The Excellence in Technology Transfer Award recognizes employees of FLC member laboratories and non-laboratory staff who have accomplished outstanding work in the process of transferring federally developed technology. The award will be based on contributions during the past 10 calendar years from the award entry submission date.

Criteria

A. Description of Technology Transferred

1. Describe the technology transferred, focusing on what advantages the technology provides and what problem or need is addressed. Please explain any technical terms for a lay person. [15 points/800 words]

B. The Technology Transfer Story

2. Tell the technology transfer story and specifically describe the details surrounding the technology transfer effort. [35 points/1000 words]

• Identify the recipient(s) of the transferred technology and why they were chosen. (5 points)
• Describe how the partnership(s) was initiated and developed. (5 points)
• List the goals and objectives of both the recipient organization(s) and the federal lab(s). (10 points)
• Specify the technology transfer mechanisms, resources, and/or activities (e.g., CRADAs, licenses, patents, funding programs, marketing) that were used and the timeframe for these activities. (15 points)

3. What makes this excellence in technology transfer? [20 points/200 words]

• Describe the overarching innovation or creativity (i.e., a significant improvement to an agreement mechanism or a resource program) in transferring the technology and why this technology transfer effort is outstanding.

4. Describe each nominated individual and their role in the excellence of this technology transfer effort. [10 points/500 words]

C. Outcomes of Technology Transfer

5. Describe the outcomes of the technology transfer effort. [20 points/600 words]

•    Describe the current status of the technology transfer effort today.

•    Describe how this technology transfer effort met laboratory goals and furthers the agency's mission requirements.

•    Describe any public gains achieved by the technology through its transfer, and the result and impact. When possible, please include quantifiable data/statistics and outcomes. 

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The Interagency Partnership Award recognizes agency and/or laboratory employees from at least two different agencies who have collaboratively accomplished outstanding work in transferring a technology. The transfer of the technology took place within the last five years.

Criteria

1. Specifically identify and describe the outstanding cooperative effort by federal science, technology, and/or technology transfer employees from laboratories representing two or more Federal agencies in the transfer of a specific technology, product, or service that has been adopted by and/or benefits another Federal agency or private sector entity for government or non-government use. As part of the narrative, please identify the specific outcome(s) achieved through this interagency partnership. When possible, please provide quantifiable data/statistics and outcome information. [45 points/800 words]

2. Specifically identify and describe each nominated team member’s name and role along with the attributes of each of the respective agency laboratories that enabled the effective transfer of the technology. [35 points/650 words]

3. Describe when the transfer took place and what technology transfer mechanisms, resources, and/or activities were used (e.g., collaboration agreement, memorandum of understanding (MOU), or interagency agreement (IAA), patents, funding programs). The partnership activities must have occurred within the past five years from award entry submission date. [20 points/350 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The State and Local Economic Development Award recognizes successful initiatives that involve partnerships between state or local economic development groups and federal laboratories for economic benefit.

Criteria

1. Identify the Nominees’ organizations and key staff associated with this award and describe the attributes of each of the respective agency laboratories and state and/or local economic development groups directly involved in the technology transfer related initiative. Nominees must include FLC laboratory employees and can include employees of state and/or local economic development groups directly involved in the initiative. [10 points/250 words]

2. Specifically identify and describe the partnership, why it was created, the innovative approach to addressing a technology transfer-related need, and demonstrable, quantifiable result(s)/outcome(s) of the initiative. Include information about the geographic area the initiative serves and other supporting contextual backgrounds. [35 points/650 words]

3. Describe the specific goals, objectives, and contributions of each nominee. Include the innovation or creativity demonstrated by the nominee(s) and describe the technology transfer mechanisms utilized. [35 points/500 words]

4. Describe the impact to the federal labs and economic benefit of the initiative to date, how that impact is determined, and any public gains/outcomes achieved. [20 points/400 words] [20 points/400 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The FLC Outstanding Technology Transfer Professional Award recognizes the efforts of an FLC laboratory technology transfer professional (or team) who has demonstrated outstanding work in transferring a technology in a manner significantly over and above what was called for in the normal course of their work. Technology Transfer Program Managers, Office of Research and Technology Application (ORTA) Representatives, and Commercialization Managers are considered ideal candidates for this award.

