[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36385-36394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and 
Part C Fiscal Data

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for a 
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C 
Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center), Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.373F. The Fiscal Data Center will provide 
technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection requirements under Parts B and C of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Fiscal Data Center will 
support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best 
analyze and use their IDEA Parts B and C fiscal data to establish and 
meet high expectations for each child with a disability and will 
customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs. This notice 
relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 
1894-0006.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: June 16, 2020.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 31, 2020.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to

[[Page 36386]]

Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Finch, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6610. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary the authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of 
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide 
TA activities authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA, where needed, to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements 
under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may 
reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, 
cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA 
requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis 
capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined 
necessary for the implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, 
analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires 
the Secretary to provide TA (from funds reserved under section 
611(c)(1)), where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, which include 
the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 
of IDEA. Additionally, the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2019; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2020 give the Secretary the authority to use funds reserved under 
section 611(c) to ``administer and carry out other services and 
activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use 
under parts B and C of the IDEA.'' Department of Defense and Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, and 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Div. B, Title III of Public Law 
115-245, 132 Stat. 3100 (2018); Further Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 
(2019).
    Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority and 
requirements (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register.
    Background: The purpose of this priority is to establish a Fiscal 
Data Center to provide States with TA to assist them in meeting their 
fiscal data collection and reporting obligations under IDEA. Under Part 
B of IDEA, State educational agencies (SEAs) are required to submit 
fiscal data to the Department in (1) the IDEA Part B local educational 
agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated 
Early Intervening Services (CEIS) (LEA MOE/CEIS) Data Collection; and 
(2) Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual Application. Under IDEA Part C, 
State lead agencies (LAs) are also required to report fiscal data to 
the Department in (1) Section III of the IDEA Part C Annual Application 
(use of funds); and (2) Section IV of the IDEA Part C Annual 
Application (indirect costs).
    In reviewing the data submitted by States, the Department finds 
that States continue to need support to build their capacity to submit 
valid and reliable IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data. It is important 
for these data to be accurate so that States can use them to more 
effectively manage all available funding resources for services for 
children with disabilities and ensure that IDEA funds are used as a 
payor of last resort. In addition, under IDEA Part B, States may suffer 
significant monetary consequences as a result of inaccurate data 
reporting or noncompliance identified through these data collections.

Data Under IDEA Part B

    In FY 2014, the Department funded the Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--IDEA Fiscal Data Center, which provided TA to improve 
the capacity of States to meet the following IDEA Part B fiscal data 
collection requirements under section 618 of IDEA: (1) Maintenance of 
State Financial Support (MFS) for special education and related 
services; and (2) LEA MOE/CEIS.
    Since that time, the Department added new data elements to the LEA 
MOE/CEIS data collection based on the final LEA MOE regulations that 
were published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23644), 
and States will need to ensure that the data they submit under those 
new elements are valid and reliable. In addition, the Department 
continues to identify errors in States' Part B LEA MOE/CEIS data 
submissions through its annual review process. Finally, based on the 
Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) monitoring visits and 
subsequent fiscal findings in several States, OSEP has determined that 
States continue to need support in understanding the requirements 
relating to the data elements reported under the LEA MOE/CEIS data 
collection.
    For example, OSEP has identified noncompliance in the methodologies 
used by some States to calculate the amounts of their LEAs' IDEA Part B 
subgrants. This type of noncompliance has broader implications for LEAs 
and States that receive increased or decreased funding for special 
education and related services. As an illustration of the potential 
impact of fiscal noncompliance, an error in calculating the amount of 
an LEA's IDEA Part B allocation affects the amounts the LEA may expend 
to meet other fiscal requirements, such as LEA MOE reduction under 34 
CFR 300.205, voluntary CEIS under 34 CFR 300.226(a), comprehensive CEIS 
under 34 CFR 300.646(d), and proportionate share for parentally placed 
private school children with disabilities under 34 CFR 300.133. Based 
on the complexities and high stakes involved in reporting valid and 
reliable IDEA Part B fiscal data, the Department determined that States 
continue to need TA to improve their data collection capacity, their 
ability to analyze and use that data, and their ability to ensure data 
are accurate and can be reported to the Department and the public.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department's FY 2014 notice of proposed priority (79 FR 
24661) provided information on the challenges States face in 
understanding, submitting, analyzing and using IDEA Part B fiscal 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accurately collecting and reporting valid and reliable IDEA Part B 
fiscal data is critically important for States and LEAs. Failure of a 
State to report accurate data on MFS may result in a reduction of IDEA 
Part B section 611 funds. Failure of an LEA to meet LEA MOE may result 
in repayment by the SEA of non-Federal funds to the Department. In 
addition, accurate fiscal information is needed for States to make 
informed decisions on the use of their IDEA Part B funds. Finally, 
valid and reliable fiscal data allow OSEP to better

