[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 680-685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-78]



[[Page 679]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



_______________________________________________________________________



1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program 
for Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 1999 / 
Notices  



[[Page 680]]

  

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 1890 
Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program for 
Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
USDA.


ACTION: Notice of request for proposals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) is announcing the 1890 Institution Teaching and 
Research Capacity Building Grants Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. 
Proposals are hereby requested from eligible institutions as identified 
herein for competitive consideration of capacity building grant awards.


DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business on March 16, 
1999. Proposals received after the closing date will not be considered 
for funding.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Hood, Higher Education 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2251, 1400 Independence Avenue, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-2251; Telephone: (202) 720-2186; E-mail: 
[email protected]. Dr. McKinley Mayes, 1890 College Program 
Coordinator, CSREES, USDA is also available to assist you. He can be 
reached at (202) 720-3511; or via the Internet: [email protected].

    Stakeholder Input: CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this 
solicitation of applications from any interested party. These comments 
will be considered in the development of the next request for proposals 
for the program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or 
his designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) 
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998, Pub. L. 105-185 (AREERA). Written comments should be submitted by 
first-class mail to: Office of Extramural Programs; Competitive 
Research Grants and Awards Management; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-2299, or via e-mail 
to: [email protected].

    In your comments, please include the name of the program and the 
fiscal year solicitation of applications to which you are responding. 
Comments are requested within six months from the issuance of the 
solicitation of applications. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

A. Administrative Provisions

B. Authority

C. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

D. Institutional Eligibility

E. Purpose of the Program

F. Available Funds and Award Limitations

G. Limitation on Indirect Costs

H. Program Areas

I. Targeted Areas

J. Degree Levels Supported

K. Proposal Submission Limitations

L. Maximum Grant Size

M. Project Duration

N. Funding Limitations per Institution

O. Funding Limitation per Individual

P. Funding Limitation per Targeted Need Area

Q. Matching Funds

R. Evaluation Criteria

S. How to Obtain Application Materials

T. What to Submit

U. Where and when to Submit

V. Acknowledgment of Proposals

A. Administrative Provisions

    This program is subject to the provisions found at 7 CFR part 3406, 
62 FR 39330, July 22, 1997, as provided herein. These provisions set 
forth procedures to be followed when submitting grant proposals, rules 
governing the evaluation of proposals and the awarding of grants, and 
regulations relating to the post-award administration of grant 
projects.

B. Authority

    The authority for this program is contained in section 1417(b)(4) 
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 
Act of 1977, as amended (NARETPA)(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)). In accordance 
with this statutory authority, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) through the Higher Education Programs (HEP) of CSREES will award 
competitive grants of 18 to 36 months duration, subject to the 
availability of funds. These grants will be made to the historically 
black 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University to 
strengthen their programs in the food and agricultural sciences in the 
targeted need areas as described herein.

C. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.216, 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 
Program.

D. Institutional Eligibility

    Proposals may be submitted by any of the sixteen historically black 
1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University. The 1890 Land-
Grant Institutions are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas-
Pine Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort 
Valley State University; Kentucky State University; Southern University 
and A&M College; University of Maryland-Eastern Shore; Alcorn State 
University; Lincoln University (MO); North Carolina A&T State 
University; Langston University; South Carolina State University; 
Tennessee State University; Prairie View A&M University; and Virginia 
State University. An institution eligible to receive an award under 
this program includes a research foundation maintained by an 1890 land-
grant institution or Tuskegee University.

E. Purpose of the Program

    The purpose of this grant program is to build the institutional 
capacities of the eligible colleges and universities through 
cooperative initiatives with Federal and non-Federal entities. This 
program addresses the need to (1) attract more students from under 
represented groups into the food and agricultural sciences, (2) expand 
the linkages among the 1890 Institutions and with other colleges and 
universities, and (3) strengthen the teaching and research capacity of 
the 1890 Institutions to more firmly establish them as full partners in 
the food and agricultural science and education system. In addition, 
through this program, USDA will strive to increase the overall pool of 
qualified applicants for the Department to make significant progress 
toward achievement of the Department's goal of increasing participation 
of under represented groups in Departmental programs.


