California Air Resources Board

Scope of Work

Background

The role of soil nitrogenous emissions, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), in atmospheric chemistry and air quality is increasingly recognized, but their significance is not fully understood. Previous research projects, such as airborne eddy covariance flux measurements during the Re-Evaluating the Chemistry of Air Pollutants in California (RECAP-CA) field campaign, have revealed discrepancies in observed and modeled NOx emission estimates, highlighting the need for accurate, long-term measurement techniques within certain areas of California. While there is consensus that soil NOx emissions contribute to atmospheric nitrogen compounds and influence atmospheric chemistry, insufficient data may be preventing an appropriate assessment of their impact on air quality in areas such as the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). To address this gap, a Subject Matter Expert Review Panel (SMERP) was convened in 2024 to assess the current state of scientific knowledge on soil nitrogenous emissions in California. SMERP suggested that existing data on nitrogenous emissions from agricultural soils are insufficient to fully determine their contribution to air quality in California.

Soil NOx emissions are primarily driven by two microbial processes, nitrification and denitrification, which are greatly enhanced by human activities, mainly the application of large amounts of nitrogen (N) fertilizers (both synthetic and dairy manure-derived) in agricultural areas. A combination of environmental conditions and agricultural management practices also influences these processes:

• Environmental Impact: Soil NOx emissions influence atmospheric chemistry by acting as a precursor to ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) formation, which pose major human health risks, particularly in rural agricultural regions like the SJV.
• Key Drivers of Variability: Soil NOx emissions are highly variable and episodic, making long-term measurements and modeling challenging. Primary controlling factors include nitrogen input rates, soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, and soil texture.
• Management Practices: Human decisions, particularly in agriculture, can significantly modify the soil environment and exacerbate emissions. These could include fertilizer applications, tilling practices, irrigation, and crop residue management, among others.

Overall, the contribution of soil NOx to California's total NOx budget is a subject of debate. For example, some studies using models and airborne observations suggest that fertilized croplands can account for 20% to 40% of total NOx emissions in a state or region, such as the SJV. Traditional methods have included field-scale chamber measurements (point-specific and difficult to scale up) and various biogeochemical models. This discrepancy highlights the need for robust, long-term, continuous measurement methods to accurately quantify this source. Hence, this research project will focus on conducting ambient measurement techniques using eddy covariance flux estimation methods to provide comprehensive seasonal and long-term data, necessary to resolve the existing uncertainties in soil NOx emission estimates.

Investigating long-term continuous soil NOx emissions in California is necessary to better understand this critical source of air pollution precursors, particularly as traditional sources, such as mobile transportation, are increasingly heavily regulated. The results of this research will thus have direct implications for CARB’s air quality and climate policies:

• The federal Clean Air Act established planning requirements for areas that exceed health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), mandating that these regions develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that demonstrate how the standards will be met. NOx is a precursor for both particulate matter (PM) and ozone formation. This necessitates a deeper understanding of emerging sources of precursor emissions to inform critical SIP efforts.
• Under Senate Bill 862, the California Climate Investments program is required to develop quantification methodologies to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and co-benefits of projects funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). This fund supports programs like the Healthy Soils Program at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), which promotes sustainable conservation practices on croplands. Further, the ability to quantify co-benefits for air quality, such as reductions in air pollutants (e.g., NOx, SO₂, and PM2.5),remains limited.

This research is critical for the SJV, a region that experiences disproportionate environmental burdens and public health impacts, making it a focal point for air quality research. The soil NOx emissions data generated by this project will help evaluate and refine biogeochemical models to inform emission inventories and inform SIP. It can also quantify benefits from programs that incentivize soil conservation practices, depending on additional experimental treatments. More broadly, the findings may inform the development of targeted policies aimed at improving air quality in sensitive regions like the SJV.

Objective

The objective of this study is to improve our understanding of the extent and significance of soil nitrogenous emissions in the SJV through long-term continuous data collection from key agricultural systems under specific nutrient management practices.

