X hits on this document

Word document

APPLICATION DEADLINE: March 10, 2011 - page 19 / 27





19 / 27


A. General

Each application will be evaluated in a 2-part process. First, each application will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative requirements as set forth in this RFA. Second, applications that meet these requirements will be technically evaluated by a review panel.

Reviewers will be selected based upon training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields, taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of relevant formal scientific, technical education, or extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education, or extension activities; (b) the need to include as reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, or extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other experts (e.g., producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) who can assess relevance of the applications to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations) and geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition of reviewers with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include reviewers who can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each application.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria below will be used in reviewing applications submitted in response to this RFA:

1. Project Justification (30%)

a) Project scope adequately addresses program priorities in education, networking, and assistance (listed in Part I, B.) (10%);

b) Included baseline data on potential AgrAbility customers and audiences seem current and accurate; description of current programs available in the state or region adequately conveys a lack of capacity; marketing efforts described seem likely to engage target populations (10%);

c) Project description for previously funded projects includes brief history of program, provides baseline data and trends on clients served, accomplishments (as described in Part IV). Project description for projects not previously funded includes description of planning process, interaction with other SRAPs and the NAP, and indicates how the proposed SRAP would benefit the clientele (10%);

Document info
Document views82
Page views82
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 11:32:42 UTC 2017