The first phase of the SEVCP Pitch Competition attracted a diverse and high-quality pool of founders building across fintech, agritech, SaaS, commerce, logistics, and other critical sectors.

We acknowledge the time, effort, and ambition demonstrated in each application submitted.

Given the scale of participation and the standard of submissions received, this document outlines the evaluation process, the criteria used, and the key considerations that informed progression to the next stage.

Evaluation Tracks

Submissions were assessed under two distinct tracks, reflecting different stages of startup development:

• Incubator Track — designed for early-stage startups with a working or in-progress minimum viable product (MVP)
• Accelerator Track — designed for startups with active users, demonstrated traction, and revenue

While both tracks were evaluated using a consistent framework, assessment criteria were applied in accordance with stage-specific expectations.

Notably:

• Traction and revenue were assessed exclusively within the Accelerator Track
• Incubator Track evaluations focused on validation and early demand signals

Step 1: Eligibility Screening

All applications underwent a mandatory eligibility review prior to scoring.

Applications were excluded from further consideration if any of the following criteria were not clearly met:

• Demonstrable connection to South East Nigeria (through operations, market focus, or founding team)
• Presence of a meaningful technology component within the product or service
• Compliance with track-specific requirements:
  • Accelerator Track: active users and revenue
  • Incubator Track: MVP (or in development) and defined target users
• Completion of all required application fields, including submission of a valid pitch deck
• No declared conflicts of interest

Only applications that satisfied all eligibility requirements proceeded to scoring.

Step 2: Structured Scoring Framework

Eligible applications were evaluated across five core criteria, each scored on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Accelerator Track

• Problem–Solution Fit
• Execution & Progress
• Market Opportunity
• Technology Component
• Traction & Revenue

Within this track, verifiable usage, revenue, and growth indicators were weighted significantly.

Incubator Track

• Problem–Solution Fit
• Execution & Progress
• Market Opportunity
• Technology Component
• MVP Validation & Early Signals

At this stage, emphasis was placed on evidence of demand, including pilots, waitlists, early adopters, and other indicators of market interest.

Scoring Principles

To ensure consistency and fairness across all reviews, the following principles were strictly applied:

• Assessments were based solely on information provided within the application and pitch deck
• Reviewers did not infer or supplement missing information
• Submissions were evaluated on substance over presentation quality
• Where information was unclear or insufficient, scores were assigned conservatively

Each application was reviewed independently, with a target review duration of 10–15 minutes.

Advancement Criteria

To progress to the next stage, applications were required to achieve a minimum score of 3.0 out of 5 (60%).

In practical terms, advancing startups demonstrated most of the following:

• A clearly defined and relevant problem
• A solution with strong alignment to that problem
• Evidence of execution beyond ideation
• A credible and sufficiently large market opportunity
• A product in which technology plays a central role
• Either:
  • Demonstrated traction (Accelerator Track), or
  • Strong validation signals (Incubator Track)

Common Reasons for Non-Selection

While many applications showed promise, not all met the threshold required to advance. The most common factors contributing to non-selection included:

1. Missing or Invalid Pitch Decks

Applications without a pitch deck, or with inaccessible or incorrect links, could not be evaluated and were therefore excluded.

2. Incomplete Submissions

Applications with missing fields or insufficient detail limited the ability to conduct a fair and comprehensive assessment.

3. Limited Evidence of Execution

Submissions without an MVP, prototype, pilot, or any tangible progress were scored conservatively under Execution & Progress.

4. Weak Problem–Solution Alignment

In some cases, the problem was not clearly articulated, or the proposed solution did not adequately address the stated need.

5. Insufficient Technology Integration

Solutions where technology was not central to the value proposition were less competitive within the scope of the program.

6. Limited Market Definition

Applications that lacked a clearly defined or credible market opportunity were unable to demonstrate scalability.

7. Weak Validation (Incubator Track)

Early-stage startups without evidence of user feedback, pilots, or demand signals faced difficulty demonstrating market relevance.

8. Limited Traction (Accelerator Track)

For more advanced startups, insufficient or unclear user activity, revenue, or growth indicators impacted overall scores.

9. Not Venture-Scale Aligned (At This Stage)

Some business models, while viable and impactful, were not structured for venture-scale growth. These included:

• Highly localized operations without a clear pathway to expansion
• Models driven primarily by manual or operational processes
• Businesses better suited to traditional small-scale growth trajectories

This does not diminish their value but reflects alignment with the objectives of the program.

10. Non-Profit and NGO Submissions

The SEVCP Pitch Competition is specifically designed to support venture-backed, scalable startups. As such, submissions structured primarily as non-profit organizations, NGOs, or grant-dependent initiatives were not considered within scope for this program.

While these organizations play a critical role in social and economic development, their funding models and operational structures differ from the venture-building focus of SEVCP.

Conclusion

The evaluation process represents a structured and objective assessment based on the information provided at this stage.

Non-selection should not be interpreted as a definitive judgment on the viability of any idea or the capability of its founders. Many successful ventures evolve through iteration, refinement, and continued execution.

We commend all applicants for their participation and encourage founders to continue building.

For further enquiries, please contact: sevcp@sedc.gov.ng