NOFO Field: Evaluation Criteria
NOFO Location:
Application Review Information - first field
- Preceding Field:
Other Submission Requirements
- Subsequent Field:
Review and Selection Process
OMB Guidance:
V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria -- Required.
This section must address the criteria that your agency will use to evaluate
applications. This includes the merit and other review criteria that evaluators
will use to judge applications, including any statutory, regulatory, or other
preferences (e.g., minority status or Native American tribal preferences) that
will be applied in the review process. These criteria are distinct from
eligibility criteria that are addressed before an application is accepted for
review and any program policy or other factors that are applied during the
selection process, after the review process is completed. The intent is to give
applicants visibility into the evaluation process so that they can make
informed decisions when preparing their applications and so that the process is
as fair and equitable as possible.
The announcement should clearly describe all criteria, including any
sub-criteria. If criteria vary in importance, the announcement should specify
the relative percentages, weights, or other means used to distinguish among
them. For statutory, regulatory, or other preferences, the announcement should
provide a detailed explanation of those preferences with an explicit indication
of their effect (e.g., whether they result in additional points being assigned).
If an applicant’s proposed cost sharing will be considered in the review
process (as opposed to being an eligibility criterion described in Section
III.2), the announcement must specifically address how it will be considered
(e.g., to assign a certain number of additional points to applicants who offer
cost sharing, or to break ties among applications with equivalent scores after
evaluation against all other factors). If cost sharing will not be considered
in the evaluation, the announcement should say so, so that there is no
ambiguity for potential applicants. Vague statements that cost sharing is
encouraged, without clarification as to what that means, are unhelpful to
applicants. It also is important that the announcement be clear about any
restrictions on the types of cost (e.g., in-kind contributions) that are
acceptable as cost sharing.
Additional Guidance:
1. Importance/relevance and applicability of proposed projects to the program goals (XX points or percent).
This criterion ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state,
or local activities. For the X program, this includes:
2. Technical/scientific merit (XX points or percent). This criterion assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative,
if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. For the X program this includes:
3. Overall qualifications of applicants (XX points or percent). This criterion ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education,
experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For the X program, this includes:
4. Project costs (XX points or percent). This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and
time frame. For the X program, this includes:
5. Outreach and Education (XX points or percent). This criterion assesses whether the project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy
regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. For the X program, this includes:
[NOTE: If programs provide sub-criteria, they may, if they choose, also specify points or percentages to each of them.
Those sub-criteria and weights cannot be changed at the time of review.]
1. Academic record and statement of career goals of the student (XX points or percent). For the X program, this includes:
2. Quality of project and applicability to program priorities (XX points or percent). For the X program, this includes:
3. Recommendations and/or endorsements of student (XX points or percent). For the X program, this includes:
4. Additional relevant experience related to diversity of education; extra-curricular activities; honors and awards; and interpersonal,
written and oral communication skills (XX points or percent). For the X program, this includes:
5. Financial need of student (XX points or percent). For the X program, this includes:
[NOTE: If programs provide sub-criteria, they may, if they choose, also specify points or percentages to each of them.
Those sub-criteria and weights cannot be changed at the time of review.]
Published Examples:
A. Evaluation Criteria:
The evaluation criteria and weighting of the criteria are as
follows:
1. Academic record and statement of career goals and
objectives of student (45 percent total): Quality of the
applicant’s personal education and career goal statement (30
percent); Strength of academic performance (15 percent).
2. Quality of project and applicability to program
priorities. The Knauss Policy Fellowship Program does not use
this criterion (0 percent).
3. Recommendations and/or endorsements of student (15
percent total): Endorsement/content of the letter from the
applicant’s Sea Grant Program Director, the applicant’s major
professor, and the second letter of recommendation.
4. Additional relevant experience (40 percent total) related
to: diversity of education, extra-curricular activities, honors
and awards, and interpersonal, written, and oral communications
skills. For the Knauss Policy Fellowship, relevant experience
would be in Marine or aquatic-related fields.
