1. (a) Each member of the proposal review committee shall score a proposal on a scale of 0 - 100 total points, and shall award

   1. (1) no more than 40 points for a proposed project's strategic importance; the committee shall give a higher score to a proposal that

      1. (A) meets a demonstrated need and will provide a lasting benefit;
      2. (B) is supported or endorsed by organizations with expertise or authority in the area;
      3. (C) is identified as a high priority in an adopted plan or study; and

      4. (D) best fulfills at least one of the following criteria:

         1. (i) develops and implements a public information and education program that fosters public awareness and stewardship of Pacific salmon populations and their habitats;
         2. (ii) develops and implements an outreach program that includes public participation in on-the-ground habitat monitoring, restoration, or other stewardship actions that benefit Pacific salmon;
         3. (iii) develops and supports a program or system that provides public access to technical information about Pacific salmon and their habitats;

   2. (2) no more than 25 points for the proposed project's technical merit; the committee shall give a higher score to a proposal that

      1. (A) clearly defines objectives, methods, anticipated results, and products appropriate to the project;
      2. (B) has a high likelihood for success toward meeting project objectives within the specified timeframe and budget;
      3. (C) includes a mechanism to evaluate project success in meeting goals and objectives; and
      4. (D) demonstrates the ability to sustain or manage the project beyond the initial funding period to require the achieved project objectives;

   3. (3) no more than 10 points for a proposed project's staff experience and qualifications; the committee shall give a higher score to a proposal where the applicant and any partners

      1. (A) demonstrate they have the capacity, including technical and administrative expertise, to successfully complete the project;
      2. (B) have a history of successfully implementing, administering, and completing comparable projects; and
      3. (C) have a history of successful grant administration, or submit other evidence demonstrating they have the capability to manage the grant;

   4. (4) no more than 25 points for a proposed project's budget; the committee shall give a higher score to a proposal that includes

      1. (A) costs that are reasonable to meet project objectives;
      2. (B) project cost estimates that are explained and justified;
      3. (C) administrative costs that are reasonable; and
      4. (D) additional financing sources, including all match amounts and sources of origin, if required.
2. (b) Once all its members have completed their individual scores for a proposal, the proposal review committee shall average those individual scores to calculate a final score for that proposal. After it completes scoring each proposal, the proposal review committee shall rank the proposals by score. The department will forward the results of the scored and ranked applications to the commissioner of fish and game, or the commissioner's designee, for comment.
3. (c) The department may modify the scoring calculations and ranking of the proposal review committee as a result of comments received from the commissioner of fish and game or the commissioner's designee. The department will make proposal selections based on the scoring calculations, project rankings, and the availability of appropriations.

(Eff. 9/16/2010, Register 195)

Authority: AS 44.33.020