[[Page 681]]



F. Available Funds and Award Limitations

    For FY 1999, $9.2 million has been appropriated for this program. 
CSREES anticipates that approximately $8.6 million will be available 
for project grants for this program in FY 1999. Of this amount, 
approximately $4.35 million will be used to support teaching projects, 
and $4.25 million will be used to support research projects. Awards 
will be based upon scientific and merit review and the recommendations 
of peer review panels; however, up to ten percent of the funds 
allocated for teaching and up to ten percent of the funds allocated for 
research may be used to support projects in either area based upon 
administrative decision by CSREES.

G. Limitation on Indirect Costs

    For teaching project grants--CSREES is prohibited from paying 
indirect costs exceeding 19 per centum of the total Federal funds 
provided under each award, (7 U.S.C. 3310)

    For research project grants--CSREES is prohibited from paying 
indirect costs exceeding 14 per centum of the total Federal funds 
provided under each award. (Section 711 of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriation Act, 1999, enacted in Division A, section 101(a) of the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
1999, Pub. L. 105-277.)

H. Program Areas

    In FY 1999, the Capacity Building Grants Program will support both 
teaching and research projects.

I. Targeted Areas

    The targeted need areas to be supported by capacity building grants 
in FY 1999 are:

    For teaching project grants--curricula design and materials 
development, faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching, 
instruction delivery systems, scientific instrumentation for teaching, 
student experiential learning, and student recruitment and retention.

    For research project grants--studies and experimentation in food 
and agricultural sciences, centralized research support systems, 
technology delivery systems, and other creative projects designed to 
provide needed enhancement of the nation's food and agricultural 
research system.

    In FY 1999, eligible institutions may propose projects in any 
discipline(s) of the food and agricultural sciences as defined in 
section 1404(8) of NARETPA as amended by section 221(a) of AREERA (7 
U.S.C. 3103(8)). There are no limits on the specific subject matter/
emphasis areas to be supported.

J. Degree Levels Supported

    In FY 1999, proposals may be directed to the undergraduate or 
graduate level of study leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the food and agricultural sciences.

K. Proposal Submission Limitations

    In FY 1999, there is no limit on the number of proposals an 
eligible institution may submit. However, there are funding limitations 
in FY 1999 that will affect the number of awards eligible institutions 
and individuals may receive. Therefore, institutions are encouraged to 
establish on-campus quality control panels to ensure that only high 
quality proposals having the greatest potential for improving academic 
and research programs are submitted for consideration. Eligible 
institutions may submit grant applications for either category of 
grants (teaching or research); however, each application must be 
limited to either a teaching project grant proposal or a research 
project grant proposal.

L. Maximum Grant Size

    In FY 1999, the following limitations apply: A teaching proposal 
may request a grant for up to $200,000. A research proposal may request 
a grant for up to $300,000. Note: These maximums are for the total 
duration of the project, not per year.

M. Project Duration

    A regular, complementary, or joint project proposal may request 
funding for a period of 18 to 36 months duration.

N. Funding Limitations per Institution

    In FY 1999, the following two limitations will apply to the 
institutional maximum: (1) no institution may receive more than four 
grants, and (2) no institution may receive more than 10 percent of the 
total funds available for grant awards (approximately $860,000).

    For a Joint Project Proposal (submitted by an eligible institution 
and involving two or more other colleges or universities assuming major 
roles in the conduct of the project), only that portion of the award to 
be retained by the grantee will be counted against the grantee's 
institutional maximum. Those funds to be transferred to the other 
colleges and universities participating in the joint project will not 
be applied toward the maximum funds allowed the grantee institution. 
However, if any of the other colleges and universities participating in 
the joint project are 1890 Institutions or Tuskegee University, the 
amount transferred from the grantee institution to such institutions 
will be counted toward their institutional maximums. For Complementary 
Project Proposals, only those funds to be retained by the grantee 
institution will be counted against the grantee's institutional 
maximum.

O. Funding Limitation per Individual

    In FY 1999, the maximum number of new awards that an individual 
(Project Director or Principal Investigator) may receive is two grants. 
This restriction does not apply to joint projects.

P. Funding Limitation per Targeted Need Area

    In FY 1999, the maximum number of new awards that an individual may 
receive in a given fiscal year, in any one targeted need area, that 
focuses on a single subject matter area or discipline, is one grant. 
This restriction does not apply to proposals that address multiple 
targeted need areas and/or multiple subject matter areas.

