Alaska Admin. Code tit. 3, § 196.080 – Proposal scoring process and criteria

(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 30 points for its rating of a proposed project's design, goals, and results, as set out in the project description; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposal that clearly explains the project goals and identifies measurable outcomes;
  2. (B) a proposed project that will have tangible and lasting results and that addresses project goals within the time allowed for completion;
  3. (C) a proposal that demonstrates an ability to provide for continuing financial and administrative support, if the proposal is for an ongoing project;
2. (2) no more than 20 points for its rating of a proposed project's demonstrated need and potential benefit; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposed project that addresses a demonstrated need under one of the uses identified in 3 AAC 196.030;
  2. (B) a proposed project that will likely result in a lasting benefit for a community, a region, or the state, or that will result in a product that can be used by an agency in the state or by a similarly situated community in the state;
  3. (C) a proposed project that effectively shares the results of the project with appropriate entities to maximize the project's benefits;
3. (3) no more than 10 points for its rating of a proposed project's cost effectiveness; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposal in which the costs are explained and justified;
  2. (B) a proposal for which the costs of administration and overhead do not exceed 16 percent of the total proposed project costs;
4. (4) no more than 10 points for its rating of a proposal's collaboration with other agencies, the community, and the public and a proposal's level of support from those entities; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposal that includes appropriate consultation or collaboration with state agencies, communities, the public, or other appropriate entities;
  2. (B) a proposal that includes a resolution or letter of support from the governing body of a community, a commitment of in-kind resources or financing, or other evidence of support from appropriate state agencies, communities, or the public;
5. (5) no more than 10 points for its rating of a proposed project's readiness; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposal that is well thought out and prepared to be implemented;
  2. (B) a proposal that demonstrates a likelihood of receiving required permits or required landowner support;
  3. (C) a proposal that has secured additional sources of financing, if those additional sources are necessary;
6. (6) no more than 15 points for its rating of the applicant's capability to manage and implement the subgrant; the committee shall give a higher score to
  1. (A) a proposal that demonstrates that the applicant has the capability to manage the administration of the subgrant, including the maintenance of an accurate accounting and reporting system;
  2. (B) a proposal that demonstrates that key individuals have the experience, qualifications, and technical ability to successfully complete the project; and
7. (7) no more than five points for its rating of the proposed project's nexus with oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf; the committee shall give a higher score to proposals that address informational needs related to, or the potential effects of, oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf.
(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 the proposal, the proposal review committee shall rank them by score. The department shall forward the results of the scored and ranked applications to the following individuals for comment:
1. (1) the commissioner of environmental conservation, or the commissioner's designee;
2. (2) the commissioner of fish and game, or the commissioner's designee;
3. (3) the commissioner of natural resources, or the commissioner's designee;
4. (4) the fisheries policy advisor in the Office of the Governor.
(c) The department may modify the scoring calculations and ranking of the proposal review committee as a result of comments received, if any, from the individuals in (b)(1) - (4) of this section. The department will make final proposal selections based on the final scoring calculations and project rankings.
(d) The department will select two tiers of projects. For Tier 1, the department will select the highest-ranked projects, and will allocate to those projects all of the money available. For Tier 2, the department will rank and select projects for which subgrants will be awarded if money previously allocated to a Tier 1 project becomes available.
(e) The department will recommend a subgrant amount smaller than the amount sought if the department considers a reduced amount to be
1. (1) necessary to increase the amount supplied to the project by the recipient if the department considers the recipient to have additional resources available;
2. (2) necessary to eliminate money for inefficient or excessive components of the proposed project; or
3. (3) warranted by the merits of the project.
(f) The department will send an applicant written notification
1. (1) whether the applicant's project has been selected as a Tier 1 project, and if so, the department's recommended amount of any subgrant; or
2. (2) whether the project is assigned to Tier 2, and if so, the project's ranking within Tier 2 and the department's recommended amount of any subgrant.

(Eff. 3/7/2010, Register 193)

Authority: AS 44.33.020