 |
|
|
|
Peer (Technical) Review Panel
Information and Instructions SBIR/STTR Program Overview.
The fundamental mission of NSF is to promote discoveries and to advance education across the frontiers of knowledge in science and engineering. Consistent with that mission, NSF encourages and supports a wide range of proposals from the research and education community and also from the private small business sector. These proposals are reviewed under the NSF merit review criteria, which cover both the quality of research (intellectual or technical merit) and its potential impact on society (broader impacts).
NSF has formulated broad solicitation topics that conform to the high-technology investment sector's interest. In preparing your review comments, please consult with the Program Manager on the topic that is under consideration.
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 GoalThe 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 ProcessReviewers 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 onlv: 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 BusinessFastLane 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
|
|
|
