Submitted full applications will undergo review using a two-stage peer review process: (1) Internal review and (2) Egg-Tech Prize Steering Committee review
In the first stage, applications will be evaluated by FFAR staff using the application review criteria posted in RFA.
Egg-Tech Prize Steering Committee Review
Applications that meet the minimum criteria will be evaluated by the Egg-Tech Prize Steering Committee based on the review criteria and comparisons with other applications from the same cycle.
Full applications will be evaluated based on scored review criteria and unscored secondary review criteria. Reviewers will evaluate and score each application according to the primary criteria and subsequently assign a global score that reflects an overall assessment of the application. The overall assessment will be informed by the average score global score across reviewers but will also reflect the reviewers’ overall impression of the application and comparison to other applications. Evaluation of the scientific merit of each application is within the sole discretion of the reviewers and they may raise additional factors to consider that are not explicitly covered in the Phase II criteria below.
All reviewers are required to read and acknowledge acceptance of FFAR’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Reviewers with a conflict of interests are recused from evaluating or participating in the discussions of applications with which they have a conflict.
The Egg-Tech Prize Phase II criteria forms the basis for the merit-based review, outlined above.
Day and potential to utilize male eggs (up to 25 points).
Minimum: Functions on or before day 8 of incubation. Preference for solutions with reduced incubation time with pre-incubation most preferred. Protocols involving short periods of incubation during egg storage (SPIODES) will be considered preincubation and given preference. Preference will be given to technologies that enable the use of male eggs in other applications.
Accuracy (up to 20 points).
Minimum: 98 percent accuracy. Preference will be given to technologies that work with all chicken breeds/colors commonly used in commercial production.
Economic Feasibility (up to 20 points).
Score for this criterion will consider economic feasibility based on a cost-benefit analysis and business plan that should include:
- Capital costs incurred by technology developer, per hatchery
- Capital investment for equipment/structure modification by hatchery
- Predicted annual maintenance costs
- Predicted annual consumables costs
- Predicted personnel training and labor requirements (hours)
- Expected utilities requirements of technology
- Potential revenue models
- Lease, subscription, sales, other.
- Other revenue streams for developer
Predicted revenues gained for hatchery in diverting eggs, energy savings, labor, cost-savings from not feeding male chicks (depending on country), etc.
Throughput and physical size (up to 15 points)
Potential for sexing at least 15,000 eggs per hour (more preferred). If multiple units will be used in combination to achieve the desired throughput, only one demonstration unit will be required but all units needed to meet the desired throughput must fit into existing hatchery structures, with reasonable and appropriate modifications.
Hatchability (up to 15 points)
Minimum: Does not reduce hatching rate by more than 1.5 percent from baseline.
Speed of test results (up to 5 points)
Results returned in less than 30 min if eggs are tested during incubation (allowable time for removal, testing and return to incubator).† If eggs are tested prior to incubation, with or without SPIDES, results must be available within 48 hours of testing. Accurate tracking and identification of eggs must be demonstrated.
†Longer times until test result will require placing eggs back into the incubator, in which case they must be removed again for sorting.