Draft PWS_IES Peer Review Support 2026.pdf

Performance Work Statement

Scientific Peer Review Support for the Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Purpose

This contract will provide integrated support for the full range of scientific peer review activities conducted at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), including the review of applications submitted to the discretionary research grant competitions and the external scientific peer review of report manuscripts, unsolicited grant applications, and applications for grant supplements submitted throughout the year. In addition to the peer review activities, the contract will use information technology support to operate and maintain the online application processing, peer review management and applicant notification system providing critical infrastructure known as PRIMO (Peer Review Management Online), developed for IES.

1.2 IES Peer Review Summary & Historical Information

IES was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA). The mission of IES is to provide scientific evidence on which to ground education practice and policy and to share this information in formats that are useful and accessible to educators, parents, policymakers, researchers, and the public.

IES is the non-partisan statistics, research, and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). One of the ways IES provides evidence to ground practice and policy is through research funded under its discretionary grant competitions. IES also supports research funded through an unsolicited grant opportunity for research, evaluation, and statistics, projects that would make significant contributions to the mission of the organization. IES also provides evidence to ground practice and policy through publications funded or produced by IES.

Under ESRA, IES is required to establish a peer review system, involving highly qualified individuals with an in-depth knowledge of the subject to be investigated, for reviewing and evaluating all applications for grants and cooperative agreements that exceed $100,000. In addition, ESRA states that all research, statistics, and evaluation reports conducted by, or supported through IES shall be subject to rigorous peer review before being published or otherwise made available to the public. These scientific peer review activities are carried out by the Office of the Deputy Director for Science (Office of Science) staff (https://ies.ed.gov/about/office-science). In 2006, the National Board for Education Sciences approved IES procedures for the peer review of reports and grant applications.

IES has established a system for the scientific peer review of grant applications. IES Office of Science staff identify and recruit highly qualified reviewers primarily on the basis of the quality of the research they have conducted and the degree to which they are in-depth experts in the relevant research methods, subject matter, and familiar with practical education practice and policy issues.

In a typical year, IES runs between 9-12 discretionary grant competitions with over 35 topic areas and an unsolicited grant opportunity and subsequently receives over 1000 grant applications. In addition to the research grant applications, we review 50-70 report manuscripts annually. In order to review the large number of applications and report manuscripts received, IES relies on over 400 external, expert peer reviewers each year. Research grant applications are reviewed on topically organized scientific peer review panels. The number of panels each year ranges from approximately 25 to 35. The average number of members serving on a panel is approximately 15, although panels can range in size from 4 to 20 members depending on the number of applications they are assigned to review. Panels meet via video teleconference (VTC), with the option to convert some panels to in-person meetings (see 9.1). In recent years, IES has held a large peer review panel session in late winter/early spring, and smaller review sessions have been held throughout the year. The review schedule depends on the competitions run by the https://ies.ed.gov/about/office-science

IES Centers and can vary substantially from year to year; often the full scope of the review work to be completed in a contract year is not known at the outset. Smaller review sessions are often conducted on accelerated timelines and the work for these sessions often overlaps with the work for the large panel session. In addition, IES intends to pilot a variety of new peer review strategies that may involve accelerated timelines and different procedures. Our peer review operation spans every month of the year and includes staff from the IES Office of Science, IES Centers, and contractor staff with broad peer review and IT knowledge and expertise.

Below is a list of estimated figures and typical timeline to assist the Contractor with assessing their ability to execute the requirements for this contract. The actual figures may fluctuate each fiscal year, as they are based upon the number of Requests for Applications (RFAs) issued by the IES Centers, the response to those RFAs from the field, and the number of reports produced by the IES Centers.

Note: The estimated figures provided in the table below shall serve as the basis for fixed pricing under this contract. The contractor shall use these historical estimates to develop unit-based pricing for deliverables.

