[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7556-7560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1720]



[[Page 7555]]

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

Part II





Department of Agriculture





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



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



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



1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program 
for Fiscal Year 2001; Request for Proposals and Request for Input; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 7556]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants 
Program for Fiscal Year 2001; Request for Proposals and Request for 
Input

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

ACTION: Notice of request for proposals (RFP) and request for input.

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

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) 2001. 
Proposals are hereby requested from eligible institutions as identified 
herein for competitive consideration of capacity building grant awards.
    CSREES also is requesting comments regarding this RFP from any 
interested party. These comments will be considered in the development 
of the next RFP for this program. Such comments will be used in meeting 
the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA).

DATES: Proposals must be received on or before March 15, 2001. 
Proposals received after the closing date will not be considered for 
funding.
    Comments are requested within six months from the issuance of this 
RFP. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.

ADDRESSES: Hand-delivered proposals (brought in person by the applicant 
or through a courier service) must be received on or before March 15, 
2001, 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 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th 
Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20024. The telephone number is (202) 401-
5048. Proposals transmitted via a facsimile (fax) machine will not be 
accepted.
    Proposals submitted through the mail must be received on or before 
March 15, 2001. Proposals submitted by 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, SW.; Washington, DC 
20250-2245. Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is not 
requested nor required for the 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program.
    Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and 
Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 
2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-2299; or 
via e-mail to: [email protected]. (This e-mail address is intended 
only for receiving stakeholder comments regarding this RFP, and not for 
requesting information or forms.)

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, 
SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2251; Telephone: (202) 720-2186; E-mail: 
[email protected].
    Stakeholder Input: CSREES is requesting comments regarding this RFP 
from any interested party. In your comments, please include the name of 
the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which you are responding. 
These comments will be considered in the development of the next RFP 
for the program. Such comments will be used in meeting the requirements 
of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)).
    Comments should be submitted as provided for in the Addresses and 
Dates portions of this Notice.

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

    This program is authorized by 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

[[Page 7557]]

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.

F. Available Funds and Award Limitations

    For FY 2001, $9.5 million was appropriated for this program. CSREES 
anticipates that approximately $8.9 million will be available for 
project grants for this program in FY 2001. Of this amount, 
approximately $4.5 million will be used to support teaching projects, 
and approximately $4.4 million will be used to support research 
projects. Awards will be based upon merit review and 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 both teaching and research 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). An alternative method 
to calculate this limit is to multiply total direct costs by 23.456 
percent.

H. Program Areas

    In FY 2001, 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 2001 are:
    For teaching project grants--(1) Curricula Design and Materials 
Development, (2) Faculty Preparation and Enhancement for Teaching, (3) 
Instruction Delivery Systems, (4) Scientific Instrumentation for 
Teaching, (5) Student Experiential Learning, and (6) Student 
Recruitment and Retention. A description of these targeted need areas 
can be found in the Scope of a Teaching Proposal section at 7 CFR 
3406.11.
    For research project grants--(1) Studies and Experimentation in 
Food and Agricultural Sciences, (2) Centralized Research Support 
Systems, (3) Technology Delivery Systems, and (4) Other creative 
projects designed to provide needed enhancement of the nation's food 
and agricultural research system. A description of these targeted need 
areas can be found in the Scope of a Research Proposal section at 7 CFR 
3406.16.
    In FY 2001, eligible institutions may propose projects in any 
discipline(s) of the food and agricultural sciences as defined in 
section 1404(8) of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3103). There are no limits on the 
specific subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported.

J. Degree Levels Supported

    In FY 2001, 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 2001, there is no limit on the number of proposals an 
eligible institution may submit. However, funding limitations in FY 
2001 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 2001, 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 2001, 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 
(approximately $890,000) of the total funds available for grant awards.
    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 2001, the maximum number of new awards listing the same 
individual as Project Director or Principal Investigator is two grants. 
This restriction does not apply to joint projects.

P. Funding Limitation per Targeted Need Area

    In FY 2001, the maximum number of new awards listing the same 
individual as Project Director or Principal Investigator 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 2001, 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 (when 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

[[Page 7558]]

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.

    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 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 FY 2001 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 2001 competition:

Evaluation Criteria for Teaching Proposals (Weight)

(a) Potential for Advancing the Quality of Education (50 Points)
    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 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. 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 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 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 (40 Points)
    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 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 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 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 have significant 
potential for advancing cooperative ventures between the applicant 
institution and a USDA agency? Does the project work plan include an 
effective role for the cooperating USDA agency(s)?
    (5) Coordination and partnerships. Does the 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 (30 Points)
    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 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?
    (2) Institutional commitment. Is there 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

[[Page 7559]]

project have reasonable access to needed resources such as 
instructional instrumentation, facilities, computer services, library 
and other instruction support resources?
(d) Personnel Resources (10 Points)
    This criterion relates 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 (15 Points)
    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 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 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 (5 Points)
    This criterion 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 (Weight)

(a) Significance of the Problem (50 Points)
    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 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. 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 disciplines at a university?
    (3) Products and results. Are the expected 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 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 (40 Points)
    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 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 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 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 have significant 
potential for advancing cooperative ventures between the applicant 
institution and a USDA agency? Does the project work plan include an 
effective role for the cooperating USDA agency(s)?
    (5) Coordination and partnerships. Does the 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 (30 Points)
    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

[[Page 7560]]

institution assuming a major role in the conduct of the project.
    (1) Institutional enhancement. Will the 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 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 (10 Points)
    This criterion relates 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 (15 Points)
    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 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 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 (5 Points)
    This criterion 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 are available at the 1890 Institution 
Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program website (http://
faeis.tamu.edu/hep/menus/msgb~~1.htm). These materials include the 
administrative provisions, forms, instructions, and other relevant 
information needed to prepare and submit grant applications. If you do 
not have access to the web or have trouble downloading material, you 
may contact the Proposal Services Unit at (202) 401-5048. When 
contacting them please indicate that you are requesting forms for the 
FY 2001 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program. Hard copies 
of all application materials may also be requested by writing to: 
Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 
20250-2245.
    These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending an e-
mail 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 2001 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, double-spaced, 
on one side of the page only, and using no type smaller than 12 point 
font size and one-inch margins. Do not use reduced type or increase the 
density of the lines. Applicants are cautioned to comply with the 20-
page limitation for the Narrative section of a teaching or research 
proposal. Reviewers will not be required to read beyond the 20-page 
limit for the Proposal Narrative section in evaluating a proposal. 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 15, 
2001, 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 1307, Waterfront Centre 800 9th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024, Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
    Proposals transmitted via a facsimile (fax) machine will not be 
accepted.
    Proposals submitted through the mail must be received on or before 
March 15, 2001. Proposals submitted through the 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, SW., 
Washington, DC 20250-2245, Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
    For FY 2001, Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is 
not requested nor required for the 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program.

V. Acknowledgment of Proposals

    The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged via e-mail. 
Therefore it is important to include your e-mail address on Form 
CSREES-701 when applicable. 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 16th day of January 2001.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-1720 Filed 1-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P