Grants for Component 1 (click here to view all)

Two sets of criteria guide proposal selection for Component 1 is listed in the tables below.  Proposals will be allocated points by reviewers according to each category as indicated in the following tables.  The total possible score is 100 points.  The top proposals in each Sub-component with the most points in each Round will be short-listed.

Eligibility criteria	Weighting
Track record of performance in the area of the activity, including a record of cooperation with other institutions (9 points)	9
Transparent and accountable procurement, financial management, and auditing  procedures (6 points)	6
Explicit linkage to the strategic objectives of the institution(s) (5 points)	5
Appropriate physical facilities and communications networks if the development of these is not a component of the proposal (5 points)	5
Demonstrable human and institutional capacity to manage a project of the size proposed (5 points)	5

 

Selection criteria	Weighting
Addresses local, regional, and/or national needs (e.g. as defined in the STEPB report, NEEDS document, S&T policy, NPE etc.) (10 points)	10
Availability of funding and other support from other sources (5 points)	4
Demonstrable benefits outside the realm of the specific institution(s) (10)	8
Improved human and institutional capacity including enhanced links with partner institutions and improved research teaching and learning quality (25)	25
Sound project plan demonstrating feasibility, sustainability, risk analysis, achievable timeline, results framework and short start-up period (25)	24

The following elements if applied in preparing proposals will enhance the clarity of proposals to be submitted to the Technical Review Committee.

1. How well the activity fits the requirement for it to be an innovative program that addresses the aims of STEPB Project and could, if successful, be replicated elsewhere or effectively taken to scale.
2. The capacity of the institution to manage the grant effectively, transparently and in a timely manner.
3. How effectively the project incorporates the minimum criteria given in Tables 4 and 5 above.
4. The clarity and coherence of the proposal implementation plan and how well the plan addresses the stated objectives.
5. Academic and technical merit.
6. The balance between curriculum reform, staff development and facilities upgrading.
7. The impact of the proposal on:

• The quality of S&T teaching and learning;
• The quality of S&T research;
• The relevance of the above for the labor market;
• Female enrolment in S&T-based programs. 

8. The added value provided by the different members of a consortium.
9. The effectiveness of the manner in which the sub-project is integrated into the existing activities of the institution or consortium and how well it addresses the aims in the institutional strategic plan; this will include an evaluation of the financial contribution of the institution.

Once received by the NPS, completed proposals are submitted to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for evaluation.  Each proposal is evaluated by at least three separate TRC reviewers with sufficient expertise to make a determination on the quality of the proposal.  The TRC submits to the National Project Coordinator (NPC) a ranking of the submitted proposals according to the detailed criteria. The TRC will also recommend one of the following determinations for each grant proposal reviewed:

• The proposal qualifies for funding without any revisions
• The proposal qualifies for funding after minor revisions.  In this case the TRC will designate one reviewer to review the revised proposal once resubmitted
• The proposal is promising but requires major revisions.  Such proposals will be recommended for resubmission during the next Call for Proposals
• The proposal does not satisfy the minimum criteria.  Such proposals will be rejected outright.

Successful applicants will have up to 2 years to utilize the funds with the possibility of extension if the funds are not fully utilized within this period.  Unsuccessful applicants will be assisted to revise their proposals and resubmit during the next call for funds. Institutions evaluated to have successfully achieved the objectives of the first grant may apply for a subsequent grant within the project duration.

 

Grants for Component 2 (click here to view all)

Component 2 proposals are processed according to a similar procedure as that for Component 1 but with an additional set of minimum criteria.  This additional set of criteria is designed to ensure a stronger link to the proposed Center of Excellence and Nigeria’s growth agenda as elaborated in both NEEDS and the various SEEDS.  Proposals for Component 2 support should comply with the both the criteria listed for Component 1 and the additional minimum eligibility criteria for Component 2 below in the tables.

Grantees are expected to develop comprehensive links with at least one external institution of repute. The process for establishing this link, the justifications for it, and anticipated outcomes should be an element of the Centers of Excellence proposals.

Eligibility criteria for component 2	Weighting
Transparent and accountable procurement, financial management, and auditing  procedures	6
Feasibility within the existing capacity of the institution	10
Track record of performance and impact in area of activity (e.g., research, teaching, partnership building, data gathering, etc.)	6
Existing ICT capacity in the institution(s)	4
Track record of research results dissemination and collaboration/cooperation with other research, teaching and technology development institutions, firms, entities.	5

 

Selection criteria for component 2	Weighting
Addresses local, regional, and/or national needs (e.g. as defined in the STEPB report, NEEDS document, S&T policy, NPE etc.)	9
Availability of funding from other sources	5
Sustainability	9
Short start-up period	4
Explicit linkage to the strategic objectives of the institution(s)	5
Overall risk analyses, based on the risks and assumptions related to each component, and procedures in place to minimize risks (e.g., environmental, social, financial risks, etc.)	4
Improved institutional capacity – In terms of enhanced facilities, improvements in research support, in staff competencies, in teaching and learning activities etc	9
Clear project plan with results framework, timeline, risks, M&E framework and indicators	12
Multi-institutional cooperation with public research organizations, private sector companies, industrial organizations, external organizations, NGOs and others (10 points)	10