Perspective on 

Federal Labs

www.tedco.md

Stephen Auvil

SVP Tech. Transfer & Commercialization

Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO)

sauvil@tedco.md
Purpose & Mission

TEDCO’s Purpose & Mission 

Foster the commercialization of research and development 

conducted by colleges, universities, and the private sector to 

create and sustain businesses throughout all regions of the 

State.

Discover, invest in, and help build great, Maryland-based, 

technology companies.
Tech./Mkt. 

Validation

Customer 

Acquisition

Translational 

Research

University Corporation

Scale-up/

Growth

Funding Programs

Seed Investment Funds 

Seed Stage Series A

Proof-of-Principle 

Demonstration

Pre-Seed/3Fs Series Seed

Maryland Innovation Initiative

Pre-Seed 

Opportunity 

Fund

Grants

Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund (MSCRF)

Maryland 

Venture Fund 

Grant

Investment

Gap 

Fund 
Gateway and Other Services

TECH

TRANSFER

BUS DEV 

SERVICES

MENTORING CONNECTIONS

Moving innovations 

from the research lab 

to the commercial 

sector to create new 

ventures and to 

make new products 

and cures available 

to the public

Supporting 

entrepreneurs with 

the the creation and 

growth of their 

ventures through the 

availability of valuable 

information and 

resources

Providing human 

expertise to support 

entrepreneurs at all 

stages of their venture 

development and 

throughout all regions 

of the State.

Fostering an 

interconnected 

business community 

in Maryland by 

bringing together 

entrepreneurs, startups, and the greater 

corporate 

community. 

NAVAIR

Gateway Concierge
Federal Laboratory Programs

 Agreements with 15 federal labs

 ~ $17 million earmarks/competitive grants

 Federal technology transfer initiative programs:

• NASA

• Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division

• DoD & Aberdeen Proving Ground

• USAMRMC, Fort Detrick

• MRASC & USAMRMC

• DHS & USAMRMC

 90+ projects funded

 35+ Technology showcase events

Earmark Era (2000 – 2014)
USAMRMC Ft. Detrick (FDTTI)

 Employees – Avg. +4 per company

 Revenues [final year] – $ 883K per company

 Avg. Salary – $77.5K

 TRL Change – ~ +3 levels

Example Program Outcome

FDTTI (2005 – 2010) $50K awards to 26 life science companies
Federal Laboratory Programs

Post-Earmark Era (2014 – Present)

Spin-in/spin-out 

tech scouting and 

tech incubator 

Entrepreneurial 

development 

program for 

graduating post docs

Assist entrepreneurs to 

navigate the FDA medical 

device commercialization 

process, resulting in 

510(k) cleared technology
Challenge for Federal Labs

It is a challenge for TEDCO to get state money 

support federal technology transfer programs.

It is believed that the federal labs should fund this 

activity [in Maryland].
What Does TEDCO Want?

 Create new jobs/revenue [tax base] . . .

 Through the creation of companies . . .

 Based on the transfer of technology from 

research institutions [in the state].
Comparison

Fed. Labs

 74 Federal Labs in 

MD

 $16 Billion federal 

research obligations

 ?? Start-up 

companies

Universities

 5 major research 

institutions in MD

 $3.9 Billion research 

expenditures

 52 Start-up 

companies
Looking at University T2

What makes one university more successful at 

spinning out companies than another?

 Culture (Stanford/MIT vs. University of MD)

 Research – Quality and nature

 Incentives – Promotion & tenure, royalty/equity distribution

 Conflict of Commitment issues (time flexibility)

 Conflict of Interest issues (philosophy)
Looking at University T2

What makes one university more successful at 

spinning out companies than another?

 Entrepreneurial programs – Leave policies, resources, etc.

 Venture development – Staff focused on supporting start-ups

 Proof-of-principle funding – De-risking technologies

 Corporate engagement – Corporate sponsored research

 Ease of Licensing – Collaborative approach, efficiency
Extrapolating to the Federal Labs

 Culture

• Requires top-down leadership

• Personnel turnover and time

 Research

• Dictated by mission – not something to change

• A strength of the labs – quality & application

 Incentives

• Policy changes – opportunity for change

 Conflict of Commitment issues (time flexibility)

• Challenge for labs, but critical for success
Extrapolating to the Federal Labs

 Conflict of Interest

• Policy changes required – more flexibility, COI 

management approach

 Entrepreneurial programs

• Entrepreneurial leave

• Innovation spaces

 Venture Development

• Dedicated staff with entrepreneurial experience

 Proof-of-principle funding

• Competitive intramural grants

• Time flexibility for commercialization activities
Extrapolating to the Federal Labs

 Corporate Engagement

• CRADA activity – currently a focus of the labs

• Facilitate access to unique facilities, equipment, etc.

 Ease of Licensing

• Start-up License approach

• Exclusivity

• No Federal Register publication requirement

• Business development office outside of the “fence”
Other Thoughts

 Philosophical Change

• Move from ‘protecting IP’ to ‘transferring IP’

• Think broader than primary mission

• Longer-term impact vs. short-term gains – emphasis 

on licensing vs. CRADAs

 Focus on supporting small business

• Job creation engine

• Legislative mandate
Other Thoughts

 Double bottom line for labs 

• Mission & economic dev.

• Focus on local region – your own backyard

 Review of current incentive programs 

• Quantity vs. quality of disclosures, patents, etc.

 Direct to Phase II SBIR/STTR programs

• Make it worthwhile to pursue SBIR/STTR grants

• Incentives for federally licensed technologies

 Funding to support T2 activities beyond the scope of the 

technology transfer office
Thank You

W W W . T E D C O . M D

Stephen Auvil

SVP Tech. Transfer & Commercialization

Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO)

sauvil@tedco.md