Understanding Scored SBIR/STTR Criteria

When you sit in front of your computer deep into the writing of your SBIR/STTR grant application, it can be easy to lose the thread of what you are working toward – writing a compelling and comprehensive narrative that satisfies National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria so that your project can get funded.

In this post, we’ll briefly discuss the NIH’s scored criteria for SBIR/STTR grant applications and apply our experience writing and evaluating grant applications to help you better understand each criterion.

Criteria

Significance

Significance assesses whether the proposed project addresses an important problem or barrier in the field. Reviewers evaluate the project's relevance and potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice. They also consider the commercial potential of the project, including its marketability and potential impact on the target audience.

Example: A proposed project aims to develop a novel drug delivery system for cancer treatment. The significance lies in addressing the unmet need for targeted therapies with fewer side effects, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

You can learn more about the BHGC approach to this criterion in our Reviewer Mindset: Significance post.

Investigator(s)

This criterion examines the qualifications, expertise, and commitment of the project's leaders and collaborators. Reviewers assess whether the project team possesses the necessary skills and resources to successfully complete the proposed research. They also evaluate the team's track record and accomplishments in their respective fields.

Example: The project team includes experienced researchers with extensive backgrounds in drug development, pharmacology, and clinical trials. Their collective expertise ensures that the project is led by qualified individuals capable of navigating the complexities of translational research.

You can learn more about the BHGC approach to this criterion in our Connecting Your Team to Your Project post.

Innovation

Innovation evaluates the novelty and originality of the proposed approach. Reviewers assess whether the project offers a new or unconventional solution to a research or clinical problem. They consider whether the project challenges existing paradigms and has the potential to revolutionize current practices, methodologies, and products.

Example: Instead of traditional chemotherapy, the project proposes using nanotechnology to deliver therapeutic agents directly to tumor sites, minimizing systemic toxicity and enhancing treatment efficacy. This innovative approach challenges conventional treatment modalities and offers a promising new avenue for cancer therapy.

You can learn more about the BHGC approach to this criterion in our Proposal Pitfalls: Significance and Innovation post.

Approach

The approach criterion assesses the feasibility and appropriateness of the proposed research plan. Reviewers evaluate the project's aims, methodology, and analytical strategies to determine whether they are well-reasoned and suitable for achieving the project's goals. They also consider the project's risk management strategies and the likelihood of achieving the proposed milestones.

Example: The project's approach involves rigorous preclinical testing in animal models to assess the safety and efficacy of the novel drug delivery system. The methodology includes comprehensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies to optimize drug dosing and delivery parameters.

You can learn more about the BHGC approach to this criterion in our Proposal Pitfalls: Timelines and Milestones post.

Environment

Environment evaluates the scientific and business context in which the project will be conducted. Reviewers assess whether the project will benefit from the resources, support, and infrastructure available in its research environment. They also consider whether the business environment supports the project's success and eventual commercialization, including access to necessary expertise and resources.

Example: The project will be conducted in a research facility equipped with the necessary instrumentation and specialized expertise in nanomedicine. Additionally, the research environment fosters collaboration with clinicians and industry partners, facilitating translation from bench to bedside.

You can learn more about the BHGC approach to this criterion in our Creating a Commercialization Plan for NIH SBIR/STTR Grant Applications post.

BHGC Advantage

We’ve previously written about the BHGC advantage and the approach that we take. In addition to our experience writing funded NIH SBIR/STTR grant applications, we also have experience reviewing and providing feedback to grant applications. This combination of experience will help you make the cohesive, compelling, and criteria-driven grant application that will get you the funding your innovation needs.

Ready to make use of our advantage to benefit your project? Schedule a free consultation with us and see if the no risk “BHGC Pay Upon Award”™ approach is a right fit for your project.