CASC Host Recompetition: Evaluation Criteria

Significance and Approach: 40 points

Significance

• How effectively does the applicant describe for an audience without a science background how this proposal will impact the CASC mission? 

• Does the proposal improve the scientific knowledge and technical capabilities for the purpose of climate adaptation planning or resource management as related to the priorities of this Request For Proposal (RFP)? 

• Does the proposal demonstrate understanding of, and commitment to, what is needed to make the CASC an exceptional research and capacity building facility for applied climate impact research?  

• Does the proposal convey a clearly stated commitment that CASC research will be aligned with CASC priorities and DOI’s Secretarial Priorities? 

• Does the budget appear reasonable for the proposed activities?  

• Does the proposal demonstrate a plan to carry out work in ways that address social and environmental inequities and support actions that address them, including but not limited to the inclusion of frontline community members in setting priorities that address the climate adaptation needs of those frontline communities?  

Approach

• Does the investigative team offer a demonstrated understanding of, experience in, and commitment to the co-development and -implementation of applied climate science for the purpose of climate adaptation planning or resource management? 

• Does the applicant provide examples of engaging stakeholders before, during, and after initiation of the research process? 

• Are the proposed budget and requested resources reasonable, and is the work plan practical and achievable for the proposed level of work and expected benefits, given the budget request? 

• Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success? 

• Does the applicant identify how activities will be conducted under the base amount? Is the proposal well described and have a reasonable budget?

Project Team, Collaboration, and Environment: 25 points

Project Team

• Are there adequate professional staff positions dedicated to providing essential or unmet core and administrative functions for the CASC as part of the base funding? 

• Do(es) the applicant(s) bring the appropriate expertise and experience on climate impacts research or climate adaptation to lead and deliver the proposed output(s), and to achieve the proposed contribution(s)? 

• Is the proposed leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project? 

• Has the PI/Host Institution Director demonstrated an ability to lead others, and commitment to the success of the CASC? 

• Does the investigative team (PIs, collaborators, and other researchers) bring diverse, complementary and integrated expertise to the project? 

Collaboration

• Has the PI/Host Institution Director provided documented evidence of willingness to collaborate with others beyond his/her institution to share ideas, science, etc. to advance the CASC’s activities as outlined in the RFP? 

• Is there evidence of the ability of the team of investigators to work together in an interdisciplinary fashion, in particular in collaboration with existing USGS capacity (i.e., centers, units, programs) in the region? 

• How do the proposed collaborative relationships strengthen or weaken the proposal? 

• Does the proposal describe the level of integration and interdisciplinary collaboration among the team and how team effort will bring added value to the project in terms of methodologies, data acquisition and analysis, knowledge exchange, etc.? 

Environment

• Is there substantive evidence of broad institutional support for, and awareness of, CASC activities from relevant departments and administrators? 

• Is the environment (academic institution and/or other organization support, equipment, facilities, and other resources available to the investigators) appropriate to enable the conduct and success of the project? 

• Does the proposal benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? 

Capacity Building and Communication: 25 points

Capacity Building

• Is a detailed plan for engaging graduate and postdoctoral students in CASC research projects provided? 

• Are qualifications and characteristics of current and anticipated students/fellow researchers, as well as a selection plan specified, in order to support CASC research? 

• Additional expectations include plans for involving researchers/fellows in annual CASC meetings, conferences and meeting participation; documentation of a ready supply of fellows; and history of successful fellowships for researchers in the appropriate research topic. 

• Does the proposal include a clearly stated intention of collaboration, as appropriate, with the CASC Federal Director on matters related to capacity building? 

• Does the proposal encourage engagement with tribal or other indigenous students and early-career individuals to expose them to climate-related research and expand CASC research to diverse audiences and beneficiaries? 

• Are the proposed budget and requested resources reasonable, and is the work plan practical and achievable for the proposed level of work and expected benefits, given the budget request? 

Communication

• Does the proposal explain how it will effectively communicate and disseminate climate change science to a wide range of managers and decision-makers? 

• Does the proposal define products and/or outline a strategy for communicating CASC scientific findings to the public and knowledge end-users? 

• Do(es) the applicant(s) provide examples regarding their effectiveness in website design, innovative use of technology, and content management to enhance communication? 

• Are the proposed budget and requested resources reasonable, and is the work plan practical and achievable for the proposed level of work and expected benefits, given the budget request? 

Budget Assessment: 10 points

• Is the requested funding appropriate to support the project?  Is it realistic and well-justified in the budget narrative? 

• Appropriate budget planning should be demonstrated.  The requested resources should be adequate to financially support the full scope of the project. 

• Reviewers will be asked to consider the proposed budget of the project, and to provide a justified recommendation as to whether the budget should be: 

  • Accepted, as described; or 

  • Reduced by a specific dollar amount (total). 

*Cost sharing is not required in this program and will not be considered in the evaluation of applications.  

 

Facilities Assessment: 0 points

Proposals should describe physical space to be made available to serve the needs of current CASC staff (as described above), plus proposed students and post-doctoral researchers, and planned accommodations for a reasonable anticipated increase in the number of CASC staff.  If space is to be provided at the Host Institution, details regarding the extent and nature of support for that space should be provided, e.g., furniture, supplies and equipment ordering and maintenance (copier, paper, whiteboards, etc.), communications infrastructure.  Space arrangements will be discussed directly with applicants as part of the agreement finalization process. 

Back to CASC Host Recompetition page>>