# Research grants - Evaluation framework and process

## Core Evaluation Framework

### F — Fit to Grant Objectives (0–5)

<table><thead><tr><th width="115.15625">Score</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5</td><td>Fully meets minimum requirements + fully covers nice-to-haves + adds meaningful extra value</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Fully meets minimum requirements + covers most nice-to-haves</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Fully meets minimum requirements</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Meets most minimum requirements but with gaps</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Major gaps in minimum requirements</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Does not meet minimum requirements (automatic disqualification)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### C — Cost Efficiency (0–5)

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

<table><thead><tr><th width="115.42578125">Score</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5</td><td>Excellent value for money</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Strong value</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Fair / reasonable</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Weak value</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Poor value</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Unjustifiably expensive</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

### &#x20;T — Team Capability (0–5)

Question: Can this team deliver?

<table><thead><tr><th width="114.8984375">Score</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5</td><td>Proven team with directly relevant expertise + past delivery evidence</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Strong team with relevant experience</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Competent team, skills present but limited proof</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Some skill gaps</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Major skill gaps</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>No credible delivery capacity</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

Question: Is the execution credible?

<table><thead><tr><th width="114.75390625">Score</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5</td><td>Extremely clear proposal, strong logic, clear milestones, timeline, risks identified</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Clear proposal + milestones + timeline</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Clear proposal + milestones</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Some clarity but missing structure</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Unclear or poorly structured</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Incoherent</td></tr></tbody></table>

***

## Weighting

<table><thead><tr><th width="352.96875">Category</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F – Fit</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td>T – Team</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>P – Proposal</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>C – Cost</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table>

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:

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Step 1 – Independent Scoring

Each evaluator scores privately each proposal
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Step 2 – Calculate Weighted Final Score

Final score per proposal:

\[(F × 0.4) + (T × 0.25) + (P × 0.2) + (C × 0.15)]
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### 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
  {% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Step 4 - Final decision

{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

***

## Evaluation Sheet Structure

Each evaluator fills:

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="115.55078125"></th><th width="89.44921875"></th><th width="83.0546875"></th><th width="86.609375"></th><th width="85.11328125"></th><th width="81.6015625"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proposal</td><td>F (0–5)</td><td>T (0–5)</td><td>P (0–5)</td><td>C (0–5)</td><td>Notes</td><td>Individual evaluator proposal score</td></tr></tbody></table>

Master sheet calculates:

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="118.64453125"></th><th width="89.86328125"></th><th width="89.3515625"></th><th width="88.4140625"></th><th width="84.00390625"></th><th width="107.76953125"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proposal</td><td>Avg F </td><td>Avg T </td><td>Avg P </td><td>Avg C</td><td>Weighted Score</td><td>Rank</td></tr></tbody></table>