Peer Review of R&D Contract Technical Proposals

This SOP has internal roles only.

Purpose

To ensure fair, objective, and uniform peer review of research and development (R&D) contract technical proposals submitted to NIAID.

Procedure

For this SOP, the term "R&D" includes innovative testing, research, development, demonstration, R&D support, and related efforts. For definitions of those terms, see Section H of NIH Policy Manual 6315-1 Initiation, Review, Evaluation, and Award of Research & Development Contracts.

The NIH Policy Manual 6315-1, which supplements HHSAR Part 315, details the policies, procedures, and staff roles for reviewing technical proposals for NIH intramural and extramural R&D contracts.

The scientific review officer, contracting officer, and contract specialist are the only ones who may discuss evaluations with peer reviewers.

Scientific Review Officers

• Identify and recruit reviewers for the scientific review group (SRG). No more than one-fourth of a SRG may be government employees. See 42 CFR Part 52h.4(c).
• Screen reviewers for conflict of interest. See Conflict of Interest in Peer Review SOP.
• Advise reviewers about conflict of interest regulations. Provide peer review guidelines and ensure they are followed.
• Safeguard confidentiality of materials and restrict the distribution of proposal information in accordance with the Procurement Integrity Act and FAR 3.104-4. Encrypt data provided on CD to reviewers.
• Convene pre-review meetings with project and contracting officers to discuss roles, responsibilities, the review process, and concerns.
• If necessary, convene one or more pre-review meetings with the scientific review group (SRG) members, contracting officer, and project officer.
• Provide review instructions and discuss administrative issues, as needed.
• Ensure that a contracting officer or designee from the Office of Acquisitions (OA) is present at the review meeting.
• Ensure that SRG members evaluate proposals and address technical evaluation criteria impartially and completely, basing their evaluations solely upon the content of the proposal.
• Instruct reviewers to ensure that each Technical Evaluation Score Sheet (TESS) is complete, accurate, and reflects the following:
  • Recommendations and scores reflect the tone of discussions.
  • All scores are accurately recorded and totaled on the summary score sheet.
  • Each reviewer has marked their determination of the proposal as acceptable or unacceptable.
  • Each TESS has been signed and dated.
  • If required by the solicitation, ensure each reviewer has completed the sections for special considerations such as the following:
    • Human subjects, including inclusion of women, minorities, and children.
    • Live vertebrate animals.
    • Select agents. For select agents, see Select Agent Language for Contracts and RFPs and Select Agent Review and Approval Procedure for New and Existing Contracts That Include Foreign Institutions.
    • Sharing plans for data and model organisms. See the NIH Sharing Policies.
• Use the original TESS forms to develop technical evaluation reports (TER) for the contracting officer.
• After the peer review meeting, prepare, sign, and submit the original TER to the contracting officer, with a copy to the project officer.
• Destroy all working papers and original SRG comments after contract award in accordance with NIAID Scientific Review Program (SRP) procedures. Keep the SRP Document Delivery Form.

Scientific Review Groups

• Comply with conflict of interest regulations. See the Conflict of Interest in Peer Review SOP.
• Before the peer review meeting, each reviewer must independently review and evaluate all technical proposals and determine strengths and weaknesses according to the technical evaluation criteria in the solicitation.
  • These evaluations will serve as the basis for discussing technical merit of the proposals at the peer review meeting.
  • Each proposal must be evaluated solely on the content of the proposal against the technical evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. Comparisons between proposals are not permitted.
• At the peer review meeting, the assigned reviewer for each proposal presents narrative descriptions and critiques, assesses strengths and weaknesses for each technical evaluation criterion, and identifies ambiguities, inconsistencies, deficiencies, and errors in the proposals. The assigned reviewers provide their critiques, followed by other review group members.
• Reviewers may provide recommendations about whether effort and stated direct costs are appropriate, for example, hours in staffing categories or the need for certain supplies or equipment. Don't make inferences about information not provided.
• After general discussion, reviewers independently score each proposal according to all technical evaluation criteria, based on the corresponding weights in the solicitation. Use the Technical Evaluation Score Sheet.
  • For each proposal, revise written critiques as needed to reflect independent judgment of strengths and weaknesses from the SRG discussions.
  • Ensure critiques match the scores provided for each technical evaluation criterion.
• Reviewers independently rate each proposal as technically acceptable or unacceptable.
• Reviewers sign and date each TESS.
• If required by the solicitation, reviewers review and evaluate all proposals for special considerations such as the following:
  • Human subjects, including inclusion of women, minorities, and children.
  • Live vertebrate animals.
  • Select agents. For select agents, see Select Agent Language for Contracts and RFPs and Select Agent Review and Approval Procedure for New and Existing Contracts That Include Foreign Institutions.
  • Sharing plans for data and model organisms. See the NIH Sharing Policies.
• Remain at the review meeting until the contracting officer or designee has confirmed that each TESS has been completed, signed, and reviewed for accuracy.

