Score your draft
Annual Recurring University Training and Research. 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: 100% (the notice's total wasn't found; check it). Source: the official notice, FundOpp_DE-FOA-0003215.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
-
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
of 25%
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
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
of 25%
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
Strengthening the Energy Workforce · 30%
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
of 30%
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
-
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.
of 20%
0 words · 0 charactersCounting needs JavaScript. Without it, use your word processor's word count.
Your total: ______ of 100%
Length limits in this notice
- Character limit (see quote): 6,000 characters max (notice p. 21) “You will enter the abstract in eXCHANGE, so it cannot exceed 6,000 characters.”
- DESCRIPTION Cover Page Included: 1 page max (notice p. 28) “SECTION MAXIMUM PAGE LIMIT* (if applicable) DESCRIPTION Cover Page Included in the page limitation (1-page maximum) The cover page must include all the following:”
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
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.