The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
d.)
what was the role of the SSC in assuring that standard suite measurements were funded?
e.)
were the U.S. oceanographic research vessels used by your program adequate for the tasks?
f.)
were the U.S. submersible platforms used by your program adequate for the tasks?
g.)
were the vessels/platforms available when needed and for the duration required?
B.
Proposal Evaluation
1.
What was the role of the SSC (or executive committee) in individual proposal evaluation? (please elaborate on any that apply)
a.)
Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the proposals submitted to your program?
b.)
Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on program relevance?
c.)
Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the quality of the science?
d.)
Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the budget?
e.)
Does the SSC have an opportunity to provide other comments?
2.
Does/did the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the ensemble of selected proposals to identify gaps and/or redundancies?
C.
General
1.
How could the implementation planning be (or have been) improved?
2.
Should more or less time be (or have been) spent in planning before field work started?
3.
What recommendations do you have to facilitate future development of interdisciplinary programs?
IV.
Field Phase Management
A.
Contingencies
1.
Were there any unexpected events which required a modification to the Implementation Plan? How were they handled?
2.
Were funds programmed for contingencies or was supplemental funding needed?
3.
Was there flexibility in funding to address new scientific questions which only appeared as the program evolved? How were these handled?
