Responding to the TOP 10 MOST COMMON Reviewer Critiques on REJECTED NIH and NSF SBIRs Part II

This is part 2 of a 2-part series where I break down the final 5 of the most common review critiques that I see all the time on rejected NIH and NSF SBIR applications coming from an SBIR consultant and an SBIR reviewer for these federal agencies. Hey guys, welcome back to the channel. I'm Stacy Chin from keepyourequity.co, and our mission is to help startup founders just like you secure non-dilutive grant funding from federal programs called the SBIR and the STTR. If you haven't seen part 1 of this 2-part series, Check out the link in the description below so you won't miss out on the first 5 of the most common reviewer critiques that I see all the time on rejected SBIR applications. All right, so let's jump into number 6. There is no discussion as to how the company plans to protect its intellectual property or IP. If startups are developing a brand new innovation, then securing your IP is such a critical part to prevent competitors from taking your idea. Startups should seek legal counsel to help them develop an IP strategy. A common practice is to file patents, which are usually done if you're developing a physical product or a therapeutic. Companies developing a software or platform-based innovations may prefer to secure their IP through trade secrets instead. You can also protect your assets by filing trademarks as well. Either way, it's really important to seek the proper legal counsel to know what is the best IP strategy for you and your startup. And for that reason, In your SBIR applications, reviewers are looking at your IP strategy because it plays such a significant role in your commercialization pathway. Federal agencies are not going to fund startups with technologies that are not IP protected. So that means you as the PI must include your discussion on the IP in your SBIR application. And this should be mentioned in both Phase I and in Phase II, but especially in Phase II. So to address this reviewer critique in your resubmission, make sure to mention whether you have filed patents or plan plan to file patents on your technology, both in the one-page summary and in the main technical document. You'll also want to mention the status of your IP applications, whether they're provisional, granted, or you submit a PCT, or Patent Cooperation Treaty. I'd also like to mention who are you working with as your IP counsel, because that shows the reviewers that you have already identified a party that will help you through this commercialization hurdle. Now, if you're applying for a Phase II application, you'll want to include a very rigorous IP strategy also in your Commercialization Plan. Here, PIs should also mention how they plan to expand their IP portfolio by either filing additional patent applications, and whether they plan to conduct a freedom of analysis to verify that their innovation can be sold as a service or a product without infringing on another party's IP rights. All right, the 7th most common reviewer critique I see all the time is, there is no clear path for commercialization. Since the purpose of the SBIR program is to commercialize new innovations and technologies. The PIs must explain in their applications how their R&D goals are aligned to their commercialization goals. Federal agencies do want to fund startups that will make a lot of money because this will grow the US economy and create more jobs. So if there's no clear path for commercialization in your SBIR application, reviewers will call you out on that, and you'll have to address this major weakness in your resubmission. And this is actually a common review critique that I see all the time, especially from PIs coming from academia. And because many startups are pursuing SBIR funding in the very, very early days of their developments, yeah, it can be kind of hard to propose a really good commercialization strategy. And that's especially true because there's just so many different go-to-market strategies, so many different business models that you can consider, and there's just so many different ways to generate revenue. But from my experience as an SBIR consultant and a reviewer for these federal agencies, I found that presenting one clear, straightforward commercialization pathway is always the best way to go. Because I've come across applications where the PI presents, "If this commercialization pathway doesn't work out, here are 3 other ones I can try." And although that might be true when you are ready to commercialize your technology, this doesn't give the reviewers the confidence that you know exactly how to bring that technology to market, or that you don't have the proper resources to guide you on that strategy. But on the flip side, if you present a really complicated commercialization strategy that reviewers just can't follow or wrap their heads around it, then that also doesn't look good on your application. So in this case, just keep it simple. So in case your first SBIR application submission did not include a really rigorous commercialization strategy, make sure to include this in your resubmission. Again, this also should be noted in both the one-page summary, the main technical narrative, and especially in a commercialization plan in a Phase II application. And again, I want to stress, make sure you present a commercialization strategy that is the right fit for you, and that is also clear, concise, and straightforward that reviewers can understand. And one way to go about that is to study how they brought their technologies to the commercial market. You can follow the same pathway, that's totally fine. Number 8, there are no quantitative metrics for success. This is actually one of the biggest mistakes I see on applications all the time from startups. I have another video where I go over the top 3 most common mistakes that I see in SBIR applications all the time. If you're interested in that out, I'll leave a link in the description below. So whenever you propose an R&D strategy in your SBIR application, you should inform reviewers of the key checkpoints that you want to meet that tells you you have successfully completed that experiment. And this shows reviewers that you have a clear idea to evaluate whether your technology or innovation has commercial potential. So to describe what success looks like, you'll want to use quantitative metrics. That can be calculated and measured using data. And what do I mean by this? That means you don't want to say in your SBIR application that we want to prove our innovation