type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"Department of Health and Human Services\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n VULNERABILITIES IN THE\n HHS SMALL BUSINESS\n INNOVATION RESEARCH\n PROGRAM\n\n\n\n\n Daniel R. Levinson\n Inspector General\n\n April 2014\n OEI-04-11-00530\n\x0cEXECUTIVE SUMMARY: VULNERABILITIES IN THE HHS SMALL BUSINESS\nINNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM, OEI-04-11-00530\n\nWHY WE DID THIS STUDY\n\nThe Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program awards funds to small businesses to\npursue innovative research and development ideas that have potential for commercial and that meet\nresearch and development needs of the Federal Government. Since the implementation of the SBIR\nprogram in 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has funded more than $8\nbillion in awards to small businesses that self-certify that they meet program requirements. However,\nunlike most other SBIR awarding agencies, HHS does not have a single office responsible for\noverseeing its SBIR program. In 1999, the Office of Inspector General reported that HHS had not\nevaluated the success of the program. Further, other Federal agencies have identified fraud in their\nrespective SBIR programs, including awardees that falsely certify eligibility and receive duplicative\nfunding from multiple agencies.\n\nHOW WE DID THIS STUDY\n\nWe reviewed fiscal year 2011 data from the four HHS Operating Divisions (OpDivs) that participate\nin the SBIR program to determine the extent to which they ensured that awardees were eligible and\nthat awards were meeting program guidelines and goals. We also verified awardees\xe2\x80\x99 eligibility using\ndata sources commonly used by other Federal agencies to identify potentially ineligible awardees.\n\nWHAT WE FOUND\n\nHHS awarded $360 million in SBIR funds to nearly 1,000 awardees in 2011 and had the highest\naverage SBIR award amount of any participating agency. Although it was not required to do so, HHS\ndid not consistently collect information on or assess the commercial success of SBIR awards and\ntherefore cannot determine whether the program is meeting one of its primary goals. Although all\nawardees self-certified that they intended to meet SBIR eligibility requirements, we found that\n31 percent of awardees had questionable or unverified eligibility for at least one requirement.\nAlthough they are not required to do so, HHS OpDivs did not take any steps to independently verify\nthat these awardees met eligibility requirements. Furthermore, although one OpDiv checked for\nduplicative funding within HHS, none of the four OpDivs completed a required check for duplicative\nawards across other Federal agencies.\n\nWHAT WE RECOMMEND\n\nOur findings raise concerns about vulnerabilities in the SBIR program. To address these\nvulnerabilities, HHS should create a central office to oversee the SBIR program. HHS OpDivs\nshould track and assess the commercial success of SBIR projects, ensure compliance with eligibility\nrequirements, and improve procedures to check for duplicative awards. The Office of the Assistant\nSecretary for Financial Resources (ASFR) did not indicate whether it concurred with each of our\nrecommendations. However, ASFR concurred that additional coordination and oversight across\nparticipating OpDivs is warranted and agreed that HHS must ensure that applicants meet SBIR\neligibility requirements.\n\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nObjectives ....................................................................................................1 \n\nBackground ..................................................................................................1 \n\nMethodology ................................................................................................8 \n\nFindings......................................................................................................12 \n\n HHS awarded $360 million in SBIR funds to nearly\n 1,000 awardees in 2011 ..................................................................12 \n\n Although HHS OpDivs are not required to collect information on \n\n the commercial success of SBIR awards, one of the four OpDivs \n\n did so..............................................................................................13 \n\n Although all SBIR awardees certified their eligibility, 31 percent \n\n of awardees had questionable or unverified eligibility for at least \n\n one requirement .............................................................................14 \n\n HHS OpDivs did not perform a required check for duplicative \n\n awards across other Federal agencies ............................................18 \n\nConclusion and Recommendations ............................................................19 \n\n Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response.....21 \n\nAppendixes ................................................................................................22 \n\n A: Differences in the 2011 and 2012 Small Business Innovation \n\n and Research Program Policy Directives .......................................22 \n\n B: Detailed Methodology for Verifying Awardee Eligibility ........23 \n\n C: Estimate Descriptions, Sample Sizes, Point Estimates, and \n\n Confidence Intervals ......................................................................25 \n\n D: Agency Comments ...................................................................26 \n\nAcknowledgments......................................................................................27 \n\n\x0c OBJECTIVES\n 1.\t To describe the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)\n Operating Divisions\xe2\x80\x99 (OpDivs) expenditures on the Small Business\n Innovation Research (SBIR) program in 2011.\n 2.\t To determine the extent to which, in 2011, HHS OpDivs:\n \xef\x82\xb7 collected information on the commerical success of SBIR products\n and services;\n \xef\x82\xb7 ensured that SBIR awardees met eligibility requirements; and\n \xef\x82\xb7 performed required checks to ensure that SBIR awardees did not\n receive duplicative funding for grants and contracts (i.e., awards).\n\n BACKGROUND\n The SBIR program is a competitive awards program created by the Small\n Business Innovation Development Act of 1982.1 These awards are\n intended to provide Federal funding to small businesses pursuing research\n and development ideas that have potential for commercialization and that\n meet research and development needs of the Federal Government.2, 3\n Federal agencies with research and development budgets of over\n $100 million for nongovernment groups are required to participate in the\n SBIR program and in 2011, were required to allocate 2.5 percent of their\n budgets to SBIR awards.4 SBA is the Federal agency that coordinates the\n\n\n\n\n 1\n P.L. 97-219, 96 Stat. 217 1982), 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 638. Congress reauthorized this statute in\n 2011. This statute also created the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)\n program, which shares the goals of the SBIR program and also reserves a specific\n percentage of Federal research and development funding to award to small businesses.\n 2\n Small Business Administration (SBA), Small Business Innovation Research Program:\n 2011 Policy Directive (2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive), p. 3. Accessed at\n http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/4nxkhpa8hs11bk8f.pdf?t=1310401\n 127 on August 9, 2011.\n 3\n Commercialization is the process of developing marketable products or services and\n producing and delivering those products or services for sale to Government or\n commercial markets. SBIR awards can be distributed to awardees through grants or\n contracts.\n 4\n This budget is known as an agency\xe2\x80\x99s extramural budget, or the sum of the total\n obligations minus amounts obligated for such activities by Government-owned,\n Government-operated facilities. 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 638(e)(1). The 2011 SBIR reauthorization\n specified that the percentage of the extramural research and development budget that\n agencies must allocate to SBIR awards would increase to 2.6 percent in 2012 and to\n 2.7 percent in 2013. 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 638(f)(1)(C-E).\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 1\n\x0c SBIR program across the 11 participating Federal agencies.5, 6 SBA issues\n Policy Directives to guide agency implementation of the program,\n monitors agency implementation of the program, and reports program\n results to Congress annually.7 Federal law and SBA establish general\n standards for the SBIR program, and agencies have flexibility in managing\n their individual programs within these standards.8\n Since the implementation of the SBIR program in 1982, HHS has funded\n more than $8 billion in awards to small businesses pursuing innovative\n research ideas. However, in 1999, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)\n reported that within HHS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not\n evaluate the success of the program.9\n If HHS does not properly oversee the SBIR program, it cannot evaluate\n the program\xe2\x80\x99s success or ensure that awardees are eligible and are\n appropriately using funds. Other Federal agencies have identified fraud in\n the SBIR program. Specifically, NASA has identified awardees that\n falsely certified eligibility, including a company that stated it was\n American-owned but was not and a company that stated it was a small\n business but was not.10 Further, the Government Accountability Office\n (GAO) stated in a 1995 report that SBIR awardees had received\n duplicative funds from at least three participating agencies.11 One of these\n agencies was the National Science Foundation, which stated that\n duplicative funding is the most frequent violation in its SBIR program.12\n\n\n\n 5\n The 11 agencies that participate in the SBIR program are the Department of\n Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department\n of Education, the Department of Energy, HHS, the Department of Homeland Security,\n the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National\n Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation.\n 6\n SBA, What We Do. Accessed at http://www.sba.gov/about-sba-services/what-we-do on\n December 5, 2011. \n\n 7\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, pp. 3, 4, 25. (See footnote 2 for URL \n\n information.) \n\n 8\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 4. (See footnote 2 for URL information.)\n 9\n OIG, Review of the Effectiveness of the National Institutes of Health\xe2\x80\x99s Administration of\n the Small Business Innovation Research Program, A-15-98-00031. This report focused\n solely on NIH because it makes the most SBIR awards in HHS.\n 10\n NASA, Review of NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Management of its Small Business Innovation Research\n Program. Accessed at http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-010-R.pdf on\n July 10, 2013. \n\n 11\n GAO, Federal Research: Interim Report on the Small Business Innovation Research\n\n Program, GAO-RCD-95-59, March 1995. Accessed at http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/\n\n 154923.pdf on December 16, 2013. \n\n 12\n Alison Lerner, Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, Statement Before \n\n the Senate Committee of Science, Commerce, and Transportation, August 6, 2009. \n\n Accessed at http://www.nsf.gov/oig/SBIRtestimonyAugust6.pdf on August 19, 2013. \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 2\n\x0c Congress passed the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 in\n December 2011.13 To incorporate changes from the reauthorization, SBA\n updated its 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive in October 2012, after\n the May 2012 end of our data collection for this study. Throughout this\n report, we describe the SBIR program requirements that were in effect at\n the time of our review and note any changes resulting from the new Policy\n Directive. See Appendix A for a list of differences in the 2011 and\n 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directives relevant to our review.