NSF SBIR/STTR Grant Strategist & Technical Writer — AI/ML Technology Startup

QuietScore is an early-stage technology company developing AI-powered building intelligence for multifamily housing. Our work sits at the intersection of AI/ML, building science, technical document analysis, and acoustic performance. We have launched an initial commercial product and are now evaluating federal non-dilutive funding for a separate, higher-risk R&D initiative. Additional technical details and proprietary materials will be provided only after an NDA is executed. What We Are Looking For: We are seeking an experienced NSF SBIR/STTR strategist and technical grant writer, not a general grant writer. We have previously submitted an NSF Project Pitch and received feedback that the proposed work was perceived as too close to incremental product improvement, optimization, or validation of an existing product. Before using another submission opportunity, we want an experienced professional who can critically assess the project and help us determine: * Whether the underlying R&D is genuinely appropriate for NSF SBIR/STTR * How to clearly distinguish new high-risk technical R&D from an existing commercial MVP * How to articulate the technical innovation and state-of-the-art gap * How to define focused Phase I research objectives * How to establish quantitative technical feasibility milestones * How to structure technical validation as R&D rather than simple product testing * Whether NSF is the right funding path or whether another federal agency/program may be a better fit **We are not looking for someone to simply rewrite or polish our previous pitch.** We want someone who can challenge the technical framing, identify weaknesses, and help shape a stronger federal R&D funding strategy. Initial Scope We would like to begin with a **small paid diagnostic engagement before committing to a full Project Pitch or Phase I proposal. After an NDA is signed, we will provide relevant materials, which may include: * Our prior NSF Project Pitch * NSF's written feedback * A summary of the proposed R&D initiative * Relevant company and commercialization information * Technical and validation planning materials We would like the initial assessment to address: 1. Why the previous NSF submission was likely rejected 2. Whether the underlying R&D appears fundable through NSF SBIR/STTR 3. What must materially change before another submission 4. Recommended Phase I technical objectives and scope 5. Recommended quantitative feasibility criteria 6. Potential technical or team gaps that reviewers may identify 7. Whether NSF or another federal R&D program is the strongest fit If the diagnostic engagement is successful, there is potential for additional work developing a revised Project Pitch and, if invited, a full Phase I proposal. Relevant Technical Areas Candidates should be comfortable working with interdisciplinary technology involving areas such as: * Artificial intelligence and machine learning * Multimodal data and technical document analysis * Engineering and building science * Acoustic performance * Statistical research and experimental design * Technical validation and measurement * Uncertainty and reliability in AI-generated outputs Detailed methodology, technical architecture, proprietary data, validation design, and intellectual property will **not** be included in the public job posting and will be shared only as necessary under NDA. You do not need to be an acoustical engineer or building scientist. However, you should be comfortable quickly understanding complex technical subject matter and translating it into a rigorous, reviewer-friendly R&D proposal. Ideal Candidate Strong candidates will have several of the following: * Direct experience with NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I * Successful NSF Project Pitches and/or full proposals * Documented experience contributing to funded SBIR/STTR awards * Experience with AI/ML, engineering, deep tech, or other technically complex startups * Experience defining technical risks, research hypotheses, and measurable feasibility milestones * Ability to distinguish high-risk R&D from ordinary product development * Familiarity with NSF reviewer expectations and solicitation requirements * Experience working with early-stage or pre-revenue companies * Ability to advise strategically rather than only writing from supplied materials Experience with DOE, NIST, HUD, DoD, or other federal R&D funding programs is a plus. Please Address These Questions When Applying Please respond directly to the following rather than sending a generic grant-writing proposal: 1. What direct NSF SBIR/STTR experience do you have? Please describe Project Pitch, Phase I, or Phase II experience and, where possible, funded outcomes. 2. Have you worked on NSF SBIR/STTR projects outside biomedical or life sciences? If so, what technical fields? 3. Have you helped a company respond to NSF feedback that its proposed project appeared incremental, focused on product development, or primarily validation/testing? If yes, briefly explain your approach. 4. Do you help clients define the technical innovation, research objectives, technical risks, experimental approach, and feasibility milestones, or do you primarily write from information provided by the client? 5. How would you approach an NSF project where a startup already has a commercial MVP, but the proposed R&D involves a separate technical capability that has not yet been developed or proven? 6. Are you comfortable beginning with a limited paid diagnostic engagement before discussing a full proposal? Candidates who directly address these questions will receive priority. Confidentiality Because this work involves proprietary technology and intellectual property, the selected consultant will be required to sign an NDA before receiving detailed R&D plans, technical methodology, research architecture, validation materials, or other confidential information. What Success Looks Like Our immediate goal is not simply to submit another grant application We want to determine whether we have a genuinely fundable federal R&D project and, if so, build the strongest possible technical and funding strategy around it. A successful engagement should leave us with clarity around: * The strongest federal funding pathway * The core high-risk technical innovation * A focused and credible Phase I research scope * Meaningful technical risks and hypotheses * Quantitative feasibility milestones * A defensible validation approach * Any technical/team gaps that need to be addressed before submission If you have experience helping early-stage technology companies turn complex R&D concepts into competitive SBIR/STTR proposals, we would like to hear from you.