Directors of the California stem cell agency will meet next week to hand out $41 million to 14 lucky scientists and wrestle with a host of other matters, ranging from the $2.7 million in outside contracts to a proposed $500 million biotech loan program.
Here is a quick look at the topics on the Aug. 12 agenda, which will probably be posted soon on the CIRM website.
Researcher Bonanza -- This a bit of a "do-over" of last year's $85 million faculty award program. That effort was tarnished when five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions. CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding," but disqualified the 10 applicants involved. No CIRM action was taken against the five directors. The full board decided to provide another grant opportunity, which was also open to applicants other than those disqualified. The latest effort, modified from the first offering, is scheduled for $41 million for 14 winners, with awards up to $2 million a year. CIRM received 55 letters of intent to apply for the grants but has not released the actual number of applications as far as we can determine.
Outside Contracting – Perhaps the most important item in the $13 million operational budget of the stem cell agency is the $2.7 million it spends for outside contracting. That figure is up 50 percent from last year. It is the second largest item in the budget, behind only salaries and benefits. CIRM will have spent more than $2 million for outside legal help by the end of this year and has spent hundreds of thousands for executive searches. In 2005, directors imposed restrictions on outside contracts and required quarterly reporting after they were surprised by published reports about the size and impact of those dealings. On Aug. 12, it appears that directors will be asked to reduce the reporting from quarterly to annual. That would be a mistake. CIRM's board should keep a close eye on the process because of importance of contracting to CIRM and the ticklish issues of overseeing those contractors. Earlier this year, directors had to retroactively approve additional funding for its main outside counsel, Remcho, Johansen, & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., after work had already been performed. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein also told CIRM directors that Remcho is unique in its abilities, that basically no other firm in the state can perform the work. Thus, Klein reported, the attorney general's office has said the contract does not need to go out for bid. See the Remcho item below for more on Klein's explanation of the relationship between him, Remcho and CIRM and the opinion of the state attorney general. Here is the latest list of outside contracts. Here is the budget for 2007-08.
The $500 Million or So Biotech Loan Program -- The formal agenda topic is "CIRM loan policy." CIRM Chairman Klein earlier this year said he hoped to have the biotech loan program approved this month. But this cryptic agenda item may mean that the board will not be presented this month with the whole package for this ground-breaking and novel effort. See the item below for links to various CIRM documents on the loan proposal. Search this blog on the term "biotech loans" for even more.
Definition of California Supplier – Perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake in this item. It involves the Prop. 71 requirement that California suppliers be given preference on purchases by CIRM grantees. Legislation is being considered in Sacramento along with separate regulatory language being worked out at CIRM. Here is a link to the latest version of the legislation involved and the transcript of the June CIRM directors meeting at which the topic was discussed briefly. This is an area that has changed swiftly and may well again even before next week's meeting.
Grant Appeals – CIRM is wrestling with the issue of how to handle requests for reconsideration of negative recommendations from the Grant Review Committee. Basically CIRM directors follow the recommendations from reviewers and have been uncomfortable with the few public attempts to override the Grants Committee. Two items could be related to this subject: One deals with RFA applicant policies and the other with creation of a policy for dealing with "extraordinary petitions" to directors for grants. Search this blog on the term "grant appeals" for some background stories, including a proposal by CIRM director Jeff Sheehy.
Egg Matters – Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for using stem cell lines derived before November 2006 in CIRM-financed research. A subtext of this involves the looming question of egg shortages and cash, although it is not formally on the agenda. CIRM President Alan Trounson has said researchers are "floundering" because they do not have enough eggs. If this subject is important to you, you should be at the meeting.
CIRM is likely to post the agenda for the Aug. 12 meeting at Stanford on Monday, which is six business days ahead of the session. We hope to see additional background material posted early as well. That information would help shed light on exactly what the board will be asked to do next week, beyond the brief listings in the initial version of the agenda.
With more than 3.0 million page views and more than 5,000 items, this blog provides news and commentary on public policy, business and economic issues related to the $3 billion California stem cell agency. David Jensen, a retired California newsman, has published this blog since January 2005. His email address is djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Showing posts with label supplier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supplier. Show all posts
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
CIRM Mulls Kuehl Legislation Once Again, Supplier Proposal Also on Table
A directors subcommittee of the California stem cell agency will discuss on Thursday their opposition to legislation aimed at ensuring affordable access to state-financed stem cell therapies.
The bill is only two steps away from being sent to the governor's desk. No lawmaker has voted against the measure, SB 1565 by state Sens. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. It is now on the the Assembly floor. If it wins approval as expected, it will go to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments and then to the governor.
CIRM has officially opposed the measure, and it is not clear what its Legislative Subcommittee might do at the Thursday afternoon meeting, short of renewing the agency's opposition. Interested parties can participate or listen in on the meeting at public teleconference locations throughout the state, including San Francisco, Elk Grove, Irvine, Healdsburg, Sacramento and Palo Alto.
