Narrative outline
Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs Phase II. One section per scoring criterion, in the notice's order, so reviewers find each answer where they expect it. Fill in every [[NEEDS: …]] with your own facts.
Download as text Score your draft
Narrative limit: 20 pages. Suggested pages follow each section's share of the points. Scores listed: 80%. The notice's total wasn't found, so check it. Source: the official notice, FY26-SBIR-STTR-PII-NOFO-P.pdf.
Phase II Scientific and Technical Feasibility · 20% · about 5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 37):
(20%): a. Project objectives and outcomes are clearly described, adequate, and appropriate. All project components (i.e., research and commercialization) are reflected in one or more project objectives; b. Proposed approach, procedures, or methodologies are innovative, original, clearly described, suitable, and feasible; c. Expected results or outcomes are clearly stated, measurable, and achievable within the allotted timeframe; d. Proposed research fills knowledge gaps that are critical to the development of new innovations to address the stated problem of issue; and e. Proposed research is up to date on the current state of the art (i.e., literature reviews have been completed).
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Commercial Potential · 20% · about 5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(20%): The commercial potential will be assessed based on how well the following criteria are presented: a. Demonstration of the company’s ability to commercialize the innovation; b. Relevant and current market information for the innovation (stakeholder needs for the innovation, size of the market, potential customers, competition, etc.); c. Strategy for commercializing the innovation, including follow-on commitments from private sector or non-SBIR/STTR funding sources; d. Plans for protection of intellectual property; e. Projected revenue stream and assumptions; and f. Record of commercializing new products and/or services during the last 5 years, especially from prior SBIR and STTR projects. A Commercialization Plan showing that the proposing firm has no prior Phase II awards will not affect the evaluation of an application; the application will be evaluated for commercial potential…
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Importance of the Problem · 10% · about 2.5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(10%): How well the application justifies the importance of the problem. The degree to which the project satisfies a public interest.
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Investigator and Resource Qualifications · 10% · about 2.5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(10%): a. Roles of key personnel are clearly defined; b. Key personnel have sufficient scientific and business expertise to complete the proposed project and, where appropriate, partnerships with other disciplines and institutions are established; c. PD and Co-PD biographic information/resumes provide relevant employment history; d. Support personnel, facilities, and instrumentation are sufficient; e. A clear plan is articulated for project management, including time allocated for attainment of objectives and delivery of products, maintenance of partnerships and collaborations, and a strategy to enhance communication, data sharing, and reporting among members of the project team; f. Consultants, subcontractors, or CRADA cooperators that are involved in the project have provided letters verifying their willingness to participate in the project; and g. Personnel on subcontract(s) and…
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Budget · 10% · about 2.5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(10%): The budget is appropriate for the proposed research plan, and the application provides sufficient budget detail to indicate clearly how the funds in each budget category would be utilized.
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Duplication · 10% · about 2.5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(10%): a. There is no duplication of any ongoing or previous research by the SBC or by other researchers; and b. Application clearly indicates how the proposed technology would differ significantly from existing innovations. Additional factors that will be considered in the review process are whether an SBIR/STTR application involves a CRADA with a USDA or other Federal laboratory or contains a follow-on funding commitment for Phase III. In the event that two or more applications are of approximately equal merit, the existence of a CRADA with a USDA or other Federal laboratory or a follow-on funding commitment for Phase III will be an important consideration to break the tie. The value of any commitment will depend upon the degree of financial commitment made by non-Federal investors, with the greater value resulting from a signed agreement with reasonable terms for an amount at least…
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Draft written? Score it against these criteria and check each section's length. Want to see how others did it? Sample proposals agencies have posted.
Built from the official notice's scoring section. Section names, order and page limits come from the notice.