7 C.F.R. § 3401.17 – Review criteria.

(a) Federally funded research supported under these provisions shall be designed to, among other things, accomplish one or more of the following purposes:
1. (1) Improve management of rangelands as an integrated system and/or watershed;
2. (2) Remedy unstable or unsatisfactory rangeland conditions;
3. (3) Increase revegetation and/or rehabilitation of rangelands;
4. (4) Examine the health of rangelands; and
5. (5) Define economic parameters associated with rangelands.
(b) In carrying out its review under § 3401.16, the peer review panel will use the following form upon which the evaluation criteria to be used are enumerated, unless, pursuant to § 3401.7(a), different evaluation criteria are specified in the annual solicitation of proposals for a particular program:
Peer Panel Scoring Form Proposal Identification No. Institution and Project Title I. Basic Requirement: Proposal falls within guidelines? __________ Yes __________ No. If no, explain why proposal does not meet guidelines under comment section of this form. II. Selection Criteria: Score 1-10 Weight factor Score X weight factor Comments 1. Overall scientific and technical quality of proposal 10 2. Scientific and technical quality of the approach 10 3. Relevance and importance of proposed research to solution of specific areas of inquiry 6 4. Feasibility of attaining objectives; adequacy of professional training and experience, facilities and equipment 5 Score Summary Comments
(c) Proposals satisfactorily meeting the guidelines will be evaluated and scored by the peer review panel for each criterion utilizing a scale of 1 through 10. A score of one (1) will be considered low and a score of ten (10) will be considered high for each selection criterion. A weighted factor is used for each criterion.