Project Officers

• If there are mandatory qualification criteria in the solicitation that must be met at the time of proposal submission, follow the procedures of the Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Offerors SOP before sending proposals to the scientific review officer (SRO.)
• Participate in pre-review meetings. Summarize the background and objectives of the solicitation and the results desired from a contract to ensure SRG members understand the intent.
• Before attending the review meeting, ensure that you have no conflict of interest for any of the proposals submitted, then complete, sign, and return the conflict of interest certification provided by the SRO. If you have a conflict with any of the offerors, discuss with the SRO. It may require a waiver.
• Observe the review meeting and serve as a resource to explain programmatic points SRG members may raise during evaluations. Do not provide comment or opinion regarding technical merit of any proposal.
• Avoid evaluative comments and any verbal or nonverbal indications of bias toward or against proposals.
• Privately alert the SRO when it appears that the reviewers have overlooked information in a proposal or if you have other concerns regarding the conduct of the review.

Contracting Officers or Designees

• Accept proposals until the closing date and time in the solicitation and review them for compliance with any page limitations in the solicitation. See the Proposal Submission SOP.
• If there are mandatory qualification criteria in the solicitation that must be met at the time of proposal submission, follow the procedures of the Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Offerors SOP before sending proposals to the SRO.
• Forward two copies and a CD-ROM of the technical proposals to the SRO within two or three business days after receiving proposals. Provide additional copies as needed later.
• Forward business and technical proposals to project officer.
• Participate in pre-review meetings and, as needed, explain the acquisition process to panel members.
• Before attending the review meeting, ensure that you have no conflict of interest for any of the proposals submitted, then complete, sign, and return the conflict of interest certification provided by the SRO.
• Attend the peer review meeting to:
• Present an introduction to inform reviewers about contract policy and to ensure that all SRG members understand their roles and responsibilities in the acquisition process, if needed.
• Serve as a resource on the acquisition process and administrative contracting matters.
• Ensure that contracting regulations and policies are upheld.
• Assist SRO in ensuring that recommendations and scores reflect the tone of discussions.
• Assist SRO in ensuring a fair and objective review.
• Comply with the SRO’s instructions for the conduct of the meeting.
• Check the Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet for completeness and accuracy.
• Include the Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet as well as a signed rating sheet and a conflict of interest certification for each reviewer in the official contract file.
• Privately alert the SRO when it appears that the reviewers have overlooked information in a proposal or if you have other concerns regarding the conduct of the review.

Procurement Technicians

• Prepare Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet template before the peer review meeting.
• If the procurement technician is a non-government employee, the contracting officer must submit a waiver to the Director of DEA to request that the technician be allowed at the peer review meeting.
• Before attending the review meeting, ensure that you have no conflict of interest for any of the proposals submitted. Then complete, sign, and return the conflict of interest certification provided by the SRO.
• Attend peer review meetings and assist the contracting officer or designee as needed to perform the following duties:
  • Collect TESS from each reviewer.
  • Review each TESS at the review meeting to ensure that:
    • Recommendations and scores reflect the tone of discussions.
    • All scores are accurately recorded and totaled on the summary score sheet.
    • Each reviewer has marked their determination of the proposal as acceptable or unacceptable.
    • Each TESS has been signed and dated.
    • If required by the solicitation, ensure each reviewer has completed the sections for special considerations such as the following:
      • Human subjects, including inclusion of women, minorities, and children.
      • Live vertebrate animals.
      • Select agents. For select agents, see Select Agent Language for Contracts and RFPs and Select Agent Review and Approval Procedure for New and Existing Contracts That Include Foreign Institutions.
      • Sharing plans for data and model organisms. See the NIH Sharing Policies.
  • Populate the Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet. Do not include reviewer names.
  • Deliver each original TESS to the SRO once the scores have been recorded and their accuracy has been confirmed.
• Within two business days after the review meeting, distribute the Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet for review and approval by the contracting officer. Provide the contracting specialist with the signed original.
• Comply with the SRO’s instructions for the conduct of the meeting.

Contacts

See the OA staff listing for the appropriate contract specialist and contracting officer.

See the SRP staff listing for the appropriate SRO.

If you have knowledge to share or want more information on this topic, email deaweb@niaid.nih.gov with the title of this page or its URL and your question or comment. Thanks for helping us clarify and expand our knowledge base.

Links

HHSAR 315.305, Proposal Evaluation

Broad Agency Announcement Development SOP

Conflict of Interest in Peer Review SOP

Contracting Officer SOP

Debriefing Unsuccessful Offerors SOP

Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Offerors SOP

Project Officer SOP