For many applicants to the U.S. Department of Education’s SBIR program, the first outcome isn’t a grant—it’s a set of reviewer comments. These critiques can feel discouraging at first, especially after months of development and documentation. But they also serve a different purpose: guidance. Reviewer feedback offers an inside look at how your proposal was received, where it fell short, and what changes might elevate it into the fundable range.
In a highly competitive program where only a small percentage of applicants receive Phase I awards, understanding how to read, interpret, and act on reviewer feedback is essential. A thoughtful resubmission—not just a recycled proposal with minor edits—can significantly improve your odds. This article provides a step-by-step approach to navigating reviewer comments and preparing a revised proposal that aligns more closely with the Department’s expectations and priorities.
How ED/IES Reviews Proposals and Delivers Feedback
The Department of Education’s SBIR program is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which uses a peer review system designed to maintain objectivity and scientific rigor. Understanding how this process works is key to making sense of the feedback you receive—and using it to your advantage.
Applications first undergo administrative screening to ensure they comply with eligibility and formatting requirements. Proposals that pass this phase move on to scientific merit review, which is conducted by expert panels. These reviewers typically have deep experience in education research, technology development, and commercialization. Importantly, IES intentionally separates the roles of review staff and program staff: while reviewers score proposals, program officers do not participate in that review process and cannot influence scores.
Once the review is complete, applicants receive a written feedback package—typically referred to as a summary statement. This document synthesizes individual critiques from the reviewers, and if the application was discussed in panel, may also include a panel summary. The comments are grouped by merit criteria outlined in the solicitation, often addressing technical approach, innovation, research design, team qualifications, and commercialization potential.
It’s important to understand that strong reviews don’t always result in funding. A proposal might receive above-average scores yet still miss the cutoff due to the high number of applicants and limited budget. This is why feedback should be viewed not as a verdict, but as insight into how the proposal was ranked relative to its competition.
Reading reviewer feedback with this in mind helps shift the focus from disappointment to strategy. Each comment offers a clue about how to better align your next proposal with both the solicitation’s priorities and the reviewers’ expectations.
Interpreting Reviewer Comments Strategically
Reviewer feedback can feel blunt, vague, or even contradictory—but it’s rarely random. The key is approaching it with a clear, structured mindset. Whether you’re preparing for a resubmission or future proposal, your first task is to decode the comments, not defend against them.
Start with emotional distance. Give yourself a few days after receiving your summary statement before digging in. The initial sting is natural, but taking time allows you to shift from defensiveness to problem-solving.
Next, begin a structured analysis:
1. Identify strengths.
These are more than compliments—they’re clues about what resonated with reviewers. Preserve what’s working, and if possible, expand on it. Did reviewers highlight the novelty of your approach, strong alignment with ED/IES goals, or a credible commercialization plan? These areas can anchor your revised proposal.
2. Spot recurring critiques.
If more than one reviewer flags the same issue, take it seriously. Multiple mentions of a vague research design or a confusing budget suggest core problems. Address these head-on. Don’t dismiss repetition as reviewer misunderstanding; treat it as a signal that clarity or substance is lacking.
Prioritize recurring themes across reviewers
These signal critical weaknesses that must be addressed clearly in your revision.
3. Categorize issues by severity.
Use a three-tier system:
- Fatal flaws: These are fundamental—e.g., lack of technical feasibility or poor fit with program goals. If these appear, you may need a full reconceptualization or even a new project direction.
- Major but fixable weaknesses: These include unclear research plans, insufficient pilot testing, or missing detail in the commercialization pathway.
- Minor issues: Problems of clarity, missing citations, or formatting inconsistencies. These are easily fixed, but should still be addressed.
4. Translate vague language.
When a reviewer says “the work plan lacks detail,” consider what they’re really questioning: feasibility? timeline? team capacity? Assume the worst-case interpretation and strengthen that section accordingly.
5. Flag possible misunderstandings.
Sometimes reviewers clearly missed something. Don’t assume they’re at fault—ask how your writing may have led to that confusion. Your resubmission should clarify these points without sounding defensive. Never write, “The reviewer was mistaken.” Instead: “The revised proposal clarifies the role of teachers in the pilot study by specifying…”
6. Don’t let a few positives distract from action.
Compliments are encouraging, but even a well-liked proposal can be unfunded. Positive feedback may reflect potential, not readiness. Focus revision energy where the gaps are.
Finally, document your analysis. Create a table or spreadsheet with each critique, its category, and the corresponding revision plan. This keeps your resubmission on track and ensures that you don’t overlook smaller—but fixable—issues.
By dissecting reviewer feedback strategically and systematically, you’re not just revising a document—you’re improving your chances in a competitive funding environment.
Deciding Whether to Resubmit
Resubmitting a proposal to the Department of Education’s SBIR program requires more than just revisions—it demands a strategic reset. Before you commit to reapplying, assess whether the opportunity—and the effort—still makes sense.
Start by reviewing the nature of the critiques.
Are the weaknesses primarily about presentation or substance? A lack of detail in your methodology is fixable. But if reviewers questioned the core feasibility of your innovation or found the problem it solves to be unclear or misaligned with ED/IES goals, your revision might require a substantial rework—or a new project altogether.
Next, evaluate the tone and content of the feedback.
Was there enthusiasm? Did reviewers highlight any strengths that suggest potential, even if the proposal fell short? A balance of strong positives and fixable critiques is a good signal that your project is worth another attempt.