Criteria

1. Specifically identify and describe the nominee’s personal involvement and significant contributions in support of the transfer of federally developed technology for the laboratory. [35 points/650 words]

2. Describe a single best example of technology transfer that demonstrates the nominee’s innovation and/or creativity in transferring a specific technology, product, or service. Include a brief description of the technology in layman’s terms, the transfer process used, and the reason the transfer was significant. [30 points/500 words]

3. Describe the innovation/creative technology transfers that the individual led and what technology transfer mechanisms, resources, and/or activities were used to innovate or transfer technologies. The innovative/creative technology transfers occurred within the last five years. When possible, please provide quantifiable data/statistics and/or outcomes. [35 points/500 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The Rookie of the Year Award recognizes the efforts of an individual FLC laboratory technology transfer professional (or team) who has demonstrated outstanding work in the field of technology transfer in a manner significantly over and above what was called for in the normal course of their work during the past year. The nominee(s) must be new to technology transfer, (each) with three years (or less) experience in a federal technology transfer position.

Criteria

1. Describe how the nominee has demonstrated exceptional service performing their technology transfer professional responsibilities within their laboratory’s technology transfer organization over the past year. [40 points/600 words]

2. Specifically identify and describe a single example of the nominee’s innovative approach or creativity to addressing a technology transfer need and achieving demonstrable results. [30 points/400 words]

3. Specifically identify and describe the impact of the nominee’s exceptional service to date and how that impact is determined by the laboratory. When possible, please provide quantifiable data/statistics and outcomes. [30 points/400 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The Representative of the Year Award is given to the FLC Representative who has made the most significant contribution to the FLC in the past three years.

Criteria

1. Identify Nominee who must be an FLC Laboratory or Agency Representative or Alternate. Describe how technology transfer relates to the Laboratory or Agency purpose. [10 points/150 words]

2. Describe how the nominee has participated in technology transfer activities applicable to other FLC Member Laboratories. [20 points/350 words]

3. Describe how during the last three years the nominee participated in activities for outreach to a new group in the FLC user communities (user communities include, but are not limited to, industry, academia, state and local governments, and federal laboratories). [30 points/350 words]

4. Describe how the nominee demonstrated outstanding FLC regional leadership or participated in other appropriate FLC-related activities during the last three years.  Include nominee's role in support of the FLC, including FLC positions, membership on FLC committees and other FLC recognitions received. [40 points/450 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The FLC Service Awards is an award category that recognize individuals involved in technology transfer activities who have provided noteworthy support to the technology transfer process, furthering the mission of the FLC. The Harold Metcalf Award recognizes an FLC employee who has provided sustained significant service to the FLC as an organization.

Criteria

1. Nominee must be an FLC Member Laboratory employee. Identify Nominee and their organization. Describe how technology transfer relates to the Member Laboratory's purpose. [10 points/150 words]

2. Specifically identify and describe the exemplary and sustained individual service of the nominee to the FLC. [55 points/600 words]

3. Describe the nominee's general involvement in and support of the FLC including FLC positions (held or currently holding), membership service on FLC committees, and other FLC recognitions received. [35 points/450 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The FLC Service Awards is an award category that recognize individuals involved in technology transfer activities who have provided noteworthy support to the technology transfer process, furthering the mission of the FLC.  The Outstanding Service Award honors an individual (or group) who is not an FLC laboratory employee for a notable contribution to the FLC in terms of sustained support and/or service.

Criteria

1. Identify Nominee and their affiliation with FLC. The nominee may not be an FLC Member Laboratory or Parent Federal Agency employee. Describe how Technology Transfer relates to Nominee and their organization. [10 points/150 words]

2. Specifically identify and describe when and how the nominee became involved with the FLC, and how they have provided sustained support/service to the FLC as an organization. [55 points/600 words]

3. Describe the nominee’s general involvement in and support of FLC including FLC positions (held or currently holding), membership (past and current) on FLC committees, and other FLC recognitions/awards received. [35 points/450 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The Technology Transfer Innovation Award recognizes federal laboratories that successfully implemented innovative or unconventional technology transfer approaches that resulted in a significant increase in technology transfer (T2) activities. This award will be based on sustainable programs and mechanisms implemented during the last five calendar years from the award entry submission date The federal laboratory has never received a national FLC award for the nominated innovative T2 effort. Below are examples of types of programs and mechanisms that exemplify this category:

•    Internal engagement programs - Programs designed and implemented to encourage T2 activity within the laboratory or agency (e.g., increasing the reporting of inventions, inventor/lab involvement in T2, or technology readiness).

•    External engagement programs - Programs designed to identify suitable partnerships and increase collaborations and licensing activity/commercialization of an agency or laboratory's technology portfolio (e.g., startup challenges, outreach programs).

•    Internal and external engagement programs - Programs aimed at engaging inventors in the commercialization process while also engaging the community and potential licensees about available federal technologies and opportunities.

•    Tools and mechanisms - Novel use of technology transfer mechanisms and authorities to aid in the commercialization of federal technologies.

•          Date program or tool was first implemented.

