Submitting a proposal to the Department of Transportation (DOT) SBIR program is a competitive process—but what happens after you get the decision letter is just as critical. Whether your proposal was declined or recommended for funding with comments, how you interpret and act on the feedback can determine your future success.
DOT reviewers, often subject-matter experts from modal agencies like the Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration, assess proposals based on technical merit, relevance to agency needs, and commercialization potential. Their written comments may seem brief or politely worded, but they often contain direct signals about what worked and what didn’t. Understanding this language is essential for strengthening your next submission, whether it’s a Phase I resubmission or a follow-on Phase II proposal.
This guide breaks down how to decode reviewer feedback and respond with targeted, credible improvements—so your proposal stands a better chance of advancing next time.
How to Read Between the Lines in DOT Reviewer Comments
DOT SBIR reviewers often use formal and diplomatic language that masks the severity of their critiques. To improve your proposal, you’ll need to interpret what these phrases truly mean. This isn’t about guessing—it’s about learning to recognize patterns in how feedback is delivered.
Phrases like “could benefit from more detail” generally indicate that a section lacked sufficient explanation or specifics. If a reviewer says, “It is not clearly demonstrated that…,” that signals a major gap—something you were expected to prove but didn’t. Similarly, comments that start positively but include “however” or “but” often hide serious concerns. Always pay close attention to what follows these transition words.
You should also consider the tone and qualifiers reviewers use. When a comment mentions that the team “may benefit from additional expertise,” it’s often a red flag about whether your current team has the necessary credentials or experience. These are not soft suggestions—they’re signs of doubt that could have directly impacted your score.
DOT reviewers often phrase critiques politely.
“Could benefit from…” usually signals a deficiency, not a suggestion.
By learning to “read between the lines,” you’ll be better equipped to identify which aspects of your proposal need clarification, expansion, or rethinking altogether.
Distinguishing Major vs. Minor Critiques
Not all reviewer comments carry equal weight. To focus your revision efforts effectively, you need to distinguish between major critiques—which likely drove your proposal’s score down—and minor issues, which are still important but less likely to be the reason for a rejection.
Major critiques typically address the core review criteria: technical feasibility, innovation, team qualifications, or alignment with the solicitation topic. If a reviewer questions whether your solution meets DOT’s stated goals or whether your methodology is clear and executable, these are serious concerns. Similarly, if multiple reviewers mention the same weakness—such as a vague commercialization plan or missing regulatory considerations—that issue likely played a key role in the outcome.
Minor critiques often relate to presentation, grammar, or formatting. These still matter. A confusing or error-ridden proposal can undermine your credibility, but these problems are usually fixable without rethinking your core concept.
If more than one reviewer flags the same issue, treat it as critical
—even if it seems minor at first glance.
When reading your debrief, look for patterns. Are reviewers aligned in their concerns? Do they repeatedly flag the same section? These clues will help you separate cosmetic edits from substantive weaknesses—and ensure you address the root causes in your resubmission.
Most Common Reviewer Issues and How to Fix Them
Across both Phase I and Phase II proposals, DOT SBIR reviewers tend to flag a consistent set of issues. Understanding what these comments mean—and how to correct them—can help you revise your submission more effectively.
Phase-Specific Feedback: What to Prioritize in Phase I vs Phase II
DOT reviewers evaluate Phase I and Phase II proposals using different criteria, even though the core SBIR principles—innovation, feasibility, and commercialization—apply to both. Knowing what reviewers prioritize at each phase will help you tailor your proposal and address feedback more strategically.
- Phase I
- Phase II
- Feasibility Focused: The main goal is to show that your concept is technically viable.
- Technical Clarity: Reviewers expect a detailed work plan with realistic objectives that can be accomplished in six months.
- Relevance to Topic: Strong proposals explicitly solve the DOT problem described in the solicitation.
- Preliminary Data: If available, even limited data can strengthen your case.
- Early Market Awareness: While full commercialization plans aren’t required, some mention of potential customers or end users is expected.
- Validation of Phase I Results: Reviewers want to see a clear narrative of what you achieved in Phase I, with supporting data or metrics.
- Detailed Prototype Plan: The R&D plan should describe how you’ll build, test, and evaluate your solution.
- Commercial Traction: Include letters of support, partnerships, or pilot commitments. Reviewers want proof your product can gain traction beyond SBIR.
- Regulatory and Implementation Path: Demonstrate awareness of agency-specific requirements like FAA certification or FMCSA compliance, if applicable.
Reviewers tailor their critiques based on these expectations. Make sure your resubmission aligns with the correct phase—failing to meet the expectations for your current stage is one of the most common reasons proposals are declined.
Strategies for a Stronger Resubmission
If you’ve received reviewer feedback, the most important thing you can do is show that you took it seriously. A successful resubmission often comes down to how clearly you demonstrate that you understood and addressed prior concerns.
Start by mapping each reviewer comment to the relevant section of your proposal. Make sure the revised version not only fixes the issue but explains how it has been fixed—whether by adding details, revising the technical approach, or strengthening the team.
If a comment questioned your team’s experience, consider adding a subcontractor or consultant with the required expertise. If the technical plan seemed weak, enhance it with step-by-step methods and defined deliverables. If the market path was unclear, bolster your commercialization section with letters of support or evidence of stakeholder interest.
Also, pay attention to the proposal’s clarity and formatting. Reviewers often mention when writing hinders comprehension. Use clear section headings, diagrams, and tables to guide the reader.
Yes—even minor comments matter. Ignoring feedback signals to reviewers that you didn’t take their evaluation seriously. If you disagree with a comment, you can clarify your reasoning in the proposal narrative—but always acknowledge it.
Finally, if the solicitation allows it, include a cover letter briefly summarizing the changes and referencing reviewer concerns. This shows initiative and helps orient reviewers during evaluation.
Treat Reviews as a Roadmap
Reviewer comments may be brief, but they’re rich with insight. If you treat them as a roadmap—not just a critique—you’ll be far better positioned to succeed in the DOT SBIR program.
The key is to read them closely, interpret their meaning carefully, and revise your proposal with intention. Address major concerns head-on. Use examples, details, and supporting data to demonstrate progress. If reviewers see that you’ve listened and acted thoughtfully, they’re far more likely to support your proposal the second time around.
Success in the SBIR process often requires multiple iterations. By treating feedback as a tool—not a setback—you improve your chances not just of funding, but of developing a truly impactful solution for the transportation sector.