Feedback from Proposal Reviewers
Reviewing feedback from reviewers is crucial. Many proposers use this sort of feedback to make corrections/improvements to their proposal, or justify their stated position, in order to resubmit during subsequent granting periods. The following are some comments made regarding some of the primary proposal components.Significance of problem
The following comments, relating to the significance of the effort, were made about proposals, which were recommended for funding:
"Existing data base management systems can effectively handle only formatted alphanumeric data. The aim of this research is to find ways to incorporate other types of information such as text, maps, diagrams, photographs, images, and signals in an advanced data base management system and to include facilities for declaring and manipulating general knowledge."
"There is a need for modular deck replacement units which can be rapidly put into place. Steel grid decks have been used in the past to accomplish this. A number of technical issues raised, regarding past failures of such decks, are accurate. If the investigators can overcome some of these problems at a reasonable expense, they may have a marketable item."
Two proposals which failed to convince reviewers of potential benefits received the following comments:
"Proposal does not clearly demonstrate understanding of potential user requirements for proposed system. Discussion of advantages/benefits of the system are sketchy."
"The study presupposes that fleet operators should be receptive to incorporating data base management into their existing management process. There is no evidence in the proposal to indicate this."
Work Plan
Technical reviewers made the following comments about the Work Plan of Phase I SBIR proposals. The first two are from proposals recommended for funding:
"The Phase I tasks are based on many proven methodologies and therefore have high promise in providing information regarding the feasibility of the concept."
"The budget, estimated man hours and the schedule reflect the extensive C3 knowledge of the key personnel. This enables the firm to complete a study of the complex systems in a timely manner."
The next two are from proposals not recommended:
"The program plan, tasks, and schedules are not clearly stated. Milestones and end products are inadequate."
"No indication of how the results will be obtained, no indication of prospects for success or risks: a 'trust me' proposal.”
Originality
There are several reasons why reviewers may give poor scores for this criterion. For example, the proposed approach may not be distinctly different from others tried in the past:
"The proposal lists 3 ways of obtaining profiling data. These are the most obvious approaches which have worked in the past. Therefore I mark them down for originality."
"Offeror appears to be proposing a new/improved signal controller...no concepts, innovations or unique characteristics have been identified which would allow such improvement."
"doesn't indicate how what is proposed varies from currently existing production, keyword, printing systems used in China which deal with the complexity of characters in that language."
Reviewers will also note technical claims and assumptions which they consider unfounded:
"serious question whether a restricted natural language is better than a well designed query language."
"proposer thinks the problem with central control is reliability, It’s not. It’s communications cost." "tests will be limited to forces on a stationary vehicle. Forces on a moving vehicle are likely to be even higher and the guidelines are likely not to be conservative."
Failure to consider important factors also will work against you:
"it is rather puzzling to note that the carrier gas flow rate and its effect on particle size and dispersity has not been discussed at all."
"no discussion of the capacity of people to handle and associate three different code inputs and another different code output in very close approximation."
"the offeror presents no reasons why polymethylmethacrylate will be effective in forming a barrier coat."
Experience and Personnel
The following comments are used to demonstrate the reviewers point of view on experience and personnel:
"The relevant experience would come mostly from an academic consultant who is involved for just 21 days."
"while the PI has experience in formulating polymeric materials, there is no experience listed in formulating bridge coatings."
"the PI is not fully qualified to conduct this study. He has a good background in the proposed applications for the proposed system, but he lacks the electronics background for the system development in the video area."
Awareness of Current R&D
The following are typical of remarks made by reviewers:
"proposers do not demonstrate an understanding of soil-structure interaction: they have no references of which there are a number of important ones."
"no substantial account is taken of the widespread research on knowledge bases and expert systems."
Office of Research
Tools for Researchers
