Transcript of: How to Create a Competitive SBIR – Part 3

nih sbir grant writerTranscript of: How to Create a Competitive SBIR – Part 3

Presented by Dr. O’Halloran on November 2020   Watch the Webinar 

So this is part two of How to Create a Competitive Application, and I use the word 'competitive' because
there's a big difference between writing a grant and writing a competitive application. And of course,
competitive implies you are competing with other applicants and you need to be aware of how
competitive the process is. I'm going to start off with some of the less than blue sky comments on
writing a competitive application, and then go into some of the sections that I think are most important
within the research strategy component of an SBIR.
In this first slide, we can say, and many grant writers would share with you, that grant writing is typically
slow, it's painful, adversarial, and it can lead to sleep deprivation, erratic behavior, and unfortunately, in
some cases, excessive consumption of something we don't need to mention. Collectively, these points
stress how difficult it is to prepare a competitive application. It's a great deal of work. And I mentioned
in the last series that I probably spend at least 300 to 400 hours putting together a phase one, and
somewhere north of 500 hours on a phase two grant application. I would concur with most of the points
here in terms of just a general orientation what to expect if you engage in this process and how
challenging it can be.
Here's NIH guidance, starting off with the significant section, the first section of research strategy.
You're advised to explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier that's being addressed. You're
asked to describe the strengths and weaknesses, and I'm not sure how much you should emphasize
weaknesses in your application, but this is the guidance from NIH. Experienced grant writers will advise
you that not acknowledging any weaknesses in an application can be, in itself, a weakness because your
reviewers are savvy enough to understand that any innovative effort has risks, weaknesses, and so
acknowledging those and answering them in your own terms before reviewers have a chance to insert
them into a summary statement is the best way to prevent a poor score.
The third advisory here is explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical
capability in one or more broad fields. This particular point here has more to do with academic
proposals in SBIRs, but this is what's included in the current advisory for SBIRs. This is our guidance on
significance at a high level.
In my approach to a significant section, I like to have experts in a field make my key points for me. And
this is an example from one of my own applications where I'm pointing out the value of GMA here,
which is slightly grayed out, General Movement Assessment for evaluating preterm infants. And I'm
quoting two noted reviewers, Noble and Boyd, who published an analysis of 50 studies, in which they
concluded that clinicians wanted valid and reliable neonatal assessment that predicts the likelihood of
cerebral palsy, in this case, should choose general movement assessment, which along with MRI, have
the best combination of sensitivity and specificity in terms of predicting outcome, in this case again, the
likelihood of cerebral palsy developing. This is a very important point.
It's one thing for an applicant to say, "This application is significant because I said so, and here are my
reasons for thinking it's significant," versus someone in the field, an expert, someone who's done a meta
review saying, "This is very important, and here are the reasons why…" So I included this to make this
very important point to keep in mind when you're constructing a significant section. I tried to justify the
significant of your application.
Alignment with division priorities, and I touched on this in the previous part of the series. You want to
have no doubt in the minds of reviewers and of program officers and officials, people who make funding
decisions at NIH, on why your application aligns with their priorities as opposed to your own priorities.
Here's an example of… I found a document online because my project for early detection for cerebral
palsy risk was not mentioned in the omnibus solicitation, and something you need to be very familiar
with in terms of the topic areas, the divisions priorities for research, so you do want to read that.
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 2 of
In the event that the omnibus solicitation gets kind of fuzzy guidance in the area of expertise or your
application, you need to find somewhere in their program announcements some proof, some evidence,
some statement from them that what you're doing is important to them, that it is part of their division
priorities. In this case, alignment of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, National
Institute of Child Health and Development, I found a white paper published by them on strategic plan for
cerebral palsy research. It took quite a long time for me to find this document because it was not
something that was prominent on their website, but nonetheless was on some obscure page on their
website, but ended up being, in my case, critical for making the rationale for the research relisting.
Here were the point that I found in this white paper that directly supported what I was doing. They cited
new technologies for perinatal brain evaluation, early cerebral palsy biomarkers, methods of identifying
critical periods of brain and motor development, and improving precision diagnosis. All of these points
aligned very closely with what I was doing, and again, I found them not through the front door of the
omnibus solicitation, but rather in a white paper, so you need to avail yourself of all of the documents
that pertain to division priorities, which change, by the way, from one year to the next. So something to
keep in mind as you're justifying your own application.