Estimates per fiscal year (based on historical data) Research grant competitions 9-12 Letters of intent (LOIs): 750-1150 Research grant applications 950-1150 Peer review panels 25-35 Peer reviewers per panel 4-20 Peer reviewers (including discretionary research grant reviewers, report manuscript reviewers, and unsolicited grant reviewers 400-500 Unsolicited grant applications 6-10 Report manuscripts 10-15

Overview of a sample schedule for the review of the large discretionary grant applications held in Spring (each fiscal year):

NOTE: This is an example of a schedule for the large Spring Panels that have typically reviewed the bulk of IES’s research grant applications. Our schedule depends on the competitions run by the IES Centers, and exact schedules are not now known. Different competitions run on different cycles, and some may be on accelerated timelines. It is also possible that competitions will be held on a rolling basis. Some review panels are also held in the fall and/or in spring/summer.

March-May Notice inviting applications is published in the Federal Register and RFAs are posted at https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grants.

May-June Receipt of letters of intent (LOIs). Contractor receives LOIs, creates and transmits reports to IES via the Peer Review Information Management Online (PRIMO) system.

June-July IES staff begins reviewer recruitment (and continues through November/December).

Contractor is making the necessary preparations for application receipt.

August Receipt of Applications. Contractor coordinates with the Department’s G5 team to transfer applications to PRIMO. Contractor and IES simultaneously conduct compliance and responsiveness screenings (continues through September).

September Contractor makes an online Applicant Notification System (ANS) available and sends invitation emails sent to applicants.

October Fall peer review panel meetings. IES staff begin assigning applications and reviewers to panels and panel sections.

November Contractor receives final assignments of applications and reviewers to panels and https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grants.

panel sections from IES and contacts panel members to obtain necessary documents (including a Panel Member Agreement) and works with panel members to obtain conflict of interest information.

December IES staff finalize assignments of applications to primary reviewers. Contractor provides all necessary review materials to reviewers and works with IES staff to establish reviewer training webinars. Contractor informs reviewers that they may begin working on their application reviews, monitors reviewers’ progress, and works to finalize logistical details for peer review meetings (continues into January).

January- February

Critiques and preliminary scores are due from reviewers. Contractor monitors reviewer compliance with due dates, conducts quality control activities and conveys information to IES staff. IES staff performs triage of applications and sets an order of review for February/March panel reviews. Contractor staff convey triage and order of review information to reviewers.

February- March

Spring peer review panel meetings. Contractor releases final scores to applicants via the ANS.

March Contractor delivers peer review summary statements to IES and releases summary statements and regret letters to applicants via the ANS.

For more information on IES peer review, go to https://ies.ed.gov/what-we-do/peer-review and review materials provided on the website.

1.3 Anticipated Period of Performance

The period of performance of this contract is one (1) 12-month Base Year, with four (4) 12-month Option Years to be exercised at the discretion of the government. The contract type will be firm fixed price.

Transition-In (Optional) Base Year Option Year

Option Year

Option Year 3

Option Year 4

Transition- Out

(Optional) 7/31/2026 - 8/30/2026

7/31/2026- 7/30/2027

7/31/2027- 7/30/2028

7/31/2028- 7/30/2029

7/31/2029- 7/30/2030

7/31/2030- 7/30/2031

6/30/2031- 7/31/2031

SECTION 2: CONTRACT TASKS

Information related to IES’s Peer Review Information Management Online System (PRIMO) The technology providing critical infrastructure for these activities is an online application processing, peer review management, and applicant notification system known as PRIMO (Peer Review Information Management Online), and is maintained by a Contractor. This system, which is used by IES staff, reviewers participating in IES peer review activities, and individuals and organizations who have submitted grant applications for peer review, is critical to fulfilling the primary responsibilities of IES: to ensure that IES funds and produces education research of the highest scientific quality. The overall goal of PRIMO is to ensure efficient grant and report manuscript peer review processes by minimizing the time necessary for all phases of these processes, reducing the amount of email correspondence required for each phase, and reducing the use of paper as well as providing a secure means of maintaining related records, and information that can be readily analyzed to support the continuous improvement of review processes.

PRIMO is designed as a system of distinct but interconnected components that, in combination, provide critical support for the work of IES and contract staff.