Q. Matching Funds

    The Department strongly encourages non-Federal matching support for 
the program. For FY 1999, the following incentive is offered to 
applicants for committing their own institutional resources or securing 
third-party contributions in support of capacity building projects:

    Tie Breaker--The amount of institutional and third-party cash and 
non-cash matching support for each proposed project, will be used as 
the primary criterion to break any ties (cases where proposals are 
equally rated in merit) resulting from the proposal review process 
conducted by the peer review panels. A grant awarded on this basis will 
contain language requiring such matching commitments as a condition of 
the grant.


    Please Note: Proposals must include written verification from 
the donor(s) of any actual commitments of matching support 
(including both cash and non-cash contributions) derived from the 
university community, business and industry, professional societies, 
the States, or other non-Federal sources.



[[Page 682]]


    The cash contributions towards matching from the institution should 
be identified in the column ``Applicant Contributions to Matching 
Funds'' of the Higher Education Budget, Form CSREES-713. The cash 
contributions of the institution and third parties as well as non-cash 
contributions should be identified on Line N., as appropriate, of Form 
CSREES-713.

R. Evaluation Criteria

    Section 223(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-185 (AREERA), amended 
section 1417 of NARETPA to require that certain priorities be given in 
awarding grants for teaching enhancement projects under section 1417(b) 
of NARETPA. Since this program is authorized under section 1417(b), 
CSREES considers all applications received in response to this 
solicitation as teaching enhancement project applications. To implement 
the AREERA priorities for proposals submitted for the fiscal year (FY) 
1999 competition, the evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals, 
as provided in the Administrative Provisions for this program (7 CFR 
3406.15), have been modified to include new criteria or extra points 
for proposals demonstrating enhanced coordination among eligible 
institutions and focusing on innovative, multidisciplinary education 
programs, material, or curricula. The following evaluation criteria and 
weights will be used to evaluate proposals submitted for funding to the 
FY 1999 competition:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   Evaluation Criteria for Teaching Proposals
 
 
(a) Potential for advancing the quality of
 education: This criterion is used to assess
 the likelihood that the project will have a
 substantial impact upon and advance the
 quality of food and agricultural sciences
 higher education by strengthening
 institutional capacities through promoting
 education reform to meet clearly delineated
 needs.
 
    (1) Impact--Does the project address a       15 points.
     targeted need area(s)? Is the problem or
     opportunity clearly documented? Does the
     project address a significant State,
     regional, multistate, national, or
     international problem or opportunity? Will
     the benefits to be derived from the
     project transcend the applicant
     institution and/or the grant period? Is it
     probable that other institutions will
     adapt this project for their own use? Can
     the project serve as a model for others?
 
    (2) Innovative and multidisciplinary focus-- 15 points
     Does the project focus on innovative,
     multidisciplinary education programs,
     material, or curricula? Is the project
     based on a non-traditional approach toward
     solving a higher education problem in the
     food and agricultural sciences? Is the
     project relevant to multiple fields in the
     food and agricultural sciences? Will the
     project expand partnership ventures among
     disciplines at a university?
 
    (3) Products and results--Are the expected   10 points
     products and results of the project
     clearly defined and likely to be of high
     quality? Will project results be of an
     unusual or unique nature? Will the project
     contribute to a better understanding of or
     an improvement in the quality or diversity
     of the Nation's food and agricultural
     scientific and professional expertise
     base?
 
    (4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for  10 points
     continuation or expansion of the project
     beyond USDA support with the use of
     institutional funds? Are there indications
     of external, non-Federal support? Are
     there realistic plans for making the
     project self-supporting?
 
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
 This criterion relates to the soundness of the
 proposed approach and the quality of the
 partnerships likely to evolve as a result of
 the project.
 
    (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives     15 points
     and plan of operation appear to be sound
     and appropriate relative to the targeted
     need area(s) and the impact anticipated?
     Are the procedures managerially,
     educationally, and scientifically sound?
     Is the overall plan integrated with or
     does it expand upon other major efforts to
     improve the quality of food and
     agricultural sciences higher education?
     Does the timetable appear to be readily
     achievable?
 
    (2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans     5 points
     adequate and reasonable? Do they allow for
     continuous or frequent feedback during the
     life of the project? Are the individuals
     involved in project evaluation skilled in
     evaluation strategies and procedures? Can
     they provide an objective evaluation? Do
     evaluation plans facilitate the
     measurement of project progress and
     outcomes?
 
