[Senate Report 114-407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 723
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2nd Session } { 114-407
_______________________________________________________________________
GRANT REFORM AND NEW TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2016
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2972
TO AMEND TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE
TRANSPARENCY AND REQUIRE CERTAIN STANDARDS IN THE AWARD OF FEDERAL
GRANTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 20, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 10
(legislative day, December 9), 2016
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
69-010 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Jennifer L. Scheaffer, Professional Staff Member
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
Robert H. Bradley II, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 723
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2nd Session } { 114-407
======================================================================
GRANT REFORM AND NEW TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2016
_______
December 20, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 10
(legislative day, December 9), 2016
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2972]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2972) to amend
title 31, United States Code, to provide transparency and
require certain standards in the award of Federal grants, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
C O N T E N T S
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................7
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................7
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................10
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................10
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........11
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 2972, the Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016
or GRANT Act, seeks to improve the Federal competitive grant
process by increasing transparency and providing further
assistance to competitive grant applicants. Specifically, the
bill strives to ensure a more open grant process by requiring
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to post all Federal
competitive grant opportunities on one central website, where
information on eligibility requirements, evaluation factors,
and anticipated timetables of award dates, among other relevant
information, can be accessed.
The bill also gives several tools to applicants who are not
awarded competitive grants to improve their future
applications, including the posting of sample winning grant
proposals on the central grant website, and the opportunity for
those who are not awarded a grant to request an explanation
from the awarding agency. Finally, the bill aims to reduce
waste, fraud, and duplication in competitive grants by
codifying current regulations requiring that, before awarding
competitive grants, agencies review the ability of grant
applicants to carry out grants, including their past grant
performance and ability to comply with financial reporting
standards. The bill also requires, to the extent practicable,
an interagency search for duplication in research grants.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
The Federal Government awarded more than $600 billion in
total grants in each of the last three years.\1\ While the
purpose and recipients of Federal grants are diverse,
transparency and accountability is needed in the grants
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\USASpending.gov, Overview of Awards by Fiscal Year, available at
https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/OverviewOfAwards.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Congress, the Committee has been conducting oversight
and implementing reforms of Federal grants processes. Senators
James Lankford, Ron Johnson, Tom Carper, and Kirsten Gillibrand
requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study
the progress made by the Council on Financial Assistance Reform
(COFAR) in implementing their priority goals along with actions
that agencies are taking to implement the merit-based review
processes for grants required under regulations titled the new
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200), also known as the
``Super Circular''.\2\ Further, on November 30, 2015, the
Committee approved the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act
(S. 1115) that seeks to identify and close out expired grants.
S. 1115 was signed into law on January 28, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Letter from Sens. Lankford, Johnson, Carper, and Gillibrand, to
the Government Accountability Office (Jul. 15, 2015) (on file with
Comm. staff).
\3\Pub. L. No. 114-117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GRANT Act follows on this work and the findings of
seven oversight hearings held in the U.S. House of
Representatives between 2009 and 2011 that examined the grant
life cycle for areas of waste, fraud, and abuse.\4\ The
hearings, convened before the publication of the Super
Circular, found that there are opportunities to strengthen the
award-making processes at various stages, including pre-award
vetting, notice of funding opportunities, agency decision
making, and post-decision feedback for applicants. The bill
aims to combine some of these suggested improvements with the
goals of providing clear, consistent, and beneficial
information for grant applicants while addressing the potential
for waste, fraud, and abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Preventing Stimulus Waste and Fraud: Who are the Watchdogs?:
Hearing Before the Oversight and Gov't Reform Comm., 111th Cong.
