Skip to main content

SBIR/STTR Merit Review Criteria and Process

A. Merit Review Criteria

  • All SBIR/STTR proposals are reviewed against NSF’s two core review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts:

    Intellectual Merit: The potential for the proposed project to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields.

    Broader Impacts: The potential for the proposed project to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

    For each of the two above criteria, four elements are considered:

    1. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original or potentially transformative concepts?
    2. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
    3. How well qualified is the individual, team or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
    4. Are there adequate resources available (either at the proposer’s home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

  • In addition to the two core review criteria, SBIR/STTR proposals are reviewed against a third criterion, Commercial Potential. The six elements below comprise the Commercial Potential criterion.

    1. Is there a significant market opportunity that could be addressed by the proposed product, process, or service?
    2. Does the company possess a significant and durable competitive advantage, based on scientific or technical innovation, that would be difficult for competitors to neutralize or replicate?
    3. Is there a compelling potential business model?
    4. Does the proposing company/team have the essential elements, including expertise, structure, and experience, that would suggest the potential for strong commercial outcomes?
    5. Will NSF support serve as a catalyst to improve substantially the technical and commercial impact of the underlying commercial endeavor?
    6. 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?

B. Compliance Checking and Merit Review

  • All submitted proposals are initially checked for basic compliance with program requirements. Major aspects of the compliance check include:

    1. Basic compliance in terms of proposal contents, length, and budget amount.
    2. Broad checks of firm eligibility against SBIR legislative requirements.
    3. Sufficient depth of technical and commercial content in the proposal “Project Description” section.
    4. A check for a valid “Project Pitch” invitation connected to the project (for Phase I and Fast-Track proposals only).

    In some cases, NSF will attempt to rectify compliance issues via email requests to the proposal’s principal investigator to make specific changes to the proposal content. These requests will usually come within the first four weeks following the closing of the relevant full proposal submission window and will often have short turnaround times. Some compliance issues – such as a “Project Description” that would require major content revisions in order to be compliant – cannot be rectified in this way and will result in the proposal being returned without review (with specific details as to the rationale for the action).

  • Proposals that pass the above stage will be reviewed according to the review criteria listed above. The review process for every proposal will be led by an NSF SBIR/STTR program director with relevant technical and commercial experience and expertise. The cognizant program director will be responsible for determining the details of the merit review process and, if applicable, selecting and tasking any external expert reviewers.
  • In most cases, NSF will solicit feedback and advice from a small number of external experts via either panel or ad-hoc reviews. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Chapter III, for more details on the NSF’s external merit review process. All external reviewers are subject to confidentiality agreements, and their written feedback will be provided verbatim to the submitting organization when the review process concludes.
  • Submitting a proposal to NSF does not adversely affect the intellectual property status of the submitting organization. The entire merit review process is kept confidential, and proposal documents are restricted to NSF use (other than to be shared with the external experts), unless required by certain legal processes — which are very rare. In such rare cases, the submitting organization will typically be able to redact proprietary or company confidential information.

C. SBIR/STTR Due Diligence

  • After the merit review process has been conducted, a subset of SBIR/STTR proposals that are considered potentially meritorious for receiving an award must undergo an additional SBIR/STTR-specific due diligence process. The due diligence process may include one or more of the following components:

    1. Email requests for documentation or clarification.
    2. Requests for phone or video calls to discuss proposal content or review concerns.
    3. Use of internal or third-party tools to identify nondisclosure of relevant information (to include key personnel, funding, intellectual property or other relationships) that might bear on potential foreign influence or research security issues.
    4. Request for the project principal investigator and/or a company officer to complete legal certifications related to program requirements (e.g. cybersecurity, eligibility, award terms and conditions).
  • Phase II SBIR/STTR proposals are also subject to an administrative and financial review by NSF’s Cost Analysis and Pre-Award (CAP) office. This CAP review generally commences after the due diligence process has concluded. This review requires the provision of a significant amount of company accounting and administrative documentation to determine financial capability/viability and adequacy of accounting and financial management systems and often results in follow-up requests to company leadership. The CAP review can take 2-3 months to complete and can result in the subject proposal being declined or in a recommendation to reduce the proposal budget before an award is considered.
  • Fast-Track proposals also have a separate internal review process that is used when considering if the effort will progress from the Phase I stage to the Phase II stage of the project. This process occurs in the final few months of the conduct of the Phase I component of the project. It includes an internal review (by the managing program director and potentially other SBIR/STTR staff) of technical and commercial progress, conducted via direct engagement (via videoconference) with the principal investigator and other key personnel responsible for executing the Fast-Track effort. Fast-Track projects also will be required to complete a full CAP review (see above) before formally passing to the Phase II stage of the effort.

D. Proposal Decision and Notification

  • All proposals submitted to the SBIR/STTR program will be notified of NSF’s final decision via email sent to the authorized representative for the small business (as listed in the Research.gov system).
  • The full text of the written feedback provided by all external reviewers of the proposal, if applicable, as well as any comments from the managing NSF program director will be available to the principal investigator in Research.gov immediately upon receipt of the final decision by NSF. More information on accessing this information will be included in the notification email.