Every SBIR proposal submitted to NOAA enters a structured and highly competitive review process. Understanding how your proposal was evaluated is the first step in using reviewer feedback to guide your resubmission.
NOAA’s SBIR review process is peer-based, involving both internal NOAA experts and external subject-matter specialists. Each reviewer independently scores proposals across four weighted criteria: Scientific Merit and Technical Approach (40 points), Level of Innovation (20 points), Commercial Potential and Societal Impact (20 points), and Team Qualifications and Facilities (20 points). For Phase I submissions, reviewers primarily assess technical feasibility and alignment with NOAA’s mission. For Phase II, more weight is placed on the success of Phase I results and the maturity of the commercialization plan.
What sets NOAA’s evaluation apart is its mission-centric focus. Proposals must demonstrate not just technical excellence, but direct relevance to NOAA’s operational needs—such as climate modeling, coastal resilience, ocean monitoring, or fisheries management. Reviewers are instructed to identify whether a proposal addresses a clearly defined NOAA need, and how it contributes to broader societal benefits. Even a technically sound project may be scored poorly if its relevance to NOAA is weak or vaguely stated.
During review, each proposal is typically read and scored by at least three reviewers. If their scores diverge significantly, NOAA may convene a panel meeting to reconcile the evaluations. These discussions allow reviewers to re-score based on peer input, which can influence the final ranking. However, even high-scoring proposals are not guaranteed funding. Final selections factor in programmatic balance across topic areas, budget limitations, and other administrative considerations.
After decisions are made, NOAA provides applicants with anonymized reviewer comments—especially for those not selected for funding. These comments are usually presented as a series of short narratives or bullet points covering strengths and weaknesses. NOAA does not use a single summary statement or “impact score” like some other agencies. Instead, feedback tends to be concise and aligned to the evaluation criteria, such as: “Approach lacks sufficient technical detail,” or “Commercialization plan needs clearer customer definition.”
Understanding this context helps you interpret feedback correctly. A comment about weak innovation, for example, signals that your project didn’t clearly distinguish itself from existing technologies. A note on “feasibility unclear” likely means the methodology or work plan lacked specificity. And if your market opportunity was called “uncertain,” reviewers probably didn’t see evidence of demand or a viable go-to-market path.
To succeed on resubmission, applicants must grasp not just what the feedback says, but how it connects to NOAA’s review framework. The goal isn’t to rebut the reviewers—it’s to revise the proposal in a way that better aligns with what NOAA values most: mission impact, feasibility, innovation, and readiness for commercialization.
Interpreting Reviewer Feedback Constructively
NOAA’s reviewer comments are more than a post-mortem—they’re a roadmap for turning a declined proposal into a fundable one. But to use them effectively, you need to read between the lines. Reviewer feedback is often brief, occasionally vague, and written in formal language. It’s up to you to extract meaning and turn critique into action.
Start by categorizing each comment under NOAA’s four evaluation criteria: Technical Approach, Innovation, Commercial Potential, and Team Qualifications. This simple exercise will show you which areas reviewers saw as weakest—and that’s where your revision focus should begin. For example, if all reviewers made critical remarks under the commercialization or market potential category, that’s a clear signal your revised proposal needs a stronger go-to-market plan.
Keep in mind that each reviewer may have a different background. One might focus on the engineering soundness, another on market feasibility. So don’t expect consensus. Instead, treat every comment—especially criticisms—as a valuable indicator. A flaw mentioned by just one reviewer might be overlooked in this round but flagged again in the future. Fix it now.
It’s also important to understand the tone. NOAA reviewers are directed to be professional and constructive, but they won’t sugarcoat. A phrase like “lacks detail” means exactly that: something critical wasn’t explained well enough. A comment that says “not sufficiently differentiated from current approaches” means your innovation isn’t clearly distinct from existing solutions—or you didn’t explain the differences clearly.
When a comment seems vague or overly brief—e.g., “commercial plan weak”—step back and ask: What question did the reviewer still have that we didn’t answer? Did we identify real customers? Quantify the market size? Clarify pricing? If not, those are areas to expand.
For conflicting feedback, prioritize what was repeated. If one reviewer says your team lacks domain expertise, and another says your team is highly qualified, dig into the Key Personnel section and see if credentials or roles were unclear. You might resolve this with a short bio rewrite or by adding an external collaborator.
Nowhere is interpretation more critical than in understanding what wasn’t said. If no reviewer mentioned your Phase I results, your write-up may not have made the findings stand out. If nobody commented on the mission relevance of your project, you may have failed to tie your innovation explicitly to NOAA’s goals. Silence on these topics should be treated as a warning.
After reading and annotating the comments, create a summary matrix: list each critique, its source (which reviewer), category, and your proposed revision. This exercise forces you to approach revisions systematically and shows your team (and future reviewers) that you took the feedback seriously.
Finally, remember the reviewer’s role. Their job is to assess the document—not you, your company, or your intentions. If something wasn’t clear to them, that’s a signal your proposal didn’t communicate it well. The burden is on the writer, not the reader.
Planning and Executing Your Resubmission Strategy
After carefully interpreting your NOAA SBIR reviewer comments, the next step is to transform that insight into a concrete resubmission plan. Successful applicants don’t just “fix mistakes”—they reframe, reorganize, and clarify their proposals to present a stronger, more targeted solution. Here’s how to do that, step by step.
