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 establishes final regulations that set standards for the

evaluation of applications for grants and cooperative agreements and

proposals for contracts. The development of these standards is required

by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement's authorizing

legislation, the ``Educational Research, Development, Dissemination,

and Improvement Act of 1994.'' The standards ensure that these

application and proposal evaluation activities meet the highest

standards of professional excellence.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Fuentes, U.S. Department of

Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Room 600, Washington, DC 20208-

5530. Telephone (202) 219-1895. Internet electronic mail address: stan-

[email protected]. Individuals who use a telecommunications device

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

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

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed

Pub. L. 103-227, which includes Title IX--the ``Educational Research,

Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994'' (the

``Act''). The Act restructured the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) and endowed it with a broad mandate to conduct an

array of research, development, dissemination, and improvement

activities aimed at strengthening the education of all students. The

Act also required the establishment of a National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board (the ``Board'') to work collaboratively

with the Assistant Secretary to identify priorities to guide the work

of OERI.

The legislation directed the Assistant Secretary to develop, in

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

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

dissemination activities carried out by the Office to ensure that such

activities meet the highest standards of professional excellence. The

legislation required that the standards be developed in three phases.

These regulations implement the first phase of the standards. The

Assistant Secretary will publish at a later date additional proposed

regulations to implement the remaining standards in accordance with the

timelines established in the Act. The legislation requires the Board to

review and approve the final standards.

On June 7, 1995, the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research

and Improvement published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register (60 FR 30160).

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Assistant Secretary's invitation in the NPRM,

five parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An

analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations since

publication of the NPRM follows.

Issues are grouped according to subject with appropriate sections

of the regulations referenced in parentheses. Substantive issues are

discussed under the section of the regulations to which they pertain.

In addition to the public comment, the comments of the Board's

Committee on Standards are also addressed. That Committee met in public

session on August 4, 1995, to provide final input for the Board and to

act on the Board's behalf in approving the standards. Technical and

other minor changes--and suggested changes the Secretary is not legally

authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority--are not

addressed.

Qualifications of Peer Reviewers (Sec. 700.11)

Comments: Two commenters believed that Sec. 700.11 should require

the majority of reviewers for a given application to meet the

qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i). These commenters were concerned

that requiring individual reviewers to possess only one or more of the

qualifications listed under Sec. 700.11(a)(1) might result in few or no

reviewers for a given application possessing demonstrated expertise in

the subject of the competition (Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i)). One of these

commenters also felt that each group of reviewers for a given

application should include at least one reviewer with ``in-depth

knowledge of policy and practice in the field of education''

(Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(ii)), and at least one reviewer with ``in-depth

knowledge of theoretical perspectives or methodological approaches

relevant to the subject of the competition'' (Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(iii)).

Another commenter felt that all reviewers for research projects should

possess technical expertise regarding the theoretical and

methodological aspects of the grant applications.

Discussion: The Secretary believes it is important for all

reviewers to possess each of the qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1).

The Board agreed that it is important for all reviewers to possess each

of the qualifications in Sec. 700.11(a)(1) but recommended that

Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(ii) be modified to allow a reviewer to be deemed

qualified on the basis of in-depth knowledge of policy ``or'' practice

in the field of education rather than both.

Changes: The Secretary has revised Sec. 700.11(a)(1) to require

each reviewer to possess each of the qualifications of (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii) and replaced the word ``and'' in (a)(1)(ii)

with the word ``or''.

Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the word

``relevant'' in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i) was inadequate for specifying that

reviewers have direct expertise in the topic area of grant applications

they review.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with this commenter.

Changes: The Secretary replaced the words ``relevant to the subject

area'' with the words ``in the subject area'' in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(i)

and also in Sec. 700.11(a)(1)(iii).

