[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47808-47813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22872]




[[Page 47807]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



34 CFR Part 700



Standards for the Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried Out by 
the Office Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)--Evaluation of 
Applications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Proposals for 
Contracts; Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations   

[[Page 47808]]


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: Final Regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and 
Improvement establishes final regulations that set 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 ensure that these 
application and proposal evaluation activities meet the highest 
standards of professional excellence.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect October 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Fuentes, U.S. Department of 
Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Room 600, Washington, DC 20208-
5530. Telephone (202) 219-1895. Internet electronic mail address: stan-
[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: On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed 
Pub. L. 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.
    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. The 
legislation required that the standards be developed in three phases. 
These regulations implement the first phase of the standards. The 
Assistant Secretary will publish at a later date additional proposed 
regulations to implement the remaining standards in accordance with the 
timelines established in the Act. The legislation requires the Board to 
review and approve the final standards.
    On June 7, 1995, the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research 
and Improvement published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 30160).

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Assistant Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, 
five parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An 
analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations since 
publication of the NPRM follows.
    Issues are grouped according to subject with appropriate sections 
of the regulations referenced in parentheses. Substantive issues are 
discussed under the section of the regulations to which they pertain. 
In addition to the public comment, the comments of the Board's 
Committee on Standards are also addressed. That Committee met in public 
session on August 4, 1995, to provide final input for the Board and to 
act on the Board's behalf in approving the standards. Technical and 
other minor changes--and suggested changes the Secretary is not legally 
authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority--are not 
addressed.

Qualifications of Peer Reviewers (Sec. 700.11)

    Comments: Two commenters believed that Sec. 700.11 should require 
the majority of reviewers for a given application to meet the 
qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i). These commenters were concerned 
that requiring individual reviewers to possess only one or more of the 
qualifications listed under Sec. 700.11(a)(1) might result in few or no 
reviewers for a given application possessing demonstrated expertise in 
the subject of the competition (Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i)). One of these 
commenters also felt that each group of reviewers for a given 
application should include at least one reviewer with ``in-depth 
knowledge of policy and practice in the field of education'' 
(Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(ii)), and at least one reviewer with ``in-depth 
knowledge of theoretical perspectives or methodological approaches 
relevant to the subject of the competition'' (Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(iii)). 
Another commenter felt that all reviewers for research projects should 
possess technical expertise regarding the theoretical and 
methodological aspects of the grant applications.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes it is important for all 
reviewers to possess each of the qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1). 
The Board agreed that it is important for all reviewers to possess each 
of the qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1) but recommended that 
Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(ii) be modified to allow a reviewer to be deemed 
qualified on the basis of in-depth knowledge of policy ``or'' practice 
in the field of education rather than both.
    Changes: The Secretary has revised Sec. 700.11(a)(1) to require 
each reviewer to possess each of the qualifications of (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii) and replaced the word ``and'' in (a)(1)(ii) 
with the word ``or''.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the word 
``relevant'' in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i) was inadequate for specifying that 
reviewers have direct expertise in the topic area of grant applications 
they review.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with this commenter.
    Changes: The Secretary replaced the words ``relevant to the subject 
area'' with the words ``in the subject area'' in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i) 
and also in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(iii).

Convening Reviewers to Discuss Unsolicited Applications (Sec. 700.21)

    Comments: One commenter suggested substituting the word ``may'' for 
the word ``will'' in Sec. 700.21(c) so as not to require the convening 
of reviewers in all instances. The commenter believed that it may not 
be necessary to convene reviewers to discuss the strengths and 
weaknesses of unsolicited applications.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that discussions of each 
application's strengths and weaknesses allows reviewers to share 
perspectives and provide a higher quality of review. Therefore, the 
Secretary believes that such discussions should, in general, be 
required. However, the Secretary agrees that in the case of unsolicited 
applications, it may not be necessary to convene reviewers.
    Changes: The Secretary has added a new Sec. 700.21(c)(2), which 
allows the Secretary to use discretion in determining whether to 
convene reviewers of unsolicited applications. 

[[Page 47809]]

    Comments: One commenter felt that it was important that applicants 
receive the written comments regarding the strengths and weaknesses of 
their applications at the same time as the applicants are notified of 
acceptance or rejection. Another commenter recommended that the OERI 
standards address the issue of OERI's communicating the results of the 
competition to the applicants and the larger community.
    Discussion: The Secretary recently modified Department procedures 
to provide both successful and unsuccessful applicants earlier 
notification of funding decisions. In most cases, reviewer comments 
accompany these notifications. However, particularly for competitions 
that generate large numbers of applications, reviewer comments are sent 
at a later date so that this early notification of funding decisions 
need not be delayed. The Secretary routinely issues press releases to 
inform the public of the results of each competition.
    Changes: None.

