DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
For more information about the Office of Science Grant Program, go to the Office of Science Grants and Contracts Web Site.
Financial Assistance Program
Grant Application Guide
APPLICATION RECEIPT
AND PROCESSING
Administrative Review
Upon receipt of an application, the Office of Science receiving office determines
whether the document contains the prescribed information, has
been approved by an official authorized to sign for the applicant
organization and falls under the scientific scope of the Office
of Science Financial Assistance Program.
After this preliminary review, copies of the application are forwarded
to the appropriate program office for further review to determine
if the application contains sufficient technical/scientific information
to conduct an evaluation; meets program policies and priorities, and
does not duplicate or overlap currently funded research projects.
Applications shall be acknowledged to the applicant in writing by the SC
program office generally within one week of receipt. This acknowledgement
usually advises the applicant of the SC staff member responsible for
conducting the merit review of the application.
Program staff may return an application which does not include
all information and documentation required by statute, 10 CFR
Part 605, 10 CFR Part 600, and the Funding Opportunity Announcement when
the nature of the omission precludes review of the application.
However, if an application contains most of the information required,
the missing information may be requested from the applicant so
that it can be processed. During the review of a complete application,
the Office of Science may request the submission of additional information only if
the information is essential to evaluate the application.
Evaluation Criteria
New and renewal applications meeting the above standards will
be subjected to formal merit review and will be evaluated against
the following criteria which are listed in descending order of
importance as set forth in 10 CFR Part 605:
2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;
3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed
resources;
4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget;
and
5. Other appropriate factors, established and set forth
in a notice of availability or in a specific solicitation.
For renewal applications, the Office of Science also shall consider the recipient's
performance under the existing award.
Also, the Office of Science shall consider, as part of the evaluation, other available
advice or information as well as program policy factors such as
ensuring an appropriate balance among the program areas.
Merit Review Process
Project managers will review applications for technical/scientific
merit and program policy factors. In addition, the project manager
will submit applications generally to at least three qualified
reviewers for evaluation, in addition to anyone having direct
line authority over the project manager, including the selection
official. Instructions to reviewers will
include a reasonable length of time for responding to the request
for a merit review. In those instances where three or more reviews
are not obtained, the project manager must provide a written explanation
to be retained in the official file.
In the event that the project manager is a reviewer
and is also the selection official, the decision shall be approved
by the Director, Office of Science, or a designee. If
no reviews are provided to the Office of Science by the selected qualified reviewers,
any award must be justified on a non-competitive basis.
Such additional reviewers may be Federal employees (including
those from the Office of Science that are neither the selecting official nor those
in a direct line of supervision above the project manager) or
non-Federal employees. Also, such additional reviewers will not
include former employees of the project manager's immediate office,
or anyone having had line authority over that immediate office,
within the past one year.
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.
In selecting additional reviewers, such additional reviewers shall
not include anyone who, on behalf of the Federal Government, performed
or is likely to perform any of the following duties for any of
the applications:
2. Approving/disapproving or having any decision-making role regarding
the application;
3. Serving as the project manager or otherwise monitoring or evaluating
the recipient's programmatic performance;
4. Serving as the Contracting Officer or performing business management
functions for the project; or
5. Auditing the recipient of the project.
Anyone in the Office of Science who has line authority over a person who is ineligible
to serve as an additional reviewer because of the above limitations
also is ineligible to serve as an additional reviewer.
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
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.
In order to enhance the validity of the evaluation, applications
may be evaluated in comparison to each other.
Generally, the Office of Science 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 Office of Science Grants and Contracts Division and the approval
of the Selecting Official. In no situation will a grant or cooperative
agreement 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:
2. The nature of the project requires additional time for performance;
or
3. Instances where a final period of support is being authorized
to provide reasonable time and funds sufficient to bring the project
to an orderly close.
Merit reviews of ongoing programs include:
2. An on-site or off-site review of the scientific or technical
program attended generally by at least three qualified reviewers
who evaluate the program and provide their documented findings
to the program official.
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).
The Office of Science 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 activities contained in the application. Each
reviewer chosen to participate will be provided with a copy of
the application, the evaluation criteria from 10 CFR 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 project manager with a written analysis
based on the pertinent evaluation criteria and other program information
for each application. The types of review mechanisms used by the Office of Science
and the situations in which they are used follow:
b. Appropriate action should be taken by Office of Science project managers to
ensure that field readers clearly understand the process, their
role, and the criteria upon which the applications 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 under review, then all
field readers must receive all of the applications 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.
2. Standing Committees
a. The determination whether it is appropriate to establish and
use a standing committee(s) shall be made only by the Office of Science. Standing
committees are normally appropriate when required by legislation
or when the following conditions prevail:
(1) A number of applications on specific topics sufficient to
justify the use of a standing committee(s) is received by the
program on a regular basis in accordance with a predetermined
review schedule;
(2) There is a sufficient number of persons with the required
expertise who are willing and able to accept appointments;
serve over reasonably protracted periods of time; and
convene at regularly scheduled intervals or at the call of the
chairperson; and
(3) The legislative authority for the particular program(s) involved
extends for more than one year.
b. Persons outside the cognizant program office shall constitute
at least half the reviewers on such committees unless a deviation
from this requirement has been approved.