Criteria

1. Describe the innovative program or tool, why it was created, the innovative approach to address the technology transfer-related need, and the demonstrable results of the program or tool. [40 points/900 words]

2. Describe the specific roles and contributions of each nominee organization and key staff involved. You must include the innovation demonstrated by the nominee(s) in developing the program or tool, the role of the technology transfer office, and the technology transfer mechanisms utilized to achieve the goals of the initiative. [25 points/450 words]

3. Describe what has been the impact to the federal laboratory and/or economic benefit of the initiative to date, how that impact is determined, and any public gains achieved. If significant future impact, economic benefit, or public gains are anticipated, please describe the specific outcome(s) sought and provide approximate timeframes. When possible, please provide quantifiable data/statistics and outcome(s). [35 points/650 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms.

 

The Impact Award honors FLC member laboratories whose technology transfer efforts have made a tangible and lasting impact on the populace or marketplace ranging from a local to global scale. The focus of this award is to recognize the powerful impact technology transfer can have, no matter how simple or complex the technology transfer effort. The nominations will be judged on contributions made during the past ten calendar years. Duplicate nominations of a single technology transfer effort (for an individual or group) [interagency partnership] are not allowed. The primary impact areas under consideration include public health, socioeconomic, IT, public safety and security, environmental/national resources.

Criteria

1. Describe the technology transferred, focusing on what advantages the technology provides and what problem or need is addressed. [20 points/650 words]

2. Describe how the technology was transferred, to whom, and any innovation or creativity demonstrated by the nominated team members that enabled the effective transfer of the technology. Identify the names and roles of the key individuals involved. [20 points/450 words]

3. Describe the impact and benefits/positive quantifiable outcome(s) of the initiative to date, how that impact is determined, and the public gains achieved. If significant future impact, benefit, or public gains are also anticipated, please describe, and provide approximate timeframes. Include information about the impact area served and other supporting contextual backgrounds. [60 points/900 words]

Disclaimer: The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms. 

The FLC National Advisory Council honors Laboratory Directors who have made maximum contributions to the overall enhancement of technology transfer for economic development. Accomplishments related to the transfer of technology from the federal laboratory to industry, including support of FLC activities, internal accomplishments, industry involvement and community service, are the primary criteria for this award.

The highest possible score is 100 points. The maximum word count is 3,000 words.

1.         LABORATORY HISTORY RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER – How technology transfer relates to the laboratory’s purpose and overall enhancements to the technology transfer portion of the lab mission. NOTE: this criterion will be used for informational purposes only and will not count toward scoring of the nomination. Its primary purpose is to provide context for the remaining criteria. [400 words]

2.         NOMINEE’S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT AND IMPACT INTERNAL TO THE LABORATORY IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER [35 points/900 words] – Identify personal interactions that the nominee has had with laboratory scientists/engineers and technology transfer support staff, such as but not limited to:

•          Encouragement of scientists and managers to participate in transfer process.

•          Establishment of training programs or industry interchange meetings.

•          Promotion and recognition of the Office of Research and Technology Application (ORTA).

•          Actively increasing participation by laboratory staff in ORTA activities.

Identify initiatives undertaken by the nominee to encourage or facilitate technology transfer, such as but not limited to:

•          Pursuing partnerships through cooperative research and development agreements            (CRADAs), patents and licensing.

•          Coordinating facility visits by prospective partners in industry, education, or state and local governments.

3.         NOMINEE’S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT EXTERNAL TO THE LABORATORY IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND IMPACT ON INDUSTRY

[35 points/900 words] – Identify areas that the nominee engaged in to fulfill this criterion, including but not limited to:

•          Support and involvement in the FLC and technology transfer activities.

•          Management and financial support of promotion and/or advertising.

•          Community involvement to encourage industry interchange.

•          Personal participation in industry organizations.

•          New businesses started due to technology transfer.

•          Financial results for industry partners.

•          Industry commendations to nominee and/or the laboratory

4.         BEST EXAMPLE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER THAT NOMINEE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN FOR THE LABORATORY (any time between October 1, 2016–September 30, 2019) [30 points/800 words] – A specific technology transfer effort involving the laboratory that came to completion; contributions and process improvement that led to successful completion. Items to consider:

•          A brief description of the technology, the transfer process used and the reason the transfer             was significant.

•          The Director’s involvement in the transfer, which could include:

o          Contributions to the awareness of the technology’s availability.

o          Support a new or unique process improvement that led to successful transfer.

o          Encouragement to the scientific and other programs to cooperate and coordinate with the                technology transfer staff in the process.

o          Other actions (both direct and indirect) taken by the Director that supported that transfer.

The judges will have a range of expertise and may not specialize in the particular field described in the nomination. Therefore, please develop the nomination narrative tailored to the level of “informed general public” rather than colleagues who have the same level/degree of technical expertise as the nominee. Consider clear, concise, and plain language. Explain or define any necessary technical terms.