Jump to main content.

Funding and Award Phase

Objectives

At the end of this chapter you will be able to:

1. Identify the statutory authority, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and Delegation of Authority number for your assistance agreement.
2. Know what documents are needed to prepare a funding package.
3. Describe the execution of the assistance agreement.
4. Conduct a review of the funding package for completeness.
5. Understand when you need to include programmatic Terms and Conditions on an award.

The award phase begins with the development of the funding package by the program office and ends with the acceptance of the award by the recipient. The following provides a step-by-step description of the award phase.

STEP ONE

The Program Office

I. Prepares the funding package for approval by Decision Official.
II. Obtains funding approval through the commitment notice (all funds need to be entered into IFMS) Funding loses its identity when it is placed on a grant.
III. Obtains Decision Official signature; sends the completed funding package to the GMO.

STEP TWO

Grants Office

I. The Grants Specialist reviews the funding package, prepares the award document and verifies commitments against data in IFMS
II. The Award Official reviews the award document for accuracy and then awards the agreement by signature.
III. The Office of Congressional Liaison is notified of the award. They in turn notify the appropriate House and Senate members that the assistance agreement has been awarded. This notification period lasts 5 days. After the 5 Day Congressional notification period, the original award document will be sent to the recipient. A copy of the award document will be sent to the Project Officer and the Las Vegas Financial Management Center or the Regions Financial Management Office.

STEP THREE

The Recipient

I. The recipient should review the award document before signing.
The recipient must return the signed acceptance back to the Grants Office within 3 weeks of receipt. Until the Grants Office receives the signed acceptance, the recipient cannot draw down on any funds.

Remember: Project Officers (and reviewers) do not have the delegated authority to inform potential recipients that their applications will be funded. Such notification could give applicants the mistaken impression that an agreement has been awarded. Only the Award Official has that delegated authority and no notification should be given until after the award has been signed and gone though the Congressional notification process.

DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO PREPARE THE FUNDING PACKAGE

The PO ensures that applications for funding consideration are relevant to EPA objectives, programmatically and scientifically meritorious, and deserve funding. Once the determination is made, the PO can proceed with preparing the funding package.

A funding package generally consists of the following documents:

#1 Funding Recommendation/Commitment Notice
#2 Terms and Conditions/Special Conditions
#3 Commitment Notice
#4 Reviews/Summary of Reviews
#5 Environmental Review Form if applicable
#6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review Form if applicable
#7 Copy of the Applicant's full application with original signature of the authorized representative
#8 Allocation Methodology if applicable
#9 Budget Review check sheet attached in IGMS to the Funding Recommendation

Quick Reference Chart

CONTENTS OF
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
PACKAGE
NEW AWARD
INCREMENTAL AWARD
SUPPLEMENTAL
AWARD
       
Funding Recommendation X N/A X
     
Assistance Funding Order
(paper process)
 X X X
     
Programmatic Terms &
Conditions
(if applicable)
 X X X
     
Commitment Notice w/IFMS
REQL screen
 X X X
     
One In-House Review X N/A X
     
Two Extramural Reviews **
(Research Projects Only)
 X N/A X
     
Environmental Review (ORD
only)
 X N/A N/A
     
Any Revised or Additional
Information Negotiated
with the Applicant
 X X X
       
NOTE: ** or Panel Review      

New Award Funding - The initial award of a project.

Incremental Funding - An amendment to an initial award to provide additional funds to the recipient per the original application when the initial award was partially funded.

Supplemental Funding - An amendment to an initial award, based on a written request from the recipient to provide additional funds over and above the request in the original application to perform additional work or pay for unexpected costs.

Continuation Award - the award of a subsequent budget period within an approved project period. For Projects over two years, more than one budget period may be required. The PO should consult appropriate regulations for limits that apply to duration of budget and project periods.

Funding Recommendation

The Funding Recommendation is the most important part of the package. It lays the groundwork for why certain decisions were made. Your Senior Resource Official will review and concur on funding recommendations for awards over $1 million for project awards, and $5 million for Continuing Environmental Program grants. Some Programs have reduced these levels. Check with your Program for your SRO approval level.

Below is the most current at printing paper version of the electronic funding recommendation and a copy of the IGMS Funding Recommendation from the IGMS Knowledge Database.

EPA Form 216-X-04-001
Approved: June 7, 2004 (pdf)

Project Description

Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 04-05
July 30, 2004

Data Quality Standard for the Project Description Field in the Integrated Grants Management System

I. Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to establish a data quality standard for the Project Description field in the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS).

