[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 7, Volume 15]
[Revised as of January 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 7CFR3403.10]

[Page 335-336]
 
                          TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
 
  CHAPTER XXXIV--COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION 
                   SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 
PART 3403_SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM--Table 
of Contents
 
                Subpart D_Proposal Review and Evaluation
 
Sec. 3403.10  Proposal review.


    (a) All research grant applications will be acknowledged.
    (b) Phase I and phase II proposals will be judged competitively in a 
two-stage process, based primarily upon scientific or technical merit. 
First, each proposal will be screened by USDA scientists to ensure that 
it is responsive to stated requirements contained in the program 
solicitation. Proposals found to be responsive will be technically 
evaluated by peer scientists knowledgeable in the appropriate scientific 
field using the criteria identified in the annual solicitation, as 
appropriate. Proposals found to be nonresponsive will be returned to the 
proposing firm without review.
    (c) Both internal and external peer reviewers may be used during the 
technical evaluation stage of this process. Selections will be made from 
among

[[Page 336]]

recognized specialists who are uniquely qualified by training and 
experience in their respective fields to render expert advice on the 
merit of proposals received. It is anticipated that such experts will 
include those located in universities, Government, and non-profit 
research organizations. If possible, USDA intends that peer review 
groups shall be balanced with minority and female representation and 
with an equitable age distribution.
    (d) Technical reviewers will base their conclusions and 
recommendations on information contained in the phase I or phase II 
proposal. It cannot be assumed that reviewers are acquainted with any 
experiments referred to within a proposal, with key individuals, or with 
the firm itself. Therefore, the proposal should be self-contained and 
written with the care and thoroughness accorded papers for publication.
    (e) Final decisions will be made by USDA based upon the ratings 
assigned by reviewers and consideration of other factors, including the 
potential commercial application, possible duplication of other 
research, any critical USDA requirements, and budget limitation. In 
addition, the follow-on funding commitment will be a consideration for 
phase II proposals. In the event that two or more phase II proposals are 
of approximately equal technical merit, the follow-on funding commitment 
for continued development in phase III will be an important 
consideration. The value of the commitment will depend upon the degree 
of commitment made by non-Federal investors, with the maximum value 
resulting from a signed agreement with reasonable terms for an amount at 
least equal to the funding requested from USDA in phase II.