Skip to main content Skip to secondary navigation

FY25 C-ShaRP Evaluation Criteria

Main content start

Proposals are evaluated according to their Impact and Operations.


Impact is evaluated based on the purpose of the proposed enhancement and how it will benefit student and research communities. The Impact section should include a clear justification statement for the funding - for example, enabling a new scientific opportunity, enhancing existing capabilities, or replacing aging tools. The Impact section should also contain a description of how the enhancement fits with the plans and vision of current Departments, Centers, and/or Shared Facilities, as well as any other relevant strategic planning underway.

In addressing Impact, proposers should consider the following questions:

  • If the tool/enhancement is a new capability, will the instrument/enhancement open new avenues of research and lead to breakthrough science and new recruiting opportunities?
  • If it is to replace an aging tool, is the tool/enhancement a more commonly used but critical function that serves as a “watering hole or catalyst for collaborations” for community interactions?
  • Is the tool/enhancement multi-disciplinary, multi-PI, and/or multi-school use?
  • What is the impact of this proposal for education? Does the enhancement enable educational opportunities?  If education is the primary goal, what group(s) is the intended target for the proposal?  Does it provide for cross-disciplinary opportunities across schools? Include the intended educational audience, and the format of any proposed education (coursework, workgroups, seminar series, etc.). 


The Operations evaluation assesses the financial model and on-going sustainability of operation for the instrument/enhancement. The proposal, budget, and budget plan should clearly include estimates for the cost for acquisition, site preparation (if any), installation, service contracts (if any), lease costs (if leasing instead of buying), and staff necessary to run the equipment, together with the estimated number of hours the instrument will be used and the anticipated hourly rate. These estimates should be prepared in coordination with a service center if the tool is expected to reside there. Ideally, a measure of faculty financial interest should be demonstrated, such as a “pledge program” where faculty commit to spend a specified amount on instrument use each year. If the instrument/enhancement will be located outside a service center, the proposal should specify how it will be managed and supported. Additional pledged support for the proposal will be positively reviewed, but must be clearly described and committed to in a letter of support from an individual with appropriate authority. 

Reporting Requirements: 

The PIs of the funded proposals will be required to deliver a brief report each year for 4 years following funding, reporting on tool updates, use, budget, and key scientific results achieved in connection to the funded activities (papers, publications, patents, educational activities, etc). Successful applicants should be prepared to serve as proposal reviewers for future C-ShaRP funding competitions and join the C-ShaRP Committee.