- A. Evaluation Criteria
- B. Review and Selection Process
- C. Selection Factors
- D. Anticipated Announcement and Awards Dates
NOFO Field: Evaluation Criteria
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:
- Do not enter the field name (shown in bold in the examples). The NOFO generator will enter the field name.
- Evaluation Criteria is the first of 4 subsections under Application Review Information.
- If you are weighting criteria by percentage, you MUST ensure that the sum of all weighted criteria equals 100%.
Only for non-fellowship awards:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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.]
- Only for fellowship awards:
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:
- 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).
- Quality of project and applicability to program priorities. The Knauss Policy Fellowship Program does not use this criterion (0 percent).
- 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.
- 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.
- Financial need of student. The Knauss Policy Fellowship Program does not use this criterion (0 percent).
A. Evaluation Criteria:
- 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).
- Overall qualifications of applicants: This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary experience, structure, and administrative resources to accomplish the described tasks (35 percent).
- Costs: The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the proposal needs and time frame (20 percent).
- 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?
NOFO Field: Review and Selection Process
OMB Guidance:
V. Application Review Information
2. Review and Selection Process -- Required.
This section may vary in the level of detail provided. The announcement must list any program policy or other factors or elements, other than merit criteria, that the selecting official may use in selecting applications for award (e.g., geographical dispersion, program balance, or diversity).
You also may include other details you deem appropriate. For example, this section may indicate who is responsible for evaluation against the merit criteria (e.g., peers external to the agency or Federal agency personnel) and/or who makes the final selections for award. If you have a multi-phase review process (e.g., an external panel advising internal agency personnel who make final recommendations to the deciding official), you may describe the phases. You also may include: the number of people on an evaluation panel and how it operates, the way reviewers are selected, reviewer qualifications, and the way that conflicts of interest are avoided. In addition, if you permit applicants to nominate suggested reviewers of their applications or suggest those they feel may be inappropriate due to a conflict of interest, that information should be included in this section.-01
Additional Guidance:
- Do not enter the field name (shown in bold in the examples). The NOFO generator will enter the field name.
- Review and Selection Process is the second of 4 subsections under Application Review Information.
- The following language should be included at the end of this section in your NOFO (See FAM 2013-01 From the Department):
In accordance with current Federal appropriations law, NOAA will provide a successful corporate applicant a form to be completed by its authorized representatives certifying that the corporation has no Federally-assessed unpaid or delinquent tax liability or recent felony criminal convictions under any Federal law.
Published Examples:
B. Review and Selection Process:
An initial administrative review/screening will be conducted to determine compliance with requirements/completeness. All proposals will then be evaluated and individually ranked in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria by a review panel consisting of three to seven NOAA/NWS experts. The reviewers’ ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The Selection Official selects proposals after considering the reviews’ ratings and selection factors listed below. In making the final selections, the Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the selection factors.
B. Review and Selection Process:
An initial evaluation of the pre-proposals will be carried out, and the authors of those pre-proposals deemed of interest to the Office of Hydrologic Development will be invited to submit a full proposal. An initial administrative review is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. Merit review is conducted by peer panel reviewers. Each reviewer will individually evaluate and rank proposals using the evaluation criteria provided above. Three to seven NWS experts representing NWS Regions and Centers may be used in this process. The merit reviewers= ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The Selecting Official selects proposals after considering the peer panel reviews and selection factors listed below. In making the final selections, the Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the selection factors below. The Selecting Official may negotiate the funding level of the proposal. The Selecting Official makes final recommendations for award to the Grants Officer who is authorized to obligate the funds.
B. Review and Selection Process:
Each step in the selection process is based on the evaluation criteria listed. The panel will include representation from the Sea Grant Association, the National Sea Grant Review Panel, and the current class of Fellows. Each panel member is assigned applications to review before the panel meeting. During the panel meeting each application will be individually discussed. Following this discussion, an individual score will be provided by each panel member. Once all applications have been discussed and scored, a numerical ranking will be created for each of the panel member’s scores by the Knauss program manager or designee. An average ranking will then be computed for each applicant. In general, the successful applicants will be selected based on the average ranking; however, the selecting official may select lower ranking applicants based on the selection factors below. The successful applicants will then be placed into either the legislative or executive group by the selecting official based upon the applicant’s stated preference, the application materials submitted, and the individual comments of the panel members.
B. Review and Selection Process:
An initial administrative review is conducted at both the preliminary and final proposal stages to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application.
Preliminary proposals will not be subjected to a selection process. Preliminary proposals will be used to provide feedback to applicants, select appropriate technical reviewers for final proposals, and to tailor technical, formatting and content guidance that will be supplied to applicants who submitted preliminary proposals, to assist them in writing the full proposal. All those (and only those) who submitted preliminary proposals meeting the deadline and other requirement of this notice are eligible to submit full proposals.
