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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and

Improvement proposes to add regulations that establish standards for

the evaluation of applications for grants and cooperative agreements

and proposals for contracts. The development of these standards is

required by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement's

authorizing legislation, the ``Educational Research, Development,

Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994.'' The standards will ensure

that such application and proposal evaluation activities meet the

highest standards of professional excellence.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be

addressed to Edward J. Fuentes, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New

Jersey Avenue, N.W., Room 600, Washington, D.C. 20208-5530. Comments

may also be sent through Internet to [email protected].

A copy of any comments that concern information collection

requirements should also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget

at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this

preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Fuentes. Telephone (202)

219-1895. Internet electronic mail address:

[email protected]. Individuals who use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay

Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern

time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-227,

which includes Title IX--the ``Educational Research, Development,

Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994'' (the Act). The Act

restructured the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

and endowed it with a broad mandate to conduct an array of research,

development, dissemination, and improvement activities aimed at

strengthening the education of all students. The Act also required the

establishment of a National Educational Research Policy and Priorities

Board (the Board) to work collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary

to identify priorities to guide the work of OERI.

Statutory Requirements

The legislation directed the Assistant Secretary to develop, in

consultation with the Board, such standards as may be necessary to

govern the conduct and evaluation of all research, development, and

dissemination activities carried out by the Office to ensure that such

activities meet the highest standards of professional excellence. Such

standards shall at a minimum--

(a) Require that a process of open competition be used in awarding

or entering into all grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements

under the Act;

(b) Require that a system of peer review be utilized by the Office

for--

(1) Reviewing and evaluating all applications for grants and

cooperative agreements and proposals for those contracts which exceed

$100,000;

(2) Evaluating and assessing the performance of all recipients of

grants from and cooperative agreements and contracts with the Office;

and

(3) Reviewing and designating exemplary and promising programs in

accordance with section 941(d) of the Act;

(c) Describe the general procedures which shall be used by each

peer review panel in its operations;

(d)(1) Describe the procedures which shall be utilized in

evaluating applications for grants and cooperative agreements and

contract proposals; and

(2) Specify the criteria and factors which shall be considered in

making such evaluations;

(e) Describe the procedures which shall be utilized in reviewing

educational programs for designation as exemplary or promising

programs; and

(f) Require that the performance of all recipients of grants from

and contracts and cooperative agreements with the Office shall be

periodically evaluated, both during and at the conclusion of their

receipt of assistance.

The Act also requires that the Assistant Secretary review the

procedures utilized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the

National Science Foundation (NSF), and other Federal departments or

agencies engaged in research and development and actively solicit

recommendations from research organizations and members of the general

public. OERI has: (1) Reviewed peer review procedures used by NIH, NSF,

and various program offices within the Department of Education; (2)

requested recommendations from research organizations and associations;

and (3) solicited public comment on standards of peer review and

program evaluation activities through a general notice requesting

comments on the implementation of the Office's new authorizing

legislation published in the Federal Register on July 7, 1994 (59 FR

34802).

Proposed Standards

These proposed standards have been developed by the Assistant

Secretary in consultation with the Board. The standards proposed in

this NPRM--

Require that a process of open competition be used in

awarding or entering into all grants, cooperative agreements and

contracts funded under the Act;

Require that a system of peer review be used for reviewing

and evaluating all applications for grants and cooperative agreements

and proposals for those contracts which exceed $100,000;

Establish principles for selecting qualified peer

reviewers to evaluate and review applications for grants and

cooperative agreements and proposals for contracts;

Establish general procedures to be followed by the peer

reviewers when evaluating applications or proposals;

Establish improved evaluation criteria; and

Describe the process by which applications or proposals

are selected for funding.

In accordance with section 912(i)(3)(C) of the Act, Sec. 700.2 of

the proposed regulations provides that these standards shall be binding

on all activities carried out by OERI using funds appropriated under

section 912(m) of the Act. The OERI activities carried out with funds

appropriated pursuant to section 912(m) of the Act are specified in

Sec. 700.2(b) of the proposed regulations.

