Stacy Chin explains why grant proposals get rejected: reviewers doubt the team can execute, not the science. A DOE materials startup had solid data but lacked scaling experience, so reviewers saw too much risk. Adding advisors, hiring consultants, or forming partnerships can de-risk execution and change the funding decision.
As a reviewer, I've seen many proposals not get funded because the team did not de-risk the execution. I saw this happen with a materials startup applying to the Department of Energy, or DOE. Their concept was strong and the early data supported their efforts. But when you look into their application and particularly their team, there was a missing piece. No one actually had experience in scaling these efforts or validated their type of system in a controlled environment. And that detail mattered a lot, especially in this application. And that's because even though the science worked, the question in the reviewers' head becomes, can this team actually deliver on what they're proposing? And if the answer isn't an obvious yes, the risks go up. And if you find yourself in this position, there's many ways to go about it. You can address this gap with advisors, consultants, partners, or new hires. If you don't address this effectively in your application, this just remains an unresolved gap in the reviewer's mind. Because bottom line, your team is a big component of your technical plan. So if your team doesn't clearly de-risk execution, the proposal just simply won't get funded. Because at the end of the day, reviewers aren't just funding your idea simply. They're funding your ability to de-risk and remove the doubt in their mind. That's how funding decisions get made in federal grants and contracts. So let me know what you think, if this is helpful, but curious to know what your thoughts are in the comments below.
Applying for NIH SBIR in Jan 5, 2027? You Should Be Starting NOW. Here's why...
How to Get Invited to Apply for $305K in NSF SBIR Funding || Step-by-Step Guide