Research strategy, innovation. What is innovative? Is it something entirely new? Is it some form of
variation? Is it a novel application of an existing technology? Here's a caution: too little innovation is
often perceived by reviewers as not significant, not enough innovation. Too much innovation can be
viewed as risky. NIH, many will tell you, is a risk-aversion institution. There is a balance to be struck. This
is something of a double-edge sword if you will, in terms of how you position. Of course you can't
formulate an innovation based on principles like this, but how you write up an application and
emphasize or de-emphasize elements of your innovation is critical.
I included this last bullet point on this phrase "only incremental," because this is used by a lot of
reviewers as being a rationale for dismissing the innovation component of an applicant saying, "There's
an innovation here, but it's only a small increment beyond what already exists." I've seen this phrase so
many times. It's somewhere in the DNA of review committees, I believe, so it's something to be aware of
when you're positioning your innovation in your application.
Here's an example of the innovation section of one of my applications. Here are the specific elements of
innovation that I summarized and spent a great deal of time onto compact them into the space allowed.
We're going to transform general movement assessment for pre-term infants from a qualitative
approach based on rater-perceived gestalts. This means when NICU nurses stay at a bedside of a pre-
term infant and make judgements about the pattern and movements they see, to one that is objective,
quantitative, and automated, this is the first and most important overarching element of innovation of
this project. It allows simplified implementation by NICU staff and personnel without general movement
assessing scoring expertise. Also very important, this can be applied without special training in other
In terms of data analysis of this new innovation approach to assessing infants, optimize machine
learning classifier-based approach that will maximize general movement assessment predictive power
by utilizing an extended classifier feature set. I won't expand on too much, but includes subtle complex
movement patterns defined in a recently proposed optimality scoring approach cranial ultrasound
grade, extremely important, movement trajectory across different stages of infant development.
Ultimately creation of a validated CP risk index with high predictive power.
It's probably a lot to absorb here, the context of this presentation, but this is an example of how in a
very short amount of space, you would summarize a great deal about what is innovative about an
application, so I thought this was worth putting forward.
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 3 of
Preliminary studies, NIH guidance. Are preliminary essential? Are they helpful? Here's what NIH says in
their instructions: "Can be an essential part of a research grant application and help to establish the
likelihood of success. This particularly applies…" and the reason I underlined this was if you're proposing
a project that has a lot of moving parts, a very complex project or one that's exceptionally challenging,
your best ally here is preliminary studies, preliminary study data, preliminary data that shows some
feasibility in what it is you're proposing, rather than the absence of this.
There's also this last sentence, "Early stage investigators should include preliminary data." This has to do
with a comment also made in the previous presentation. Early stage investigators are more… how can I
say it, under a microscope by reviewers, who ask a question, "How confident is this early stage or new
investigator?" And preliminary data goes a long way to showing competence, familiarity with the
methods, and that's really invaluable, so something to keep in mind, with this other caveat preliminary
data are not required. Again, however, refer to the above.
Research strategy, preliminary data. Again, too much, project is already completed. Too little, not
convincing. A model supporting feasibility. This third point is particularly relevant because let's say
you're involved in an innovation development, and you would like to include preliminary data but don't
have preliminary data, one approach that's been used by a lot of applicants is to develop a model, even
a mathematical model, of the expected outcomes and likelihood of realizing those expected outcomes
in the research that you're proposing. So modeling is one way to bolster your claims without having
preliminary data. Very important. I've done it in a couple of proposals and have had a lot of success with
Are preliminary studies important? Again, if you want a higher probability of getting funded, yes,
preliminary study data substantially increases your ability of getting funded, and they can make or break
an application. What about the strength of the team? We touched on this again last time. The strength
of the team is so important, it can't be overemphasized. The team needs to impress reviewers. You
should avoid window dressing, having participants or collaborators in a project who aren't really doing
very much. Reviewers are quick to pick you on that, by the way… of having big names on an application
who are not really contributing, but are there simply for the presence of conferring some kind of
importance or viability to your application.
