Apply For Funds
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) | ||||
| Outstanding | Very Good | Good | Marginal | Poor |
| 25-20 | 19-15 | 14-10 | 9-5 | 4-0 |
| Qualifications and Experience (15 points) | ||||
| Outstanding | Very Good | Good | Marginal | Poor |
| 15-12 | 11-9 | 8-6 | 5-3 | 2-0 |
| Budget (10 points) | ||||
| Outstanding | Very Good | Good | Marginal | Poor |
| 10-9 | 8-7 | 6-5 | 4-3 | 2-0 |
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
