NASA SBIR Reviewer Feedback Guide

Introduction

NASA’s SBIR program doesn’t just fund the best ideas—it funds the best-presented ideas. That’s why reviewer comments are so valuable. If your proposal wasn’t selected, NASA provides detailed feedback that explains exactly why. These comments aren’t a rejection—they’re a roadmap to improvement.

Understanding and applying this feedback can dramatically increase your chances of success in a resubmission. But interpreting these comments requires nuance. Are they suggesting a minor edit or identifying a fatal flaw? Do they believe in your idea but question your execution plan?

This guide will help you decode NASA SBIR reviewer feedback and turn it into a stronger proposal. Whether you’re revising a Phase I or Phase II submission, you’ll learn how to triage critiques, reinforce strengths, and craft a revised proposal that clearly responds to reviewer concerns.

How to Read NASA Reviewer Comments

Every NASA SBIR proposal goes through a rigorous peer review process. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who evaluate your submission against NASA’s defined criteria. Their written comments are provided in a “debriefing” document after selections are announced.

These comments are typically grouped—either explicitly or implicitly—by evaluation factors such as:

• Scientific and technical merit
• Relevance to NASA’s needs
• Approach and risk
• Team qualifications and facilities
• Commercial potential

Start by identifying how each comment aligns with one of these categories. This helps you focus your revisions on the areas that most affected your score.

You might see statements like “The innovation is interesting but underdeveloped” or “Unclear how this technology supports current NASA missions.” These are not casual observations—they are coded signals that certain proposal sections failed to meet NASA’s expectations.

Some reviews are short and focused; others are detailed and specific. Either way, your job is to read them not defensively, but diagnostically.

Distinguishing Critical vs. Minor Comments

Not all reviewer comments carry equal weight. Some point to weaknesses that likely prevented your proposal from being selected. Others flag improvements that, while helpful, didn’t impact your score as heavily. Your first task is to triage.

Critical comments typically fall into one of the core evaluation categories: technical merit, NASA relevance, team qualifications, work plan detail, or commercialization potential. If a reviewer questions the feasibility of your approach or says your work isn’t aligned with NASA’s needs, that’s not optional feedback—it’s essential to address.

Other clues include repetition across reviewers, language like “unclear,” “insufficient,” or “fails to,” or explicit mention of scoring impact. If a comment shows up more than once, it likely sank your score.

Minor comments include things like unclear wording, missing success metrics, or formatting issues. These should still be fixed—sloppy proposals reduce reviewer confidence—but they’re not deal-breakers.

Treat all comments seriously, but focus your time on those that directly affect your evaluation score. Fix the major issues first, then polish the details.

Prioritize the big fixes first.
If a reviewer questions feasibility, alignment with NASA, or your commercialization plan, treat it as critical. Don’t let minor issues distract from the core work.

Responding to Common Reviewer Themes

NASA reviewers consistently evaluate five main aspects of a proposal. Each carries weight in the scoring process, and feedback often maps directly to one of these themes. Here’s how to respond to the most common categories of comments:

How to Revise Your Proposal Effectively

A strong resubmission isn’t just a lightly edited version of your original—it’s a strategically improved document that directly addresses reviewer concerns. Think rewrite, not patch.

Start by organizing the feedback by category, then outline specific changes you’ll make. If a reviewer questioned your methodology, rewrite that section with more detail, not just a sentence or two of clarification. If they doubted the relevance to NASA, revise your introduction to emphasize mission alignment and include citations from NASA planning documents or solicitations.

Clarity matters. Rewrite sections with the assumption that the next review panel hasn’t read the previous version—and don’t assume anything is “clear enough.” Use plain, active language to eliminate ambiguity and show confidence in your plan.

But don’t throw out what worked. If you received positive comments—on your innovation, team, or prior work—keep that content strong and, if possible, enhance it. Reviewer praise indicates strengths you don’t want to lose.

Positive comments are assets.
Preserve the elements that reviewers praised, and reinforce them where possible—especially if new data or achievements strengthen your case.

Writing a Reviewer-Responsive Resubmission

One of the most effective ways to show reviewers you took feedback seriously is to reflect their language in your revision—subtly, but clearly. If a reviewer said your market analysis was “limited,” use that exact word when you rewrite: “To address the limited market analysis noted in the prior review, this revised section provides…” This signals that you’ve read and acted on the critique.

Do not ignore major feedback. If you disagree with a comment, clarify your reasoning—but do so constructively and with new evidence. Often, confusion arises from a lack of explanation rather than an actual flaw in the work.

Should you mention reviewer feedback directly? Sometimes. NASA doesn’t require a formal response document, but in a Phase II proposal or a revised Phase I, it can be appropriate to acknowledge major changes briefly—especially in the executive summary or commercialization plan.

Finally, remember to review NASA’s current solicitation carefully. Even if your feedback is from a prior year, current guidelines may have changed.

Final Tips for Resubmitting to NASA SBIR

A well-revised proposal is only as strong as its submission process. Before you upload, make sure your proposal follows all formatting and compliance requirements listed in the current solicitation. This includes page limits, file types, font sizes, and section headers. Don’t risk rejection over a preventable technicality.

Submit early—at least 48 hours before the deadline. NASA’s submission systems can experience last-minute slowdowns or technical glitches, and late proposals will not be accepted.

If your feedback raised structural or strategic issues you’re unsure how to fix, don’t hesitate to seek help. Professional SBIR consultants, state PTACs, or even experienced peers can provide valuable outside perspective. In some cases, contacting a NASA center or topic author (if permitted) may clarify topic fit or mission alignment.

And finally, don’t take the feedback personally. Many funded proposals were once declined. Treat reviewer comments as free expert advice—not as a verdict. The strongest proposals often come from thoughtful resubmissions.