What about co-investigators versus consultants? You can have co-investigators research personnel at a
university. You can have consultants that contribute to a team. Contractors, for example, do software
development or electronic development, however both of these require substantive project relevant
For all these people, you require strong letters agreeing to participate in the project outlining their
expertise that specifically relates to the project that you're proposing. All of them will need NIH-format
biosketches. For many of you, a biosketch is essentially a CV, except NIH has their own format that
they're insistent on compliance with. The team needs to be strong is the lesson here. For each project
this will vary depending on the goals and what you have available to you as your immediate group of
What can get you into trouble? A weak value proposition. This is by far, to me, the most important
element of an SPIR. What is the value proposition? What is a value proposition? It is the value of the
innovation. Who is it valuable to? How valuable is it? Let's say it's a new medical monitoring device. Let's
say it's a contrast, a new treatment for cancer, which has a very high value proposition, especially if you
have three years of in vitro data behind it versus a new thermometer that measures body temperature
in 1/50th of a degree increments. Those are radical opposites, but hopefully you get the meaning of
what I'm saying here that the weak value proposition is something that you also need input on from
your immediate team or an advisor, or especially people in industry, who can tell you if your new idea is
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 4 of
something, for example, that's already been done or how many people, how many patients, how many
people with a healthcare problem… talking about NIH now, would benefit from the development of the
Overstated claims of significance. This is also… kind of speaks for itself, but you don't want to tell
reviewers rather than them reading and discovering for themselves how significant your application is.
You don't want to overstate that. Again, perceived lack of innovation. This is skill in writing, this
particular point in this slide. If you don't make your innovation and the elements of your innovation
very, very clear, you leave the door open, again, for being called, labeled "only incremental," or for
reviewers to perceive a lack of innovation. So, it's up to the skill of the writer or the principal
investigator who leads the team to clearly communicate the innovation and its significance, its value.
One of these elements is separation from competing products and services. So you need to distinguish
what's so different about existing products and services. It's extremely rare for an SBIR application to
come in with a completely new idea. Usually, there's some evolutionary process that leads to new
product services, and citing that, and also citing the separate from these preexisting products and
services is, again, coming back to skill and writing.
Another thing that could get you into a lot of trouble is an unclear or undisciplined approach section.
The approach section is where you define the methods by which you're going to conduct the research or
prove that your device is valuable, patient testing, even bench-top testing of electronic performance in a
medical monitor, for example. The approach needs to be clear and disciplined, and it's worth
mentioning in this context that it's very easy for reviewers to… can I use the word attack in approach
section, because every approach section in every application I've ever seen has weaknesses. It's
impossible to write a perfect approach section where there aren't things that could be criticized or
attacked, so you need to be especially careful about how you formulate that.
Again, coming back to this same point, it's haunting us in this presentation, lack of preliminary data or
pilot study. Understand, again, that you are competing, and who is your competition? Very importantly,
primarily, very experienced, multiple award winners. So you're competing against very experienced
people, and you need… I'll make this point later, but you need assistance to be able to compete at the
level to be successful in this process.
Budgets. I wanted to cover this because I think it's very important. You have to have… there's padding of
a budget, and there's reasonableness. You have to be very careful about how you allocate funds.
Needless to say, principal investigators who lead a team are rarely compensated at a level they would be
in industry. Those kinds of funds are just not available in the SBIR program. The budget limits are simply
too restrictive. Getting a little bit out of order here, but typically 60 or 70% of a budget is personnel,
because the personnel are doing the work.
When you see departures from this, it unnerves reviewers. They like to see the personnel doing the
work, and the personnel getting paid, rather than buying really expensive equipment. That's something
that Karin in ULP can conceivably help with, depending on the nature of your research. Indirect cost
rates. Your indirect cost rate is like the overhead of a business. In general, you cannot exceed 40% of the
total direct costs. So, there's direct cost of personnel, equipment, consultants, all these kinds of things,
subcontracts to hospitals for patient testing. Indirect costs on all those things cannot exceed 40%
without a pre-negotiated rate, which is very difficult to get. So, something to keep in mind when you're
putting a budget together.
Will reviewers spot an underfunded project? Yes in short. They will spot that. It's very easy to underfund
a project, and it's far better to over-fund a project with what I'll touch on a little bit later in terms of
budget waivers. You get an exception to the statutory limits of a budget. You want to use an Excel model
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 5 of
for your budgets because they get very complex. If you want to take a look at how complex the online
electronic application forms are, please go online. NIH has all kinds of assist pages and tools, but you
want your own Excel model because there's constant modifications as you go along the process of
putting an application together. So the total and subtotals for different categories are constantly
shifting, and the amounts of indirect costs shift with them. Doing this on a piece of paper with a pencil
and eraser is very, very difficult. I've done that many years ago, moved up to Excel since then.