3. Ad Hoc Committees.
a. Ad hoc review committees may not exceed one year in duration
and are appropriately used when use of a standing committee is
not feasible or when one of the following conditions prevails:
1. An on-site or off-site review of the scientific or technical
program is being conducted;
2. A small number of applications is received on an intermittent
basis, or applications are received through an open solicitation
period, generally for a period up to about one year;
3. The program is one of limited duration, usually less than one
year;
4. The applications to be reviewed have been solicited to meet
a specific program objective and cannot appropriately be reviewed
by a standing committee because of subject matter, time constraints,
or other limitations;
5. The volume of applications received necessitates convening
an additional committee(s) of available reviewers; or
6. It is determined that applications submitted have special review
requirements, e.g., construction of a facility; the complexity
of subject matter cuts across the areas of expertise of two or
more standing committees; or the subject matter is of a special,
nonrecurring nature.
b. Ad hoc committees may not be used for reviewing applications
for any program for which a standing committee has been established
unless a deviation is approved.
Upon request, applicants will be provided with a summary of the
evaluation of their application.
Reviewers must comply with the requirements found in the DOE Merit Review Guide for
Financial Assistance concerning conflict of interest.
http://professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA-5Web.nsf/FinancialAssistance/Regulations+and+Guidance?OpenDocument.
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) in which he/she has
a conflict of interest.
In any instance in which the Office of Science "Merit Review System" is not to be
used to review an application, group of applications, or class
of applications, written prior approval for utilization of a different
procedure, which itself must, to the extent possible, conform
to the Office of Science policy pertaining to merit review, must be obtained
from the Director, Grants and Contracts Division, Office of Science.
If the deviation sought applies to a class of applications
and constitutes a deviation from the requirements of 10 CFR Part
600, approval for deviation must be obtained.
If such request for deviation is approved, all details
of the review procedure utilized and the proceedings and determination
will be fully documented.
Award Selection
Selection of applications for award will be done by the authorized
Office of Science selecting official and will be based upon merit review, the
importance and relevance of the proposed project to the Office of Science missions,
and funding availability. Cost reasonableness and realism will
also be considered to the extent appropriate. The applicant will
be advised of this decision and may be asked to submit additional
details or a revised budget. Plans for getting the project underway
may be firmed up at this time. Such actions are not a commitment
that the Office of Science will make award.
DOE will issue a Notice
of Financial Assistance Award (NFAA) (DOE Form 4600.1) signed
by the Contracting Officer. No commitment of funds may be made until
the NFAA has been received by the applicant.
If, on the other hand, it is decided that the application will
not be supported, the applicant will be so notified.
Upon receipt of a written request, the Office of Science will provide applicants
with a summary of the evaluation of their application. However,
until a decision is announced, no information can be provided
on the probability of support.
Applications shall be evaluated for funding generally within 6
months but, in any event, no later than 12 months from the date
of receipt by the Office of Science.
DOE Liability
DOE reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all,
or none of the applications submitted.
Grants awarded are subject to the requirement that the maximum
DOE obligation to the recipient is the amount obligated in the
NFAA (DOE Form 4600.1). The Office of Science shall not be obligated to make any
additional, supplemental, continuation, renewal or other award
for the same or any other purpose.
Withdrawals and Declinations
1. Withdrawals: An applicant may withdraw an application at any time before a final decision is made by DOE.
An official request for withdrawal to DOE must include the signatures of both the Principal Investigator and the
Authorized Organizational Representative. DOE will send confirmation of the withdrawal request. DOE does not normally
return the copies of the withdrawn application to the applicant, but does retain a file copy.
2. Declinations: When DOE determines an application will not be funded, DOE will send a declination letter to the
applicant advising that support will not be provided. This letter, which includes reasons for the declination, will be
addressed to the Principal Investigator with a copy to the Authorized Organizational Representative.
1. Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits
of the project;
1. Providing substantial technical assistance to the applicant;
1. Instances involving annual award;
1. A review of the renewal application generally by at least three
qualified reviewers who meet the requirements previously stated
and who document their findings and provide them to the program
official; or
1. Field Readers
a. Merit review of applications may be obtained by using field
readers to whom applications are sent for review and comment.
Field readers also may be used as an adjunct to review committees
when, for example, the type of expertise needed or the volume
of applications to be reviewed requires such auxiliary capacity.
A committee or group of field readers includes as reviewers any individuals
who cannot meet these requirements or the program's review procedures,
with regard to a particular application being reviewed, and operates
as follows:
1. These individuals or officials may not review, discuss, and/or
make a recommendation on an application(s) in which they have
a conflict of interest.
Return to the Office of Science
Grants and Contracts Web Site