In this instructional video, Stacy Chin of KeepYourEquity.co explains how the National Science Foundation (NSF) evaluates Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase I proposals. She outlines the prerequisite two‑page project pitch, the subsequent full application, and the NSF merit review process. Reviewers—typically three experts—score applications on a five‑point scale (excellent to poor) across three core criteria: Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, and Commercial Impact. For each criterion, Chin details the specific questions reviewers ask, the elements they assess (e.g., originality, feasibility, team qualifications, societal benefits, market opportunity, competitive advantage), and how applicants can address these points to achieve high scores. The video also references additional resources such as templates for the project pitch and full application available on keepyourequity.co, and encourages viewers to engage with the channel for further non‑dilutive funding guidance.
Chapters
Are you wondering what happens to your SBIR application when you submit it to the National Science Foundation? Well, if so, make sure you watch until the end of this video because I'm going to break down how NSF reviewers are evaluating your SBIR grants. And what I'm going to share with you is going to be very important for founders to be aware of so that you guys can understand how to best position your grant for award. Hey guys, welcome back to the channel. I'm Stacy Chin from KeepYourEquity.co, and our mission is to help startup founders secure non-dilutive funding from federal programs called the SBIR and the STTR. So last week I posted a video to tell you how reviewers from the National Institute of Health are evaluating SBIR applications. So if you haven't watched that video, I'll leave a link in the description below. But today we're going to chat about how reviewers are evaluating SBIR applications from the National Science Foundation, and the review criteria is slightly different. So you want to make sure you stick to the end of this video so you understand the differences between the NIH review process and the NSF review process. Before you can even think about preparing a Phase 1 SBIR application to the NSF, you first want to prepare and submit a project pitch application. And this is kind of a 2-page mini-SBIR where the reviewers will evaluate whether or not your innovation is of interest to the NSF. And if the NSF likes that idea, they'll email you an invitation, which is actually a mandatory document that has to be included in your full Phase 1 application. I'll leave a link in the description to another video that goes over how to even prepare your project pitch application. And don't forget to check out our website at keepyourequity.com for templates on the project pitch application and even a template on the full Phase I application itself. So once you get your project pitch approved, you'll take months to prepare and write your full Phase I application. And then once you hit the submit button, the NSF reviewers would then review your SBIR application using the merit review process. The NSF merit review process is a very standardized approach to which reviewers will be evaluating your grant. And this process helps the agency to decide how to invest in new science and engineering research and ideas. So similarly to the NIH SBIR review process, you get assigned a minimum of 3 reviewers that are usually within the research area of your SBIR application. And these reviewers are responsible for reading through your SBIR application and then jotting down the strengths and weaknesses of your grant according to 3 main criteria within the merit review process. And they are the intellectual merit, the broader impacts, and the commercial impact. Don't worry, we'll dive deeper into each of these in a second. Let's first talk about how reviewers are scoring your SBIR application. So reviewers are supposed to give you a summary of their thoughts and then rate your SBIR application according to the following scale: excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. A rating of excellent means that the reviewer is strongly advocating for your SBIR grant to get funded. And so your goal is to get excellent across the board. A rating of very good means that the reviewer is also still advocating for your SBIR grant to get funded. However, there may be some minor weaknesses, but yet your strengths still outweigh those. A rating of good means that the reviewer thinks your application is okay, and they actually might provide some recommendations to improve your application. Now, the rating of fair means that the reviewer thinks your application should not get funded, and in these applications there's typically more weaknesses that would outweigh the strengths. And finally, a rating of poor means that the reviewer thinks your grant should not get funded, and that's usually due to a lack of merit or impact. And here, reviewers typically are asked to give recommendations as to how you can improve your grant, just in case you want to go in for a resubmission. So by now, I hope you have a good understanding as to what are the 3 criteria and the scoring system to which NSF reviewers are using to evaluate your grant. So with that, let's go deeper into the 3 criteria and figure out what do each of these 3 things mean when reviewers are evaluating your SBIR application. But before we do so, please like this video and subscribe to this channel if you haven't done so. It truly does help us out a lot. And don't forget to check out our website at keepyourequity.co for more resources, templates, and advice on how you can secure non-dilutive funding throughout your fundraising journey. So with that, let's dive right in. So the first criterion is the intellectual merit. Here, the reviewers are evaluating how well your innovation will advance the knowledge or the field within that space. So in order to get a really good score in intellectual merit, your job is to describe why innovation is so unique and how it would contribute to the industry and also the broader scientific community. Here, reviewers are evaluating your SBIR application to determine whether your R&D efforts are creative, original, and importantly, transformative. Here, reviewers are also evaluating your plan to carry out your proposed research efforts, and they're going to figure out whether it's well-reasoned, well-organized, based on a sound rationale, and whether it incorporates a mechanism to assess success. Finally, reviewers are also going to evaluate how well-qualified the individual is, or the PI, along with your team members, or the organization, to carry out these proposed efforts. So with that, let's summarize all that information to which reviewers will be asking themselves in the question form. So when evaluating the intellectual merit, reviewers are going to be asking themselves: What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent do the proposed research activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? 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? How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? And are there adequate resources available to the principal investigator, either at the home organization or through collaborations, to carry out the proposed activities? So to get a good score in the intellectual merit section, make sure you address all these questions very thoroughly in your SBIR application. So the next criterion is the broader impacts, and here reviewers will be evaluating whether or not your idea has potential to benefit to society and to contribute to the achievement of specific desired societal outcomes. Now you're probably wondering, what the heck does that even mean? If I were to rephrase it, you can think of the broader impacts as a way of how you can benefit society if your SBIR efforts were successful. In other words, will your innovation help to increase public scientific literacy and public engagement with science technology, improve the well-being of individuals in society, develop a diverse and globally competitive workforce and U.S. economy, increase partnerships between academia, industries, and others, improve the US's national security, increase the economic competitiveness of the US, or enhance our infrastructure for research and education. So in order to get a really good score in the broader impact section, your job is to make sure that you articulate this clearly in your SBIR application. In fact, within the project description, the last section is exactly the broader impacts itself. And this is where you want to include a discussion of how your innovation will contribute to the broader impacts of society and how it will impact end users and then change and transform the way we solve that problem today. And finally, the last criterion is the commercial impact. Here, reviewers will be evaluating how your innovation may lead to significant outcomes within the commercial market. And to do so, reviewers will be asking the questions when evaluating the commercial impact: Is there a significant market opportunity that could be addressed by the proposed product, processes, or service? 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? Is there a compelling potential business model? Does the proposing company team have the essential elements, including expertise, structure, and experience, that would suggest the potential for strong commercial outcomes? Will NSF support serve as a catalyst to improve substantially the technical and commercial impact of the underlying commercial endeavor? And just like the last sections, you'll want to make sure that you hit all these questions in your SBIR application and make sure your explanation is clear and articulate. And that wraps up my summary of how NSF reviewers are evaluating your SBIR application. Have you submitted an application and gotten critiques within these criteria? Leave a comment below and share something you've learned throughout the review process. And with that, thank you so much for watching till the end of this video. If you've learned something new or found this helpful, please like this video and subscribe to this channel so you won't miss out on any other tricks and tips we have to share with you to support you in your non-dilutive fundraising journey. And of course, don't forget to check out our website at keepyourequity.co for more tips, resources, and templates to help you in securing grants through SBIR and STTR programs. Thank you so much, and I'll see you in a video very soon.