PRIMO is currently on a Microsoft .NET framework, version 4.5 using a SQL Server 2012 compatible database and capable of being hosted on Internet Information Services (IIS) version 8.5. The PRIMO web site is hosted on the IES Data Center (services provided by Amazon Web Services) which has a current authority to operate (ATO). All documentation to support the IES Data Center ATO can be found in the

Department’s Cybersecurity Assessment and Management database (CSAM). The contractor must work with the IES technical team/IES Data Center team to maintain PRIMO, as requested. Additionally, the contractor must provide all necessary systems documentation, as requested by the COR. PRIMO is accessible to authorized users at: https://iesreview.ed.gov.

Key components of the system include (but are not limited to) the following:

Letters of Intent (LOI) module. Receive LOIs from potential applicants for all competitions.

Applicant LOI submission is currently voluntary, but LOI receipt is an important step in the application process because IES staff use the information provided in the LOIs to inform their work, including planning for peer review panels. PRIMO also has the capability to generate real-time reports on LOIs received.

Application management. All submitted applications are imported into PRIMO for initial processing, including (but not limited to) compliance screening by contractor staff, responsiveness screening by IES staff, and subsequent final determinations by IES staff of whether applications will go forward for peer review. All application management activities are conducted through and recorded in PRIMO.

Review panel development. PRIMO includes a searchable database of experts in various substantive and methodological areas relevant to IES grant and report manuscript peer review;

currently there are over 6,000 records included in this database. IES staff continuously update these records and add new experts to the database; PRIMO also includes a portal for individuals who are interested in becoming peer reviewers to provide information about themselves. IES staff use this information to identify potential reviewers for grant review panels, report manuscripts, and unsolicited grant applications.

Scientific peer review. All aspects of IES research grant scientific peer review are managed through PRIMO, including (but not limited to) assignment of applications to review panels;

assignment of reviewers to panels, research grant applications, report manuscripts, or unsolicited grant applications, as appropriate; information regarding possible Conflicts of Interest (COIs) from reviewers and communication of decisions regarding COIs; provision of review materials to reviewers; and receipt of critiques and scores from reviewers both prior to and during grant review panel meetings. PRIMO provides reviewers access to necessary review materials - including applications assigned to their review panel - on a time-limited basis during peer review and receipt of manuscript and unsolicited grant application reviews.

Applicant information and notification. After submitting an application, Principal Investigators and designated institutional Authorized Representatives are asked to register in the Applicant Notification System (ANS), a module of PRIMO. The ANS allows applicants to track the progress of the review of their applications, and makes available to Principal Investigators, Authorized Representatives, and IES staff the peer reviewers’ comments (summary statements), scores from peer review, and funding decision letters for the submitted applications. The primary purpose of the ANS is to expedite the notification of applicants by giving Principal Investigators and Authorized Representatives electronic access to their scores and summary statements. The ANS is an officially designated System of Records. Access to this information will continue to be limited to IES staff, Contractor staff, and to the Principal Investigators and Authorized Representatives of the applications. Further, Principal Investigator and Authorized Representative access will continue to be limited strictly to their own applications, summary statements and scores. Appropriate credentials will be issued to each Principal Investigator and Authorized Representative to control access.

Reports. A variety of user-generated, customizable reports can be generated through PRIMO for IES Office of Science staff, IES program staff, and authorized Contractor staff. These reports are exportable to other programs (Excel, Word, Adobe) and are critical to accomplishing the peer review work at IES. For example, on demand scoring reports available to IES program staff immediately after panel meetings are central in informing funding slate decisions.

Documents. PRIMO houses a number of documents for the use of IES staff and grant peer reviewers, including instructional materials, user guides and grant competition RFAs.

Help Desk. The Contractor shall provide help desk support for PRIMO users as part of a fixed monthly service fee. Pricing shall be based on historical usage estimates and proposed in tiers (e.g., up to 50 calls/emails per month, 51–200, etc.). The fixed price shall cover all staffing, system maintenance, user support, and reporting requirements.

For Fiscal Years (FY) 2026 through 2030, IES requires integrated support for the full range of scientific peer review activities, including the review of applications submitted for the discretionary research grant competitions, and the external scientific peer review of report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications. Contractor areas of responsibility will include, but will not be limited to, the execution of the following tasks:

TASK 1: Contract Kick-Off Meeting

1.1 Contract kick-off meeting. The contractor must contact the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to set up a post-award conference with the COR, IES Office of Science designated staff, Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) within 24 hours after the start date of the contract.