is better than the current standard. What does better mean in that case? That means it is your job to define what better means in this situation by using metrics like speed, weight, performance, efficacy, toxicity, cost. You can also mention the anticipated improvements that you expect to meet in these deliverables. So some examples of strong quantitative metrics of success can be: Our battery will have 25% improved efficiency while lowering the cost of production by 50% than the current standards. Or in another example, our drug delivery system will deliver therapeutics to the tissue site at 2 times the concentration over a 24-hour period. Compared to the current state of art. By describing the outcomes of success in this manner strengthens your R&D strategy tremendously. And most importantly, this would also give reviewers the confidence that you exactly know how to go about the technical objectives and what success looks like to you. So if you come across this reviewer critique in your submitted SBIR application, make sure in your resubmission to include these metrics at the end of each experiment in the main technical narrative, you simply just include a bullet point list that clearly anticipates your quantitative metrics, and that is all. Reviewer critique number 9: the proposed technology is not innovative. I've actually come across a lot of startups that don't really do a great job describing why their innovation is innovative, and this makes it very challenging for SBI reviewers to understand the technology's value proposition and how it could stand out against competitors in the commercial markets. So when I see this reviewer critique on rejected applications, most of the time this is just due to poor positioning of the argument. It could likely be misunderstanding, or the PI just didn't pitch the technology too well. So in your resubmitted application, there's a couple of things you guys can do to convince the reviewers that your technology is actually innovative. First of all, you can explain the competitive landscape. To do so, identify the top 3 to 5 competitors in your current area, explain how they're solving the problem, mention their downfalls, and then emphasize why your innovation would deliver an improvement. Another way is you could state the unique value propositions and then list all the key innovative features of your technologies in your SBIR application. When I write these proposals with my clients, I like to dedicate a really hearty paragraph that explains why the technology is innovative. In fact, the first sentence starts off with, "This technology is innovative because..." and then fill in the blanks. You can also state, "There is no one in the market that can solve this problem by delivering A, B, and C." Afterward, mention the technology's key innovative features in simply a bullet point form. By doing it in this manner, it is super clear to the reviewers why your technology is innovative and how it can stand out in the commercial market. Another idea is to address the gaps in the market itself. Explain why none of your competitors is approaching the gap in the market the way that you are. And lastly, describe how your innovation is going to solve your customers' pain points. Here, you can mention why your customers are all frustrated with all the other solutions in the market, and then explain why your innovation is going to overcome those hurdles and save the day. So when you address this reviewer's critique in your resubmission, unfortunately, you'll want to scrap the entire discussion from your original application. Since the key points did not come across too well in the first draft. Next, you want to restructure that entire section according to the outline I've discussed. You also want to add a couple sentences in that one-page summary in response to the reviewer's critiques to state why your innovation is innovative. And by giving the resubmission a huge facelift in this manner, you can convince the reviewers why your innovation is innovative and why it's worth the funding the second time around. And last but not least, number 10, the proposed timeline is overly ambitious. I've seen this review critique all the time on rejected SBIR applications. And frankly, I've been guilty of that myself when I was reviewing SBIR proposals too. And this is because if I come across an SBIR application that's proposing to develop a therapeutic, conduct benchtop testing, perform all the animal studies, then do all the necessary safety testing, and then jump to human trials all within 12 months, I don't think that's doable. So for that to happen, you either must be godly or you need a miracle. But in reality, in the research world, everything is going to take longer than expected. So if you propose to do so much in a short amount of time, this tells reviewers that you don't have a good sense of your timeline, and that's a major concern. So from my experience, it is much more effective to propose a well-thought-out R&D strategy for 2 to 3 critical experiments that will get you a reliable result. You don't want to cast a wide net and propose so many different experiments in such a short time frame. So then to address this review critique in your resubmission, there's a couple of things that you could do. One way is to max out the timeline if you didn't propose a full 12 months in your Phase I or 24 months in your Phase II. Now, if you already did that in your first submission, then unfortunately you have to cut back of what you originally proposed to do. To do so, identify what are the key experiments that you have to perform and what are the other ones that you can definitely eliminate. They'll still give you the results that you need to support your end goal. And this can be a hard decision to make. So make sure you reach out to your advisors or other mentors who can help you to optimize your R&D plan. Now, as a reminder, if you're making these adjustments to your timeline, make sure those changes are also reflected in the budget and the budget justification too. And with that, thank you so much for watching to the end of this video. If you haven't watched part 1 of the series, make sure to check out the link in the description below. If you found these tips helpful, make sure you like, comment, and subscribe. It really helps the channel out a lot. And don't forget to check out our website at keepyourequity.co for more advice, resources, and templates that can help you secure non-dilutive funding in your fundraising journey. Thank you so much, and I'll see you in the video very soon.