Proposal Evaluation

In order to help ensure the funding of only the highest quality scientific research, all proposals received by NPRB in response to an RFP are sent out for expert technical evaluation.

The Board strives to obtain two or three reviews per proposal. Reviews are made available to the Science Panel and Board members before funding decisions are made.

General Evaluation Criteria

Note: Specifics of each evaluation criterion may change slightly from year to year. Please refer to the current year's RFP for full details.

Project responsiveness to research priorities

Prior to sending proposals out for technical review, NPRB staff and a sub-committee of the NPRB Science Panel conduct an initial screening to determine if the submitted proposals are responsive to NPRB’s enabling legislation and criteria and adequately address the current RFP research priorities under which it was submitted.  Proposals that are found not to be responsive or do not comply with the formatting requirements outlined in the RFP will be rejected without processing.

Independent Technical Review Criteria

Soundness of project design/conceptual approach (60%)

• What will the project accomplish and why it is important?
• Is there understanding of the problem, knowledge to date, relevance to other work, and measurable benefits?
• Is there sufficient information to evaluate the project technically?
• What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the technical design relative to securing productive results?
• Is there a clear hypothesis to be tested or objectives to be addressed and the expected outcome?
• Is there a clear description of the experimental design, including assumptions required, sample size, and other information needed to determine the utility and technical feasibility of accomplishing the research?
• Is there a list of data sources or requirements?

Education and outreach (5%)

• Is the education and outreach plan clearly defined? 
• Are the education and outreach activities/materials planned aimed at audiences other than the scientific community? 

Timeline and milestones (10%)

• Is there a clear table detailing timelines and associated measurable milestones, accomplishments and deliverables?
• Is there a description of the product or result that may be used to measure project success and how results will be disseminated?

Project management (15%)

• Is there strong organization and management of the project?
• How will coordination and collaboration efforts proceed?
• How will the funding be leveraged with support from other sources?
• Does the proposal seek to avoid duplication of other research efforts?

Project costs (10%)

• Is the budget justfied? Is the project cost unreasonably high or low?