The Secretary believes that these standards will ensure that

applications for grant and cooperative agreement awards and proposals

for contract awards are reviewed and evaluated in a rigorous,

nonpartisan manner by highly qualified experts. The standards require

that each application for a grant or cooperative agreement be evaluated

by at least three peer reviewers except for awards of less than $50,000

when fewer [[Page 30161]] reviewers may be used and for awards of more

than $1,000,000 when at least five reviewers must be used. These

requirements reflect the Secretary's belief that the number of

reviewers used should reflect the complexity of the activities that are

the subject of the competition and that competitions involving larger

awards generally are more complex than those involving smaller awards.

Therefore, applications for grant awards should be reviewed by a group

large enough to provide the breadth of perspectives necessary to

evaluate the proposed work.

The Secretary believes that conflicts of interest for peer

reviewers should be determined by applying established Department

policy. Accordingly, peer reviewers for grants and cooperative

agreements will be considered employees of the agency for the purposes

of conflicts of interest analysis. As employees of the agency, peer

reviewers will be subject to 18 U.S.C. Section 108, the criminal

statute regarding conflicts of interest for government employees and, 5

CFR Section 2635.502, the Office of Government Ethics regulations.

To the extent practicable, the Secretary believes that these

standards should apply to all research, development, dissemination,

demonstration, and school improvement activities carried out by OERI.

Furthermore, the Secretary believes that in many instances, the

proposed peer review standards and evaluation criteria may be relevant

to the research, development, and dissemination activities carried out

by other offices in the Department. Therefore, Sec. 700.3 authorizes

the Secretary to elect to apply these standards to other activities

carried out by the Department. The Secretary will announce through the

grant application notice published in the Federal Register, the extent

to which the standards are applicable for a given competition.

In accordance with section 912(i)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act, Subpart D

of these proposed regulations specifies the evaluation criteria that

may be used by reviewers to evaluate applications for grant and

cooperative agreements and proposals for contracts. For each

competition, the Secretary will select the criteria that best enable

the Department to identify the highest quality applications consistent

with the program purpose, statutory requirements and any priorities

established. The Secretary may add to any individual criterion one or

more specific factors within that criterion. For example, in the case

of a national research center competition, the Secretary may select the

criterion ``National Significance''; the Secretary may evaluate a

national research center in terms of its potential contribution to

increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,

or effective strategies and the potential contribution of the project

to the development and advancement of theory and knowledge in the field

of study. In the case of a field initiated study competition, the

Secretary may evaluate the national significance of a project in terms

of the importance of the problem to be addressed and the potential of

the project to contribute to the development and advancement of theory

and knowledge in the field of study. In the case of a competition for

demonstration activities, the Secretary may evaluate the national

significance of a project in terms of whether the project involves the

development or demonstration of creative or innovative strategies that

build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies and the potential

for generalizing from project findings or results. For some

competitions, the Secretary may select the criterion, ``National

Significance'' without selecting specific factors.

The proposed standards provide an opportunity to improve

significantly the manner in which OERI carries out its mandate by

establishing a menu of evaluation criteria that: (1) Provide OERI the

flexibility to choose a set of criteria tailored to a given

competition; and (2) obviate the need to create specific evaluation

criteria through individual program regulations.

The Assistant Secretary will publish at a later date additional

proposed regulations to establish procedures to be used to designate

programs as exemplary or promising and to evaluate the performance of

all recipients awarded grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts by

the Office.

Executive Order 12866

Assessment of Costs and Benefits

These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has

assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are

those resulting from statutory requirements and those determined by the

Secretary as necessary for administering this program effectively and

efficiently. Burdens specifically associated with information

collection requirements, if any, are identified and explained elsewhere

in this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative

and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the Secretary has

determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations justify the

costs.

The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does

not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the

exercise of their governmental functions.

To assist the Department in complying with the specific

requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on

whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential

costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed

regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration

of the program.

Clarity of the Regulations

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed

regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such

as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations

clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other

wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the

regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations

be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)

sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a

numbered heading; for example, Sec. 700.11 Who may serve as peer

reviewers.) (4) Is the description of the regulations in the

``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble helpful in

understanding the regulations? How could this description be more

helpful in making the regulations easier to understand? (5) What else

could the Department do to make the regulations easier to understand?

A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make

these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to

Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. (Room 5121, FB-10B),

Washington, D.C. 20202-2241. [[Page 30162]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

The small entities that would be affected by these proposed

regulations are small local educational agencies (LEAs) and private

schools receiving Federal funds under this program. However, the

regulations would not have a significant economic impact on the small

LEAs and private schools affected because the regulations would not

impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal

supervision. The regulations would impose minimal requirements to

ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

Section 700.30 contains information collection requirements. As

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Department of

Education will submit a copy of this section to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. (44 U.S.C. 3504(h))

These regulations affect the following types of entities eligible

to apply for grants and cooperative agreements: State or local

governments, businesses or other for profit organizations, nonprofit

institutions, and any combinations of these types of entities. The

Department needs and uses the information to evaluate applications for

funding.

Annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this

collection of information is estimated to range from 15 hours for each

of the approximately 750 applications expected for a field initiated

study competition to 150 hours for ten or fewer applications expected

for a national research center. Therefore, the actual burden will be

determined by the type of project to be supported in the particular

competition.

Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the

information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 3002, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Daniel J. Chenok.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the

Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a

strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and

local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal

financial assistance.

In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide

early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for

this program.

Invitation to Comment

Interested persons are invited to submit comments and

recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.

All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations

will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment

period, in Room 600, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday of

each week except Federal holidays.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 700

Education, Educational research, Elementary and secondary

education, Government contracts, Grant programs--education, Libraries,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: May 31, 1995.

Sharon P. Robinson,

Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

The Secretary proposes to amend chapter VII of Title 34 of the Code

of Federal Regulations by adding a new Part 700 to read as follows:

PART 700--STANDARDS FOR THE CONDUCT AND EVALUATION OF ACTIVITIES

CARRIED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

(OERI)--EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENTS AND PROPOSALS FOR CONTRACTS

Subpart A--General

Sec.

700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?

700.2 What activities must be governed by these standards?

700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these

standards?

700.4 What definitions apply?

700.5 What are the processes of open competition?

Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers

700.10 When is the peer review process used?

700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?

700.12 What constitutes a conflict of interest for grants and

cooperative agreements?

700.13 What constitutes a conflict of interest for contracts?

Subpart C--The Peer Review Process

700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?

700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements

evaluated?

700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?

Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria

700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and cooperative

agreements?

700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for grants

and cooperative agreements?

700.32 What evaluation criteria shall be used for contracts?

Subpart E--Selection for Award

700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications

selected for award?

700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i), unless otherwise noted.

Subpart A--General

700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?

(a) The standards in this part implement section 912(i) of the

Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act

of 1994.

(b) These standards are intended to ensure that activities carried

out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement meet the

highest standards of professional excellence.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(1))

Sec. 700.2 What activities must be governed by these standards?

(a) The standards in this part are binding on all activities

carried out by the Office using funds appropriated under section 912(m)

of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and

Improvement Act of 1994.

(b) Activities carried out with funds appropriated under section

912(m) of the Act include activities carried out by the following

entities or programs:

(1) The National Research Institutes.

(2) The Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination.

(3) The Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouses.

(4) The Regional Educational Laboratories.

(5) The Teacher Research Dissemination Demonstration Program.

(6) The Goals 2000 Community Partnerships Program.

(7) The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(1)) [[Page 30163]]

Sec. 700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these

standards?

(a) The Secretary may elect to apply the standards in this part to

activities carried out by the Department using funds appropriated under

an authority other than section 912(m) of the Act.

(b)(1) If the Secretary elects to apply these standards to a

competition for new grant or cooperative agreement awards, the

Secretary announces in a notice published in the Federal Register, the

extent to which these standards are applicable to the competition.

(2) If the Secretary elects to apply these standards to a

solicitation for a contract award, the Secretary announces in the

request for proposals the extent to which these standards are

applicable to the solicitation.

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

Sec. 700.4 What definitions apply?

(a) Definitions in the Educational Research, Development,

Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The following terms used in

this part are defined in 20 U.S.C. 6011(l):

Development

Dissemination

Educational Research Office

National Research Institute

Technical Assistance

(b) Definitions in Education Department General Administrative

Regulations. The following terms used in this part are defined in 34

CFR 77.1:

Applicant

Application

Award

Department

Grant

Project

Secretary

(c) Definitions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The

following terms used in this part are defined in 48 CFR Chapter 1:

Contracting Officer

Employee of an Agency

Proposal

Solicitation

(d) Other definitions. The following definitions also apply to this

part:

Act means the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and

Improvement Act of 1994 (title IX of Pub. L. 103-227, 108 Stat. 212).

