2. Valid Eval Rubric (Version 2.0).pdf

AFRL DETER/TACTICAL/RAD (version 2.0) Evaluation Criteria Defined

DEFINITION

TECHNICAL MERIT

OVERALL SCIENTIFIC /

PROBLEM BEING SOLVED

What is the problem being solved or the capability gap being addressed for AFRL with the proposed solution? Demonstrate the depth of your understanding of the problem's components and stakeholders.

SOLUTION/PRODUCT

SUMMARY

Write a clear, concise description of your product or solution. Succinctly explain what your product or solution is and how it addresses the problem statement/capability gap. Provide the reviewers with a clear sense of the solution you are proposing, specifically highlighting all proposed deliverables.

DEGREE OF INNOVATION Describe what's innovative about your approach. How big of a departure from the state-of-the-art is your solution?

RISK MITIGATION Identify the primary drivers of technical, schedule and cost risk, along with the proposed methods to reduce or mitigate them.

ENABLING

TECHNOLOGIES

Do the required enabling technologies introduce added risk? Using mature or proven underlying technologies and techniques helps to lower technical risk.

ALTERNATE

APPROACHES

Convince a skeptical audience that yours is the best from a technical perspective. Your case is strongest when you convincingly refute the alternatives.

weight 30%

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Describe your relevant experience with similar work and/or with similar technologies.

Explain how your previous work with relevant projects makes you an ideal candidate to accomplish the proposed solution.

TECHNICAL MERIT

SOUNDNESS OF TECHNICAL

APPROACH

SCIENTIFIC FEASIBILITY Is the science behind the solution sound? Convince reviewers that the proposed solution is anchored by theory, analysis and/or data. Identify any foundational or proven technologies that were relied upon for the proposed solution.

TECHNICAL PERSONNEL

Briefly list and describe your core scientific and technical team. Do you have the people and technical capabilities you need to successfully complete your proposed project? If not, convince the reader you have a credible recruiting plan and can fill personnel gaps.

TECHNICAL FACILITIES &

RESOURCES

Briefly list and describe your technical facilities and resources. Do you have the resources and technical facilities you need to successfully complete your proposed project? If not, convince the reader you have a credible plan to attain the necessary facilities or resources to accomplish the proposed solution.

APPROPRIATENESS OF

MEASUREMENT

List the key performance indicators (KPIs) or technical performance measures (TPMs) that are most appropriate to measure your progress with this project. Prove these metrics are the most appropriate possible measurements of success for a project such as this one.

REASONABLE

SCHEDULE

Provide a schedule for the proposed solution. The provided schedule is realistic and reasonable for the proposed technical solution. Schedule includes thoughtfully considered milestones.

IMPORTANCE /

RELEVANCE TO AFRL

PROGRAMS

weight 20%

SOLUTION ALIGNMENT The proposed solution is logically mapped to one or more Topic Area(s). The proposed solution directly addresses one or more research thrust identified within the Topic Area(s).

IMPACT TO MISSION

Define the impact or benefits gained with your proposed solution. Specify contributions to

AFRL’s research and development within the Topic Area.

VALUE OF CONTRIBUTION The proposed solution provides meaningful contributions which outweighs the risks.

VALUE/COST

RELIABLE COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates provided are complete, realistic and credible. Cost estimates are supported with verifiable data or analysis.

PROPOSED VALUE The benefit or impact of the proposed solution appropriately outweighs the costs.

FUNDING AVAILABILITY The proposed solution and associated cost are within the availability budget or funding amounts.

AFRL DETER/TACTICAL/RAD (version 2.0) Evaluation Criteria

NOT SELECTABLE SELECTABLE, LOW SELECTABLE, HIGH HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

OVERALL SCIENTIFIC /

PROBLEM BEING

SOLVED

Undefined problem scope. Somewhat defined problem scope.

Adequately defined problem scope.

Very well-defined problem scope.

SOLUTION/PRODUCT

SUMMARY

Failed to describe intended solution.

Partly described intended solution.

Adequately described intended solution.

Clearly described intended solution.

DEGREE OF

INNOVATION

No departure from existing approaches.

Slight departure from existing approaches.

Significant departure from existing approaches.

Radical departure from existing approaches.

RISK MITIGATION Failed to identify key risks or mitigations.

Identified key risks but lacked credible mitigations.

Adequately identified key risks and mitigations.

Thoroughly identified key risks with credible mitigations.

ENABLING

TECHNOLOGIES

Relies on nonexistent or unavailable technology.

Relies on emerging, cutting-edge technology.

Relies on proven technologies.

Relies on commercially available or fielded technologies.

ALTERNATE

APPROACHES

No examination of alternatives.

Partially refutes alternatives. Adequately refutes alternatives.

Persuasively refutes alternatives.

RELEVANT

EXPERIENCE

Failed to provide relevant experience.

Indirect experience supporting relevant projects.

Direct experience completing relevant projects.

Direct experience successfully completing relevant projects.

TECHNICAL MERIT

SOUNDNESS OF

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SCIENTIFIC

FEASIBILITY

No scientific basis for presented approach.

Incomplete scientific basis for presented approach.

Credible scientific basis for presented approach.

Convincing scientific basis for presented approach.

TECHNICAL

PERSONNEL

Lacked essential expertise, or qualifications unclear.

Recognized gaps in expertise, but no plan to address needs.

Recognized gaps in expertise and presented specific plan to address needs.

Highly capable team with excellent composition. No unresolved gaps in expertise.

TECHNICAL FACILITIES

& RESOURCES

Lacked necessary facilities or resources.

Recognized gaps in necessary resources, but no plan to address needs.

Recognized gaps in necessary resources and offered specific plan to address needs.

Well-resourced to accomplish the proposed solution.

APPROPRIATENESS

OF MEASUREMENT

Failed to identify key performance metrics.

Poor measurement of indicators of impact.

Adequate measurement of indicators of impact.

Highly appropriate measurement of indicators of impact.

REASONABLE

SCHEDULE

Schedule is unrealistic or unreasonable.

Schedule is realistic and somewhat reasonable.

Schedule is realistic and reasonable.

Schedule is realistic, reasonable and includes well-conceived milestones.

IMPORTANCE /

RELEVANCE TO

AFRL PROGRAMS

SOLUTION ALIGNMENT Failed to address Topic Area.

Somewhat addressed Topic Area.

Adequately addressed Topic Area.

Directly addressed one or more research thrusts within Topic Area.

IMPACT TO MISSION

If successful, no improvement vs. existing technological approaches.

If successful, slight improvement vs. existing technological approaches.

If successful, significant improvement vs. existing technological approaches.

If successful, radical improvement vs. existing technological approaches.

VALUE OF

CONTRIBUTION

Expected contributions does not outweigh risks.

Expected contributions may outweigh risks.

Expected contributions outweigh risks.

Expected contributions substantially outweigh risks.

VALUE/COST

RELIABLE COST

ESTIMATES

Incomplete cost estimates.

Unrealistic cost estimates.

Credible cost estimates. Convincing cost estimates.

PROPOSED VALUE Expected pay-off does not outweigh proposed cost.

Expected pay-off may outweigh proposed cost.

Expected payoff outweigh proposed cost.

Expected payoff substantially outweigh proposed cost.

FUNDING

AVAILABILITY

Estimated cost exceeds available budget.

Estimated cost is within range of available budget.

Estimated cost is within available budget.

Estimated cost is well within available budget.