Grant proposals rejected on poor DMP?

I've been following an interesting thread from the US that I thought worth sharing. It could be the shape of things to come in Australia?

The thread started with this post:

Out of curiosity, does your institution collect information on grant proposals that were rejected based primarily on a poor DMP?
Do you know if any institution or funder would collect or share this information?

Have you encountered PIs who had their grant proposal rejected based on an unacceptable DMP and if yes, did they have the opportunity to revise and resubmit?

Since we stress the importance of DMPs to PIs, it would be useful to have some examples or stats that back-up their importance/impact on a proposals success  


Snippets from some of the more interesting responses are copied below:

A while back, I spoke with Andrew Stephenson, the Associate Dean for Research in the Eberly College of Science, Penn State, about data curation and such. DMPs came up as a topic that he wants all his incoming grad students to know about. He worked on a selection committee for grants from NSF and said there were so many good proposals with such limited funds that any proposal without a good DMP was placed in the "no further consideration" pile immediately. He did not mention returning them.



Our institution doesn’t collect this information, so I’m not sure if we really
know why proposals are rejected. In my experience, the Office of Research
doesn’t receive the reviewers comments, so unless the PI decides to share the
reason for rejection, no one else knows.  However, in the last 6 months, I’ve
had three ‘Requests for Information’ about the DMP – the grant review panel
has asked the PI to improve the DMP before the proposal would be considered
further.

 See also this interesting blog post which also mentions request for revision of a DMP
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/stories/supporting-ncsu-researchers-managing-their-data