A Proposal Evaluation Group (PEG) is established to provide independent, objective review by subject matter experts of a proposal submitted by an interested Service Center. The recommendations from this review are used by the Competitive Service Center Committee to formulate its recommendations to the NIH Director for use in his decision process on the selection, timing, and resource allocations for centers.

The PEG reviews the proposal submitted in the service area and provides recommendations as to whether the proposal should be approved as is, should be approved with modifications, or should not be approved with reasons why. In addition, the PEG indicates whether there is concurrence in the resources requested in the proposal, concurrence with modifications, or no concurrence.

In reviewing the proposals, use of the following criteria by the PEGs helps to provide consistency in the review process across proposals and service areas. A brief narrative by the PEG describing the strengths/weaknesses of each proposal for each criteria will be used to clarify the recommendations.


  1. Based on the information provided, will the establishment of this Service Center in this service area provide benefits (immediate or long term) overall to NIH in terms of the efficiency and/or effectiveness of services?

  2. For each Center being proposed: Are the additional FTEs requested by the Service Center justified in the proposal and reasonable in terms of the additional workload to be taken on and given the core staff already available in the Service Center? Are the additional FTE needs consistent with the implementation time frames?

  3. Are the time frames for implementation realistic? Are the User ICDs, and/or the services, phased-in over a reasonable time frame?

  4. Will the provision of services to the User ICDs reduce the number of staff (and/or contract costs) that would be needed if each ICD were to maintain or to develop its own separate program, either now or over the long term? And/or will it facilitate more effective (or expanded) services?

  5. Have reasonable processes been used (or are they planned) to assure appropriate human resource practices in staffing decisions and has consideration been given to maintaining or enhancing a diverse work force?

  6. Does the overall proposal provide for periodic assessments of both the quality of service and the efficient use of FTEs that were provided to the CSC? Will the proposed assessment process allow for considering the needs of both the Providers and the Users and for addressing problems that may arise between them?
    Introduction | Service Center Overview | Sample Proposal |
    Proposal Review Process | Current Participants

    Questions? Comments? Feel free to contact the Competitive Service Centers Committee.

    Last updated 1/30/98