(2009); Tracking the Money: Preventing Waste, Fraud and Abuse of
Recovery Act Funding: Hearing Before the Oversight and Gov't Reform
Comm., 111th Cong. (2009); Tracking the Money: How Recovery Act
Recipients Account for their Use of Stimulus Dollars: Hearing Before
the Oversight and Gov't Reform Comm., 111th Cong. (2009); The Freedom
of Information Act: Crowd-Sourcing Government Oversight: Hearing Before
the Oversight and Gov't Reform Comm., 111th Cong. (2009); Achieving
Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending: Hearing Before the
Oversight and Gov't Reform Comm., 112th Cong. (2011); Transparency
Through Technology: Evaluating Federal Open-Government Initiatives:
Hearing Before the Oversight and Gov't Reform Comm. Subcomm. on
Technology Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and
Procurement Reform, 112th Cong. (2011); Improving Oversight and
Accountability in Federal Grant Programs: Hearing Before the Oversight
and Gov't Reform Comm. Subcomm. on Technology Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, 112th Cong. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-award evaluation requirements
On December 26, 2013, the OMB and the COFAR issued the
Super Circular, which updated, consolidated, and streamlined
eight existing guidance documents that outline the use,
administration, and audit processes for Federal award
disbursements.\5\ One critical component included in the Super
Circular is the pre-evaluation protocols that each agency must
follow in the grant award-making process. These requirements
are meant to provide agencies with a number of factors that can
be used to evaluate applicants, such as a grant applicant's
financial management capabilities, internal controls, financial
performance history, reports and findings from any past audits,
and whether the applicant has received Federal funds from other
sources, before distributing funds to grant recipients.\6\ The
bill codifies the pre-evaluation criteria established in the
Super Circular to convey Congressional support for the process
and to further the implementation of these practices by Federal
grant-making agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Office of Management and Budget, 78 FR 78589, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
articles/2013/12/26/2013-30465/uniform-administrative-requirements-
cost-principles-and-audit-requirements-for-federal-awards.
\6\Id. at 200.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2006 report on discretionary grants awarded by the
Department of Education (DOE), the GAO examined a selection of
grant awards from 2003 and 2004. During this inquiry, the GAO
found that in about 98 percent of files GAO reviewed for these
grants, there was no evidence that program officers checked a
grantee's audit history--a key check, the agency claimed, on an
applicant's ability to manage Federal grant funds.\7\ The same
report found approximately 45 percent of the grant files did
not contain documentation that the DOE screened grant
applicants for eligibility, though program officials asserted
that such screenings do occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,GAO-06-268, DISCRETIONARY GRANTS:
FURTHER TIGHTENING OF EDUCATION'S PROCEDURES FOR MAKING AWARDS COULD
IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY (2006), available at http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d06268.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill's codification of the pre-evaluation criteria set
forth in the Super Circular (2 CFR 200.205) is not intended to
create new burdens or reporting requirements on applicants or
agencies that are already in compliance with the current
protocols. Moreover, the bill would establish simplified
procedures that allow agencies to ease the application and
vetting process for frequent grant applicants or applicants
deemed by Federal agencies to be a low risk for mismanaging
funds.
The bill also includes a new requirement for research
grants during the pre-award process, under which agencies
would, to the extent practicable, review grant applicants for
any interagency duplication of efforts. These screenings may
utilize text-similarity searches. In 2013, Nature Magazine
published an article suggesting that between $70 million and
$200 million in Federal funds may have been awarded to projects
that were already receiving funding from other grant
programs.\8\ The report utilized text-similarity detection
software developed by one of the authors to discover potential
duplication and overlap in winning grant proposals among grant
programs at multiple agencies. Though the review could not
definitively identify all duplication due to Freedom of
Information Act restrictions, nor whether agencies had
discovered the potential duplication and made appropriate
adjustments, the authors recommended that funding agencies curb
duplicate funding by using text-similarity software to identify
proposals which need closer scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Harold R. Garner, Lauren J. McIver and Michael B. Waitzkin, Same
Work, twice the Money?, Vol. 493, Nature Magazine (Jan. 31, 2013 ),
available at http://www.nature.com/articles/
493599a.epdf?referrer_access_token=WMdGmBM7Ei-fZ7hTVH2YCtRgN0jAjWel9
jnR3ZoTv0Nsapw4DXe_u-tPWvCB0XaT03gVgCt1tTDQLWmIDfiEi7l7k58Y_3xuj
7TWlwuc2dIzVYNugDYYUAujXzjbllawyV_IYpQknVDHtFLPRImE3VJYsQ-qd-UzCcqAi
MX396XQ%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple grants in the same field or topic is a common and
necessary occurrence. However, with multiple agencies awarding
grants to similar fields, it could be helpful for Federal
agencies to maintain awareness of other ongoing Federal efforts
so that unnecessary duplication or fragmentation does not
occur, provided that such an endeavor does not negatively
impact the grant programs in question. It is the Committee's
intent that this review should not discourage awarding grants
to proposals similar to existing research, particularly repeat
studies, which are necessary to confirming research findings,
but rather to make agencies aware of potential duplicative
efforts within other grant programs, particularly multiple
proposals or grant applications from the same applicant.