Start by making a master list of all reviewer critiques. Categorize each one by proposal section: technical approach, innovation rationale, commercial potential, NOAA mission alignment, and team qualifications. Use this list to identify what needs updating—and in what order of importance.
For technical revisions, aim for specificity. Reviewer comments like “method lacks detail” or “unclear testing plan” suggest that your work plan didn’t clearly articulate what tasks will be performed, in what order, and using what tools or data. Rewrite the methodology to include month-by-month milestones, testing metrics, and decision points. Wherever feasible, include technical diagrams, preliminary data, or pilot results that support feasibility.
When it comes to innovation, reviewers expect you to demonstrate why your solution is not just new, but necessary. Expand your description of the state-of-the-art and explicitly show how your approach surpasses existing methods. If you didn’t previously address competing technologies, now is the time to briefly compare your concept with what’s already available. Use statements like: “Current systems rely on X, which is limited by Y. Our approach introduces Z, which allows A, B, and C.”
Commercial potential is where many proposals fall short—especially in Phase I. NOAA reviewers want to see clear thinking about end-users, pricing, and market strategy. If feedback suggested your plan was vague, update this section with a short value proposition, a defined customer segment (e.g., coastal cities, wind farm operators), and at least one credible path to market. Reference customer discovery interviews, letters of interest, or distribution partnerships, if available.
Team qualifications are another area where small changes can make a big difference. If reviewers questioned your expertise, revise your bios to explicitly tie past experience to your proposed work. If you lacked certain domain knowledge, consider adding a part-time consultant, academic collaborator, or small subcontractor. Include a brief summary of their role and a letter of support in the appendix.
Another crucial update is to reframe your proposal’s relevance to NOAA. Many otherwise-strong applications get low scores for being “adjacent” to the agency’s priorities but not mission-critical. Re-read the solicitation topic and NOAA’s mission goals. Then revise your “Significance of the Problem” and “Expected Outcomes” sections to clearly state how your solution will impact NOAA’s operations—whether through better data, lower costs, faster predictions, or environmental benefits.
When drafting your revised narrative, avoid overcorrecting. Don’t try to address every single comment with a paragraph of new content. The most successful resubmissions are focused, not bloated. Highlight major changes in a short cover letter or “Resubmission Summary” section (if allowed). Use phrases like: “We have revised the technical approach to clarify Task 2 and added more detail on testing protocols, as suggested by Reviewer 1.”
Be mindful of tone. A resubmission should acknowledge and incorporate reviewer input, not challenge it. Avoid defensive language like “We believe the original approach was sufficient.” Instead, use phrasing that shows you took the feedback seriously: “To improve clarity, we have updated the methodology section to include specific testing benchmarks and expected outcomes.”
Resubmitting to NOAA is not simply a re-upload. It’s an opportunity to demonstrate growth, responsiveness, and clarity. By using reviewer comments to directly strengthen each proposal section—and by clearly communicating those improvements—you significantly increase your chances of moving from declined to funded.
Technical Formatting and Submission Best Practices
Even the best revised proposal can falter if the formatting or submission mechanics are incorrect. NOAA has strict guidelines for both Phase I and Phase II proposals, and it’s your responsibility to follow them precisely in a resubmission.
Start with the basics: adhere to the required formatting structure. That means using the correct font (typically 11-point Times New Roman or Arial), consistent line spacing (usually single or 1.15), and defined margin sizes. NOAA’s instructions also dictate specific section headers—such as “Identification and Significance of the Problem,” “Technical Objectives,” “Work Plan,” and “Commercial Potential.” Use these headers exactly as NOAA specifies to ensure your proposal is easily navigable by reviewers.
For resubmissions, clarity about what has changed is essential. NOAA does not currently require applicants to highlight all edits, but doing so—judiciously—can be helpful. Use subtle formatting like bold or italicized phrases to indicate revised text. Alternatively, include a brief “Response to Reviewers” paragraph at the start of each major section to explain how feedback was addressed. Do not insert tracked changes; they won’t be accepted in most submission systems and often clutter the document.
Also remember to update ancillary documents. If your budget changed, ensure all associated forms (e.g., Budget Justification, Level of Effort, Facilities and Equipment) are synchronized. Inconsistencies—like mismatched timelines or conflicting numbers—are a common cause of reviewer confusion.
One often overlooked detail is how you label your resubmission. NOAA requires that you indicate this status clearly. Use the word “Resubmission” in the proposal title and include a cover page (or a separate attachment, if allowed) briefly summarizing the changes. This tells reviewers—and NOAA program staff—that this version is responsive to prior input.
If NOAA’s submission portal has changed since your last application (e.g., transition from Grants.gov to Grants Online), verify access credentials early and test your submission at least 48 hours before the deadline. Late uploads due to technical issues are not grounds for extension.
Pay close attention to page limits. For Phase I, NOAA allows a 15-page technical proposal. Exceeding this, even by one paragraph, may result in rejection. Use appendices or references wisely, but don’t assume reviewers will read them. Keep core arguments and data within the main proposal body.
Reminder
NOAA Phase I proposals must fit within a 6-month timeline and a 15-page technical narrative. Phase II projects can span up to 24 months, but still have strict formatting rules.