Convening Reviewers to Discuss Unsolicited Applications (Sec. 700.21)

Comments: One commenter suggested substituting the word ``may'' for

the word ``will'' in Sec. 700.21(c) so as not to require the convening

of reviewers in all instances. The commenter believed that it may not

be necessary to convene reviewers to discuss the strengths and

weaknesses of unsolicited applications.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that discussions of each

application's strengths and weaknesses allows reviewers to share

perspectives and provide a higher quality of review. Therefore, the

Secretary believes that such discussions should, in general, be

required. However, the Secretary agrees that in the case of unsolicited

applications, it may not be necessary to convene reviewers.

Changes: The Secretary has added a new Sec. 700.21(c)(2), which

allows the Secretary to use discretion in determining whether to

convene reviewers of unsolicited applications.

[[Page 47809]]

Comments: One commenter felt that it was important that applicants

receive the written comments regarding the strengths and weaknesses of

their applications at the same time as the applicants are notified of

acceptance or rejection. Another commenter recommended that the OERI

standards address the issue of OERI's communicating the results of the

competition to the applicants and the larger community.

Discussion: The Secretary recently modified Department procedures

to provide both successful and unsuccessful applicants earlier

notification of funding decisions. In most cases, reviewer comments

accompany these notifications. However, particularly for competitions

that generate large numbers of applications, reviewer comments are sent

at a later date so that this early notification of funding decisions

need not be delayed. The Secretary routinely issues press releases to

inform the public of the results of each competition.

Changes: None.

Evaluating Grant and Cooperative Agreement Applications and Contract

Proposals (Sec. 700.21 and Sec. 700.22)

Comments: One commenter stated that it was not clear that the

Secretary will be constrained or informed by the results of the

evaluations carried out by the peer reviewers. The commenter

recommended changes to clarify that: (1) Each reviewer will provide a

recommendation to fund or not to fund each application, accompanied by

a numerical rating of the application; and (2) the Secretary will rely

on numerical ratings given by the peer reviewers in rank ordering the

applications.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that Sec. 700.21(e) should be

revised to clarify that the Secretary prepares a rank order based

solely on the peer reviewers' ratings. However, the Secretary believes

that, in selecting applications for award, he must consider factors in

addition to the applicants' rankings and the funding recommendations of

the peer reviewers. These other factors, specified in Sec. 700.40,

include performance of the applicant under a prior award, the amount of

funds available for the competition, and any other information relevant

to a priority or other statutory or regulatory requirement applicable

to the selection of applications for new awards.

Changes: The Secretary has revised Sec. 700.21(e) to clarify that

the rank order is based solely on the peer reviewers' ratings for each

application.

Comments: One commenter pointed out that Sec. 700.22(d), regarding

the evaluation of contract proposals, enables reviewers to assign

proposals to the category ``capable of being made acceptable.'' The

commenter recommended that a similar category be added to

Sec. 700.21(d), relating to the evaluation of grants and cooperative

agreements. The commenter believes that such a change could allow

applicants an opportunity to fix minor problems in otherwise

outstanding grant applications and still be eligible for funding.

Discussion: The Federal Acquisition Regulations, which govern the

Federal government's contract procurements expressly recommend the

establishment of a category ``capable of being made acceptable.'' In

that grant competitions are held to determine which applicants are to

receive the benefit of Federal financial assistance for the activities

applicants propose, rather than to determine which applicant or

applicants will be contracted to provide services according to

government specifications, fairness would dictate that if one grant

applicant is allowed to revise its application, all other grant

competitors should be provided the same opportunity. In addition, grant

competitions typically generate many more applications than do contract

competitions. There are often many more highly rated applicants than

there are funds available for awards, and so there is no need to allow

competitors a second chance to make their applications fundable. As a

practical matter, applications that are truly outstanding, but have

minor problems, are likely to be rated highly, with the minor problems

addressed during negotiation of the grant award. The Board discussed

the issue raised by this commenter. The Board was concerned that

reviewers of proposals for contracts had three categories in which they

could place contract proposals while reviewers of grant and cooperative

agreement applications only had two categories. The Board recommended

that a third category be added under Sec. 700.21(d) that would allow

reviewers to distinguish between projects that they would recommend for

funding and those that they would highly recommend.

Changes: The Secretary has added a new category of ``highly

recommended for funding'' under Sec. 700.21(d).

Comment: After consultation with the Board, the Secretary has

determined that the evaluation criteria related to prior performance of

applicants under previously funded grants or cooperative agreements

(Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E)) would require

applicants to provide that information for evaluation by the peer

reviewers. This information is already available to the Secretary and

will be another factor considered by the Secretary in making award

decisions under Sec. 700.40(a)(3).

Discussion: The evaluation criteria under Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D)

and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E) duplicate the factors in Sec. 700.40(a)(3)

and thus impose an unnecessary burden on applicants.

Changes: Sec. 700.30(e)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec. 700.30(e)(4)(ii)(E) are

deleted.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

Section 700.30 contains information collection requirements. As

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

Education submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for its review, and it was approved by OMB. (44 U.S.C.

3504(h))

These regulations affect the following types of entities eligible

to apply for grants and cooperative agreements: State or local

governments, businesses or other for profit organizations, nonprofit

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

Department needs and uses the information to evaluate applications for

funding.

Annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this

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

of the approximately 750 applications expected for a field initiated

study competition to 150 hours for ten or fewer applications expected

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

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

competition.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order

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

Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a

strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and

local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal

financial assistance.

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

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

this program.

Assessment of Educational Impact

Based on the response to the proposed regulations and on its own

review, the Department has determined that the regulations in this

document do not require transmission of information that

[[Page 47810]]

is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority

of the United States.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 700

Education, Educational research, Elementary and secondary

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

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 11, 1995.

Richard W. Riley,

Secretary of Education.

Sharon P. Robinson,

Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

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

The Secretary amends Chapter VII of Title 34 of the Code of Federal

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

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

CARRIED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

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

AGREEMENTS AND PROPOSALS FOR CONTRACTS

Subpart A--General

Sec.

700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?

700.2 What activities must be governed by these standards?

700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these

standards?

700.4 What definitions apply?

700.5 What are the processes of open competition?

Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers

700.10 When is the peer review process used?

700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?

700.12 What constitutes a conflict of interest for grants and

cooperative agreements?

700.13 What constitutes a conflict of interest for contracts?

Subpart C--The Peer Review Process

700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?

700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements

evaluated?

700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?

Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria

700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and cooperative

agreements?

700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for grants

and cooperative agreements?

700.32 What evaluation criteria shall be used for contracts?

Subpart E--Selection for Award

700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications

selected for award?

700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?

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

Subpart A--General

Sec. 700.1 What is the purpose of these standards?

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

Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act

of 1994.

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

out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (the Office)

meet the highest standards of professional excellence.

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

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

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

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

of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and

Improvement Act of 1994.

(b) Activities carried out with funds appropriated under section

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

entities or programs:

(1) The National Research Institutes.

(2) The Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination.

(3) The Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouses.

(4) The Regional Educational Laboratories.

(5) The Teacher Research Dissemination Demonstration Program.

(6) The Goals 2000 Community Partnerships Program.

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

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

Sec. 700.3 What additional activities may be governed by these

standards?

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

activities carried out by the Department using funds appropriated under

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

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

competition for new grant or cooperative agreement awards, the

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

extent to which these standards are applicable to the competition.

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

solicitation for a contract award, the Secretary announces in the

request for proposals the extent to which these standards are

applicable to the solicitation.

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

Sec. 700.4 What definitions apply?

(a) Definitions in the Educational Research, Development,

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

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

Development

Dissemination

Educational Research

Office

National Research Institute

Technical Assistance

(b) Definitions in Education Department General Administrative

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

CFR 77.1:

Applicant

Application

Award

Department

Grant

Project

Secretary

(c) Definitions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The

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

Contracting Officer

Employee of an Agency

Proposal

Solicitation

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

part:

Act means the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and

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

EDAR means the Education Department Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR

Chapter 34.