Accessibility of information by potential grantees
One of the primary goals of the GRANT Act is to help
provide the information and tools necessary for any applicant
to submit a successful grant application. To this end, the bill
requires each agency to make information available about the
award process for discretionary, competitive grants while
ensuring applicants have greater opportunities and more
information about the decision-making process. This includes
each agency posting basic information about each grant
opportunity on grants.gov, including the factors that will be
used to evaluate proposals--as required by the Super Circular--
while encouraging the use of grants.gov as a one-stop shop to
apply for grants. Agencies may offer additional alternative
methods for applicants to submit applications, proposals, and
other relevant documents, should the applicant prefer
alternative methods, but it is the Committee's intent that
agencies must at least offer the grants.gov application option.
The bill also requires agencies to post a sample of winning
grant proposals so that potential applicants without the
resources to hire a professional grant writer can examine the
substance of a successful application.
Transparency in the decision-making process
Decisions made by grant officers and peer review panels
determine the recipients of billions of dollars in taxpayer
dollars. This is a significant responsibility that necessitates
strong oversight and accountability. The bill requires
additional information on the decision-making process for
Federal grants, requiring agencies to post the number of
applicants, the criteria used, and whether they used numerical
rankings or other recommendations from peer reviewers. The
provision requires an agency to post a written explanation for
grant award decisions that were not consistent with the
numerical rankings or recommendations from the peer review
board.
There have been several cases discovered by the GAO or
Offices of Inspectors General (OIGs) that found grants have
been awarded in problematic circumstances. In a 2010 review of
the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS)'s runaway and
homeless youth grants, the GAO noted that ``[f]inal funding
decision memos used to internally document grant award
decisions for 2007 and 2008 did not contain supporting
information regarding why applications with high scores were
not funded.''\9\ Though the GAO did recognize that ``the agency
is permitted to use its discretion to deny grants based on
other reasons,'' the report concluded that ``[w]ithout fully
documenting and permanently recording its rationale for
exercising its discretion to deny grants to highly scored
applicants, the agency decision-making process is not
transparent.'' Similarly, a 2009 GAO report found that in
Fiscal Year 2007, Institute and Center (IC) directors from the
National Institute of Health (NIH) selected about 19 percent of
the applications for Research Project Grants Programs that year
that had scientific merit scores below the established scoring
percentile for the program, due to other evaluation
factors.\10\ The GAO noted that ``IC directors have discretion
when making final extramural decisions and are not required to
fund applications based strictly on the scores resulting from
the evaluation of their scientific merit,'' and that ``ICs are
required under NIH policy to document the corresponding
rationale used'' when taking outside factors into account.
However, the report also determined that this level of
discretion exercised by institute and center directors
``represent[s] an area of potential risk'' because of their
``latitude in making these decisions,'' and that the
documentation for these decisions are not required to be
submitted to or collected by the NIH's Office of the
Director.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-10-335, Runaway and Homeless
Youth Grants: Improvements Needed in the Grant Award Process (2010),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/304262.pdf.
\10\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-09-687, National Institutes of
Health: Completion of Comprehensive Risk Management Program Essential
to Effective Oversight (2009), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
300/295085.pdf.
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, the OIG of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
released a report on the OIG's audit of the Office on Violence
Against Women's (OVW) Recovery Act grant selection process.\12\
The DOJ's OVW used peer review scores to rank grant applicants.
