More info here.
And don’t miss the overview of the review process. Department reps promised a completely uncompromized review, but I’m hearing questions about whether it was wise to eliminate over 75% of prospective reviewers for any whiff of a conflict of interest. Sure, you wouldn’t want to include a writer of a Development proposal on a Development panel, but couldn’t their understanding of the program be useful on a Validation panel?
In the end, they chose 330 unblemished panelists and provided training (no details offered) on the program. Expect to hear some noisy complaints about panelist comments in conflict with program requirements.
I’m looking forward to reading some of the winning narratives. They’ll be posted on data.ed.gov.