EDGAR means the Education Department General Administrative

Regulations, 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86. FAR

means the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR Chapter 1.

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

Sec. 700.5 What are the processes of open competition?

The Secretary uses a process of open competition in awarding or

entering into all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts

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

following:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47811]]

(b) For contracts, the Department will conduct acquisitions

pursuant to this part in accordance with the requirements of the

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

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

Subpart B--Selection of Peer Reviewers

Sec. 700.10 When is the peer review process used?

The Secretary uses a peer review process--

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

cooperative agreements and proposals for those contracts that exceed

$100,000;

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

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

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

grants from and cooperative agreements and contracts with the Office.

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

Sec. 700.11 Who may serve as peer reviewers?

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

reviewing and evaluating applications for new awards for grants and

cooperative agreements and contract proposals if the individual--

(1) Possesses the following qualifications:

(i) Demonstrated expertise, including training and experience, in

the subject area of the competition.

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

education.

(iii) In-depth knowledge of theoretical perspectives or

methodological approaches in the subject area of the competition; and

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

accordance with Sec. 700.12.

(b) For each competition for new awards for grants and cooperative

agreements--

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

exceptional circumstances as determined by the Secretary; and

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

Federal Government.

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

agreement application--

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

initial determination under 34 CFR 75.222(b); and

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

accordance with 34 CFR 75.222(c).

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

for each competition who represent a broad range of perspectives.

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

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

cooperative agreements?

(a) Peer reviewers for grants and cooperative agreements are

considered employees of the Department for the purposes of conflicts of

interest analysis.

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

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

policies used to implement those provisions.

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

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

(a) Peer reviewers for contract proposals are considered employees

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

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

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

and Personal Conflict of Interest.

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

Subpart C--The Peer Review Process

Sec. 700.20 How many peer reviewers will be used?

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

must be reviewed and evaluated by at least three peer reviewers

except--

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

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

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

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

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

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

unless the contracting officer determines that an adequate peer review

can be obtained by using fewer reviewers.

(c) Before releasing contract proposals to peer reviewers outside

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

48 CFR 15.413-2(f).

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

Sec. 700.21 How are applications for grants and cooperative agreements

evaluated?

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

evaluate.

(b) Each peer reviewer shall--

(1) Independently evaluate each application;

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

assessment of the quality of the application according to the

evaluation criteria and the weights assigned to those criteria; and

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

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

weaknesses of the application with respect to each of the applicable

evaluation criteria.

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

after each peer reviewer has evaluated and rated each application

independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set of

applications are convened to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of

those applications. Each reviewer may then independently reevaluate and

re-rate an application with appropriate changes made to the written

comments.

(2) Reviewers are not convened to discuss an unsolicited

application unless the Secretary determines that discussion of the

application's strengths and weaknesses is necessary.

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

reviewers shall independently place each application in one of three

categories, either ``highly recommended for funding,'' ``recommended

for funding'' or ``not recommended for funding.''

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

funding recommendations regarding the applications, the Secretary

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

reviewers' ratings.

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

Sec. 700.22 How are proposals for contracts evaluated?

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

proposals to evaluate.

(b) Each peer reviewer shall--

(1) Independently evaluate each technical proposal;

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

assessment of the quality of the proposal according to the technical

evaluation criteria and the importance or weight assigned to those

criteria; and

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

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

weaknesses of the proposal with respect to each of

[[Page 47812]]

the applicable technical evaluation criteria.

(c) After each peer reviewer has evaluated each proposal

independently, those reviewers who evaluated a common set of proposals

may be convened to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those

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

a proposal with appropriate changes made to the written comments.

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

reviewers shall rank proposals and advise the contracting officer of

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

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

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

asked of the offeror regarding the proposal.

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

Subpart D--Evaluation Criteria

Sec. 700.30 What evaluation criteria are used for grants and

cooperative agreements?

