DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY For more information about the Office of Science Grant Program, go to the Office of Science Grants and Contracts Web Site. ____________
Effective Date:
Revised: |
Merit Review System
Action: Notice (Published in the Federal Register)
Background Summary: The Office of Science (SC)(Formerly Office of Energy Research) published this revision to its
Merit Review System in the Federal Register which reflects some desired policy and procedural changes. Changes from the
previous version, which was published May 9, 1990, include:
(1) clarifying the number of qualified reviewers required for merit review; (2) deleting the requirement for a
waiver to accept a competitive application or proposal with fewer than three qualified reviewers in favor of an
explanation of the circumstances; and, (3) specifying that the merit review of on-going programs may consist either of a
review of the renewal application/proposal or an on-site or off-site review of the technical or scientific progress.
The Office of Science Merit Review System, in its entirety, is as follows:
Effective Date: March 11, 1991
For Further Information Contact: Director, Grants & Contracts Division
Supplementary Information: An amendment to the DOE Financial Assistance Rules (54 FR 41943, October 13,
1989) requires program offices to establish and publish an objective merit review system for research and to ensure its
satisfactory functioning.
I. DOE Office of Science Merit Review System
A. Consistent with 10 CFR 600.13(2) [formerly 10 CFR 600.16(a)(1)], the Office of Science (SC) is publishing its Merit Review System
(MRS) for research grant applications received pursuant to 10 CFR Part 605, which was published in the Federal
Register on March 19, 1990, (55 FR 10035) and which may be supplemented from time to time by notice of grant
availability. In addition, this SC MRS also is used for acquisition research proposals submitted pursuant to the SC
Research Opportunity Announcement (ROA) which was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1988, (53
FR 45234) and which may be amended or superseded from time to time. The solicitation documents discussed above
may include information on how SC expects to review and select meritorious research applications and proposals.
Reviews related to specific solicitations, Source Evaluation Boards and unsolicited applications/proposals will be
conducted in accordance with DOE assistance or acquisition regulations as the case may be.
B. Basic Review Standards. 2. Determination to Return Application/Proposal. The determination to return an application/proposal will be
prepared by the SC project manager and will be approved at least one level higher than that of the project manager. 3. Evaluation Criteria. Applications/proposals meeting the standards in B.1 above, will be subjected to formal merit
review and will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 605.10. 4. Additional Reviewers.
b. Such additional reviewers may be Federal employees, including those from SC that are neither the selecting official
nor those in a direct line of supervision above the project manager, or non-Federal employees. Additional reviewers will
not include former employees of the project manager's immediate office, or anyone having line authority over that
immediate office, within the past one year.
c. All reviewers serve as advisors to the selecting official and their recommendations are not binding. All significant
adverse recommendations will be addressed in writing by the project manager to the selecting official and retained in the
official file.
d. In selecting additional reviewers in accordance with this section B.4, such additional reviewers shall not include
anyone who, on behalf of the Federal Government preformed or is likely to perform any of the following duties for any of
the applications/proposals:
f. It occasionally may be necessary, after the fact, to change project manager designation, thereby resulting in an
individual who participated as an additional reviewer in the evaluation of an application/proposal being appointed as the
project manager. This is not a violation of the policy of objective merit review, provided the assignment was not
expected when the review was conducted.
C. Comparative Review. In order to enhance the validity of the evaluation, applications/proposals may be evaluated in
comparison to each other.
D. Methods of Reviewing On-going Programs. Generally, SC will conduct a merit review before every renewal unless,
based upon a review by program staff and one of the criteria listed below, a written determination is made that a project
need not be reviewed at each renewal. The project manager shall prepare the determination prior to the date a renewal
would become effective and the determination will be subject to the concurrence of the SC Grants and Contracts
Division and the approval of the Selecting Offical. In no situation will a grant or contract be renewed for more than six
(6) years without a merit review. The criteria to be used as a basis for such a determination are as follows:
Merit reviews of ongoing programs include: (1) A review of the renewal proposal generally by at least three qualified reviewers who meet the requirements of I.B.4.,
above and who document their findings and provide them to the SC program official; or In those instances where a merit review is not conducted prior to a renewal award, the renewal award is considered to be
noncompetitive and must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 600.6(c)(1) [formerly 10 CFR 600.7(b)(2)].
E. Types of Review Groups. SC utilizes various types of review mechanisms to accomplish a merit review; however,
within each mechanism the reviewer is selected based upon his/her expertise and professional qualifications as they
relate to the field(s) of research contained in the application/proposal. Each reviewer chosen to participate will be
provided with a copy of the application/proposal, the SC evaluation criteria from 10 CFR Part 605.10, and other
programmatic information needed to conduct the review. Based upon his/her review of these documents, the reviewer is
expected to provide the SC project manager with a written analysis based on the pertinent evaluation criteria and other
program information for each application/proposal. The types of review mechanisms used by SC and the situations they
are used in are as follows:
b. Appropriate action should be taken by SC project managers to ensure that field readers clearly understand the
process, their role, and the criteria upon which the applications/proposals are to be evaluated.
c. For those situations in which a standing committee is determined to be the appropriate review mechanism, but a
group of field readers must be used instead, it should function as nearly like a committee as possible. For example, if all
members of the standing committee were to evaluate all of the applications/proposals under review, then all field readers
must receive all of the applications/proposals to be reviewed even though they are in geographically separate locations
and all field readers should be instructed to follow the procedures established for evaluating the applications/proposals.
2. Standing Committees.
F. Review Summary. Upon request, applicants/proposers will be provided with a written summary of the evaluation of
their application/proposal.
G. Reviewers With Interests in Application/Proposal Being Reviewed. Reviewers must comply with the requirements of
10 CFR 1010.101(a) and 1010.302(a)(1) concerning conflict of interest. A committee or group of field readers which
includes as reviewers any individuals who cannot meet these requirements or the program's review procedures, with
regard to a particular application/proposal being reviewed, e.g., officials mentioned in paragraphs B.2 and 4,. Shall
operate as follows:
2. In the case of a review committee, the committee member must absent himself or herself from the committee meeting
during the review and discussion of the application(s)/proposal(s) in which he/she has a conflict of interest. H. Deviations.
2. If the deviation sought applies to a class of applications/proposals and constitutes a deviation from the requirements
of 10 CFR 600.13 [formerly 10 CFR 600.16], approval for deviation must be obtained in accordance with 10 CFR 600.4. If such request for
deviation is approved, all details of the review procedure utilized and the proceedings and determination must be fully
documented.
II. SC Selection Process
Selection of applications/proposals for award will be based upon the findings of the technical evaluations, the
importance and relevance of the proposed research to SC's mission, and funding availability. Cost reasonableness and
realism also will be considered to the extent appropriate. Adverse recommendations also will be considered and all the
above will be addressed and documented in a written selection statement for the selection official.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 22, 1991.
James F. Decker |