SBIR Proposal Writing Basics: Opportunities within NSF’s Emerging Opportunities Topic
Gail
& Jim Greenwood,
Copyright © 2007 by
For
the past several years, National Science Foundation (NSF) has included a unique
topic called “Emerging Opportunities” in its SBIR/STTR programs.
The intent is to support innovations that have the potential to get to
the marketplace relatively quickly. In
its first FY2008 Phase I SBIR/STTR solicitation, NSF has made EO the only
topic on which it will accept Phase I proposals.
This presents a very interesting opportunity for SBIR/STTR applicants,
but also means you need to proceed with care if you plan to submit a Phase I
proposal to NSF for its December 2007 SBIR/STTR deadline.
As
indicated above, the idea of the Emerging Opportunities (EO) topic is to support
innovations that have near term commercialization potential.
The focus on “innovation” means that NSF still wants these projects
to be typical SBIR/STTR efforts: you
have an innovative but unproven solution to a pressing problem, and you need a
Phase I grant to allow you to determine if your innovation is a feasible
solution to that problem. Therefore,
proposal submitted under the EO topic should not be based on mature technologies
or concepts for which you are just trying to get commercialization money: per
the NSF FY2008 solicitation, it is unacceptable to submit an SBIR/STTR
proposal for the “commercial development of existing products or proven
concepts.” The phrase “near term
commercial potential” is explained by this requirement in the FY2008 NSF
solicitation: within three years of
submission of the Phase I proposal, you must have involvement in the project by
a third party in the form of a customer, strategic commercialization partner, or
an investor.
A
Phase I proposal to NSF under the EO topic must include three key features, or
NSF reserves the right to reject the proposal and return it to you without an
evaluation.
First,
the proposal must include a section on commercialization consisting
of between 3 and 5 pages of details about how this project represents “a
compelling business opportunity.” A
discussion of commercialization potential is important in any Phase I SBIR/STTR
proposal; in a NSF EO proposal, it is critical.
One thing that must be covered in this section is the commercialization
qualifications of your company (and proposed subcontractors, if any)—in an EO
proposal, it is as important that you describe the business development and
commercialization qualifications of your team as it is to discuss your
qualifications for carrying out the proposal R&D efforts.
Second,
an EO proposal must include between 1 and 3 letters of support,
preferably from potential customers, strategic partners, and/or investors.
NSF (as well as ourselves) is a big believer in letters of support in
SBIR/STTR proposals—these letters increase your credibility considerably in
the eyes of the agency’s reviewers, both because they demonstrate that you are
focused on commercialization, and
that you have the willingness and ability to make contact with investors,
partners and customers. But when it
comes to the EO topic, these letters are more than a good idea:
if you do not include at least one, NSF reserves the right to return your
proposal without an evaluation.
Third,
a proposal submitted under NSF’s FY2008 solicitation must fit into one of
three subtopics:
bio & environmental technologies, [electronic] components &
systems, or software & services. Further,
your proposal must fit into one of the numbered subtopic areas called out for
each of these three subtopics. Therefore,
if you have a project that you think represents a “near term business
opportunity” that would be a great fit under NSF’s EO topic, but it falls
outside of the three subtopics and their subtopic areas, do not bother to
submit a proposal. NSF and/or
its reviewers will recognize a “forced fit” of a project to the subtopics,
and the proposal will be (yes, you got it) returned to you without an
evaluation. On the flipside, this
requirement means that, if you think your project does fit one of NSF’s
EO subtopics, then your proposal must clearly and concisely explain the fit so
that there is no question in the eyes of NSF and its reviewers.
That’s
what’s mandatory. Now here are a
couple of things that aren’t required, but are darn good words of advice:
First,
the NSF FY2008 solicitation provides suggested content for the commercialization
section of your EO proposal. We
strongly recommend that you follow NSF’s suggestion, both because it provides
a reasonable organization for what you should be covering in this section and,
more importantly, it means this section will be organized in the way with which
NSF and reviewers are most comfortable. Making
life easier for the agency and its reviewers is always a good idea in SBIR/STTR
proposal preparation.
Second,
avoid smoke blowing, arm waving, and similar antics in your commercialization
discussion. NSF uses reviewers who
are business persons who understand technology commercialization, and your
attempts to “BS” them will be discovered quickly and won’t make them
happy. You may want to consider
getting someone with a business/commercialization background to help you write
this section of the proposal (not to mention work with you ahead of time to
think through a credible and effective commercialization strategy for your
innovation).
Third,
NSF “strongly encourages” you to speak with the NSF SBIR/STTR program
manager assigned to each of the three EO subtopics before deciding to submit a
proposal for the FY2008 solicitation. Simply
put, we feel that you must make that contact.
This manager is expecting to hear from companies that plan to submit an
EO proposal, so you’ll be at a disadvantage if you don’t contact them.
Also, they can provide valuable guidance for your proposal, including
discouraging you from submitting under the EO topic if they don’t think your
project is a good fit for it (bad news is that you will be disheartened by this,
while the really good news is you didn’t waste a lot of time preparing a
proposal that will not be given serious consideration).
Finally,
don’t submit a proposal under NSF’s EO topic that doesn’t represent a
“near term business opportunity.” We’d
be willing to bet some folks who have an innovation that fits one of the EO
subtopics will decide to submit a proposal, even though the path to
commercialization is unclear, long-term, and questionably accessible by the team
and strategy presented in the proposal. Even
a technically sound project that fails to have legitimate near term
commercialization potential will likely go unfunded.
We
think the NSF FY2008 EO solicitation for Phase I projects represents a unique
opportunity for SBIR/STTR proposers. However,
you first need to make sure it represents an opportunity for your project
and your company. Then you
need to make sure the proposal completely follows the unique requirements of the
NSF EO solicitation.