Second part for budgets here. Do you give points for being economical? No. Again, coming back to this
point, reviewers would rather see a project that's over-funded rather than underfunded. Underfunded
means you just have a less likelihood of completing it. I've rarely heard a reviewer in session say that a
project was over-funded. I once saw a phase two SBIR grant application with a $4 million budget, which
is far, far in excess of even the budget waivers allow. I'm not quite sure what the applicant was thinking,
but needless to say, that was pointed out as being excessive. Outside of that, I've written phase ones
that go far beyond the statutory limits.
I had one phase one, I think it was around $750,000, which may have set a record for that one division
at the time, but it got funded, and it was fully justified. To use that word, justify your budget. Reviewers
will read the special section on budget justification, in which you need to go through every element of
what it is you're funding, and explain how and why a certain work component or collaborators,
consultants, contractors, clinical personnel at a site who are doing testing, how and why they're getting
paid what they are. Is it reasonable? Is it unreasonable? Again, no points for being economical, but
probably minus points for understating.
Again, asking for less than the allowable limit, we're going to talk about budget waivers coming up, and
I'll have more to say. What if you would need to exceed the statutory guidelines limits? The small
business component, the SBC portion, must be 60% in a phase one. You can subcontract out only a
certain amount of work. I just consulted on a project where an applicant wanted to subcontract out
about 95% of all the work being done to two laboratories so that the business itself, the small business
company, the small business concern was basically doing 5% of the work. This is not allowed. You need
to do about 60% in a phase one SBIR, and this changes for phase twos, and I'll let you consult the
omnibus solicitation for that.
Contractual and consultant limit. Normally, again, a minimum of two-thirds, 67% at the outside of
research and analytical effort carried out by the SBC. Total amount of all consultant and contractual
arrangements to third parties generally may not exceed 33%, specifically talking about consultant, and
contracts with a clinical site, for example, to do patient testing. I mention here too, you can go up to
50% in a phase two, so that's an exception.
Occasionally, deviations from this may occur, as I've been touching on in the last several slides. Budget
waivers, very important topic. Something many of you will need to consult. NIH has received approval
from the Small Business Administration for the topics listed within. This is from a basically what's called
a white paper online that you can easily find with Google for budgets greater than 256K for phase one,
and greater than 1.7 million for phase twos.
So, if you have a phase one application that cannot possibly be done for $256,000 including your
overhead or indirect costs, you'll need to exceed that. And to have a good rationale for that, you need to
download that document and find the division that your application is targeting and look at the topics
that they list for exceptions for waivers, and find out if your project falls within one of those topic areas.
If you're not sure, and often applicants are not sure, contact your program officer, the person assigned
to the specific division or subdivision of NIH that will process your application. 1.7 million is a very
generous phase two amount, by the way. You'll probably rarely need to exceed that unless you're, again,
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 6 of
creating a new cure for cancer or something of the sort. This applies to 2020 and '21. It will increase
beyond then.
Applicants are strongly encouraged, again, to contact the program officials before submitting these so
they don't get a surprise when your project comes in with a very fundable score, but an amount they're
not willing to fund, which you'd like to know about ahead of time. Here we come to the topic of a fee. A
fee, in this case, is an amount of money that can be awarded to a small business. It used to be called
profit or something. I think they used the word profit in quotes, but a small business can request a fixed
fee of up to 7% of the total project costs, again, a reasonable profit factor, it's being now called. So, you
can get funding beyond your award that you can spend however you wish. There's no guidance or
requirements for how a small business would spend the money.
On the other hand, if you have a really large outsized budget, my advice to you is to avoid asking for this
fee, because there is just, to me, in my experience, there's a likely perception on the part of the person
signing the check at NIH that there's some reach here. I'm not sure how else to phrase that off the top of
my head, except that if you have a very high budget, better to pass on the fee. Again, not a direct or
indirect cost item. You can use it for anything. You conceivably could put the 7% fee in your paradise
vacation fund without any legal strictures or problems whatsoever.
Letters of support. Really, de facto letters of support. De facto requirement in competitive SBIRs, if you
submit a grant application with no letters of support to indicate independent authorities within the field
you've been working in, say that this has some value, again, they're coming back to what you write in
the application, but a letter of support will prevent a reviewer, most cases, from saying that your
application is, your innovation is only incremental, that you have a less percent chance of completing
your application, and it just lends a very powerful element of authenticity and validity to what it is
you're doing. This is something you want to convince reviewers that this is a substantive application
you're submitting.