[[Page 36387]]

protect the Federal interest in the approximately $13.2 billion of IDEA 
Part B grants made available to States by the Department in Federal 
fiscal year (FFY) 2019 by ensuring that States and LEAs meet their 
obligation to collect and report accurate data on IDEA's MFS and LEA 
MOE requirements.
    TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using other IDEA Part B 
and Part C data reported under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA will be 
provided by the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State 
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 
Data, CFDA number 84.373Y, and the National Technical Assistance Center 
to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
Early Childhood IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z, for which notices of 
final priority and requirements were published in the Federal Register 
on August 12, 2019 (84 FR 39736 and 84 FR 39727).

Data Under IDEA Part C

    In its review of State submissions of IDEA Part C fiscal data, the 
Department found that States need support to submit accurate, valid, 
and reliable data in two areas: (1) Use of IDEA Part C funds; and (2) 
indirect costs.\2\ In its reviews, OSEP found inconsistencies within 
the IDEA Part C Annual Application between the fiscal data reported by 
a State LA and the related fiscal certification and assurances that the 
State must provide as part of its application for eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These fiscal data are reported in the following sections of 
the IDEA Part C Application: (1) Section III: Use of Federal IDEA 
Part C Funds for the State LA and the Interagency Coordinating 
Council (ICC); and (2) Section IV.B: Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/
Cost Allocation Plan data, which the Department collects, inter 
alia, under section 618(a)(3) of IDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its IDEA Part C Annual Application, each LA must provide several 
fiscal-related assurances and a fiscal-related certification. 
Specifically, each LA must--
    (1) Ensure its statewide system has a single line of 
responsibility, including--
    (a) The identification and coordination of all available resources 
for early intervention services within the State, including those from 
Federal, State, local, and private sources, consistent with subpart F 
of 34 CFR part 303; and
    (b) The assignment of financial responsibility in accordance with 
subpart F of 34 CFR part 303 and specifically ensure IDEA Part C funds 
are used as payor of last resort (including any method under IDEA 
section 640);
    (2) Coordinate all available funding sources for IDEA Part C 
services (including its system of payments);
    (3) Use IDEA Part C funds to supplement, not supplant, the level of 
State and local funds expended for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities; and
    (4) Charge administrative direct and indirect costs to the IDEA 
Part C grant consistent with applicable Federal fiscal requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These assurances are provided in Section II.B., items 13 and 
24. The assurance numbers are from the FFY 2019 IDEA Part C Annual 
State Application, which can be accessed at https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, each LA must certify that the arrangements to 
establish financial responsibility for the provision of IDEA Part C 
services among appropriate public agencies under 34 CFR 303.511 and the 
LA's contracts with early intervention service (EIS) providers 
regarding financial responsibility for the provision of IDEA Part C 
services meet the requirements in 34 CFR 303.500 through 303.521 and 
are current as of the date of submission of the certification.\4\ 
Fiscal data related to this certification may need to also be reported 
in Section III of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application under 
