Canada Biomedical Research Fund and Biosciences Research Infrastructure Fund (CBRF-BRIF)
Stage 2 ratings matrices


On this page

Using the matrices

For each criterion, the reviewer is asked to consider relevant elements, which may include a few, several or all elements outlined in the matrix. Like the selection criteria descriptions, the ratings descriptions are not meant to be exhaustive. The matrices are intended to be used as a guide. Unless otherwise noted, a proposal does not have to be rated Exceptional against all elements to receive an Exceptional rating for the criterion overall. It is left to the discretion of the reviewer to balance assessments of individual elements and to provide an overall rating per criterion.

For each of the evaluation criteria, the matrices indicate four ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Fair and Poor. However, committee members will use a seven-point scale in their assessments, selecting ratings that fall between the four described. The seven-point rating scale for evaluation criteria is as follows:

Only meritorious proposals will be reviewed by the SRC. To be considered meritorious, a component must receive a consensus rating of Good on all relevant criteria.

CBRF-BRIF terms and definitions

For the CBRF-BRIF program, highly qualified personnel (HQP) refers to students, research technicians, postdoctoral researchers, research associates and other technical or research personnel.

Team refers to the individuals who are participating in the application (e.g., project director, co-director, team member(s)).

An early career researcher (ECR) is a researcher within five years from the start date of their first research-related appointment, minus the length of any eligible delays in research (e.g., illness, maternity, parental), as of the first day of the month in which the competition is launched.

Research criteria

For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.

Relevance: extent to which the research component’s objectives and design meet the hub’s vision, priorities and program of research
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Partnered, applied research that supports the hub’s vision, priorities and program of research The research objectives and design are significantly aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The research objectives and design are aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The research objectives and design are somewhat aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. There is limited alignment between the research objectives and the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research.
Effectiveness: extent to which the research component is expected to achieve its objectives
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Scientific excellence of the research activities The research activities are comprehensively positioned within the current landscape of the field.

The research activities will enable a competitive and innovative research program. 		The research activities are well positioned within the current landscape of the field.

The research activities will enable a competitive research program. 		The research activities are insufficiently positioned within the current landscape of the field.

The research activities will enable a generic research program. 		The research activities are poorly positioned within the current landscape of the field.

The research activities will enable a limited research program.
Appropriateness and feasibility of the research activities

*Where appropriate, research activities should include active engagement and collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

*Where applicable, materials, processes and procedures used and developed should be in accordance with established standards, such as Good Laboratory Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices. 		All described activities are feasible, and the methodological approach(es)* are highly appropriate to the expected outcomes.

All methodological limitations are addressed, and sound plans to mitigate these limitations are included.

Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and/or gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) are fully integrated into the approach(es).

The infrastructure and tools described are highly appropriate to the research activities. 		Most described activities are feasible, and the methodological approach(es)* are appropriate to the expected outcomes.

Most methodological limitations are addressed, and sound plans to mitigate these limitations are included.

Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and/or gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) are integrated into the approach(es).

The infrastructure and tools described are appropriate to the research activities. 		Some described activities are feasible, and the methodological approach(es)* are somewhat appropriate to the expected outcomes.

Some methodological limitations are addressed and/or plans to mitigate limitations are basic.

Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and/or gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) are partially integrated into the approach(es).

The infrastructure and tools described are somewhat appropriate to the research activities. 		Most described activities are not feasible and/or the methodological approach(es)* are inappropriate to the expected outcomes.

Methodological limitations are inadequately addressed and/or plans to mitigate any limitations are insufficient.

Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and/or gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) are not integrated into the approach(es).

