How to Resubmit a Stronger DoD SBIR Proposal

Introduction

When your Department of Defense (DoD) SBIR proposal gets rejected, the reviewer comments can feel like a blow. But those notes aren’t just criticism—they’re your roadmap to a stronger, more competitive resubmission. Whether the feedback focuses on unclear defense relevance, vague technical plans, or a weak commercialization strategy, each comment offers insight into how your proposal was viewed and how it can be improved. This article will help you translate those critiques into concrete actions and rebuild a proposal that not only addresses past weaknesses but positions you for success in the next review cycle.

Understand the DoD Review Criteria

Before you can address reviewer comments, you need to understand the lens through which your proposal was evaluated. The DoD typically assesses SBIR submissions across three main areas:

Defense Need/Relevance: Does your proposal clearly address a specific, documented military problem or capability gap?
Technical Merit: Is the proposed R&D approach credible, innovative, and feasible?
Commercial Potential: Beyond Phase II, is there a clear path to transitioning the technology into real-world use, either within the DoD or commercial markets?

Each comment you receive usually maps to one of these criteria—even if the reviewer doesn’t say so explicitly. Interpreting comments through this framework helps you gauge their weight and adjust your revisions accordingly.

Many DoD reviewers are generalists or military users rather than technical specialists. If your proposal isn’t clear or accessible to them, it risks being misunderstood—even if the underlying science is strong.

Non-technical reviewers are common.
DoD reviewers often include program officers and warfighters—make sure your proposal can be understood without specialized knowledge.

Decode Common Reviewer Comments

Reviewers often point out weaknesses without directly tying them to evaluation criteria. Here’s how to interpret the most frequent types of feedback and what they likely mean:

“Unclear Defense Need or Alignment”

If a reviewer says your solution feels academic or doesn’t solve a specific DoD problem, they’re flagging a relevance issue. Reframe your problem statement around a clear, documented military gap. Reference mission needs, CONOPS, or service-specific roadmaps.

“Technical Approach Lacks Detail/Feasibility”

This signals your methodology section didn’t inspire confidence. Add specificity: spell out your technical plan, include preliminary data if available, and explain why your approach is both novel and achievable.

“Team and Expertise Concerns”

Comments about your team’s experience or unclear facility access relate to your capacity to execute. Address this by clarifying team roles, highlighting relevant past work, and specifying facility capabilities or partner support.

“Questionable Commercialization or Transition Plan”

If reviewers question your go-to-market strategy or don’t see a Phase III path, this is a commercialization red flag. Clarify who your DoD customer or transition sponsor could be, and add evidence of demand (e.g., customer conversations, letters of support).

“Scope Too Ambitious for Phase I”

Phase I is about proving feasibility—not solving everything. If reviewers think your scope is unrealistic, narrow your objectives and clearly define what success will look like by the end of Phase I.

“Insufficient Risk Mitigation”

If there’s no discussion of what happens if part of your tech doesn’t work, reviewers will see your plan as brittle. Add fallback strategies and acknowledge technical risks with clear mitigation steps.

Step-by-Step: How to Use Reviewer Feedback to Improve

Once you’ve decoded the comments, your next move is to turn them into a revision plan. Treat the review like a professional audit—what you do with it matters more than how it was delivered.

Map Each Comment to Review Criteria

Start by categorizing each comment under one of the DoD’s three primary evaluation areas: relevance, technical merit, or commercialization. This helps you understand what part of your proposal was seen as weakest and prioritize accordingly.

Identify Common Themes

Look for overlap across reviewers. If two out of three mention that your technical plan lacks detail, it’s a strong signal. Patterns matter more than isolated critiques—build your revision plan around what was most consistently flagged.

Don’t Dismiss Negative Feedback

Even short or vague comments can reflect a serious concern. Resist the urge to rationalize away a critique. If a reviewer misunderstood something, assume your proposal wasn’t clear and revise accordingly. Clear writing can fix what good ideas alone cannot.

Writing Your Response to Reviewers

If you’re resubmitting your DoD SBIR proposal, include a one-page introduction summarizing how you’ve addressed the previous review. This isn’t just a courtesy—it’s your chance to show reviewers that you listened and improved.

Include a One-Page Review Response Summary

Structure your page clearly. For each key reviewer comment, paraphrase the concern and follow it with a concise description of what you changed. This helps reviewers verify fixes quickly.

Example:
Reviewer Comment: “Technical approach lacks detail.”
Response: “Section 3 has been revised to include a step-by-step breakdown of our methodology, supported by a new diagram and preliminary lab results.”

Tone and Framing

Be respectful and professional. Thank the reviewers for their feedback, even if you disagreed with it. Avoid being defensive—focus on solutions, not justifications.

Handling Contradictory Feedback

Sometimes reviewers disagree. In these cases, clarify your message in the proposal text to reduce confusion. Favor clarity and simplicity when in doubt.

Stick to the format.
Use a bullet-point or numbered format in your review response summary—it makes it easier for reviewers to track what you’ve changed.

What to Revise in the Proposal (and What Not To)

A strong resubmission is not a total rewrite—it’s a focused revision. Your job is to fix what reviewers flagged while preserving what worked.

Keep Strengths, Fix Weaknesses

If a section wasn’t criticized, you likely don’t need to overhaul it. Changing solid content “just to make it different” can backfire by introducing confusion or weakening your original argument.

What to Revise:

Problem/Need Statement: Make the defense relevance unmistakable. Cite military needs, capability gaps, or user scenarios.
Technical Approach: Add specific steps, clear methods, and preliminary data if available.
Work Plan: Ensure objectives are feasible within Phase I. Remove or defer anything that seems overambitious.
Risk Mitigation: Include fallback options and contingency plans.
Team Credentials and Resources: Add experts or partners to address capability gaps. Clarify access to labs, testing sites, or key equipment.
Commercialization Strategy: Strengthen Phase III discussion. Mention DoD transition offices, prime contractor interest, or dual-use markets.

Don’t rewrite what’s working.
Only revise sections that received criticism. Rewriting strong sections can weaken your resubmission and confuse reviewers.

Resubmission Tips Specific to DoD SBIR

DoD agencies look for more than just technical feasibility—they want solutions that clearly align with mission priorities and show a credible path to adoption. When revising your proposal, tailor it to these expectations.

Use New Data or End-User Discussions

If you’ve spoken with DoD stakeholders or conducted additional validation since your last submission, mention it. Even a short conversation with a military user or program office can lend weight to your revised approach.

Target the Revision for Phase I Feasibility

Avoid trying to fix everything at once. Phase I is about proving feasibility. Keep the scope tight and realistic—reviewers know what’s achievable in 6–12 months.

Be Clear About Phase III Vision

The DoD wants to see that your solution has a real path to deployment or commercial adoption. Mention transition partners, relevant program offices, or dual-use opportunities. If you’re not sure who the potential DoD sponsor is, consider reaching out to a TPOC for informal feedback.

What counts as a good Phase III plan?

Identify a specific DoD office or prime contractor as a potential adopter

Explain how the product could be tested, procured, or fielded

Mention dual-use commercial potential, if applicable

Include evidence of interest (conversations, letters, etc.)

Tagged: applying troubleshooting

Was this article helpful?

Yes No