Grants managers
Run each application, steer the agents, send outside requests and finalize as preparer
- The draft scored on FRA's scales before the panel
- Shipper commitments arriving as fields and signed files
- Debrief lessons kept as standing checks
Features
CRISI grant application features, scoresheet first and Grants.gov last
The grants manager, the chief engineer, the CFO and the president use them on one application to rebuild a line for 286,000-lb cars.
demoSample data throughout: the railroad, its shippers, its staff and every figure.
- 01Scoresheet
CRISI grant application read against FRA's evaluation scales, row by row
- FRA's scales laid out as scored rows. Eligibility, readiness risk, technical merit, benefits and the statute's selection considerations sit beside the draft, so the grants manager sees the draft as a panelist will.
- Each row tied to its answering paragraphs. Click a row and the narrative lights up where it answers, so a criterion with nothing behind it shows up before submission.
- Evidence strength and the gap named. A thin row says what is missing and who owes it, so the fix lands with the engineer, the CFO or a shipper by name.
- 02Benefit-cost sheet
Benefit-cost analysis worked line by line, each benefit traced to a source
- How each benefit line is worked. Cars, truck-miles, unit values and years sit beside each present value, so the economist audits arithmetic without rebuilding a workbook.
- Assumptions labeled for an analyst to confirm. Sample unit values, the residual and the base year carry their label on the sheet, so nothing assumed reaches FRA dressed as measured.
- Diversion counted for the years shippers sign. Truck-to-rail benefits run only for the term in the letters, so a reviewer finds no long benefit stream resting on a short commitment.
- 03Panel read
Draft attacked the way FRA's technical review panel would score it
- Points written as a reviewer would say them. Each point states the weakness a panelist would score down, so the weak spot is fixed days before the deadline instead of read in the debrief.
- Mistakes in the agents' own work. Their drafts get the same scrutiny as people's, so a double-counted benefit is struck before the ratio reaches a signature.
- Answered from a source or handed over. What a document settles is answered by an agent; a contingency basis or a federal-share reason goes to the engineer or the CFO.
- 04Scope what-if
Full rebuild against a first phase, priced before the scope is settled
- Options set next to each other. Each option shows its cost, federal request, match, shippers reached and ratio, so the chief engineer sees which shipper a phase would strand.
- Discount rate and haul as a rehearsal. Other assumptions can be tried without touching the application; the method itself changes only through a setting the CFO approves.
- Steered variants kept beside the draft. An instruction given mid-run, such as dropping one trestle, builds a variant, and the application keeps its scope until the engineer adopts it.
- 05Shipper portal
Letters of support with committed carloads, answered in fixed fields
- Carloads, years and conditions asked as fields. Shippers commit a number, a term and any condition, so benefits rest on signed figures.
- Signed letter attached to its answer. The letterhead PDF travels with its fields, so package and sheet cite one document.
- Each outside party sees only its request. Shippers, the state rail division and the consulting engineer answer in a portal with no view of the railroad's working screens.
- 06Typed note
A shipper's typed note held for the grants manager before finalizing
- Free text kept away from the agents. A note typed beside the fields reaches the grants manager word for word, and finalizing waits until the manager has read it.
- A logged call before counting. Counting carloads a shipper asked to discuss first is refused until the call is logged, so no number goes to FRA over a shipper's objection.
- Conditions taken only from the letter's field. The narrative states a rate condition only when the shipper's own field states one, so the application carries no term the shipper did not set.
- 07Readiness sign-off
Contingency basis and class of action signed by the chief engineer
- Readiness packet opened before signing. Signing is refused until the environmental screening memo, the Buy America source table and the estimate have been opened.
- Contingency basis in the engineer's words. Unit-price sources do not explain a contingency, so the basis that goes into the cost section is written and owned by the chief engineer.
- One sign-off for scope, cost and readiness. Class of action, sourcing plan and estimate close together, while the readiness row keeps the risk rating the engineer's basis supports.
- 08Match sign-off
Federal share and non-federal match decided by the CFO, in a stated reason
- Match and federal share in one sign-off. The CFO signs only after the read and after the chief engineer confirms the estimate the match is figured on.
- Federal-share reason written for the narrative. The statute prefers projects asking half or less, so the reason for asking more goes into the funding section as the CFO wrote it.
- Reason checked against the board resolution. A reason saying capital is committed elsewhere is refused, so the funding section cannot undercut the railroad's own showing of financial capacity.
- 09Certify and submit
Authorized representative signs the cover form with each shipper note in view
- Scoresheet and certifications opened first. Signing opens only after both are read, so the cover form's certification follows a reading of what it certifies.
- Each shipper note in its exact words. Each note shows with the grants manager's decision, so the authorized representative knows what each shipper asked.
- Submission kept as a person's act. Agents prepare and check; only the authorized representative sends it through Grants.gov.