The infrastructure and tools described are inappropriate or inadequate to the research activities.
Necessary expertise to deliver on the component’s objectives The research team has significant expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines. The research team has the appropriate expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines. The research team’s expertise is somewhat appropriate and/or only includes perspectives and capacity from some relevant sectors and disciplines. The research team has limited expertise and/or only includes perspectives and capacity from a limited number of relevant sectors and disciplines.
Efficiency: extent to which the research component is likely to deliver results in an efficient and timely manner
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Appropriateness of the scope and timeline The scope and timeline of the research activities are highly appropriate for the funding duration and are sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline of research activities are appropriate for the funding duration and are sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline of research activities are somewhat appropriate for the funding duration and/or are only somewhat sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline of research activities are inappropriate for the funding duration and/or are insufficient to conduct the described activities.
Appropriateness of the budget The budget is comprehensive and highly appropriate for the research activities. The budget is appropriate for the research activities. The budget is somewhat appropriate for the research activities. The budget is inappropriate for the research activities.
Effectiveness of the oversight structure(s) and plan(s)

*Plans should include:
  • appropriate methods and indicators for monitoring progress and assessing outcomes;
  • a description of the specific roles and expertise of members involved in the governance structure; and
  • data management considerations, as appropriate.
The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are highly appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are somewhat appropriate and will enable somewhat effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are inappropriate and/or will not enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress.
Impact: extent to which the research component is expected to generate significant benefits
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Partnered and applied research that will support the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector The research results will provide significant benefits to Canada’s pandemic preparedness, emerging health threats and/or biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. Research results will benefit Canada’s pandemic preparedness, emerging health threats and/or the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. Research results will provide some benefits to Canada’s pandemic preparedness, emerging health threats and/or biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. Research results will provide limited benefits to Canada’s pandemic preparedness, emerging health threats and/or biomanufacturing and life sciences sector.
Commercialization, technology transfer and/or knowledge mobilization plans are in place The approach is feasible and includes significant engagement of end-users and consideration of intellectual property protection, where appropriate. The approach is feasible and includes engagement of end-users and consideration of intellectual property protection, where appropriate. The approach is somewhat feasible and includes limited engagement of end-users and some consideration of intellectual property protection, where appropriate. The approach is not feasible and/or does not adequately include engagement of end-users and/or consideration of intellectual property protection.
Support for training and mentoring of HQP The research activities fully support the training and mentoring of HQP and will provide a broad variety of opportunities for their meaningful contribution. The research activities support the training and mentoring of HQP and will provide several opportunities for their meaningful contribution. The research activities somewhat support the training and mentoring of HQP and will provide some opportunities for their meaningful contribution. The research activities provide limited support for the training and mentoring of HQP and will provide limited opportunities for their meaningful contribution.
Contribution of partners: extent to which partners concretely contribute to the research component
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Appropriateness of partners Partners from all relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

All partners and collaborators are highly appropriate to the activities and will support innovation, mobilize results and accelerate the translation of promising discoveries into products and services. 		Partners from all relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

Most partners and collaborators are appropriate to the activities and will support innovation, mobilize results and accelerate the translation of promising discoveries into products and services. 		Partners from some relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

The partners and collaborators are somewhat appropriate to the activities and will somewhat support innovation, mobilize results and/or will not accelerate the translation of promising discoveries into products and services. 		Few partners from relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

How they will support innovation and mobilize results is unclear.
Contribution of partners Partners were extensively involved in the creation and design of the research component and are strongly committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were involved in the creation and design of the research component and are committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were somewhat involved in the creation and design of the research component and/or are somewhat committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were minimally involved in the creation and design of the research component and/or there is limited commitment to supporting its objectives.
Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and early career researchers (ECRs): extent to which commitment to EDI and ECRs is demonstrated in the research component
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Actions to remove barriers and ensure opportunities for the recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented groups and ECRs There is in-depth understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the research activities.

More than one concrete practice related to each of the described barriers is identified. Implementation of the practices and the expected impact on EDI are explained.

ECRs are included in the team and are integrated in a meaningful way. 		There is strong understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the research activities.

Many concrete practices related to described barriers are identified. Implementation of the practices and the expected impact on EDI are explained.

ECRs are included in the team and are integrated in a meaningful way. 		There is some understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the research activities.

Some concrete practices are identified without relating them to described barriers or making clear how they will be implemented. The impact of described practices is not evident.

ECRs are included in the team but are not fully integrated. 		There is limited understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the research activities.

