[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 [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected]. 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