V. Application Review Information - Evaluation Criteria

Table of Contents

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:

• 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:
  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.]
• 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:
        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?