What DoD Reviewers Actually Score: Inside the Defense Proposal Evaluation Process

Defense Grant Writers · February 24, 2026

Every DoD SBIR solicitation publishes evaluation criteria. Most applicants read them. Very few actually understand how reviewers apply them. The gap between what the solicitation says and what happens in the review room is where most defense proposals lose points.

Our team includes writers who have personally served on DoD review panels. Here is what they wish every applicant knew.

The Published Criteria Are Just the Starting Point

DoD SBIR proposals are typically scored on three to five criteria, depending on the agency. The most common are:

• Technical merit and innovation: Is the proposed approach novel? Is it technically sound? Does it address the stated problem?
• Military relevance and transition potential: Does this technology address a real warfighter need? Is there a credible path from Phase I to deployment?
• Team qualifications: Does the team have the expertise, facilities, and track record to execute?
• Cost realism: Is the budget realistic and well-justified for the proposed work?
• Commercialization potential: Beyond military use, is there a dual-use market? (Weighted more heavily at AFWERX than at DARPA.)

What the solicitation does not tell you is how much weight each criterion carries in practice, or what specific evidence reviewers look for within each one.

What Reviewers Look For Within Each Criterion

Technical Merit

Reviewers are not looking for a literature review. They want to see a specific technical problem clearly defined, a proposed approach with enough detail to evaluate feasibility, quantitative performance targets (not vague claims about "significant improvement"), identification of technical risks and how you plan to mitigate them, and evidence that you have done preliminary work. A reviewer's first question is always: can this team actually do what they are proposing?

Military Relevance and Transition

This is where most civilian-focused startups lose points. Saying "this technology has defense applications" is not enough. Reviewers want to see that you have identified a specific program of record, requirement, or capability gap. They want to know which acquisition office would be the Phase III customer. They want evidence that you have engaged with potential military end-users, not just assumed they would want your technology.

A letter of support from a program manager, a documented conversation with an end-user, or a reference to a specific Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) requirement carries more weight than any amount of marketing language about "next-generation" capabilities.

Team Qualifications

Reviewers look at the PI's publication record, prior funding history, and domain expertise. They also look at whether the team has the right mix of skills for the proposed work. A team of five PhDs in the same narrow discipline raises questions about who is going to handle the engineering, testing, and integration work.

Cost Realism

The budget needs to tell a story that matches the technical narrative. If your proposal describes an ambitious 12-month research program but your budget shows 60% going to one senior researcher and 10% to equipment, reviewers will question whether the work plan is realistic. Every line item should connect to a specific task in your work plan.

The Three Fastest Ways to Get Triaged

1. Generic military relevance. "This technology could be used by the Department of Defense" is not a transition plan. Name the program, the office, and the requirement.

2. Missing feasibility data. If you have prior results, include them. If you do not, explain exactly what you will do in Phase I to generate them. Reviewers need to see a path from "we think this works" to "here is how we will prove it."

3. AI-generated boilerplate. DoD reviewers have seen enough AI-written proposals by now to recognize them instantly. Generic technical language, hedging phrases, and structurally uniform text are immediate red flags. Your proposal needs to sound like it was written by someone who has actually built the thing they are proposing.

Structure Your Proposal for How Reviewers Read

Reviewers do not read proposals front to back like a novel. They scan for specific information mapped to their scoring criteria. Make it easy for them:

• Lead every section with the key point, not with background
• Use bold text for claims and follow with supporting evidence
• Include figures that convey data, not decoration
• Map your milestones to specific go/no-go decision points
• Put your strongest differentiator on page one, not page six

For NSF, NIH, and civilian agency SBIR/STTR proposals, visit sbirgrantwriters.com.