|
Evaluation and Selection Criteria
A. SBIR/STTR Phase I
B. Evaluation and Selection Criteria
C. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Proposers
A. SBIR/STTR Phase I
Proposals judged to be responsive to a solicitation will be evaluated on a
competitive basis by merit review.
A.1. Administrative Screening
Proposals will be screened to determine responsiveness to the specific requirements
of the Solicitation (check the solicitation document for specifics).
A.2 Technical Screening
The
following technical screening criteria will be applied to proposals.
If the answer to any of the questions below is "NO", the
proposal will be returned to the proposer without further consideration.
- Does the proposal provide sufficient technical substance to enable review?
- Does the proposal fall within the scope of the topic/subtopic as delineated in the topic/subtopic description?
- Is appropriate research proposed in science, engineering or education?
The proposal will be returned if the research proposed is for any of
the following purposes:
- Weapons research;
- Biomedical research (except bioengineering research, as discussed in Program
Purposes of the Program Description web page); or
- Classified research
The proposal will also be returned if it is principally for demonstration,
technical assistance, literature survey or market research.
B. Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Proposals that are found to be responsive to a Solicitation will be competitively
evaluated in a process of external merit review by scientists, engineers, or educators knowledgeable
in the appropriate fields and by individuals familiar with commercial product development. Reviewers
may be employed by academic institutions, non-profit research laboratories or other research institutions;
by Federal, State and Local governments, recent retirees from industrial firms, employees from industrial
organizations and small business concerns. In all instances, proposals will be handled on a confidential
basis and care taken to avoid conflicts of interest. Evaluations will be confidential to NSF,
to the proposed Principal Investigator, and to the submitting small business concern, to the extent permitted by law.
Normally,
more proposals will be found technically meritorious than can be
supported. Evaluations by external reviewers are advisory to the
cognizant program officer for the topic or subtopic, who in turn
makes a recommendation for each proposal to the SBIR/STTR Program.
Other factors that may enter into consideration include the following:
the balance among NSF programs; past commercialization efforts by
the firm where previous awards exist; excessive concentration of
awards in one firm or with one principal investigator; participation
by women-owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small
business concerns; distribution of awards across the States; importance
to science or society; and critical technology areas. The SBIR/STTR
Program then makes its recommendations for awards to the Division
of Grants and Agreements (DGA).
B.1.SBIR/STTR Phase I and II Proposal
In the merit review process, reviewers will consider the following criteria:
Intellectual
Merit. 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: As a result of Phase I, did the firm
succeed in providing a solid foundation for the proposed Phase
II activity?
Broader
Impacts. 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/STTR sources once the SBIR/STTR 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?
Additionally, the following factors are also
considered in making an award. Principal investigators should
address these issues in their proposal 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.
The following issues will be taken into consideration by reviewers and
should be addressed in proposals: portability, scalability, compliance
with K-12 content standards, pedagogical techniques, developmentally
appropriate content and instructional strategies, and involvement
of educators (teachers, curriculum designers, etc).
- Integration of Research and Education - One of the principal strategies in
support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and
education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports
at academic and research institutions. These institutions
provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently
assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students
and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education
with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the
diversity of learner perspectives. Principal Investigators
should address this issue in their proposals to provide reviewers
with the information necessary to respond fully to both NSF merit
review criteria. NSF staff will give it careful consideration
in making funding decisions.
- Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities - Broadening
opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -
women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities
- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering.
NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central
to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
Principal Investigators should address this issue in their proposals
to provide reviewers with the information necessary to respond
fully to both NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will
give it careful consideration 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, and the existence of acceptable third-phase funding
commitments from private sector or non-SBIR/STTR funding sources.
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. NSF also recognizes issues such as a company's ability
to retain control over the products, processes, or techniques or
services that can ultimately be developed as a result of research.
However, it is incumbent upon the proposer to make a persuasive
case for a significant probability of commercial success.
B.2. Commercialization Plan Review
Criteria (Phase II only).
In
order to succeed in the SBIR/STTR program, the small business must
convert the research results into innovative, competitive technology
that sells in the marketplace. The NSF and its peer review
process will consider the following when it assesses a company's
commercialization plan:
1. Market Need, Expected Outcomes, and Impact:
Does
the company present a compelling value proposition for the Phase
II Project? Does the discussion of need demonstrate that there
is market-pull and breadth of potential commercial impact for the
innovation? In addition, does the proposer make a solid case
that there are potential societal, educational, and scientific benefits
of this project? (N.B. the impact of the project may be totally
commercial). Does the non-commercial impact add to the overall
significance of work being proposed?
