Okay. I talked to my dad about this. He is a judge at the NJ regional and Championships, and has been a part of FIRST for many years. He’s been judging since the beginning, so I for one trust his opinion.
The information is strictly for statistics, and to give the judges a little bit more information on where the team comes from. At least at the events he judges, this information is used mostly to understand the resources and the area the teams come from.
Example: A team that doesn’t have as many resources (i.e. no machine shop, no engineers) but still creates a robot that is a strong, robust competitor may have a better shot at, say, the “Delphi Driving Tomorrow’s Technology Award”. Maybe they didn’t have the money to buy aluminum, so they used some other material. However they did it, they used their limited budget to create an elegant machine- on their terms. Meanwhile, another team has just as strong of a robot, but has a team of engineers design and manufacture most of the machine. They have a blank-check sponsorship from some company, and can buy whatever their heart desires (within the rules) to buy parts.
If the judges didn’t know that the first team had a limited budget and no sponsors, (and possibly come from an area - say, an inner city- where science and technology are not as celebrated as we want them to be), then they would probably have picked the second team, because of their outstanding engineering and uniqueness.
However, once they see that the first team is making an equally strong and unique robot on such a limited budget, while the second team is basically having the robot made for them…They have a whole new decision to make.
That is my dad’s explanation, in his words. It doesn’t mean they decide the less fortunate team automatically gets it, but it makes their decision a lot harder. Also, as Pat A said, FIRST needs to put some of that information back into reports to their grantors. It also helps them to know where they need to focus some of their impact for the next year, and how they can get FIRST out to even more people. (They do their own homework, too.)
About the “Awards” section:
If you will notice, the team essay section of TIMS is optional. Teams do not have to do this. If they do not want to, they don’t have to. It is a way for the judges to see how the team evaluates itself. If they consider a part of their design especially unique, we will make sure not to pass over that part of their design. However, we listen to everything they have to say at the events about their team, robot, and design.
Also, the judges never EVER act on personal bias. They have to sign a form that says they won’t. For example, I’m on a team, my dad’s a judge, and 1923 has not won anything (yet?). If we do win, it’s because we truly deserve it, not because my dad feels bad for me. Please do not get the wrong idea about judges- they are completely impartial.
I hope this helps calm things down. I didn’t like those questions when I saw them either, but after hearing the reasons explained, they didn’t really bother me anymore.

EDIT::
I’ve been told “never say never”, and that is correct. They are never supposed to, and while most do not, there are likely to be some that don’t take their position as seriously as they should. I am only speaking on behalf of my father in this post.