II. Background. On May 13, 2004, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a report entitled ATransparency in EPA Grants: Web Access to Available Grants and Disclosure of Recipients@. In the report, the Committee concluded that it was difficult to locate information on EPA-funded assistance projects on the Agency=s internet site. The Committee recommended a number of changes to the site to enhance the public=s access to grant information, including improving the quality of grant project descriptions.

The Office of Grants and Debarment developed a plan to respond to the report=s recommendations. One action item under the plan is to develop a data quality standard for the Project Description Field in IGMS.

III. Policy. The Project Description field in IGMS must include a concise, clear description of the purpose of the project. More specifically, the Project Description may not exceed three (3) lines of narrative in IGMS and must address the scope of the project and/or the primary activity to be supported by the grant in a manner that is understandable to the public. (Note that in a word processing document, you would get three lines or less of IGMS text when using a 10-pitch font or larger.) The Project Description should contain media-specific or environmental KEY TERMS that may be used as search terms by the public (e.g., air quality, toxins, solid waste, mercury, etc.).

This field must not be used to identify the grant program (e.g., AState Underground Source Protection@). It must not contain language suggesting that EPA grant funds are being used for unallowable costs (e.g., lobbying or suing the Federal government) or for the principal purpose of obtaining goods or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal government.

Appendix A provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable IGMS project descriptions. (Note that the examples under the AAcceptable@ column will appear as three (3) lines or less when displayed in IGMS.)

The Agency must also review the project descriptions of all active grants to non-profit organizations and revise them as necessary to meet the data quality standard in this policy. Revised descriptions must be loaded into IGMS by December 31, 2004.

IV. Anticipated Outcome/Result. The public will understand the purpose and/or primary activity of a grant by reading the project description.

Performance Measures. One or more of the following methods will be used to measure the success of this policy: 1) Data quality reviews conducted by the Grants Administration Division (GAD); 2) Data quality checks of selected IGMS data fields conducted as part of future Grants Management Self-Assessments and GAD Comprehensive Grants Management Reviews; and public feedback to GAD on the accessibility of grant project description data on the EPA internet.

VI. Scope/Applicability. This policy shall apply as follows:

A. Regional Project Officers and Approval Officials. All funding recommendations created in IGMS after October 1, 2004 must contain project descriptions that comply with this policy.

B. Regional Grants Specialists and Award Officials. All award documents created in IGMS based on funding recommendations submitted after October 1, 2004, must contain project descriptions that comply with this policy.

C. Headquarters Project Officers and Approval Officials. Decision memoranda and funding recommendations submitted to the Office of Grants and Debarment after October 1, 2004, must comply with this policy. Those offices using decision memoranda shall include a Project Description (i.e., statement of project scope and/or primary activity) in the first paragraph of the AObjectives@ section. Those offices using the electronic funding recommendations will include the Project Description under the@Project Description@ section.

D. Headquarters Grants Specialists and Award Officials. All award documents created in IGMS based on decision memoranda or electronic funding recommendations submitted after October 1, 2004, must contain project descriptions that comply with this policy.

E. Active Non-Profit Grants. GAD will review project descriptions of all active non-profit grants to determine whether the descriptions comply with this policy. GAD will provide
Senior Resource Officials with a spreadsheet of non-compliant descriptions which need to be revised. Program offices will provide GAD with revised project descriptions which GAD will load in IGMS by December 31, 2004.

VII. Roles and Responsibilities. The Project Officer must develop a Project Description that complies with this policy and enter it in the IGMS funding recommendation or, for Headquarters project officers not yet using IGMS, the decision memorandum or word processing version of the funding recommendation. The Approval Official must ensure that each Project Description complies with this policy. The Award Official must ensure that the Project Description complies with this policy before signing the award document. The Grants Administration Division will be responsible for conducting data quality reviews of active grants in IGMS for compliance with this policy.

VIII. Keys to Success. EPA staff will understand their respective roles in implementing this policy. The public will better understand the activities EPA is funding with its grants.

IX. Sunset/Review Date. To be sunset with the issuance of the IGMS users manual in 2005.

X. Supersedes/Cancels. This policy expands rather than supercedes existing policy.

XI. References.

1. Owner: Chief, Policy, Information and Training Branch, Grants Administration Division, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources Management. (202) 564-5325.

