Objective Merit Review of Discretionary Financial Assistance and Other Transaction Authority Applications, 17846-17850 [2011-7581]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
visual resources and aesthetics;
transportation and traffic; noise and
vibration; hazardous materials and solid
waste management; human health and
safety; accidents and terrorism;
socioeconomics, including impacts to
community services; environmental
justice; and cumulative impacts.
Because the Proposed Project may affect
listed species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), DOE has also
initiated consultation regarding the
project with the U.S. Department of the
Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service
under Section 7 of the ESA.
The Topaz Proposed Project site is
expected to impact waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE); therefore the
Proposed Project will require a Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit.
As a result, USACE has participated as
a cooperating agency in the preparation
of this Draft EIS and will use this EIS
(in part) to determine whether to issue
a Section 404 permit. USACE will issue
a separate decision document on the
CWA Section 404 permit for the
Proposed Project that will incorporate
the environmental analyses from this
EIS.
The DOE will use and coordinate the
NEPA public comment process to satisfy
the public involvement requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as
provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). DOE
has invited Federally-recognized
American Indian Tribes that have
historic interests in the area to also
participate in government-togovernment consultation regarding the
Proposed Project. In addition to these
Federally-recognized tribes, the
California Native American Heritage
Commission provided DOE with a
Native American contacts list in the
project area. DOE contacted parties on
the list to solicit concerns or comments
on the Proposed Project.
Availability of the Draft EIS
Copies of the Draft EIS have been
distributed to: Members of Congress;
Native American Tribal governments,
Federal, State, and local officials; and
agencies, organizations and individuals
who may be interested or affected. The
Draft EIS is on the Department of
Energy’s NEPA Web site at https://
www.nepa.energy.gov under ‘‘DOE
NEPA Documents’’ and on the Loan
Program Office’s Web site at https://
www.lgprogram.energy.gov/
NEPA_EIS.html.
Copies of the Draft EIS are also
available for review at the Simmler
Public Library/California Valley
Community Service District; 13080 Soda
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
Lake Road; California Valley, CA 93453
and the San Luis Obispo County
Department of Planning and Building;
976 Osos St. Room 300; San Luis
Obispo, CA 93408.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25,
2011.
Jonathan M. Silver,
Executive Director, Loan Programs Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–7583 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Objective Merit Review of
Discretionary Financial Assistance and
Other Transaction Authority
Applications
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Objective Merit
Review Procedure.
AGENCY:
This Notice establishes the
procedure for program offices operating
under the authority of the Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy in conducting the
objective merit review of discretionary
financial assistance and Other
Transaction Authority funding
applications. The effective date for the
Objective Merit Review Procedure
contained in this notice is March 18,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, 1–877–
337–3463.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Applicability of Notice
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report
V. Application of Program Policy Factors
VI. Selection
VII. Deviations
I. Introduction—The Department of
Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) hereby gives notice of the
procedure for the objective merit review
of projects seeking discretionary
financial assistance. The procedures
described in this notice implement the
objective merit review provisions of the
DOE Financial Assistance Rules at 10
CFR 600.13. Specifically, this notice
covers the procedure for applications
received competitively and non-
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
competitively. This notice also provides
procedures for establishing peer and
merit review panels, naming a Federal
Merit Review Manager, conducting
merit reviews, and preparing a Merit
Review Advisory Report for the
Selection Official.
DOE provides financial assistance, in
the form of grants cooperative
agreements and technology investment
agreements. The principal purpose of
these transactions is the transfer of a
thing of value, usually money but
occasionally property or other items of
value, to a recipient to accomplish a
public purpose identified. DOE funds
only those programs authorized by
Federal statute. Financial assistance
may be either discretionary or
mandatory. Discretionary financial
assistance means DOE provides funding
to a recipient of DOE’s choosing; DOE
has the discretion to select a recipient
as well as the size of the award.
Mandatory financial assistance means
DOE must provide the assistance to the
entities named and the amounts stated
by statute.
These procedures do not cover
acquisition. Financial assistance differs
from an acquisition, which refers to
instruments used when the principal
purpose of the transaction is the
acquisition of supplies or services for
the direct benefit of the Government.
The procedures pursuant to this notice
do not apply to acquisitions, which are
covered by the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR).
II. Applicability of Notice—These
procedures apply to the evaluation of
discretionary financial assistance
applications received for programs
within the DOE EERE.
(a) Distinction Between Solicited
Applications and Unsolicited
Proposals—Solicited applications
constitute direct responses by interested
organizations or individuals to DOE
Funding Opportunity Announcements
(FOA) in the form of applications for
discretionary financial assistance
awards. Funding opportunities are
announced using the process set forth in
10 CFR 600.8. When a proposal is
submitted solely on the proposer’s
initiative, and the idea, method or
approach would be ineligible for
assistance under a recent, current, or
planned solicitation, and if, as
determined by DOE, a competitive
solicitation would not be appropriate,
the proposal is considered an
unsolicited proposal. Unsolicited
proposals are awarded on a noncompetitive basis using the criteria set
forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c). The two types
of proposals are treated differently for
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
merit review and the processes are
described below.
(b) Renewals—A renewal award adds
one or more budget periods to an
existing award’s project period.
Applications for renewal awards may be
submitted competitively (against a FOA
that provides for renewal applications)
or non-competitively.
(c) Non-competitive Actions—Noncompetitive actions are reviewed and
approved in a manner similar to that of
unsolicited proposals using the criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c) and as
described in Section III(d), herein.
III. Objective Merit Review
Procedure—(a) Definition and
Purpose—A merit review constitutes the
process of evaluating applications for
discretionary financial assistance while
using established criteria. Reviews shall
be thorough, consistent, and
independent, and completed by
individuals knowledgeable in the field
or subject matter for which support is
requested (see Appendix 1 for EERE
merit reviewer qualification guidelines).
The purpose of the merit review is to
provide advice and recommendations
on the scientific and technical merits of
an application for consideration by the
Selection Official. The Selection Official
has authority to select applications for
negotiation of a financial assistance
award.
(b) Review Standards—Solicited
Applications—1. Initial Compliance
Review—EERE will review each
financial assistance application received
for conformance with initial review
criteria and administrative requirements
published in the FOA, program rule or
notice.
i. Any application not meeting the
initial review criteria will be
determined to be non-compliant and
precluded from further technical merit
review.
ii. Any applicant that is determined to
be non-compliant will be notified in
writing, along with the reasons the
application will not be evaluated
further.
iii. Applications meeting the initial
compliance review criteria will be
reviewed for merit in accordance with
the stated evaluation criteria in the
FOA, program rule or notice.