2. The Company:
Does
the company have focused objectives and the appropriate core competencies?
Does the company have the appropriate resources to perform the tasks
being proposed and to take the project through to commercialization?
If the company has several years of experience, has it experienced
growth? Does the company have a good record of
commercializing prior SBIR/STTR projects or other research? Does
it appear that the company can grow/maintain itself
as a sustainable business entity?
3. The Market, Customer and Competition:
Does
the PI/Company understand the market in which the product will be
introduced? Is the customer adequately and correctly described?
Are the benefits to the customer and the hurdles to acceptance of
the innovation adequately described? Does the PI/Company know
and understand the competitive environment? How would you rate the
proposer's ability to execute a marketing and sales program to bring
the technology successfully to market in view of this competition
(or competitive environment)? What are the strengths and weaknesses
of the company's marketing and sales strategy?
4. Intellectual Property (IP):
Is
intellectual property addressed and are there plans for sufficient
protection to get the product to market and attain at least a temporal
competitive advantage? What is the company´s prior record in this
area? Please comment on the company´s strategy to build a sustainable
business through protection of intellectual property.
5. The Financing:
Has
the Company properly estimated the amount of funding needed in Phase
III? Does the company have a high probability of securing this funding?
Has the PI/Company identified specific companies for financial commitments,
prototype purchase and/or will they fund themselves? If there are
no "hard" commitments for funding (i.e. letters of interest or intent),
does the company have a solid roadmap for pursuing the funding needed
to commercialize?
6. Revenue Stream:
Are
the plans for generating a revenue stream adequately described? Are the revenue projections and the assumptions behind the revenue
projections realistic? Is the revenue stream sustainable? Will it
lead to robust company growth or at least sustain the product (and
/ or the service) through its life cycle?
B.3. Financial Support and Commitments.
A
company should be in serious negotiations with potential third party
investors early in the SBIR/STTR process. This can be demonstrated
through letters of intent or signed commitment letters from third
party investors that Phase III funds will be made available. The
commitment may be contingent upon:
- Receipt of the Phase II award;
- Phase II achieving specified key technical objectives, which are agreed
upon between the company and the prospective third party investor;
- The resulting technology not being bypassed in the marketplace during
Phase II; and/or
- The potential technology continuing to appear economically viable
at the end of Phase II.
Small businesses with NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II awards should continue to
foster and implement third party commitments. In order to obtain
the goals of the NSF SBIR Program, supplemental Phase IIB funding
is available to those companies able to secure and demonstrate third
party financial support. The objective of the Phase IIB funding
is to extend the R&D efforts beyond a Phase II grant. For more
information, reference Phase IIB web
page.
The
Phase II or Phase IIB financial commitments usually must be in the
form of money to the SBIR/STTR company. Commitments for a third
party to spend the money directly or to provide in-kind services
are not acceptable. However, instruments, computers, software, equipment,
etc., provided to the proposing firm at fair market value to the
SBIR/STTR company are acceptable.
Each funding commitment involving a third party should contain the following
certification: "The undersigned certify that they agree to
this funding commitment and that this information will be used by
NSF in evaluating the commercial potential of the company's innovation
and, therefore, that information could be a factor in determining
whether the SBIR/STTR Phase II proposal will be funded. They further
understand that willfully making a false statement or concealing
a material fact in this commitment or any other communication submitted
to the NSF is a criminal offense." (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section
1001)
A sample funding commitment is provided.
Although commitments are highly case dependent, two suggested formats
solely for guidance are provided. One is for investment in your
company, and one is for licensing to others. We suggest you involve
your lawyer in any final agreement.
C.Debriefing of Unsuccessful
Proposers
When an award or declination is made, verbatim copies of reviews, excluding
the names of the reviewers, summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, a description of
the process by which the proposal was reviewed, and the context of the decision (such as the number of proposals
and award recommendations, and information about budget availability) made available electronically to the
Principal Investigator. The company officer/organization representative is also notified electronically.
Phase II proposals that have been declined are not eligible for resubmission.
|
