Merit Review Worksheet Template.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tennessee NRCS General Conservation Agreements
- Opportunity number
- USDA-NRCS-TN-MULTI-24-NOFO0001330
About this file
This document contains a Notice of Funding Opportunity from the Natural Resources Conservation Service for general conservation agreements in Tennessee. The NFO seeks proposals from eligible entities such as nonprofits, local governments, and educational institutions for projects that leverage NRCS resources to encourage collaboration and provide strategic conservation delivery assistance. Proposals should be located in Tennessee and support key conservation objectives outlined in the announcement. NRCS anticipates awarding approximately $750,000 total through cooperative agreements of one to five years in duration. Applicants must submit proposals through Grants.gov by March 24, 2024. NRCS expects to make selection decisions by June 15, 2024 and execute awards by September 15, 2024. The NFO falls under the Soil and Water Conservation federal grant program administered by NRCS with a CFDA number of 10.902.
MERIT REVIEW WORKSHEET
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Current_and_Pending_Support_Table_20230404.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| USDA-NRCS-TN-MULTI-24-NOFO0001330.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| Merit (Technical) Review Worksheet Template Instructions |
| This template worksheet was developed to help a Merit (Technical) Review Board conduct a meaningful merit review of applications received in response to a competitive notice of funding opportunity (NFO). It is not required for use. It employs an adjectival rating structure that generates a points based score. When a reviewer selects an adjective (e.g., good, excellent, etc.), the template automatically produces a pre-determined number of points for that criteria. The template contains two criteria, each with several subcriteria. Currently, both criteria are weighted equally, but review boards may weight them differently by adjusting the formulas in cells H18 and H26. |
| Evaluation Review Boards may tailor the structure of this template or develop their own tools, including their own scoring and ranking scheme, provided that any methodology used allows reviewers to include narrative justifiction or rationale for adjectives, scores, or points assigned to applications for each criteria. |
| The template includes sample proposal review criteria to help illustrate how the worksheet should be used and completed. However, these must be tailored to match the criteria included in the NFO that generated the applications under review. It also includes sample responses for the narrative rationale fields. Of course, those should be deleted before the template is employed. |
Worksheet
| Reviewer Name: |
| Funding Opportunity Number: |
| Funding Opportunity Title: |
| Applicant Name: |
| Unacceptable - application does not address criteria - 0 points |
| Marginal - application addresses criteria but provides very little information and/or contains serious weaknesses - 2 points |
| Satisfactory - application adequately addresses criteria with acceptable approach/response - 4 points |
| Good - application comprehensively addresses criteria with strong approach/response and minor weaknesses - 8 points |
| Excellent - application comprehensively addresses criteria with strong approach/response and few minor weaknesses, if any - 10 points |
| 1. Purpose, Approach, and Goals | Unacceptable | Marginal | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent | Rationale Narrative | Score |
| Design and implementation of project based on sound methodology and demonstrated technical approach. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Application includes plans to use proven technical approach that complies with NRCS standards. Implementation strategy is very detailed and logical. (sample - delete before use) | 8 | ||||
| Promotes environmental enhancement and protection in conjunction with agricultural production. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Meets the requirements set out in the NFO for this criteria in a rational, beneficial way, but the focus on promoting environmental enhancement versus ag production is unbalanced. (sample - delete before use) | 8 | ||||
| Outcome is clearly measurable. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Includes objectives that cannot be measured with objective data. Proposed methods for measuring success are subjective and do align well with the objectives to be measured. (sample - delete before use) | 4 | ||||
| Potential for successful completion. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Project does not include significant risks. If executed according to the proposal, the project has a high liklihood of success.(sample - delete before use) | 2 | ||||
| Total | 22 |
| 2. Project Management | Unacceptable | Marginally acceptable | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent | Rationale Narrative | Score |
| Milestones and timeline are clear and reasonable. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | The milestones are clear, but could have been broken into smaller steps that would allow better tracking of progress. (sample - delete before use) | 8 | ||||
| Project staff has the technical expertise needed. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Proposed technical staff has more than 20 years experience in the relevant field and direct experience workig with NRCS.(sample - delete before use) | 4 | ||||
| Budget is adequately explained and justified. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Budget is acceptable, but would like to have seen more information about the consultant costs included. It names the consultants and gives a total for all planned fees, but doesn't show which consultants will get what amount. The description of their contributions to the project are also somewhat vague.(sample - delete before use) | 8 | ||||
| Experience and capacity to partner with and gain the support of other organizations, institutions, and agencies. (Update with actual NFO criteria) | X | Application includes good plan for partnering with several organizations, but only one commitment letter was provided from a partner already on board. (sample - delete before use) | 10 | ||||
| Total | 30 |
&A
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .