[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