I do like the specificity of the instructions. To me, this is the greatest possible strength of the grant process last year. Yes, I felt constricted when I wanted to put in some real description and couldn't, but the presenters TOLD us to follow the outline exactly if we wanted our grant to be funded. We made sure that we had every single bit of information that the application said should be in each section, and we didn't put in anything extra. I know that some systems have complained about the fairness, but I'll bet you that those system's grant writers did not follow the clear directions written in the application and explained by DOE personnel.
Readers inconsistently rate applications suggesting major problems with interrater reliability.
We would prefer to divide the money equally with systems than spend weeks preparing a application that may not be funded if the readers do not understand what a system is trying to do. Our grants have had high and low marks given on the same information. One reader saw the information another did not. This is beyond our control.