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 develop unique or ingenious concepts or applications?
- How well qualified is the technical team (Principal Investigator, 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 outcome of the proposed activity lead to a marketable product or process that warrants significant NSF support?
- Given the stage of the proposed effort, is the team well-balanced between technical and business skills?
- Has the proposing firm successfully commercialized SBIR or STTR-supported technology where prior awards have been made? (Or, has the firm been successful at commercializing technology that has not received SBIR or STTR support?)
- Has the proposer evaluated the competitive advantage of this technology vs. alternate technologies that can meet the same market needs?
- Does the proposal lead to enabling technologies (instrumentation, software, etc.) for further innovation?
- How well is the proposed activity positioned to attract further funding from non-SBIR sources once the project ends?