EDAR means the Department of Education Acquisition Regulation, 48

CFR chapter 34.

EDGAR means the Department of Education General Administrative

Regulations, 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86.

FAR means the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR chapter 1.

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

Sec. 700.5 What are the processes of open competition?

The Secretary uses a process of open competition in awarding or

entering into all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts

governed by these standards. The processes of open competition are the

following:

(a) For all new awards for grants and cooperative agreements, the

Secretary will make awards pursuant to the provisions of EDGAR with the

exception of the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100(c)(5), 75.200 (b)(3),

(b)(5), 75.210, and 75.217 (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), and (d).

(b) For contracts, the Department will conduct acquisitions

pursuant to this part in accordance with the requirements of the

Competition in Contracting Act, 41 U.S.C. 253, and the FAR.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6011(i)(2); 41 U.S.C. 253)

Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers

Sec. 700.10 When is the peer review process used?

The Secretary uses a peer review process--

(a) To review and evaluate all applications for grants and

cooperative agreements and proposals for those contracts which exceed

$100,000;

(b) To review and designate exemplary and promising programs in

accordance with section 941(d) of the Act; and

(c) To evaluate and assess the performance of all recipients of

grants from and cooperative agreements and contracts with the Office.

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

Sec. 700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?

(a) An individual may serve as a peer reviewer for purposes of

reviewing and evaluating applications for new awards for grants and

cooperative agreements and contract proposals if the individual--

(1) Possesses one or more of the following qualifications:

(i) Demonstrated expertise, including training and experience,

relevant to the subject of the competition.

(ii) In-depth knowledge of policy and practice in the field of

education.

(iii) In-depth knowledge of theoretical perspectives or

methodological approaches relevant to the subject of the competition;

and

(2) Does not have a conflict of interest, as determined in

accordance with Sec. 700.12.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for

each competition for new awards for grants and cooperative agreements--

(i) Department staff shall not serve as peer reviewers except in

exceptional circumstances as determined by the Secretary; and

(ii) The majority of reviewers shall be persons not employed by the

Federal Government.

(2) For each review of an unsolicited grant or cooperative

agreement application--

(i) Department employees may assist the Secretary in making an

initial determination under 34 CFR 75.222(b); and

(ii) Department employees may not serve as peer reviewers in

accordance with 34 CFR 75.222(c).

(c) To the extent feasible, the Secretary selects peer reviewers

for each competition who represent a broad range of perspectives.

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

Sec. 700.12 What constitutes a conflict of interest for grants and

cooperative agreements?

(a) Peer reviewers for grants and cooperative agreements are

considered employees of the agency for the purposes of conflicts of

interest analysis.

(b) As employees of the agency, peer reviewers are subject to the

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208, 5 CFR 2635.502, and the Department

policies used to implement those provisions.

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

Sec. 700.13 What constitutes a conflict of interest for contracts.

(a) Peer reviewers for contract proposals are considered employees

of the agency in accordance with FAR, 48 CFR 3.104-4(h)(2).

(b) As employees of the agency, peer reviewers are subject to the

provisions of the FAR, 48 CFR Part 3 Improper Business Practices and

Personal Conflict of Interest.

(Authority: 41 U.S.C. 423)

Subpart C--The Peer Review Process

Sec. 700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?

(a) Each application for a grant or cooperative agreement award

shall be reviewed and evaluated by at least three peer reviewers

except--

(1) For those grant and cooperative agreement awards under $50,000,

fewer than three peer reviewers may be used if the Secretary determines

that adequate peer review can be obtained using fewer reviewers; and

(2) For those grant and cooperative agreement awards of more than

[[Page 30164]] $1,000,000, at least five reviewers will be used.

(b) Each contract proposal shall be read by at least three

reviewers unless the contracting officer determines that an adequate

peer review can be obtained by fewer reviewers.