2. Key Terms: Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS), project description

3. Reference: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, report entitled ATransparency in EPA Grants: Web Access to Available Grants and Disclosure of Recipients @, May 13, 2004

APPENDIX A
Examples of Unacceptable and Acceptable IGMS Project Descriptions

Unacceptable Feedback Acceptable
     
CEPP Technical Assistance Grants Program This is the program name not the project description. To build the environmental emergency response capability of the San Mateo Pueblo Nation by training members of the tribal emergency response committee and revising the emergency notification plan by January 2006
     
Survey of internet sites This is too general and does not adequately explain the purpose or key activity of the project. The project will increase the quality of scientific data available to non-governmental organizations (NGO's) through implementation of a five-point data quality plan which involves a survey of internet sites and participation in science-based public policy forums.
     
The objectives for the year 2007 are: to increase from 49.7% to 85.0% the proportion of persons who live in Maryland counties that have not exceeded the national air quality standard during the previous 12 months, etc.... The intended outcomes are: a reduction in asthma morbidity, as measured by a reduction in hospitalizations for asthma, to no more than 160 per 100,000 persons (baseline: 188 per 100,000 in 1987).... Detailed Information on objectives or environmental results does not belong in this field. The IGMS Funding Recommendation has an "objectives" field that asks the PO to "Please describe the project objectives and how the project relates to the statutory authority" and an "environmental results" field where the PO is asked to "describe how the project or program supports the Agency's strategic goal(s)." This project aims to improve air quality and reduce asthma-related deaths in Maryland counties that have not exceeded the national air quality standard during the previous 12 months by using environmental education and tax incentives.
     
This action approves an extension to the project and budget period to 8/31/04. This statement belongs under the Project Information section, "Explain. of Changes" field in IGMS, not the project description field. The project will reduce air pollution from commercial and industrial sites, increase business owners' knowledge of EPA and state pollution prevention regulations, and compile baseline data on community-based industrial and business sites.
     
This project will investigate MB in developing countries. This project will assist in evaluating the transition from MB to alternative PCMs and methods in developing countries. Acronyms must be defined. While the grantee and EPA program staff may know what the acronyms mean, the public may not know. The project will investigate methyl bromide (MB) in 21 developing countries. This project will assist the developing countries in evaluating the transition from MB to alternative pest control materials (PCMs) and methods in developing countries.
     
Fellowship This describes the type of assistance, not the purpose of the project. The fellow will study the implications of Secondary Mineral Formation on the Fate of Cesium in Aluminosilicate Minerals. The focus of the study will be solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance and will expand on a study currently underway at the University of Barton.

Budget Period/Project Period

Please enter the project and budget dates or project duration for the project in the funding recommendation. You will obtain these from the application.

Cross-Reference Guide to U.S. EPA Federal Assistance Programs

Below is the link to a listing of assistance programs that includes, for each program, the CFDA Number, Program Title, Statutory Authority, Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) Program Code, and the Delegation of Authority.

Environmental Results/Program Results Code

You must include a discussion in the funding recommendation of how the project/program work plan supports the goals of the Agency's strategic plan. The Program Results Code (PRC) of the funding assigned to the project must be consistent with the discussion. If this agreement is being funded with more than one PRC, you would attach the allocation methodology. The following EPA Web Sites can help in developing this discussion:

EPA Strategic Plan:

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf

Explanation of any Apparent Duplicative or Excessive Efforts

The PO must include a statement on whether this project duplicates any other previous or ongoing federally funded effort. If the answer is yes, include a justification for supporting this project.

Multiple Appropriations Award Policy

It is currently EPA's policy to generally use only one appropriation as the funding source for an assistance project. Where a project's activities benefit more than one appropriation, the Agency should award separate grants for the activities falling within the scope of each appropriation. However, a single, multiple appropriation (MA) award may be awarded, with adequate justification documented in the grant funding recommendation, and on an exception basis, if all of a project's activities are of a type that is fundable from all of the supporting appropriations. Separate grants must be awarded if all of the supporting appropriations are not legally available for all of the types of activities to be performed. This is because of the procedural difficulties involved in individually charging payments to the benefited appropriations. In awarding and administering separate grants, the Agency will work to minimize application, accounting and reporting burdens on recipients.