\n The 2011 SBIR Reauthorization Act requires agency OIGs to cooperate in\n preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in the SBIR program by\n (1) establishing fraud detection indicators; (2) reviewing agency\n regulations and operating procedures; (3) coordinating information sharing\n between agencies; and (4) improving the education and training of SBIR\n administrators, applicants, and awardees.14 The 2011 SBIR\n Reauthorization Act also requires OIGs to submit annual reports to\n Congress describing actions taken and funds used to address fraud, waste,\n and abuse in each SBIR program.15 This report is not intended to fulfill\n HHS OIG\xe2\x80\x99s annual reporting requirement.\n SBIR Program Eligibility and Phases\n To be eligible for an SBIR award, an applicant must:\n \xef\x82\xb7\t have a Principal Investigator (i.e., the primary researcher who will\n conduct and oversee the research project) who is primarily\n employed by the small business;16\n \xef\x82\xb7\t have fewer than 500 total employees, including affiliates;17\n \xef\x82\xb7\t maintain a place of business in the United States and operate\n primarily within the United States;18 and\n\n\n\n 13\n National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298,\n Section 5001 (2011). \n\n 14\n 15 U.S.C 638b(a)(5). See also SBA, 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directive. Accessed \n\n at http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/6c90n43wxs1wmoxi. \n\n pdf?t=1351707349 on July 31, 2013. \n\n 15\n 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 638b(c). \n\n 16\n To be considered primarily employed by the company, the Principal Investigator must \n\n spend more than half of his or her time in the employ of the company at the time of\n\n award and during the proposed project. Occasionally, deviation from this requirement\n\n may occur; such deviation must be approved in writing. SBA, 2011 SBIR Program\n\n Policy Directive, p. 13. (See footnote 2 for URL information.)\n\n 17\n In determining whether affiliation exists, SBA considers such factors as ownership,\n\n management, previous relationships with or ties to another company, and contractual\n relationships. 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 121.103 (a)(1-2).\n\n 18\n Alternatively, applicants can make significant contributions to the U. S. economy \n\n through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials, or labor. SBA,\n\n 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 7. (See footnote 2 for URL information.)\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 3\n\x0c \xef\x82\xb7 be organized as a for-profit entity.19\n All SBIR applicants must certify that they meet all of the eligibility\n requirements before receiving an SBIR award.20 Specifically, applicants\n must check a box on the electronic application indicating that they intend\n to meet all eligibility requirements at the time of the award.21 Although\n awarding agencies are not required to do so, they can conduct additional\n eligibility checks at their discretion.\n The SBIR program consists of three phases.22 Applicants selected to\n receive SBIR funds, or awardees, must participate in Phase I of the\n program to participate in Phases II and III. The object of Phase I is for\n agencies to determine the scientific merit and feasibility of a proposal as\n well as the quality of an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s performance.23 Generally, Phase I runs\n for 6 months, and awardees may receive up to $150,000 in SBIR funds.24\n After completing Phase I, awardees must apply to receive additional\n funding in Phase II. In Phase II, awardees continue the research and\n development of the project.25 Phase II applications must include a\n commercialization plan that may include market analyses, patent status,\n and/or plans to secure funding for Phase III.26 Phase II generally runs for\n 2 years, and awardees may receive up to $1 million in additional SBIR\n funds.27 The SBIR program permits agencies to exceed the amount in the\n funding guidelines for Phases I and II if the additional amount is fully\n justified and scientifically appropriate.28 Agencies must provide SBA with\n written justification for all awards that exceed the amounts in the funding\n guidelines. This justification must be included in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s annual\n report to SBA on the SBIR program.29\n\n\n 19\n Ibid., p. 7.\n\n 20\n HHS, SBIR Application Guide, p. III-27. Accessed at \n\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_SBIR_STTR_Adobe_VerB.p\n df on October 26, 2011. \n\n 21\n If an awardee becomes ineligible after receiving an award, the award may continue at \n\n the scientific discretion of OpDiv program officials. However, the awardees are not \n\n allowed to compete for new SBIR awards after becoming ineligible. \n\n 22\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 8. (See footnote 2 for URL \n\n information.) \n\n 23\n Ibid., p. 9.\n\n 24\n Ibid., p. 17.\n\n 25\n Ibid., p. 9.\n\n 26\n Ibid., p. 14.\n\n 27\n Ibid., p. 17.\n\n 28\n NIH, NIH Grants Policy Statement (October 2010), p. IIB-254. Accessed at \n\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_2010.pdf on April 17, 2013. \n\n 29\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 17. (See footnote 2 for URL \n\n information.) \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 4\n\x0c In Phase III, awardees do not apply for or receive SBIR funding but\n instead seek non-SBIR Federal funds or private funds to pursue\n commercialization of products or services resulting from Phase I and II\n research and development.30, 31 Figure 1 illustrates the three phases of the\n SBIR program.\n Figure 1: SBIR Program Phases\n\n\n Phase II Phase III\n Phase I 2 Years\n No Timeframe\n 6 Months\n SBIR awardees\n SBIR awardees\n SBIR awardees attempt to\n continue research\n establish proposal commercialize their\n and development\n feasibility and are products and\n from Phase I and are\n awarded up to services and do not\n awarded up to\n $150,000. receive SBIR\n $1,000,000.\n funding.\n Source: OIG analysis of 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive.\n\n The SBIR Program Within HHS\n Four HHS OpDivs issue SBIR awards: NIH, the Centers for Disease\n Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),\n and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).\n Unlike most other agencies that make awards under the SBIR program,\n HHS does not have a single office responsible for overseeing its OpDivs\xe2\x80\x99\n respective SBIR programs.32 Because NIH makes most of HHS\xe2\x80\x99 SBIR\n awards, NIH solicits SBIR proposals for all participating HHS OpDivs,\n manages the scientific review of all HHS SBIR applications, and submits\n an annual HHS SBIR report to SBA on behalf of all four HHS OpDivs.33\n HHS uses grants and contracts to award SBIR funds and uses a different\n review process for the two types of awards. Once they have received all\n HHS SBIR grant applications, external peer reviewers in NIH\xe2\x80\x99s Center for\n\n\n\n 30\n Ibid., pp. 9\xe2\x80\x9310. See also SBA, SBIR. Accessed at http://www.sbir.gov/about/about-\n sbir on April 22, 2013. \n\n 31\n Phase I awardees may advance to Phase III and receive non-SBIR funds without \n\n participating in Phase II. \n\n 32\n SBA\xe2\x80\x99s SBIR Policy Directive assumes that each participating agency has an SBIR \n\n program manager or coordinator and assigns several responsibilities to this office. See \n\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, pp. 13, 26, 29, and 37. (See footnote 2 for \n\n URL information.) The Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the \n\n Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, and the National\n\n Science Foundation each have an SBIR program manager or coordinator.\n\n 33\n NIH manages the review of SBIR grant applications on behalf of all OpDivs, but CDC\n\n independently evaluates its SBIR contract proposals. CDC awarded five contracts in\n\n 2011. \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 5\n\x0c Scientific Review evaluate the scientific merits of the proposed projects.34\n After receiving reviewers\xe2\x80\x99 scores and comments on the strengths,\n weaknesses and budget of the proposed project, each OpDiv considers\n NIH\xe2\x80\x99s scientific assessment and the OpDiv\xe2\x80\x99s research and development\n needs to select which projects to fund.35\n A technical evaluation panel assesses SBIR contract proposals according\n to requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the HHS\n Acquisition Regulations.36 The panel makes recommendations related to\n the proposed research and budget. Program staff then conduct a second\n level of review before awarding a contract.37\n To help SBIR awardees commercialize products or services, agencies may\n also use SBIR funds to provide technical assistance to awardees in\n drafting and executing a commercialization plan.38 NIH has two technical\n assistance programs for SBIR awardees; for both, awardees must apply\n and be selected to participate. The Niche Assessment Program helps\n selected Phase I awardees identify the most appropriate market for their\n products or services.39 The Commercialization Assistance Program is for\n selected Phase II awardees that may need help transitioning their\n innovations from the research and development phase to the marketplace.40\n NIH maintains a page on its Web site where SBIR awardees can self-\n report commercialization of products and services. Other HHS OpDivs do\n not participate in structured commercialization assistance plans, but\n awardees may request technical assistance from their respective awarding\n OpDivs.\n HHS Oversight of the SBIR Program\n Each HHS OpDiv is responsible for overseeing its awards. Oversight\n includes ensuring that awardees meet eligibility requirements and that\n awards are not duplicative.\n\n 34\n NIH, NIH Grants Policy Statement (October 2010), pp. I-49\xe2\x80\x93I-53. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_2010.pdf on October 7, 2011.\n 35\n NIH, Peer Review Process. Accessed at http://grants.nih.gov/Grants/peer_review_\n process.htm on May 17, 2013.\n 36\n NIH and CDC are the only HHS OpDivs that award SBIR contracts. These OpDivs\n use a joint guidance document for reviewing SBIR contract proposals. HHS, Solicitation\n of NIH and CDC for SBIR Contract Proposals, PHS 2013-1. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/SBIRContract/PHS2013-1.pdf on November 25,\n 2013.\n 37\n Ibid., pp. 25\xe2\x80\x9326.\n 38\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 21. (See footnote 2 for URL\n information.)\n 39\n NIH, Niche Assessment Program. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/nap.htm on October 21, 2011.\n 40\n NIH, Commercialization Assistance Program. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/cap/index.htm on October 21, 2011.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 6\n\x0c Ensuring That Awardees Are Eligible. Before receiving an award, SBIR\n awardees must certify that they intend to meet all eligibility requirements\n at the time of the award. Although they are not required to do so, HHS\n OpDivs can conduct additional eligibility checks before funding an award.\n Further, if an HHS OpDiv is uncertain whether an applicant meets the\n SBIR eligibility requirements, it may request a \xe2\x80\x9csize determination\xe2\x80\x9d from\n SBA.41 SBA size determinations generally focus on the number of\n employees and size of affiliates, but SBA also collects information\n relevant to other eligibility requirements during this process.42\n Additionally, NIH uses what it calls \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures to request\n additional information from applicants after an application has been peer\n reviewed and is being considered for funding. This information may\n include documents relevant to an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility.43 These\n procedures are specific to NIH grant awards.\n If an SBIR applicant submits a false certification of eligibility, OpDivs\n follow standard procedures for reporting grant fraud and abuse that may\n include actions up to and including pursuing criminal charges with the\n Department of Justice.44 If an entity knowingly submits a false claim and\n receives government funds, it is liable for three times the government\xe2\x80\x99s\n damages plus civil penalties.45\n Ensuring That Awards Are Not Duplicative. Applicants may propose the\n same project to multiple agencies. However, agencies must avoid funding\n essentially equivalent, or duplicative, work under SBIR and other Federal\n programs.46 If an applicant receives funding from one agency, the\n applicant must withdraw the application(s) from any other agencies to\n which it applied. If the applicant does not withdraw the other\n application(s), it may subsequently receive duplicative funding.