Category Archives: Checklist

Checklist: Project Vita

Posted on April 6, 2020 by  in Checklist, Resources ()

This checklist is designed to help with the creation of a project vita. Similar to an individual’s professional vita or resume, a project vita is a comprehensive index of factual information about a project’s activities and achievements. It documents past performance and demonstrates capacity for future endeavors. Tracking this information over the life of a project will make it easier to complete annual reports to sponsors, respond to information requests, and document achievements in funding applications. If the document is easy to find on the project’s website, stakeholders and other interest parties can easily see how productive (or not) the project has been. For a more dynamic vita, include links to supporting documents, staff biographies, or related web pages; this will allow users to quickly locate items referenced in the vita. As an example, here is our project vita. This checklist suggests what to include in a vita and how to organize the information. Projects should tailor their vitae to their specific needs.

This section should provide the basic details of the project at a glance.

  • Project name
  • Project logo
  • Website address
  • Phone number
  • Institutional name
  • Institutional logo(s)
  • Grant number(s)
  • Funder’s logo(s)


Use this section to convey the project’s overall purpose.

  • Mission
  • Vision
  • Goals


Identify each grant, contract, or donation.

  • Total amount project received
  • Years funded
  • Value per award
  • Sponsor/funder for each award


List any specialized facilities and equipment that were purchased/upgraded with project funds.

  • Technical Instruments
  • Lab Facilities


List all key project activities and products, such as publications, events, courses, and presentations. Use a consistent reference style. Use subheadings to group similar items.

  • Presenter(s)/author(s)
  • Date
  • Title
  • Publisher information
  • Event venue and location


List all individuals who have served as project staff, as well as advisors, consultants, and contributors.


    • Name
    • Position (e.g., principal investigator, data analyst, doctoral associate)
    • Dates on project

Advisory Committee Members

    • Name
    • Institution
    • Dates on project

Contributors and Consultants

    • Name
    • Institution
    • Date(s) of contributions
    • Type of contribution (blog author, external evaluator, industry partner

To learn more about project vitae and their uses, see:

Smith, N. L., & Florini, B. M. (1993). The project vita as a documentation and evaluation tool for large-scale research and development projects. Evaluation and Program Planning16(1), 49-53.


Checklist: Project Vita

Checklist: Results from Prior NSF support Checklist

Posted on April 6, 2020 by  in Checklist, Resources ()

If a PI or co-PI for an NSF proposal has received NSF funding in the past five years, information on the results of that funding must be included in the proposal, whether it relates to the current proposal or not. This section of the proposal is called Results from Prior NSF Support; details about what should be included are provided in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide. The following is a synopsis of NSF’s requirements and EvaluATE’s suggestions for this section of an ATE proposal.


  • Limit to 5 pages or less
  • Make it the first section of your proposal. If the proposal is for the renewal of an ATE center, it may be uploaded as a supplementary document rather than presented in the 15-page project description.
  • Describe research and development products and how they have been made available to
  • Clearly indicate the prior project’s
    •  Title
    • NSF award number
    • Period of support
  • Present results using these exact, distinct headings:
    • Intellectual Merit
    • Broader Impact
  • Provide complete bibliographic citations for all publications developed with NSF support,
    either in the narrative or in the separate references document. If there were no publications, state “No publications were produced under this award.”


  • Provide a brief factual account of what the project did, created, and who was engaged. A list of activities or deliverables is not sufficient evidence of intellectual merit or broader impacts, but it is important for reviewers to understand the nature and scope of your prior work.
  • Present as much hard evidence as possible in describe the project’s intellectual merit and
    broader impacts.
  • Be forthright about what didn’t work and lessons learned.
  • Describe how the current proposal is building on the prior project’s results.
  • Describe what aspects of previously funded work are being sustained without NSF support.