Scope of Work

The Contractor should develop a comprehensive research plan to perform all tasks described below. The most competitive pre-proposals will reflect a strong understanding of the subject matter and provide thoughtful, well-developed responses to each task. Additionally, collaboration and engagement with key stakeholders are important to achieving the objectives of this contract. Pre-proposals that demonstrate existing relationships will receive stronger consideration.

Pre-proposals that directly copy text from this solicitation and then present it as original text in the pre-proposal will not be reviewed.

Task 1: Development of a Field Study Plan

The Contractor should design a Field Study Plan that includes data collection and processing strategies to address the gap in long-term, continuous soil nitrogenous emissions data for key agricultural field types. The Contractor shall make adjustments to the plan based on consultation with CARB staff. The Field Study Plan shall clearly define the study location(s), duration, farming operation type, management practices, sampling and deployment strategy and describe how it addresses the research objectives. In addition to the requirements outlined below, the proposal should address additional research gaps identified in the SMERP Final Report that synergistically align with this Scope of Work.

The Field Study Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following sections and elements:

Background and Introduction: The Contractors shall clearly specify the project’s research questions, objectives, and hypotheses. This section shall reference and address relevant recommendations presented in the SMERP Final Report.

Selection of Field Sites: The Contractors must provide a detailed description of the site selection process and the relevant characteristics of each proposed field site.

The proposed field sites must represent the most common agricultural field/crop types, irrigation, nutrient management, and tillage practices in the top three agricultural counties in the SJV (Fresno, Tulare, and Kern County) based on the USDA 2022 Census of Agriculture.

Site selection and study design shall consider the quality and quantity of all N inputs including but not limited to dairy digestate and/or dairy lagoon wastewater and synthetic fertilizer, compost (if applicable), and the water used for crop irrigation. For sites where compost is applied, the compost should be consistent with CDFA’s Conservation Management Practices Eligible For Funding Through The CDFA Healthy Soils Program and in the USDA-NRCS Conservation Practice Standard Soil Carbon Amendment Code 808. At a minimum, proposed field sites must include:

• a row crop receiving dairy digestate and/or dairy lagoon wastewater as fertilizer (may be in addition to synthetic fertilizer)
• a row crop or orchard to which synthetic fertilizer is applied, and
• a row crop or orchard to which both compost and synthetic fertilizer are applied.

For each proposed field site, the Contractor shall document:

• soil taxonomic and series;
• fertilizer types along with their application methods (such as surface spread with/without soil incorporation, drill application, fertigation), timing, and rates (including organic amendments);
• crop types, planting schedules, and harvest schedules; and
• irrigation methods and related information, such as irrigation timing, irrigation type, volume of water applied, inorganic nitrogen concentrations (nitrate and ammonium), tilling frequency, depth and type, harvest timing and yield, crop type, cover crop type, and date of each management activity

At least three, and preferably more than five, proposed field sites representing distinct agricultural production systems and irrigation/nutrient management scenarios will be selected in consultation with CARB staff.

Measurement Methodology: TheField Study Plan should clearly define the data collection and processing methodologies used to achieve the research objectives. Measurements shall be conducted using eddy covariance (EC) flux systems for a minimum of one year and preferably two years to capture interannual variability. If additional research needs identified in the SMERP Final Report are addressed, those activities shall be described in this section. The plan should include procedures for EC flux system installation, operation, calibration, validation, and maintenance; data quality assurance and quality control measures; measurement procedures for additional environmental parameters; safety protocols; identification of potential disturbances that could affect EC measurements, including meteorological conditions; and methods for ambient background correction (e.g., upwind footprint filtering, use of background sampling, EC flux system placement and canopy height, upwind air inlets, use of co-located control sites, etc.).

This section should also specify:

• target gases to be measured (NOx is required, with additional gases as applicable);
• concentration measurements and flux calculation methods;
• deployment timeline;
• duration and frequency of measurements;
• frequency with which emission estimates are produced;
• A comprehensive plan for measuring soil nitrogenous emissions at a temporal resolution suitable for providing reliable estimates of cumulative seasonal soil NOx emissions throughout the entire year;
• infrastructure availability and resource procurement plan;
• validation and calibration procedure for any instrument used; and
• Statistical analysis method(s).

Soil Sampling: The plan shall include:

• Initial site characterization methods to assess soil properties, subject to consultation with CARB staff prior to sampling;

• Identification of key emission drivers and model input parameters, including but not limited to soil texture, soil pH, soil porosity, and soil bulk density; and
• A soil core sampling plan specifying sampling locations and sampling frequency within the EC flux system footprint.

The plan should incorporate a field measurement strategy designed to support future evaluation of nitrogen fluxes from selected agricultural croplands using biogeochemical models.

Sensor Selection: The Contractor shall select instruments and tools for the field campaign while including flexibility to consult with CARB staff prior to final decisions. Equipment deployment plans shall include information on all equipment, infrastructures, and devices necessary for continuous remote monitoring and diagnostics, including:

• data logging and recording system;
• networking devices;
• power systems; and
• any required safety equipment.

The Contractor shall document installation procedures with photographs and maintain a system diagram detailing wiring, mounting, programming, and other operational specifications. Documentation shall be provided to CARB following installation and updated as needed.

Data Collection Plan: The Contractor shall:

• include a description of the methods to minimize researcher and sampling bias, such as procedures to ensure that researchers are adequately trained in the sampling protocol, minimize subjective interpretation, and use methods for systematic data recording (e.g., field notes, checklists, and forms).
• conduct thorough pre-deployment checks of all sensors and instruments to ensure proper functioning;
• identify and collect key model input parameters such as ambient temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, relative humidity, and any other parameters necessary for eddy covariance; soil moisture, and soil temperature;
• gather representative soil samples at a 30 cm depth, at minimum, to provide a nitrogen panel including at least total nitrogen-N, dissolved organic-N, NH₄-N, and NO₃-N, and a carbon (C) panel including at least total C, soil organic C and dissolved organic-C,
• record continuous measurements of NOx concentrations (as well as any additional gases measured), windspeed, and direction necessary to achieve the objectives outlined in the SOW;
• define soil sampling frequency and general measurement intervals suitable for providing reliable estimates of cumulative seasonal soil NOx emissions throughout the entire year;
• assess prevailing wind patterns, stability conditions, and potential disturbances that could affect the EC flux estimates; and
• specify the spatial scale for emission estimates from the anticipated EC footprint based on prevailing meteorological conditions.

The field measurement strategy shall support future modeling of nitrogen fluxes from agricultural croplands using biogeochemical models, including Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN), the Berkeley-Dalhousie Soil Nitric Oxide Parameterization (BDSNP) module in MEGAN (MEGAN-BDSNP), and the DeNitrification and DeComposition (DNDC) model, through coordinated EC flux system deployment and soil core sampling.

Contingency plan: The Contractor shall develop a detailed contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted data collection throughout the year in the event of equipment failure, safety concerns, site inaccessibility, or other disruptions. The contingency plan shall emphasize periods of active agricultural management when emissions are expected to be the highest.

The contingency plan (within the Field Study Plan) shall include:

• alternative measurement strategies (e.g., semi-stationary mobile measurements);
• criteria for activating the contingency plan;
• implementation and deployment timelines of the contingency plan; and
• required resources or partnerships to maintain data integrity and continuity.

Partnerships and Stakeholder Engagement: The Field Study Plan shall summarize stakeholder involvement, including feedback received, site verification, and developments resulting from partnerships with farm operators, advisors, and other key entities.

The Contractor shall demonstrate existing partnerships and plans to maintain engagement with relevant stakeholders, including state agencies, local air districts, UC Cooperative Extension specialists, farm advisors, industry partners, co-ops, farmers, and farm operators. These partnerships shall inform and strengthen the site selection process and project implementation.

Interim Deliverable

• Within the first two weeks of contract execution, the Contractor shall provide the “Background and Introduction” section of the Field Study Plan to CARB.
• The Contractor shall present the draft Field Study Plan to CARB within the first month of contract execution at a progress meeting.
• Within two (2) months of contract execution, the Contractor shall submit a finalized and CARB-approved Field Study Plan to CARB staff that satisfies all requirements outlined in Task 1 and addresses comments received from CARB on the draft Field Study Plan.

Task 2: Deployment and Conducting Field Measurements  

Immediately after the approval of the Field Study Plan (Task 1), the Contractor should execute the plan by deploying EC flux systems at the selected field sites in the SJV to continuously measure soil nitrogenous emissions (NOx is required, with additional gases as applicable) for a minimum of one year, preferably two, to capture interannual variability.

Interim Deliverables

• The Contractor shall provide monthly updates on the status of the field operations. Updates will occur via email or meetings, dependent upon need of the Contractor or CARB.
• Upon any changes, the Contractor shall first consult with CARB and then submit any updates to the sampling protocol and standard operating procedures and augment the Field Study Plan.
• The Contractor shall continuously download and analyze the collected data. Within one month of field measurements, the Contractor shall provide a summary of the measured variables as indicated in the Field Study Plan. The reporting frequency should recur monthly thereafter. At the beginning of data collection, additional time should be provided for CARB to review the data, consult with the Contractors, and ensure that the collected data meets CARB's needs. If external databases are used, the Contractors shall provide a log documenting the database name, date of access, and a copy of the information acquired.
  • Interim deliverables should also report data related to key emission drivers and sources, and model input parameters

Task 3: QA/QC and Dataset Constructions

The Contractor must implement a rigorous, standardized QA/QC process for all collected data prior to its interim and final delivery to CARB. Such process shall also adhere to standards established in peer-reviewed literature on EC flux estimation methods. Data quality should be marked using a tiered data masking column; no data shall be permanently removed between collection and handoff to CARB. The Contractor shall also provide CARB with the pre-processed (raw) data with appropriate identifiers. The Contractor should work with CARB staff to make any necessary changes to the data collection methods, QA/QC process, and data format, and to address any other concerns expressed by CARB staff.

Interim Deliverable

The Contractor shall work with CARB staff to identify the required level of detail and format for interim deliverables. At minimum, deliverables should include:

• Beginning one month after the initiation of EC measurements in the field, the Contractor shall regularly demonstrate the implementation of the QA/QC process for pre-processed (raw gas concentration data and covariates) and post-processed (emissions fluxes) gas data.
• QA/QC workflows shall be reproducible, preferably through R or Python codes. Tools to achieve this workflow must be provided to CARB.

Task 4: Data Analysis

The Contractor should use statistical and computational methods to analyze the high-temporal-resolution emissions data and supporting measurements collected in Task 2 and make adjustments based on conversations with CARB staff, as necessary. This analysis is expected to compare NOx and other gas emissions across different nutrient management practice scenarios in agricultural croplands. The analysis should further quantify temporal patterns, peak emission events, estimated annual emission factors, and cumulative emissions over the monitoring period, and identify correlations between emissions and environmental variables such as soil moisture, temperature, and soil nitrogen content. This analysis should infer pathways for soil NOx emissions at the field scale. The Contractor should compare the emissions from this contract to those of other field studies and investigate the underlying reasons for the differences and similarities. The Contractor should also conduct confidence-building measures, including sensitivity analyses to assess how assumptions, data gaps, and model parameters influence results. These analyses should identify key sources of uncertainty and evaluate the robustness of findings under varying conditions.

Interim Deliverable

The Contractor shall work with CARB staff to identify the required level of detail and format for interim deliverables. At a minimum, deliverables should include:

• Preliminary evaluation of intermediate data collected during the first half of the field measurements indicated in Task 2 shall be included in an interim report. The evaluation should follow statistical and computational methods consistent with those selected under Tasks 3-4. To identify key controls specific to California's croplands, the statistical analysis should include an evaluation of the relationship between environmental variables, management practices (e.g., quantifying management-driven variability), and emissions fluxes.
• Uncertainty analysis for all data, where the random and systematic errors associated with measurements are quantified. At minimum, this should also delineate the process used for data gap-filling, meteorological uncertainty, background emission subtraction, and sensitivity to mixing assumptions, which can be related to both the physical sampling environment and the underlying chemical processes.
• A summary of confidence-building measures and sensitivity analyses performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. This should include documentation of the key assumptions tested, the range of variability explored, and the implications for interpreting the data.
• The Contractor is expected to work with CARB staff to ensure that the data are in a format suitable for various purposes, including the validation of the MEGAN, MEGAN BDSNP, and DNDC models.
• The interim report containing detailed data analysis, including statistical comparisons of nitrogenous emissions across nutrient management scenarios indicated in Task 4, should also be provided to CARB staff. The report shall cover the first half of the field measurements. This should include time-series plots of emission trends, correlation matrices linking emissions to soil and environmental variables, and benchmarking against other field studies. The interim report is expected to provide an interpretation of the findings, identify any adjustments to the Field Study Plan, describe equipment maintenance and calibration, and present documented management practices from each field site.

Data analysis workflows, tables and figures shall be reproducible, preferably through R or Python code. Tools to achieve this workflow must be provided to CARB with the interim report, final report and any preliminary reports (e.g. quarterly reports).

Task 5: Data Transfer, Final Report, and Field Site Closure

The Contractor should provide CARB with all data and code generated through this project, accompanied by complete metadata and documentation sufficient to ensure usability, transparency, and long-term transferability. This shall include all workflows and data-processing methods necessary to enable CARB staff to reproduce the results using the computational resources available to CARB, from the raw data through the report results. The Contractor should also provide a tutorial for executing the workflows to support replication of all project deliverables. CARB must be able to successfully execute the code by submission of the draft final report.

The Contractor must submit a draft final report (DFR) in a format compliant with CARB’s Final Report requirements no later than six (6) months prior to the agreement end date. The Final Report shall include a one-page Public Outreach Document written in clear, accessible language for a general audience and, where appropriate, a completed Equity Implication section using CARB’s template. The DFR shall be copy-edited before being submitted to CARB for review. The DFR shall be revised to incorporate CARB’s comments and edits and submitted before the agreement end date. The Contractor shall attest in the Final Report that it has been reviewed and approved.

Upon completion of the project and in consultation with CARB staff, the Contractor shall remove the EC flux systems and all related infrastructure and restore the field sites to a condition comparable to that prior to installation. All equipment purchased under this agreement shall be delivered to a CARB-designated address to be given CARB identification tags. Upon receipt, the Contractor shall ensure proper packaging and transport to prevent damage and shall assume responsibility for all damages or required repairs. CARB-tagged equipment must be returned to a CARB-designated address in a fully operational state.

Project Deliverables

The project proposal shall include, but not be limited to, the following deliverables:

At the Pre-Proposal Stage

• If applicable, provide a cultural competency statement in the pre-proposal. 
• If applicable, provide a community engagement plan in the pre-proposal. 
• Provide a list of partners that will be engaged throughout the contract during site selection and field measurements. Describe what role each partner will play and how they will be engaged.

Note: Pre-proposals that directly copy text from this solicitation and then present it as original text in the pre-proposal will not be reviewed.

At the Beginning of the Contract

• All researchers must undergo cultural competency training (e.g., implicit bias training and racial equity training). Training should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.
• All researchers must coordinate with CARB staff for a logistical kick-off meeting, followed by a technical kick-off meeting.

During the Active Contract Period

• At the beginning of the project, the Contractor shall present the draft deliverables for Task 1 to CARB at a monthly progress meeting to finalize the Field Study Plan.
• The Contractor must submit Quarterly Progress Reports. These reports shall include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. CARB will provide the progress report template.
• The Contractor shall engage in frequent (monthly) consultation calls with CARB and key stakeholders.
• The Contractor shall submit an interim report, as required in Task 4, in addition to the quarterly progress reports, to keep CARB staff informed. These reports may be requested at a different frequency upon CARB’s request to ensure progress is being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• CARB will guide the project through regular consultation with the PI and team.
• The Contractor shall submit all data, products, analyses, and analytical tools generated during this project according to the “Data, Communication and Documentation Standards” outlined below:
  • All data products require validation and/or uncertainty analysis.
  • Field protocols should be documented for non-scientific technicians.
  • Raw data and a full processing workflow (including any QA/QC, gap-filling, partitioning, and plotting) should be delivered to CARB.
  • All code and analyses should be documented for independent use and re-analysis by CARB without contractor support.
  • Reports should be public-ready, clearly presenting methods, results, and conclusions, meeting WCAG 2.0 AA and equitable language standards.
  • QA/QC and data analysis workflows, preferably in R or Python.
    • All methods and dependencies should be open source, with GPL v.3-equivalent licensing.
    • Workflows should process raw data without non-replicable tools.
  • Databases and other data products should also include metadata for methodology and/or references that were used to support the approach and various analyses, dates, and descriptions of nutrient management and other practices, soil taxonomic and series names at each field site; and a description of data type listed in the columns, including units and explanation of acronyms.
• The Contractor shall produce plain-language fact sheets, including recommendations for preventative actions (if available). The fact sheets will be translated into Spanish.
• The Contractor shall satisfy the following requirements of the Draft Final Report (DFR):
  • DFR should be copy-edited, reviewed, and approved by the Principal Investigator.
  • Include a plain language summary in DFR
  • Include an equity implications section in DFR
  • If applicable, have the DFR reviewed by community representatives and an open public review of the DFR for a minimum of two weeks.
• The Contractor must work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables for the public, summarizing the results and impact of the project.
• The Final Report submitted to CARB must be ADA-compliant.
• The Contractor shall participate in a virtual or in-person seminar to present the project findings.
• Peer-reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables shall be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 36 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $1,300,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the proposal solicitation (15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The pre-proposal should present a clear research question or testable hypothesis, consider various aspects of the research need, and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The draft proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Research Solicitation:

This project seeks to improve our understanding of soil-based nitrogen emissions across key regions of the San Joaquin Valley by conducting long-term continuous data collection from agricultural fields under various nutrient management scenarios to address critical data and knowledge gaps identified in the SMERP Final Report.

Policy relevance/benefits to the State (5 points)

Does the pre-proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission?

This project will support CARB’s ozone and PM2.5 SIP inventory and modeling, and will help inform the development of control strategies in key regions throughout the State. In addition, this project will support CARB’s California Climate Investments programs.

Partnership and Stakeholder Outreach (10 points)

Five points will be reserved for project teams that demonstrate partnerships with groups, organizations, stakeholders, and/or industry groups who are willing to locate sites if needed.

Previous work (10 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience and demonstrated expertise in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations (e.g., the U.S. EPA, CDFA)? If community engagement is included, the relevant research partner should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references, or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefited communities.

Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary and has relevant experience and demonstrated expertise.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (30 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out to address the goals and objectives. The pre-proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one draft proposal for development into a full proposal. If this draft proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided (15 points)

Does the proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Does the pre-proposal clearly outline the timeline that adheres to CARB’s requirements as indicated in the SOW? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (15 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding will be evaluated more favorably. What existing equipment or resources can the proposed work leverage?

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.