\n\n\n\n 41\n NIH, NIH Grants Policy Statement (October 2010), p. IIB-251. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_2010.pdf on October 7, 2011. \n\n 42\n SBA, Guide to Size Standards. Accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/guide-size-\n standards on April 24, 2013. See also SBA Form 355. Accessed at \n\n http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/SBA%20%20Form%20355.pdf on April 24, 2013. \n\n 43\n NIH, NIH Grants Policy Statement (October 2010), pp. I-54\xe2\x80\x93I-55. Accessed at \n\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_2010.pdf on October 7, 2011. \n\n Information requested as part of the \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures may also include approval \n\n from the Human Subjects Assurance and Institutional Review Board and/or approval\n\n from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. \n\n 44\n Ibid., p. I-44. See also False Statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001, Theft of Federal Funds, \n\n 18 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 641. \n\n 45\n False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3729-3733. \n\n 46\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 21. (See footnote 2 for URL \n\n information.) \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 7\n\x0c Duplicative funding can also occur if an awardee receives funding for the\n same project in multiple years.\n To manage awardee data, and in part to avoid duplicative funding, NIH\n stores data on HHS SBIR awardees and their projects in its IMPAC II and\n NIH Data Warehouse databases, which contain information for all HHS\n awards.47 CDC, FDA, and ACF provide data on their SBIR awardees to\n NIH to be included in these databases and can search the databases to\n avoid funding duplicative work within HHS. NIH is responsible for\n providing all of HHS\xe2\x80\x99s SBIR data to SBA through the SBIR.gov database.\n Before granting an award, each OpDiv is also required to check SBIR.gov\n to ensure that applicants have not been previously funded by HHS or other\n Federal agencies for duplicative projects.48 NIH requires applicants to\n self-disclose other active and pending financial support (e.g., other grants\n or contracts) as part of its \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures.49 NIH does not\n require applicants to provide information on past awards. Further, NIH\n does not independently verify that applicants disclosed all other active and\n pending financial support.\n Previous OIG Work\n In 1999, OIG determined that NIH did not track and assess awardees\xe2\x80\x99\n commercialization of SBIR products and services. NIH generally agreed\n with OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations to improve its tracking and assessment of\n SBIR commercialization data. NIH also stated that it was developing a\n methodology to link the significant investments that NIH has made in the\n SBIR program to specific and measurable outcomes.50\n\n METHODOLOGY\n We used NIH\xe2\x80\x99s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT)\n Web site and SBA\xe2\x80\x99s SBIR.gov database to obtain and assess information\n on SBIR-funded projects as of March 12, 2012, for fiscal year (FY)\n\n\n 47\n NIH, Query, View, and Report. Accessed at http://era.nih.gov/nih_and_grantor_\n agencies/other/query_view_and_report.cfm on October 22, 2013.\n 48\n SBA, 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive, p. 21. (See footnote 46 for URL\n information.) The 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive instructs agencies to use a\n database called Tech-Net to check for duplicative funding. However, OpDivs review\n information on SBIR.gov, which contains all Tech-Net data. The 2012 SBIR Program\n Policy Directive requires agencies to develop policies and procedures to avoid funding\n duplicative work, which could include searching Tech-Net or SBIR.gov. SBA, 2012\n SBIR Program Policy Directive. Accessed at http://documents.scribd.com.s3.\n amazonaws.com/docs/6c90n43wxs1wmoxi. pdf?t=1351707349 on July 31, 2013.\n 49\n NIH, NIH Grants Policy Statement (October 2010), pp. I-54\xe2\x80\x93I-55. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_2010.pdf on October 7, 2011.\n 50\n OIG, Review of the Effectiveness of the National Institutes of Health\xe2\x80\x99s Administration\n of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, A-15-98-00031, November 1999.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 8\n\x0c 2011.51 We selected a sample of Phase I and II awardees from each HHS\n OpDiv. We also collected SBIR award data from each of the four\n participating HHS OpDivs and requested documents (e.g., internal policies\n or procedures) to determine the extent to which each of these OpDivs\n oversees its SBIR awards. We report data HHS-wide and for specific\n OpDivs, as appropriate.\n The SBIR program was reauthorized in December 2011. To incorporate\n changes from the reauthorization, SBA issued a new Policy Directive in\n October 2012, after our data collection concluded in May 2012. For this\n report, we reviewed SBIR awards administered under SBA\xe2\x80\x99s previous\n Policy Directive. Changes in the 2012 Policy Directive do not affect the\n results of our review.\n Data Collection and Analysis\n We collected and analyzed data to describe HHS SBIR expenditures in\n 2011 and to determine the extent to which HHS OpDivs tracked and\n assessed the commercialization of SBIR products and services. We also\n determined the extent to which HHS OpDivs ensured that awardees were\n eligible and that awards were not duplicative.\n Determining the Extent to Which HHS OpDivs Tracked and Assessed the\n Commercialization of SBIR Products or Services. We analyzed the\n responses to our requests for information and supporting documentation to\n determine the extent to which each HHS OpDiv evaluated the\n commercialization of SBIR awardees\xe2\x80\x99 products and services. We\n reviewed NIH\xe2\x80\x99s Niche Assessment and Commercialization Assistance\n Program data to determine the number of participants for which\n commercialization data was collected. We also determined how many\n SBIR awardees have self-reported success stories on NIH\xe2\x80\x99s Web site since\n 2001.\n Determining the Extent to Which HHS Ensured That SBIR Awardees Were\n Eligible. Using the data we received in response to our requests, we\n determined the extent to which HHS OpDivs verified and had written\n procedures to verify applicant eligibility beyond self-certification. We\n also asked SBA whether any HHS OpDivs had requested its assistance in\n determining eligibility.\n To determine the extent to which HHS OpDivs ensured that SBIR\n awardees met eligibility requirements, we selected a random sample of\n\n\n 51\n RePORT is a publically available site that provides access to reports, data, and analyses\n of NIH research activities, including information on NIH awards. NIH, The ReSource,\n Issue 1 (no date; circa 2010\xe2\x80\x932011). Accessed at http://report.nih.gov/resource/issue1/ on\n December 5, 2013.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 9\n\x0c 137 SBIR awards, stratified by OpDiv. The number of awards that CDC\n and FDA granted in 2011 was small in comparison to that of NIH.52\n Therefore, we included all awards from CDC and FDA to ensure that\n awards from these OpDivs were included in our sample. Table 1 shows\n the sample of awards used to analyze eligibility by stratum and the\n population of 2011 awards. This stratified random sample is projectable to\n all 2011 HHS SBIR awards.53\n Table 1: Sample and Population of 2011 SBIR Awards\n Awards in Award Amount Awards in Award Amount\n Stratum Sample in Sample Population in Population\n NIH 100 $40,768,573 957 $353,529,688\n CDC 26 $4,889,690 26 $4,889,690\n FDA 11 $1,479,428 11 $1,479,428\n Total 137 $47,137,691 994 $359,898,806\n Source: OIG analysis of SBIR awardees reported by HHS OpDivs.\n\n\n See Appendix B for a detailed methodology of our process for verifying\n awardee eligibility.\n Determining the Extent to Which HHS OpDivs Ensured That SBIR Awards\n Were Not Duplicative. We used the responses to our information requests\n to determine the extent to which HHS reviewed SBIR awards for\n duplicative funding. We used the stratified random sample of 137 HHS\n SBIR awards described in Table 1 to determine whether any projects were\n listed multiple times in NIH databases using RePORT.\n All estimates in this report are projected to the specified population or\n subpopulation of 2011 SBIR awards, at the 95-percent confidence level.\n Appendix C shows the sample size, point estimates, and 95-percent\n confidence intervals for all statistics in this report.\n Limitations\n We did not independently verify data reported by HHS and SBA.\n Additionally, some Web sites used to verify awardees\xe2\x80\x99 eligibility contained\n self-reported data submitted voluntarily. We did not independently verify\n information reported on these Web sites, and we did not attempt to verify\n awardees\xe2\x80\x99 eligibility through other means if they had no information on\n these Web sites.\n\n\n\n\n 52\n ACF allowed NIH to award ACF\xe2\x80\x99s 2011 SBIR funds, totaling $395,770. NIH, SBIR\n Program Annual Report to the U.S. Small Business Administration. \n\n 53\n To project our findings, we weighted each sample statistic by the total number of\n\n awards from each stratum, or OpDiv. \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 10\n\x0c Standards\n This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for\n Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General\n on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 11\n\x0c FINDINGS\n HHS awarded $360 million in SBIR funds to nearly\n 1,000 awardees in 2011\n In 2011, HHS funded 994 Phase I and II SBIR awards for a total of\n $360 million, second to only the Department of Defense in the amount of\n SBIR funding among Federal agencies.54 This amount does not reflect\n HHS\xe2\x80\x99 total SBIR expenditures in 2011 because it does not include SBIR\n funds used in 2011 for awards funded in previous years. According to its\n annual report to SBA, HHS obligated $617 million for all SBIR\n expenditures in 2011.55 NIH awarded 957 of HHS\xe2\x80\x99 994 SBIR awards in\n 2011, which amounted to $353.5 million, or 98 percent of all HHS SBIR\n dollars.\n Agencies are permitted to exceed SBIR funding guidelines if they submit\n written justification in their annual report to SBA. In 2011,\n 528 (53 percent) of HHS\xe2\x80\x99 SBIR awards exceeded the amounts in the\n funding guidelines, totaling nearly $170 million in funds over the\n guideline amounts.56 In its annual report to SBA, HHS included one\n general justification for all awards that exceeded the amounts in the\n funding guidelines.\n On average, HHS Phase I awards exceeded funding guidelines by\n $111,819, ranging from $43 to $1.6 million in excess. Phase II awards\n exceeded guidelines by an average of $301,584, ranging from $7,031 to\n $2 million in excess. Further, for FYs 2009\xe2\x80\x932011, HHS\xe2\x80\x99 average award\n amounts for Phase I and II awards exceeded the average SBIR award\n amount across the Federal Government by $121,000 and $568,000,\n respectively.57 HHS had the highest average award amount for Phase I\n and II awards during this period.\n See Figure 2 for a comparison of average HHS awards and average awards\n for the 10 other participating agencies.\n\n\n\n\n 54\n The Department of Defense awarded 2,754 awards for a total of $1.04 billion in 2011.\n Department of Defense, Department of Defense SBIR Annual Summary Report.\n Accessed at http://www.dodsbir.net/annualreport/annrpt.html on April 8, 2013.\n 55\n HHS, SBIR Program Annual Report to the U.S. Small Business Administration.\n 56\n Phase II awards span 2 or more years. For this portion of our data analysis, we\n\n included the Phase II amount awarded for FY 2011.