funding for other State agencies to the extent Federal IDEA Part C 
funds are used in conjunction with State funding or other support 
provided by State agencies other than the State LA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This is certification number 3 in Section II.C. of the 
application, and it is provided, under IDEA section 640 and 34 CFR 
303.202, in Section II.C. It can be accessed at https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In several instances, States' reporting of IDEA Part C fiscal data 
in their applications indicates that there is confusion related to the 
implementation of underlying Part C fiscal requirements. Many States 
need support in understanding the administrative costs that may be 
charged to IDEA Part C grants as direct and indirect costs. 
Additionally, in their annual application numerous States are unable to 
identify or disaggregate the costs for direct services, as well as 
costs attributable to other State agencies, due to confusion regarding 
the fiscal certification, and fiscal assurances regarding the payor of 
last resort, system of payments, methods, and related fiscal 
coordination requirements.
    OSEP's review of the fiscal data in Section III of the IDEA Part C 
application (use of funds) indicates that States need TA in this area. 
This review has identified inconsistencies in data across categories of 
expenses (including direct and indirect costs) and between the fiscal 
data reported by the State and the related fiscal assurances and 
certification regarding funding needed or provided by other State 
agencies (and any methods, such as interagency agreements or other 
appropriate written mechanisms) and the State's related application 
requirements, including its system of payments policies. States' fiscal 
data reflect confusion with the fiscal requirements not only under the 
IDEA Part C statute and regulations, but also the fiscal requirements 
under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards, codified in 2 CFR part 200 (OMB Uniform Guidance).
    Specifically, OSEP has identified issues with, and States have 
raised questions about, how to report IDEA Part C fiscal data regarding 
the amount of IDEA Part C funds to be used for: (1) Administrative 
costs, such as positions partially or wholly funded by IDEA Part C 
funds, and the amount of fringe benefits (reported in Section III.A.); 
(2) maintenance and implementation activities for the LA and the State 
Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) (including any costs that 
require prior approval by OSEP, such as equipment, rent, and 
participant support costs for trainings and conferences) (reported in 
Section III.B.); (3) direct services (disaggregated by the type of 
service and expended consistently with IDEA's payor-of-last-resort and 
system of payments requirements) (reported in Section III.C.); and (4) 
activities by other State agencies (reported in Section III.D.). The 
fiscal data in each of these categories reflects a need for TA on the 
requirements in the OMB Uniform Guidance as they apply to IDEA Part C 
LAs and EIS providers.
    OSEP has also found that States need TA with Section III use of 
funds or ``budget'' amendment requests after the grant is issued to 
comply with fiscal requirements and in order to expend unused IDEA Part 
C funds prior to those funds lapsing. These fiscal requirements are 
also codified in the OMB Uniform Guidance.
    In Section IV.B. of the IDEA Part C application, the LA must report 
on whether the State plans to charge indirect costs to the IDEA Part C 
grant through the use of a restricted indirect cost rate agreement or a 
cost allocation plan that is approved by the LA's Federal cognizant 
agency and provide appropriate documentation.
    Sections III.F.6 and IV.B also require States to indicate that, if 
indirect costs are being charged to the IDEA Part C grant, the State 
must indicate the total

[[Page 36388]]

