[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 7, Volume 15]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 7CFR3403.10]

[Page 347-348]
 
                          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_Submission and Evaluation of Proposals
 
Sec. 3403.10  Proposal review.

    (a) The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged.
    (b) All Phase I and II proposals will be evaluated and judged on a 
competitive basis. Proposals will be initially screened to determine 
responsiveness. Proposals passing this initial screening will be 
technically evaluated by scientists to determine the most promising 
technical and scientific approaches. Each proposal will be judged on its 
own merit. USDA is under no obligation to fund any proposal or any 
specific number of proposals in a given topic. It also may elect to fund 
several or none of the proposed approaches to the same topic or 
subtopic.
    (c) Phase I and II proposal evaluation criteria will be published in 
the ``Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria'' section of the 
program solicitation.
    (d) External peer reviewers may be used during the technical 
evaluation stage of this process. Selections will be made from among 
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 nonprofit 
research organizations. If possible, USDA intends that peer review 
groups shall be balanced with minority and female representation and 
with an equitable age distribution.
    (e) 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 proposals should be self-contained and written with the 
care and thoroughness accorded papers for publication.
    (f) Final decisions will be made by USDA based upon the rating 
assigned by reviewers in consideration of the technical and commercial 
potential of the application, duplication of research, any critical USDA 
requirements, resubmission and budget limitation. In the event that two 
or more proposals are of approximately equal merit, the existence of a 
cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with a USDA 
laboratory will

[[Page 348]]

be an important consideration. The existence of a follow-on funding 
commitment for continued development in Phase III will also be an 
important consideration. The value of any commitment will depend upon 
the degree of financial commitment made by investors, with the maximum 
value resulting from a signed agreement with reasonable terms for an 
amount at least equal to funding requested from USDA in Phase II.