\n\n 57\n SBA, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, FY-2009\xe2\x80\x932011, p. 7. \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 12\n\x0c Figure 2: Average Award Amounts for HHS and All Other Participating\n Agencies, FY 2011\n\n $1,600,000\n $1,388,000\n $1,400,000\n $1,200,000\n $1,000,000\n $800,000\n $606,200\n $600,000\n $400,000 $251,000\n $200,000 $100,400\n $0\n Phase I Phase II\n\n HHS All Other Agencies\n\n Source: OIG analysis of SBA\xe2\x80\x99s SBIR and STTR Annual Report for FY 2009-2011\n\n\n Although HHS OpDivs are not required to collect\n information on the commercial success of SBIR\n awards, one of the four OpDivs did so\n One goal of the SBIR program is to increase the commercialization of\n federally funded research. However, SBA does not require agencies to\n track the commercial success of SBIR projects. Further, at the time of this\n review, SBIR awardees were not required to report commercialization data\n (e.g., patents acquired, products and services developed and sold to\n companies or the general public) to OpDivs.58 Without consistent tracking\n or an assessment of commercial success, HHS cannot determine whether\n the SBIR program is meeting its commercialization goal. Although\n NIH\xe2\x80\x94which awards the bulk of HHS\xe2\x80\x99s SBIR funds\xe2\x80\x94collects information\n on the commercial success of awards, the other three HHS OpDivs that\n made SBIR awards did not. Furthermore, the information that NIH\n collects is limited in scope.\n\n\n\n 58\n SBA\xe2\x80\x99s 2012 Policy Directive establishes a Commercialization Database to store\n information reported by awardees on the commercial activity resulting from their past\n SBIR awards. SBIR awardees are required to update information on their prior Phase II\n awards in the Commercialization Database when submitting an application for an SBIR\n Phase II award and upon completion of the last deliverable for that award. However,\n awardees are not required to update this information if they do not apply for a second\n Phase II award. SBA, 2012 Policy Directive, pp. 44\xe2\x80\x9345. Accessed at\n http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/6c90n43wxs1wmoxi.pdf?t=13517\n 07349 on July 31, 2013.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 13\n\x0c None of the HHS OpDivs had a comprehensive, standardized data\n collection system to track the commercialization of products and services\n resulting from SBIR awards. NIH collects limited information on the\n commercial success of SBIR awards. Specifically, it uses survey data\n stored in the Performance Outcomes Database System (PODS) to assess\n commercial outcomes. However, the information in PODS is based solely\n on two surveys (conducted in 2002 and 2008) of Phase II NIH SBIR\n awardees.59 Further, responses to the surveys were voluntary.60 NIH also\n uses PODS to store Commercialization Assistance Program outcome data\n (e.g., estimated cumulative sales, number of awardees receiving additional\n non-SBIR funding) that it collects throughout an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s time in the\n program.61 However, providing data is voluntary and limited to the\n relatively low number of Commercialization Assistance Program\n participants (39 of 203 Phase II awardees in 2011).62 Because NIH\n received only limited and inconsistent data from program participants, it\n does not use PODS data as a metric to judge the commercial success of\n SBIR projects.\n As of 2011, NIH did not collect commercialization data from Niche\n Assessment Program Participants. Of the 12,836 SBIR awards funded\n since 2002, 99 awardees (less than 1 percent) reported commercialization\n of products and services on the NIH Web site.63\n\n Although all SBIR awardees certified their eligibility,\n 31 percent of awardees had questionable or unverified\n eligibility for at least one requirement\n Applicants are required to check a box on the electronic SBIR application\n certifying that they intend to meet all of the SBIR program\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility\n\n 59\n In 2004, 2005 and 2007, NIH followed up with awardees selected to participate in the\n original 2002 survey and updated the information stored in PODS. NIH, Report on the\n 2007 Outcome Measures Update, p. 1. Accessed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/\n funding/sbir_pods_final_rpt_2007.pdf on September 4, 2013.\n 60\n NIH, National Survey to Evaluate the NIH SBIR Program (January 2009), p. I-3.\n Accessed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir_2008surveyreport.pdf on April 22,\n 2013.\n 61\n Sally J. Rockey, Ph. D., Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH, SBIR:\n Defining Metrics and Outcomes of Success. July 2012. Accessed at\n http://smrb.od.nih.gov/documents/presentations/2012/rockey_07112012.pdf on April 17,\n 2013.\n 62\n SBIR awardees that received Phase II awards before 2006 were not eligible to\n participate in the Commercialization Assistance Program. NIH, Commercialization\n Assistance Program for Phase II Awardees. Accessed at\n http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/cap/more_on_cap.htm on January 7, 2013.\n 63\n The NIH Web site includes self-reported data from SBIR and STTR awardees. When\n we reviewed the self-reported data, we were unable to determine in which of the two\n programs the awardees were participating.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 14\n\x0c requirements at the time of the award. If an OpDiv is uncertain whether\n an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s certification is accurate, it may, but is not required to,\n independently verify the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility or request that SBA assist\n with determining eligibility.\n In 2011, all SBIR awardees self-certified that they intended to meet\n eligibility requirements at the time of the award. Using data sources\n commonly used by other Federal agencies to identify potentially ineligible\n SBIR awardees, we found that 31 percent of awardees had questionable\n eligibility for at least one requirement (16 percent of awardees) or\n unverified eligibility for at least one requirement (20 percent of awardees).\n Six percent of SBIR awardees in 2011 had questionable eligibility for at\n least one requirement and unverified eligibility for at least one other\n requirement.64 Although they are not required to do so, HHS OpDivs did\n not take any steps to independently verify that these awardees met\n eligibility requirements.65\n Sixteen percent of awardees had questionable eligibility for at\n least one requirement\n We found information indicating that 16 percent of SBIR awardees in\n 2011 may not have met at least one eligibility requirement. Therefore, we\n considered the eligibility of these awardees to be questionable. Table 2\n shows the number of awardees in our sample that had questionable\n eligibility for each requirement.\n\n\n\n\n 64\n The percentage of awardees with questionable eligibility for at least one requirement,\n unverified eligibility for at least one requirement, and both questionable and unverified\n eligibility does not sum to 31 because of rounding.\n 65\n NIH requested SBA assistance with determining eligibility for 4 of the nearly\n 1,000 awardees in 2011. However, none of these four awardees were in our sample of\n 2011 SBIR awards.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 15\n\x0c Table 2: Eligibility Requirements and Corresponding Numbers of\n Awardees in Our Sample With Questionable Eligibility, 2011\n Number of Awardees in\n Eligibility Requirement Our Sample With\n Questionable Eligibility\n\n Principal Investigator\xe2\x80\x99s primary employer was the SBIR awardee 21\n\n\n SBIR awardee had fewer than 500 employees 4\n\n\n SBIR awardee had a place of business and operated primarily in the\n 2\n United States\n\n\n SBIR company was for-profit 0\n\n\n Source: OIG analysis of HHS SBIR awardees, 2012\n\n The eligibility of 21 awardees in our sample was questionable because we\n found information indicating that the awardee was not the Principal\n Investigators\xe2\x80\x99 primary employer. For example, one Principal Investigator\n for an award in our sample listed three positions on his LinkedIn profile at\n the time the SBIR award was made, including a full-time position at a\n university. This Principal Investigator was associated with one SBIR\n award in 2011 totaling $575,303. Another Principal Investigator for an\n award in our sample stated in her LinkedIn profile that she was the\n president of two companies and head of business development for a third\n company at the time of the SBIR award. This Principal Investigator was\n also listed as an employee on the three organizations\xe2\x80\x99 Web sites. This\n Principal Investigator was associated with one SBIR award in 2011\n totaling $143,301.\n The eligibility of 4 awardees in our sample was questionable because we\n found information indicating that the awardees, or their affiliate(s), had\n more than 500 employees. One awardee in our sample was owned by a\n larger company with 7,200 employees and was awarded $582,698 in SBIR\n funds in 2011.\n The eligibility of two awardees in our sample was questionable because\n we found information indicating that the awardees did not maintain a U.S.\n place of business and/or did not operate primarily in the United States.\n One awardee\xe2\x80\x99s Web site stated that many of its devices are made in the\n company\xe2\x80\x99s location in Canada. This company received two awards for a\n total of $399,938 in SBIR funds in 2011.\n We did not find information indicating that any awardee in our sample was\n not organized as a for-profit entity.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 16\n\x0c Challenges exist in verifying the eligibility of 20 percent of\n SBIR awardees\n Twenty percent of SBIR awardees in 2011 had unverified eligibility for\n one or more of the four eligibility requirements\xe2\x80\x94i.e., we could not find\n information in any of our searches to verify the awardee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility for\n the requirement(s). Two awardees in our sample had unverified eligibility\n for three requirements. There was one awardee in our sample for which\n we were unable to verify any of the four eligibility requirements. Table 3\n shows each eligibility requirement and the corresponding number of\n awardees in our sample with unverified eligibility.\n Table 3: Eligibility Requirements and Corresponding Numbers of\n Awardees in Our Sample With Unverified Eligibility, 2011\n Number of Awardees in\n Eligibility Requirement Our Sample With\n Unverified Eligibility\n\n Principal Investigator\xe2\x80\x99s primary employer was the SBIR awardee 13\n\n\n SBIR awardee had fewer than 500 employees 14\n\n\n SBIR awardee had a place of business and operated primarily in the\n 6\n United States\n\n\n SBIR company was for-profit 3\n\n\n Source: OIG analysis of HHS SBIR awardees, 2012\n\n For 13 awardees in our sample, we were unable to verify that the awardee\n was the Principal Investigator\xe2\x80\x99s primary employer. For these awardees,\n we were unable to find documentation confirming that the Principal\n Investigator was employed by the awardee.\n For 14 of the awardees in our sample in 2011, we were unable to verify\n that the company had fewer than 500 employees. For these awardees, we\n were unable to find documentation on LinkedIn, Manta, or other Web sites\n confirming the number of employees at the company or its affiliate(s).\n Further, we were unable to verify that six awardees in our sample had a\n place of business and operated primarily in the United States. For these\n awardees, we found documentation that the companies operated in foreign\n business locations and could not find documentation that the company\n operated primarily in the United States.\n Finally, we were unable to verify whether three awardees in our sample\n were for-profit companies. For these awardees, we were unable to find\n documentation confirming that the awarded company was a for-profit\n business.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 17\n\x0c HHS OpDivs did not perform a required check for\n duplicative awards across other Federal agencies\n Each Federal agency is required to check SBIR.gov for duplicative awards\n within the agency and across other Federal agencies before granting an\n SBIR award. Other agencies have identified awardees that committed\n fraud by not disclosing that they had received awards from other agencies\n for the same work.66 While NIH checks for duplicative funding within\n HHS, none of the four HHS OpDivs checked SBIR.gov for duplicative\n awards across Federal agencies in 2011.