The meeting shall be held online via a platform acceptable to the Department, and the contractor must include the Project Manager, Lead IT Analyst and no more than three other proposed staff members. The kick-off meeting shall be held within 7 business days after contract award. The Contractor will provide to the COR the summary notes from the meeting within 7 business days after the meeting takes place.

During the kick-off meeting, the COR will also provide the Contractor with any requested sample documents (for example, sample deliverable reports, online templates or forms, PRIMO screenshots, etc.), an updated deliverables schedule, updated general timeline for the review activities related to discretionary grant competitions (if available), pre-meeting and post-meeting scores and critique deadlines, and information regarding the discretionary grant competitions to be held in the next fiscal year (if available).

1.2 Ongoing communications with Contractor and COR. The contractor must establish a weekly or biweekly 1-hour phone call with the COR, as determined during the kick-off meeting. The contractor must plan for an online meeting every six weeks or so with IES (on a platform approved by the Department).

TASK 2: Planning Activities for Discretionary Research Grant Competitions and Pre-Review Activities for Report and Unsolicited Research Grant Application Reviews

2.1 Alignment of PRIMO with SF 424 R&R Forms. Before application receipt, the contractor must coordinate with the COR to ensure that the grant application structure/database in PRIMO is consistent with the information collected by the latest versions of the SF 424 R&R forms (OMB 4040-0001 and OMB 4040-0010) and troubleshoot any issues that might arise.

2.2 RFAs and Staffing. The IES RFAs are released throughout the year and can be found on the IES webpage, under Search Funding Opportunities (https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grants). The associated Federal Register notice can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/. IES expects the Contractor to carefully review all RFAs and federal register notice(s) published by IES. review all RFAs and federal register notice(s) published by IES.

https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grants

Contractor Staffing:

Scientific Review Officers (SROs) and Technical Assistants

The SRO is a non-voting member of the peer review panel who exerts a critical leadership role in the peer review process. The SRO has the overall responsibility to ensure that the panel proceedings are accurately recorded and that the integrity of the review process is maintained. For panels reviewing applications submitted to the discretionary grant competitions, identify and select the Contractor’s Scientific Review Officers (SROs) and Technical Assistants, or sometimes referred to as Grants Technical Assistants or Review Technical Assistants (hereafter referred to as Technical Assistants) and conduct orientation sessions for these individuals; and provide a listing of the SRO and Technical Assistant assignments to IES in accordance with timeline established with the COR. Before, during and after the peer review meetings, the SROs provide appropriate guidance and instruction to reviewers regarding relevant IES review policies, guidelines, and criteria, critiques preparation and submission. They also monitor submission timeline and quality of draft critiques, providing appropriate feedback to reviewers (the contractor can request further guidance from IES as needed). The SROs oversee the peer review panel meeting, including panel orientation, panel scoring and discussion, reviewer conflicts of interest (COIs), submission of revised critiques, and the panel debriefing.

The contractor must recruit SROs (around 10), who will need to be highly skilled professionals who possess experience in peer review procedures as well as knowledge of education and behavioral research.

These scientists typically hold an advanced degree and possess an array of expertise and experience that represents a broad range of scientific, administrative, and technical support skills related not only to peer review but also to administration and grant and contract management of Federal programs.

The Technical Assistants (around 20) provide administrative and logistical support to their assigned panels before, during and after the peer review meetings. They interface with other Contractor staff, IES staff, and reviewers on a regular basis to answer questions and provide assistance. The review of report manuscript and unsolicited grant application reviewers will not require an SRO or designated Technical Assistant.