Full proposals will be sent to peer reviewers for written reviews. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the proposals using the evaluation criteria listed in this announcement. A peer review panel consisting of government, academic, and industry representatives will evaluate each final proposal and accompanying written reviews in accordance with the above criteria and their assigned weights. Panel members will provide individual evaluations of each proposal, and their ratings will be used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The review panel will provide no consensus advice to the Program Officer.
The Program Officer will consider these evaluations when recommending to the Selecting Official which applications should be selected for award.
NOFO Field: Selection Factors
OMB Guidance:
V. Application Review Information
There is not any OMB guidance on this section. This is a required Department-specific section.
Additional Guidance:
- Do not enter the field name (shown in bold in the examples). The NOFO generator will enter the field name.
- Selection Factors is the third of 4 subsections under Application Review Information.
- Only for non-fellowship awards:
The Selecting Offical shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based on one or more of the following factors:
1. Availability of funding.
2. Balance/distribution of funds:
a. geographically
b. by type of institution
c. by type of partners
d. by research priority
e. by project types
3. Duplicaton of other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA/Federal agencies.
4. Program priorities and policy factors.
5. Applicant’s prior award performance.
6. Partnerships with/Participation of targeted groups.
7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. - Only for fellowship awards:
The Selecting Offical shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rankd order based on one or more of the following factors:
1. Balance/distribution of funds:
a. across academic disciplines
b. by type of institution
c. geographically
2. Availability of funding.
3. Program-specific objectives.
4. Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought.
Published Examples:
C. Selection Factors:
The Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon any of the following selection factors:
- Balance/Distribution of funds:
a. Across academic disciplines
b. By types of institutions
c. Geographically - Availability of funds
- Program-specific objectives
- Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought
The Selecting Official makes final recommendations for award to the Grants Officer who is authorized to obligate the funds.
C. Selection Factors:
The merit review ratings shall provide a rank order to the Selecting Official for final funding recommendation. The program officer may first make a recommendation to the Selecting Official applying the selection factors below. The Selecting Official shall award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors:
- Balance/Distribution of Funds
a. Across academic disciplines (not applicable to this program)
b. By types of institution
c. Geographically - Availability of funds
- Program-specific objectives
- Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought
C. Selection Factors:
The merit review ratings shall provide a rank order to the Selecting Official for final funding recommendations. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based on one or more of the following factors:
- Availability of funding
- Balance and distribution of funds
a. By research area
b. By project type
c. By type of institutions
d. By type of partners
e. Geographically - Duplication of other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA/federal agencies.
- Program priorities and policy factors.
- Applicant’s prior award performance.
- Partnerships with/Participation of targeted groups.
- Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the NOAA Grants Officer.
C. Selection Factors:
The B-WET Program Manager will review the ranking of the proposals and recommendations of the review panel. The average numerical ranking from the review panel will be the primary consideration in deciding which of the proposals will be recommended for funding to the Selecting Official. The Selecting Official shall award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors:
- Availability of funding
- Balance/distribution of funds
a. Geographically
b. By type of institutions
c. By type of partners
d. By research areas
e. By project types - Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA/federal agencies
- Program priorities and policy factors as set out in Section I.B.1-3.
- Applicant’s prior award performance
- Partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups
- Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer.
Projects considered for renewal will be evaluated by the BWET Program Manager and other National Marine Sanctuary Program staff to determine whether to be renewed for funding based upon the advice of the review panel. If there has been satisfactory prior award performance, projects considered for renewal may take priority over new proposals.
NOFO Field: Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
OMB Guidance:
V. Application Review Information
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates -- Optional.
This section is intended to provide applicants with information they can use for planning purposes. If there is a single application deadline followed by the simultaneous review of all applications, the agency can include in this section information about the anticipated dates for announcing or notifying successful and unsuccessful applicants and for having awards in place. If applications are received and evaluated on a 荘rolling鋳 basis at different times during an extended period, it may be appropriate to give applicants an estimate of the time needed to process an application and notify the applicant of the agency痴 decision.
Additional Guidance:
- Do not enter the field name (shown in bold in the examples). The NOFO generator will enter the field name.
- Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates is the fourth of 4 subsections under Application Review Information. It is the third in OMB Guidance. The difference is due to the previous Department-specific field of Selection Factors, which is not in the OMB Guidance.
Published Examples:
D. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:
Funds are expected to be awarded by approximately February 1, 2008, the start date that should be used on the Application for Federal Assistance (Form 424) for successful applications.
D. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:
Subject to the availability of funds, review of proposals will occur during the fall and early winter of 2006, and funding is expected to begin during June of 2007 for most approved projects. June 1, 2007, is to be used as the proposed start date on proposals, unless otherwise directed by the NOAA Program Officer.
D. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:
Funding is anticipated to begin during winter or early spring 2007 for most approved projects. Projects should not be expected to begin prior to February 1, 2007, unless otherwise directed by the JHT Director.