(a) Evaluation. All proposals received from eligible applicants and submitted in accordance with deadlines established in the annual program solicitation shall be evaluated by the Director or Administrator through such officers, employees, and others as the Director or Administrator determines are uniquely qualified in the areas of research represented by particular projects. To assist in equitably and objectively evaluating proposals and to obtain the best possible balance of viewpoints, the Director or Administrator shall solicit the advice of peer scientists, ad hoc reviewers, or others who are recognized specialists in the areas covered by the applications received and whose general roles are defined in § 3415.2. Specific evaluations will be based upon the criteria established in subpart B, § 3415.15, unless NIFA and/or ARS determine that different criteria are necessary for the proper evaluation of proposals in one or more specific program areas, or for specific types of projects to be supported, and announces such criteria and their relative importance in the annual program solicitation. The overriding purpose of these evaluations is to provide information upon which the Director or Administrator may make an informed judgment in selecting proposals for support. Incomplete, unclear, or poorly organized applications will work to the detriment of applicants during the peer evaluation process. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, all applications should be written with the care and thoroughness accorded papers for publication.

(b) Disposition. On the basis of the Director's or Administrator's evaluation of an application in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the Director or Administrator will