(c) Before releasing contract proposals to peer reviewers outside

the Federal Government, the contracting officer shall comply with FAR,

48 CFR 15.413-2(f).

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

Sec. 700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements

evaluated?

(a) Each peer reviewer shall be given a number of applications to

evaluate.

(b) Each peer reviewer shall--

(1) Independently evaluate each application;

(2) Evaluate and rate each application based on the reviewer's

assessment of the quality of the application according to the

evaluation criteria and the weights assigned to those criteria; and

(3) Support the rating for each application with concise written

comments based on the reviewer's analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of the application with respect to each of the applicable

evaluation criteria.

(c) After each peer reviewer has evaluated and rated each

application independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set

of applications will be convened to discuss the strengths and

weaknesses of those applications. Each reviewer may then independently

reevaluate and re-rate an application with appropriate changes made to

the written comments.

(d) Following discussion and any reevaluation and re-rating,

reviewers shall independently place each application in one of two

categories, either ``recommended for funding'' or ``not recommended for

funding.''

(e) After the peer reviewers have evaluated, rated, and made

funding recommendations regarding the applications, the Secretary

prepares a rank order of the applications based solely on the peer

reviewers' evaluations.

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

Sec. 700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?

(a) Each peer reviewer shall be given a number of technical

proposals to evaluate.

(b) Each peer reviewer shall--

(1) Independently evaluate each technical proposal;

(2) Evaluate and rate each proposal based on the reviewer's

assessment of the quality of the proposal according to the technical

evaluation criteria and the importance or weight assigned to those

criteria; and

(3) Support the rating for each proposal with concise written

comments based on the reviewer's analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of the proposal with respect to each of the applicable

technical evaluation criteria.

(c) After each peer reviewer has evaluated each proposal

independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set of proposals

may be convened to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those

proposals. Each reviewer may then independently reevaluate and re-rate

a proposal with appropriate changes made to the written comments.

(d) Following discussion and any reevaluation and re-rating,

reviewers shall rank proposals and advise the contracting officer of

each proposal's acceptability for contract award as ``acceptable,''

``capable of being made acceptable without major modifications,'' or

``unacceptable.'' Reviewers may also submit technical questions to be

asked of the offeror regarding the proposal.

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

Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria

Sec. 700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and

cooperative agreements?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the

Secretary announces the applicable evaluation criteria for each

competition and the assigned weights in a notice published in the

Federal Register.

(b) In determining the evaluation criteria to be used in each grant

and cooperative agreement competition, the Secretary selects from among

the evaluation criteria in paragraph (e) of this section and may select

from among the specific factors listed under each criterion.

(c) The Secretary assigns relative weights to each selected

criterion and factor.

(d) In determining the evaluation criteria to be used for

unsolicited applications, the Secretary selects from among the

evaluation criteria in paragraph (e) of this section, and may select

from among the specific factors listed under each criterion, the

criteria which are most appropriate to evaluate the activities proposed

in the application.

(e) The Secretary establishes the following evaluation criteria:

(1) National significance. (i) The Secretary considers the national

significance of the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the national significance of the proposed

project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following

factors:

(A) The importance of the problem or issue to be addressed.

(B) The potential contribution of the project to increased

knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or

effective strategies.

(C) The scope of the project.

(D) The potential for generalizing from project findings or

results.

(E) The potential contribution of the project to the development

and advancement of theory and knowledge in the field of study.

(F) Whether the project involves the development or demonstration

of creative or innovative strategies that build on, or are alternatives

to, existing strategies.

(G) The nature of the products (such as information, materials,

processes, or techniques) likely to result from the project and the

potential for their effective use in a variety of other settings.

(H) The extent and quality of plans for disseminating results in

ways that will allow others to use the information.

(2) Quality of the project design. (i) The Secretary considers the

quality of the design of the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed

project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following

factors:

(A) Whether the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by

the project are clearly specified and measurable.

(B) Whether there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed

activities and the quality of that framework.

(C) Whether the proposed activities constitute a coherent,

sustained program of research and development in the field, including a

substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.

(D) Whether a specific research design has been proposed, and the

quality and appropriateness of that design, including the scientific

rigor of the studies involved.

(E) The extent to which the research design includes a thorough,

high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for

research activities, and the use of appropriate theoretical and

methodological tools, including those of a variety of disciplines,

where appropriate.