Concrete practices are not identified or don’t relate to described barriers.

Meaningful integration of ECRs is not demonstrated.

Talent development criteria

For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.

Relevance: extent to which the talent development component’s objectives and design meet the hub’s vision, priorities and program of research
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Objectives and design support the hub’s vision, priorities and program of research The objectives and design are significantly aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The talent development component effectively supports one or more research components. The objectives and design are aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The talent development component sufficiently supports one or more research components. The objectives and design are somewhat aligned with the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The talent development component somewhat supports one or more research components. There is limited alignment between the objectives and the endorsing hub’s vision, priorities and program of research. The talent development component provides limited support to one or more research components.
Effectiveness: extent to which the talent development component is expected to achieve its objectives
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Appropriateness and feasibility of the activities All described activities are feasible and highly appropriate to the expected outcomes.

The infrastructure and tools described are highly appropriate to the talent development activities.

All limitations are addressed and sound plans to mitigate limitations are included. 		Most described activities are feasible and appropriate to the expected outcomes.

The infrastructure and tools described are appropriate to the talent development activities.

Most limitations are addressed and sound plans to mitigate limitations are included. 		Some of the described activities are feasible and somewhat appropriate to the expected outcomes.

The infrastructure and tools described are somewhat appropriate to the talent development activities.

Some limitations are addressed and/or plans to mitigate limitations are basic. 		The described activities are not feasible and/or inappropriate to the expected outcomes.

The infrastructure and tools described are inappropriate or inadequate to the talent development activities.

Limitations are inadequately addressed and/or plans to mitigate limitations are insufficient.
Necessary expertise to deliver on the objectives The team has significant expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines. The team has the appropriate expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines. The team’s expertise is somewhat appropriate and/or includes perspectives and capacity from some relevant sectors and disciplines. The team has limited expertise and/or only includes perspectives and capacity from a limited number of relevant sectors and disciplines.
Efficiency: extent to which the development component is likely to deliver results in an efficient and timely manner
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Appropriateness of the scope and timeline The scope and timeline are highly appropriate for the funding duration and are sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline are appropriate for the funding duration and are sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline are somewhat appropriate for the funding duration and/or are only somewhat sufficient to conduct the described activities. The scope and timeline are inappropriate for the funding duration and/or are insufficient to conduct the described activities.
Appropriateness of the budget The budget is comprehensive and highly appropriate for the talent development activities. The budget is appropriate for the talent development activities. The budget is somewhat appropriate for the talent development activities. The budget is inappropriate for the talent development activities.
Effectiveness of the oversight structure(s) and plan(s)

*Plans should include:
  • appropriate methods and indicators for monitoring progress and assessing outcomes; and
  • a description of the specific roles and expertise of governance structure members.
 The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are highly appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are somewhat appropriate and will enable somewhat effective oversight of the research activities’ progress. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s)* are inappropriate and/or will not enable effective oversight of the research activities’ progress.
Impact: extent to which the talent development component is expected to generate significant benefits
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Extent to which the component supports the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector The described activities will provide a highly enriching value-added experience to trainees and HQP and will enable the development of a variety of skills relevant to the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. The described activities will provide a value-added experience to trainees and HQP and will enable the development of multiple skills relevant to the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. The described activities will provide an experience of limited value to trainees and HQP and will somewhat enable the development of skills relevant to the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. The described activities are not likely to provide a value-added experience to HQP or enable the development of skills relevant to the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector.
Extent to which the component promotes mobility of HQP and facilitates their transition to careers within and beyond academia The proposed activities include a variety of highly valuable opportunities that promote mobility of HQP and facilitate transition to careers within and beyond academia. The proposed activities include several valuable opportunities that promote mobility of HQP and facilitate transition to careers within and beyond academia. The proposed activities include some opportunities that promote mobility of HQP and facilitate transition to careers within and beyond academia. The proposed activities include very few opportunities of limited value that promote mobility of HQP and facilitate transition to careers within and beyond academia.
Contribution of partners: extent to which partners concretely contribute to the talent development component
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Appropriateness of partners Partners from all relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

The partners and collaborators are highly appropriate to the activities and will provide enriched training experiences. 		Partners from most relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

The partners and collaborators are appropriate to the activities and will provide enriched training experiences. 		Partners from some relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

The partners and collaborators are somewhat appropriate to the activities and will provide training experiences. 		Few partners from relevant disciplines and sectors are included.

