UDUTC Project Evaluation Form
Project Title: ______________________________________________
Principal Investigator(s): ____________________________________
Recommendation




Definitely fund
Fund if resources are available
Encourage revision and resubmission in the future
Do not fund
Comments:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Reviewer Name: ________________________
Affiliation:______________________
Email: ________________________
Telephone:____________________
This page will not be shared with the Principal Investigator(s)
Project Title: ______________________________________________
Principal Investigator(s): ____________________________________
Please rate proposals according to the following criteria. Comments may be
added on the extra sheet.
1. Soundness of research plan and potential to produce quality research.

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)
2. Interdisciplinarity in terms of content and members of research team.

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)
3. Consistency with UDUTC theme of Resiliency of Transportation Corridors and
capacity to address at least one of targeted areas for research.

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)
4. Qualifications of investigators to complete the work and consistency of scope
with proposed timeline and budget.

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)
5. Relevance to research areas of national importance (as identified in Highway
Research and Technology: The Need for Greater Investment; the programs of
the National Research and Technology Program of the Federal Transit
Administration; the U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development,
and Technology Plan; and U.S. DOT’s strategic plan).

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)

4 (good)

5 (excellent)
6. Relevance to needs of partner organizations.

1 (poor)

2 (fair)

3 (average)
This page will be shared with the Principal Investigator(s)
Comments:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
This page will be shared with the Principal Investigator(s)