NSF Prior Support Checklist (Fillable PDF)

Checklist: Evaluation 101: PI “To-Do” Checklist: Before Launching your Project Evaluation

Posted on April 6, 2020 by  in Checklist, Resources ()

Evaluation 101

PI “To-Do” Checklist: Before Launching your Project Evaluation

What to Do

To / With Whom

Announce or discuss NSF grant Evaluator, partner, and advisor/advisory groups colleagues at your institution

  • SRE/ grand writer and Data person
  • Fellow Faculty
  • PR/ Marketing Dept.
  • Business and Purchasing Offices

The public- with attribution to NSF!

Process Contracts Evaluator

Partners (include providing data as contract obligation)

Discuss evaluation expectations, processes, activities, and timeline (note IRB considerations). Evaluator
Review goals/objectives and identify data capture
needed (and by whom) for the evaluation.
Determine data definitions, time frames for data capture
(e.g., by semester), reporting frequency/dates for project.
Don’t forget to include current status or recent history for
baseline data. Review data management plan
Data Person
Communicate data needs/timelines/reporting dates to partners
from whom you will need data.
Co-PI’s, partner institutions, organizations
Review/set goals for success if not specific in proposal
(actual numbers, not just %) with interim benchmarks for
gauging  progress.
Evaluator, Co-PI’s, partners
Plan evaluation activities and discuss evaluation tools to
be used. Use uniform tools (e.g., surveys) across partnership
and include the capture of demographic data and other
information that will be needed for the ATE Annual Survey
(if not specifically for your project).
Evaluator, Co-PI’s
Discuss evaluation reports to be provided and reporting
dates (align deadlines to your reporting needs: NSF annual report, advisory meeting, etc.).

Checklist provided by Mentor-Connect: Leadership Development and Outreach Initiative for ATE

Copyright 2012: SC ATE Center of Excellence, Florence-Darlington Technical College, Florence, SC 29502-0548. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 1204463. Any opinions findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


Checklist: Principal Investigator “To-Do” Checklist: Before Launching Your Project Evaluation

Checklist: Communication Plan for ATE Principal Investigators and Evaluators

Posted on March 31, 2020 by , in Checklist ()

Creating a clear communication plan at the beginning of an evaluation can help project personnel and evaluators avoid confusion, misunderstandings, or uncertainty. The communication plan should be an agreement between the project’s principal investigator and the evaluator, and followed by members of their respective teams. This checklist highlights the decisions that need to made when developing a clear communication plan.

  • Designate one primary contact person from the project staff and one from the evaluation team. Clearly identify who should be contacted regarding questions, changes, or general updates about the evaluation. The project staff person should be someone who has authority to make decisions or approve small changes that might occur during the evaluation, such as the principal investigator or project manager.
  • Set up recurring meetings to discuss evaluation matters. Decide on the meeting frequency and platform for the project staff and evaluation team to discuss updates on the evaluation. These regular meetings should occur throughout the life of a project.
    • Frequency — At minimum, plan to meet monthly. Increase the frequency as needed to maintain momentum and meet key deadlines.
    • Platform — Real-time interaction via phone calls, web meetings, or in-person meetings will help ensure those involved give adequate attention to the matters being discussed. Do not rely on email or other asynchronous communication platforms.
    • Agenda — Tailor the agendas to reflect the aspects of the evaluation that need attention. In general, the evaluator should provide a status update, identify challenges, and explain what the project staff can do to facilitate the evaluation. The project staff should share important changes or challenges in the project, such as delays in timelines or project staff turnover. Conversations should close with clear action items and deadlines.
  • Agree on a process for reviewing and finalizing data collection instruments and procedures, and evaluation reports. Determine the project staff’s role in providing input on instruments (such as questionnaires or interview protocols), the mechanisms by which data will be collected, and reports. Establish a turnaround time for feedback, to avoid delays in implementing the evaluation.
  • Clarify who is responsible for disseminating reports. As a rule of thumb, responsibility and authority for the distribution of evaluation report lies with the project’s principal investigator. Make it clear whether the evaluator may use the reports for their own purposes and under what conditions.


Communication Checklist (PDF)