7-criterion scoring framework established for grant opportunity evaluation
Source type:
obs· Harvested: 2026-05-03 · Original date: 2026-05-03T14:08:12.219Z Metadata:{"project":"lunhsiangyuan","type":"decision","obs_id":65093}
obs/65093 · decision · 2026-05-03T14:08:12.219Z
7-criterion scoring framework established for grant opportunity evaluation
CEO iteration 4 established a systematic 7-criterion scoring framework to objectively evaluate rural health funding opportunities and avoid retrospective bias. Each dimension maps to a real TCCP program risk surface: service-model fit ensures alignment with care transition focus, eligibility confirms NMC qualifies, funding scale validates investment justifies effort, allowable costs verify IT infrastructure is fundable, consortium burden assesses partnership complexity, timing measures urgency, and durability evaluates long-term strategic value. Framework successfully differentiated high-value targets (RHAP 30/35, NY RHT 32/35) from planning-only regression opportunities (Network Planning 13/35). Consortium burden scored inversely (lower burden = higher score) to reflect partnership assembly risk. Rubric designed for defensibility against post-hoc rationalization and provides clear decision audit trail.
Concepts: [“pattern”,“why-it-exists”,“how-it-works”]
Facts: [“Scoring rubric uses 7 criteria rated 1-5 each with maximum total score of 35 points”,“Criteria are service-model fit, applicant eligibility, funding scale fit, allowable costs/IT fit, consortium burden (inverse scored), timing/urgency, and strategic durability”,“HRSA RHAP FY26 scored 30/35 with high marks except consortium burden (2/5 due to ≥3 provider requirement)”,“NY RHT sub-grant scored 32/35 with only timing marked down to 3/5 due to uncertain RFP publication”,“HRSA Network Planning scored only 13/35, triggering deprioritization decision”]
[← 回 Alfred Brain Hub]