Discretionary Subfund Application Scoring Process

Applications will be reviewed and scored using the following criteria:

• Technical Proposal (25 points)
• Qualifications and Experience (15 points)
• Budget (10 points)

Scoring Criteria

Technical Proposal (25 points)

Qualifications and Experience (15 points)

Budget (10 points)

Descriptors for Scoring Criteria

Outstanding:  The applicant entity/organization explicitly addresses the criteria by providing comprehensive descriptions and thorough details.  Relevant examples and data are included to support the information presented.  The applicant entity/organization demonstrates a strong and informed understanding of the topic, and the level of detail provided reinforces each response.  The applicant entity/organization effectively describes how the project will be implemented.

Very Good:  The applicant entity/organization provides significant descriptions and relevant and related detail in addressing the criteria, but the response is not entirely comprehensive.  The applicant entity/organization demonstrates a sound understanding of the topic and includes pertinent examples.  It is possible to distinguish what makes the response better than “Good,” but not up to the standard of “Outstanding.”

Good:  The applicant entity/organization provides a basic response to the criteria.  The applicant entity/organization does not include significant detail or pertinent information.  Key details and examples are limited.  The applicant entity/organization minimally translates the requirement of the application into practice.

Marginal:  The applicant entity/organization provides insufficient information, details, and/or descriptions that do not completely answer the criteria.  The applicant may have answered part of the criteria but missed a key point and/or there are major gaps in the information presented.

Poor:  The applicant entity/organization does not address the criteria.  The applicant entity/organization states the question but does not elaborate on the response.  The applicant merely repeats information included in the application.  The applicant entity/organization skips or otherwise ignores the criteria or includes irrelevant information that does not meet the criteria elements.

*Information adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Application Field Review Process for NOFOs #CE20-2002 and CE20-2003