The maximum score a proposal can receive is 200 points. Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Potential for advancing the quality of
education:
This criterion is used to assess the
likelihood that the project will have a
substantial impact upon and advance the
quality of food and agricultural sciences
higher education by strengthening
institutional capacities through promoting
education reform to meet clearly delineated
needs.
(1) Impact--Does the project address a 20 points.
targeted need area(s)? Is the problem or
opportunity clearly documented? Does the
project address a State, regional,
national, or international problem or
opportunity? Will the benefits to be
derived from the project transcend the
applicant institution and/or the grant
period? Is it probable that other
institutions will adapt this project for
their own use? Can the project serve as a
model for others?.
(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans 10 points.
for continuation or expansion of the
project beyond USDA support? Are there
indications of external, non-Federal
support? Are there realistic plans for
making the project self-supporting?.
(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of 20 points.
the project based on an innovative or a
non-traditional approach toward solving a
higher education problem or strengthening
the quality of higher education in the
food and agricultural sciences? If
successful, is the project likely to lead
to education reform?.
(4) Products and results--Are the expected 20 points.
products and results of the project
clearly explained? Do they have the
potential to strengthen food and
agricultural sciences higher education?
Are the products likely to be of high
quality? Will the project contribute to a
better understanding of or improvement in
the quality, distribution, effectiveness,
or racial, ethnic, or gender diversity of
the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise
base?.(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
This criterion relates to the soundness of the
proposed approach and the quality of the
partnerships likely to evolve as a result of
the project.
(1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives 20 points.
and plan of operation appear to be sound
and appropriate relative to the targeted
need area(s) and the impact anticipated?
Are the procedures managerially,
educationally, and/or scientifically
sound? Is the overall plan integrated
with or does it expand upon other major
efforts to improve the quality of food
and agricultural sciences higher
education? Does the timetable appear to
be readily achievable?.
(2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans 10 points.
adequate and reasonable? Do they allow
for continuous and/or frequent feedback
during the life of the project? Are the
individuals involved in project
evaluation skilled in evaluation
strategies and procedures? Can they
provide an objective evaluation? Do
evaluation plans facilitate the
measurement of project progress and
outcomes?.
(3) Dissemination--Does the proposed 10 points.
project include clearly outlined and
realistic mechanisms that will lead to
widespread dissemination of project
results, including national electronic
communication systems, publications,
presentations at professional
conferences, and/or use by faculty
development or research/teaching skills
workshops.
(4) Partnerships and collaborative 20 points.
efforts--Will the project expand
partnership ventures among disciplines at
a university, between colleges and
universities, or with the private sector?
Will the project lead to long-term
relationships or cooperative partnerships
that are likely to enhance program
quality or supplement resources available
to food and agricultural sciences higher
education?.(c) Institutional commitment and resources:
This criterion relates to the institution's
commitment to the project and the adequacy of
institutional resources available to carry
out the project.
(1) Institutional commitment--Is there 10 points.
evidence to substantiate that the
institution attributes a high-priority to
the project, that the project is linked
to the achievement of the institution's
long-term goals, that it will help
satisfy the institution's high-priority
objectives, or that the project is
supported by the institution's strategic
plans?.
(2) Institutional resources--Will the 10 points.
project have adequate support to carry
out the proposed activities? Will the
project have reasonable access to needed
resources such as instructional
instrumentation, facilities, computer
services, library and other instruction
support resources?.(d) Key personnel: 20 points.
This criterion relates to the number and
qualifications of the key persons who will
carry out the project. Are designated project
personnel qualified to carry out a successful
project? Are there sufficient numbers of
personnel associated with the project to
achieve the stated objectives and the
anticipated outcomes?(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:
This criterion relates to the extent to which
the total budget adequately supports the
project and is cost-effective.
(1) Budget--Is the budget request 10 points.
justifiable? Are costs reasonable and
necessary? Will the total budget be
adequate to carry out project activities?
Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-
Federal matching support clearly
identified and appropriately documented?
For a joint project proposal, is the
shared budget explained clearly and in
sufficient detail?.
(2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed 10 points.
project cost-effective? Does it
demonstrate a creative use of limited
resources, maximize educational value per
dollar of USDA support, achieve economies
of scale, leverage additional funds or
have the potential to do so, focus
expertise and activity on a targeted need
area, or promote coalition building for
current or future ventures?.(f) Overall quality of proposal: 10 points.
This criterion relates to the degree to which
the proposal complies with the application
guidelines and is of high quality. Is the
proposal enhanced by its adherence to
instructions (table of contents,
organization, pagination, margin and font
size, the 20-page limitation, appendices,
etc.); accuracy of forms; clarity of budget
narrative; well prepared vitae for all key
personnel associated with the project; and
presentation (are ideas effectively
presented, clearly articulated, and
thoroughly explained, etc.)?------------------------------------------------------------------------