[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 32, Volume 1]

[Revised as of July 1, 2006]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 32CFR37.205]



[Page 227-228]

 

                       TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE

 

              CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

 

PART 37_TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS--Table of Contents

 

      Subpart B_Appropriate Use of Technology Investment Agreements

 

Sec.  37.205  What judgments must I make about the nature of the project?



    You must:

    (a) Conclude that the principal purpose of the project is 

stimulation or support of research (i.e., assistance), rather than 

acquiring goods or services for the benefit of the Government (i.e., 

acquisition);



[[Page 228]]



    (b) Decide that the basic, applied, or advanced research project is 

relevant to the policy objective of civil-military integration (see 

appendix A of this part); and

    (c) Ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, any TIA that 

uses the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371 (see appendix B of this part) does 

not support research that duplicates other research being conducted 

under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense. This 

is a statutory requirement of 10 U.S.C. 2371.

    (d) When your TIA is a type of assistance transaction other than a 

grant or cooperative agreement, satisfy the condition in 10 U.S.C. 2371 

to judge that the use of a standard grant or cooperative agreement for 

the research project is not feasible or appropriate. As discussed in 

appendix B to this part:

    (1) This situation arises if your TIA includes a patent provision 

that is less restrictive than is possible under the Bayh-Dole statute 

(because the patent provision is what distinguishes a TIA that is a 

cooperative agreement from a TIA that is an assistance transaction other 

than a grant or cooperative agreement).

    (2) You satisfy the requirement to judge that a standard cooperative 

agreement is not feasible or appropriate when you judge that execution 

of the research project warrants a less restrictive patent provision 

than is possible under Bayh-Dole.