Contact (DMII)

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

E-Mail:
DMII Webmaster
SBIR Webmaster

Warren R. DeVries
Division Director

Peer (Technical) Review Panel

Information and Instructions

SBIR/STTR Program Overview

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

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

Please Print and sign the COI Form and bring to the panel meeting.
 

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
Reviewers are to consider the following criteria:
The program uses two review criteria:

1)  Intellectual merit
2)  Broader impacts of the proposed activity

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,

First paragraph(s) - Give a very brief overview of the topic of the proposal.  Address the issues of Criterion 1 as provided in the SBIR/STTR Merit Review Criteria (as shown above).

Second paragraph(s) Addess the issues of Criterion 2 as provided in the SBIR/STTR Merit Review Criteria (as shown above).

Third paragraph:  Tell us why we should or why we should not make an award to the company submitting this proposal.  We ask your expertise in evaluating the quality and content of the proposal.

(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 you review, you are particularly focusing on X and Y aspects.

Above all, remember that you may not share, copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose material from this proposal.  Destroy it (or leave it at NSF), after your part of the review process is complete.

FastLane – Electronic Business

FastLane is the NSF web-based system to achieve NSF's paperless transactions goal.  From the Panelist Function website you can get step-by-step instructions to:

• Request paper copies or CDs
• View assigned proposals
• Expedite your review submission
• Make your travel arrangements
• Send EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) information

Policies
Contact NSF
Customize

Last updated:
07-Oct-2003 07-Oct-2003