2. Merit Review of Solicited
Applications—The Merit Review Panel
(Panel) will conduct an objective merit
review for each application that passes
the initial compliance review, using the
criteria published in the FOA, program
rule, or notice. The criteria to be used
in the merit review and the other
mandatory information specified in 10
CFR 600.8 must be included in the FOA,
program rule or notice. Typically, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
merit review criteria will be weighted
individually to reflect their relative
importance in the overall merit of the
application. The Panel will review
solicited applications based on
information in the FOA. The merit
review will typically include the
following attributes:
i. Applications that pass the initial
compliance review will be reviewed by
the Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer
review panels will provide individual
evaluations, which may include a score
to the Federal Merit Review Manager.
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will
provide a consensus rating (numeric,
adjectival, or comparable) for each
criterion outlined in the FOA, program
rule or notice based on the strengths and
weaknesses of the applications.
ii. An overall consensus rating will be
determined for each application by the
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel.
iii. The DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel will prepare a Merit Review
Advisory Report for the Selection
Official. The report will discuss the peer
review, if any. The DOE Federal Merit
Review Panel will establish a selection
range to include applications that were
deemed technically acceptable. The
recommended selection range will be
determined at the conclusion of the
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel
meeting. Rationale for the range must be
included in the Merit Review Advisory
Report.
(c) Review Standards—Unsolicited
Proposals—1. Unsolicited proposals
will receive an initial review to
determine if the proposal will be
eligible under 10 CFR 600.6(c). For an
unsolicited proposal to be eligible for an
award, a proposal must meet one of the
following criteria:
i. The activity to be funded is
necessary to the satisfactory completion
of, or is a continuation or renewal of, an
activity presently being funded by DOE
or another Federal agency, and for
which competition for support would
have a significant adverse effect on
continuity or completion of the activity.
ii. The activity is being or would be
conducted by the applicant using its
own resources or those donated or
provided by third parties; however, DOE
support of that activity would enhance
the public benefits to be derived and
DOE knows of no other entity which is
conducting or is planning to conduct
such an activity.
iii. The applicant is a unit of
government and the activity to be
supported is related to performance of a
governmental function within the
subject jurisdiction, thereby precluding
DOE provision of support to another
entity.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17847
iv. The applicant has exclusive
domestic capability to perform the
activity successfully, based upon unique
equipment, proprietary data, technical
expertise, or other such unique
qualifications.
v. The award implements an
agreement between the United States
Government and a foreign government
to fund a foreign applicant.
vi. Time constraints associated with a
public health, safety, welfare or national
security requirement preclude
competition.
vii. The proposed project was
submitted as an unsolicited proposal
and represents a unique or innovative
idea, method, or approach which would
not be eligible for financial assistance
under a recent, current, or planned
solicitation, and if, as determined by
DOE, a competitive solicitation would
not be appropriate.
viii. The responsible program
Assistant Secretary, Deputy
Administrator, or other official of
equivalent authority determines that a
noncompetitive award is in the public
interest. This authority may not be
delegated.
2. Unsolicited proposals that pass the
initial review shall be reviewed against
the criteria outlined in EERE’s Guide for
the Submission of Unsolicited Proposals
by a Merit Review Panel. These criteria
include:
i. Unique and innovative methods,
approaches or concepts demonstrated
by the proposal;
ii. Overall scientific/technical or
socioeconomic merit of the proposed
activity;
iii. Potential contribution of the effort
to the DOE’s specific mission;
iv. The proposer’s capabilities, related
experience, facilities, techniques, or
unique combinations of these which are
integral factors for achieving the
proposal objectives;
v. The qualifications, capabilities, and
experience of the proposed principal
investigator, team leader, or key
personnel who are critical in achieving
the proposal objectives;
vi. The realism of the proposed costs;
and
vii. The availability of funding to
support the proposed project, and the
relative merit of the project compared
with others that could be supported
with the same funds.
(See https://www.netl.doe.gov/
business/usp/USPGuide.pdf).
3. When the substance of an
unsolicited proposal is available to the
Government without restriction from
another source, or closely resembles that
of a pending competitive solicitation, or
does not demonstrate an innovative and
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
17848
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
unique method, approach or concept,
the unsolicited proposal shall not be
accepted. See Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR), part 15.607(a).
4. Additional guidance for reviewing
noncompetitive proposals, including
renewal applications, and the template
for the review plan are provided in
Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review
Guide for Financial Assistance
(available at https://
www.management.energy.gov/
documents/meritrev.pdf). Appendix C
of the DOE Merit Review Guide for
Financial Assistance, rather than
Sections IV–VI of this Notice, applies to
the review of unsolicited proposals.
(d) The Merit Review Panel—1. The
Merit Review Panel can be established
in many ways. It should always include
at least one DOE Federal employee.
Non-DOE Federal experts may be part of
the Merit Review Panel as Peer
Reviewers, but are not required. The
most typical arrangements are a peer
review panel and a DOE Federal
employee; a peer review panel and a
DOE Federal panel; or only a DOE
Federal panel. Peer review panels and
DOE Federal panels should include at
least three technically qualified
individuals. Merit review that involves
a Federal review panel is preferred over
merit review that involves only one
Federal reviewer. The names of the
Merit Review Panel will not be released
to the public.
2. Merit Review Panel Member
Selection. The DOE Senior Procurement
Executive (SPE) has the ultimate
responsibility for designating a
Selection Official. DOE officials, in
accordance with the applicable
designation, may be appointed as the
Selection Official. The SPE may
delegate authority to designate a
Selection Official to other DOE officials.
Examples of officials to whom the
authority may be delegated include the
Deputy Assistant Secretary, the
Executive Director of Field Operations,
Head of Contracting Activity, the
Program Managers, or other similar
positions within DOE. The Selection
Official may not be a member of the
Merit Review Panel. Members of the
Merit Review Panel must be qualified
personnel. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers
may include qualified personnel from
Federal agencies, other Government
entities, academia, industry, and DOE
contractors, including national
laboratory employees. The Contracting
Officer may serve on the Merit Review
Panel in an ex officio capacity.