5. Financial need of student. The Knauss Policy Fellowship
Program does not use this criterion (0 percent).
A. Evaluation Criteria:
1. Ability of the organization to implement the GSP program
objectives: This determines whether there is intrinsic value
identified in the proposed work to adequately assume
responsibility for program administration of the Undergraduate
Scholarship Program (30 percent).
2. Overall qualifications of applicants: This ascertains
whether the applicant possesses the necessary experience,
structure, and administrative resources to accomplish the
described tasks (35 percent).
3. Costs: The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is
realistic and commensurate with the proposal needs and time
frame (20 percent).
4. Outreach and recruitment: NOAA assesses whether this
proposal provides a focused and effective outreach and
recruitment strategy regarding NOAA/EPP Graduate Sciences
Program objectives (15 percent).
A. Evaluation Criteria:
Once a full application has been received by NOAA, an initial administrative review is
conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application.
Merit review is then conducted by peer reviewers. Applications will be peer-reviewed by a
minimum of 3 individuals with coral reef and fisheries management experience on the weighted
evaluation criteria listed below, as evidenced by information in the application. Each reviewer
will individually evaluate and rank proposals using the evaluation criteria provided below. The
merit reviewers’ ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals.
1) Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals
(25%): This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or
relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local goals and priorities. For this
competition, the proposal should demonstrate the need for the proposed coral reef
management activity to fill gaps in the jurisdiction’s management capacity;
2) Technical/scientific merit (25%): This assesses whether the approach is technically sound
and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project
goals and objectives for this management activity.
3) Overall qualifications of applicants (20%): This ascertains whether the applicant
possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative
resources to accomplish the project. For this competition, the proposal should
demonstrate coordination with applicable ongoing local, state, territorial, and Federal
coral reef management activities;
4) Project costs (20%): The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and
commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. For this competition, the budget
should reflect the ability of the work to be completed for the funding and timing
proposed.
5) Outreach and education (10%): NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused
and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA’s mission to protect the
Nation’s natural resources.
A. Evaluation Criteria:
The evaluation criteria and weighting of the criteria are as follows:
1. Importance/Relevance and Applicability of Proposal to the Program Goals
(38 points): This criterion ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the
proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local
activities. For the Satellite Data Assimilation competition this includes:
a. Will the proposed work advance the science of assimilating satellite data
in environmental forecast models?
b. Will the proposed project make a significant contribution to the high
priority research and technical areas listed above?
c. Does the proposed work have the potential to significantly advance the
use of satellite observations in numerical weather, ocean, and climate
prediction models, or other operational environmental models used by one
of the JCSDA partners?
d. Does the proposed work include an effective mechanism by which the
project’s progress can be evaluated?
e. Does the proposed work demonstrate potential for successful transition
from research to operations?
f. How mature is the proposed work in terms of its readiness for transition to
operations?
2. Technical and Scientific Merit (35 points): This criterion assesses whether the
approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate,
and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. For the Satellite Data
Assimilation competition, this includes:
a. Is the approach technically sound?
b. Does the proposed project build on existing knowledge?
c. Is the approach innovative?
3. Overall Qualifications of Applicants (15 points): This criterion ascertains
whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training,
facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For the
Satellite Data Assimilation competition this includes:
a. Are the proposers capable of conducting a project of the scope and scale
proposed (i.e., scientific, professional, facility, and administrative
resources/capabilities)?
b. Are appropriate partnerships going to be employed to achieve the highest
quality content and maximal efficiency?
4. Project Costs (10 points): This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it
is realistic and commensurate with the projects needs and time-frame. For the
Satellite Data Assimilation competition this includes:
a. Is the budget realistic and commensurate with the project needs?
b. Does the budget narrative justify the proposed expenditures?
5. Outreach and Education (2 points): This criterion assesses whether the
project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy
regarding NOAA’s mission to protect the Nation’s natural resources. For the
Satellite Data Assimilation competition this includes:
How will the proposed research provide a focused and effective education
and outreach strategy regarding NOAA’s mission in environmental prediction?