Check for changes in solicitation priorities.
ED/IES SBIR solicitations evolve. Revisit the most current RFP. Is your project still aligned with what the agency wants to fund this year? If your innovation addresses a newly emphasized area (e.g., learning acceleration post-COVID or equity in access to digital tools), you may be in a better position than during your first submission.
Assess your team’s bandwidth.
Do you have the time, budget, and motivation to make substantial improvements? A resubmission isn’t a light edit—it’s a rebuild. You’ll likely need to strengthen your research plan, restructure your work phases, and update your commercialization pathway. Be realistic about what your team can take on.
Understand how ED/IES handles resubmissions.
Unlike NIH or NSF, ED/IES does not formally track resubmitted proposals. Each one is evaluated “anew,” without an expectation of a response memo or rebuttal.
ED/IES considers revised proposals ‘anew’ each cycle
There’s no formal resubmission tracking or reviewer response requirement. Treat the new proposal as a standalone submission—just a stronger one.
When these factors align—a fixable set of critiques, alignment with the current solicitation, and a capable, committed team—resubmission can be a high-reward investment. But if fundamental flaws remain or agency priorities have shifted away, the wiser move may be to recalibrate for a future cycle or pivot to a new concept.
Writing the Revised Proposal: A Tactical Guide
Once you’ve decided to resubmit, treat your previous submission as a draft—not a template. Effective resubmissions to ED/IES SBIR don’t just “fix errors.” They demonstrate clearer thinking, better execution, and a closer alignment with what reviewers and the agency expect.
Start with a complete reread of your original proposal—line by line—next to the reviewer comments. For each major critique, ask:
- Have I directly addressed this issue in the new draft?
- Would a reviewer scanning the revised version see a meaningful improvement?
Now, rewrite strategically.
Clarify the Problem and Goals
Many unfunded proposals fail at the first hurdle: articulating the educational problem clearly and convincingly. In your revised version, make sure the problem is defined with evidence, urgency, and relevance to ED/IES priorities. Avoid generic statements—ground your problem in data and cite specific gaps in current practice.
Refine the Technical Approach
If reviewers flagged a vague or overambitious work plan, break it down. Use a task-by-task structure that shows what you will do, how long it will take, who will do it, and what outcome you expect. Include timelines, resource allocation, and decision points.
Clarify the link between your activities and your goals. Make sure every task maps to a specific outcome reviewers can track.
Strengthen the Research Design
ED/IES heavily emphasizes rigorous research and usability testing. If this was a weakness, be specific in your revision. Add clear research questions, describe your sample population, explain how data will be collected and analyzed, and define what success looks like. Include iterative testing if possible—early prototypes informed by real classroom use signal feasibility.
Demonstrate Feasibility Within Phase I Constraints
If reviewers said your scope was too large, scale it back. Phase I awards provide up to $250,000 for 8 months. Your revised proposal must show achievable proof-of-concept outcomes within those limits. Shift long-term goals to future phases and sharpen your Phase I milestones.
Update Commercialization Strategy
A weak market plan can sink an otherwise strong technical proposal. Refine your audience segmentation. Who will buy this? Who will use it? Add detail on pricing, distribution, competitive landscape, and customer acquisition. Show that you’ve done recent discovery work—interviews, surveys, pilot sites.
Revise Team and Resources
If there were concerns about team qualifications or infrastructure, address them directly. Add new personnel if needed, revise bios to highlight relevant experience, and confirm access to necessary tools and facilities.
Edit for Clarity and Precision
Don’t underestimate how much unclear writing affects reviewer confidence. Simplify jargon, tighten paragraphs, and make sure every section answers: “What are we doing, why does it matter, and how will we do it?”
Signal—but Don’t Cite—Your Revisions
Since ED/IES reviews proposals fresh each year, you shouldn’t refer explicitly to “previous feedback” or “last year’s reviewers.” Instead, incorporate revisions seamlessly. Example:
- Instead of: “We have added a usability pilot as requested by reviewers…”
- Use: “This Phase I effort includes a two-stage usability pilot with weekly teacher feedback, enabling iterative refinement aligned with classroom needs.”
Track Your Changes Internally
Maintain a spreadsheet or revision log that maps each reviewer comment to its location in the revised proposal. This isn’t submitted, but it helps ensure you’ve addressed everything and is useful if team members are drafting different sections.
Revising an SBIR proposal is not a cosmetic edit—it’s a rewrite with purpose. The strongest resubmissions aren’t just better written; they’re better aligned, better scoped, and more likely to succeed in the eyes of reviewers.
Engaging with the Program Officer: When and How
Program Officers (POs) at the Department of Education play a key role in helping applicants navigate feedback—but timing is critical. You may only contact the PO after reviews are released and the solicitation period is closed. During open solicitations or active reviews, they are prohibited from offering proposal-specific guidance.
If you’re considering a resubmission, a short call or email exchange with the PO can provide strategic insight. Before reaching out, review your summary statement carefully and develop a list of 2–3 specific questions. Focus on clarifying ambiguous feedback or gauging whether your planned revisions address core weaknesses.
Your goal is not to get approval on your revision plan—but to gain perspective on whether the project, as revised, aligns with agency expectations. Be concise, respectful of their time, and avoid arguing with the original review.
Never contact a Program Officer while a solicitation is open
They can’t provide proposal-specific advice during an active application window.
When used strategically, this post-review conversation can validate your direction—or save you from missteps before you invest time in a full revision.