§ 295.6 - Criteria for selection.

§ 295.6 Criteria for selection.

The evaluation criteria to be used in selecting any proposal for funding under this program, and their respective weights, are listed in this section. No proposal will be funded unless the Program determines that it has scientific and technological merit and that the proposed technology has strong potential for broad-based economic benefits to the nation. Additionally, no proposal will be funded that does not require Federal support, that is product development rather than high risk R&D, that does not display an appropriate level of commitment from the proposer, or does not have an adequate technical and commercialization plan.

(a) Scientific and technological merit (50%). The proposed technology must be highly innovative. The research must be challenging, with high technical risk. It must be aimed at overcoming an important problem(s) or exploiting a promising opportunity. The technical leverage of the technology must be adequately explained. The research must have a strong potential for advancing the state of the art and contributing significantly to the U.S. scientific and technical knowledge base. The technical plan must be clear and concise, and must clearly identify the core innovation, the technical approach, major technical hurdles, the attendant risks, and clearly establish feasibility through adequately detailed plans linked to major technical barriers. The plan must address the questions of “what, how, where, when, why, and by whom” in substantial detail. The Program will assess the proposing team's relevant experience for pursuing the technical plan. The team carrying out the work must demonstrate a high level of scientific/technical expertise to conduct the R&D and have access to the necessary research facilities.

(b) Potential for broad-based economic benefits (50%). The proposed technology must have a strong potential to generate substantial benefits to the nation that extend significantly beyond the direct returns to the proposing organization(s). The proposal must explain why ATP support is needed and what difference ATP funding is expected to make in terms of what will be accomplished with the ATP funding versus without it. The pathways to economic benefit must be described, including the proposer's plan for getting the technology into commercial use, as well as additional routes that might be taken to achieve broader diffusion of the technology. The proposal should identify the expected returns that the proposer expects to gain, as well as returns that are expected to accrue to others, i.e., spillover effects. The Program will assess the proposer's relevant experience and level of commitment to the project and project's organizational structure and management plan, including the extent to which participation by small businesses is encouraged and is a key component in a joint venture proposal, and for large company single proposers, the extent to which subcontractor/subrecipient teaming arrangements are featured and are a key component of the proposal.

[63 FR 64414, Nov. 20, 1998]