American Hiking Society Single Source Review Criteria.pdf

PROJECT REVIEW AND SELECTION FORM

FOR HQ NWRS

GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

I. Basic Eligibility Screening

Grant Specialist:

Date Initiated:

Date Completed:

Date Forwarded to Field Readers or Committee for Merit Review:

Forwarded for Merit Review By (please sign):

A. Requirements of Funding Opportunity

Application received prior to deadline

Application meets all specified requirements of the Funding Opportunity Announcement

Application does not meet all requirements of the Funding Opportunity Announcement

If application does not meet all specified eligibility requirements:

Application returned to applicant for correction of additional documentation

Application rejected without further consideration

Deficiencies noted and comments on eligibility requirements:

B. Application Document Review

i. Forms

SF-424 signed and properly executed

SF-424 returned for correction

SF-424B or SF-424D signed

SF-LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying) signed and properly executed (if applicable)

SF-424A or SF-424C submitted

Comments and deficiencies noted:

ii. Budget Review

a. Does the proposed budget comply with program matching or cost-sharing requirements or any limitations, exclusions, or special conditions, as required in program authorizing legislation or regulation and detailed in the Notice of Funding Opportunity?

b. Are the budget figures and totals calculated correctly?

c. Do the proposed costs seem necessary and reasonable for, and are they clearly linked to, the proposed project activities?

d. Is the applicant requesting continuing support for a currently or previously funded project? If so, consider and document in the field below the impact that any incomplete or outstanding activities or remaining balance(s) of funds under previously funded projects might have on approval of the proposed budget.

e. Does the budget contain any obviously unallowable costs, as defined by the applicable financial assistance cost principles (2 CFR 200, Subpart E) or program legislation?

f. Will the project generate program income (see 2 CFR 200.307)?

If yes, does the applicant propose to use the income in accordance with any program requirements detailed in the program’s Notice of Funding Opportunity?

g. Has the applicant requested pre-award costs?

If yes, do they meet all conditions for approval (see 2 CFR 200.458)?

Y N N/A

Note: We must not fund an entire project retroactively. Applicants cannot request 100% of the total project costs as pre-award costs (i.e., the entire project cannot be completed before the application receipt date).

Note: Completing the “pre-award costs” item on the Checklist for a New Financial Assistance Award form FWS3-2460 only documents the circumstance applicable to a resulting award. It is not duplicative of, nor a replacement for, documenting the details of the pre-award cost area review.

h. Does the budget include any costs that require prior written approval (see 2 CFR 200.407)? If yes, please explain the costs in the Notes field at the end of this section.

i. Does the budget include indirect costs?

If yes:

Did the applicant clearly indicate the rate used to calculate proposed indirect costs?

Is the applicant eligible to charge indirect costs at the rate proposed?

Did the applicant submit supporting documentation, if required?

Are the proposed indirect costs applied/calculated against the correct direct cost base (in accordance with the approved NICRA or against MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, when opting for the 10% de minimis rate)?

Note: Applicants proposing to charge a reduced indirect cost rate must apply the reduced rate against the same direct cost base as identified in their approved rate agreement, or against MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, if they have never negotiated a rate agreement or if approved in advance by the Service (see the Indirect Costs and NICRAs Guidance posted on the Intranet at https://inside.fws.gov/go/post/FASOPOL-NewAwards).

Note: Completing the “indirect cost rate circumstance” item on FWS 3-2460 only documents the rate circumstance applicable to a resulting award. It is not duplicative of, nor a replacement for, documenting the details of the indirect cost area review.

j. Did you have to contact the applicant for corrections, more information, or negotiated revisions?

If yes, have you now received all information required from the applicant?

If yes, have you clearly identified the final approved budget?