\n To check for duplicative funding within HHS, NIH reported that it\n compares SBIR applications to existing SBIR awards within HHS by\n searching IMPAC II, which contains information on HHS awards only.67\n NIH reported that no duplication within HHS occurred in 2011. We also\n did not identify any cases of duplicative awards within HHS. No other\n HHS OpDivs had procedures for performing checks for duplicative\n funding within HHS.\n None of the HHS OpDivs checked SBIR.gov for duplicative awards\n across Federal agencies, as required. NIH has procedures to perform\n limited checks for duplicative funding across Federal agencies. These\n checks, known as \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures, require applicants to self-\n disclose information on other active and pending financial resources,\n including other grants and contracts, before receiving an award. However,\n the procedures do not include steps to independently verify the\n information reported by applicants. No other HHS OpDivs had\n procedures for performing checks for duplicative funding across Federal\n agencies.\n\n\n\n\n 66\n Alison Lerner, Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, Statement Before\n the Senate Committee of Science, Commerce, and Transportation, August 6, 2009.\n Accessed at http://www.nsf.gov/oig/SBIRtestimonyAugust6.pdf on August 19, 2013.\n See also, NASA, Review of NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Management of its Small Business Innovation\n Research Program. Accessed at http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-010-\n R.pdf on July 10, 2013.\n 67\n IMPAC II is also available to CDC, but the OpDiv reported that it relies on applicants\n to disclose duplicate SBIR funding.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 18\n\x0c CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n Since the implementation of the SBIR program in 1982, HHS has funded\n more than $8 billion in awards to small businesses pursuing innovative\n research ideas. Furthermore, the reauthorization of the SBIR program in\n December 2011 increased the percentage of SBIR funds awarded by\n participating agencies from 2.5 percent of their annual extramural research\n budgets in 2012 to 3.2 percent by 2017.\n In 1999, OIG reported that HHS had not evaluated the success of the SBIR\n program. Further, other Federal agencies have identified SBIR awardees\n that falsely certified that they met eligibility requirements and received\n duplicative funding.\n In 2011, HHS awarded $360 million in SBIR funds to nearly\n 1,000 awardees and had the highest average SBIR award amount of any\n participating agency. However, HHS does not have a central office for\n overseeing the SBIR program.\n HHS did not consistently collect information on the commercial success of\n awards and therefore cannot determine whether the program is increasing\n the commercialization of federally funded research, one of the primary\n goals of the program. Additionally, all awardees in 2011 self-certified that\n they intended to meet SBIR eligibility requirements at the time of the\n award. However, using data sources commonly used by other Federal\n agencies to identify potentially ineligible SBIR awardees, we found that\n 31 percent of awardees had questionable or unverified eligibility for at\n least one requirement. Although they are not required to do so, HHS\n OpDivs did not take any steps to independently verify the eligibility of\n these awardees. Furthermore, while one OpDiv checked for duplicative\n funding within HHS, none of the four OpDivs completed a required check\n for duplicative awards across other Federal agencies.\n Our findings raise concerns about vulnerabilities in the HHS SBIR\n program, including the inability to evaluate the program\xe2\x80\x99s success and the\n reliance on self-reported information to determine whether awardees are\n eligible and are not receiving duplicative funding from other Federal\n agencies.\n Therefore, we recommend that HHS:\n Create a central office to oversee the SBIR program\n Unlike most other participating agencies, HHS does not have a central\n office responsible for overseeing the SBIR program. Each OpDiv is\n separately responsible for awarding SBIR funds and overseeing these\n awards. The 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directive requires HHS to\n increase its coordination with other participating agencies and with HHS\xe2\x80\x99s\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 19\n\x0c OIG to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the SBIR program. HHS should\n create a central office to facilitate this coordination and to ensure\n consistent oversight among OpDivs. Central office functions could\n include coordinating with OIG, developing agencywide policies and\n procedures, increasing oversight, and fulfilling agency reporting\n requirements. A central office would also facilitate the consistent\n implementation of our remaining recommendations.\n Collect information to track and assess SBIR-funded projects\xe2\x80\x99\n commercialization\n SBA\xe2\x80\x99s new Policy Directive requires awardees to report commercialization\n data to a central Commercialization Database. The implementation of this\n requirement is ongoing; however, while these data are unavailable, HHS\n OpDivs should develop processes to track commercialization of SBIR\n awardees. These processes should be consistent among OpDivs. OpDivs\n should use this information to determine whether the SBIR program is\n meeting its goal of increasing private-sector commercialization of Federal\n research and development innovations.\n Ensure compliance with SBIR eligibility requirements\n The 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directive requires agencies to ensure\n compliance with SBIR eligibility requirements. SBA requires that\n awardees meet eligibility requirements at the time of the award. HHS\n OpDivs should take actions to ensure that awardees will meet\n requirements before they receive SBIR funds. These actions could include\n implementing a standardized process for verifying that a random or risk-\n based sample of awardees meets all eligibility requirements at the time of\n the award and during the life cycle of the award. OpDivs could also\n require applicants to provide proof that they will meet eligibility\n requirements at the time of the award and request SBA assistance to verify\n awardee eligibility.\n Improve procedures to check for duplicative awards\n The 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directive requires agencies to develop\n policies and procedures to avoid funding duplicative work. HHS should\n develop procedures beyond the \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures used by NIH.\n \xe2\x80\x9cJust-in-Time\xe2\x80\x9d procedures rely on self-reported information that does not\n allow HHS to determine whether awardees have completed similar\n projects in the past or whether multiple awardees are completing similar\n projects. The new procedures should be consistent across HHS OpDivs to\n ensure that all SBIR applicants receive the same scrutiny regarding\n duplicative awards.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 20\n\x0c AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n RESPONSE\n The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR)\n provides advice and guidance to the Secretary of HHS on grants and\n acquisition management and provided comments on behalf of HHS.\n ASFR stated that it is committed to the successful implementation and\n oversight of the SBIR program. ASFR did not indicate whether it\n concurred with each of our recommendations. However, ASFR agreed\n that additional coordination and oversight across the participating OpDivs\n is appropriate and warranted. ASFR further noted that it is working with\n the respective OpDivs to determine the most effective and efficient use of\n resources to accomplish this coordination.\n ASFR also agreed that HHS must ensure that applicants are in compliance\n with all SBIR eligibility requirements, noting that it will work with\n OpDivs to determine whether additional eligibility checks are required.\n However, ASFR stated that it has concerns about the official use of social\n media networking sites to verify applicant eligibility, and does not believe\n such sites are reliable sources of information for the purposes of\n confirming or questioning program eligibility. While we understand\n ASFR\xe2\x80\x99s concern, these are tools commonly used by other Federal agencies\n to identify potentially ineligible SBIR awardees.\n We support ASFR\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to address these issues and encourage it to\n continue making progress in these areas. We ask that, in its final\n management decision, ASFR clearly indicate whether it concurs with each\n of our recommendations and what steps, if any, it will take to implement\n them. For the full text of ASFR\xe2\x80\x99s comments, see Appendix D. We made\n minor corrections to the report on the basis of ASFR\xe2\x80\x99s technical\n comments.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 21\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n Table A-1: Differences in the 2011 and 2012 Small Business\n Innovation and Research Program Policy Directives\n\n Requirement 2011 SBIR Program Policy Directive 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directive\n\n Majority-owned by multiple venture capital Majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating\n operating companies, hedge funds and/or companies, hedge funds, and/or private equity firms\n Eligibility\n private equity firms are not eligible. are eligible, if agencies opt to include this provision.\n\n Eligibility Awardees certify their eligibility at the time Awardees certify their eligibility throughout the life\n Certification of the award. cycle of the award.\n Agencies may not exceed funding guidelines by\n more than 50 percent. Agencies must request a\n waiver to exceed funding guidelines by more than\n Agencies may exceed funding guidelines if 50 percent for a specific topic.\n the additional amount is fully justified and\n scientifically appropriate. Agencies must maintain information on awards that\n Exceeding Funding exceed funding guidelines, including the amount of\n Guidelines Agencies must submit written justification the award, justification for exceeding the guidelines\n of the excess funds with their Annual for each award, the identity and location of the\n Reports to SBA. awardee, whether the awardee has received any\n venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity firm\n investment, and whether the awardee is\n majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating\n companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms.\n Agencies and awardees must maintain\n Agencies are not required to collect or\n commercialization data in the Commercialization\n Commercialization track commercialization data. Awardees\n Database. Awardees are required to update\n Data may voluntarily submit and update\n commercialization data for prior Phase II awards\n commercialization data.\n when applying for a subsequent Phase II award.\nSource: OIG analysis of 2011 and 2012 SBIR Program Policy Directives.\n\n\n\n\n Vulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 22\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n Detailed Methodology for Verifying Awardee Eligibility\n For our sample of 137 SBIR program awards, we verified awardee\n eligibility using the Lexis/Nexis Accurint for Government (Accurint)\n database, State Business Registration Web sites, and awardee Web sites.68\n We used additional Web sites (e.g., Manta, LinkedIn) to collect\n information not available from the sources referenced above.69, 70 We\n chose these sources to verify awardee eligibility because these are tools\n commonly used by other Federal agencies to identify potentially ineligible\n SBIR awardees.71 We classified awardees as having \xe2\x80\x9cverified\xe2\x80\x9d eligibility\n if we could determine\xe2\x80\x94using these data sources\xe2\x80\x94that the awardees met\n all four eligibility requirements. If at least one data source indicated that\n an awardee met a given eligibility requirement, we considered that\n requirement to be verified. We classified awardees as having\n \xe2\x80\x9cquestionable\xe2\x80\x9d eligibility if we found information indicating that they may\n not meet one or more of the four eligibility requirements. We classified\n awardees as having \xe2\x80\x9cunverified\xe2\x80\x9d eligibility if we could not find\n information in any of our data sources indicating that awardees met one or\n more of the four eligibility requirements.72\n To verify awardee eligibility, we searched for the following information\n indicating that the awardee:\n 1) Was the Principal Investigator\xe2\x80\x99s primary employment. We used\n Accurint, Principal Investigators\xe2\x80\x99 profiles on LinkedIn, and other\n Internet searches to verify that the Principal Investigator was primarily\n employed by the awardee and did not have additional full-time\n\n 68\n Accurint is a database that collects a broad array of public records on businesses and \n\n individuals. For personal searches, Accurint contains information on Social Security\n\n numbers, driver\xe2\x80\x99s licenses, and professional licenses. Accurint can also reveal\n\n connections between people, businesses, assets, and locations that are not available in \n\n public records. For business searches, Accurint draws from corporate filings, property\n\n information, phone listings, professional licenses, and Securities and Exchange\n\n Commission filings, among other data. Information on property assets and court\n\n proceedings is also available both for individuals and businesses.