Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evaluation Portal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Program staff outline portal quirks and scoring rules; evaluators advised to use drafts and placeholders
Summary
Staff walked evaluators through the evaluation portal, noting required score fields that currently block submission, recommended workarounds (save drafts, use placeholders), and resources including office hours, a scoring tracking sheet and an evaluator handbook. Portal pagination can hide unscored items if reviewers don't change page-size.
A program presenter guided evaluators through the evaluation portal and scoring mechanics, emphasizing that some score fields must be filled to submit and that the portal presently requires placeholders in certain fields as a workaround. The presenter warned that the portal page default (20 items per page) can cause evaluations to be missed if reviewers don't check additional pages and urged reviewers to save drafts frequently.
The presenter summarized the categories to be scored (project summary; readiness and scheduling; economic impact; recreation access and value; and required supportive materials) and noted that the project summary carries significant weight in the overall score. Staff encouraged constructive comments (which are shared anonymously) and explained reviewers can save progress and return to draft evaluations, or ask staff to revert a submitted evaluation to draft if changes are needed.
Staff acknowledged ongoing technical limits in the portal and said they have workarounds; one participant offered to connect program staff with Salesforce contacts for technical help. Staff also said they will publish optional resources (a scoring tracking spreadsheet and an estimated-price list) and hold office hours to support reviewers.
Practical guidance for reviewers: change the portal page-size if you have more than 20 evaluations to avoid missing items; fill required score fields to allow submission (placeholders are acceptable when necessary); and reach out to program staff with portal issues or substantive applicant questions.
The presenter closed by noting that staff will continue to refine the portal and standardize scoring behind the scenes so that slight placeholder differences do not affect fairness. No formal action or vote was taken; the meeting closed with reminders about the April 19 submission deadline and the April 30–May 1 scoring meetings at Bryce.
