Home : Features : Nongame Wildlife Grants Program : Nongame Wildlife Grants

	Printer-Friendly Version

Grant Application Evaluation and Selection

All project proposals initially undergo a technical review to evaluate the project design and the potential for achieving the objectives outlined in the scope of work. Proposals are then ranked in order of highest to lowest average (mean) score based on technical review scores. Typically, only the top 50 percent of applications are forwarded to the Grants Committee for further consideration.

The Grants Committee completes a second review of those applications forwarded for consideration and any other application(s) selected by the Grants Committee for review. During the committee review, an application’s relevance to a program and FWC priorities is considered along with scores and comments provided by the technical reviewers. The committee’s review concludes with a list of funding recommendations for approval by the Commission’s Executive Director.

Applicants must ensure that proposals:

1. Conform to the published preparation and submission guidelines;
   
   
2. Clearly identify and address the benefit to nongame wildlife species in Florida;
   
   
3. Include written attainable objectives that:
   
   
   1. Include one or more of the 10 General Areas of Interest outlined in the Program Guidelines; and/or
      
      
   2. Identify and address Commission priority information or data gap needs for nongame species included in the list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) published in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (document is available online at http://www.myfwc.com/wildlifelegacy/PublicReview.html);
      
      
4. Provide sufficient detail to permit evaluation by both technical reviewers and Grants Committee members without the need for supplement material or clarification;
   
   
5. Adhere to the state’s fiscal year July 1–June 30;
   
   
6. Include indirect or overhead rates of 15 percent or less of wages and salaries.

An applicant’s past performance under previous or ongoing Commission agreements may be considered during the review process. Proposals from applicants or institutions with documented deficiencies including, but not limited to, late deliverables, unfulfilled obligations, or poor project administration may be negatively affected by such deficiencies and may, as a result, be subject to any actions allowed under 68-1.003 F.A.C.