Introduction
Resubmitting a proposal to NIST after receiving reviewer feedback is more common than many applicants realize. Even strong applications often need a second round to align more closely with agency expectations. Understanding how to interpret reviewer comments—and knowing how to respond effectively—can significantly improve your odds of success in future submission cycles.
This guide will help you decode reviewer language, avoid common missteps, and prepare a resubmission that directly addresses past critiques without compromising your original vision.
Understanding NIST SBIR Reviewer Comments
When you submit a proposal to the NIST SBIR program, it undergoes a peer review process by technical and business experts. These reviewers evaluate your application based on specific scoring criteria outlined in the solicitation. They don’t just score—they provide narrative comments that explain the reasoning behind their ratings.
Who Reviews Your Proposal
NIST typically selects reviewers with subject-matter expertise in the technical area of your proposal. Some may also have commercialization backgrounds, especially in later phases. Reviewers are expected to remain objective, avoid conflicts of interest, and evaluate based on defined merit criteria—not personal preferences.
What They’re Evaluating
- Technical feasibility: Is your proposed R&D approach well-defined and plausible?
- Commercial potential: Does the product have a clear market, and is there a path to commercialization?
- Team qualifications: Does your team have the expertise to execute the project?
- Budget realism: Are your cost estimates appropriate for the scope and timeline?
Each reviewer scores these components separately and provides brief justifications. Keep in mind that reviewers don’t have unlimited time; their comments may be short, general, or even seem contradictory across different reviewers.
What Reviewers Are Not Allowed to Do
Reviewers must not recommend specific vendors, proprietary tools, or internal agency contacts. Their comments should not include confidential information, and they cannot give private advice beyond the formal review.
What Reviewer Comments Actually Mean
At first glance, NIST reviewer comments can be vague, overly technical, or even contradictory. Understanding how to interpret these statements is critical to improving your next submission.
Decoding Vague Feedback
Phrases like “unclear commercialization path” or “needs stronger justification” are common. While frustratingly brief, these are clues that something essential was missing or assumed in your original application. The best response is to treat each vague comment as a prompt: ask yourself, what specific detail could I add to eliminate this concern?
Actionable vs. Non-Actionable Comments
Some feedback offers clear guidance—“no customer validation included” is an actionable critique. Others, like “proposal lacks novelty,” may be subjective and harder to address. Focus first on feedback that ties directly to your scoreable elements, such as technical merit or potential impact.
Scoring vs. Margin Notes
Be aware that not all feedback influences your final score equally. Narrative comments explain scores but are sometimes pulled from informal notes made during review. Take them seriously—but prioritize those linked to scoring criteria.
Tip:
Reviewer comments don’t always align with scores. A “fundable” rating can include critical feedback, and a low score might come with vague praise.
Preparing for Resubmission
If your proposal didn’t get funded the first time, that doesn’t mean the idea is dead—it means it needs refinement. The NIST SBIR program allows and often expects resubmissions, especially when the original proposal showed promise but didn’t meet all the scoring criteria.
Eligibility to Resubmit
You can typically resubmit a proposal in the next available solicitation cycle, provided you make substantive changes. NIST does not limit how many times you can resubmit, but unchanged or minimally updated applications are unlikely to fare better the second time.
Required vs. Recommended Changes
Not all feedback needs to be addressed equally. Prioritize changes that impact technical feasibility, commercialization potential, or proposal clarity. If a reviewer flags a budget issue or an unclear milestone, those must be corrected. Less critical suggestions—like formatting tweaks or additional citations—can be considered optional.
Addressing Dissenting Opinions
It’s common for reviewers to disagree. One may praise your technical approach, while another finds it lacking. Don’t ignore the negative comment—use it to strengthen that section. Acknowledge the disagreement, explain your reasoning, and consider revising the narrative to preempt that type of critique.
Timing Your Resubmission
While it’s tempting to rush your next submission, resist the urge. Instead, allow time to fully revise, seek internal or external review, and ensure all required registrations and documents are updated. A strategic, well-timed resubmission is far more effective than a fast one.
Best Practice:
Submit your revised proposal at least 48 hours before the NIST deadline to avoid Grants.gov upload failures and last-minute technical issues.
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments
An effective resubmission doesn’t just change the proposal—it shows reviewers that you listened. Your response to reviewer comments is as important as the technical revisions you make. Here’s how to present your case thoughtfully and professionally.
Structuring Your Response
Start with a clear and professional tone. You’re not arguing your score—you’re demonstrating that you’ve understood the concerns and have addressed them. Label your response document clearly and organize it point-by-point, matching the order of the original comments where possible.
Point-by-Point Rebuttal vs. Integrated Rewrite
You have two primary options:
- Point-by-point rebuttal: Include a separate document or appendix listing each reviewer comment and your specific response.
- Integrated rewrite: Revise your proposal text to explicitly address the comments. This is best when changes are minimal or localized.
Many applicants do both: revise the proposal and include a brief cover letter explaining what changed and why.
Referencing Reviewer Language
Where possible, quote the reviewer directly to show alignment between the comment and your revision. For example:
Reviewer stated, “The commercialization pathway lacks clarity.”
Response: We’ve expanded Section 3.2 to detail our Phase III partnerships and validated market demand through recent customer interviews.
Common Mistakes When Revising a Proposal
Resubmissions require more than just tweaking a few paragraphs. Many applicants fall into predictable traps that can derail an otherwise improved proposal. Avoiding these common mistakes can significantly improve your chances the second time around.
Ignoring Reviewer Feedback
The biggest mistake is submitting essentially the same proposal without meaningful changes. Reviewers notice—and it signals that you’re not responsive to constructive input. Even if you believe the feedback was flawed, show how you considered it and made your case more clearly.
Warning:
Submitting the same proposal without addressing reviewer feedback can result in automatic rejection. See 13 CFR § 121.702 for eligibility implications.
Overcorrecting the Proposal
In trying to satisfy every critique, some applicants dilute the original innovation. Don’t sacrifice technical merit or feasibility to chase vague feedback. Revise with intent, not out of panic.
Unjustified Technical Changes
If you change your R&D approach significantly, explain why. Otherwise, reviewers may question your project’s coherence or feasibility. Every major update needs a technical or market-based rationale.
Failing to Update Supporting Documents
Many applicants forget to revise attachments like the commercialization plan, letters of support, or the budget justification. These materials must align with the updated proposal. Discrepancies raise red flags during review.
Final Checklist Before Resubmitting
Before clicking “submit,” take time to verify that your revised proposal is complete, compliant, and compelling. Here’s a checklist to help ensure nothing critical is overlooked.
Address Every Reviewer Comment
Read through your original reviews line by line and confirm that every major concern has been addressed in the revised proposal or response document. Reviewers will be looking for evidence that their input was taken seriously.
Confirm Proposal Compliance
Check the latest NIST solicitation for formatting requirements, budget limits, page counts, and submission instructions. Agencies periodically update these rules, and a non-compliant proposal can be rejected without review.
Revise Supporting Documents
Ensure that all attachments—commercialization plan, biosketches, facilities documents, letters of support—are current and reflect any changes made in your revised proposal. Misalignment between these and your narrative can raise credibility issues.
Get a Second Opinion
Have someone unfamiliar with your original submission review the revised version. A fresh set of eyes can catch issues with clarity, logic, or flow that you might have missed.