# SBIR/STTR Phase I Proposal Drafter

> Draft complete SBIR/STTR Phase I technical proposals aligned to specific federal agency evaluation criteria. Covers technical volume, commercialization plan, work plan, and budget justification for NSF, NIH, DoD, DoE, and USDA solicitations.



Tags: Grant Writing, SBIR, STTR, Federal Funding, Proposal, Commercialization


## Example Prompts

- Write an SBIR Phase I proposal for an NSF solicitation on advanced materials
- Draft a commercialization plan for a DoD STTR Phase I proposal
- Prepare a budget justification narrative for an NIH SBIR Phase I grant
- Strengthen the commercialization section of my SBIR proposal before resubmission

URL: https://rakenne.app/skills/sbir-sttr-proposal/index.md

Try this skill: https://rakenne.app/a/?skill=sbir-sttr-proposal



## Overview

Writing an SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal means juggling agency-specific evaluation criteria, page limits, budget caps, and section requirements — all of which differ between NSF, NIH, DoD, DoE, and USDA. The commercialization plan alone is the most commonly cited weakness in reviewer feedback, and each agency scores it differently. This skill handles all of that: it asks for your solicitation details, applies the correct agency rules, and produces a complete proposal with technical volume, commercialization plan, work plan, budget justification, and supporting documents.

## What It Covers

- **Agency-aware drafting** — Evaluation criteria weights, page limits, and required sections tailored to NSF, NIH, DoD, DoE, or USDA
- **Technical volume** — Problem significance, objectives, work plan, related R&D, and key personnel — with agency-specific framing (Broader Impacts for NSF, Specific Aims for NIH, TRL progression for DoD)
- **Commercialization plan** — TAM/SAM/SOM, competitive landscape, business model, IP strategy, customer validation, and Phase II/III pathway — the section that sinks most proposals
- **Budget justification** — Line-item justification connected to the work plan, with budget cap compliance and STTR subcontract minimum checks
- **Supporting documents** — Data Management Plan (NSF), biographical sketches in the correct format, references cited, and letters of support guidance

## Example Conversation

> **You:** I need to write an SBIR Phase I proposal for NSF. The solicitation is NSF 24-568, and my topic is in advanced manufacturing — specifically, a novel additive manufacturing process for high-temperature ceramic matrix composites. My company is NovaCeramic Inc., a 12-person startup in Dayton, Ohio.

> **Agent:** Great — I'll structure this as an NSF SBIR Phase I proposal. Let me load the NSF-specific requirements. Here's what I need you to know upfront:
>
> - NSF weights **Intellectual Merit** and **Broader Impacts** equally — both must be addressed explicitly
> - The Project Description (technical volume) is limited to **15 pages**
> - The Commercialization Plan is a **separate required document** under NSF 24-568, not embedded in the Project Description
> - Budget cap is approximately **$314,565** (verify against the active solicitation — this is indexed)
> - A **Data Management Plan** (2 pages max) is required
>
> Before I start drafting, a few questions: Is this SBIR (company-only) or STTR (with a research institution)? What is NovaCeramic's UEI from SAM.gov? And who is the PI — can you share their background?

> **You:** This is an STTR — we're partnering with the University of Dayton Research Institute. Our UEI is J4K9LMNP2R3X, active in SAM.gov. The PI is Dr. Elena Vasquez, our CTO — PhD in Materials Science from MIT, 15 years in ceramic composites, 8 publications, 2 patents on CMC processing. UDRI will handle the computational modeling, about 45% of the work.

> **Agent:** Perfect — STTR with UDRI at 45% meets the NSF minimum of 40% for the research institution. I've confirmed the key parameters and I'm creating `output/sbir-proposal.md`. Let me start with the technical volume.
>
> For the **Problem/Opportunity** section, tell me: What specific limitation in current CMC manufacturing does your process address? What's the technical gap — is it processing time, temperature limits, part complexity, cost, or something else?

> **You:** Current CMC manufacturing takes 6-12 months per part due to chemical vapor infiltration (CVI). Our approach uses a reactive melt infiltration process with a novel silicon-based alloy that reduces densification from months to hours while maintaining >95% theoretical density. The gap is that no existing process achieves both rapid densification AND the oxidation resistance needed for turbine engine applications above 1300°C.