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

Secretary announces the applicable evaluation criteria for each

competition and the assigned weights in a notice published in the

Federal Register or in the application package.

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

and cooperative agreement competition, the Secretary selects from among

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

from among the specific factors listed under each criterion.

(c) The Secretary assigns relative weights to each selected

criterion and factor.

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

unsolicited applications, the Secretary selects from among the

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

from among the specific factors listed under each criterion, the

criteria which are most appropriate to evaluate the activities proposed

in the application.

(e) The Secretary establishes the following evaluation criteria:

(1) National significance.

(i) The Secretary considers the national significance of the

proposed project.

(ii) In determining the national significance of the proposed

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

factors:

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

(B) The potential contribution of the project to increased

knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or

effective strategies.

(C) The scope of the project.

(D) The potential for generalizing from project findings or

results.

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

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

(F) Whether the project involves the development or demonstration

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

to, existing strategies.

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

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

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

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

ways that will allow others to use the information.

(2) Quality of the project design.

(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the

proposed project.

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

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

factors:

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

the project are clearly specified and measurable.

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

activities and the quality of that framework.

(C) Whether the proposed activities constitute a coherent,

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

substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.

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

quality and appropriateness of that design, including the scientific

rigor of the studies involved.

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

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

research activities, and the use of appropriate theoretical and

methodological tools, including those of a variety of disciplines,

where appropriate.

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

documenting project activities and results.

(G) The extent to which development efforts include iterative

testing of products and adequate quality controls.

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

address the intended, demonstrated educational need or needs.

(I) How well and innovatively the project addresses statutory

purposes, requirements, and any priority or priorities announced for

the program.

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

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

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

goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project.

(3) Quality and potential contributions of personnel.

(i) The Secretary considers the quality and potential contributions

of personnel for the proposed project.

(ii) In determining the quality and potential contributions of

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

more of the following factors:

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

project director or principal investigator.

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

project personnel.

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

proposed consultants or subcontractors.

(4) Adequacy of resources.

(i) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the

proposed project.

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

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

factors:

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

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

the implementation and success of the project.

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

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

design, and potential significance of the project.

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

federal funding ends.

(5) Quality of the management plan.

(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan of

the proposed project.

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

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

following factors:

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

of the project, including the specification of staff responsibility,

timelines, and benchmarks for accomplishing project tasks.

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

services.

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

the operation of the project.

[[Page 47813]]

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

investigator and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to

meet project objectives.

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

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

parents and teachers, where appropriate.

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

eligible to participate in the project are selected without regard to

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

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

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

information.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control

number 1850-0723)

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

Sec. 700.31 What additional evaluation criteria shall be used for

grants and cooperative agreements?

In addition to the evaluation criteria established in

Sec. 700.30(e), the Secretary uses criteria or factors specified in the

applicable program statute to evaluate applications for grants and

cooperative agreements.

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

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

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

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

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

relative importance of those factors are within the broad discretion of

agency acquisition officials.

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

include cost or price and quality. Evaluation factors related to

quality are called technical evaluation criteria.

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

to, the following:

(1) Technical excellence.

(2) Management capability.

(3) Personnel qualifications.

(4) Prior experience.

(5) Past performance.

(6) Schedule compliance.

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

Subpart E--Selection for Award

Sec. 700.40 How are grant and cooperative agreement applications

selected for award?

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

be selected for grants and cooperative agreement awards. The Secretary

considers the following in making these determinations:

(1) An applicant's ranking.

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

not funding.

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

funds under a previous Federal award.

(4) Amount of funds available for the competition.

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

or regulatory requirement applicable to the selection of applications

for new awards.

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

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

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

Sec. 700.41 How are contract proposals selected for award?

Following evaluation of the proposals, the contracting officer

shall select for award the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous

to the Government considering cost or price and the other factors

included in the solicitation.

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

[FR Doc. 95-22872 Filed 9-13-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P