Training experiences are limited.
Contribution of partners Partners were extensively involved in the creation and design of the talent development component and are strongly committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were involved in the creation and design of the talent development component and are committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were somewhat involved in the creation and design of the talent development component and/or are somewhat committed to supporting its objectives. Partners were minimally involved in the creation and design of the talent development component and/or there is limited commitment to supporting its objectives.
Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and early career researchers (ECRs): extent to which commitment to EDI and ECRs is demonstrated in the talent development component
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Actions taken to remove systemic barriers and ensure opportunities for the recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented groups and ECRs There is in-depth understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the talent development activities.

More than one concrete practice related to each of the described barriers is identified. Implementation of the practices and the expected impact on EDI are explained.

ECRs are included in the team and are integrated in a meaningful way. 		There is strong understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the talent development activities.

Many concrete practices related to described barriers are identified. Implementation of the practices and the expected impact on EDI are explained.

ECRs are included in the team and are integrated in a meaningful way. 		There is some understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the talent development activities.

The proposal identifies some concrete practices without relating them to described barriers or making clear how they will be implemented. The impact of described practices is not evident.

ECRs are included in the team but are not fully integrated. 		There is limited understanding of EDI considerations/systemic barriers with respect to participation in the talent development activities.

Concrete practices are not identified or don’t relate to described barriers.

Meaningful integration of ECRs is not demonstrated.

Infrastructure criteria

For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.

Need: extent to which the infrastructure component efficiently supports research component(s) submitted by institutions
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Extent to which the infrastructure will support the ongoing research activities in the supported component(s) The infrastructure is necessary to effectively support all proposed and/or future research activities.

All requested items are highly appropriate. 		The infrastructure is appropriate to sufficiently support all proposed and/or future research activities.

All requested items are appropriate. 		The infrastructure is appropriate to support some of the proposed and/or future research activities.

Some of the requested items are inappropriate. 		The infrastructure is appropriate to support only a limited portion of the proposed and/or future research activities.

Most of the requested items are inappropriate.
Appropriateness of the budget The budget is comprehensive and highly appropriate for all planned infrastructure purchases. The budget is appropriate for all planned infrastructure purchases The budget is insufficient for some planned infrastructure purchases. The budget is insufficient for most planned infrastructure purchases.
Building capacity: extent to which the infrastructure component enhances the research capacity of the institution(s) to support the hub’s vision, priorities and program of research
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Complementarity to existing capacity The requested infrastructure is highly complementary to and optimally leverages the existing infrastructure to significantly enhance institutional research capacity. The requested infrastructure is complementary to and leverages the existing infrastructure to enhance institutional research capacity. The requested infrastructure is somewhat complementary to and partially leverages the existing infrastructure, resulting in limited enhancements to the institution’s research capacity. The requested infrastructure is not complementary to and does not leverage the existing infrastructure, resulting in little to no impact on the institution’s research capacity.
Necessary expertise to make optimal use of the infrastructure The team has significant expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines necessary to make optimal use of the infrastructure. The team has the appropriate expertise that includes perspectives and capacity from all relevant sectors and disciplines necessary to make optimal use of the infrastructure. The team’s expertise is somewhat appropriate and/or only includes perspectives and capacity from some relevant sectors and disciplines. It is unlikely that the infrastructure will be optimally used. The team has limited expertise and/or only includes perspectives and capacity from a limited number of relevant sectors and disciplines. It is unlikely that the infrastructure will be optimally used.
Sustainability: extent to which the infrastructure component will be optimally used and maintained over its useful life
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Effectiveness of the oversight plan(s) The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s) are highly appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the purchase and maintenance of the infrastructure. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s) are appropriate and will enable effective oversight of the purchase and maintenance of the infrastructure. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s) are somewhat appropriate and will enable somewhat effective oversight of the purchase and maintenance of the infrastructure. The oversight structure(s) and/or plan(s) are inappropriate and/or will not enable effective oversight of the purchase and maintenance of the infrastructure.
Appropriateness of the financial resources for the operation and maintenance The outlined operating and maintenance costs are comprehensive. Highly appropriate plans and extensive resources are in place to sustain the infrastructure over its useful life. The outlined operating and maintenance costs are satisfactory. Appropriate plans and sufficient resources are in place to sustain the infrastructure over its useful life. Some of the operating and maintenance costs are insufficient. Incomplete plans and/or limited resources are in place to sustain the infrastructure over its useful life. The outlined operating and maintenance costs are inadequate. Incomplete plans and/or insufficient resources are in place to sustain the infrastructure over its useful life.
Equitable access to the infrastructure There is in-depth understanding of systemic barriers preventing equitable access to the infrastructure.