However, the OIG found a number of issues with the peer review
scoring system at OVW, including a number of troubling
incidents where the peer rankings were miscalculated,
potentially depriving qualified applicants from receiving
funds. The report also noted that at times the program omitted
information from or misplaced important award decision
documents. The OIG recommended that the office improve how it
maintains these documents to have ``an adequate record of the
reasons for selecting the grantees that it did.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Division, The Office on Violence Against Women's Recovery Act Grant
Selection Process, Audit Report 10-31 (July 2010), available at http://
www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OBD/a1031.pdf.
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many legitimate reasons to award grants in a
manner that is inconsistent with the numerical rankings, such
as the need for geographic diversity or ensuring that the
dispersal of research funding is balanced across fields and
disciplines. The bill should not impact the ability for
agencies to award grants in a manner that is inconsistent with
their rankings. Transparency into the decision-making process
through a written justification for any reordering will provide
for enhanced accountability in the award process and prevent
similar situations to those outlined above.
Post-decision explanation for applicants
In addition to requiring that agencies post written
technical assistance with grant opportunities, the GRANT Act
requires that agencies provide certain grant applicants with a
direct interaction describing the basis for the award decision.
Any applicant for a grant award in an amount larger than
$100,000 may request a direct interaction from the agency
describing the basis for the award decision. This provision is
intended to support grant applicants in the application process
by providing appropriate feedback and assistance to applicants
who may be unable to hire specialized grant writers. It will
guarantee that an unsuccessful applicant can seek a minimum
level of feedback if and when they are applying for a higher-
value award.
Conflicts of interest review
To have a fair and objective grant-making process,
integrity in the decisions to award grants is of the upmost
importance. There have been circumstances in the past where
agencies have been determined to have practiced lax conflicts
of interest policies. In a 2007 report, the GAO found that
while ``NIH has undertaken a number of activities to improve
its polices and processes related to conflicts of interest,''
the NIH had not established clear recusal policies for managing
conflicts of interest among senior NIH employees who have
decision-making responsibilities for the NIH's research
efforts.\14\ In an investigation into OVW grants, the OIG found
``a weakness in how peer reviewers were screened for conflicts
of interest before evaluating and scoring applications.''\15\
The OIG audit revealed that ``[i]n at least 23 instances, peer
reviewers signed and dated conflict of interest forms before
the date they were assigned specific applications to review,''
though the OIG did not identify any specific instances of
conflicts of interest.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-07-319, NIH Conflict of
Interest: Recusal Policies for Senior Employees Need Clarification
(2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/260235.pdf.
\15\U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Division, The Office on Violence Against Women's Recovery Act Grant
Selection Process, Audit Report 10-31 (July 2010), available at http://
www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OBD/a1031.pdf.
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any conflicts of interest that may exist either in the peer
review process or within the grant-awarding agency are
corruptive and could favor certain groups of applicants at the
cost of others. 2 CFR 200.112 of the Super Circular requires
Federal agencies to establish conflict of interest policies for
grant awards. However, to ensure that agencies publish and
comply with rigorous conflicts of interest policies, the bill
requires that each grant award-making agency's respective OIG
perform a review of that agency's conflicts of interest policy.
III. Legislative History
S. 2972, the Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016,
was introduced May 23, 2016, by Senator James Lankford. The
bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 2972 at a business meeting on
May 25, 2016. A modified substitute amendment was offered by
Senator Lankford that requires that agencies post a set of
sample winning grant proposals awarded under the same or
similar program within the last three years, rather than all
winning grant proposals. The amendment also conformed the pre-
award evaluation provision to align it with the existing
processes established by 2 CFR 200.205, rather than add
duplicative evaluations, and simplifies pre-award evaluation
procedures for grantees deemed to be ``low-risk'' by agencies.
No other amendments were offered.
