Each non-federal reviewer was asked to sign and return a CD-571 or indicate in an email response that they had read the CD-571 and were in compliance with IT

Each federal reviewer was asked if he/she had a conflict of interest. Only non-conflicted reviews were considered for evaluation of applications. These documents are on file at CPO. The stage one expert review panel discussed each application based on the three criteria published in the FFO: a) technical/scientific merit (70% weight), B) overall qualifications of the applicants (20% weight) and C) project costs (10% weight). The reviewers were requested to provide a rating to each criterion. The rating ranges from 1.0 (the lowest) to 5.0 (the highest). Each panelist provided an independent evaluation for each application by first providing a numerical rating for each evaluation criterion. The three numerical ratings are then averaged into a single score using the relative weights identified above for each criterion, as published in the FFO. Only those applications receiving a final average score of 3.0 or greater by the stage one panel were forwarded to the stage two panel for evaluation. The stage two expert review panel discussed each application based on the criterion importance/relevance and applicability as published in the FFO. The reviewers were requested to provide a rating for the criterion. The rating ranges from 1.0 (the lowest) to 5.0 (the highest). Each panelist provided an independent evaluation for each application by first providing a numerical rating for the evaluation criterion. The numerical ratings were then averaged into a single score. The numerical ratings for the stage one expert review panel (75% weight) and the stage two expert review panel (25% weight) were then averaged into a single score using the relative weights identified above for each panel, as published in the FFO. For each application, there may not be a rating provided by all panelists due to a) a panelist having a conflict, (in this case the panelist is excused from the panel discussion on the application) and/or B) the panelist being unfamiliar with the subject matter and choosing not to give a rating. (instructions to the review panel are attached.) results from the two expert review panels are summarized in the attached panel review summary table, which lists the average panel scores for each application. The average scores result in a rank order. The program manager will recommend selection of applications for funding according to the rank order until available funds are exhausted, with exceptions noted below.