IPEC was a secondary funding organization. Proposals were solicited within IPEC institutions to accomplish the mission of IPEC in terms of technology development and technology transfer. Although other academic institutions and nonprofit organizations potentially could receive funding from IPEC, all proposals were submitted by investigators from IPEC institutions to the IPEC Executive Committee for funding consideration. The Executive Committee sought input from the IAB and SAC in these decisions as discussed below in detail. The faculty at IPEC institutions were well represented in peer-reviewed journals and publications; were active members of professional societies with interests in petroleum environmental issues; and had developed professional relationships with many national and regional research and training centers focused on environmental sciences and engineering.

IPEC periodically issued Calls for Proposals based on guidance from the IAB. The Board identified critical research needs that formed the basis of solicitations. Unsolicited proposals were also accepted for review as long as funds were available during any given budget period.

The evaluation process began with the submission of a pre-proposal to the chair of the IPEC Executive Committee. All pre-proposals were then reviewed by the IAB for relevance to the mission of IPEC. The Board developed written criteria for these evaluations and established an approval level of 80% of voting members. Therefore, the Board was very nearly unanimous in approving a pre-proposal. In this way only those proposals that had, in the view of the IAB, significant potential for improving the competitiveness of the industry could move forward in the review process. In order to prevent the ultimate rejection of deserving research pre-proposals by the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) due to a misunderstanding, for whatever reason, by members of that body of the nature or promise of such research, a formal procedure was established by which any investigator had recourse and opportunity to more fully explain how their research met the mission criteria of IPEC and the needs of the petroleum industry. Pre-proposals rejected by the IAB were also sent to the SAC for further review. If the SAC found any of these pre-proposals to be especially interesting, the SAC could recommend (with justification) that the IAB reconsider the pre-proposals.

Investigators whose pre-proposals were consistent with IPEC's mission were asked to submit a more formal technical proposal. All full proposals submitted to the IPEC Executive Committee were then subjected to technical review by the SAC to ensure that the scientific quality of the work proposed met EPA standards.

    Guide for Preparation of Full Proposals pdf download

Final decisions for funding were made by the IPEC Executive Committee based on SAC input, satisfactory response by the principal investigator to any SAC suggestions, availability of funds, availability of sufficient matching funds, and acceptance of the project QA/QC plan by the IPEC Quality Assurance Officer. When a project was recommended for funding The University of Tulsa, as the fiscal center of IPEC, issued a subcontract to institutions participating in the project. IPEC followed any and all required EPA and federal guidelines.

At all stages of the technology development process the IPEC Executive Committee, the IAB, and the SAC were informed of the progress of each project through quarterly progress reports. As noted above the SAC reviewed final budget period reports and recommended acceptance or rejection to the IPEC Executive Committee. Final payment was withheld until any deficiencies were resolved to the satisfaction of the IPEC Executive Committee and SAC. The progress of each project was communicated to the petroleum industry via various mechanisms for dissemination of information.