    (3) Dissemination--Does the proposed         5 points
     project include clearly outlined and
     realistic mechanisms that will lead to
     widespread dissemination of project
     results, including national electronic
     communication systems, publications,
     presentations at professional conferences,
     or use by faculty development or research/
     teaching skills workshops?
 
    (4) Collaborative efforts--Does the project  10 points
     have significant potential for advancing
     cooperative ventures between the applicant
     institution and a USDA agency? Does the
     project workplan include an effective role
     for the cooperating USDA agency(s)?
 
    (5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the  5 points
     project demonstrate enhanced coordination
     between the applicant institution and
     other colleges and universities with food
     and agricultural science programs eligible
     to receive grants under this program? Will
     the project lead to long-term
     relationships or cooperative partnerships,
     including those with the private sector,
     that are likely to enhance program quality
     or supplement resources available to food
     and agricultural sciences higher
     education?
 
(c) Institutional capacity building: This
 criterion relates to the degree to which the
 project will strengthen the teaching capacity
 of the applicant institution. In the case of a
 joint project proposal, it relates to the
 degree to which the project will strengthen
 the teaching capacity of the applicant
 institution and that of any other institution
 assuming a major role in the conduct of the
 project.
 
    (1) Institutional enhancement--Will the      15 points
     project help the institution to: expand
     the current faculty's expertise base;
     attract, hire, and retain outstanding
     teaching faculty; advance and strengthen
     the scholarly quality of the institution's
     academic programs; enrich the racial,
     ethnic, or gender diversity of the faculty
     and student body; recruit students with
     higher grade point averages, higher
     standardized test scores, and those who
     are more committed to graduation; become a
     center of excellence in a particular field
     of education and bring it greater academic
     recognition; attract outside resources for
     academic programs; maintain or acquire
     state-of-the-art scientific
     instrumentation or library collections for
     teaching; or provide more meaningful
     student experiential learning
     opportunities?
 

[[Page 683]]

 
    (2) Institutional commitment--Is there       15 points
     evidence to substantiate that the
     institution attributes a high-priority to
     the project, that the project is linked to
     the achievement of the institution's long-
     term goals, that it will help satisfy the
     institution's high-priority objectives, or
     that the project is supported by the
     institution's strategic plans? Will the
     project have reasonable access to needed
     resources such as instructional
     instrumentation, facilities, computer
     services, library and other instruction
     support resources?
 
(d) Personnel Resources: This criterion relates  10 points
 to the number and qualifications of the key
 persons who will carry out the project. Are
 designated project personnel qualified to
 carry out a successful project? Are there
 sufficient numbers of personnel associated
 with the project to achieve the stated
 objectives and the anticipated outcomes?
 
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness: This
 criterion relates to the extent to which the
 total budget adequately supports the project
 and is cost-effective.
 
    (1) Budget--Is the budget request            10 points
     justifiable? Are costs reasonable and
     necessary? Will the total budget be
     adequate to carry out project activities?
     Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-
     Federal matching support clearly
     identified and appropriately documented?
     For a joint project proposal, is the
     shared budget explained clearly and in
     sufficient detail?
 
    (2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed      5 points
     project cost-effective? Does it
     demonstrate a creative use of limited
     resources, maximize educational value per
     dollar of USDA support, achieve economies
     of scale, leverage additional funds or
     have the potential to do so, focus
     expertise and activity on a targeted need
     area, or promote coalition building for
     current or future ventures?
 
(f) Overall quality of proposal: This criterion  5 points
 relates to the degree to which the proposal
 complies with the application guidelines and
 is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced
 by its adherence to instructions (table of
 contents, organization, pagination, margin and
 font size, the 20-page limitation, appendices,
 etc.); accuracy of forms; clarity of budget
 narrative; well prepared vitae for all key
 personnel associated with the project; and
 presentation (are ideas effectively presented,
 clearly articulated, and thoroughly explained,
 etc.)?
 
   Evaluation Criteria for Research Proposals
 
(a) Significance of the problem: This criterion
 is used to assess the likelihood that the
 project will advance or have a substantial
 impact upon the body of knowledge constituting
 the natural and social sciences undergirding
 the agricultural, natural resources, and food
 systems.
 