As part of the justification for an MA grant, the Project Officer must include in the funding recommendation a description of the methodology for charging payments that reflects the proportional benefit to each appropriation. The allocation methodology should include the following:

(The funding placed on the grant must be consistent with the allocation methodology.) See the below chart for an example allocation methodology:

Sample Allocation Methodology for 000000-01-0

All of the project's activities are of a type that is fundable from all of the supporting appropriations.

Project or Description Appropriation Funding
Request ($)		 Funding %
       
support Tribal capacity building in training in pollution abatement and control B 193,000 86%
       
support Tribal capacity building activities in hazardous waste- related activities T 32,000 14%
       
  Total 225,000 100%
       

Terms and Conditions

Terms and Conditions and Special Conditions are the additional requirements that will govern an award. They are added to the award document by the Grants Specialist (Administrative Terms and Conditions) and the Project Officer (Programmatic Terms and Conditions). Special Terms and Conditions are added by the Award Official. A separate attachment of the Programmatic Terms and Conditions (if they apply) should be included in the funding package.

Administrative Terms and Conditions

(Added to the award document by Grants Specialist)

Each recipient is subject to certain terms and conditions. These include all applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as well as other pertinent laws and regulations.

Terms and Conditions of an Administrative nature may include requirements which:

"The Project Officer will review and approve of project phases prior to their implementation"
"The Project Officer will approve of key personnel involved with the project, other than the Project Manager"

Special Terms and Conditions

In some cases, EPA may determine that an applicant is a "High Risk" and should, therefore, be subject to certain "Special Conditions"

This can only be added by the Award Official. If the PO feels that Special Terms and Conditions need to be added, he/she should contact the Grant Specialist or make a note to the Funding Recommendation outlining the concerns.

An applicant is considered "high risk" if it:

The following Special Conditions may be included in the assistance agreement:

Sample Programmatic Terms and Conditions

(Attach to Funding Recommendation)

1. EPA will be substantially involved in this project by participating in the following activities:

a. Development of the experimental design-EPA personnel will provide comments on the experimental design aspects for consideration by the recipient.

b. EPA will participate with the recipient in the collection of samples in the field and will provide some laboratory support activities related to sample analysis.

c. EPA will assist with the interpretation of data.

d. EPA anticipates co-authorship with the recipient of papers published in a scientific journal discussing the results of the research.

Publication Notices/Disclaimers

Subject to [40 CFR 30.36 or 40 CFR 31.34]* the recipient may publish and distribute scientific, technical and other works developed under there cooperative agreement. There are special requirements under 40 CFR 40.160-5* when a publication is also a final report for a research cooperative agreement. Any documents developed under this agreement for distribution to the public or inclusion in a scientific, technical or other journal shall include one of the following statements, depending upon the outcome of the EPA review process.

Alternate A. Documents that have not been reviewed by EPA.

"This publication [article] was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. __________ awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of [name of recipient] and EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication."

Alternate B. Documents that have been reviewed by EPA, but the recipient declines to accommodate suggested material changes identified by the Agency.

"This publication [article] was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. ____________ awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, the views expressed in this document are solely those of [name of recipient] and EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication."

Alternate C. Documents that have been reviewed by EPA and the material changes suggested by the Agency were accommodated.

"This publication [article] was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. ____________ awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA made comments and suggestions on the document intended to improve the scientific analysis and technical accuracy of the document. However, the views expressed in this document are those of [name of recipient] and EPA dos not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication."

The Commitment Notice is used to reserve funds. EPA cannot make an award unless funds are "committed" in the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). The PO is responsible for ensuring the Commitment Notice is filled out and is in the Funding Package. The PO can get budget information from his/her Budget Office.

EPA Form 2550-0 The amount must agree with the sum of "Amount(s)" entered under "Financial and Accounting Data" at the bottom of the form.

Insert the Grant Proposal Number of the project

Insert the name of the Recipient as it appears in block (5) of the Application Form (SF-424).

Provide the signature, date, and telephone number of the person authorized to certify the availability of funds.

Provide complete and accurate accounting information. All lines of accounting data must be "prevalidated", which means they must be entered in IFMS before Grants Administration Division can issue an award. Attach a printout of the REQL data screen from IFMS. See the "Commitment Clerk" or authorized "Funds Certification Officer" in your office.