(F) The quality of the demonstration design and procedures for

documenting project activities and results.

(G) The extent to which development efforts include iterative

testing of products and adequate quality controls. [[Page 30165]]

(H) The likelihood that the design of the project will successfully

address the intended, demonstrated educational needs or needs.

(I) How well and innovatively the project addresses statutory

purposes, requirements and any priority or priorities announced for the

program.

(J) The quality of the plan for evaluating the functioning and

impact of the project, including the objectivity of the evaluation and

the extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the

goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project.

(3) Quality and potential contributions of personnel. (i) The

Secretary considers the quality and potential contributions of

personnel for the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the quality and potential contributions of

personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary may consider one or

more of the following factors:

(A) The qualifications, including training and experience, of the

project director or principal investigator.

(B) The qualifications, including training and experience, of key

project personnel.

(C) The qualifications, including training and experience, of

proposed consultants or subcontractors.

(D) Past performance of any personnel in any previous Department-

supported grants or cooperative agreements.

(4) Adequacy of resources. (i) The Secretary considers the adequacy

of resources for the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed

project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following

factors:

(A) The adequacy of support from the lead applicant organization.

(B) The relevance and commitment of each partner in the project to

the implementation and success of the project.

(C) Whether the budget is adequate to support the project.

(D) Whether the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,

design, and potential significance of the project.

(E) The cost-effectiveness of the project and the adequacy of the

support provided by the applicant organization in any previous

Department-supported grant or cooperative agreement.

(F) The potential for continued support of the project after

federal funding ends.

(5) Quality of the management plan. (i) The Secretary considers the

quality of the management plan of the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan of a

proposed project, the Secretary may consider one or more of the

following factors:

(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives

of the project, including the specification of staff responsibility,

timelines, and benchmarks for accomplishing project tasks.

(B) The adequacy of plans for ensuring high-quality products and

services.

(C) The adequacy of plans for ensuring continuous improvement in

the operation of the project.

(D) Whether time commitments of the project director or principal

investigator and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to

meet project objectives.

(E) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives

are brought to bear in the operation of the project, including those of

parents and teachers, where appropriate.

(F) How the applicant will ensure that persons who are otherwise

eligible to participate in the project are selected without regard to

race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(G) The adequacy of plans for widespread dissemination of project

results and products in ways that will assist others to use the

information.

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

Sec. 700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for

grants and cooperative agreements?

In addition to the evaluation criteria established in

Sec. 700.30(e), criteria or factors specified in the applicable program

statute shall be used to evaluate applications for grants and

cooperative agreements.

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

Sec. 700.32 What evaluation criteria shall be used for contracts?

(a) The evaluation criteria to be considered in the technical

evaluation of contract proposals are contained in the FAR at 48 CFR

15.605. The evaluation criteria that apply to an acquisition and the

relative importance of those factors are within the broad discretion of

agency acquisition officials.

(b) At a minimum, the evaluation criteria to be considered shall

include cost or price and quality. Evaluation factors related to

quality are called technical evaluation criteria.

(c) Technical evaluation criteria may include, but are not limited

to, the following:

(1) Technical excellence.

(2) Management capability.

(3) Personnel qualifications.

(4) Prior experience.

(5) Past performance.

(6) Schedule compliance.

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

Subpart E--Selection for Award

Sec. 700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications

selected for award?

(a) The Secretary determines the order in which applications will

be selected for grants and cooperative agreement awards. The Secretary

considers the following in making these determinations:

(1) An applicant's ranking.

(2) Recommendations of the peer reviewers with regard to funding or

not funding.

(3) Information concerning an applicant's performance and use of

funds under a previous Federal award.

(4) Amount of funds available for the competition.

(5) Any other information relevant to a priority or other statutory

or regulatory requirement applicable to the selection of applications

for new awards.

(b) In the case of unsolicited applications, the Secretary uses the

procedures in EDGAR (34 CFR 75.222 (d) and (e)).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6022(i)(2)(D)(i))

Sec. 700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?

Following evaluation of the proposals, the contracting officer

shall select for award the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous

to the Government considering cost or price and the other factors

included in the solicitation.

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

[FR Doc. 95-13690 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P