Contact (DMII)

Tel: 703-292-8330
Fax: 703-292-9056

E-Mail:
DMII Webmaster
SBIR Webmaster

Warren R. DeVries
Division Director

Peer (Technical) Mail Review

The NSF Conflict-of-Interests and Confidentiality Statement for NSF Panelists, must be read and signed. 

Please Print and sign the COI Form and submit it via fax.  Please clearly reference the proposal number on the form when submitted.
 

The SBIR/STTR program invites the submission of research proposals under the following four technological areas:

1)  Advanced Materials and Manufacturing AM

2)  Biotechnology BT

3)  Electronics EL

4)  Information-based Technology IT

NSF SBIR/STTR Program Goal

The goal of the SBIR/STTR program is to promote the development of intellectual capital at small companies (500 or fewer employees).  To this end, the NSF SBIR/STTR Program makes awards to small companies that

• Build upon recent discoveries in basic sciences and engineering
• Lead to development of new scientific, engineering, and education capability through commercialization of advanced instruments, new processes, and innovative software, etc.
• Promote partnerships among industry, government (state, local, Federal), and academia.

SBIR/STTR Merit Review Process

Peer (technical) Mail Review Criterion:

Reviewers are to consider the following criteria:

Criterion 1.  What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?  This criterion addresses the overall quality of the proposed activity to advance science and engineering through research and education.

• Is the proposed plan a sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility?
• To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore unique or ingenious concepts or applications?
• How well qualified is the team (the Principal Investigator, other key staff, consultants, and subawardees) to conduct the proposed activity?
• Is there sufficient access to resources (materials and supplies, analytical services, equipment, facilities, etc.)?
• Does the proposal reflect state-of-the-art in the major research activities proposed?  (Are advancements in state-of-the-art likely?)
• For Phase II proposals only:  As a result of Phase I, did the firm succeed in providing a solid foundation for the proposed Phase II activity.

Criterion 2.  What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?  This criterion addresses the overall impact of the proposed activity.

• What may be the commercial and societal benefits of the proposed activity?
• Does the proposal lead to enabling technologies (instrumentation, software, etc.) for further discoveries?
• Does the outcome of the proposed activity lead to a marketable product or process?
• Evaluate the competitive advantage of this technology vs. alternate technologies that can meet the same market needs.
• How well is the proposed activity positioned to attract further funding from non-SBIR sources once the SBIR project ends?
• Can the product or process developed in the project advance NSF´s goals in research and education?
• Does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, etc.)?
• Has the proposing firm successfully commercialized SBIR/STTR-supported technology where prior awards have been made?  (Or, has the firm been successful at commercializing technology that has not received SBIR/STTR support?)

Principal investigators should address these issues in their proposals so as to give reviewers the information necessary to respond fully to both NSF merit review criteria.  NSF staff will give careful consideration to this information in making funding decisions.

NSF considers that commercial potential can probably be best demonstrated by the small business concern's record of commercializing SBIR/STTR or other research.  NSF will recognize the distinct issues faced by a new company, which does not have a track record as compared to an older, more seasoned operation.  However, it is incumbent upon the proposer to make a persuasive case for the probability of commercial success.

Suggestions for Writing Reviews

1.  Overall Rating

Please give an overall rating to the proposal:

Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support.

Very Good: High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible.

Good: A quality proposal worthy of support.

Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed.

Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.

2.  What's in a good review?

Overall Length: May vary considerably; should add up to not less than about ½ - 1 page.  If you feel expansive or are using a large font, writing more is welcome.  If the review is terse, it will not provide the fruitful constructive criticism and/or information that the NSF seeks as a guide in its decision-making.  For example, each of the six criterion should be addressed in a separate paragraph.

(N.B.,  SBIR/STTR INTERPRETS THE NSF CRITERIA SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE REST OF THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT RESEARCH THAT IS CLOSE TO PRODUCING A MARKETABLE PRODUCT (i.e., "Advanced Applied Research,") NOT BASIC RESEARCH.  The science/engineering entailed in the project may be well understood; the novelty may lie in the application.)

3.  Things to remember

• Your review will go to the PI.  Avoid being overly harsh, even if the proposal is weak.  In short, it is important to give honest feedback, but please sandpaper your edges.
• Intermediate gray evaluations (vs. hyperbole on either the positive or the negative end of the spectrum) may be very helpful to the program officer in making decisions at the margin. 
• Try not to under-evaluate the proposals in the areas you know best.  There is a tendency for reviewers to fall prey to two biases, of which this is one.  The temptation is great to really nail the shortcomings of proposals you know the most about.  Their shortcomings are, after all, easiest to see.  By contrast, those proposals in other fields can look very appealing on the surface – intriguing, nice puzzles, cute ideas, with shortcomings that are less apparent. 
• In proposals that are not your exact area of expertise, you should look for those components that are most familiar to you.  Explain that those are the ones you are commenting upon.  Please, do not state that you are not an expert in the area.  Instead, you might say that in your review, you are particularly focusing on X and Y aspects.

Instructions for accessing FastLane:

1.  Go to the FastLane home page: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov
2.  Select the `Proposal Review´ link
3.  Fill in the Log In information --
           * Proposal Number (7 digits)
           * Your Last Name
           * Pin (6 digits)
           * click "Login"
4.  The `Proposal Review´ screen will appear.  You can at this point choose to edit your information if necessary or continue the review process.  There are four(4) options available to you as a reviewer.

1.  Prepare Review
*  This option allows you to insert your review information into FastLane.  (The     Proposal Evaluation Criteria listed on this FastLane website is not specific to SBIR/STTR, so we have provided you with our specific criteria state above.)
    
*  Please scroll down the page and click the "Continue" button at the bottom of the page.  This will take you to the `Proposal Review´ screen. You will see specific information pertaining to the proposal number you have entered.

*  Scroll past the proposal information and proceed with the review process. 
Rating Section -  make a selection
Overall Rating - You must make a selection.  This can be done after you have entered your review information. 
 

In the first box, entitled " What is the intellecutual merit of the proposed activity?" Please type your review comments that addresses this question. 

In the second box, entitled "What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?" Please type in your review comments that addresses this question. 

In the third box, entitled "Summary Statement"  Please write a brief summary of the proposal. 

Please ignore the box entitled "Other Suggested Reviewer"

Please Select an OverAll Rating.

2.  View Proposal
*  You can look at specific parts of the proposal or the entire proposal, as well as, print specific parts or the entire proposal.
   

3.  Download/Save Proposal
*  You may instruct the system to download/save a copy of the proposal to your computer.
    

 4.  Go Back
*  You can go back to the login screen and begin the process over for a different proposal.

If You Encounter Technical Problems Accessing FastLane:

Please send an e-mail to fastlane@nsf.gov or call the FastLane Help Desk at (800) 673-6188.  The developers of FastLane provide technical support and advice for any problems you may encounter.If you have addition questions regarding reviewer/panel participation, please contact the relevant program officer for assistance.

Policies
Contact NSF
Customize

Last updated:
05-Aug-2003