U. S. Department of health and human services (hhs), the national institutes of health (nih) and the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc) small business innovative research (sbir) program

ba.METHOD OF EVALUATION

All proposals will be evaluated and judged on a competitive basis. Using the technical evaluation criteria specified below, a panel of primarily nongovernment experts knowledgeable in the disciplines or fields under review will evaluate proposals to determine the most promising technical and scientific approaches. Each proposal will be judged on its own merit. The Agency is under no obligation to fund any proposals or any specific number of proposals in a given topic. It may also elect to fund several or none of the proposed approaches to the same topic.

ba.1Evaluation Process

Data Sharing Plan http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing

Human Subject Protection http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

Data Safety Monitoring Plan http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-038.html

Inclusion of Women and Minorities http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm

Inclusion of Children https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm

Animal Welfare http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer_offices/olaw.htm

The peer review panel provides a rating, makes specific recommendations related to the scope, direction and/or conduct of the proposed research, and for those proposals recommended for award, may provide a commentary about the funding level, labor mix, duration of the proposed contract project, vertebrate animal and human subject research protection and inclusion issues. The program staff of the awarding component will conduct a second level of review. Recommendations of the peer review panel and program staff are based on judgments about not only the technical merit of the proposed research but also its relevance and potential contributions to the mission and programs of the awarding component and commercial potential. A contract may be awarded only if the proposal has been recommended as technically acceptable by the peer review panel. Funding for any/all acceptable proposals is not guaranteed. Proposals that are found to be technically unacceptable by the peer review panel will not be considered further for award.

Selection of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against two factors. The factors in order of importance are: technical and cost/price. However, cost/price may become a critical factor in source selection in the event that two or more offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price.  In any event, the Government reserves the right to make an award to that offeror whose response provides the best overall value to the Government.

ba.2Phase I Technical Evaluation Criteria

Technical reviewers will base their conclusions only on information contained in the proposal. It cannot be assumed that reviewers are acquainted with the firm or key individuals or any referenced experiments. Relevant supporting data such as journal articles, literature, including Government publications, etc., should be contained or referenced in the proposal and will count toward the page limit.