3. Conflicts of Interest. The Federal
Merit Review Manager, in consultation
with Legal Counsel or the Contracting
Officer, shall review instances of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
potential conflicts involving members of
the Merit Review Panel. Merit Review
Panel members must act in a manner
consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 et seq.
Merit Review Panel members with a
conflict of interest shall immediately
notify the Federal Merit Review
Manager of the conflict of interest and
comply with any mitigation measures
required by the Federal Merit Review
Manager, including excusing themselves
from all deliberations involving the
application for which they have a
conflict of interest.
i. In determining potential conflicts,
the Federal Merit Review Manager shall
give close scrutiny to reviewers who
perform any of the following:
a. Have any decision-making role
regarding the application or provide
technical assistance to the applicant in
regards to the application;
b. Audit the recipient for the project;
or
c. If included in the review, will give
the appearance of a conflict of interest.
ii. Situations that could be perceived
as conflicts of interest may include:
a. The application being reviewed was
submitted by a reviewer’s recent
student, recent teacher, former
employer, close personal friend or
relative of the reviewer, spouse, or the
reviewer’s minor children.
b. The application being reviewed
was submitted by a person with whom
the reviewer has had longstanding
differences.
c. The application being reviewed is
similar to projects being conducted by
the reviewer or by the reviewer’s
organization.
iii. When situations arise that present
a perceived or actual conflict of interest,
the Federal Merit Review Manager, with
consultation from Legal Counsel, may
permit reviewers to participate if a
Conflict of Interest (COI) waiver is
granted and an acceptable mitigation
plan is implemented. The mitigation
implemented shall be reflected in the
Merit Review Advisory Report.
However, in no event will a waiver be
granted to permit a reviewer to evaluate
an application/proposal for his/her/host
or affiliated organization or if
participation is prohibited by language
in the FOA.
iv. Each member of the Merit Review
Panel, including ex-officio members,
shall sign a Confidentiality and Conflict
of Interest Certification and
Acknowledgement, which requires
adherence to the following guidelines:
a. Reviewers shall not discuss the
evaluation process with any
unauthorized personnel.
b. Reviewers shall not divulge their
identities to any applicant.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
c. Reviewers shall not contact
applicants.
d. Reviewers shall not discuss the
Panel proceedings outside of the Merit
Review Panel meeting, even after the
selection and award.
e. Reviewers shall not accept any
invitations, gratuities (i.e., meals, gifts,
favors, etc.), or job offers from any
applicant. If a reviewer is offered any
invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or
on behalf of any applicant, the reviewer
shall immediately report it to the
Contracting Officer.
f. Reviewers shall only evaluate
information provided by the applicants
in the applications and only evaluate
against the published criteria. No
additional criteria are to be considered
by the Panel.
g. Typically, reviewers shall initially
rate all applications independently and
without consultation between
reviewers.
h. Reviewers will inform the Federal
Merit Review Manager of any personal
or organizational conflicts of interest
arising out of applications they are
asked to review.
i. Reviewers may contact the Federal
Merit Review Manager to obtain
clarifications regarding applications.
For more details see the DOE’s Merit
Review Guide for Financial Assistance
at https://www.management.energy.gov/
documents/meritrev.pdf.
4. Authorized Uses of Information.
The Merit Review Panel must act in a
manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15
when dealing with applications
containing trade secrets, privileged,
confidential commercial, and/or
financial information.
5. Federal Merit Review Manager—
The Selection Official must appoint a
person from the EERE headquarters
program as Federal Merit Review
Manager of the Merit Review Panel. The
Federal Merit Review Manager is
responsible for:
i. Selecting the Merit Review Panel
members and obtaining approval from
the EERE Program Manager;
ii. Ensuring a comprehensive and
robust Evaluation and Selection Plan;
iii. Overseeing the merit review
process and all panel meetings, ensuring
that merit review procedures are
followed consistently, as well as
applicable statutes and regulations
including, but not limited to, the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App. 2;
iv. Ensuring that Merit Review Panel
members understand the evaluation
criteria and merit review procedures/
process;
v. In the event of multiple Merit
Review Panels due to large number of
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
applications, ensuring consistency
among the panels;
vi. Ensure each application is
evaluated by the Merit Review Panel in
accordance with the Evaluation and
Selection Plan;
vii. Ensuring that reviewers provide
sound, well documented evaluations;
viii. Addressing any unexpected or
unique circumstances presented and
maintaining the integrity of the Merit
Review process;
ix. Reviewing and approving the
written summary of the evaluation and
recommendations for the Selection
Official via the Merit Review Advisory
Report;
x. Performing the merit review duties
of a regular Merit Review Panel
member, if necessary or appropriate;
xi. Ensuring that the Contracting
Officer and Legal Counsel take
appropriate action to mitigate conflicts
of interest of Merit Review Panel
members as discussed in section
III(d)(3) herein;
xii. Recommending application of the
program policy factors, when
appropriate; ensuring that the Merit
Review Advisory Report is prepared in
conformity with guidance set out in Part
IV, herein; and
xiii. Making a presentation, if
requested, to the Selection Official and
other advisors to the Selection Official
in the form of a pre-selection briefing.
6. Co-Federal Merit Review Manager—
The Selection Official may appoint a
person from the program’s field staff as
Co-Federal Merit Review Manager. The
Co-Federal Merit Review Manager is
responsible for:
i. Preparing the Evaluation and
Selection Plan for Federal Merit Review
Manager and Selection Official
approval;
ii. Managing merit review logistics,
including panel meetings, etc.;
iii. Obtaining signed certificates of
confidentiality from all Merit Review
Panel members to be kept on file at the
issuing agency;
iv. Preparing the written summary of
the evaluation and recommendations for
the Selection Official via the Merit
Review Advisory Report;
v. Ensuring that the Merit Review
Advisory Report is prepared in
conformity with guidance set out in Part
V, herein;
vi. Performing the merit review duties
of a regular Merit Review Panel
member, if necessary or appropriate;
vii. Working with the Federal Merit
Review Manager to ensure that the
technical merit review procedures are
followed consistently when carrying out
the technical merit review. In the event
of multiple merit review panels due to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
large number of applications, the
Federal Merit Review Manager shall
ensure consistency among the panels;
viii. Working with the Contracting
Officer and Legal Counsel to take
appropriate action to mitigate conflicts
of interest of Merit Review Panel
members as discussed in section
III(d)(3) herein;
ix. Assisting the Federal Merit Review
Manager with the merit review process;
x. Assuring control and security of
applications;
xi. Preparing the Merit Review
Advisory Report for the Selection
Official;
xii. Assisting in making a
presentation, if requested, to the
Selection Official and other advisors to
the Selection Official in the form of a
pre-selection briefing;
xiii. Notifying unsuccessful
applicants; and
xiv. Maintaining all merit review
documentation.
7. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers typically
will provide additional expertise to the
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer
reviewers provide specialized expertise
and technical input to the DOE Federal
Merit Review Panel by reviewing
applications and providing written and
sometimes verbal comments and ratings
(numeric, adjectival or comparable)
based on their reviews of applications.
Peer Reviewers must be fully briefed by
the Federal Merit Review Manager
regarding the review criteria and the
peer reviewers must be aware that any
criteria not specified in the solicitation
must not be used to evaluate the
applications. Peer Reviewers must sign
a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement, as
provided in 10 CFR 600.13(d). All Peer
Reviewers forward their comments and
scores as required to the Merit Review
Panel. At the DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel’s discretion, all or a subset of the
Peer Reviewers may be invited to
present their scores and identified
strengths and weaknesses so the DOE
Federal Merit Review Panel may discuss
the Peer Reviewers’ comments and
better understand the Peer Reviewers’
scores and comments. However, unless
specifically allowed by statute, the Peer
Reviewers may not provide consensus
scores or comments to the DOE Federal
Merit Review Panel. The DOE Federal
Merit Review Panel will dismiss all
non-Federal reviewers prior to making
any decisions regarding
recommendations to the Selection
Official for award selection or
establishment of the selection range.
i. The Merit Review Panel should
only task the minimum number of Peer
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17849
Reviewers necessary to effectively
review the submitted applications; and
ii. Selection of Peer Reviewers shall
be done in accordance with the
selection of members of the Merit
Review Panel, part III(d)(2) herein.
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report—
The purpose of the Merit Review
Advisory Report is to present the
findings of the Merit Review Panel and
recommend applications that merit
funding to the Selection Official. The
Federal Merit Review Manager shall
provide the complete report for review
and obtain concurrence from the
Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel
prior to submitting the report to the
Selection Official. The report will
typically include four sections—one to
establish the purpose of the report, a
second to document the compliance
review performed, a third to record the
merit review process used and any
deviations from protocol, and a fourth
that contains a draft Selection Statement
for execution by the Selection Official.
In addition, relevant attachments will be
included as referenced below.
(a) Section 1 shall include the
following:
1. A brief statement as to the purpose
of the Merit Review Advisory Report;
and
2. A brief summary of the number of
applications received and the number
deemed technically acceptable by the
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel for
selection for negotiation of award.
(b) Section 2 shall include the
following:
1. A list of applications rejected in the
Initial Compliance Review, if any; and
2. A list of the reasons why the
application was rejected and not
comprehensively reviewed.
(c) Section 3 shall include the
following:
1. The number of members on the
DOE Federal Merit Review Panel and
the number of peer reviewers, their
names and a brief discussion of their
qualifications, a statement that all
applications were independently
reviewed in accordance with the
requirements contained herein, and a
statement that all Panel members,
including ex-officio members, signed a
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement;
2. A discussion of the peer review
process for all applications;
3. Details of the Merit Review Panel
meeting and the process followed,
including a discussion of any
deviations, such as issues with conflicts
of interest;
4. A discussion of the development of
consensus scores for each application,
the ranking process, the number of
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
17850
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
applications deemed technically
acceptable, and any observations or
findings that impacted the decision
regarding the acceptable selection range;
and
5. Details of the Panel’s process to set
the selection range, and a reference to
the final list of applications deemed
technically acceptable in the Record of
Consensus Scores for All Applications.
(d) Section 4 shall include the
following:
1. A request for action from the
Selection Official regarding application
of the program policy factors and
selection of applications for negotiation
of award; and
2. Instructions regarding these actions
and subsequent communication of his/
her decision to the Contracting Officer.
(e) Attachments to the Merit Review
Advisory Report shall include the
following:
1. Record of Consensus Strengths and
Weaknesses for each application;
2. Record of Consensus Scores for All
Applications;
3. Program Policy Factor Information
Sheet; and
4. Draft Selection Statement for
execution by the Selection Official.
(f) For non-competitive applications
including renewal applications, the
report to the Selection official will
consist of individual review forms and
a summary statement consistent with
that found in Appendix C of the DOE
Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance (available at https://
www.management.energy.gov/
documents/meritrev.pdf). Additionally,
a Selection Statement will be prepared
to document the Selection Official’s
selection of the project.
V. Application of program policy
factors—Each application deemed
technically acceptable by the Merit
Review Panel may receive a program
policy review by the Selection Official
or personnel designated by the Selection
Official. The Selection Official may, at
his/her discretion, consider the program
policy factors when making selections.
VI. Selection—The Selection Official
will complete the Selection Statement.
The Selection Official will document all
selections with a written narrative,
noting which program policy factors, if
any, were applied in making the
selections. The Selection Official shall
notify the Contracting Officer in the
selection statement of the applications
designated as ‘‘alternate.’’ In addition,
the Selection Official may identify
negotiation strategies, if any, in the
second page of the Selection Statement
entitled ‘‘Negotiation Strategy.’’
VII. Deviations—If an EERE program
office intends to deviate from these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
procedures for merit review of an
application or a class of applications but
will still follow the rules of 10 CFR
600.13, that office must obtain written
permission from the Assistant Secretary
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Permission to use procedures
which deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be
requested in writing addressed to the
responsible DOE Contracting Officer in
accordance with 10 CFR 600.4. The
Head of Contracting Activity has the
authority to approve such procedures
for a single case deviation, while the
Director, Procurement and Assistance
Management (Senior Procurement
Executive) has the authority to approve
a class deviation. A deviation may be
authorized only upon written
determination that the deviation is
necessary for any of the reasons set forth
in 10 CFR 600.4(b).
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy.
Appendix 1—Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Reviewer
Qualification Guidelines—May 28,
2010
For typical EERE Funding Opportunity
Announcements (FOAs), examples of
reviewer qualifications are identified below.
Stronger qualifications may be needed for
certain FOAs. For example, the Energy
Innovation Hubs are modeled after Bell Labs,
which recruited the nation’s best and
brightest and sought a level of scientific
quality not possible in all R&D endeavors.