Evaluating Grant and Cooperative Agreement Applications and Contract 
Proposals (Sec. 700.21 and Sec. 700.22)

    Comments: One commenter stated that it was not clear that the 
Secretary will be constrained or informed by the results of the 
evaluations carried out by the peer reviewers. The commenter 
recommended changes to clarify that: (1) Each reviewer will provide a 
recommendation to fund or not to fund each application, accompanied by 
a numerical rating of the application; and (2) the Secretary will rely 
on numerical ratings given by the peer reviewers in rank ordering the 
applications.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that Sec. 700.21(e) should be 
revised to clarify that the Secretary prepares a rank order based 
solely on the peer reviewers' ratings. However, the Secretary believes 
that, in selecting applications for award, he must consider factors in 
addition to the applicants' rankings and the funding recommendations of 
the peer reviewers. These other factors, specified in Sec. 700.40, 
include performance of the applicant under a prior award, the amount of 
funds available for the competition, and any other information relevant 
to a priority or other statutory or regulatory requirement applicable 
to the selection of applications for new awards.
    Changes: The Secretary has revised Sec. 700.21(e) to clarify that 
the rank order is based solely on the peer reviewers' ratings for each 
application.
    Comments: One commenter pointed out that Sec. 700.22(d), regarding 
the evaluation of contract proposals, enables reviewers to assign 
proposals to the category ``capable of being made acceptable.'' The 
commenter recommended that a similar category be added to 
Sec. 700.21(d), relating to the evaluation of grants and cooperative 
agreements. The commenter believes that such a change could allow 
applicants an opportunity to fix minor problems in otherwise 
outstanding grant applications and still be eligible for funding.
    Discussion: The Federal Acquisition Regulations, which govern the 
Federal government's contract procurements expressly recommend the 
establishment of a category ``capable of being made acceptable.'' In 
that grant competitions are held to determine which applicants are to 
receive the benefit of Federal financial assistance for the activities 
applicants propose, rather than to determine which applicant or 
applicants will be contracted to provide services according to 
government specifications, fairness would dictate that if one grant 
applicant is allowed to revise its application, all other grant 
competitors should be provided the same opportunity. In addition, grant 
competitions typically generate many more applications than do contract 
competitions. There are often many more highly rated applicants than 
there are funds available for awards, and so there is no need to allow 
competitors a second chance to make their applications fundable. As a 
practical matter, applications that are truly outstanding, but have 
minor problems, are likely to be rated highly, with the minor problems 
addressed during negotiation of the grant award. The Board discussed 
the issue raised by this commenter. The Board was concerned that 
reviewers of proposals for contracts had three categories in which they 
could place contract proposals while reviewers of grant and cooperative 
agreement applications only had two categories. The Board recommended 
that a third category be added under Sec. 700.21(d) that would allow 
reviewers to distinguish between projects that they would recommend for 
funding and those that they would highly recommend.
    Changes: The Secretary has added a new category of ``highly 
recommended for funding'' under Sec. 700.21(d).
    Comment: After consultation with the Board, the Secretary has 
determined that the evaluation criteria related to prior performance of 
applicants under previously funded grants or cooperative agreements 
(Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E)) would require 
applicants to provide that information for evaluation by the peer 
reviewers. This information is already available to the Secretary and 
will be another factor considered by the Secretary in making award 
decisions under Sec. 700.40(a)(3).
    Discussion: The evaluation criteria under Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D) 
and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E) duplicate the factors in Sec. 700.40(a)(3) 
and thus impose an unnecessary burden on applicants.
    Changes: Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E) are 
deleted.

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 submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for its review, and it was approved by OMB. (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.

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.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    Based on the response to the proposed regulations and on its own 
review, the Department has determined that the regulations in this 
document do not require transmission of information that 

[[Page 47810]]
is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority 
of the United States.

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.

    Dated: September 11, 1995.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
Sharon P. Robinson,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.)

    The Secretary amends 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).
Subpart A--General


Sec. 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 (the Office) 
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))


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 Education Department Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR 
Chapter 34.
    EDGAR means the Education Department General Administrative 
Regulations, 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 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); and 

[[Page 47811]]

    (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 that 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 the following qualifications:
    (i) Demonstrated expertise, including training and experience, in 
the subject area of the competition.
    (ii) In-depth knowledge of policy or practice in the field of 
education.
    (iii) In-depth knowledge of theoretical perspectives or 
methodological approaches in the subject area of the competition; and
    (2) Does not have a conflict of interest, as determined in 
accordance with Sec. 700.12.
    (b) For each competition for new awards for grants and cooperative 
agreements--
    (i) Department staff may not serve as peer reviewers except in 
exceptional circumstances as determined by the Secretary; and
    (ii) The majority of reviewers may 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 Department for the purposes of conflicts of 
interest analysis.
    (b) As employees of the Department, peer reviewers are subject to 
the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208, 5 CFR 2635.502, and the Department's 
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 Department in accordance with FAR, 48 CFR 3.104-4(h)(2).
    (b) As employees of the Department, 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 
must 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 
$1,000,000, at least five reviewers must be used.
    (b) Each contract proposal must be read by at least three reviewers 
unless the contracting officer determines that an adequate peer review 
can be obtained by using 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 must 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) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
after each peer reviewer has evaluated and rated each application 
independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set of 
applications are 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.
    (2) Reviewers are not convened to discuss an unsolicited 
application unless the Secretary determines that discussion of the 
application's strengths and weaknesses is necessary.
    (d) Following discussion and any reevaluation and re-rating, 
reviewers shall independently place each application in one of three 
categories, either ``highly recommended for funding,'' ``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' ratings.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2)(C))


Sec. 700.22  How are proposals for contracts evaluated?

    (a) Each peer reviewer must 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 

[[Page 47812]]
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 or in the application package.
    (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.
    (H) The likelihood that the design of the project will successfully 
address the intended, demonstrated educational need 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.
    (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 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. 

[[Page 47813]]

    (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.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1850-0723)

(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), the Secretary uses criteria or factors specified in the 
applicable program statute 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 must 
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. 95-22872 Filed 9-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P