Non-Open Water Support
Review & Approval
Evaluation Criteria
All applications are independently reviewed by experts to assess feasibility, impact and value. Applications are reviewed by a minimum of three external reviewers which are coordinated by the TEAMER Network Director. Final RFTS recommendations are then made by the TEAMER Technical Board. Applications are reviewed using an evaluation criteria which can be found below.
Project Summary – 5% of Total Score
1. How well does the technical summary describe the assistance request, rationale, and intended outcomes? 100% of Project Summary Score
Excellent
All elements in summary are clearly described
Moderate
Most elements in the summary are clearly described
Fair
Most elements in the summary are not clearly described.
Poor
Assistance request, rationale, and/or outcomes are incomprehensible.
Requested Assistance – 75% of Total Score
2. Are the assistance objectives and potential benefit to the applicant clear? – 10% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Objectives and applicant benefits are clear and aligned.
Moderate
Objectives and applicant benefits are clear, but not aligned.
Fair
Objectives and applicant benefits are unclear
Poor
Objectives do not appear to benefit the applicant.
3. Based on prior work, ist this a logical next step? 5% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Assistance represents a clear next step for the applicant, building on prior work.
Moderate
Assistance is one of several possible next steps.
Fair
Assistance is not a clear next step.
Poor
Assistance is a poor next step.
4. How well described is prior work? 5% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Prior work descriptions and connection to request are clear.
Moderate
Prior work descriptions are clear, but are tangential to request.
Fair
Prior work descriptions are unclear and relevance to request cannot be established.
Poor
Prior work is irrelevant to request.
5. If the applicant has received prior or ongoing TEAMER support for related work, how has that influenced this request? – 10% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Clear connection between prior TEAMER support and proposed work -or- Proposed work has no relation to prior TEAMER support -or- No prior TEAMER support.
Moderate
Proposed work has been somewhat influenced by prior/ongoing TEAMER support.
Fair
Proposed work indicated limited learning from prior/ongoing TEAMER support, but there were extenuating circumstances.
Poor
Proposed work indicated limited learning from prior/ongoing TEAMER support and there do not appear to be extenuating circumstances.
6. Is the technical approach likely to achieve the intended benefit? 50% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Approach is likely to provide intended benefit.
Moderate
Approach may provide intended benefit.
Fair
Approach is unlikely to provide intended benefit.
Poor
Approach has fatal flaws.
7. Are the metrics appropriate for assessing the success of the technical approach? 5% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Metrics are well-aligned with sector norms and descriptive of results.
Moderate
Metrics are non-standard, but descriptive of results
Fair
Metrics are poorly defined.
Poor
Metrics cannot be evaluated from information provided.
8. Is the plan for results dissemination reasonable? 4% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Results dissemination will significantly increase impact of the assistance beyond the applicant.
Moderate
Results dissemination may have impact beyond the applicant.
Fair
Results are likely to solely benefit the applicant.
Poor
Results dissemination plan is insufficient and/or overly restrictive.
9. Is the timeline for results dissemination reasonable 1% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Results will be disseminated immediately.
Moderate
Results will be released after five years and this is well justified.
Fair
Results will be released after five years and this is moderately justified.
Poor
Results will be released after five years and this is not justified.
10. Are any of the timing constraints incompatible? 5% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Facility and applicant have limited schedule constraints.
Moderate
Facility or applicant have significant schedule constraints – schedule delays possible.
Fair
Facility and applicant have conflicting and significant constraints – schedule delays probable.
Poor
Facility and applicant schedules do not overlap.
11. Is the schedule reasonable and achievable? 5% of Requested Assistance Score
Excellent
Schedule is reasonable and achievable – project should be completed on schedule.
Moderate
Schedule is achievable, but aggressive – project delays possible.
Fair
Schedule may not be achievable – project delays likely.
Poor
Schedule is unrealistic – project cannot be completed in time window.
Team Description and Roles – 20% of Total Score
12. How well-suited is the facility to achieving the applicant objectives? 25% of Team Description and Roles Score
Excellent
Facility is a match fit for project objectives.
Moderate
Facility is well-suited to achieve project objectives.
Fair
Facility has some capability gaps that may inhibit project objectives.
Poor
Facility cannot meet project objectives.
13. Is facility selection sensible? For multi-facility proposals, is this an integrated activity? 50% of Team Description and Roles Score
Excellent
Applicant selection criteria are clear.
Moderate
Applicant selection criteria are mostly clear.
Fair
Applicant selection criteria is arbitrary.
Poor
Applicant selection criteria has serious flaws.
14. Is the applicant role clearly defined and consistent with the technical approach? 12.5 % of Team Description and Roles Score
Excellent
Applicant role is clearly defined.
Moderate
Applicant role mostly defined and/or consistent.
Fair
Applicant role mostly undefined and/or inconsistent.
Poor
Applicant role is undefined.
15. Is the facility role clearly defined and consistent with the technical approach? 12.5% of Team Description and Roles Score
Excellent
Facility role is clearly defined and consistent.
Moderate
Facility role mostly defined and/or consistent.
Fair
Facility role mostly undefined and/or inconsistent.
Poor
Facility role is undefined.