\n\n 69\n Manta is an online community for promoting and connecting small businesses that \n\n contains approximately 87 million company profiles. Company profiles include \n\n information on company size, type, and location collected from multiple sources (e.g., \n\n public company financial and trade records, business registrations, government registries, \n\n and representatives of the company). \n\n 70\n LinkedIn is an online professional networking tool. Registered members create \n\n individual profiles containing information about current and past employment, education,\n\n and other professional interests, or company profiles containing general information \n\n about the business. We used only public information on the LinkedIn site. \n\n 71\n National Science Foundation, Fraud Indicators. \n\n 72\n Occasionally, deviation from some eligibility requirements may occur and must be \n\n approved in writing by the SBA. We did not request documentation of SBA-approved \n\n deviations from eligibility requirements. \n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 23\n\x0c employment at the time of the award. We considered whether the\n dates of employment on LinkedIn were during the award period. We\n considered an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility questionable if we found\n information indicating that the Principal Investigator was primarily\n employed at another company or institution at the time of the award.\n We determined that we could not verify whether an awardee met this\n requirement if we could not find information indicating that he or she\n was employed by the awardee.\n 2)\t Had fewer than 500 total employees, including affiliates. We used\n awardee profiles on LinkedIn and Manta and other Internet searches to\n verify that awardees had fewer than 500 employees. We considered an\n awardee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility to be questionable if we found information\n indicating that the awardee had more than 500 employees or was\n affiliated with an entity with more than 500 employees.73 We\n determined that we could not verify whether an awardee met this\n eligibility requirement if we could not find any information on an\n awardee\xe2\x80\x99s and/or affiliate\xe2\x80\x99s number of employees.\n 3)\t Has a place of business and operates primarily in the U.S. We used\n Accurint, company profiles on LinkedIn and Manta, State Business\n Registration Web sites, and additional Internet searches to verify that\n awardees had U.S. locations and/or operated primarily in the\n United States. We considered an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility questionable if\n we found information indicating that the awardee operated primarily in\n a foreign location. We determined that we could not verify that\n awardees met this requirement if we found information indicating that\n the awardee had foreign locations and we could not verify that it\n operated primarily in the United States. We did not consider\n contributions to the U.S. economy in this analysis.\n 4)\t Was a for-profit entity. We used the Accurint and State Business\n Registration Web sites to verify that awardees were for-profit entities.\n We considered an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility questionable if we found\n information indicating that the awardee was a not organized as a\n for-profit entity at the time of the award. We determined that we could\n not verify that awardees were for-profit entities if we could not find\n information to confirm the type of entity.\n\n\n\n 73\n In determining whether affiliation exists, SBA considers factors such as ownership,\n management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual\n relationships. However, we considered an awardee to be affiliated with an entity only if\n we found information explicitly stating that the awardee was owned and/or operated by\n the entity.\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 24\n\x0c APPENDIX C\nTable C-1: Estimate Descriptions, Sample Sizes, Point Estimates, and\nConfidence Intervals\n Sample Point Confidence\nEstimate Description\n Size Estimate* Interval\nAwardees With Verified Eligibility (i.e., we determined that the awardee\n 137 69% 55.6%--83.2%\nwas meeting all four eligibility requirements)\nAwardees With Questionable Eligibility (i.e., we found information\nindicating that the awardee was not meeting one or more of the following 137 16% 5.4%--27.1%\neligibility requirements)\nAwardees With Unverified Eligibility (i.e., we could not determine whether\nthe awardee was meeting one or more of the following eligibility 137 20% 8.6%--31.3%\nrequirements)\n\nAwardees with both a questionable and unverified eligibility requirement 137 6% 0.3%--11.1%\n\n* Weighted point estimates are provided rather than point estimates and confidence intervals because of small sample sizes. Each sample \n\nstatistic is weighted by the size of each stratum\xe2\x80\x99s population from which our sample was selected. \n\nSource: OIG analysis of HHS SBIR Program data, 2011. \n\n\n\n\n\n Vulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 25\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n Agency Comments\n\n\n DEI';\\RTMENT OF HEALTH & HUM!\\1\\ SERVICTS Office of the Secretary\n\n\n\n Washington, D.C. 20201\n\n\n ~t\\R 1 0 2014\n\n\n TO: Daniel R. Levinson\n Inspector General\n /S/\n FROM: Ulen G. Murray\n Assistant Secretary fod'inancial Resources and Chief Financial Officer\n\n SUB.JECT: I11-IS Comments on OIG Draft Report: Vulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business\n Innovation ami Research Program. OEJ-04-!1-00530\n\n The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial\n Resources (ASFR) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Office oflnspector\n General's draft report on Vulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation and Research\n Program, OEI-04-1!-00530.\n\n ASFR values the Small Business Innovation and Research Program (SBIR) and is committed to\n the successful implementation and oversight of the program. As reported, the National institutes\n of Health (NIH) awards the vast majority of the SBlR awards. NIH also serves an important\n function of coordinating much of the program with the other participating Operating Divisions.\n This approach has been successful in ensuring that the Operating Divisions work together to\n implement the requirements of the SBIR Program Policy Directive and the Small Business Act.\n\n ASFR concurs with the OIG that additional coordination and oversight across the participating\n Operating Divisions is appropriate and warranted. ASFR is currently working with the\n respective Operating Divisions to determine the most effective and efficient use of resources to\n accomplish this coordination. We will provide the OIG with an update on these efforts as they\n progress.\n\n ASFR also agrees that we must ensure that applicants are in compliance with all SBIR eligibility\n requirements. I lowever, ASFR has concerns about the official use ofwebsites such as Manta and\n Linked In and other similar sites to verify applicant eligibility. These sites, in particular, are\n social media networking sites; they are not government owned or controlled. The accuracy.\n completeness. and currency of the content are at the discretion of the user. There is no validation\n or quality control of any of the data at these sites. Therefore, ASFR believes that such sites are\n not reliable sources of information for the purposes of the government confirming or questioning\n eligibility for its programs. ASFR will work with the respective Operating Divisions to\n determine if additional, appropriate checks are required on eligibility. We will provide the OIG\n with an update on these efforts as they progress.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 26\n\x0c ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n This report was prepared under the direction of Dwayne Grant, Regional\n Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Atlanta regional\n office, and Jaime Durley, Deputy Regional Inspector General.\n Sarah Langford served as lead analyst. Office of Evaluation and\n Inspections staff from the Atlanta regional office who conducted this study\n include Sarah McLaulin. Central office staff who provided support\n include Clarence Arnold, Christine Moritz, and Talisha Searcy.\n\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities in the HHS Small Business Innovation Research Program (OEI-04-11-00530) 27\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n http://oig.hhs.gov\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as\namended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services\n(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those\nprograms. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits,\ninvestigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components:\n\nOffice of Audit Services\nThe Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting\naudits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits\nexamine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying\nout their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of\nHHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and\nmismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.\n\nOffice of Evaluation and Inspections\nThe Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide\nHHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant\nissues. These evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting\neconomy, efficiency, and effectiveness of departmental programs. To promote impact, OEI\nreports also present practical recommendations for improving program operations.\n\nOffice of Investigations\nThe Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations\nof fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With\ninvestigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources\nby actively coordinating with the Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local\nlaw enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI often lead to criminal\nconvictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties.\n\nOffice of Counsel to the Inspector General\nThe Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to\nOIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all\nlegal support for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal operations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and\nadministrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS programs, including False Claims Act,\nprogram exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In connection with these cases, OCIG\nalso negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG renders advisory\nopinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other\nguidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG\nenforcement authorities.\n\x0c"


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 13.9.2012
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 248/36
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 98/2012,
 30. aprill 2012,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu XXI lisa („Statistika”)
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi „leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu XXI lisa on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 30. märtsi 2012. aasta otsusega nr 73/2012 (1).
