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:
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
|