SBIR Proposal Writing Basics

SBIR Proposal = Writing Basics: Reviewers on Ice

Gail & Jim Greenwood, Greenwood Consulting Group, Inc.

Like many of you, we spent a lot of time the past month watching the Winter = Olympics. We noticed that it took no fewer than four commentators to cover = the figure skating competitions. = We also noticed that those commentators reminded us a lot of how SBIR/STTR = proposals are reviewed by the agencies. = Let us explain=85

There are strict criteria about how to score a figure skater, and therefore = who wins and who loses. Despite = those strict criteria, the commentators were all over the map in terms of what was of interest or concern to them. = Some simply reported the action. = Others seemed more focused on the technical issues, while others sought = aesthetically pleasing performances. = Some seemed stodgy, making us wonder why they even wanted to watch the skaters, = while others got so excited that they could hardly maintain their composure. Some seemed to look for the slightest mistake, while others = showed forgiveness, especially for their thinly disguised favorite = skaters.

So what do these figure skating commentators have in common with those = folks who review SBIR/STTR proposals for the agencies? A lot, we think. = The reviewers have a set of criteria (found in the agency=92s solicitation) = by which they are to judge SBIR/STTR proposals. Despite this, they show tremendous differences in what they look for and what = they disdain in a proposal. = Some simply report the action: they oversee the other reviewers, seeking concurrence = and compromise am ong them. = Others are very focused on the technology, while others seek the most innovative = ideas, while others put their priority on commercial potential. Some seem only remotely interested in what is being proposed, = while others get excited about new innovations and technologies. Some offer genuine and constructive criticism, while others seem = to have their favorites and biases.

The bottom line is that SBIR and STTR are programs in which humanoids, in = all their glory and imperfections, make decisions on who wins and loses, and = why. Because each reviewer is a unique and complex person, it is = futile to expect to always know what will appeal to a reviewer and what will turn = him or her off. Therefore, avoid = like the plague anyone who tells you they have discovered =93the=94 key to = success in SBIR/STTR because that means they are ignoring the often unpredictable = human fa ctor.

We suggest you do the following:

First, take every opportunity to get to know your topic author, agency = representatives, and others who might be able to shed some light onto the preferences and peculiarities relative to an SBIR/STTR proposal. These folks may be the reviewers who select winners, or they may = be able to offer some insights into the people who are the reviewers.

Second, read the selection criteria in the SBIR/STTR solicita tion for your = agency, and make it clear in your proposal how you meet (or, better yet, exceed) = each criterion.

Third, avoid any sort of remark that might be taken as inflammatory by a = reviewer. Don=92t talk about the dysfunctional health care system if you = are writing to NIH, and don=92t talk about replacing an inefficient and = half-baked computer system at DOD. = Similarly, do not be overly negative in your assessment of what research others = have done, including those deemed to have contributed to the state-of-the-art. Murphy=92s Law of SBIR/STTR Proposal Writing says that anyone you chastise in your proposal will be on your review panel.

Fourth, don=92t use a cookie-cutter approach t o your SBIR/STTR proposals. Each proposal should be customized to the agency to which it is = being submitted, and customized to the reviewers who will critique and rate = it.

Fifth, never try to lobby reviewers during the proposal review period. This is considered to be in VERY bad taste in the SBIR/STTR = programs. However, you might ask if an agency representative can shed light = on the background (experience, education) of the reviewers so that you can = tailor the level of presentation in your proposal accordingly. NEVER suggest that you want to know the name or other personal information about a reviewer.

Sixth, always get a debriefing after winners have been selected. The debriefing can help you learn what to do differently next = time. And, if there is an opportunity to resubmit the proposal, the = debriefing remarks may give you insight into what the reviewer wants you to = change. Remember, these reviewers are humanoids, so be understanding if = they view the world a bit differently than you do.