Research grants - Evaluation framework and process

Core Evaluation Framework

F — Fit to Grant Objectives (0–5)

Score	Meaning
5	Fully meets minimum requirements + fully covers nice-to-haves + adds meaningful extra value
4	Fully meets minimum requirements + covers most nice-to-haves
3	Fully meets minimum requirements
2	Meets most minimum requirements but with gaps
1	Major gaps in minimum requirements
0	Does not meet minimum requirements (automatic disqualification)

C — Cost Efficiency (0–5)

Question: Given scope and quality, how efficient is this proposal compared to the others?

Score	Meaning
5	Excellent value for money
4	Strong value
3	Fair / reasonable
2	Weak value
1	Poor value
0	Unjustifiably expensive

This avoids over-optimizing for the cheapest proposal (important for research grants).

T — Team Capability (0–5)

Question: Can this team deliver?

Score	Meaning
5	Proven team with directly relevant expertise + past delivery evidence
4	Strong team with relevant experience
3	Competent team, skills present but limited proof
2	Some skill gaps
1	Major skill gaps
0	No credible delivery capacity

P — Proposal Quality & Execution Plan (0–5)

Question: Is the execution credible?

Score	Meaning
5	Extremely clear proposal, strong logic, clear milestones, timeline, risks identified
4	Clear proposal + milestones + timeline
3	Clear proposal + milestones
2	Some clarity but missing structure
1	Unclear or poorly structured
0	Incoherent

---

Weighting

Category	Weight
F – Fit	40%
T – Team	25%
P – Proposal	20%
C – Cost	15%

Why?

• Fit matters most (this is strategic alignment)
• Team next (research quality risk)
• Proposal clarity third
• Cost last (research should not be optimized like commodity dev work)

---

Evaluation Process

To reduce evaluator bias:

1

Step 1 – Independent Scoring

Each evaluator scores privately each proposal

2

Step 2 – Calculate Weighted Final Score

Final score per proposal:

[(F × 0.4) + (T × 0.25) + (P × 0.2) + (C × 0.15)]

3

Step 3 - Group Calibration Step (Very Important)

• Show anonymized averages from previous step
• Only discuss:
• Proposals with high variance (std deviation > 1): if any proposal was scored very high by someone and very low by someone else
• Proposals close in final ranking (< 0.3 difference): If weighted score of two or more proposals is too close
• Allow one rescoring round

4

Step 4 - Final decision

---

Evaluation Sheet Structure

Each evaluator fills:

Proposal	F (0–5)	T (0–5)	P (0–5)	C (0–5)	Notes	Individual evaluator proposal score

Master sheet calculates:

Proposal	Avg F	Avg T	Avg P	Avg C	Weighted Score	Rank