Letters of support can also deflect criticism, lessen criticism, and just in the same context as the point
above, a reviewer could as the question, "What's so important about this? Who says it's important?" We
talked about a couple of things before, about how to judge the potential impact, innovation of
something, but it's an entirely different matter to have a letter of support, for example, from a thought
leader in the field of Alzheimer's disease or some central nervous system disorder, or whatever field
you're working in saying, "This would be a very valuable development."
Getting these kinds of letters can also be very, very difficult, and you need to give yourself months of
time to obtain letters like this. The other thing that's really difficult about getting letters of support, is
it's very difficult to cold call some expert in some field of science and explain to them in 30 seconds,
which is maybe all you'll get if you can get them on the phone, to explain why your project's important
and why they should take time out of their busy day to write you a letter of support.
One solution to this, and maybe the best solution I've found, is what I would call a chain of trust where
someone working with you, a faculty member for example, a faculty advisor, can suggest contacting
someone they know in this field so that you have some email, some letter of introduction. It connects
some dots, if you will, between you and some expert that you would like a letter of support from. You
may already be working with people in your field who can provide a letter of support, and typically they
want you to draft it, because they're, in my case, very, very busy.
I may have mentioned earlier that in an earlier presentation I once wrote a letter… I had six of the
thought leaders in the field of Alzheimer's disease, and they all asked me for an example letter of
support. So I wrote what I thought was a good example letter of support, and I sent it out to all six of
them. They all made a couple of changes, printed it on letterhead, sent it back to me as a PDF. So I
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 7 of
submitted all these with the application, and one of the reviewers said, "These letters look suspiciously
similar to me." It was a criticism that I didn't have a good comeback. It's just what people did. But that
was one thing that could happen if you don't write different letters of support to give some consultant
some example to work with.
It's especially important for commercialization scenario. In fact, I'll touch briefly on commercialization in
a few minutes. You need to have people who would say, "This new development is commercially
valuable, and we would like to work with the small business to help commercialize it." This is, again, a de
facto requirement. Can be difficult to acquire is quite an understatement for this as well. You need to
play far in advance. Letters of support, intent, participation. Example, this is a groundbreaking project. If
developed we intend to work with the small business concern, the small business company.
Manufacturing, distribution. These are all things that an industry partner providing a letter of support
can confirm. Marketing. Can a small business really market a medical device? No. You would have to
collaborate with someone who would provide a letter of support to do that. Confirming participation.
Again, a letter from an industry partner or interested party in industry saying, "I would be pleased to
participate in this."
Worth their weight in osmium? A rare chemical. Yes. My personal take on this. Advisory committee,
again, expert in a field bolsters your application profile, gives reviewers confidence. Formally engages
experts, especially if they're doing some kind of clinical trial that involves testing patients for you.
Independent confirmation of outcomes and interpretation. So, when you collect data and it's analyzed,
who says it came out a certain way? There's concern on the part of some reviewers, often, that the
results of a study are best judged by an independent panel and advisory committee, including how to
interpret the data. What are the long-term implications of new findings?
Again, university-based collaborators bolsters the application profile. Subcontract-supported patients
subject access, arm's-length analysis. Facilities and other resources, another component of an SBIR. You
need to convince reviewers that you have the necessary resources to achieve what it is you're
proposing. You need to discuss ways in which the studies will benefit from the specified facilities and
A lot of small businesses don't have existing facilities and other resources. In this case, you may need to
partner with a laboratory or some other institution, for example, ULP, that has facilities and resources
that can provide the means by which you can implement your project. Commercialization plan has six
sections. These are very difficult to write. They have long page lengths and it's an opportunity for the
small business to shine, to show off the value of its project. There are very few instructions for these
that aren't routinely violated, by the way. And you need to cover a lot of bases.
There's six sections, and at the bottom here you'll notice the page limit is up to 12 pages. Most
applicants will write eight to 10 pages of content of their commercialization section. A point here in the
middle: academic reviewers are not commercially savvy, but they can commonly sense smoke and
mirrors in a commercialization section if you're not careful, and again, overstating the significance for
commercial potential in what it is you're proposing. You need to present quantitative elements
essentially of a business plan, projected revenues, profit margins and these kind of things.