The Committee adopted the Lankford modified substitute
amendment, and ordered the bill, as amended, be reported
favorably by roll call vote with 12 yeas to 2 nays. Senators
voting in the affirmative were Senators Johnson, Portman, Paul,
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester,
Heitkamp, and Peters. For the record only, Senators McCain and
Enzi voted yes by proxy. The Senators voting in the negative
were Senators Baldwin and Booker.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported
Section 1. Short title
This section establishes the short title of the bill as the
``Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016'' or the
``GRANT Act''.
Section 2. Grants transparency requirements
Amends Subtitle V of title 31, U.S.C., by inserting a new
chapter adding transparency requirements for competitive
grants. The new chapter 74 contains five sections.
Sec. 7401 provides definitions for several terms to be used
in chapter 74, including ``applicant,'' ``competitive grant,''
``executive agency,'' ``grant,'' and ``grant reviewer.'' Most
significantly, because the legislation improves transparency
measures for only ``competitive grants,'' this section defines
the term to mean discretionary grants awarded by Executive
agencies using merit-based selection procedures.
Sec. 7402 requires that certain risk evaluations be
performed by an agency prior to awarding a competitive grant.
First, this section requires Executive agencies to conduct an
evaluation of the risk posed by an applicant to successfully
carry out the grant in accordance with 2 CFR 200.205, also
known as the Super Circular, or any successor. The Super
Circular requires that agencies evaluate grant applicants for
risks posed by a number of factors, which could include
financial stability, quality of management systems, ability to
perform grant functions, ability to adhere to Federal laws and
regulations, and past performance history, including the
results of previous audits.
In addition to the risk factors in the Super Circular, Sec.
7402 directs agencies to review research grants to identify any
interagency duplication of effort, which may be completed
through a text-similarity detection process. The bill directs
that this be done to the greatest extent practicable.
This section also directs agencies to identify applicants
which pose a relatively low risk of failing to execute the
grant successfully and properly, to minimize the burden on
those applicants and use any existing findings for the
applicant under the single audit process described in chapter
75 of title 31, U.S.C.
Subsections 7403 (a) and (b) require that the Director of
OMB maintain one public website, grants.gov or its successor,
which allows users to find and apply to all Federal competitive
grant opportunities. For each competitive grant opportunity
announced by an Executive agency, the agency will be required
to post specific information about the grant opportunity in a
searchable format. Information required to be posted includes
the announcement and purpose of the grant, the anticipated
period of performance and whether the agency anticipates
continuing the grant, the amount of funds available for the
grant (if a specific sum is reserved), a statement of
eligibility requirements of the grant, and a point of contact
at the agency for questions. Also required is a clear statement
of evaluation factors or criteria that the Executive agency
intends to use for evaluation, a description of the process and
standards to be used by the Executive agency to determine that
each grant reviewer does not have a prohibited conflict of
interest with respect to the evaluation of the grant
application, the anticipated deadline for grant application
submissions, and a set of sample winning grant proposals
awarded by the same or similar program within the last three
years.
Subsection 7403(c) requires, to the greatest extent
practicable, that the grants website allow applicants to use
the website with any widely-used computer platform and to
search the website for all competitive grants by certain
criteria, including purpose, funding agency, and program
source. The website must also allow applicants to apply for
competitive grants using the website where practicable.
Subsection 7403(d) provides that each agency shall make
detailed grant guidance and written technical assistance
available to grant applicant on the grants website. For each
grant awarded, within 30 days after the date on which the grant
is awarded, each agency must post on the grants website an
explanation for the basis of the selection decisions for the
grant, and the number of proposals received for the grant. The
agency must also post whether or not winning grant applications
or proposals were awarded consistent with a numerical ranking
or other recommendations by grant reviewers. In any case in
which the award of the grant is not consistent with numerical
rankings or other recommendations made by grant reviewers, the
agency must post written justification explaining the rationale
for making such a decision.
Subsection 7403(d) also allows agencies to redact
personally-identifiable information from any posts on the
grants website as required by this section. Additionally,
agencies may not post any sensitive information on the grants
website which the Executive agency determines would adversely
affect an applicant.