The meeting comes as BioRegion News is carrying a lengthy look at the bill, its support and opposition. Written by Alex Philippidis, the piece quotes Kuehl as saying regarding CIRM,
Currently the bill is in the Senate Appropriations Committee and is scheduled for a hearing Aug. 4. CIRM is also proceeding with its own regulatory definition of California supplier. The legislation has been the subject of considerable negotiation. Movement by CIRM may well come at the Thursday meeting. Here is a link to the latest amended version of the bill, although it may not reflect more current drafts that are not available on the Internet.
The bill is only two steps away from being sent to the governor's desk. No lawmaker has voted against the measure, SB 1565 by state Sens. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. It is now on the the Assembly floor. If it wins approval as expected, it will go to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments and then to the governor.
CIRM has officially opposed the measure, and it is not clear what its Legislative Subcommittee might do at the Thursday afternoon meeting, short of renewing the agency's opposition. Interested parties can participate or listen in on the meeting at public teleconference locations throughout the state, including San Francisco, Elk Grove, Irvine, Healdsburg, Sacramento and Palo Alto.
The meeting comes as BioRegion News is carrying a lengthy look at the bill, its support and opposition. Written by Alex Philippidis, the piece quotes Kuehl as saying regarding CIRM,
"They don’t intend to remove their opposition. They simply want more, and more, and more amendments, because they want the bill to go away. But the bill is not going away."Also up for discussion at the Thursday meeting is the California supplier bill, AB 2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo. That bill would define California supplier for the purposes of providing a preference to such businesses as required by Prop. 71.
Currently the bill is in the Senate Appropriations Committee and is scheduled for a hearing Aug. 4. CIRM is also proceeding with its own regulatory definition of California supplier. The legislation has been the subject of considerable negotiation. Movement by CIRM may well come at the Thursday meeting. Here is a link to the latest amended version of the bill, although it may not reflect more current drafts that are not available on the Internet.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Multi-Million Supplier Debate: CIRM's Current Definition
The California stem cell agency today posted its latest crack at defining which California businesses receive a preference in terms of purchases by recipients of the agency's roughly $3 billion in grants.
Discussion of the definition will come up at tomorrow's meeting of the CIRM board of directors but do not expect any final resolution. California lawmakers have their own thoughts about the matter. Their decision will take precedent over the wishes of CIRM if the legislators have enough votes.
Here is the key portion of the latest CIRM definition of California supplier, which says that it means
Discussion of the definition will come up at tomorrow's meeting of the CIRM board of directors but do not expect any final resolution. California lawmakers have their own thoughts about the matter. Their decision will take precedent over the wishes of CIRM if the legislators have enough votes.
Here is the key portion of the latest CIRM definition of California supplier, which says that it means
"...any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity::The material on the CIRM site also shows what language has been changed.
(1) whose permanent, principal office or place of business from which the supplier’s trade is directed or managed is located in California; or
(2) that includes a business unit, division or subsidiary whose permanent principal office or place of business from which the unit, division or subsidiary’s trade is directed or managed is located in California, for the specific product or products that are sold by the unit, division or subsidiary to CIRM grantees; or (3) that employs at least one-third of its total employees in California; or
(4) that produces, builds, or manufactures a product or products in California for the specific product or products that are sold to CIRM grantees; or
(5)that sells a product or products in California, for the specific product or products that are sold to CIRM grantees, so long as the supplier certifies that at least 50% of the cost of the product is attributable to activity undertaken in California."
Labels:
cirm legislation,
CIRM management,
cirm openness,
supplier
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Defining Which Businesses Get an Edge in CIRM Research Purchases
The "five-year threshold" language in the California supplier bill dealing with CIRM-funded research is now available online.
For those of you who don't want to click through, here is the text in question:
For those of you who don't want to click through, here is the text in question:
"'California supplier' means any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity that meets any of the following criteria:For more on this see this item.
"(A) The owners or policymaking officers are domiciled in California and the permanent, principal office or place of business from which the supplier's trade is directed or managed is located in California.
"(B) A business or corporation, including those owned by, or under common control of, a corporation, that meets all of the following criteria:
"(i) Has owned and operated a manufacturing facility or research facility located in California that researches, develops, builds, or manufactures products for life sciences research, continuously during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) grantee.
"(ii) Has been licensed by the state on a continuous basis to conduct business within the state during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a CIRM grantee.
"(iii) Has continuously employed California residents for work within the state during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a CIRM grantee.
"(C) The entity produces, builds, or manufactures a product or products in California and for the specific product or products that are used by CIRM grantees.
"(2) For purposes of qualifying as a California supplier, a distribution or sales management office or facility does not qualify as a manufacturing or research facility."
Labels:
cirm legislation,
Prop. 71 difficulties,
supplier
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)