The maximum score a teaching proposal can receive is 150 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 15 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 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 with the use
of institutional funds? Are there
indications of external, non-Federal
support? Are there realistic plans for
making the project self-supporting?
(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of 10 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 15 points.
products and results of the project
clearly defined and likely to be of high
quality? Will project results be of an
unusual or unique nature? Will the
project contribute to a better
understanding of or an improvement in the
quality, distribution, or effectiveness
of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise
base, such as increasing the
participation of women and minorities?(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 15 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 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 5 points.
adequate and reasonable? Do they allow
for continuous 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 5 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, or use by faculty
development or research/teaching skills
workshops?
(4) Partnerships and collaborative 15 points.
efforts--Does the project have
significant potential for advancing
cooperative ventures between the
applicant institution and a USDA agency?
Does the project workplan include an
effective role for the cooperating USDA
agency(s)? 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 capacity building:
This criterion relates to the degree to which
the project will strengthen the teaching
capacity of the applicant institution. In the
case of a joint project proposal, it relates
to the degree to which the project will
strengthen the teaching capacity of the
applicant institution and that of any other
institution assuming a major role in the
conduct of the project.
(1) Institutional enhancement--Will the 15 points.
project help the institution to: Expand
the current faculty's expertise base;
attract, hire, and retain outstanding
teaching faculty; advance and strengthen
the scholarly quality of the
institution's academic programs; enrich
the racial, ethnic, or gender diversity
of the faculty and student body; recruit
students with higher grade point
averages, higher standardized test
scores, and those who are more committed
to graduation; become a center of
excellence in a particular field of
education and bring it greater academic
recognition; attract outside resources
for academic programs; maintain or
acquire state-of-the-art scientific
instrumentation or library collections
for teaching; or provide more meaningful
student experiential learning
opportunities?
(2) Institutional commitment--Is there 15 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? Will the project have reasonable
access to needed resources such as
instructional instrumentation,
facilities, computer services, library
and other instruction support resources?(d) Personnel Resources: This criterion relates to 10 points.
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 5 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: This criterion 5 points.
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.)?------------------------------------------------------------------------