2.1 Update and use Panel Member Agreement (PMA) forms made available in PRIMO. The PMA for research grant reviewers will incorporate by reference three attachments: a Work Order, a COI Policy Statement, and a Reviewer Honorarium Document. The Contractor will be responsible for paying the honorarium to Peer Reviewers. A reviewer’s signature on the last page of the PMA will acknowledge that a reviewer has read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the Work Order, the COI Policy Statements, and the Reviewer Honorarium. Report manuscript, unsolicited grant application, and grant supplement application reviewers will receive a modified version of a PMA, including a Work Order, a Confidentiality Agreement (for report manuscript reviewers) or a Confidentiality and COI statement (for unsolicited grant application reviewers), and a Reviewer Honorarium document. Using the PMA will minimize the number of forms a reviewer must sign before receiving application or report manuscript assignments. Ensure that these documents are available to reviewers via PRIMO, and that reviewers can upload their completed documents into PRIMO.

Honorarium Policy

Under this contract, honoraria for peer reviewers shall be incorporated into the contractor’s proposed pricing structure. The following honorarium rates are provided for informational purposes and should be used by the contractor to develop unit-based pricing:

• $1800 for reviewers who complete all assigned reviews and attend a 2-day virtual panel meeting.

• $250 per application for ad hoc reviewers, typically assigned 1–4 applications.

• $250 additional honorarium for ad hoc reviewers whose total assigned reviews exceed 10 applications.

• $500 for unsolicited grant application reviews.

• $200, $700, $900, or $1100 for report manuscript reviews, depending on manuscript length. The contractor shall base its pricing on historical volume estimates (e.g., 450 reviewers annually, 28 panels) as outlined in Section 1. The total contract price shall reflect these estimates.

2.2 Reviewer materials. Ensure that reviewer materials are easily available in PRIMO and are accessible to all PRIMO users.

2.3 PRIMO’s reviewer database. The contractor must maintain a reviewer database and modules within PRIMO that can be used by IES staff to recruit reviewers, assemble review panels, and assign reviewers to grant applications, reports, unsolicited proposals, or grant supplement applications. IES staff must maintain the ability to enter information regarding new potential reviewers and to update information on potential reviewers currently included in the database.

2.4 Documents available in PRIMO. Maintain a Document Repository in PRIMO to provide concise information to users through User Guides about a specific aspect of the PRIMO system. The contractor must discuss sequencing the release of each of the documents with the COR. The intent of the User Guides is to give users “how to” descriptions users can follow to accomplish tasks in PRIMO. Examples of contents included in the PRIMO Document Repository include but are not limited to:

For IES Users: User Guides on: How to use the Conflict of Interest Module, How to use the Responsiveness Review Module; How to use the Panel Management Module (including, How to Assign Reviewers to a Panel, How to Assign Applications to a Panel, and How to Assign Reviewers to Applications). How to Generate Scoring Reports, ANS User Guide, Online Nomination and Scoring Guide

For Reviewers: How to Submit Information about/Declare a Potential COI; How to Submit Critiques;

How to Update Your Personnel Information; How to Complete your Paperwork; Forms (W9 and W8 forms); Online Nomination and Scoring Guide, How to use Unsolicited Grants & Reports Module, Synthesizing Instructions, Meeting Factsheets; Reviewer Materials, including RFAs and other training and informational materials provided by IES.

2.5 Deliverables related to pre-receipt of applications. Prepare the following deliverables related to pre-receipt of applications and reports or other planning activities.

Deliverables include, but are not limited to:

2.6 PRIMO forms and templates. Work with the COR to finalize PRIMO forms and templates for use by Contractor staff, IES staff or reviewers, including the application compliance and responsiveness screening checklist forms for each grant competition. Prior to posting in PRIMO, the Contractor will submit to the COR for approval. The contractor must also:

• Prepare reviewer critique and summary statement templates for each competition and submit the templates to the COR for approval. IES expects the Contractor to do the necessary quality control, which will require the Contractor to check the templates against the review criteria and the related narrative outlined in the respective RFAs to ensure that the templates are accurate and consistent with the respective RFAs.

• Work with IES to prepare and maintain templates for reviewer critique forms and cover letters for each of the several types of IES report manuscripts, unsolicited grant applications, and grant supplement applications.

TASK 3: Receipt of Applications for all Research Grant Competitions, Report Manuscripts, Unsolicited Research Grant Applications, and Grant Supplement Applications

3.1 Report manuscripts, unsolicited grant applications, and grant supplement applications, Receive report manuscripts, unsolicited grant applications, and grant supplement applications for external scientific peer review from IES on an ongoing basis via PRIMO.