    (1) Impact--Is the problem or opportunity    15 points
     to be addressed by the proposed project
     clearly identified, outlined, and
     delineated? Are research questions or
     hypotheses precisely stated? Is the
     project likely to further advance food and
     agricultural research and knowledge? Does
     the project have potential for augmenting
     the food and agricultural scientific
     knowledge base? Does the project address a
     significant State, regional, multistate,
     national, or international problem(s)?
     Will the benefits to be derived from the
     project transcend the applicant
     institution and/or the grant period?
 
    (2) Innovative and multidisciplinary focus-- 15 points
     Is the project based on a non-traditional
     approach? Does the project reflect
     creative thinking? To what degree does the
     venture reflect a unique approach that is
     new to the applicant institution or new to
     the entire field of study? Does the
     project focus on innovative,
     multidisciplinary education programs,
     material, or curricula? Is the project
     relevant to multiple fields in the food
     and agricultural sciences? Will the
     project expand partnership ventures among
     disciples at a university?
 
    (3) Products and results--Are the expected   10 points
     products and results of the project
     clearly outlined and likely to be of high
     quality? Will project results be of an
     unusual or unique nature? Will the project
     contribute to a better understanding of or
     an improvement in the quality or diversity
     of the Nation's food and agricultural
     scientific and professional expertise
     base?
 
    (4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for  10 points
     continuation or expansion of the project
     beyond USDA support? Are there plans for
     continuing this line of research or
     research support activity with the use of
     institutional funds after the end of the
     grant? Are there indications of external,
     non-Federal support? Are there realistic
     plans for making the project self-
     supporting? What is the potential for
     royalty or patent income, technology
     transfer or university-business
     enterprises? What are the probabilities of
     the proposed activity or line of inquiry
     being pursued by researchers at other
     institutions?
 
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
 This criterion relates to the soundness of the
 proposed approach and the quality of the
 partnerships likely to evolve as a result of
 the project.
 
    (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives     15 points
     and plan of operation appear to be sound
     and appropriate relative to the proposed
     initiative(s) and the impact anticipated?
     Is the proposed sequence of work
     appropriate? Does the proposed approach
     reflect sound knowledge of current theory
     and practice and awareness of previous or
     ongoing related research? If the proposed
     project is a continuation of a current
     line of study or currently funded project,
     does the proposal include sufficient
     preliminary data from the previous
     research or research support activity?
     Does the proposed project flow logically
     from the findings of the previous stage of
     study? Are the procedures scientifically
     and managerially sound? Are potential
     pitfalls and limitations clearly
     identified? Are contingency plans
     delineated? Does the timetable appear to
     be readily achievable?
 
    (2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans     5 points
     adequate and reasonable? Do they allow for
     continuous or frequent feedback during the
     life of the project? Are the individuals
     involved in project evaluation skilled in
     evaluation strategies and procedures? Can
     they provide an objective evaluation? Do
     evaluation plans facilitate the
     measurement of project progress and
     outcomes?
 
    (3) Dissemination--Does the proposed         5 points
     project include clearly outlined and
     realistic mechanisms that will lead to
     widespread dissemination of project
     results, including national electronic
     communication systems, publications and
     presentations at professional society
     meetings?
 
    (4) Collaborative efforts--Does the project  10 points
     have significant potential for advancing
     cooperative ventures between the applicant
     institution and a USDA agency? Does the
     project workplan include an effective role
     for the cooperating USDA agency(s)?
 

[[Page 684]]

 
    (5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the  5 points
     project demonstrate enhanced coordination
     between the applicant institution and
     other colleges and universities with food
     and agricultural science programs eligible
     to receive grants under this program? Will
     the project lead to long-term
     relationships or cooperative partnerships,
     including those with the private sector,
     that are likely to enhance research
     quality or supplement available resources?
 
(c) Institutional capacity building: This
 criterion relates to the degree to which the
 project will strengthen the research capacity
 of the applicant institution. In the case of a
 joint project proposal, it relates to the
 degree to which the project will strengthen
 the research capacity of the applicant
 institution and that of any other institution
 assuming a major role in the conduct of the
 project.
 