The Department plans to invest more than
$120 million over five years in the Hubs,
with a possible extension to ten years.
Therefore, reviewer selection criteria should
be consistent with the high quality of science
expected and the significant level of
investment. Reviewer qualifications for
typical EERE FOAs:
• At least 5 years of experience in a
relevant field. People with less experience
should have some other strong credentials,
e.g., a PhD with a strong publication or
patent record specific to the technology being
evaluated, a young investigator award, or a
strong pedigree (e.g., a PhD from a high
caliber institution or under a recognized
leader in the field). If a newly minted PhD
with a strong pedigree is being considered as
a reviewer, he/she should have some
additional accomplishments such as a
seminal paper in the field, or an invited talk
to a major conference.
• Publications and Patents. This could
include having a significant number of peerreviewed publications and/or patents in the
technology being evaluated. For those who
have a lengthy and diverse publication
history, the timeframe of publications and/or
patents should reflect that the reviewer’s
knowledge of the technology is relevant and
not outdated.
• Other evidence that the person is a
recognized expert in the field. This could
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
include having managed a public policy
program that has had a national impact, a
record of bringing innovations to the market,
or holding key patents.
• An advanced degree (Ph.D., Sc.D.,
D.Eng., M.S., or M.B.A.) in a relevant field.
Those with a Bachelors degree should have
more experience and/or a record of
accomplishments indicating their expertise
in the field.
• Relevant awards. This would include
being a recipient of a National Medal of
Science, American Chemical Society
National Award, Young Investigator Award,
R&D 100 Award, or other awards specific to
a technology (e.g., Fuel Cell Seminar Award).
• Key Society Membership. Member of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or
Engineering (NAE) member, American
Physics Society Fellow, National Laboratory
Fellow.
[FR Doc. 2011–7581 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER01–989–008.
Applicants: Green Mountain Power
Corporation.
Description: Supplemental of Green
Mountain Power Corporation to
triennial market power update report.
Filed Date: 03/15/2011.
Accession Number: 20110315–5176.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Tuesday, April 5, 2011.
Docket Numbers: ER11–2365–000;
ER11–2365–001.
Applicants: Paradise Solar Urban
Renewal, L.L.C.
Description: Paradise Solar Urban
Renewal, L.L.C. Revision to Market
Power Analysis.
Filed Date: 03/23/2011.
Accession Number: 20110323–5129.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.
Docket Numbers: ER11–2774–000.
Applicants: Virginia Electric and
Power Company, Dominion Energy
Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy
Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, LLC, Dominion Energy
Manchester Street, Inc. Dominion
Energy New England, Inc., Dominion
Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, Dominion
Retail, Inc., Elwood Energy, LLC,
Fairless Energy, LLC, Kincaid
Generation, L.L.C. NedPower Mt. Storm,
LLC, State Line Energy, L.L.C., Fowler
Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17846-17850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7581]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Objective Merit Review of Discretionary Financial Assistance and
Other Transaction Authority Applications
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice establishes the procedure for program offices
operating under the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy in conducting the objective merit
review of discretionary financial assistance and Other Transaction
Authority funding applications. The effective date for the Objective
Merit Review Procedure contained in this notice is March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 1-877-337-3463.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Applicability of Notice
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report
V. Application of Program Policy Factors
VI. Selection
VII. Deviations
I. Introduction--The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) hereby gives notice of the
procedure for the objective merit review of projects seeking
discretionary financial assistance. The procedures described in this
notice implement the objective merit review provisions of the DOE
Financial Assistance Rules at 10 CFR 600.13. Specifically, this notice
covers the procedure for applications received competitively and non-
competitively. This notice also provides procedures for establishing
peer and merit review panels, naming a Federal Merit Review Manager,
conducting merit reviews, and preparing a Merit Review Advisory Report
for the Selection Official.
DOE provides financial assistance, in the form of grants
cooperative agreements and technology investment agreements. The
principal purpose of these transactions is the transfer of a thing of
value, usually money but occasionally property or other items of value,
to a recipient to accomplish a public purpose identified. DOE funds
only those programs authorized by Federal statute. Financial assistance
may be either discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary financial
assistance means DOE provides funding to a recipient of DOE's choosing;
DOE has the discretion to select a recipient as well as the size of the
award. Mandatory financial assistance means DOE must provide the
assistance to the entities named and the amounts stated by statute.
These procedures do not cover acquisition. Financial assistance
differs from an acquisition, which refers to instruments used when the
principal purpose of the transaction is the acquisition of supplies or
services for the direct benefit of the Government. The procedures
pursuant to this notice do not apply to acquisitions, which are covered
by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
II. Applicability of Notice--These procedures apply to the
evaluation of discretionary financial assistance applications received
for programs within the DOE EERE.
(a) Distinction Between Solicited Applications and Unsolicited
Proposals--Solicited applications constitute direct responses by
interested organizations or individuals to DOE Funding Opportunity
Announcements (FOA) in the form of applications for discretionary
financial assistance awards. Funding opportunities are announced using
the process set forth in 10 CFR 600.8. When a proposal is submitted
solely on the proposer's initiative, and the idea, method or approach
would be ineligible for assistance under a recent, current, or planned
solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive solicitation
would not be appropriate, the proposal is considered an unsolicited
proposal. Unsolicited proposals are awarded on a non-competitive basis
using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c). The two types of
proposals are treated differently for
[[Page 17847]]
merit review and the processes are described below.
(b) Renewals--A renewal award adds one or more budget periods to an
existing award's project period. Applications for renewal awards may be
submitted competitively (against a FOA that provides for renewal
applications) or non-competitively.
(c) Non-competitive Actions--Non-competitive actions are reviewed
and approved in a manner similar to that of unsolicited proposals using
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c) and as described in Section
III(d), herein.
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure--(a) Definition and Purpose--
A merit review constitutes the process of evaluating applications for
discretionary financial assistance while using established criteria.
Reviews shall be thorough, consistent, and independent, and completed
by individuals knowledgeable in the field or subject matter for which
support is requested (see Appendix 1 for EERE merit reviewer
qualification guidelines). The purpose of the merit review is to
provide advice and recommendations on the scientific and technical
merits of an application for consideration by the Selection Official.
The Selection Official has authority to select applications for
negotiation of a financial assistance award.