I think this slide speaks for itself. You don't want to be in the position of having a deadline sneaking up
on you or feeling like you're in a hopeless situation. Give yourself a great deal of time to put together an
SBIR application. I typically start four to five months before an application deadline, and I usually end up
spending the last three to four weeks in isolation of sorts to be able to finish everything that has to be
done. Keep this in mind as you make your plans. That is the end of this portion. Karin, if there's any
questions, I can take those now.
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 8 of
Yeah, I don't see anything in the chat box yet, so if anybody has any questions or like to get on the
microphone to ask a question to Dr. O'Halloran, let us know. You can either raise your hands or put it in
the chat box. Let me see if anything's coming through, Jim.
Jim, I have a question for you. A lot of our startups are trying to make decisions in regards to… should
they write the SBIR themselves or engage with consulting firms, such as ScienceDocs or others, I mean,
can you shed some light in regards to what that process looks like on both ends and what folks can
anticipate for just submit [inaudible 00:43:20]?
I'd be happy to. I think to put it bluntly, if you haven't ever written an NIH grant application, or been
mentored in that, your chances of success are poor, because there are just too many things to learn. For
those who don't have access or funds to engage some professional institution or business to do that, a
faculty advisor, if you're in graduate school, certainly, someone who's written a lot of NIH applications,
competitive NIH applications, can spot all kinds of issues. But there are so many things to learn, and you
don't want your grant writing experience to become an academic exercise. You want to get funded.
So the experience of grant writing, which is a highly specialized form of writing, and especially within the
SBIR program, there are so many things that are specific to that, that are distinctly different from an
academic type of NIH application, which is based strictly on hypothesis testing and things of that matter.
So, yes, you will need help to submit a competitive application, if that answers your question.
Great. Now, should folks try to get pieces together and work with a consultant, or a mentor, or a firm?
How much of it should they have drafted, or if any at all, before they get started? What is your
suggestion in regards to getting actually started? I don't know if you have any tips about that.
I could write a small book, Karin, that few people would read. There are books out there, including on
Amazon, but they're not… I've reviewed several of them, and in the absence of any other kind of
guidance, I think they're a good place to start. But the actual work of grant writing, again, is so
specialized, and to get a start on it, read the instructions very carefully and be prepared to articulate
everything that it is about your project within the main sections that you think make your case. Then
have someone review it.
Even my projects, and I've been writing these applications for many years, I always have a second pair of
eyes. Maybe one or two exceptions over many, many years, because there's too many things. Even with
these tools like Grammarly, when you're writing the document, to find grammar errors, but conceptual
errors, omissions and things like this are far easier discovered by someone whose eyes are trained in
doing just that. So you could start by looking at the instructions in the omnibus solicitation and creating
your sections according to their instructions in the directions, and then having someone start to review
that at the point that you think that it's readable and understandable.
All right, great. I have a question coming through the chat. How much commercialization be included in
a phase one in terms of length? Where should it be incorporated in the application, specific aims?
Yes. We covered that last time, and you're exactly right. Specific aims are the best place to state the
commercialization goals, because it's something that's expected in applications, but there's no
instruction in the applications from NIH of where they should be covered in a phase one, but reviewers
expect it.
Fantastic. Awesome. Well, Jim, I don't see any more questions coming through. Can you talk a little bit
about where… this a four-part series, can you talk about your next part that's coming up next week?
I'm going to talk about the review process and what happens after you submit a grant application. What
your score means, how to interpret a numerical score that you get, what is a good score, what's an in-
between score, what is a score that should provoke a resubmission versus a complete reformulation of
This transcript was exported on Nov 29, 2020 – view latest version here.
OHalloran – SBIR Series Part 3-4 (Completed 11/29/20)
Transcript by
Page 9 of
an application, which often happens. In this context, too, it's important to realize that most applications
are not funded. We went through that last time on the percentages, and I think it's worthwhile to
understand the review process and where that number is coming from. So, that's what next part of this
series is all about.
Great, thank you so much. And that date, it is on SBIR series four of four, Understanding the SBIR Review
Process with Dr. O'Halloran, again, on Tuesday, November 24th, again at 1:00. So please RSVP on the
same website that you RSVPed for this one. On behalf of ScienceDocs and University Lab Partners, I
want to thank you all for joining us today on this webinar. In the meantime, please reach out if we can
assist you in any way or make any connections for you. Stay well, stay healthy, and stay safe. Goodbye,
everybody. See you next week.
All right, thank you, Karin.
Take care. Bye-bye.
Share This!