amount of the overall Federal IDEA Part C grant funds that will be 
charged for restricted indirect costs and provide appropriate approval 
documentation. If the State charges indirect costs to its IDEA Part C 
grant, then, under 34 CFR 303.225(c), an LA may charge them through 
either: (1) A restricted indirect cost rate agreement that meets the 
requirements in 34 CFR 76.560 through 76.569; or (2) a cost allocation 
plan that meets the non-supplanting requirements in 34 CFR 303.225(b) 
and 34 CFR part 76.\5\ OSEP has worked with LAs when it identifies 
large amounts of IDEA Part C funding being reserved for administrative 
or indirect costs and believes that LAs need TA both on reporting 
indirect cost data to the Department in the application and on applying 
indirect costs and related Federal requirements to the IDEA Part C 
grant. This is particularly relevant to LAs that have a cognizant 
Federal agency other than the Department and to ensure that States and 
LAs meet requirements in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations and the OMB Uniform Guidance, which require 
indirect costs for IDEA Part C grants to be calculated on a restricted 
basis due to IDEA Part C's nonsupplanting requirement.\6\ The Fiscal 
Data Center will support States in appropriately applying their 
previously negotiated or provisionally approved indirect cost rate 
agreements or a cost allocation plan as described above. The Fiscal 
Data Center will not support LAs in negotiating an indirect cost rate 
agreement with their cognizant agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Approximately three quarters of States have a department of 
health or social services as the LA for Part C. In those cases, the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the cognizant 
Federal agency for indirect cost purposes. For certain territories, 
the U.S. Department of the Interior is the cognizant Federal agency 
for indirect cost purposes. For LAs that are also SEAs, the 
Department is the cognizant agency for approving the LA's restricted 
indirect cost rate or cost allocation plan. If an LA has a cognizant 
Federal agency other than the Department for determining the LA's 
restricted indirect cost rate or approving its cost allocation plan, 
the LA must attach a copy of the approved restricted indirect cost 
rate agreement or cost allocation plan to the Department in the IDEA 
Part C Annual Application.
    \6\ Appendix VI and Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States need TA in reporting valid and reliable IDEA Part C fiscal 
data, understanding the underlying requirements in Section III and 
Section IV of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application, and optimally 
using and analyzing the data submitted to the Department.
    Indirect Costs Charged by the Fiscal Data Center to the Grant.
    In addition, this priority includes an indirect cost cap that is 
the lesser of the grantee's actual indirect costs as determined by the 
grantee's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant 
Federal agency and 40 percent of the grantee's modified total direct 
cost (MTDC) base. We believe this cap is appropriate as it maximizes 
the availability of funds for the primary TA purposes of this priority. 
The Department has done an analysis of the indirect cost rates for all 
current TA centers funded under the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
programs as well as other grantees that are large, midsize, and small 
businesses and small nonprofit organizations and has found that, in 
general, total indirect costs charged on these grants by these entities 
were at or below 35 percent of total direct costs (TDC). We recognize 
that, dependent on the structure of the investment and activities, the 
MTDC base could be much smaller than the TDC, which would imply a 
higher indirect cost rate than those calculated here. The Department 
arrived at a 40 percent rate to address some of that variation. This 
would account for a 12 percent variance between TDC and MTDC. However, 
we note that, in the absence of a cap, certain entities would likely 
charge indirect cost rates in excess of 40 percent of MTDC. Based on 
our analysis, it appears that those entities would likely be larger 
for-profit and nonprofit organizations, but these organizations appear 
to be outliers when compared to the majority of other large businesses 
as well as the entirety of OSEP's grantees. Setting an indirect cost 
rate cap of 40 percent would be in line with the majority of 
applicants' existing negotiated rates with the cognizant Federal 
agency.
    This priority aligns with two priorities from the Secretary's Final 
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 
Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 
9096): Priority 2: Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining 
Education With an Increased Focus on Student Outcomes, and Providing 
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers; and Priority 5: Meeting the 
Unique Needs of Students and Children with Disabilities and/or Those 
With Unique Gifts and Talents.
    The Fiscal Data Center must be awarded and operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the 
U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws.
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which we 
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
    This priority is:
    National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C 
Fiscal Data.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to 
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center).
    The Fiscal Data Center will provide TA to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the IDEA Parts B and C fiscal data collection 
requirements under IDEA section 618 and increase States' knowledge of 
the underlying IDEA fiscal requirements and calculations necessary to 
submit valid and reliable data for the following collections: (1) MFS 
in Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (2) LEA MOE/
CEIS; (3) Description of Use of Federal IDEA Part C Funds for the LA 
and the ICC in Section III of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application; 
and (4) Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/Cost Allocation Plan Information 
in Sections III and IV of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application. 
States will also receive TA from the Fiscal Data Center on the 
underlying fiscal requirements of IDEA related to these collections and 
how they impact the States' ability to meet IDEA fiscal data collection 
requirements.
    Note: The Fiscal Data Center may neither provide TA to States on 
negotiating indirect cost rate agreements with their cognizant Federal 
agencies nor act as an agent or representative of States in such 
negotiations.
    The Fiscal Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, 
the following outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data;
    (b) Increased State knowledge of underlying statutory and 
regulatory fiscal requirements and the calculations necessary to submit 
valid and reliable fiscal data under IDEA Part B and Part C;
    (c) Improved fiscal infrastructure (e.g., sample interagency 
agreements, standard operating procedures and templates) by 
coordinating and promoting communication and effective fiscal data 
collection and reporting strategies among relevant State offices,