(b) Review Standards--Solicited Applications--1. Initial Compliance
Review--EERE will review each financial assistance application received
for conformance with initial review criteria and administrative
requirements published in the FOA, program rule or notice.
i. Any application not meeting the initial review criteria will be
determined to be non-compliant and precluded from further technical
merit review.
ii. Any applicant that is determined to be non-compliant will be
notified in writing, along with the reasons the application will not be
evaluated further.
iii. Applications meeting the initial compliance review criteria
will be reviewed for merit in accordance with the stated evaluation
criteria in the FOA, program rule or notice.
2. Merit Review of Solicited Applications--The Merit Review Panel
(Panel) will conduct an objective merit review for each application
that passes the initial compliance review, using the criteria published
in the FOA, program rule, or notice. The criteria to be used in the
merit review and the other mandatory information specified in 10 CFR
600.8 must be included in the FOA, program rule or notice. Typically,
the merit review criteria will be weighted individually to reflect
their relative importance in the overall merit of the application. The
Panel will review solicited applications based on information in the
FOA. The merit review will typically include the following attributes:
i. Applications that pass the initial compliance review will be
reviewed by the Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer review panels will
provide individual evaluations, which may include a score to the
Federal Merit Review Manager. DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will
provide a consensus rating (numeric, adjectival, or comparable) for
each criterion outlined in the FOA, program rule or notice based on the
strengths and weaknesses of the applications.
ii. An overall consensus rating will be determined for each
application by the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel.
iii. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will prepare a Merit Review
Advisory Report for the Selection Official. The report will discuss the
peer review, if any. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will establish
a selection range to include applications that were deemed technically
acceptable. The recommended selection range will be determined at the
conclusion of the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel meeting. Rationale for
the range must be included in the Merit Review Advisory Report.
(c) Review Standards--Unsolicited Proposals--1. Unsolicited
proposals will receive an initial review to determine if the proposal
will be eligible under 10 CFR 600.6(c). For an unsolicited proposal to
be eligible for an award, a proposal must meet one of the following
criteria:
i. The activity to be funded is necessary to the satisfactory
completion of, or is a continuation or renewal of, an activity
presently being funded by DOE or another Federal agency, and for which
competition for support would have a significant adverse effect on
continuity or completion of the activity.
ii. The activity is being or would be conducted by the applicant
using its own resources or those donated or provided by third parties;
however, DOE support of that activity would enhance the public benefits
to be derived and DOE knows of no other entity which is conducting or
is planning to conduct such an activity.
iii. The applicant is a unit of government and the activity to be
supported is related to performance of a governmental function within
the subject jurisdiction, thereby precluding DOE provision of support
to another entity.
iv. The applicant has exclusive domestic capability to perform the
activity successfully, based upon unique equipment, proprietary data,
technical expertise, or other such unique qualifications.
v. The award implements an agreement between the United States
Government and a foreign government to fund a foreign applicant.
vi. Time constraints associated with a public health, safety,
welfare or national security requirement preclude competition.
vii. The proposed project was submitted as an unsolicited proposal
and represents a unique or innovative idea, method, or approach which
would not be eligible for financial assistance under a recent, current,
or planned solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive
solicitation would not be appropriate.
viii. The responsible program Assistant Secretary, Deputy
Administrator, or other official of equivalent authority determines
that a noncompetitive award is in the public interest. This authority
may not be delegated.
2. Unsolicited proposals that pass the initial review shall be
reviewed against the criteria outlined in EERE's Guide for the
Submission of Unsolicited Proposals by a Merit Review Panel. These
criteria include:
i. Unique and innovative methods, approaches or concepts
demonstrated by the proposal;
ii. Overall scientific/technical or socioeconomic merit of the
proposed activity;
iii. Potential contribution of the effort to the DOE's specific
mission;
iv. The proposer's capabilities, related experience, facilities,
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors
for achieving the proposal objectives;
v. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed
principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel who are critical
in achieving the proposal objectives;
vi. The realism of the proposed costs; and
vii. The availability of funding to support the proposed project,
and the relative merit of the project compared with others that could
be supported with the same funds.
(See https://www.netl.doe.gov/business/usp/USPGuide.pdf).
3. When the substance of an unsolicited proposal is available to
the Government without restriction from another source, or closely
resembles that of a pending competitive solicitation, or does not
demonstrate an innovative and
[[Page 17848]]
unique method, approach or concept, the unsolicited proposal shall not
be accepted. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), part 15.607(a).
4. Additional guidance for reviewing noncompetitive proposals,
including renewal applications, and the template for the review plan
are provided in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance (available at https://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf). Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance, rather than Sections IV-VI of this Notice, applies to the
review of unsolicited proposals.
(d) The Merit Review Panel--1. The Merit Review Panel can be
established in many ways. It should always include at least one DOE
Federal employee. Non-DOE Federal experts may be part of the Merit
Review Panel as Peer Reviewers, but are not required. The most typical
arrangements are a peer review panel and a DOE Federal employee; a peer
review panel and a DOE Federal panel; or only a DOE Federal panel. Peer
review panels and DOE Federal panels should include at least three
technically qualified individuals. Merit review that involves a Federal
review panel is preferred over merit review that involves only one
Federal reviewer. The names of the Merit Review Panel will not be
released to the public.
2. Merit Review Panel Member Selection. The DOE Senior Procurement
Executive (SPE) has the ultimate responsibility for designating a
Selection Official. DOE officials, in accordance with the applicable
designation, may be appointed as the Selection Official. The SPE may
delegate authority to designate a Selection Official to other DOE
officials. Examples of officials to whom the authority may be delegated
include the Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Executive Director of Field
Operations, Head of Contracting Activity, the Program Managers, or
other similar positions within DOE. The Selection Official may not be a
member of the Merit Review Panel. Members of the Merit Review Panel
must be qualified personnel. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers may include
qualified personnel from Federal agencies, other Government entities,
academia, industry, and DOE contractors, including national laboratory
employees. The Contracting Officer may serve on the Merit Review Panel
in an ex officio capacity.
