Research Program LOI Scorecard
1. Research Team:
Teams are appropriate in size and composition for the proposed objectives.
 Excellent: Expertise and roles of the Principle Investigator (team leader) and all research collaborators are clearly
described, and level of contribution of each is at an appropriate scale. Team includes expertize from all disciplines as
appropriate for the conduct of the research.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the team composition or roles (i.e., minor lack of clarity; time
commitments are slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that the research team is generally satisfactory, although there were some
moderate deficiencies in the composition or outlined roles and projected time commitments.
 Unsatisfactory: Team composition, definition of roles and/or anticipated time commitments are unsatisfactory (and
could result in unsuccessful completion of the project).
2. Benefits:
(refer to “Abstract” and “Benefits” sections of LOI) - Demonstrates expected benefits to beneficiaries/users of results.
 Excellent: Very clear and accurate description of expected benefits and probable users/beneficiaries of the
research. Also, the magnitude of the expected benefits as described is realistic and significant for the sector/users.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the description of the nature or magnitude of benefits or the anticipated
users/beneficiaries (i.e., minor lack of clarity; slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that benefits will arise from this research that will be meaningful and useful to the
user community, although there were some moderate deficiencies in the description of the expected benefits, the
probable users, or the magnitude or significance of the benefits.
 Unsatisfactory: Expected benefits are unlikely to be useful to the sector/users or are clearly unrealistic or over- or
underestimated, or the description of potential benefits or users/beneficiaries of the research is unsatisfactory.
3. Rationale and Objectives:
(refer to “Rationale” and “Objectives” sections of LOI)- Demonstrates why the research is needed and what the
research is intended to accomplish.
 Excellent: Very clear and accurate description of project rationale and objectives and these clearly meet the
defined OMAFRA priorities. Also, the objectives described are realistic and match the scale/scope of the project.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the rationale and objectives and how these meet OMAFRA priorities
(i.e., minor lack of clarity; slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that rationale and objectives meet OMAFRA priorities and suit the scale/scope of
the project, although there were some moderate deficiencies in the description.
 Unsatisfactory: The proposed research does not fit OMAFRA priorities and/or there are serious deficiencies in the
stated rationale or objectives.
4. Methods:
Note: A more detailed description of methods will be required at the full proposal phase, and will be assessed by
scientific peer reviewers. The ‘outline of methods’ provided in the LOI is intended to demonstrate that the proposed
methods are suitable for addressing the proposed research objectives.
Appropriateness of proposed methods (soundness of science, likelihood of success, innovation) .
 Excellent: Clear and concise outline of the planned approach and methods to be used to complete the proposed
research project. Also, these are realistic and appropriate for accomplishing the project objectives, i.e., the project has
a high likelihood of success.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the methods described, or in the likelihood of success (i.e., minor lack of
clarity; slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that the project can likely be completed successfully, although there were some
moderate deficiencies in the description of the proposed methods or likelihood of success.
 Unsatisfactory: Unlikely that the project can be completed successfully; the description of the methods is
unsatisfactory; or the proposed methods are unrealistic or inappropriate.
5. Deliverables: Scoring Guidelines
Deliverables and outcomes are reasonable given the approach and scope of research provided .
 Excellent: Clear and concise description of deliverables and expected outcomes to be achieved from the OMAFRA
– UofG Research Program support. Also, the deliverables are realistic and doable within the project timeframe and the
budget.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the deliverables and outcomes or the likelihood of completing these
within the project timeframe and budget (i.e., minor lack of clarity; slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that useful deliverables and outcomes can be achieved from this research, although
there were some moderate deficiencies in the description of the expected benefits, the probable users, or the
magnitude or significance of the benefits.
 Unsatisfactory: The projected deliverables and outcomes are unsatisfactory (i.e., unrealistic, too ambitious, not
clearly defined), or the likelihood of success is limited.
6. Partners and Partner Funding: Scoring Guidelines
(refer to “Partner Contributions” section at top of LOI budget pages, as well as In-kind Contributions, if applicable)Level of intellectual/industry partnerships as well as external support in the form of financial resources is adequate
(i.e., expertise, cash, equipment, facilities, etc...) . (3)
 Excellent: Potential/probable engagement of appropriate partner(s) is clear and tangible, ideally through intellectual
involvement and cash support for the project if feasible (i.e., appropriate in scale relative to the means of the
partner/sector). Also, specific outcomes/deliverables dependant on partner contributions are clearly delineated from
those dependant on the requested OMAFRA-/ UofG Research program resources.
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the extent of partner support, or in the delineation of the specific
outcomes/deliverables to be supported by partner resources (i.e., minor lack of clarity; slightly over- or understated).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that partner/sector support can/should realistically be enlisted for the project,
although there were some moderate deficiencies in the extent and/or type of partner support described, or some lack
of clarity on what outcomes/deliverables are dependent on that partner support.
 Unsatisfactory: Partner support for the project is unsatisfactory (indication of potential partnering support is
missing or not at a reasonable scale relative to sector/partner means), or it is unclear which deliverables/outcomes are
dependant on partner resources.
7. Budget (requested OMAFRA - UofG support):
Appropriateness of budget ( ie. deliverable at reasonable cost – for OMAFRA - U of G funds) .
 Excellent: Budget for requested OMAFRA - UofG resources (cash requested; and if applicable, anticipated
research station usage) is clear, and appropriate for the scale of the proposed research. All budget items are clear or
suitably explained (in budget notes).
 Good: Minor deficiencies in 1-2 aspects of the description of the nature or magnitude of the budget request (i.e.,
minor lack of clarity; slightly over or under the appropriate project ‘scale’).
 Satisfactory: Reviewer agrees that there is justification for investment of some OMAFRA – UofG Research
Program resources to support this project, although there were some moderate deficiencies in the requested budget
and descriptions.
 Unsatisfactory: Budget request is unsatisfactory or inadequately justified (i.e., unclear or poorly explained; clearly
unrealistic or over- or underestimated; etc.)
8. Overall Rating of the LOI:
 Excellent: Deserves highest priority for support – Proceed to Full Proposal Stage (with minor changes, if any)
 Good: Important work that should be funded – Proceed to Full Proposal Stage (with Review Committee
recommendations provided to address minor to moderate deficiencies noted above)
 Satisfactory: – Proceed to Full Proposal Stage, but must address some specific conditions identified by the
Review Committee
 Unsatisfactory: – Cannot recommend. Application shows serious deficiencies in one of more criteria and/or would
require major changes.