|
DEVELOPMENT, SECURITY, AND COOPERATION
USAID Middle East Regional Cooperation Program (MERC)
REVIEWER INFORMATION
MERC has two primary goals: promoting research for development and improving cooperation in the region. MERC grants are, in general, more oriented towards research than institution building, with a developmental impact (economic, environmental, policy, etc.) expected in the near rather than distant future. The objective of this component of the process is to provide advice to USAID on the technical merit of proposals. The proposal must be specific and detail the applicants' conceptual approach, methodology, and activities for accomplishing the stated objectives. It should have a well-thought-out work plan and an implementation plan showing when activities will be conducted.
Read the entire proposal before grading it. The first page of the evaluation form contains a checklist for scoring technical review considerations. The second page is for your substantive evaluation. Anonymous comments will be forwarded to applicants. The final page asks your opinion on non-technical elements considered by the MERC Executive Review Committee. Although these topics may be outside your area of expertise, this section gives you the opportunity to provide input you feel might be helpful.
Technical Review Considerations
1. Problem definition
a. Is the problem to be solved clearly stated?
b. Is the problem important?
c. Has other (published) work been taken into account?
2. Proposed objectives
a. Are appropriate activities being proposed?
b. Are the objectives clearly stated? Suitably focused?
c. Will the project be a valuable contribution 1) to the field of study and general knowledge? 2) to health or development of the region?
d. Will results be applicable throughout the region? Outside the region?
3. Proposed plan
a. Is the plan based on sound principles?
b. Is the overall plan clear, sufficiently detailed, and optimal to accomplish the objectives? Within the timeframe?
c. Is the collaboration suitable and direct? Is the role of each partner clearly defined?
d. Are results sustainable after project termination (see also #6, below)?
4. Proposed approach
a. Is the suggested methodology scientifically sound and suitable for the stated objectives?
b. Will the results permit reasonable conclusions to be drawn?
c. Is the choice of equipment and/or venue appropriate?
d. Are there changes in methodology you would recommend?
5. Institutional capability
a. Do the institutions possess the resources to complete the project?
b. Is the team capable of accomplishing the project?
c. If the project is successful, will it enhance the capability of the institution to perform follow-up or further activities?
6. Post-Project Sustainability
a. Is the project designed to prepare for and ensure takeover and continuation of activities by local sources after MERC support ends?
b. Is there provision for dissemination of the results to appropriate people outside of the project?
c. Will the collaboration promote continued association and cooperation after MERC support ends?
7. Special Concerns (see note on form)
a. Do any elements of this proposal raise special concerns?
b. Is the treatment of special concerns adequate in the proposal?
8. Overall judgment
How do you rate the proposal overall, regardless of the individual scores for Criteria 1-7? If, in your judgement, the proposal should rate higher or lower, please explain. 
|
|
Subscribe to e-newsletters |
Feedback | Back to Top