3. Conflicts of Interest. The Federal Merit Review Manager, in
consultation with Legal Counsel or the Contracting Officer, shall
review instances of potential conflicts involving members of the Merit
Review Panel. Merit Review Panel members must act in a manner
consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 et seq. Merit Review Panel members with
a conflict of interest shall immediately notify the Federal Merit
Review Manager of the conflict of interest and comply with any
mitigation measures required by the Federal Merit Review Manager,
including excusing themselves from all deliberations involving the
application for which they have a conflict of interest.
i. In determining potential conflicts, the Federal Merit Review
Manager shall give close scrutiny to reviewers who perform any of the
following:
a. Have any decision-making role regarding the application or
provide technical assistance to the applicant in regards to the
application;
b. Audit the recipient for the project; or
c. If included in the review, will give the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
ii. Situations that could be perceived as conflicts of interest may
include:
a. The application being reviewed was submitted by a reviewer's
recent student, recent teacher, former employer, close personal friend
or relative of the reviewer, spouse, or the reviewer's minor children.
b. The application being reviewed was submitted by a person with
whom the reviewer has had longstanding differences.
c. The application being reviewed is similar to projects being
conducted by the reviewer or by the reviewer's organization.
iii. When situations arise that present a perceived or actual
conflict of interest, the Federal Merit Review Manager, with
consultation from Legal Counsel, may permit reviewers to participate if
a Conflict of Interest (COI) waiver is granted and an acceptable
mitigation plan is implemented. The mitigation implemented shall be
reflected in the Merit Review Advisory Report. However, in no event
will a waiver be granted to permit a reviewer to evaluate an
application/proposal for his/her/host or affiliated organization or if
participation is prohibited by language in the FOA.
iv. Each member of the Merit Review Panel, including ex-officio
members, shall sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement, which requires adherence to the
following guidelines:
a. Reviewers shall not discuss the evaluation process with any
unauthorized personnel.
b. Reviewers shall not divulge their identities to any applicant.
c. Reviewers shall not contact applicants.
d. Reviewers shall not discuss the Panel proceedings outside of the
Merit Review Panel meeting, even after the selection and award.
e. Reviewers shall not accept any invitations, gratuities (i.e.,
meals, gifts, favors, etc.), or job offers from any applicant. If a
reviewer is offered any invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or on
behalf of any applicant, the reviewer shall immediately report it to
the Contracting Officer.
f. Reviewers shall only evaluate information provided by the
applicants in the applications and only evaluate against the published
criteria. No additional criteria are to be considered by the Panel.
g. Typically, reviewers shall initially rate all applications
independently and without consultation between reviewers.
h. Reviewers will inform the Federal Merit Review Manager of any
personal or organizational conflicts of interest arising out of
applications they are asked to review.
i. Reviewers may contact the Federal Merit Review Manager to obtain
clarifications regarding applications.
For more details see the DOE's Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance at https://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf.
4. Authorized Uses of Information. The Merit Review Panel must act
in a manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15 when dealing with
applications containing trade secrets, privileged, confidential
commercial, and/or financial information.
5. Federal Merit Review Manager--The Selection Official must
appoint a person from the EERE headquarters program as Federal Merit
Review Manager of the Merit Review Panel. The Federal Merit Review
Manager is responsible for:
i. Selecting the Merit Review Panel members and obtaining approval
from the EERE Program Manager;
ii. Ensuring a comprehensive and robust Evaluation and Selection
Plan;
iii. Overseeing the merit review process and all panel meetings,
ensuring that merit review procedures are followed consistently, as
well as applicable statutes and regulations including, but not limited
to, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2;
iv. Ensuring that Merit Review Panel members understand the
evaluation criteria and merit review procedures/process;
v. In the event of multiple Merit Review Panels due to large number
of
[[Page 17849]]
applications, ensuring consistency among the panels;
vi. Ensure each application is evaluated by the Merit Review Panel
in accordance with the Evaluation and Selection Plan;
vii. Ensuring that reviewers provide sound, well documented
evaluations;
viii. Addressing any unexpected or unique circumstances presented
and maintaining the integrity of the Merit Review process;
ix. Reviewing and approving the written summary of the evaluation
and recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review
Advisory Report;
x. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review
Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
xi. Ensuring that the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel take
appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit Review
Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
xii. Recommending application of the program policy factors, when
appropriate; ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared
in conformity with guidance set out in Part IV, herein; and
xiii. Making a presentation, if requested, to the Selection
Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the form of a
pre-selection briefing.
6. Co-Federal Merit Review Manager--The Selection Official may
appoint a person from the program's field staff as Co-Federal Merit
Review Manager. The Co-Federal Merit Review Manager is responsible for:
i. Preparing the Evaluation and Selection Plan for Federal Merit
Review Manager and Selection Official approval;
ii. Managing merit review logistics, including panel meetings,
etc.;
iii. Obtaining signed certificates of confidentiality from all
Merit Review Panel members to be kept on file at the issuing agency;
iv. Preparing the written summary of the evaluation and
recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review
Advisory Report;
v. Ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared in
conformity with guidance set out in Part V, herein;
vi. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review
Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
vii. Working with the Federal Merit Review Manager to ensure that
the technical merit review procedures are followed consistently when
carrying out the technical merit review. In the event of multiple merit
review panels due to large number of applications, the Federal Merit
Review Manager shall ensure consistency among the panels;
viii. Working with the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel to
take appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit
Review Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
ix. Assisting the Federal Merit Review Manager with the merit
review process;
x. Assuring control and security of applications;
xi. Preparing the Merit Review Advisory Report for the Selection
Official;
xii. Assisting in making a presentation, if requested, to the
Selection Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the
form of a pre-selection briefing;
xiii. Notifying unsuccessful applicants; and
xiv. Maintaining all merit review documentation.
7. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers typically will provide additional
expertise to the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer reviewers provide
specialized expertise and technical input to the DOE Federal Merit
Review Panel by reviewing applications and providing written and
sometimes verbal comments and ratings (numeric, adjectival or
comparable) based on their reviews of applications. Peer Reviewers must
be fully briefed by the Federal Merit Review Manager regarding the
review criteria and the peer reviewers must be aware that any criteria
not specified in the solicitation must not be used to evaluate the
applications. Peer Reviewers must sign a Confidentiality and Conflict
of Interest Certification and Acknowledgement, as provided in 10 CFR
600.13(d). All Peer Reviewers forward their comments and scores as
required to the Merit Review Panel. At the DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel's discretion, all or a subset of the Peer Reviewers may be
invited to present their scores and identified strengths and weaknesses
so the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel may discuss the Peer Reviewers'
comments and better understand the Peer Reviewers' scores and comments.