3.2 Receipt of discretionary research grant applications. Receive IES research grant applications from the Department’s G5 system. As a requisite for receiving grant application files from G5, the contractor must:

maintain an interface to parse the files and import their contents into the SQL database backend of PRIMO; establish a procedure in the interface for handling validation errors where data contained in the Grants.gov file conflict with existing Contractor system validations; and process the transfer of grant file attachments to the PRIMO website, maintaining linkages to grant data.

Application receipt and verification tasks shall be priced as fixed-price outputs. The contractor shall propose unit pricing based on the number of applications received and processed from the G5 system.

Pricing shall reflect historical volume estimates and include all parsing, importing, validation, and transfer activities.

3.3 Verify application data (files). Establish a process to verify the integrity of the application data (files) transferred from G5 and prepare a report for IES on the applications received in a Verification Report (Log). The contractor must prepare and submit Logs to the COR on a daily basis as soon as G5 begins to push applications to the Contractor. A final report will be due to the COR within ten (10) business days following the application deadline. The purpose of this report is to verify that the Contractor has received every application file that was transmitted by the Department’s G5 and that every application file is intact.

The Verification Report (Log) of applications received from the Department’s G5 will indicate, for each application file received by the Contractor, whether or not the transfer was successful and whether or not the application data was intact (i.e., the application data received is the application data that was sent).

3.4 Grants.gov reports. Receive from the COR reports of all applications received from Grants.gov. For each competition, the COR will generate these reports from Grants.gov. The COR will provide these reports for each competition sorted by a Department-assigned application number in sequential order.

These reports are critical to the Contractor’s quality control initiatives and will help the Contractor to ensure that all applications have been received and have been taken into account.

3.5 IES access to applications received. Provide IES staff access to applications as soon as feasible following the application transmittal deadline (typically within 72 hours of the transmittal deadline). The contractor must provide IES with quality-reviewed application submission data (application files in PRIMO) within ten (10) business days of the application receipt deadline.

3.6 Discretionary research grant application compliance and responsiveness screening. Perform tasks related to application compliance and responsiveness screening as soon as possible following application receipt. IES employs a 2-phase screening process for all applications submitted for peer review.

Compliance screening involves determining whether each application meets basic requirements such as acceptable page length and presence of all required elements such as forms and appendices.

Responsiveness screening involves determining whether the application meets minimal substantive requirements described in the RFA for the competition, topic, and project type to which the application was submitted (such as required elements within the research design). The Contractor must be responsible for collecting and maintaining compliance and responsiveness information in PRIMO, and for the following specific activities:

• Perform initial compliance screening and display results in an online Compliance Report for each application file transferred to PRIMO from the Department’s G5 and for any other application accepted by IES and provided to the Contractor. In order to conduct the screening correctly, the Contractor must have knowledge of the compliance requirements of the IES RFAs. A Compliance Report is needed for each Assistance Listing Number (ALN) in a given fiscal year.

• Create a Compliance Screening Form in PRIMO for each competition for the initial Contractor screeners. The Compliance Form has multiple purposes: (1) to document the compliance status of each application received; (2) to indicate the status of each application using the compliance decision categories below; and (3) to classify each application under the correct competition, topic, and project type. Any additional compliance notes the initial screener are also documented on the Compliance Form.

Initial Compliance Decision Categories

• Compliant

• Compliant with Issues

• Duplicate

• Late

• New Number Requested – designation by the Contractor or IES, via PRIMO

• Non-Compliant

• Withdrawn – applicant has withdrawn the application

Using PRIMO’s Compliance Form approved by the COR, Contractor staff will screen each application and will use quality control processes to ensure accuracy of screening. In the Compliance Form, the contractor must highlight any compliance issues needing a decision, especially any applications where the topic and/or project type are unclear or missing (if relevant); or where a new application number under a different competition is needed; or where, because of some obstacle, an application has not been screened.

And, as soon as possible, IES will respond to the Contractor by recording a decision/providing guidance in the Discussion section of PRIMO’s compliance or approval reporting system.