Subsection 7403(e) requires that agencies publish a
forecast of all nonemergency grant solicitations that an agency
expects to issue for the following calendar year. This forecast
is to be published not later than November 30 of each year, or
not later than 60 days after the Executive agency is
appropriated funds for the fiscal year, whichever is later, and
is nonbinding on the agency, though it is required to be based
on the best information available. The forecast is required to
include for each grant, to the extent practicable, a brief
description of the subject and purpose, a point of contact, and
the expected or actual dates for issuing the grant
solicitation, application and submission deadline. The forecast
is to also contain estimations of the amount of the average
grant award, the maximum and minimum amounts of each award (if
applicable) and the total number of grant awards to be made, as
well as a description of the total amount available to be
awarded.
Subsection 7403(f) clarifies that nothing in section 7403
shall be interpreted as requiring information which would be
exempted from disclosure according to the Freedom of
Information Acts (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) to be posted on the
grants website. However, the exemption in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5),
which exempts inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or
letters which would not be available by law to a party other
than an agency in litigation with the agency from FOIA
requests, does not apply to pre-decisional documents required
to be posted under this section to explain the basis for grant
selection decisions and to justify decisions that do not follow
the rankings or recommendations of grant reviewers.
Subsection 7403(g) states that the grants website, to the
extent practicable, should make all information required by
section 7403 available in its original format and without
charging a fee or requiring a license or registration. The
grants website must also: allow the information to be searched,
downloaded in bulk, disseminated via automatic electronic
means, and freely shared by the public, such as by social
media; use permanent uniform resource locators for the required
information; and provide an opportunity for the public to
provide input about the usefulness of the site and to make
recommendations for improvement.
Section 7404 states that, if requested by an applicant for
a competitive grant, for each grant award made by an agency in
an amount larger than $100,000, the agency must provide the
applicant for the grant with a direct interaction describing
the basis for the award decision of the agency. This
interaction should be timely and should include, if applicable,
the basis for the decision not to award a grant to the
applicant.
Section 7405 requires that no later than 18 months after
the date of enactment, the Inspector General of each Executive
agency that awards competitive grants will conduct a review of
the effectiveness of the conflict of interest policy of the
agency. This should include a review of a random selection of
peer review processes for competitive grants to detect
favoritism within the peer review process.
Section 2(b) of the bill is a clerical amendment to reflect
the new chapter 74 of title 31, United States Code.
Section 3. Grants Workforce Report
This section provides definitions for the terms ``Executive
Agency'' and ``Federal Grants Workforce'' for the purposes of
this section. The section also requires the GAO to issue a
report to relevant Congressional committees, not later 180 days
after the date of enactment, examining the Federal grants
workforce. This report should address the size of the Federal
grants workforce and expected employment trends, the adequacy
of training opportunities for the workforce, whether the
Federal Acquisition Institute or similar entities engaged in
acquisition workforce training should be made available for
grant workforce training, and whether a warrant system similar
to the Federal acquisition system should be established for
Federal officials authorized to award grants. The report should
also examine suspension and debarment actions taken against
grantees by agencies during the preceding three year period,
and the level of agency resources assigned to the suspension
and debarment functions. Finally, the report should make any
necessary recommendations for improving the Federal grants
workforce.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
December 7, 2016.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2972, the Grant
Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lara
Robillard.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 2972--Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016
S. 2972 would amend federal law pertaining to awards of
grants across federal agencies. The legislation would require
agencies to conduct additional evaluation of applicants for
merit-based grants, to upgrade federal websites related to
grants, and to prepare additional reports.
S. 2972 would largely codify existing practices for merit-
based grants. CBO estimates that implementing changes to the
grant-award system as required under S. 2972 would cost less
than $1 million annually over the 2017-2021 period, subject to
the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting the bill also could affect direct spending by
agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however,
that any net increase in spending by those agencies would not
be significant. Enacting S. 2972 would not affect revenues.
S. 2972 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lara Robillard.
The estimate was approved by Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 2972 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle V--General Assistance Administration
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 74--GRANTS TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 74--GRANTS TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
7401. Definitions.
7402. Pre-award evaluation requirements.
7403. Website relating to Federal grants.
7404. Postdecision explanation for failed applicants.
7405. Inspector General review of peer review process.
SEC. 7401. DEFINITIONS
In this chapter:
(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means an entity
that submits a proposal or application for a grant.
(2) Competitive grant.--The term `competitive grant'
means a discretionary grant entered into through the
use of merit-based selection procedures for the purpose
of allocating funds authorized under a grant program of
an Executive agency.
(3) Executive agency.--The term `Executive agency'
has the meaning given the term in section 105 of title
5, except the term does not include the Government
Accountability Office.
(4) Grant.--The term `grant' means an award of
Federal financial assistance through a grant agreement
or cooperative agreement making payment in cash or in
kind to a recipient to carry out a public purpose
authorized by law.
(5) Grant reviewer.--The term `grant reviewer', with
respect to a grant--
(A) means any individual who reviews,
evaluates, or participates in the decision to
select an applicant for award of the grant; and
(B) includes--
(i) a peer reviewer;
(ii) a merit reviewer; and
(iii) a member of a technical
evaluation panel or board or a special
emphasis panel.
SEC. 7402. PRE-AWARD EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
(a) Evaluation Required.--
(1) In general.--Before awarding a competitive grant
and after determining eligibility and conducting a
merit-based review, an Executive agency shall conduct
an evaluation of the risk posed by an applicant to
successfully carry out the grant in accordance with
section 200.205 of title 2, Code of Federal regulations
(or any successor thereto).
(2) Review of interagency duplication.--To the extent
practicable, each evaluation conducted under paragraph
(1) shall include a review of any interagency
duplication of efforts for research grants, which may
be completed through a text-similarity detection
process.
(b) Simplified Evaluation Procedure for Certain
Applicants.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`covered applicant' means an applicant that, based on a
risk assessment conducted by the Executive agency, is
determined to pose a relatively low risk of failing to
execute the grant successfully and properly.
(2) Procedure.--In conducting the evaluation required
under subsection (a) with respect to a covered
applicant, an Executive agency shall--
(A) minimize the burden on the covered
applicant; and
(B) consider any existing findings with
respect to the covered applicant under the
single audit process under chapter 75 of this
title related to the matters described in
subsection (b).
SEC. 7403. WEBSITE RELATING TO FEDERAL GRANTS
(a) Requirement.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall consult with Executive agencies to upgrade
grants.gov or any proposed successor public website for finding
Federal grant opportunities and applying for those grants so
that the website--
(1) may serve as a central point of information and
provide full access for applicants for competitive
grants; and
(2) shall capture in 1 site, or provide electronic
links to, other relevant databases.
(b) Notice of Competitive Grant Funds Availability.--At the
time an Executive agency issues a solicitation or otherwise
announces the availability of funds for a competitive grant,
the Executive agency shall post on the grants website
maintained under this section, in a searchable electronic
format, relevant information about the grant opportunity,
including--
(1) the grant announcement and purpose of the grant;
(2) the anticipated period of performance for new
awards and whether the Executive agency anticipates
that the grant will be continued;
(3) in the case of an announcement with respect to
which a specific sum is reserved, the amount of funds
available for the grant;
(4) a statement of eligibility requirements for the
grant;
(5) contact information for the Executive agency,
including the name, telephone number, and electronic
mail address of a specific person or persons
responsible for answering questions about the grant and
the application process for the grant;
(6) a clear statement of the evaluation factors or
criteria that the Executive agency intends to use to
evaluate and rank grant applications or proposals
submitted, including the weight to be applied to each
factor or criterion;
(7) a description of the process and standards to be
used by the Executive agency to determine that each
grant reviewer does not have a prohibited conflict of
interest, as defined by applicable statute or
regulation, with respect to the evaluation or review of
a grant application or proposal, or the decision to
award a grant;
(8) the anticipated deadline for submission of grant
applications or proposals; and (9) a set of sample
winning grant proposals awarded under the same or
similar program within the last 3 years.
(c) Use by Applicants.--The grants website maintained under
this section shall, to the greatest extent practicable, allow
applicants to--
(1) use the website with any widely-used computer
platform;
(2) search the website for all competitive grants by
purpose, funding agency, program source, and other
relevant criteria; and
(3) apply for a competitive grant using the website.