[[Page 36389]]

including SEAs, LAs and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, and EIS 
programs or providers;
    (d) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely 
fiscal data to enhance current State validation procedures to prevent 
errors in State-reported IDEA data;
    (e) Increased capacity of States to train personnel to meet the 
IDEA fiscal data collection and reporting requirements under sections 
616 and 618 of IDEA through development of effective tools and 
resources (e.g., templates, tools, calculators, and documentation of 
State data processes); and providing opportunities for in-person and 
virtual cross-State collaboration about IDEA fiscal data collection and 
reporting requirements (required under section 618 of IDEA);
    (f) Improved capacity of SEAs, LEAs, LAs, and EIS programs or 
providers to collect and use IDEA fiscal data to identify issues and 
address those issues through monitoring, TA, and stakeholder 
involvement; and
    (g) Improved IDEA fiscal data validation using results from data 
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States and generate 
tools that can be used by States to accurately communicate fiscal data 
to local consumers (e.g., parents, LEAs, EIS programs or providers, the 
general public) and lead to improvements in the validity and 
reliability of fiscal data required by IDEA.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are--
    (a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Use knowledge of how SEAs, LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs and 
providers are meeting IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and 
reporting requirements and the underlying statutory and regulatory 
fiscal requirements, as well as knowledge of State and local data 
collection systems, as appropriate;
    (2) Examine applicable national, State, and local data to determine 
the current capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs and 
providers to meet IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and 
reporting requirements;
    (3) Train SEAs and LAs on how to use IDEA section 618 fiscal data 
as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic 
strengths and areas for improvement; and
    (4) Disseminate information regarding how SEAs and LAs are 
currently meeting IDEA fiscal data collection and reporting 
requirements and are using IDEA section 618 data as a means of both 
improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas 
for improvement.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and 
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, 
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed 
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical 
support for this framework. Include a copy of the conceptual framework 
in Appendix A;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel 
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs).\7\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means 
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by 
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 
where a key project component included in the project's logic model 
is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the 
project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on fiscal data management and data system 
integration, and related EBPs; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on 
fiscal data management and data system integration and the underlying 
fiscal requirements of IDEA;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\8\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\9\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the State and local levels; and
    (C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop 
and implement a coordinated TA plan when such other centers are 
involved in a State; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\10\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often 
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship 
between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' 
are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 
valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to 
policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased 
recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems 
levels.

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

[[Page 36390]]

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges 
reporting high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the Department and the 
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site 
consultants to the SEA or LA to--
    (1) Assess all 57 IDEA Part C programs to determine LA 
organizational structure and their capacity to submit valid and 
reliable IDEA Part C fiscal data;
    (2) Assess all 60 entities that receive IDEA Part B grants to 
determine their capacity to submit valid and reliable IDEA Part B 
fiscal data;
    (3) Identify and document model practices for data management and 
data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities 
within the State;
    (4) Develop and adapt tools and provide technical solutions to meet 
State-specific data needs; and
    (5) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the 
data management and data system integration work in the future;
    (C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs and LAs 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and 
local levels;
    (D) Its proposed plan to prioritize States with the greatest need 
for intensive TA to receive products and services;
    (E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and LAs to build or 
enhance training systems that include professional development based on 
adult learning principles and coaching;
    (F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, local 
programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each 
level and that there are systems in place to support the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA fiscal data as well 
as fiscal data management and data system integration; and
    (G) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop 
and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\11\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the Annual Performance 
Report (APR); and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities;
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and how funds will be spent in a way 
that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes; and
    (5) The applicant will ensure that it will recover the lesser of: 
(i) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's negotiated 
indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal agency; and 
(ii) 40 percent of its modified total direct cost (MTDC) base as 
defined in 2 CFR 200.68.
    Note: The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant. 
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as calculating a percentage of 
each or a specific expenditure category. If the grantee is billing 
based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make its MTDC documentation 
available to the program office and the Department's Indirect Cost 
Unit. If a grantee's allocable indirect costs exceed 40 percent of its 
MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may not recoup the excess 
by shifting the cost to other grants or contracts with the U.S. 
Government, unless specifically authorized by legislation. The grantee 
must use non-Federal revenue sources to pay for such unrecovered costs.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