NOTE: Many awards are delayed because of incorrect accounting data, the most notable error is the "object class". Please see the following table for object class codes:

 
Object Class Code
Program Code
Budget Period
       
Special Purpose Project
41.83
XA(grant)/CXA(coop.)
2 or 3 years
Research (Grant)
41.41
R
2 years
Research (Coop.Agreement)
41.42
CR
2 years
       

In-House and Extramural Review Memo

Below is a sample In-House Reviewer/Extramural memo. Your Program may have its own form. Check with your office for further guidance. In-house reviews are not required on competitively selected grants. The competition serves as the review.

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Review of Assistance Agreement No.________________________

FROM: [In-House Reviewer/Extramural Reviewer]

TO: [EPA Project Officer]

I. OBJECTIVE

Give a brief description of the proposed project objectives and its relationship to EPA's mission. However, be careful when discussing a project's relationship to EPA's mission. Make sure that the review does not give the impression that the project is for EPA's benefit.

II. EXPLANATION OF ANY APPARENT DUPLICATIVE OR EXCESSIVE EFFORT

Compare the proposed work with other similar efforts within your own cognizance. Any overlap or duplication between the proposed work and on-going or completed projects should be pointed out.

III. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PROPOSAL

Comment on the quality of the proposed work with regard to the soundness and/or uniqueness of approach and significance of anticipated results.

Comment on the qualifications and competency of the staff identified for the project in light of their demonstrated prior performance in the proposed or other research areas.

Comments on the adequacy of the support offered by the applicant's organization in terms of general facilities, support personnel and services, library, specific equipment and/or facilities available to the investigator, etc.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project as related to the probability of the project accomplishing the stated objectives.

Indicate your recommendations for any suggested modifications to improve the proposed project.

Comment on the appropriateness of the proposed project period and project budget.

DEFINITIONS AND NOTES:

In-House Review: A technical evaluation of the proposal from an EPA Program person other than the PO with expertise in the subject area.

Extramural Review: A technical evaluation of the proposal from a qualified non-EPA person with expertise in the subject area. Be sure to write the application number at the top of each review.

Be specific. Provide detailed statements of your response to each of the requested review points.

NOTE: Research projects require 2 extramural and one in-house review.
Special purpose projects only require 1 in-house review by someone other than the PO.

Software/Modeling/Web Site Questions

Assistance Agreement Number:_______________

Recipient Name:________________________________________

This application is being reviewed to determine if assistance is the appropriate funding mechanism. Please review the Scope of Work/Decision Memorandum to address the following:

1. How is the work primarily benefiting the recipient? How does it support the recipient's mission?

2. Who are the models being developed for under the grant? Who will use them?

3. To whom will the model or other products be delivered to at the end of the grant?

4. How is the information being disseminated to the public? Who is the primary audience?

A. Will the recipient use assistance funds to provide advice to EPA or another Federal Agency? Does the project support activities of any Federal Advisory Committee set up to advise the Federal government under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)? If applicable, confer with OGC.

B. If this project involves development of a web-site, will it be available for the public to access? If so, where will it be located? Please provide the web-site address.

C. IF the project involves development of a web-site, who will maintain it during and after the project?

D. Will a fee be charged to access the web-site during the project? If yes, the program income should be:

____ Used to support additional eligible project activities

____ Used to meet the recipient's cost sharing requirement

____ Deducted from total costs to determine net allowable project costs

E. Is it anticipated that the recipient will develop and copyright software or written material?

YES ____ NO____

If yes, it is EPA policy for the Grants Administration Division to insert the condition below into the assistance agreement. If this condition is not appropriate for this project, please provide alternative language:

In accordance with 40 CFR 31.34 for State, local and Indian Tribal governments or 40 CFR 30.36 for other recipients, EPA has the right to reproduce, publish, use, and authorize others to use copyrighted works developed under this assistance agreement for Federal purposes. Examples of Federal purpose include but are not limited to: (1) Use by EPA and other Federal employees for official Government purposes; (2) Use by Federal contractors performing specific tasks for the Government; (3) Publication in EPA documents provided the comment does not disclose trade secrets (e.g. software codes) and the work is properly attributed to the recipient through citation or otherwise; (4) Reproduction of documents for inclusion in Federal depositories; (5) Use by State, tribal and local governments that carry out delegated Federal environmental programs as "co-regulators" or act as official partners with EPA to carry out a national environmental program within their jurisdiction; (6) Limited use by other grantees to carry out Federal grants provided the use is consistent with the terms of EPA's authorization to the grantee to use the copyrighted material.

COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S FULL APPLICATION

A copy of the full application should accompany the original funding action. The EPA "Application Kit for Assistance" includes all the required forms for the applicant and is accessed at

http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm

The Checklist for Assistance Agreement Funding Packages

Your Program may have a checklist similar to the one below for funding for funding assistance packages. Check with your office to see if one exists.

In the funding/award phase, the PO should:

a. Provide applicants with the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the assistance program if requested. This number is always available in the RFA or RFIP.

b. Caution the applicant against making an award or permitting any award (subgrant or contract) at any tier to any party that is ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs.

c. Obtain required in-house and extramural reviews of the application as required.

d. Review the application to assure the narrative is consistent with the budget, e.g., whether any proposed procurements, property purchases, and travel are necessary and reasonable. If sole source procurement is proposed remind the applicant of their responsibility to perform all procurement in accordance with the regulations.

e. Compare proposed project with other similar efforts the PO is aware of and ensure any overlap or duplication is necessary. (Some duplication in research may be beneficial.)

f. Decide if the narrative activities are appropriate, ensure they comply with program regulations and guidelines, address milestones and environmental outcomes and identify any deficiencies in the application.

g. Consult the QA manager to define appropriate QA requirements for the agreement if needed.

h. Decide the amount of federal involvement; if substantial, develop a condition to include in the cooperative agreement identifying the substantial involvement.

i. Negotiate the level of funding within constraints of the available funds.

j. Obtain all necessary approvals, e.g., human subjects, international awards.

k. Prepare a funding package and obtain the necessary concurrences and signatures.

l. Ensure unsuccessful applicants are notified that they were not selected for award and provide a debriefing if requested.

m. Establish an official file for the project.

o. Review the award document when it is sent over by the GMO. The award is a binding legal document, so it is important that everything is correct, e.g., project period, total project cost (EPA and recipient share), amount of award (in the case of incremental funding), terms and conditions.

SUMMARY:

At the beginning of the chapter, we identified several objectives you would accomplish after reading the chapter. The objectives are listed below, each followed by a brief summary of the key points the chapter covered.

1. Identify the statutory authority, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and Delegation of Authority number for your assistance agreement. You can use the Cross-Reference Guide to U.S. EPA Federal Assistance Programs to find this information. The list is located on the OGD web site.

2. Know what documents are needed to prepare the funding package. A funding package generally consists of the following documents: Funding Recommendation, Funding Order (HQ only in paper process), Terms and Conditions/Special Conditions, Commitment Notice, Reviews/Summary of Reviews, Environmental Review Form if applicable, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review Form if applicable, a copy of the Applicant's full application with original signature of the authorized representative, Allocation Methodology if applicable.

3. Describe the execution of the assistance agreement. The award phase begins with the development of the funding package by the program office and ends with the acceptance of the award by the recipient. This chapter provides a step-by-step description of the award phase.

4. Conduct a review of the funding package for completeness. This chapter provides a step-by-step description of the award phase. Use the chapter to conduct a review of your funding package.

5. Understand when you need to include programmatic Terms and Conditions on an award. Terms and Conditions and Special Conditions are the additional requirements that will govern an award. They are added to the award document by the Grants Specialist (Administrative Terms and Conditions) and the Project Officer (Programmatic Terms and Conditions). Special Terms and Conditions are added by the Award Official. A separate attachment of the Programmatic Terms and Conditions (if they apply) should be included in the funding package.

6. Understand the "Multiple Appropriations Award Policy", split funding and allocation methodology. EPA's policy is to generally use only one appropriation as the funding source for an assistance project. Where a project's activities benefit more than one appropriation, the Agency should award separate grants for the activities falling within the scope of each appropriation. However, a single, multiple appropriation (MA) award may be awarded, with adequate justification documented in the grant funding recommendation, and on an exception basis, if all of a project's activities are of a type that is fundable from all of the supporting appropriations. Separate grants must be awarded if all of the supporting appropriations are not legally available for all of the types of activities to be performed

Questions:

1. What is the purpose of the funding recommendation?

2. Explain the difference between incremental and supplemental funding?

3. When must a PO use the publishing term and condition?

4. Can a PO declare a recipient high risk? Why or why not?

5. When do you need SRO approval?

6. Who awards the assistance agreement?

| Chapter Summaries | Introduction | Planning Consideration | Pre-Application | Review/Selection | Funding/Award Phase | Post Award/Audit | Closeout | Official EPA Project File | Regulations | Contents | Glossary | Summaries | Return to the Grants and Debarment Home Page |

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.