| Innovation | | |
| | Project represents necessary advances with benefits specified. | 3 |
| | Project represents local implementation of emerging innovation or trend with benefits specified. | 3 |
| | Project represents common practice within the field with benefits specified. | 1 |
| | Insufficient information given about advancement, improvement or benefit. | 0 |
| Need | | |
| | Strong need. Proposal addresses specific need(s) common among peer libraries. | 3 |
| | Need is somewhat evident in the proposal and the overall argument holds. | 2 |
| | Weak presentation of library or community need. | 1 |
| | Unconvincing or no evidence of need presented, or proposal does not address stated need. | 0 |
| Feasibility | | |
| | Project activities, timeline, budget align with project description and outcomes. | 3 |
| | Outcomes appear achievable but variables are present with project activities, timeline, budget. | 2 |
| | Weak description of project, timelines, and budget. Success unlikely. | 1 |
| | Insufficient information given about project activities, timeline, budget. | 0 |
| Assessment | | |
| | Clear picture of how data will be collected and used. | 3 |
| | Plan lacks details on data collection and usage. | 1 |
| | Insufficient information given, evaluation plan missing. | 0 |
| Sustainability | | |
| | Evidence presented that project impact can be sustained locally beyond grant. | 3 |
| | Project is complete, designed to end when grant ends. | 2 |
| | Insufficient information given, NO plans for future of project. | 0 |
| Prior Funding | | |
| | Library has NOT received competitive grant funds in the previous grant cycle (2024). | 3 |
| | Library received competitive grant funding in previous grant cycle (2024). | 0 |
