[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27569-27571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13244]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Objective Merit Review of Discretionary Financial Assistance
Applications
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice establishes the procedure followed by program and
regional support offices under the purview of the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (ASEE) in conducting the
objective merit review of discretionary financial assistance
applications.
[[Page 27570]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy A. Martin, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-60, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9108.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Applicability of Notice
III. Distinction between Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals
IV. Objective Merit Review Procedure
V. Deviations
VI. EE Selection Process
I. Introduction
The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice of the procedure
for the objective merit review of discretionary financial assistance in
the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Financial assistance is provided, in the form of a
grant or cooperative agreement, when the principal purpose of the
transaction is the transfer of money or property to accomplish a public
purpose of support or stimulation as authorized by Federal statute.
Discretionary financial assistance is financial assistance provided
under a federal statute which authorizes DOE to select the recipient
and the project to be supported and to determine the amount to be
awarded. This differs from a procurement, which refers to instruments
used when the principal purpose of the transaction is the acquisition
of supplies or services for the direct benefit of the Government. The
procedure implements the objective merit review provisions of the DOE
Financial Assistance Rules in (10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Sec. 600.13).
II. Applicability of Notice
The procedure covers the evaluation of all discretionary financial
assistance applications within the programs of the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and apply to both solicited and
unsolicited applications.
III. Distinction Between Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals
Solicited proposals are direct responses by interested
organizations or individuals to published requests issued by DOE for
the submission of applications for discretionary financial assistance
awards. Solicited proposals are awarded on a competitive basis using
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.8. When a proposal is submitted
solely on the proposer's initiative and the idea, method or approach
which would not be eligible for assistance under a recent, current, or
planned solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive
solicitation would not be appropriate, the proposal is considered an
unsolicited proposal. Unsolicited proposals are awarded on a
noncompetitive basis using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.6 (c).
The two types of proposals are treated differently, as described in
paragraph IV. (c), below.
IV. Objective Merit Review Procedure
(a) Definition and Purpose. Merit review is the process of
evaluating applications for discretionary financial assistance using
established criteria. The review is thorough, consistent and
independent and is completed by individuals knowledgeable in the field
of endeavor for which support is requested. The purpose of the review
is to provide advice on the technical and cost-related merits of
applications to the Selection Official with decision-making authority
over the award of discretionary financial assistance.
(b) Basic Review Standards. (1) Initial Review. All financial
assistance applications received by EE will be assigned to the
respective EE program official who will initially review the
document(s) for conformance with the technical and administrative
requirements stated in the program rule, notice or solicitation and
funding availability. (2) Evaluation. Applications which pass the
initial review will be evaluated in accordance with stated evaluation
criteria set forth in the program rule, notice, solicitation, or, where
appropriate, the unsolicited proposal criteria. Those applications not
meeting the evaluation criteria of the program rule, notice,
solicitation, or the unsolicited proposal may be returned to the sender
to be corrected or modified/supplemented by the sender. Those
applications judged to be so inadequate that an evaluation is not
warranted will be returned to the sender.
(c) Criteria for Merit Review. Applications which pass the initial
review and meet the evaluation criteria set forth in the program rule,
notice or solicitation are subjected to an objective merit review for
discretionary financial assistance. The criteria used for the
evaluation of solicited applications must be clearly stated in the
solicitation along with the relative importance given to each
criterion. The criteria, and other mandatory information specified in
10 CFR 600.8, must be in the solicitation. If an unsolicited proposal
is initially favorably evaluated against program/policy factors, it
should be considered for an objective merit review for discretionary
financial assistance. The criteria used for the evaluation of
unsolicited proposals is set forth in 10 CFR 600.6 (c).
(d) The Merit Review Committee. (1) The ASEE has the ultimate
responsibility for appointments to a merit review committee (the
Committee). The ASEE may delegate the appointment authority and
decision-making authority (Selection Official function) to Deputy
Assistant Secretaries (DAS), Office Directors and Regional Support
Office Directors.
(2) The Committee, whether a standing committee or other review
committee, shall be comprised of three or more professionally and
technically qualified persons. The committee members may be a mixture
of federal and non-federal experts. Non-Federal members shall be
selected on the basis of their professional qualifications and
expertise.
(3) Members of the merit review committee should exclude anyone
who, on behalf of the Federal Government, performs any of the following
functions:
(i) Providing substantial technical assistance to the applicant;
(ii) Approving/disapproving or having any decision-making role
regarding the application;
(iii) Serving as the Contracting Officer (CO) or performing
business management functions for the project;
(iv) Auditing the recipient for the project; or
(v) Exercising line authority over anyone ineligible to serve as a
reviewer because of the above limitations.
(4) The Selection Official must appoint one member of the merit
review committee to serve as chairperson. The chairperson is
responsible for:
(i) Obtaining signed certificates of confidentiality from all
committee members;
(ii) Preparing the written summary of the evaluation and
recommendations for the Selection Official for the applicant's file;
and
(iii) Performing the merit review duties of a regular committee
member.
(5) The nature of EE's program solicitations will dictate the
feasibility of using standing or ad hoc committees. When solicitations
are generally being issued to meet specific program objectives with
time or subject limitations, EE program offices will use ad hoc
committees. Ad hoc committees are also appropriate under the following
circumstances:
(i) For small numbers of applications received intermittently;
(ii) For programs of short duration, usually under one year;
[[Page 27571]]
(iii) To supplement review by standing committees when the volume
of applications is usually large, and for applications with special
review requirements.
(6) The regular use of ad hoc committees does not preclude the use
of standing committees under the following circumstances:
(i) When required by legislation,
(ii) When a sufficient number of applications on a specific topic
are received regularly and there is a sufficient number of qualified
experts willing to serve on the committee for a prolonged tenure; and
(iii) When the legislative authority for the particular program
involved extends for more than one year.
(7) Field readers may be used as an adjunct to a review committee.
Field readers must be fully briefed by the designated Contract
Officer's Representative so as to understand the process, including the
review criteria, the weight given each criterion, and the fact that any
criteria not specified in the solicitation are not to be used to
evaluate the applications. The field readers must sign a certificate of
confidentiality, as provided in 10 CFR 600.13(d). Field readers should
follow, as closely as possible, the procedures that would have been
used by a standing committee.
(e) Conflict of Interest. Members of the review committee must act
in a manner consistent with 10 CFR 1010.101. Reviewers who do not meet
these requirements shall not review, discuss, or make recommendations
concerning the application. Review committee members with a conflict of
interest shall also absent themselves from all meetings in which the
application in question is discussed.
(f) Authorized Uses of Information. The review committee must act
in a manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15 when dealing with
applications containing trade secrets, privileged, confidential
commercial, and/or financial information, unless the information is
unrestricted information available from other sources.
(g) Authority Beyond Evaluation. The Selection Official may decide
not to accept a proposal that receives a favorable recommendation from
the merit review committee due to policy or program factors. The
explanation for the decision not to accept a recommendation from the
merit review committee must be documented in writing for the
applicant's file and must be prepared and signed by the ASEE or his/her
designee.
(h) Written Evaluation Summary. Upon request, applicants are to be
furnished a written summary of the evaluation of their application.
V. Deviations
If an EE program office wants to deviate from these procedures for
merit review of an application or a class of applications, but will
still follow the rules of 10 CFR 600.13, that office must obtain
written permission from the ASEE. Permission to use procedures which
deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be requested in writing to the responsible
DOE Contracting Officer in accordance with 10 CFR 600.4. The Head of
Contracting Activity has the authority to approve such procedures for a
single case deviation, while the DAS for Procurement and Assistance
Management has the authority to approve a class deviation. A deviation
may be authorized only upon written determination that the deviation is
necessary for any of the reasons set forth in 10 CFR 600.4 (b).
VI. EE Selection Process
Selection of applications for discretionary financial assistance
will be based on the Selection Officials' acceptance of the merit
review committees' recommendations and the findings of a separate
programmatic review of program/policy factors relevant to EE's mission.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 13, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-13244 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P