89 



most competitive would be invited to submit fully developed proposals for a 

 second round of merit review. 



Widiin the context of available funding, die most meritorious projects would be 

 selected for funding- 



Both phases would be subjected to rigorous merit evaluation using established 

 criteria: 



• Degree to which the programs to be housed in the facility address hi^ 

 priority national needs for die food and agricultural sciences as identified in 

 the systemwide strategic {dan, the Joint Council, and die U.S. Department 

 of Agriculture. 



• Expected contribution of die facility toward meeting national, regional, and 

 institutional researdi and research training needs in the food and agricultural 

 sciences. 



• Quality and eiqierience of the scientific staff to be housed in the focility 

 sufficient to carry out die research proposed. 



• Evidence of the institution's commitment and capacity to provide the faculty 

 and staff, operating funds, and graduate studeitts necessary to support a 

 quality program in the proposed fiu;ility over an extended period. 



• Qualifications and experience of key project personnel to plan and manage 

 the c(nstnK:tion effort, including near-term occupancy. 



• Reasonableness of die budget request and evidence of the applicant's ability 

 and willingness to provide matching funds. 



POst-aw^rd administrati<m would be accon^lished throu^ performance repotts 

 and periodic on-site visits. 



According to your testimony, Congress requests that a report he submitted 

 prior to tlie appropriation of funds for any project. What is included in 

 these reports? 



• Brief badcground and history of the institution and project. 



