Q Value: 100 pts Due Date: 04/24 11:59 p.m. Peer review required: No Type of Teamwork: Teams of 2 Assignment overview: For this assignment, students will work in teams of two to read, assess, and evaluate 4 proposals, and then make recommendations for the scenario provided: Munger Case 4 documents.pdf. Before you begin, read the Munger document completely. Then, carefully consider the Heathcot-Ann Foundation’s goals and evaluation criteria. Complete the Task on page 40 of the Munger document, which requires that you evaluate the 4 proposals provided and make funding recommendations to the Heathcot-Ann Foundation board. Remember, “when making award decisions, you may decide to fund a project fully, partially, or not at all. . . . Your challenge, the same one all reviewers face, is to identify the proposals that have the best chance of furthering the funding source’s goals” (Munger, pg 39). Task: In a memo to the Healthcot-Ann Foundation board, discuss the four proposals and your evaluation of them. Rank the proposals from best to worst, list monetary awards, and provide a concise justification for your recommendations. Submission directions: • Click the assignment link (Proposals – Assignment 3). • Attach your Memo. • Include your teammate's name in the message box. • Team members will submit a copy of the same memo. • Submit before the due date. • Open your grade book and check the submission. • If needed, resubmit the document as many times as necessary until the due date. • NO LATE WORK will be accepted; any late work submitted will earn a zero; any major assignment not submitted on time will result in automatic course failure. Other: • All submissions will go through SafeAssign. You can review the results and resubmit if /as needed. • DO NOT check the box to allow SafeAssign to add your document to its global database. Assignment 3 grading rubric Proposal Assessment – Team assignment Memo Assessment: 1. Memo format is correct 2. The memo has a clear intro, body, and conclusion: • The introduction introduces and contextualizes the award decisions (restate what you were asked to do, and why, using what evaluation criteria) • The middle section Identifies each proposal and discusses its strengths and weaknesses (according to the Foundation’s goals and evaluation criteria) in a logical organizational pattern • The middle section also includes the ranking and award amounts for all proposals in an easy-to-read, visually pleasing way (perhaps a table?) • The conclusion thanks the reader for the opportunity to assist the Foundation, invites questions and includes contact information. 3. Sentences are complete 4. Language use is business-like and fluid 5. Proofreading and editing are obvious (mechanical errors, if any, are minimal) A+ 100 – 98 A 97 – 93 A- 92 – 90 B+ 89 – 88 B 87 – 83 B- 82 – 80 C+ 79 – 78 C 77 – 73 C- 72 – 70 D+ 69 – 68 D 67 – 63 D- 62 – 60 F > 59 Total points