    (1) Institutional enhancement--Will the      15 points
     project help the institution to advance
     the expertise of current faculty in the
     natural or social sciences; provide a
     better research environment, state-of-the-
     art equipment, or supplies; enhance
     library collections related to the area of
     research; or enable the institution to
     provide efficacious organizational
     structures and reward systems to attract,
     hire and retain first-rate research
     faculty and students--particularly those
     from under-represented groups?
 
    (2) Institutional commitment--Is there       15 points
     evidence to substantiate that the
     institution attributes a high-priority to
     the project, that the project is linked to
     the achievement of the institution's long-
     term goals, that it will help satisfy the
     institution's high-priority objectives, or
     that the project is supported by the
     institution's strategic plans? Will the
     project have reasonable access to needed
     resources such as scientific
     instrumentation, facilities, computer
     services, library and other research
     support resources?
 
(d) Personnel Resources: This criterion relates  10 Points
 to the number and qualifications of the key
 persons who will carry out the project. Are
 designated project personnel qualified to
 carry out a successful project? Are there
 sufficient numbers of personnel associated
 with the project to achieve the stated
 objectives and the anticipated outcomes? Will
 the project help develop the expertise of
 young scientists at the doctoral or post-
 doctorate level?
 
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness: This
 criterion relates to the extent to which the
 total budget adequately supports the project
 and is cost-effective.
 
    (1) Budget--Is the budget request            10 points
     justifiable? Are costs reasonable and
     necessary? Will the total budget be
     adequate to carry out project activities?
     Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-
     Federal matching support clearly
     identified and appropriately documented?
     For a joint project proposal, is the
     shared budget explained clearly and in
     sufficient detail?
 
    (2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed      5 points
     project cost-effective? Does it
     demonstrate a creative use of limited
     resources, maximize research value per
     dollar of USDA support, achieve economies
     of scale, leverage additional funds or
     have the potential to do so, focus
     expertise and activity on a high-priority
     research initiative(s), or promote
     coalition building for current or future
     ventures?
 
(f) Overall quality of proposal: This criterion  5 points
 relates to the degree to which the proposal
 complies with the application guidelines and
 is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced
 by its adherence to instructions (table of
 contents, organization, pagination, margin and
 font size, the 20-page limitation, appendices,
 etc.); accuracy of forms; clarity of budget
 narrative; well prepared vitae for all key
 personnel associated with the project; and
 presentation (are ideas effectively presented,
 clearly articulated, thoroughly explained,
 etc.)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


S. How To Obtain Application Materials

    Copies of this solicitation and an Application Kit containing 
program application materials will be made available to eligible 
institutions upon request. These materials include the Administrative 
Provisions, forms, instructions, and other relevant information needed 
to prepare and submit grant applications. Copies of the Application Kit 
may be requested from the Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, 
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245. The telephone number is (202) 401-
5048. When contacting the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that 
you are requesting forms for the FY 1999 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program.

    Application materials may also be requested via Internet by sending 
a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone 
number to [email protected] that states that you wish to receive a copy 
of the application materials for the FY 1999 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program. The materials will then be mailed to you (not 
e-mailed) as quickly as possible.

T. What To Submit

    An original and seven (7) copies of a proposal must be submitted. 
Proposals should contain all requested information when submitted. Each 
proposal should be typed on 8 1/2''  x  11'' white paper, single-
spaced, and on one side of the page only. Please note that the text of 
the proposal should be prepared using no type smaller than 12 point 
font size and one-inch margins. All copies of the proposal must be 
submitted in one package. Each copy of the proposal must be stapled 
securely in the upper left-hand corner (DO NOT BIND).

U. Where and When To Submit

    Hand-delivered proposals (brought in person by the applicant or 
through a courier service) must be received on or before March 16, 
1999, at the following address: 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D 
Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024. Proposals transmitted via a 
facsimile (fax) machine will not be accepted.

    Proposals submitted through the U.S. mail must be received on or 
before March 16, 1999. Proposals submitted through the U.S. mail should 
be sent to the following address: 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, 
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245. The telephone number is (202) 401-
5048.

    For FY 1999, Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is 
not requested nor required for the 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program.


[[Page 685]]



V. Acknowledgment of Proposals

    The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged in writing and 
this acknowledgment will contain a proposal identification number. Once 
your proposal has been assigned a proposal number, please cite that 
number in future correspondence.


    Done at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of December 1998.

Colien Hefferan,

Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 99-78 Filed 1-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-P