[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30160-30165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13690]
[[Page 30159]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 700
Standards for the Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried Out by
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement--Evaluation of
Applications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Proposals for
Contracts; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 30160]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 700
RIN 1850-AA51
Standards for the Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried
Out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)--
Evaluation of Applications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements and
Proposals for Contracts
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and
Improvement proposes to add regulations that establish standards for
the evaluation of applications for grants and cooperative agreements
and proposals for contracts. The development of these standards is
required by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement's
authorizing legislation, the ``Educational Research, Development,
Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994.'' The standards will ensure
that such application and proposal evaluation activities meet the
highest standards of professional excellence.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Edward J. Fuentes, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New
Jersey Avenue, N.W., Room 600, Washington, D.C. 20208-5530. Comments
may also be sent through Internet to stan____comments@inet.ed.gov.
A copy of any comments that concern information collection
requirements should also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget
at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Fuentes. Telephone (202)
219-1895. Internet electronic mail address:
stan____questions@inet.ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-227,
which includes Title IX--the ``Educational Research, Development,
Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994'' (the Act). The Act
restructured the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
and endowed it with a broad mandate to conduct an array of research,
development, dissemination, and improvement activities aimed at
strengthening the education of all students. The Act also required the
establishment of a National Educational Research Policy and Priorities
Board (the Board) to work collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary
to identify priorities to guide the work of OERI.
Statutory Requirements
The legislation directed the Assistant Secretary to develop, in
consultation with the Board, such standards as may be necessary to
govern the conduct and evaluation of all research, development, and
dissemination activities carried out by the Office to ensure that such
activities meet the highest standards of professional excellence. Such
standards shall at a minimum--
(a) Require that a process of open competition be used in awarding
or entering into all grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements
under the Act;
(b) Require that a system of peer review be utilized by the Office
for--
(1) Reviewing and evaluating all applications for grants and
cooperative agreements and proposals for those contracts which exceed
$100,000;
(2) Evaluating and assessing the performance of all recipients of
grants from and cooperative agreements and contracts with the Office;
and
(3) Reviewing and designating exemplary and promising programs in
accordance with section 941(d) of the Act;
(c) Describe the general procedures which shall be used by each
peer review panel in its operations;
(d)(1) Describe the procedures which shall be utilized in
evaluating applications for grants and cooperative agreements and
contract proposals; and
(2) Specify the criteria and factors which shall be considered in
making such evaluations;
(e) Describe the procedures which shall be utilized in reviewing
educational programs for designation as exemplary or promising
programs; and
(f) Require that the performance of all recipients of grants from
and contracts and cooperative agreements with the Office shall be
periodically evaluated, both during and at the conclusion of their
receipt of assistance.
The Act also requires that the Assistant Secretary review the
procedures utilized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
National Science Foundation (NSF), and other Federal departments or
agencies engaged in research and development and actively solicit
recommendations from research organizations and members of the general
public. OERI has: (1) Reviewed peer review procedures used by NIH, NSF,
and various program offices within the Department of Education; (2)
requested recommendations from research organizations and associations;
and (3) solicited public comment on standards of peer review and
program evaluation activities through a general notice requesting
comments on the implementation of the Office's new authorizing
legislation published in the Federal Register on July 7, 1994 (59 FR
34802).
Proposed Standards
These proposed standards have been developed by the Assistant
Secretary in consultation with the Board. The standards proposed in
this NPRM--
Require that a process of open competition be used in
awarding or entering into all grants, cooperative agreements and
contracts funded under the Act;
Require that a system of peer review be used for reviewing
and evaluating all applications for grants and cooperative agreements
and proposals for those contracts which exceed $100,000;
Establish principles for selecting qualified peer
reviewers to evaluate and review applications for grants and
cooperative agreements and proposals for contracts;
Establish general procedures to be followed by the peer
reviewers when evaluating applications or proposals;
Establish improved evaluation criteria; and
Describe the process by which applications or proposals
are selected for funding.
In accordance with section 912(i)(3)(C) of the Act, Sec. 700.2 of
the proposed regulations provides that these standards shall be binding
on all activities carried out by OERI using funds appropriated under
section 912(m) of the Act. The OERI activities carried out with funds
appropriated pursuant to section 912(m) of the Act are specified in
Sec. 700.2(b) of the proposed regulations.
The Secretary believes that these standards will ensure that
applications for grant and cooperative agreement awards and proposals
for contract awards are reviewed and evaluated in a rigorous,
nonpartisan manner by highly qualified experts. The standards require
that each application for a grant or cooperative agreement be evaluated
by at least three peer reviewers except for awards of less than $50,000
when fewer [[Page 30161]] reviewers may be used and for awards of more
than $1,000,000 when at least five reviewers must be used. These
requirements reflect the Secretary's belief that the number of
reviewers used should reflect the complexity of the activities that are
the subject of the competition and that competitions involving larger
awards generally are more complex than those involving smaller awards.
Therefore, applications for grant awards should be reviewed by a group
large enough to provide the breadth of perspectives necessary to
evaluate the proposed work.
The Secretary believes that conflicts of interest for peer
reviewers should be determined by applying established Department
policy. Accordingly, peer reviewers for grants and cooperative
agreements will be considered employees of the agency for the purposes
of conflicts of interest analysis. As employees of the agency, peer
reviewers will be subject to 18 U.S.C. Section 108, the criminal
statute regarding conflicts of interest for government employees and, 5
CFR Section 2635.502, the Office of Government Ethics regulations.
To the extent practicable, the Secretary believes that these
standards should apply to all research, development, dissemination,
demonstration, and school improvement activities carried out by OERI.
Furthermore, the Secretary believes that in many instances, the
proposed peer review standards and evaluation criteria may be relevant
to the research, development, and dissemination activities carried out
by other offices in the Department. Therefore, Sec. 700.3 authorizes
the Secretary to elect to apply these standards to other activities
carried out by the Department. The Secretary will announce through the
grant application notice published in the Federal Register, the extent
to which the standards are applicable for a given competition.
In accordance with section 912(i)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act, Subpart D
of these proposed regulations specifies the evaluation criteria that
may be used by reviewers to evaluate applications for grant and
cooperative agreements and proposals for contracts. For each
competition, the Secretary will select the criteria that best enable
the Department to identify the highest quality applications consistent
with the program purpose, statutory requirements and any priorities
established. The Secretary may add to any individual criterion one or
more specific factors within that criterion. For example, in the case
of a national research center competition, the Secretary may select the
criterion ``National Significance''; the Secretary may evaluate a
national research center in terms of its potential contribution to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies and the potential contribution of the project
to the development and advancement of theory and knowledge in the field
of study. In the case of a field initiated study competition, the
Secretary may evaluate the national significance of a project in terms
of the importance of the problem to be addressed and the potential of
the project to contribute to the development and advancement of theory
and knowledge in the field of study. In the case of a competition for
demonstration activities, the Secretary may evaluate the national
significance of a project in terms of whether the project involves the
development or demonstration of creative or innovative strategies that
build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies and the potential
for generalizing from project findings or results. For some
competitions, the Secretary may select the criterion, ``National
Significance'' without selecting specific factors.
The proposed standards provide an opportunity to improve
significantly the manner in which OERI carries out its mandate by
establishing a menu of evaluation criteria that: (1) Provide OERI the
flexibility to choose a set of criteria tailored to a given
competition; and (2) obviate the need to create specific evaluation
criteria through individual program regulations.
The Assistant Secretary will publish at a later date additional
proposed regulations to establish procedures to be used to designate
programs as exemplary or promising and to evaluate the performance of
all recipients awarded grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts by
the Office.
Executive Order 12866
Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those determined by the
Secretary as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently. Burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements, if any, are identified and explained elsewhere
in this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations justify the
costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on
whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example, Sec. 700.11 Who may serve as peer
reviewers.) (4) Is the description of the regulations in the
``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the regulations? How could this description be more
helpful in making the regulations easier to understand? (5) What else
could the Department do to make the regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. (Room 5121, FB-10B),
Washington, D.C. 20202-2241. [[Page 30162]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are small local educational agencies (LEAs) and private
schools receiving Federal funds under this program. However, the
regulations would not have a significant economic impact on the small
LEAs and private schools affected because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The regulations would impose minimal requirements to
ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
Section 700.30 contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Department of
Education will submit a copy of this section to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. (44 U.S.C. 3504(h))
These regulations affect the following types of entities eligible
to apply for grants and cooperative agreements: State or local
governments, businesses or other for profit organizations, nonprofit
institutions, and any combinations of these types of entities. The
Department needs and uses the information to evaluate applications for
funding.
Annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to range from 15 hours for each
of the approximately 750 applications expected for a field initiated
study competition to 150 hours for ten or fewer applications expected
for a national research center. Therefore, the actual burden will be
determined by the type of project to be supported in the particular
competition.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 3002, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Daniel J. Chenok.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 600, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 700
Education, Educational research, Elementary and secondary
education, Government contracts, Grant programs--education, Libraries,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.)
Dated: May 31, 1995.
Sharon P. Robinson,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
The Secretary proposes to amend chapter VII of Title 34 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by adding a new Part 700 to read as follows:
PART 700--STANDARDS FOR THE CONDUCT AND EVALUATION OF ACTIVITIES
CARRIED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
(OERI)--EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS AND PROPOSALS FOR CONTRACTS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?
700.2 What activities must be governed by these standards?
700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these
standards?
700.4 What definitions apply?
700.5 What are the processes of open competition?
Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers
700.10 When is the peer review process used?
700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?
700.12 What constitutes a conflict of interest for grants and
cooperative agreements?
700.13 What constitutes a conflict of interest for contracts?
Subpart C--The Peer Review Process
700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?
700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements
evaluated?
700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?
Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria
700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and cooperative
agreements?
700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for grants
and cooperative agreements?
700.32 What evaluation criteria shall be used for contracts?
Subpart E--Selection for Award
700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications
selected for award?
700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i), unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?
(a) The standards in this part implement section 912(i) of the
Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act
of 1994.
(b) These standards are intended to ensure that activities carried
out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement meet the
highest standards of professional excellence.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(1))
Sec. 700.2 What activities must be governed by these standards?
(a) The standards in this part are binding on all activities
carried out by the Office using funds appropriated under section 912(m)
of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and
Improvement Act of 1994.
(b) Activities carried out with funds appropriated under section
912(m) of the Act include activities carried out by the following
entities or programs:
(1) The National Research Institutes.
(2) The Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination.
(3) The Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouses.
(4) The Regional Educational Laboratories.
(5) The Teacher Research Dissemination Demonstration Program.
(6) The Goals 2000 Community Partnerships Program.
(7) The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(1)) [[Page 30163]]
Sec. 700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these
standards?
(a) The Secretary may elect to apply the standards in this part to
activities carried out by the Department using funds appropriated under
an authority other than section 912(m) of the Act.
(b)(1) If the Secretary elects to apply these standards to a
competition for new grant or cooperative agreement awards, the
Secretary announces in a notice published in the Federal Register, the
extent to which these standards are applicable to the competition.
(2) If the Secretary elects to apply these standards to a
solicitation for a contract award, the Secretary announces in the
request for proposals the extent to which these standards are
applicable to the solicitation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i))
Sec. 700.4 What definitions apply?
(a) Definitions in the Educational Research, Development,
Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The following terms used in
this part are defined in 20 U.S.C. 6011(l):
Development
Dissemination
Educational Research Office
National Research Institute
Technical Assistance
(b) Definitions in Education Department General Administrative
Regulations. The following terms used in this part are defined in 34
CFR 77.1:
Applicant
Application
Award
Department
Grant
Project
Secretary
(c) Definitions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The
following terms used in this part are defined in 48 CFR Chapter 1:
Contracting Officer
Employee of an Agency
Proposal
Solicitation
(d) Other definitions. The following definitions also apply to this
part:
Act means the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and
Improvement Act of 1994 (title IX of Pub. L. 103-227, 108 Stat. 212).
EDAR means the Department of Education Acquisition Regulation, 48
CFR chapter 34.
EDGAR means the Department of Education General Administrative
Regulations, 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86.
FAR means the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR chapter 1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011)
Sec. 700.5 What are the processes of open competition?
The Secretary uses a process of open competition in awarding or
entering into all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts
governed by these standards. The processes of open competition are the
following:
(a) For all new awards for grants and cooperative agreements, the
Secretary will make awards pursuant to the provisions of EDGAR with the
exception of the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100(c)(5), 75.200 (b)(3),
(b)(5), 75.210, and 75.217 (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), and (d).
(b) For contracts, the Department will conduct acquisitions
pursuant to this part in accordance with the requirements of the
Competition in Contracting Act, 41 U.S.C. 253, and the FAR.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2); 41 U.S.C. 253)
Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers
Sec. 700.10 When is the peer review process used?
The Secretary uses a peer review process--
(a) To review and evaluate all applications for grants and
cooperative agreements and proposals for those contracts which exceed
$100,000;
(b) To review and designate exemplary and promising programs in
accordance with section 941(d) of the Act; and
(c) To evaluate and assess the performance of all recipients of
grants from and cooperative agreements and contracts with the Office.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(B))
Sec. 700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?
(a) An individual may serve as a peer reviewer for purposes of
reviewing and evaluating applications for new awards for grants and
cooperative agreements and contract proposals if the individual--
(1) Possesses one or more of the following qualifications:
(i) Demonstrated expertise, including training and experience,
relevant to the subject of the competition.
(ii) In-depth knowledge of policy and practice in the field of
education.
(iii) In-depth knowledge of theoretical perspectives or
methodological approaches relevant to the subject of the competition;
and
(2) Does not have a conflict of interest, as determined in
accordance with Sec. 700.12.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for
each competition for new awards for grants and cooperative agreements--
(i) Department staff shall not serve as peer reviewers except in
exceptional circumstances as determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) The majority of reviewers shall be persons not employed by the
Federal Government.
(2) For each review of an unsolicited grant or cooperative
agreement application--
(i) Department employees may assist the Secretary in making an
initial determination under 34 CFR 75.222(b); and
(ii) Department employees may not serve as peer reviewers in
accordance with 34 CFR 75.222(c).
(c) To the extent feasible, the Secretary selects peer reviewers
for each competition who represent a broad range of perspectives.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(B))
Sec. 700.12 What constitutes a conflict of interest for grants and
cooperative agreements?
(a) Peer reviewers for grants and cooperative agreements are
considered employees of the agency for the purposes of conflicts of
interest analysis.
(b) As employees of the agency, peer reviewers are subject to the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208, 5 CFR 2635.502, and the Department
policies used to implement those provisions.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(B))
Sec. 700.13 What constitutes a conflict of interest for contracts.
(a) Peer reviewers for contract proposals are considered employees
of the agency in accordance with FAR, 48 CFR 3.104-4(h)(2).
(b) As employees of the agency, peer reviewers are subject to the
provisions of the FAR, 48 CFR Part 3 Improper Business Practices and
Personal Conflict of Interest.
(Authority: 41 U.S.C. 423)
Subpart C--The Peer Review Process
Sec. 700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?
(a) Each application for a grant or cooperative agreement award
shall be reviewed and evaluated by at least three peer reviewers
except--
(1) For those grant and cooperative agreement awards under $50,000,
fewer than three peer reviewers may be used if the Secretary determines
that adequate peer review can be obtained using fewer reviewers; and
(2) For those grant and cooperative agreement awards of more than
[[Page 30164]] $1,000,000, at least five reviewers will be used.
(b) Each contract proposal shall be read by at least three
reviewers unless the contracting officer determines that an adequate
peer review can be obtained by fewer reviewers.
(c) Before releasing contract proposals to peer reviewers outside
the Federal Government, the contracting officer shall comply with FAR,
48 CFR 15.413-2(f).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(B))
Sec. 700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements
evaluated?
(a) Each peer reviewer shall be given a number of applications to
evaluate.
(b) Each peer reviewer shall--
(1) Independently evaluate each application;
(2) Evaluate and rate each application based on the reviewer's
assessment of the quality of the application according to the
evaluation criteria and the weights assigned to those criteria; and
(3) Support the rating for each application with concise written
comments based on the reviewer's analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the application with respect to each of the applicable
evaluation criteria.
(c) After each peer reviewer has evaluated and rated each
application independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set
of applications will be convened to discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of those applications. Each reviewer may then independently
reevaluate and re-rate an application with appropriate changes made to
the written comments.
(d) Following discussion and any reevaluation and re-rating,
reviewers shall independently place each application in one of two
categories, either ``recommended for funding'' or ``not recommended for
funding.''
(e) After the peer reviewers have evaluated, rated, and made
funding recommendations regarding the applications, the Secretary
prepares a rank order of the applications based solely on the peer
reviewers' evaluations.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(C))
Sec. 700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?
(a) Each peer reviewer shall be given a number of technical
proposals to evaluate.
(b) Each peer reviewer shall--
(1) Independently evaluate each technical proposal;
(2) Evaluate and rate each proposal based on the reviewer's
assessment of the quality of the proposal according to the technical
evaluation criteria and the importance or weight assigned to those
criteria; and
(3) Support the rating for each proposal with concise written
comments based on the reviewer's analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal with respect to each of the applicable
technical evaluation criteria.
(c) After each peer reviewer has evaluated each proposal
independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set of proposals
may be convened to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those
proposals. Each reviewer may then independently reevaluate and re-rate
a proposal with appropriate changes made to the written comments.
(d) Following discussion and any reevaluation and re-rating,
reviewers shall rank proposals and advise the contracting officer of
each proposal's acceptability for contract award as ``acceptable,''
``capable of being made acceptable without major modifications,'' or
``unacceptable.'' Reviewers may also submit technical questions to be
asked of the offeror regarding the proposal.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(C))
Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria
Sec. 700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and
cooperative agreements?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the
Secretary announces the applicable evaluation criteria for each
competition and the assigned weights in a notice published in the
Federal Register.
(b) In determining the evaluation criteria to be used in each grant
and cooperative agreement competition, the Secretary selects from among
the evaluation criteria in paragraph (e) of this section and may select
from among the specific factors listed under each criterion.
(c) The Secretary assigns relative weights to each selected
criterion and factor.
(d) In determining the evaluation criteria to be used for
unsolicited applications, the Secretary selects from among the
evaluation criteria in paragraph (e) of this section, and may select
from among the specific factors listed under each criterion, the
criteria which are most appropriate to evaluate the activities proposed
in the application.
(e) The Secretary establishes the following evaluation criteria:
(1) National significance. (i) The Secretary considers the national
significance of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the national significance of the proposed
project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following
factors:
(A) The importance of the problem or issue to be addressed.
(B) The potential contribution of the project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(C) The scope of the project.
(D) The potential for generalizing from project findings or
results.
(E) The potential contribution of the project to the development
and advancement of theory and knowledge in the field of study.
(F) Whether the project involves the development or demonstration
of creative or innovative strategies that build on, or are alternatives
to, existing strategies.
(G) The nature of the products (such as information, materials,
processes, or techniques) likely to result from the project and the
potential for their effective use in a variety of other settings.
(H) The extent and quality of plans for disseminating results in
ways that will allow others to use the information.
(2) Quality of the project design. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the design of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following
factors:
(A) Whether the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by
the project are clearly specified and measurable.
(B) Whether there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed
activities and the quality of that framework.
(C) Whether the proposed activities constitute a coherent,
sustained program of research and development in the field, including a
substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.
(D) Whether a specific research design has been proposed, and the
quality and appropriateness of that design, including the scientific
rigor of the studies involved.
(E) The extent to which the research design includes a thorough,
high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for
research activities, and the use of appropriate theoretical and
methodological tools, including those of a variety of disciplines,
where appropriate.
(F) The quality of the demonstration design and procedures for
documenting project activities and results.
(G) The extent to which development efforts include iterative
testing of products and adequate quality controls. [[Page 30165]]
(H) The likelihood that the design of the project will successfully
address the intended, demonstrated educational needs or needs.
(I) How well and innovatively the project addresses statutory
purposes, requirements and any priority or priorities announced for the
program.
(J) The quality of the plan for evaluating the functioning and
impact of the project, including the objectivity of the evaluation and
the extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the
goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project.
(3) Quality and potential contributions of personnel. (i) The
Secretary considers the quality and potential contributions of
personnel for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality and potential contributions of
personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary may consider one or
more of the following factors:
(A) The qualifications, including training and experience, of the
project director or principal investigator.
(B) The qualifications, including training and experience, of key
project personnel.
(C) The qualifications, including training and experience, of
proposed consultants or subcontractors.
(D) Past performance of any personnel in any previous Department-
supported grants or cooperative agreements.
(4) Adequacy of resources. (i) The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following
factors:
(A) The adequacy of support from the lead applicant organization.
(B) The relevance and commitment of each partner in the project to
the implementation and success of the project.
(C) Whether the budget is adequate to support the project.
(D) Whether the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,
design, and potential significance of the project.
(E) The cost-effectiveness of the project and the adequacy of the
support provided by the applicant organization in any previous
Department-supported grant or cooperative agreement.
(F) The potential for continued support of the project after
federal funding ends.
(5) Quality of the management plan. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the management plan of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan of a
proposed project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the
following factors:
(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the project, including the specification of staff responsibility,
timelines, and benchmarks for accomplishing project tasks.
(B) The adequacy of plans for ensuring high-quality products and
services.
(C) The adequacy of plans for ensuring continuous improvement in
the operation of the project.
(D) Whether time commitments of the project director or principal
investigator and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to
meet project objectives.
(E) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the project, including those of
parents and teachers, where appropriate.
(F) How the applicant will ensure that persons who are otherwise
eligible to participate in the project are selected without regard to
race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(G) The adequacy of plans for widespread dissemination of project
results and products in ways that will assist others to use the
information.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(D)(ii))
Sec. 700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for
grants and cooperative agreements?
In addition to the evaluation criteria established in
Sec. 700.30(e), criteria or factors specified in the applicable program
statute shall be used to evaluate applications for grants and
cooperative agreements.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(D)(ii))
Sec. 700.32 What evaluation criteria shall be used for contracts?
(a) The evaluation criteria to be considered in the technical
evaluation of contract proposals are contained in the FAR at 48 CFR
15.605. The evaluation criteria that apply to an acquisition and the
relative importance of those factors are within the broad discretion of
agency acquisition officials.
(b) At a minimum, the evaluation criteria to be considered shall
include cost or price and quality. Evaluation factors related to
quality are called technical evaluation criteria.
(c) Technical evaluation criteria may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
(1) Technical excellence.
(2) Management capability.
(3) Personnel qualifications.
(4) Prior experience.
(5) Past performance.
(6) Schedule compliance.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(D)(ii))
Subpart E--Selection for Award
Sec. 700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications
selected for award?
(a) The Secretary determines the order in which applications will
be selected for grants and cooperative agreement awards. The Secretary
considers the following in making these determinations:
(1) An applicant's ranking.
(2) Recommendations of the peer reviewers with regard to funding or
not funding.
(3) Information concerning an applicant's performance and use of
funds under a previous Federal award.
(4) Amount of funds available for the competition.
(5) Any other information relevant to a priority or other statutory
or regulatory requirement applicable to the selection of applications
for new awards.
(b) In the case of unsolicited applications, the Secretary uses the
procedures in EDGAR (34 CFR 75.222 (d) and (e)).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6022(i)(2)(D)(i))
Sec. 700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?
Following evaluation of the proposals, the contracting officer
shall select for award the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous
to the Government considering cost or price and the other factors
included in the solicitation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(D)(i))
[FR Doc. 95-13690 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