[[Page 36391]]

    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two- and one-half-day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility;
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
    (6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
intensive, sustained TA.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), and 
1442; the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2019, Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245, 
132 Stat. 3100 (2018); and Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2020, Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide 
Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted 
and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) 
The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and 
amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 
regulations for this program in 34 CFR 300.702. (e) The NFP.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education (IHEs) only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
    Estimated Available Funds: $3,975,000 in years 1 and 2, $4,425,000 
in years 3 and 4, and $4,200,000 in year 5.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,975,000 in 
years 1 and 2, $4,425,000 in years 3 and 4, and $4,200,000 in year 5 
for a single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LAs under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, 
including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State 
law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; 
freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal 
organizations; and for-profit organizations.
    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award 
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may 
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 
2 CFR part 200.
    4. Other General Requirements:
    (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive 
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with 
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
    (b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect 
to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute 
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 
IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which 
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. 
Grants.gov has relaxed the requirement for applicants to have an active 
registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to apply 
for funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. An applicant that does not 
have an active SAM registration can still register with Grants.gov, but 
must contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll-free, at 1-800-518-4726, 
in order to take advantage of this flexibility.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding

[[Page 36392]]

restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of 
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection 
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend 
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages 
and (2) use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover 
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the 
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for 
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority 
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, 
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to 
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, 
figures, graphs, and screen shots.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
    (a) Significance (10 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be 
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude 
of those gaps or weaknesses.
    (ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project.
    (b) Quality of project services (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework.
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and 
effective practice.
    (iv) The extent to which the training or professional development 
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient 
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice 
among the recipients of those services.
    (v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the 
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the 
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project 
resources.
    (vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (c) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes.
    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent possible.
    (d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of key project personnel.
    (iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator.
    (v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project.
    (viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project.
    (e) Quality of the management plan (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are 
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project.
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.

[[Page 36393]]

    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
is brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, 
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain 
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as 
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel 
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional 
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, 
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and 
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make 
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that 
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers 
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of 
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness 
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review 
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also 
have submitted applications.
    4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in 
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the 
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of 
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system 
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not 
responsible.
    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this 
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project 
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently 
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your 
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal 
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make 
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that 
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as 
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
(FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any 
information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and 
that is currently in FAPIIS.
    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active 
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the 
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity 
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you 
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to 
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in 
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of 
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those 
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent 
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or 
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. 
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must 
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This 
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance Results 
Modernization Act of 2010, the Department has established a set of 
performance measures that are designed to yield information on various 
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program. These measures are:
     Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of TA and 
dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an 
independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantive 
content of the products and services.
     Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of TA and 
dissemination

[[Page 36394]]

products and services deemed by an independent review panel of 
qualified experts or members of the target audiences to be of high 
relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.
     Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of all TA 
and dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review 
panel of qualified experts or members of target audiences to be useful 
in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.
     Program Performance Measure 4: The cost efficiency of the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program includes the 
percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance 
report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current 
fiscal year.
    The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and 
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by 
OSEP.
    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's 
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department 
(34 CFR 75.590).
    The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the 
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by 
stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in 
their annual and final performance reports.
    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee 
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is 
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the 
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the 
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Mark Schultz,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Delegated the 
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-11504 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P