The maximum score a research 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) Significance of the problem:
This criterion is used to assess the
likelihood that the project will advance or
have a substantial impact upon the body of
knowledge constituting the natural and social
sciences undergirding the agricultural,
natural resources, and food systems.
(1) Impact--Is the problem or opportunity 15 points.
to be addressed by the proposed project
clearly identified, outlined, and
delineated? Are research questions or
hypotheses precisely stated? Is the
project likely to further advance food
and agricultural research and knowledge?
Does the project have potential for
augmenting the food and agricultural
scientific knowledge base? Does the
project address a State, regional,
national, or international problem(s)?
Will the benefits to be derived from the
project transcend the applicant
institution or the grant period?
(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans 10 points.
for continuation or expansion of the
project beyond USDA support? Are there
plans for continuing this line of
research or research support activity
with the use of institutional funds after
the end of the grant? Are there
indications of external, non-Federal
support? Are there realistic plans for
making the project self-supporting? What
is the potential for royalty or patent
income, technology transfer or university-
business enterprises? What are the
probabilities of the proposed activity or
line of inquiry being pursued by
researchers at other institutions?
(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of 10 points.
the project based on an innovative or a
non-traditional approach? Does the
project reflect creative thinking? To
what degree does the venture reflect a
unique approach that is new to the
applicant institution or new to the
entire field of study?
(4) Products and results--Are the expected 15 points.
products and results of the project
clearly outlined 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 5 points.
and plan of operation appear to be sound
and appropriate relative to the proposed
initiative(s) and the impact anticipated?
Is the proposed sequence of work
appropriate? Does the proposed approach
reflect sound knowledge of current theory
and practice and awareness of previous or
ongoing related research? If the proposed
project is a continuation of a current
line of study or currently funded
project, does the proposal include
sufficient preliminary data from the
previous research or research support
activity? Does the proposed project flow
logically from the findings of the
previous stage of study? Are the
procedures scientifically and
managerially sound? Are potential
pitfalls and limitations clearly
identified? Are contingency plans
delineated? 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 and
presentations at professional society
meetings?
(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 encourage and
facilitate better working relationships
in the university science community, as
well as between universities and the
public or private sector? Does the
project encourage appropriate multi-
disciplinary collaboration? Will the
project lead to long-term relationships
or cooperative partnerships that are
likely to enhance research quality or
supplement available resources?(c) Institutional capacity building:
This criterion relates to the degree to which
the project will strengthen the research
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 research 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 advance
the expertise of current faculty in the
natural or social sciences; provide a
better research environment, state-of-the-
art equipment, or supplies; enhance
library collections related to the area
of research; or enable the institution to
provide efficacious organizational
structures and reward systems to attract,
hire and retain first-rate research
faculty and students--particularly those
from underrepresented groups?
(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
scientific instrumentation, facilities,
computer services, library and other
research support resources?(d) Personnel Resources........................... 10 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? Will the project help
develop the expertise of young scientists at
the doctoral or post-doctorate level?(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 research 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 high-priority
research initiative(s), or promote
coalition building for current or future
ventures?(f) Overall quality of proposal................... 5 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, thoroughly
explained, etc.)?------------------------------------------------------------------------