Awards - Fifth Round
- Fifth Round Awardees (PDF)
- Partners Involved in the Fifth Round Awards
- Fifth Round Award Distribution
- Fifth Round Applicants (PDF)
- Fifth Round Proposal Focus Areas (PDF)
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files
Summary
The receipt date for Round 5 was November 14, 2003. 117 proposals were received via the Bravelo submission system. Of these, one was withdrawn and eight were returned as noncompliant to the guidelines in the Request for Proposals, primarily failure to include a research plan. 108 proposals were reviewed, using a combination of ad hoc and panel reviews.
The Round 5 peer review panel met in Indianapolis, IN on January 8th and 9th, 2004. Panel members provided written reviews of the proposals. In addition, other panel members read the proposals and participated in the discussions, but did not provide written reviews. Occasionally, these ‘secondary reviewers’ provided summary written comments. Where available, such reviews are included in the review feedback to principal investigators.
During the course of the panel meeting, if written reviews noted significant technical/commercialization issues, and if assigned panel members agreed, panel discussion of those proposals was omitted.
In reaching its consensus merit rating for each proposal, the panel made use of its own written reviews, the comments of assigned panel readers, and the written comments of provided by outside (ad hoc) reviewers. The panel’s discussion of each discussed proposal has been summarized by Fund staff and is provided to principal investigators along with verbatim anonymous written panel and ad hoc reviews. The Fund’s Board feels that this detailed review feedback is an important service to the applicant community.
The Round 5 peer review panel has recommended 21 proposals and two contingent cost-share commitments to the Fund’s Board; almost certainly exceeding the number the Board will approve. The remaining proposals were judged to be noncompetitive for award in this round.
As the Request for Proposals and particularly the review criteria suggest, the bar for a Fund award is set rather high. Not only must the science/technology development plan be based on excellence, but also there must be a reasonable commercialization pathway and potential economic or capacity-building impact. Unsuccessful applicants are advised to seriously consider the review comments and the review summaries provided by Fund staff, irritating as these may at first be, and explore possible revisions of your proposal, collection of substantiating research or market data, and involvement of partners.
The verbatim reviews as well as written review and panel discussion summaries are provided to the principal investigators via the Fund’s Bravelo web site.