> **Agent:** That's a strong innovation narrative. I've drafted the technical volume opening. Now for objectives — I'd suggest three measurable Phase I objectives. Remember, Phase I is a **feasibility study**, not a prototype build. I'd frame them as:
>
> 1. Demonstrate that the reactive melt infiltration process achieves ≥95% theoretical density in SiC/SiC CMC test coupons
> 2. Verify oxidation resistance at 1300°C for ≥100 hours with <2% mass change
> 3. Validate computational models (UDRI) predicting melt infiltration dynamics against experimental results (R² ≥ 0.90)
>
> Each has a clear go/no-go criterion. Do these capture your technical objectives, or should we adjust?

> **You:** Those are good. For Objective 2, let's push it to 1400°C — that's our differentiator. And add a fourth objective on mechanical property retention after thermal cycling.

> **Agent:** Updated. I've also drafted the competitive landscape section — but I need your input. Who are the main competitors or alternative approaches? And please don't say "no competitors" — NSF reviewers flag that as a sign of insufficient market research.

> **You:** Fair point. The main alternatives are GE Aviation's melt infiltration process (proprietary, not available commercially), Rolls-Royce's CVI-based approach, and several university labs working on polymer infiltration and pyrolysis (PIP). Our advantage is processing time — hours vs. months — with comparable properties.

> **Agent:** Good — I've built a competitive landscape table with GE, Rolls-Royce, and PIP approaches, highlighting your processing time advantage. The commercialization plan is shaping up well. Let me now work through the market sizing — what's your target customer segment and do you have any LOIs or customer conversations?