Note: We may require the applicant to revise their proposed scope of work, project narrative, budget, and/or timeline following review. In such cases, we must ensure that final approved documents are clearly labeled and incorporated into awards, either as attachments or by reference, and maintained in the official award file.

https://inside.fws.gov/go/post/FASOPOL-NewAwards

Budget Review Notes and/or Explanation:

iii. Applicant Review

Applicant has established FBMS Vendor Number

Applicant has completed ASAP registration

ASAP number

Applicant has current year risk assessment on file

Risk assessment level of applicant

System for Award Management registration (if applicable) expiration date:

Federal Audit Clearinghouse audit on file or exemption statement included in application

Indirect cost statement in application and/or NICRA in file

C. Deficiency Period (if application was returned to applicant for correction)

Date returned to applicant:

Date resubmitted by applicant:

Corrections accepted on:

Upon acceptance of corrections, please sign in top section and forward for Merit Review

Application rejection sent on:

II. Merit Review

AWSR/POP/NWRS/______

CFDA Number:

FOA Number:

Competitive or Single Source:

Merit Review Plan POC:

Application period opens:

Application period closes:

FOA Eligibility Requirements:

A. General Procedures

Applications accepted by:

Applications accepted on a rolling basis?

Applications accepted throughout year?

Application screening method:

Applicant notification procedures (include time frame; if time frame is derived from establishing legislation, explain how compliance is tracked):

Type of review:

Project Officer selection process:

Conflict of interest statement

B. Project Evaluation

Name of reviewer:

i. Which Secretarial priorities does this project support?

a. Creating a conservation stewardship legacy

b. Sustainably developing energy and natural resources

c. Restoring trust with local communities; being a good neighbor

d. Ensuring Tribal sovereignty means something

e. Increasing revenues to support DOI and national interests

f. Protecting our people and the border

g. Striking a regulatory balance

h. Modernizing our infrastructure

i. Reorganizing for the next 100 years

j. Achieving our goals and leading our team forward

Please justify each selection below:

The goal of this financial assistance opportunity is to:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy 516 FW 6 defines a Single Source Award as a discretionary award given to a known entity without engaging in competition because the entity or project meets at least one of the criteria below.

Criteria for Issuing a Single Source Award (from 505 DM 2) Criterion Description Unsolicited proposal The proposed award is the result of an unsolicited assistance application that represents a unique or innovative idea, method, or approach that is not the subject of a current or planned contract or assistance award, but is found to be advantageous to the program objectives.

Continuation The activity to be funded is necessary for the satisfactory completion of, or is a continuation of, an activity presently being funded, and holding a competition would have a significant adverse effect on continuing or completing the activity.

Legislative intent The language in the applicable authorizing legislation or legislative history clearly indicates the intent of Congress to restrict award to a particular recipient or purpose.

Unique qualifications The applicant is uniquely qualified to perform the activity based on a variety of demonstrable factors such as location; property ownership; voluntary support capacity; cost-sharing ability, if applicable; technical expertise; or other such unique qualifications.

Emergencies Because of a compelling and unusual urgency, or substantial danger to health or safety, there is not enough time to follow adequate competitive procedures.

The decision to award discretionary funds to a single source without engaging in competition:

(1) Must withstand scrutiny,

(2) Should protect the public interest, and

(3) Should be in line with management priorities, objectives, and statutory requirements.

To be considered for funding, a proposal must describe its significance for achieving the goals of the project, as described in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (if applicable). The proposal should clearly show that the applicant is uniquely qualified to perform these activities and should include supporting information. The proposal should demonstrate 1) a strong working relationship between the applicant and the conservation community, 2) that the applicant has the expertise and contacts necessary for planning, organizing, and managing a National Wildlife Refuge System project, and 3) the project supports the priorities of the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

This project was approved under the Department of the Interior review process under project number:

Score

1 Excellent Proposal Important, critical, compelling, high priority project and proposal meets all program requirements

2 Strong Proposal with minor issues

Proposal meets all program requirements and applicant responds satisfactorily to reviewers’ comments; support if possible

3 Good Project/Proposal with substantial issues

Viable project with a worthwhile concept but lacking in substance/impact/priority; and/or proposal has other fundamental issues or problems that must be addressed before approval

4 Weak Project/Proposal Low quality proposal that needs extensive improvement; or project does not address a priority topic for the program, and/or has a serious flaw, lacks critical elements or other program requirements

5 Unviable Project/ Proposal - Disqualify

Proposal does not meet program requirements/eligibility criteria or has other compelling reasons to disqualify; reject

Please rate from 1-5

Score Justification and Comments:

Field Reader Signature