(d) Technical Assistance for Grantees.--
(1) In general.--Each Executive agency shall make
available on the grants website maintained under this
section detailed grant guidance and written technical
assistance for applicants.
(2) Grant award process information posted.--With
respect to each grant awarded by an Executive agency,
the Executive agency shall, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the grant is awarded, post on
the grants website maintained under this section--
(A) documentation explaining the basis for
the selection decision for the grant, the
number of proposals received for the grant,
and, with respect to the proposal that resulted
in the grant award, whether the grant was
awarded consistent with a numerical ranking or
other recommendations by grant reviewers; and
(B) in any case in which the award of the
grant is not consistent with the numerical
rankings or any other recommendations made by
grant reviewers, a written justification
explaining the rationale for the decision not
to follow the rankings or recommendations.
(3) Sensitive information.--
(A) Personally identifiable information.--
Each Executive agency may redact any personally
identifiable information from a post on the
grants website maintained under this section.
(B) Adverse information.--An Executive agency
may not post on the grants website maintained
under this section any sensitive information
that the Executive agency determines would
adversely affect an applicant.
(e) Submission and Publication of Grant Solicitation
Forecast on the Grants Website.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than November 30 of each
fiscal year or not later than 60 days after the date on
which amounts are appropriated to an Executive agency
for a fiscal year, whichever is later, the head of the
Executive agency shall post a forecast, in accordance
with paragraph (2), of all nonemergency grant
solicitations that the Executive agency expects to
issue for the following calendar year, which--
(A) shall be based on the best information
available; and
(B) shall not be binding on the Executive
agency.
(2) Matters included.--The forecast required under
paragraph (1) shall include, to the extent practicable,
for each expected grant solicitation in a machine-
readable format--
(A) a brief description of the subject and
purpose of the grant, organized by the
organizational unit of the Executive agency;
(B) contact information for the
organizational unit or individual responsible
for the grant, if known, including name,
telephone number, and electronic mail address;
(C) the expected or actual dates for the
issuance of the grant solicitation and
application and the grant application
submission deadline;
(D) the estimated amount of the average grant
award, the estimated maximum and minimum
amounts of the grant award, if applicable, and
the estimated total number of grant awards to
be made; and
(E) a description of the total amount
available to be awarded.
(f) Publication of Information.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall be construed to require
the publication of information otherwise exempt from
disclosure under section 552 of title 5 (commonly
referred to as the `Freedom of Information Act').
(2) Limitation.--The exemption under section
552(b)(5) of title 5 shall not exempt from publication
predecisional documents required to be posted pursuant
to the requirements under subsection (d)(2).
(g) Transparency of Information.--To the extent
practicable, the grants website maintained under this section
shall--
(1) make the information described in this section
available in its original format;
(2) make the information described in this section
available without charge, license, or registration
requirement;
(3) permit the information described in this section
to be searched;
(4) permit the information described in this section
to be downloaded in bulk;
(5) permit the information described in this section
to be disseminated via automatic electronic means;
(6) permit the information described in this section
to be freely shared by the public, such as by social
media;
(7) use permanent uniform resource locators for the
information described in this section; and
(8) provide an opportunity for the public to provide
input about the usefulness of the site and
recommendations for improvements.
SEC. 7404. POSTDECISION EXPLANATION FOR FAILED APPLICANTS
If requested by an applicant for a competitive grant, for
each grant award made in an amount in excess of $100,000
pursuant to a merit-based selection procedure, an Executive
agency shall provide the applicant with a timely direct
interaction describing the basis for the award decision of the
Executive agency, including, if applicable, the decision not to
award a grant to the applicant.
SEC. 7405. INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the
Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016, the Inspector
General of each Executive agency that awards competitive grants
shall conduct a review of the effectiveness of the conflicts of
interest policy of the Executive agency, including a review of
a random selection of peer review processes, with respect to
the peer review process for competitive grants in order to
detect favoritism.
[all]