## Output Excerpt

After the agent completes all sections, the output is a structured proposal document aligned to the specific agency's requirements. Here is a representative excerpt showing the technical objectives, a portion of the competitive landscape, and the budget justification:

```markdown
# NovaCeramic Inc. — SBIR/STTR Phase I Proposal

**Solicitation:** NSF 24-568
**Topic:** Advanced Manufacturing — Ceramic Matrix Composites
**Proposal Title:** Rapid Reactive Melt Infiltration for High-Temperature CMC Components
**Program:** ☐ SBIR  ☒ STTR
**Small Business Concern:** NovaCeramic Inc., Dayton, OH
**UEI (SAM.gov):** J4K9LMNP2R3X
**Principal Investigator:** Dr. Elena Vasquez, CTO
**Research Institution:** University of Dayton Research Institute (45%)
**Proposed Cost:** $312,480
**Proposed Duration:** 12 months

---

## 2. Technical Volume

> **Phase I framing**: Phase I is a **feasibility study**. Objectives and
> deliverables demonstrate scientific/technical feasibility of the core
> innovation — not deliver a production-ready product.

### 2.2 Phase I Technical Objectives

1. **Objective 1:** Demonstrate that the reactive melt infiltration (RMI)
   process achieves ≥95% theoretical density in SiC/SiC CMC test coupons
   (25mm × 25mm × 5mm) using the novel Si-HfC-TaC alloy system.
   - Success criteria: Density ≥95% by Archimedes method; microstructure
     showing <5% residual porosity by SEM image analysis (n ≥ 5 coupons)

2. **Objective 2:** Verify oxidation resistance at 1400°C for ≥100 hours in
   flowing air with <2% mass change, demonstrating suitability for turbine
   engine hot-section environments.
   - Success criteria: Mass change <2% after 100h isothermal exposure at
     1400°C; no spallation or through-thickness cracking on post-test SEM

3. **Objective 3:** Validate University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI)
   computational models predicting melt infiltration dynamics (flow front
   progression, reaction kinetics, residual stress) against experimental
   results from Objectives 1-2.
   - Success criteria: Model predictions agree with experimental
     densification profiles with R² ≥ 0.90

4. **Objective 4:** Characterize mechanical property retention after thermal
   cycling (100 cycles, RT–1400°C, 10 min dwell).
   - Success criteria: Flexural strength retention ≥85% of as-processed
     baseline (4-point bend per ASTM C1161)

### 2.4 Milestone Chart

| Milestone | Task | Month | Go/No-Go Criteria |
|-----------|------|-------|--------------------|
| M1: Alloy optimization | T1 | 3 | ≥3 alloy compositions achieving >90% density |
| M2: Densification target | T1 | 5 | ≥95% density in SiC/SiC coupons (Obj. 1) |
| M3: Model validation | T2 | 7 | Computational model R² ≥ 0.85 vs. experiments |
| M4: Oxidation testing | T3 | 10 | <2% mass change at 1400°C/100h (Obj. 2) |
| M5: Thermal cycling | T3 | 11 | ≥85% flexural strength retention (Obj. 4) |
| Final: Phase I Complete | All | 12 | All 4 objectives met; model R² ≥ 0.90 (Obj. 3) |

---

## 3. Commercialization Plan

### 3.3 Competitive Landscape

| Competitor / Alternative | Approach | Strengths | Limitations |
|--------------------------|----------|-----------|-------------|
| GE Aviation (GE Aerospace) | Proprietary melt infiltration | Proven in LEAP engine; flight heritage | Proprietary — not commercially available; long cycle times (weeks) |
| Rolls-Royce | Chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) | Excellent fiber protection; well-characterized properties | 6-12 month processing per part; very high cost ($5K-$50K/kg) |
| University labs (PIP route) | Polymer infiltration and pyrolysis | Lower processing temperature; good for complex shapes | Multiple re-infiltration cycles needed; lower final density (~85-90%) |
| Status quo (metal alloys) | Nickel superalloys (e.g., CMSX-4) | Mature supply chain; well-understood properties | Temperature ceiling ~1100°C; density 2-3× higher than CMC |

**Our competitive advantage:** NovaCeramic's RMI process achieves
equivalent density and oxidation resistance to CVI in **hours instead of
months**, at an estimated cost reduction of 60-80%. The novel Si-HfC-TaC
alloy system — protected under provisional patent application
No. 63/XXX,XXX — enables the 1400°C oxidation resistance that standard
silicon-based MI cannot achieve.

---

## 4. Budget Justification

### 4.1 Senior/Key Personnel

| Name | Role | Hours | Rate ($/hr) | Cost |
|------|------|-------|-------------|------|
| Dr. Elena Vasquez | Principal Investigator | 832 | $85 | $70,720 |
| Dr. James Park | Research Engineer | 624 | $65 | $40,560 |

**Justification:** Dr. Vasquez (PI) will lead all experimental activities
including alloy development (T1), coupon fabrication, and mechanical testing
(T3). 832 hours represents 40% FTE over 12 months, consistent with the PI's
primary employment at NovaCeramic. Dr. Park will support materials
characterization (SEM, XRD, mechanical testing) across all tasks.

### 4.6 Subcontracts

| Organization | Scope | Cost |
|--------------|-------|------|
| University of Dayton Research Institute | Computational modeling of melt infiltration dynamics (Task 2) | $140,616 |

**STTR compliance:** Subcontract represents **45%** of total award
($140,616 / $312,480). Minimum required for NSF STTR Phase I: **40%**.
✓ Compliant.

### 4.9 Budget Summary

| Category | Cost |
|----------|------|
| Senior/Key Personnel | $111,280 |
| Fringe Benefits (30%) | $33,384 |
| Equipment | $0 |
| Travel | $3,200 |
| Materials and Supplies | $12,500 |
| Subcontracts (UDRI) | $140,616 |
| Other Direct Costs | $2,500 |
| Indirect Costs (10% de minimis) | $9,000 |
| **Total** | **$312,480** |
```

The proposal is structured to NSF's requirements: 15-page Project Description, separate Commercialization Plan, Data Management Plan, NSF-format biographical sketches, and a References Cited section. The budget stays within NSF's indexed cap, and the STTR subcontract allocation is verified against the 40% minimum.

## Getting Started

Add your solicitation details, technology description, and any preliminary data to the project workspace, then activate the *SBIR/STTR Phase I Proposal Drafter* skill. The agent will identify your agency, load the correct evaluation criteria, and guide you through each section — from technical volume to budget justification.


---

Back to [Skill Library](https://rakenne.app/skills/index.md)