activities, honors and awards, and interpersonal, written, and oral communications skills. For the Knauss Policy Fellowship, relevant experience would be in Marine or fields. 5. Financial need of student. The Knauss Policy Fellowship Program does not use this criterion (0 percent). A. Evaluation Criteria: 1. Ability of the organization to implement the GSP program objectives: This determines whether there is intrinsic value identified in the proposed work to adequately assume responsibility for program administration of the Undergraduate Scholarship Program (30 percent). 2. Overall qualifications of applicants: This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary experience, structure, and administrative resources to accomplish the described tasks (35 percent). 3. Costs: The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the proposal needs and time frame (20 percent). 4. Outreach and recruitment: NOAA assesses whether this proposal provides a focused and effective outreach and recruitment strategy regarding NOAA/EPP Graduate Sciences Program objectives (15 percent). A. Evaluation Criteria: Once a full application has been received by NOAA, an initial administrative review is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. Merit review is then conducted by peer reviewers. Applications will be peer-reviewed by a minimum of 3 individuals with coral reef and fisheries management experience on the weighted evaluation criteria listed below, as evidenced by information in the application. Each reviewer will individually evaluate and rank proposals using the evaluation criteria provided below. The merit reviewers’ ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. 1) Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals (25%): This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local goals and priorities. For this competition, the proposal should demonstrate the need for the proposed coral reef management activity to fill gaps in the jurisdiction’s management capacity; 2) Technical/scientific merit (25%): This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives for this management activity. 3) Overall qualifications of applicants (20%): This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For this competition, the proposal should demonstrate coordination with
factors: 1. Availability of funding 2. Balance/distribution of funds a. Geographically b. By type of institutions c. By type of partners d. By research areas e. By project types 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA/federal agencies 4. Program priorities and policy factors as set out in Section I.B.1-3. 5. Applicant’s prior award performance 6. Partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Projects considered for renewal will be evaluated by the BWET Program Manager and other National Marine Sanctuary Program staff to determine whether to be renewed for funding based upon the advice of the review panel. If there has been satisfactory prior award performance, projects considered for renewal may take priority over new proposals. Grants Online Federal Funding Opportunity Document Creation Assistance FFO Field: Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates FFO Location: Application Review Information - fourth (and final) field - Preceding Field: - Subsequent Field: OMB Guidance: V. Application Review Information