i3 Technical Review Form

Technical Review Form

Investing in Innovation (i3) Grant Review

2014 Development Full Application Review

 (CFDA) 84.411C

Technical Review Signature Form

Panel #:                                                                              Panel Monitor:     

Applicant:	Reviewer Name:
PR Award :

                                                                                                                       

Reviewer Home Tel:     

Reviewer Work

Tel:     

I have reviewed and evaluated the application, assigned scores, and written comments in accordance with the selection criteria published in the application notice.

Signature: ____________________________________                               Date:      

Name:     

Instructions:

Upon review and approval of the comments by your ED Panel Monitor, please print, sign, and mail this Technical Review Signature Form to the i3 contractor, Team Longevity, at

Attn: Longevity Consulting, LLC

P.O. Box 73128

Washington, DC 20056

Please mail all Technical Review Signature Forms using the return envelope provided in your reviewer mailing no later than September 26, 2014.

US Department of Education

Investing in Innovation (i3) Grant Review

 2014 Development Full Application Review

Application Technical Review Form

(CFDA 84.411C)

Applicant

Application Number U411C140_ _ _

           

Summary Ratings
	Maximum Points	Score
A. Significance	35
B. Quality of the Project Design	30
C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel	20
D. Quality of Project Evaluation	15
Total Score	100

Summary Statement (Optional):

 

A. Significance (up to 35 points)

In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

     (1)  The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute priority the applicant is seeking to meet.             

     (2)  The extent to which the proposed project would implement a novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted nationally. 

     (3)  The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study. 

    

Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to explain how the applicant’s proposed project addresses the absolute priority and the subpart that it seeks to meet.  Additionally, the Secretary asks that applicants explain how the proposed project is unique.  Applicants should explain how their proposed projects fit into existing theory, knowledge, or practice, and how their proposed projects will serve as exemplars for new practices in the field. 

(Maximum Points 35)                    Reader’s Score:  _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

B. Quality of the Project Design (up to 30 points).

In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:

     (1)  The clarity and coherence of the project goals, including the extent to which the proposed project articulates an explicit plan or actions to achieve its goals (e.g., a fully developed logic model of the proposed project). 

     (2)  The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals, and whether the application includes a description of project activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals, including the identification of potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those risks. 

Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to address what activities the applicant will undertake in its proposed project, and how the applicant will ensure its project implementation is successful in achieving the project goals.

(Maximum Points 30)             Reader’s Score:  _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel (up to 20 points).

In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

     (1)  The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the project is achieving its goals.

     (2)  The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is critical to the project’s long-term success.

     (3)  The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. 

     (4)  The extent to which the project director has experience managing projects of similar size and scope as the proposed project. 

Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages applicants to address how the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make improvements to the project, and the role of key partners and their impact on the long-term success of the project, and how the project director’s prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the proposed project of this size and scope successfully. 

(Maximum Points 20)             Reader’s Score:  _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

D. Quality of Project Evaluation (up to 15 points).

In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1)  The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. 

     (2)  The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions. 

     (3)  The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable threshold for acceptable implementation. 

     (4)  The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively. 

Note:  In responding to this criterion, applicants should describe the key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions.  The Secretary encourages applicants to include questions about the effectiveness of the proposed project with the specific student populations being served with grant funds.  Further, the Secretary encourages applicants to identify what implementation and performance data the evaluation will generate and how the evaluation will provide data during the grant period to help indicate whether the project is on track to meet its goals.  Finally, applicants should also address whether sufficient resources, which may include the qualifications of the independent evaluator, are included in the project budget to carry out the evaluation effectively.

(Maximum Points 15)             Reader’s Score:  _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses: