Full Proposal Evaluation Form R by PUHLP0J7

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 3

									Center for Multimodal Solutions for Congestion Mitigation (CMS)                             University of Florida




                                             2009-2010
                                    Full Proposal Evaluation Form
                          E-mail evaluation to Center Coordinator at iaviles@ce.ufl.edu)


1.Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Statement
The CMS guarantees that the established proposal review process is executed in a confidential manner and
that mechanisms have been established to prevent conflicts of interest. As the evaluator of this proposal, I
assure that I have no affiliation with the PI associated with this proposal and, therefore, will be able to
provide an unbiased and objective review. As the evaluator of this proposal, I equally agree to keep the
contents of this evaluation confidential. Evaluator: Before proceeding with the review, provide an
answer to the statement above by marking your choice with an “X” in the box below.
                                                I agree                              I disagree

2. Evaluator
Name:                                                                              Date:
Affiliation:
Address:
E-mail:                                        Phone:                              Fax:
3. Information on Proposal
Project Title:                                                        CMS Proposal Number:

PI Name:                                                              Proposal Type (Research, Education,
                                                                      Tech Transfer)
Requested Funding:        From CMS                                    Matching (If applicable, indicate source)
                          $                                           $
4. Evaluation Part I (Part A is for Research proposals and part B is for Educational & Technology
Transfer proposals)
Use the scoring criteria below to assign a value to each section
5 – Highly exceeds expectations
4 – Exceeds expectations
3 – Reasonably exceeds expectations
2 – Below expectations
1 – Does not exceed expectations
0 – Not able to judge
A. Research Proposals (Answer all questions as they relate to the full proposal)                   SCORE
    1. The extent to which the research problem statement addresses recurring and non-
        recurring congestion problems through multimodal solutions.
    2. The extent to which the project is supportive of the national strategy for surface transportation
        research as identified by the following:
            a) National Highway Research and Technology Partnership Report: “Highway
                 Research and Technology: The Need for Greater Investment”
                 (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/rtforum/HwyRandT.pdf)
            b) Federal Transit Administration’s National Research and Technology Program
                 (http://www.fta.dot.gov/26_ENG_HTML.htm)
            c) U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan
                 (http://www.dot.gov/about_dot.html)
            d) U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology
                 Plan (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/index.html)

CMS Full Proposal Evaluation Form 2009-2010                                                                     1
Center for Multimodal Solutions for Congestion Mitigation (CMS)                              University of Florida



    3. The extent to which the project supports and involves graduate and/or undergraduate
       students
    4. The project provides opportunities for external partnerships with public or private
       agencies
    5. The project provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
    6. The extent to which the project advances the state-of-the-art in congestion mitigation
    7. The originality of the proposed project
    8. The extent to which the research statement is well conceived and organized
    9. The extent to which the research statement is realistic in terms of scope vs. resources
    10. The opportunities for technology transfer
                                                                                  Section TOTAL
B. Education and Technology Transfer Proposals (Answer all questions as they relate to the full
proposal)                                                                                              SCORE
    1. The extent to which the proposed project will develop educational and/or technology
       transfer activities to address recurring and non-recurring congestion problems through
       multimodal solutions
    2. The extent to which the proposed project considers the national strategy for surface
       transportation (for reference, use links provided in section A , #2 a, b, c, d)
    3. The extent to which the proposed project will create strategies for attracting students
       to the transportation field
    4. The extent to which the proposed project will generate external partnerships with
       public or private agencies
    5. The project provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
    6. The originality of the proposed project
    7. The extent to which the project statement is well conceived and organized
    8. The extent to which the research statement is realistic in terms of scope vs. resources
                                                                                 Section TOTAL
5. Evaluation Part II (For Research, Education or Technology Transfer proposals)
Expertise                                                                                              SCORE
       A. The qualification(s) of the proposer(s) to carry out the work successfully
            B. How likely is the proposed project to be successfully completed given the
               resources requested and the team’s expertise?
Budget                                                                                                 SCORE
How does the proposed budget rate in terms of:
            A. Resources requested vs. proposed work
            B. Student support under this project
            C. Budget vs. timeline
                                                                                  Section TOTAL
6. U.S. DOT Reviewer ONLY (Use the scoring criteria provided in section 4 to evaluate                  SCORE
the proposal)
The extent to which U.S. DOT congestion initiatives and/or strategic objective(s) were
addressed (http://www.dot.gov/stratplan2008/strategic_plan.htm)
7. FDOT Reviewer ONLY (Use the scoring criteria provided in section 4 to evaluate the
proposal)                                                                                              SCORE


CMS Full Proposal Evaluation Form 2009-2010                                                                      2
Center for Multimodal Solutions for Congestion Mitigation (CMS)                           University of Florida



The extent to which the proposal addresses the needs of the FDOT SIS
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/SIS/aboutsis.asp)
The extent to which the proposal addresses the needs of the FDOT FTP
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/2025ftp/default.htm)
                                                                 Total Evaluation SCORE
                                                                     (Sections 4, 5, 6 & 7)
9. What is your OVERALL RATING on the Full Proposal?                                                 Overall
                                                                                                     Rating
5 - Excellent: overall outstanding proposal; deserves highest priority
4 - Very Good: high quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if funding is
     available
3 - Good: a quality proposal worthy of support
2 - Fair: proposal needs to be revised in order to receive funding
1 - Poor: proposal has serious deficiencies and should not be funded


10. Evaluator’s Recommendation                                                                      Select choice
                                                                                                    with an “X”
Fund project as submitted
Fund with scope modifications
Fund with budget modifications
Fund with scope and budget modifications
Do not fund
11. Evaluator’s Comments (Write comments in blank space below)




CMS Full Proposal Evaluation Form 2009-2010                                                                   3

								
To top