 (2)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 6. juuli 2011. aasta määrus (EL) nr 691/2011 Euroopa keskkonnamajandusliku arvepidamise kohta (2),
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu XXI lisasse punkti 27b (komisjoni määrus (EÜ) nr 1445/2005) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:
 „27c.
 32011 R 0691: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) nr 691/2011, 6. juuli 2011, Euroopa keskkonnamajandusliku arvepidamise kohta (ELT L 192, 22.7.2011, lk 1).
 Käesolevas lepingus loetakse eelnimetatud määruse sätteid järgmises kohanduses:
 a)
 Islandil rakendatakse määruse I, II ja III lisa kahe aasta jooksul pärast esimest edastamistähtaega,
 b)
 määrust ei kohaldata Liechtensteini suhtes.”
 Artikkel 2
 Määruse (EL) nr 691/2011 islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 1. mail 2012, tingimusel et EMP Ühiskomiteele on edastatud kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõike 1 kohased teated (3).
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 30. aprill 2012
 EMP Ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja kohusetäitja
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ELT L 207, 2.8.2012, lk 53.
 (2) ELT L 192, 22.7.2011, lk 1.
 (3) Põhiseadusest tulenevad nõuded on nimetatud.


text:
Mere om afsendelse og modtagelse af breve og dokumenter - Codexlaw
 Mere om afsendelse og modtagelse af breve og dokumenter
 I relation til vores tidligere artikel ”Er en afsendt mail også modtaget?” har Højesteret for nyligt truffet afgørelse i to andre sager, som belyser øvrige situationer, hvor det er afgørende for afsender at et dokument er kommet frem til modtageren af hensyn til at opfylde formalia og frister.
 Hvornår er det bevist, at et brev er modtaget?
 Mange meddelelser sendes via brev og uden dokumentation for modtagelse kan det ende ud i påstand mod påstand, om brevet er modtaget.
 I Højesterets kendelse af 11. marts 2020 var hovedspørgsmålet, om et påkrav om betaling af restance var kommet frem til modtageren. I sagen havde en andelshaver i en boligforening ikke rettidigt betalt boligafgift. Som følge heraf sendte bestyrelsen et påkrav, hvori andelshaveren blev informeret om, at han ved manglende betaling af restance senest 14 dage efter modtagelse af brevet ville blive ekskluderet. Brevet var både sendt med almindelig post og som anbefalet brev. Da andelshaveren fortsat ikke betalte, valgte bestyrelsen at ekskludere ham.
 Konflikten opstod, fordi andelshaveren påstod, at han ikke havde modtaget betalingspåkravet. Af PostNord’s ”Track & Trace” registrering fremgik, at det anbefalede brev var forsøgt leveret hos andelshaveren, men at vedkommende ikke var hjemme, hvorfor brevet efterfølgende blev lagt til afhentning på posthuset. Desuden havde en kundeservicemedarbejder fra PostNord i en mail oplyst, at det anbefalede brev blev forsøgt omdelt på andelshaverens adresse, samt at der blev lagt en besked til andelshaveren om afhentning på posthuset.
 Højesteret fandt det godtgjort, at betalingspåkravet var kommet frem til andelshaveren og lagde ved afgørelsen vægt på PostNord’s ”Track & Trace” registreringer, mailen fra kundeservicemedarbejderen samt, at der ikke var registreret uregelmæssigheder i postomdelingen.
 Afgørelsen viser, at der ligesom ved fremsendelse af en mail, skal være bevis for, at brevet er kommet frem til modtageren. Det blev i sagen afgørende, at brevet var sendt med anbefalet post og Track & Trace-muligheden, fordi der som følge heraf var registreringer over brevets færden.
 Hvilken betydning kan tekniske problemer have?
 IT er ikke altid til at stole på, og tekniske problemer kan opstå. Disse kan resultere i, at man ikke får afsendt en meddelelse efter den korrekte procedure, eller man ikke overholder en tidsfrist.
 Denne udfordring for afsender behandles i en afgørelse afsagt af Højesteret den 11. februar 2020, som omhandler en sag, hvor tekniske problemer forhindrede en advokat i at afgive et kæreskrift til retten via domstolenes digitale sagsportal, hvorfor han i stedet fremsendte kæreskriftet ved mail.
 Højesteret skulle tage stilling til, om kæreskriftet var indgivet rettidigt, selvom der ikke var truffet beslutning om at tillade, at kæreskriftet kunne fremsendes ved mail. Advokaten gjorde gældende, at ”opret appel”-knappen på sagsportalen var inaktiv på det pågældende tidspunkt, hvor kæreskriftet senest skulle indgives.
 Det bemærkes, at landsretten afviste kæremålet, idet landsretten ikke mente, at advokaten havde godtgjort, at der var hindringer for at indlevere kæreskriftet på den digitale sagsportal. Da advokaten skulle indgive kæreskriftet fra Østre Landsret til Højesteret, opstod de samme tekniske problemer dog, hvorfor advokaten orienterede Domstolsstyrelsen og Østre Landsret. Problemerne blev herefter identificeret og løst. Forløbet, at de tekniske problemer opstår igen, og at advokaten denne gang påpegede problemet, må antages at have haft en bevismæssig betydning.
 Højesteret anså det for godtgjort, at der var særlige tekniske problemer, der forhindrede, at kæreskriftet kunne indgives på den digitale sagsportal, og at det ikke var muligt inden kærefristens udløb samme dag at søge om tilladelse til at indgive kæreskriftet ved mail. Højesteret lagde også vægt på, at kærende orienterede den anden parts advokat om indlevering af kæreskriftet. Dermed ansås kæreskriftet helt undtagelsesvist for gyldigt indgivet ved mail.
 Afgørelsen kan være et fingerpeg om, at domstolene vil være mere indstillede på at gøre undtagelser, når der er tale om tekniske problemer, men det vil stadig være afgørende, at der foreligger beviser som godtgør, at der reelt var hindringer, og det ikke blot skyldes afsenders egne forhold.
 Begge afgørelser viser vigtigheden af efterfølgende at kunne bevise, at bestemte breve eller dokumenter er kommet frem til modtageren – særligt i de tilfælde, hvor det er afgørende i forhold til at overholde formalia eller frister.
 Afgørelse om fremkomst af påkrav i andelsboligforhold, som blev afsagt den 11. marts 2020: http://www.hoejesteret.dk/hoejesteret/nyheder/Afgorelser/Pages/Fremkomstafpaakraviandelsboligforhold.aspx


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 11951K/PRO/CJ/31
 TRAITE INSTITUANT LA COMMUNAUTE EUROPEENNE DU CHARBON ET DE L' ACIER ( CECA ), PROTOCOLE SUR LE STATUT DE LA COUR DE JUSTICE DE LA COMMUNAUTE EUROPEENNE DU CHARBON ET DE L' ACIER, TITRE III: PROCEDURE, ARRETS
 ++++ARTICLE 31 LES ARRETS SONT SIGNES PAR LE PRESIDENT, LE JUGE RAPPORTEUR ET LE GREFFIER . ILS SONT LUS EN SEANCE PUBLIQUE .


type: caselaw

text:
 31.10.2016
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 402/38
 Rozsudok Všeobecného súdu z 15. septembra 2016 – European Dynamics Luxembourg a Evropaïki Dynamiki/Komisia
 (Vec T-698/14) (1)
 ((„Verejné zákazky na služby - Postup verejného obstarávania - Poskytnutie externých služieb na rozvoj, štúdie a podporu informačných systémov (ESP DESIS III) - Zaradenie uchádzača podľa mechanizmu zostupného poradia - Povinnosť odôvodnenia - Ponuky s neobvykle nízkou cenou - Zásada voľnej hospodárskej súťaže - Mimozmluvná zodpovednosť“))
 (2016/C 402/42)
 Jazyk konania: gréčtina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyne: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembursko) a Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Atény, Grécko) (v zastúpení: pôvodne V. Christianos, I. Ampazis a M. Sfyri, neskôr M. Sfyri, advokáti)
 Žalovaná: Európska komisia (v zastúpení: S. Delaude a S. Lejeune, splnomocnení zástupcovia, za právnej pomoci pôvodne E. Petritsi, E. Roussou a K. Adamantopoulos, neskôr E. Roussou a K. Adamantopoulos, advokáti)
 Predmet veci
 Na jednej strane návrh na základe článku 263 ZFEÚ na zrušenie rozhodnutí Komisie o zaradení ponúk predložených žalobkyňami týkajúcich sa častí 1 a 3 verejného obstarávania DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 – ESP DESIS III „Poskytnutie externých služieb na rozvoj, štúdie a podporu informačných systémov“ (Ú. v. EÚ 2013/S 19-0380314) na štvrté a tretie miesto podľa mechanizmu zostupného poradia a o vylúčení ich ponuky týkajúcej sa časti 2 tohto verejného obstarávania, a na druhej strane návrh na základe článku 268 ZFEÚ, ktoré cieľom je získať náhradu škody, ktorú žalobkyne údajne utrpeli
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Žaloba sa zamieta.
 2.
 European Dynamics Luxembourg SA a Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE sú povinné nahradiť trovy konania.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 448, 15.12.2014.


type: wikipedia

text:
Maestro y poeta veracruzano (Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, México; 20 de noviembre de 1946 - Ciudad de México; 30 de diciembre de 2006 ). Creador de la letra del himno veracruzano. Escribió una decena de libros de poesía, narrativa y cuento en aproximadamente 20 años de carrera literaria.
 Biografía
 Francisco Morosini Cordero nació el 20 de noviembre de 1946 en la ciudad de Coatzacoalcos y falleció en la ciudad de México en el año 2006. Fue docente en la Universidad Veracruzana y en la Escuela de Escritores de Veracruz, que él fundó.
 Estudio en la Escuela Secundaria y de Bachilleres Miguel Alemán González, También en la Escuela de Bachilleres “Artículo Tercero Constitucional” en la ciudad de Xalapa, en donde concluye su bachillerato.
 En la ciudad de México estudio la carrera de ingeniería en Electrónica y Comunicaciones en el Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Fue catedrático en el IPN.
 Como docente además del IPN impartió clases en la Facultad de Comercio tanto en Xalapa, como en Coatzacoalcos, siendo Director de esta última Institución en el año de 1980.
 También fue Director de Trámites Escolares de la Universidad Veracruzana, Director de Asuntos Ecológicos del Gobierno del Estado, estos cargos en la capital del Estado. también trabajo en el Ayuntamiento de Coatzacoalcos.
 Himno Veracruzano
 Junto con el músico polaco Ryszard Siwy compuso en el año 2005 el himno veracruzano.
 Obra literaria
 Poemarios
 Poeta del mar
 De amores y circunstancias
 Cantos para la Navidad
 El calendario que a diario
 Retazos de Naturaleza
 Jardín de letras
 Narrativa
 De memoria...
 El frágil recuerdo
 Así de breve es la vida,
 Coatzacoalcos
 Tajín: voces y silencios
 Uno dos tres por mí y mis compañeros
 La poesía en el Quijote
 Invitación a la Ecología
 Referencias
 Veracruzanos
 Poetas de Veracruz


text:
 25.6.2005
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 155/4
 Ersuchen um Vorabentscheidung, vorgelegt durch Entscheidung des Conseil d'Etat (Streitsachenabteilung) (Frankreich) vom 15. Dezember 2004 in dem Rechtsstreit Denkavit International BV und Denkavit France SARL gegen Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Finanzen und Industrie
 (Rechtssache C-170/05)
 (2005/C 155/09)
 Verfahrenssprache: Französisch
 Der Conseil d'Etat (Streitsachenabteilung) (Frankreich) ersucht den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften durch Entscheidung vom 15. Dezember 2004, bei der Kanzlei des Gerichtshofes eingegangen am 8. Februar 2005, in dem Rechtsstreit Denkavit International BV und Denkavit France SARL gegen Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Finanzen und Industrie um Vorabentscheidung über folgende Fragen:
 1.
 Ist eine Regelung, die eine nicht in Frankreich ansässige Muttergesellschaft beim Bezug von Dividenden mit einer Steuer belastet, in Frankreich ansässige Muttergesellschaften aber davon befreit, im Hinblick auf den Grundsatz der Niederlassungsfreiheit zu beanstanden?
 2.
 Ist eine derartige Quellensteuerregelung bereits als solche im Hinblick auf den Grundsatz der Niederlassungsfreiheit zu beanstanden, oder ist bei der Prüfung der Vereinbarkeit dieser Regelung mit dem Grundsatz der Niederlassungsfreiheit ein Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen zwischen Frankreich und einem anderen Mitgliedstaat zu berücksichtigen, das diese Quellensteuer zulässt und die Möglichkeit vorsieht, dass die aufgrund der streitigen Regelung gezahlten Steuern auf den in diesem anderen Staat zu entrichtenden Steuerbetrag angerechnet werden können?
 3.
 Falls die zweite Alternative der zweiten Frage bejaht wird, genügt die Existenz des Abkommens, damit die streitige Regelung als eine bloße Methode zur Aufteilung des Steuergegenstands zwischen den beiden beteiligten Staaten verstanden werden kann, die keine Auswirkung auf die Unternehmen hat, oder muss der Umstand, dass es für eine nicht in Frankreich ansässige Muttergesellschaft unmöglich sein kann, die in dem Abkommen vorgesehene Anrechnung vorzunehmen, dazu führen, dass diese Regelung als eine Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Niederlassungsfreiheit anzusehen ist?


text:
C 261/16 EL Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 26.10.2002
 Κανονισμού Υπηρεσιακής Καταστάσεως των υπαλλήλων των Προσφυγή του José Lloris Maeso κατά της Επιτροπής των
 Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, o Πρόεδρος του Πρωτοδικείου εξέδωσε Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, που ασκήθηκε στις 29 Ιουνίου
 στις 14 Αυγούστου 2002 διάταξη με το ακόλουθο διατακτικό: 2002
 (Υπόθεση T-165/02)
 1) Απορρίπτει την αίτηση ασφαλιστικών μέτρων.
 (2002/C 261/31)
 2) Επιφυλάσσεται ως προς τα δικαστικά έξοδα.
 (Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η ισπανική)
 Ο José Lloris Maeso, με τόπο επιδόσεων την Βαλένθια (Ισπανία),
 εκπροσωπούμενος από τον δικηγόρο Julián Bosch Abarca, άσκησε
 ενώπιον του Πρωτοδικείου των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, στις
 29 Ιουνίου 2002, προσφυγή κατά της Επιτροπής των Ευρωπαϊκών
 Κοινοτήτων.
 ∆ΙΑΤΑΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΕ∆ΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΩΤΟ∆ΙΚΕΙΟΥ
 Ο προσφεύγων ζητεί από το Πρωτοδικείο:
 — να ακυρώσει την απόφαση της εξεταστικής επιτροπής του
 της 16ης Ιουλίου 2002 διαγωνισμού COM/A/10/01 (Derecho), της 2ας Μαΐου
 2002, και να γίνει δεκτός στην επόμενη φάση του εν λόγω
 διαγωνισμού.
 στην υπόθεση T-207/02 R, Nicoletta Falcone κατά Επιτρο-
 πής των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων
 Λόγοι ακυρώσεως και κύρια επιχειρήματα
 («∆ιαδικασία ασφαλιστικών μέτρων — ∆ιαδικασία διαγω-
 νισμού — Προσωρινά μέτρα — Κατεπείγον — ∆εν υφίστα- Ο προσφεύγων στην υπό κρίση διαφορά βάλλει κατά της αποφά-
 ται») σεως της εξεταστικής επιτροπής του διαγωνισμού COM/A/10/01
 (Derecho), που του κοινοποιήθηκε με έγγραφο της 2ας Μαΐου
 2002, στο μέτρο που σε μία από τις προκριματικές δοκιμασίες
 (2002/C 261/30) του εν λόγω διαγωνισμού, συγκεκριμένα τη δοκιμασία a), έλαβε
 λιγότερες μονάδες από τις ελάχιστες που απαιτούνταν προκειμένου
 να δυνηθεί να προχωρήσει στην επόμενη φάση του εν λόγω
 (Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η ιταλική) διαγωνισμού.
 Πρός στήριξη των ισχυρισμών του, o προσφεύγων προβάλλει
 λάθος κατά τη διόρθωση της εν λόγω δοκιμασίας a).
 Στην υπόθεση T-207/02 R, Nicoletta Falcone, κάτοικος Φλω-
 ρεντίας (Ιταλία), εκπροσωπούμενη από τον δικηγόρο M.
 Condinanzi, κατά Επιτροπής των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων (εκπρό-
 σωποι: J. Currall και Α. Dal Ferro), που έχει ως αντικείμενο αίτηση
 περί λήψεως προσωρινού μέτρου συνιστάμενου στο να υποχρεώσει
 την Επιτροπή να καλέσει την αιτούσα να συμπληρώσει την πράξη Προσφυγή της Sunrider Corporation κατά του Γραφείου
 υποψηφιότητάς της για να της επιτραπεί η συμμετοχή στη δεύτερη Εναρμονίσεως στο πλαίσιο της Εσωτερικής Αγοράς, που
 εξέταση του γενικού διαγωνισμού COM/A/10/01, στον τομέα του ασκήθηκε στις 14 Αυγούστου 2002
 δικαίου, που προβλέπεται για τις 19 Ιουλίου 2002, από την οποία
 αποκλείστηκε με την από 2 Μαΐου 2002 απόφαση της εξεταστικής (Υπόθεση Τ-242/02)
 επιτροπής, που την πληροφορούσε ότι δεν της επέτρεπε τη
 συμμετοχή στις γραπτές εξετάσεις του εν λόγω διαγωνισμού, o (2002/C 261/32)
 Πρόεδρος του Πρωτοδικείου εξέδωσε στις 16 Ιουλίου 2002
 διάταξη με το ακόλουθο διατακτικό:
 (Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η ελληνική)
 1) Απορρίπτει την αίτηση ασφαλιστικών μέτρων.
 Η εταιρεία Sunrider Corporation, με έδρα την Torrance,
 California (ΗΠΑ), εκπροσωπούμενη από τους δικηγόρους
 2) Επιφυλάσσεται ως προς τα δικαστικά έξοδα. Νικόλαο ∆οντά και Μαρία Μπρα, με τόπο επιδόσεων στο Λουξεμ-
 βούργο, άσκησε ενώπιον του Πρωτοδικείου των Ευρωπαϊκών
 Κοινοτήτων στις 14 Αυγούστου 2002 προσφυγή κατά του
 Γραφείου Εναρμονίσεως στο πλαίσιο της Εσωτερικής Αγοράς.