More than one concrete practice related to each of the described barriers is identified. Implementation of the practices to effectively ensure equitable access is explained. 		There is strong understanding of systemic barriers preventing equitable access to the infrastructure.

Many concrete practices related to described barriers are identified. Implementation of the practices to sufficiently ensure equitable access is explained. 		There is some understanding of systemic barriers preventing equitable access to the infrastructure.

Some concrete practices are identified without relating them to described barriers or making clear how they will be implemented. The impact of described practices on equitable access is not evident. 		There is limited understanding of systemic barriers preventing equitable access to the infrastructure. Concrete practices are not identified or don’t relate to identified barriers.

Strategic review criteria

For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.

Relevance: extent to which proposals’ objectives and design respond to the strategic objectives and the Strategy
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
The proposal supports one or more strategic objectives and is aligned with the Strategy The proposed activities are significantly aligned with the Strategy and more than one of the strategic objectives of the funding opportunity. The proposed activities are aligned with the Strategy and one or more of the strategic objectives of the funding opportunity. The proposed activities are somewhat aligned with the Strategy and/or the relevant strategic objectives of the funding opportunity. There is limited alignment between the proposed activities and the Strategy and/or the relevant strategic objectives of the funding opportunity.
Impact: extent to which proposals are expected to generate significant benefits for Canada
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
The proposal has the potential to significantly contribute to advancing Canada’s key bio-innovation capabilities The proposal strategically leverages diverse cross-sector and multidisciplinary partnerships with a very strong translational potential.

The proposed activities are expected to significantly bolster Canada’s key bio-innovation capabilities and the Canadian biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. 		The proposal leverages cross-sector and multidisciplinary partnerships with a strong translational potential.

The proposed activities are expected to bolster Canada’s key bio-innovation capabilities and the Canadian biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. 		The proposal somewhat leverages cross-sector and multidisciplinary partnerships and/or identifies some partners with a limited translational potential.

The proposed activities are expected to somewhat bolster Canada’s key bio-innovation capabilities and the Canadian biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. 		The proposal insufficiently leverages cross-sector and multidisciplinary partnerships and/or identifies partners with a limited translational potential.

The proposed activities are expected to have a limited impact on Canada’s key bio-innovation capabilities and the Canadian biomanufacturing and life sciences sector.
Coherence: extent to which the proposal complements other proposals within and across hubs
  Exceptional Very good Fair Poor
Complementarity of the proposal to other proposals within and across hubs The proposal strategically leverages and complements other proposals submitted within and across hubs.

The proposal strongly contributes to a coherent, coordinated and effective program of research. 		The proposal leverages and complements other proposals submitted within and across hubs.

The proposal contributes to a coherent, coordinated and effective program of research. 		The proposal somewhat leverages and complements other proposals submitted within and across hubs.

The proposal partially contributes to a coherent, coordinated and effective program of research. 		The proposal insufficiently leverages or complements other proposals submitted within and across hubs.

The proposal minimally contributes to a coherent, coordinated and effective program of research.

Date modified: