2 C.F.R. § 1402.204 What are the merit review requirements for competitive awards?
The requirements in this section apply to competitive grants and cooperative agreements unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute. Merit review procedures must be described or incorporated by reference in NOFOs (see 2 CFR part 200, appendix I, and 2 CFR 200.203). Pre-award considerations for both discretionary competitive and noncompetitive awards shall take into account the alignment of the award's purpose, goals, and measurement with the current DOI Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan including, the mission statement, vision, values, goals, objectives, strategies, and performance metrics therein, unless otherwise prohibited by statute.
(a) Competition in grant and cooperative agreement awards. Competition is expected in awarding discretionary funds, unless otherwise directed by Congress. When grants and cooperative agreements are awarded competitively, DOI requires that the competitive process be fair and impartial, that all applicants be evaluated only on the criteria stated in the announcement, and that no applicant receive an unfair competitive advantage. All competitive funding announcements, and all modifications/amendments to those announcements, must be posted on Grants.gov (www.grants.gov).
(b) Independent objective evaluation of financial assistance applications and proposals. Bureaus and offices must conduct reviews of applications submitted in response to the announcement and for selecting applicants for award following established merit review procedures. Bureaus and offices must conduct comprehensive, impartial, and objective review of applications based on the criteria contained in the announcement by individuals who have no conflicts of interest with respect to the competing proposal/applications or applicants. Bureaus and offices must ensure reviewers are qualified, applications are scored on the basis of announced criteria, consideration is given to the level of applicant risk and past performance, applications are ranked, and funding determinations are made.
(c) Evaluation and Selection Plan for notice of funding opportunities. Bureaus and offices must develop an Evaluation and Selection Plan in concert with the notice of funding opportunity to ensure consistency, and to outline and document the selection process. The Evaluation and Selection Plan should be finalized prior to the release of the notice of funding opportunity. An Evaluation and Selection Plan is comprised of five basic elements:
(1) Merit review factors and sub-factors;
(2) A rating system (e.g., adjectival, color coding, numerical, or ordinal);
(3) Evaluation standards or descriptions that explain the basis for assignment of the various rating system grades/scores;
(4) Program policy factors; and
(5) The basis for selection.
(d) Basic review standards. Bureaus and offices must initially screen applications/proposals to ensure that they meet the standards in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section before they are subjected to a detailed evaluation utilizing a merit review process specified in paragraph (h) of this section. The review system should include three phases: Initial Screening, Threshold Screening, and a Merit Review Evaluation Screening. Bureaus and offices may remove an application from funding consideration if it does not pass the basic eligibility screening per paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
(e) Completeness. Bureaus and offices may return applications/proposals that are incomplete or otherwise fail to meet the requirements of the Grants.gov announcement to the applicant to be corrected, modified, or supplemented, or may reject the application/proposal outright. Until the application/proposal meets the substantive requirements of the announcement and this part, it shall not be given detailed evaluation. Bureaus and offices may use discretion to determine the length of time for applicants to resolve application deficiencies.
(f) Timeliness. Bureaus and offices must consider the timeliness of the application submission. Applications that are submitted beyond the announced deadline date must be removed from the review process.
(g) Threshold Screening. Bureaus and offices are responsible for screening applications and proposals for the adequacy of the budget and compliance with statutory and other requirements. The SF-424 and budget information (SF-424A, SF-424C, or OMB-approved alternate budget data collection) must be reviewed according to Department of the Interior policy.
(h) Merit Review Evaluation Screening. This is the final review stage where the technical merit of the application/proposal is reviewed. In the absence of a program rule or statutory requirement, program officials shall develop criteria that include all aspects of technical merit. Bureaus and offices shall develop criteria that are conceptually independent of each other, but all-encompassing when taken together. While criteria will vary, the basic criteria shall focus reviewers' attention on the project's underlying merit (i.e., significance, approach, and feasibility). The criteria shall focus not only on the technical details of the proposed project but also on the broader importance or potential impact of the project. The criteria shall be easily understood.
(i) Risk assessments. Bureaus and offices must also consider risk thresholds during application/proposal review process. Elements to be considered may include organization; single audit submissions, past performance; availability of necessary resources, equipment, or facilities; financial strength and management capabilities; and procurement procedures; or procedures for selecting and monitoring subrecipients or sub-vendors, if applicable. For all non-Federal entities that receive an award, the Financial Assistance Officer must document the risk analysis.
(j) Requirements for proposal evaluators. Upon receipt of a Memorandum of Appointment, each proposal evaluator and advisor must sign and return a Conflict of Interest Certificate to the Financial Assistance Officer. If an actual or potential conflict of interest exists, the appointee may not evaluate or provide advice on a potential applicant's proposal until the conflict has been resolved or mitigated. Further, each proposal evaluator or advisor must agree to comply with any notice or limitation placed on the application. Upon completion of the review, the proposal evaluator or advisor shall return or destroy all copies of the application and accompanying proposals (or abstracts) to DOI; and unless authorized by the Financial Assistance Officer or agency designee, the reviewer shall not contact the non-Federal entity concerning any aspect of the application.