However, unless specifically allowed by statute, the Peer Reviewers may
not provide consensus scores or comments to the DOE Federal Merit
Review Panel. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will dismiss all non-
Federal reviewers prior to making any decisions regarding
recommendations to the Selection Official for award selection or
establishment of the selection range.
i. The Merit Review Panel should only task the minimum number of
Peer Reviewers necessary to effectively review the submitted
applications; and
ii. Selection of Peer Reviewers shall be done in accordance with
the selection of members of the Merit Review Panel, part III(d)(2)
herein.
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report--The purpose of the Merit Review
Advisory Report is to present the findings of the Merit Review Panel
and recommend applications that merit funding to the Selection
Official. The Federal Merit Review Manager shall provide the complete
report for review and obtain concurrence from the Contracting Officer
and Legal Counsel prior to submitting the report to the Selection
Official. The report will typically include four sections--one to
establish the purpose of the report, a second to document the
compliance review performed, a third to record the merit review process
used and any deviations from protocol, and a fourth that contains a
draft Selection Statement for execution by the Selection Official. In
addition, relevant attachments will be included as referenced below.
(a) Section 1 shall include the following:
1. A brief statement as to the purpose of the Merit Review Advisory
Report; and
2. A brief summary of the number of applications received and the
number deemed technically acceptable by the DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel for selection for negotiation of award.
(b) Section 2 shall include the following:
1. A list of applications rejected in the Initial Compliance
Review, if any; and
2. A list of the reasons why the application was rejected and not
comprehensively reviewed.
(c) Section 3 shall include the following:
1. The number of members on the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel and
the number of peer reviewers, their names and a brief discussion of
their qualifications, a statement that all applications were
independently reviewed in accordance with the requirements contained
herein, and a statement that all Panel members, including ex-officio
members, signed a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement;
2. A discussion of the peer review process for all applications;
3. Details of the Merit Review Panel meeting and the process
followed, including a discussion of any deviations, such as issues with
conflicts of interest;
4. A discussion of the development of consensus scores for each
application, the ranking process, the number of
[[Page 17850]]
applications deemed technically acceptable, and any observations or
findings that impacted the decision regarding the acceptable selection
range; and
5. Details of the Panel's process to set the selection range, and a
reference to the final list of applications deemed technically
acceptable in the Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications.
(d) Section 4 shall include the following:
1. A request for action from the Selection Official regarding
application of the program policy factors and selection of applications
for negotiation of award; and
2. Instructions regarding these actions and subsequent
communication of his/her decision to the Contracting Officer.
(e) Attachments to the Merit Review Advisory Report shall include
the following:
1. Record of Consensus Strengths and Weaknesses for each
application;
2. Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications;
3. Program Policy Factor Information Sheet; and
4. Draft Selection Statement for execution by the Selection
Official.
(f) For non-competitive applications including renewal
applications, the report to the Selection official will consist of
individual review forms and a summary statement consistent with that
found in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance (available at https://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf). Additionally, a Selection Statement will be prepared to
document the Selection Official's selection of the project.
V. Application of program policy factors--Each application deemed
technically acceptable by the Merit Review Panel may receive a program
policy review by the Selection Official or personnel designated by the
Selection Official. The Selection Official may, at his/her discretion,
consider the program policy factors when making selections.
VI. Selection--The Selection Official will complete the Selection
Statement. The Selection Official will document all selections with a
written narrative, noting which program policy factors, if any, were
applied in making the selections. The Selection Official shall notify
the Contracting Officer in the selection statement of the applications
designated as ``alternate.'' In addition, the Selection Official may
identify negotiation strategies, if any, in the second page of the
Selection Statement entitled ``Negotiation Strategy.''
VII. Deviations--If an EERE program office intends to deviate from
these procedures for merit review of an application or a class of
applications but will still follow the rules of 10 CFR 600.13, that
office must obtain written permission from the Assistant Secretary of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Permission to use procedures
which deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be requested in writing addressed to
the responsible DOE Contracting Officer in accordance with 10 CFR
600.4. The Head of Contracting Activity has the authority to approve
such procedures for a single case deviation, while the Director,
Procurement and Assistance Management (Senior Procurement Executive)
has the authority to approve a class deviation. A deviation may be
authorized only upon written determination that the deviation is
necessary for any of the reasons set forth in 10 CFR 600.4(b).
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy.
Appendix 1--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Reviewer
Qualification Guidelines--May 28, 2010
For typical EERE Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs),
examples of reviewer qualifications are identified below. Stronger
qualifications may be needed for certain FOAs. For example, the
Energy Innovation Hubs are modeled after Bell Labs, which recruited
the nation's best and brightest and sought a level of scientific
quality not possible in all R&D endeavors. The Department plans to
invest more than $120 million over five years in the Hubs, with a
possible extension to ten years. Therefore, reviewer selection
criteria should be consistent with the high quality of science
expected and the significant level of investment. Reviewer
qualifications for typical EERE FOAs:
At least 5 years of experience in a relevant field.
People with less experience should have some other strong
credentials, e.g., a PhD with a strong publication or patent record
specific to the technology being evaluated, a young investigator
award, or a strong pedigree (e.g., a PhD from a high caliber
institution or under a recognized leader in the field). If a newly
minted PhD with a strong pedigree is being considered as a reviewer,
he/she should have some additional accomplishments such as a seminal
paper in the field, or an invited talk to a major conference.
Publications and Patents. This could include having a
significant number of peer-reviewed publications and/or patents in
the technology being evaluated. For those who have a lengthy and
diverse publication history, the timeframe of publications and/or
patents should reflect that the reviewer's knowledge of the
technology is relevant and not outdated.
Other evidence that the person is a recognized expert
in the field. This could include having managed a public policy
program that has had a national impact, a record of bringing
innovations to the market, or holding key patents.
An advanced degree (Ph.D., Sc.D., D.Eng., M.S., or
M.B.A.) in a relevant field. Those with a Bachelors degree should
have more experience and/or a record of accomplishments indicating
their expertise in the field.
Relevant awards. This would include being a recipient
of a National Medal of Science, American Chemical Society National
Award, Young Investigator Award, R&D 100 Award, or other awards
specific to a technology (e.g., Fuel Cell Seminar Award).
Key Society Membership. Member of the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) or Engineering (NAE) member, American Physics
Society Fellow, National Laboratory Fellow.
[FR Doc. 2011-7581 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
