7 CFR § 3401.17 - Review criteria.

---
identifier: "/us/cfr/t7/s3401.17"
source: "ecfr"
legal_status: "authoritative_unofficial"
title: "7 CFR § 3401.17 - Review criteria."
title_number: 7
title_name: "Agriculture"
section_number: "3401.17"
section_name: "Review criteria."
chapter_name: "NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE"
part_number: "3401"
part_name: "RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM"
positive_law: false
currency: "2026-03-24"
last_updated: "2026-03-24"
format_version: "1.1.0"
generator: "[email protected]"
authority: "Section 1470 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3316)."
regulatory_source: "61 FR 27753, May 31, 1996, unless otherwise noted."
cfr_part: "3401"
---


# 3401.17 Review criteria.

(a) Federally funded research supported under these provisions shall be designed to, among other things, accomplish one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Improve management of rangelands as an integrated system and/or watershed;

(2) Remedy unstable or unsatisfactory rangeland conditions;

(3) Increase revegetation and/or rehabilitation of rangelands;

(4) Examine the health of rangelands; and

(5) Define economic parameters associated with rangelands.

(b) In carrying out its review under § 3401.16, the peer review panel will use the following form upon which the evaluation criteria to be used are enumerated, unless, pursuant to § 3401.7(a), different evaluation criteria are specified in the annual solicitation of proposals for a particular program:

****Peer Panel Scoring Form

Proposal Identification No.

Institution and Project Title

****I. Basic Requirement:

Proposal falls within guidelines? __________ Yes __________ No. If no, explain why proposal does not meet guidelines under comment section of this form.

****II. Selection Criteria:

|  | Score 1-10 | Weight factor | Score X weight factor | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Overall scientific and technical quality of proposal |  | 10 |  |  |
| 2. Scientific and technical quality of the approach |  | 10 |  |  |
| 3. Relevance and importance of proposed research to solution of specific areas of inquiry |  | 6 |  |  |
| 4. Feasibility of attaining objectives; adequacy of professional training and experience, facilities and equipment |  | 5 |  |  |

Score

Summary Comments

(c) Proposals satisfactorily meeting the guidelines will be evaluated and scored by the peer review panel for each criterion utilizing a scale of 1 through 10. A score of one (1) will be considered low and a score of ten (10) will be considered high for each selection criterion. A weighted factor is used for each criterion.