Narrative outline
Annual Recurring University Training and Research. One section per scoring criterion, in the notice's order, so reviewers find each answer where they expect it. Fill in every [[NEEDS: …]] with your own facts.
Download as text Score your draft
Narrative limit: 1 pages. Suggested pages follow each section's share of the points. Scores listed: 100%. The notice's total wasn't found, so check it. Source: the official notice, FundOpp_DE-FOA-0003215.pdf.
Scientific and Technological Merit · 25%
What reviewers look for (notice p. 37):
(25%) 1. Thoroughness of the description of the proposed technology and degree to which the proposed technology or methodology meets the stated objectives of the topic area. 2. Degree to which the applicant comprehensively advances arguments and provides details that clearly distinguish the proposed R&D and why it is needed now relative to prior work. 3. Feasibility of the proposed concept; the degree to which the proposed work is based on sound scientific and engineering principles. 4. Degree to which the proposed technology is likely to demonstrate potential for technology market impact within 5 to 10 years after successful completion of the UTR award. Merit Review
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Technical Approach and Understanding · 25%
What reviewers look for (notice p. 37):
(25%) 1. Adequacy and feasibility of the applicant’s approach to achieving the objectives of the topic area and aligning with HGEO funding priorities. 2. Feasibility, appropriateness, rationale, and completeness of the proposed Statement of Project Objectives, such that there is a logical progression of work. 3. Demonstrated partnership with an applicable non-academic organization capable of advancing the technology with a strong commercialization pathway. 4. The adequacy and completeness of the Project Management Plan (PMP) in establishing baselines (technical scope, budget, schedule) and in managing project performance relative to those baselines; defining the actions that will be taken when these baselines must be revised; and identification of project risks and strategies for mitigation. Merit Review
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Strengthening the Energy Workforce · 30% · about 0.5 pages
What reviewers look for (notice p. 37):
(30%) 1. Degree to which students will be integrated into the project and how their R&D capabilities and work experience will be enhanced. 2. Demonstrated partnership with an applicable non-academic organization capable of leveraging the maturation and transition pathway of the developed technology to provide students with career growth and facilitate their entry into the workforce. 3. Likelihood of lasting impact or scalability of partnership for workforce development and/or student involvement. Section VI: Application Review Information Merit Review
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Technical and Management Capabilities · 20%
What reviewers look for (notice p. 38):
(20%) 1. Demonstrated experience of the applicant and partnering organizations in the technology areas addressed in the application and in managing projects of similar size, scope, and complexity. 2. Credentials, capabilities, and experience of key personnel and partnering organizations. 3. Clarity and likely effectiveness of the project organization, including subrecipients or partners, to successfully complete the project. 4. Adequacy and availability of proposed personnel, facilities, and equipment to perform project tasks. 5. Clarity and strength of commitment between proposed partners.
[[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]
Draft written? Score it against these criteria and check each section's length. Want to see how others did it? Sample proposals agencies have posted.
Built from the official notice's scoring section. Section names, order and page limits come from the notice.