Score your draft
2026 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) National Program. Rate your own draft against each scoring criterion in the official notice, the way a reviewer would read it.
A self-check, not a prediction. Reviewers decide the real score. GrantMe doesn't read or rate your writing; you do.
Private by design. Nothing you type or paste on this page is sent to GrantMe or saved anywhere. Reloading or closing the page clears it. Print the page to keep your scores.
Scores listed: 105 of 130 points; check the notice for the rest. Source: the official notice, EPA-OAR-OTAQ-26-01.pdf. If the notice describes rating levels for its criteria, use its words when you score.
How to use it
- Read what reviewers look for under each criterion.
- Find the part of your draft that answers it. Paste it in the box to check its length.
- Give yourself a score from 0 to the criterion's points. Start with the lowest scores when you revise.
Scoring criteria
-
Project Summary · 10 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 45):
and Approach: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applications based on the applicant’s project summary and overall approach. Specifically, the EPA will evaluate
of 10 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Project Approach · 10 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 45):
The extent and quality of the applicant’s overall approach and implementation plan, including activities, tasks, roles and responsibilities, and partnerships. 2. Goods Movement Facilities: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applications based on the extent to which projects target vehicles located at, or that service, goods movement facilities such as ports, airports, rail yards, terminals, or distribution centers, as described in Section 4.B. Criteria Name and Description Points 3. Project Location: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applications based on
of 10 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Nonattainment Areas · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The extent to which the projects are located in and serve counties that contain ozone or PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance areas, as described in Section 4.B.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Areas with Air Toxics Concerns · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The extent to which projects are located in and serve counties that contain areas with air toxics concerns, as described in Section 4.B. 4. Project Sustainability: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applications based on the extent and quality to which the applicant and its project partners will promote and continue efforts to reduce emissions after EPA funding for this project has ended. Specifically, the EPA will evaluate the extent and quality to which
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Continuing Efforts · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The application demonstrates that the applicant and project partner(s) have policies in place to promote and continue efforts to reduce diesel emissions. These may include existing idle-reduction policies, contract specifications requiring the use of cleaner, more efficient vehicles and equipment, up to date mobile source equipment inventories, or other policies as necessary. If the applicant does not currently have these types of policies in place, the application will be evaluated on the quality and extent to which the application specifies a commitment to complete one or more before the end of the project period.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Baseline Monitoring · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The application demonstrates that the applicant and project partner(s) has a publicly available baseline mobile source emission inventory for PM2.5 or NOx that was completed after 2021. If not, the extent to which the application specifies a commitment to complete one before the end of the project period.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Emissions Plan · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The application demonstrates that the applicant and project partner(s) has a publicly available plan, finalized after 2021, to reduce mobile source emissions that include specific PM2.5 or NOx emission targets. If not, the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a commitment to developing one before the end of the project period.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Community Engagement · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 46):
The extent and quality to which the application demonstrates that the applicant and project partner(s) have an existing clear point of contact in a public platform (e.g., newsletter, website) for community issues and complaints (specific to air quality or broader) and a publicly documented policy or process to engage communities and get their input on operations and projects that impact air quality. The process could be a meeting in the past year or a policy or process to have a meeting or otherwise get input (e.g., a standing citizen advisory committee). If not, the extent to which the application demonstrates a commitment to establish both the above before the end of the project period. 5. Environmental Results – Outputs, Outcomes and Performance Measures: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate: 30 Criteria Name and Description Points
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Expected Project Outputs and Outcomes · 10 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
The extent and quality to which the applicant identifies and quantifies expected project outputs and outcomes, including those identified in Section 3.A.
of 10 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Performance Measures and Plan · 10 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
The quality of the proposed performance measures and effectiveness of the applicant’s plan for tracking and measuring their progress toward achieving the expected project outputs and outcomes, including those identified in Section 3.A.
of 10 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Timeline and Milestones · 10 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
The reasonableness of the proposed timeline including key milestones for specific tasks and the likelihood of completion of the project’s goals and objectives by project end. 6. Programmatic Capability and Past Performance: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applicants based on their ability to successfully complete and manage the proposed project considering their
of 10 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Past Performance · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
Past performance in successfully completing and managing the grants identified in the project narrative as described in Section 4.B. of the NOFO.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Reporting Requirements · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
History of meeting the reporting requirements under the grants identified in the project narrative, including whether the applicant submitted acceptable final technical reports under those agreements and the extent to which the applicant adequately and timely reported on their progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes under those agreements and if such progress was not being made, whether the applicant adequately reported why not.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Staff Expertise · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
Organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and staff expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the proposed project. Note: In evaluating applicants under items a. and b. of this criterion, the agency will consider the information provided by the applicant and may also consider relevant information from other sources including agency files and prior/current grantors (i.e., to verify or supplement the information supplied by the applicant). If the applicant does not have any relevant or available past performance or reporting information, please indicate this in the application and the applicant will receive a neutral score for these subfactors (items a. and b. above). A neutral score is half of the total points available in a subset of…
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Budget Detail · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 47):
The proposed budget provides a detailed breakout by funding type in the proper budget category for each activity the applicant is requesting funding. Criteria Name and Description Points b. Expenditure of Awarded Funds (5 points) The applicant’s approach, procedures, and controls will ensure that awarded grant funds will be expended in a timely and efficient manner.
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Reasonableness of Costs · 5 points
What reviewers look for (notice p. 48):
The proposed costs are reasonable to accomplish the proposed goals, objectives, and measurable environmental outcomes, including consideration of indirect/administrative costs. 8. Applicant Fleet Description: Under this criterion, the EPA will evaluate applicants on the extent and quality of the detailed information provided in the applicant fleet description via the DERA Supplemental Application Template (excel), also known as the Burden Statement for EPA Form: 5900-681, of all required target fleet fields (vessel(s), vehicle(s), engine(s), and equipment) as described in Section 4.B. and completed with sufficient detail and provided with accuracy and consistency, with no significant errors or omissions. Total Possible Points 130 Applicants will be evaluated based on the extent and quality to which they demonstrate that they have the capability to successfully perform the project as…
of 5 points
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
Your total: ______ of 105 points
Length limits in this notice
- Workplan: 14 pages max (notice p. 27) “The Cover Page and Workplan combined are limited to 14 pages.”
- Page limit (see quote): 14 pages max (notice p. 36) “The application should include the budget detail and the budget table in the project narrative which counts towards the 14-page limit.”
- Optional Template: 14 pages max (notice p. 39) “Example Budget Table (Optional Template, part of the 14-page limit):”
- Required Attachments: 14 pages max (notice p. 41) “(3) Required Attachments (not included in 14-page limit) – use “Other Attachments” form to submit 1.”
Page limits can't be checked from pasted text. Check them in your word processor with the notice's font, spacing and margins. A limit marked “suggested” isn't a rule. Word and character counts can differ between tools (and some forms count spaces), so leave some room.
Count any text
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
See how others wrote it
- Clean diesel grants (2008 example for a made-up city) Example proposals (not funded)
A model proposal for the fictional "City of Pleasantville". EPA says it is an example, not to be used verbatim. It was not a funded application · May 1, 2008
Sample proposals agencies have posted. Read them for structure; don't copy their words.
Built from the official notice's scoring section. Criteria, points and quotes come from the notice; the three questions under each criterion are GrantMe's, not the funder's.