge167

Summary: Wildlife trafficking endangers elephants, rhinos, sharks, and other wildlife species. 

Poachers are linked to international criminal networks that take advantage of weak laws and 

enforcement, porous borders, and corruption. Criminal activity and the loss of wildlife threaten 

nature-based tourism, an important source of revenue in many developing countries. Wildlife 

trafficking, including IUU fishing, is also linked to human trafficking and other illegal trade.

The Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge calls on participants to provide innovative challenges to the 

problem of wildlife crime. The Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge includes four concurrently run 

challenges addressing four critically important wildlife crime issues: detecting transit routes, 

strengthen forensic evidence, reducing consumer demand, and combating corruption. 

Success/evaluation metrics are equally divided between potential for impact and potential for 

scale.

 

167 wildlifecrimetech.org/index
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-36

All participants submitted a concept note based on a well-defined template requesting information 

on the proposed solution, its stage of innovation, potential for scale, and more. Finalists were 

asked to submit a full application expanding on the information requested in the concept note 

template. In addition to receiving a prize package—including financial support, recognition, and 

technical assistance awards—prize winners were also eligible to apply for “Grand Prize” of up to 

$500,000. 

Solution Type: Software and apps; Technology demonstration and hardware; Analytics, 

visualization and algorithms; and Scientific

Primary Goals: Find and highlight innovative ideas; Develop technology; Engage new people and 

communities

Results: The Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge received 300 applications from 52 countries, 

including 67% from outside the United States, 53% new to the issue of wildlife trafficking, and 

86% new to working with USAID. The 16 Prize Winners represent 7 countries (38% from outside 

the United States), with 25% new to the issue of wildlife trafficking and 75% new to working with 

USAID. 

The following is a list of the Prize winners and their winning project titles:

 Binomial Solutions Private Limited (India): "e-Eye ® (Electronic Eye): Real-time AntiPoaching, Surveillance & Wildlife Tracking System."

 Bosque Antiguo (Mexico): "High Throughput STRs and Sequence Genotyping as Forensic 

Tools for Species Protection."

 For the Fishes (United States): "Tank Watch--The Good Fish/Bad Fish Tool for Saltwater 

Aquariums."

 New York University (United States): "Enforcement Gaps Interface."

 Kalev Hannes Leetaru (United States): "A Real-time Global Platform for Mapping, 

Forecasting, and Network Assessment of Wildlife Crime."

 Mars Omega Partnership Ltd (United Kingdom):"The JIGZAW Information Collaboration 

Project."

 National Whistleblowers Center (United States): "Secured Internet Wildlife Crime 

Reporting System."

 New England Aquarium (United States): "Live Digital Invoices for Real Time Data 

Analytics to Enhance Detection of Illegal Wildlife Trade."

 Paso Pacifico (United States): "The Trade of Endangered Sea Turtle Eggs: Detecting and 

Monitoring Regional Transit Routes." 

 Planet Indonesia (United States): "Enhancing Bird Market Monitoring in Indonesia through 

Smartphone Technology."
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report

B-37

 University of Leicester (United Kingdom): "Universal Species Identification in the field 

by Rapid and Affordable Nanopore DNA Sequencing."

 University of Pretoria (South Africa): Internationalization of RhODIS® and eRhODIS®

 University of Technology Sydney (Australia): "Rapid Chemical Odor Profiling for 

Frontline Identification of Illegal Wildlife Products."

 University of Washington (U.S.): High Throughput Methods for Locating Source 

Populations in the Illegal Wildlife Trade."

 Yayasan Inisiasi Alam Rehabilitasi Indonesia (Indonesia): "Conservation of Threatened 

Indonesian Slow Lorises Using DNA-based Forensic Methods to Tackle Trade."

 Zoological Society of London (United Kingdom): "Instant Detect- Exposing the Movement 

of Poachers in Real Time."