In any relevant case where the applicant has not indicated the topic and/or project type, or the topic and/or project type are not clear, the Contractor must indicate this during compliance screening. The Contractor must contact the applicant to obtain the missing information or verify unclear information; upon receiving a response from the applicant, the Contractor must make necessary updates to the application in PRIMO.

The Contractor must not contact any applicant whose application has been marked as “late” to verify the topic and/or project type. In addition, if an application is missing key sections and/or appendices required by the RFA, or it’s not clear the application was intended for an IES grant competition, the Contractor will ask IES for guidance on what steps to take. The contractor must not contact the applicant for information in these cases unless IES requests the applicant be contacted.

The contractor shall propose unit pricing for screening activities, such as per 50 applications screened Pricing shall be based on historical volume estimates provided in Section 1.

NOTE: If the applicant has not clearly indicated the application’s topic and project type information or other critical information in Item 4b of the SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance, then the screeners will look in the application’s abstract and project narrative. The IES RFAs ask applicants to indicate topic and project type information both in the abstract as well as in the form.

In consultation with the COR, create a Responsiveness Checklist in PRIMO to be used for each application file transferred to PRIMO from ED’s G5 and for any other application accepted by IES and provided to the Contractor Responsiveness Checklist forms are completed by IES staff to document in PRIMO whether an application is deemed to be responsive or non-responsive to the requirements of the RFA, topic, and/or project type under which it was submitted. Forms will include a text field where any decision that could result in an application NOT going forward for peer review will be documented.

Initial Responsiveness Decision Categories—

• Responsive

• Pending

• Non-Responsive to RFA

• Not Applicable (for example, because it has been withdrawn by the applicant prior to responsiveness review)

In consultation with IES, create a final Approval Form in PRIMO. The COR will verify for each application whether an application is compliant, responsive, late, duplicative, or needs to be withdrawn or renumbered and will assign a final approval status, determining whether the application will go forward for peer review.

Final Approval Decision Categories

• Forwarded for Peer Review – designation by IES

• Non-Compliant – will not review, designation by IES

• Non-Responsive to the RFA – will not review, designation by IES

• Non-Responsive and Non-Compliant – will not review, designation by IES

• Withdrawn – will not review, applicant notifies IES and so designates

• Duplicate – duplicates another application and will not be reviewed, designation by the

Department/IES or by the Contractor

• Late – will not review, designation by the Department/IES

NOTE: The Compliance and Responsiveness Screening Forms and the final Approval Form should be created, approved by the COR and posted to PRIMO prior to receipt of applications so screening can begin as soon as possible after the transmittal of applications from the Department’s G5 system to the Contractor.

3.7 PRIMO Personnel List. Screen applications and generate the Personnel List (in PRIMO) for applications. This report lists all personnel cited in each application to be reviewed. IES expects the report to be made available to the COR within four (4) weeks of receipt of applications, or sooner for smaller competitions. The purposes of this screening/reporting task are to allow IES staff and reviewers to identify and address, consistent with COI policies established by IES, potential COIs as early as possible so that the applications in question can be assigned or reassigned to appropriate reviewers and grant review panels.

The Personnel List (available in PRIMO and exportable to Excel) will provide the following information/data columns for each ALN/competition): (1) Competition Name, (2) Application Number;

(3) Applicant Organization; (4) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (5) Application Topic (if relevant);

(6) Application Project type (if relevant); (7) Project Title; (8) PIs, Co-PIs, and Staff (Key Personnel); (9) Consultants and Advisory Board Members; (9) Panel Name (after application is assigned to a panel).

Column 8 shall include a list of all personnel cited in the application as key staff members and their institutions. This includes, but is not limited to, individuals named on the Key Personnel form. It includes subcontractors, but not consultants or advisory board members who are either paid as individuals (payments are not made to their institutions), or who are not paid.

Column 9 shall include a list of consultants, advisory board members, or other people cited in the application who are paid as individuals (payments are not made to their institutions), or who are not paid from the grant. This column shall NOT include institutions with which these personnel are associated, only the names of the personnel. The Personnel List is critical to the proper assignment of applications to reviewers. Based on information in the Personnel List, reviewers and IES staff will identify and document potential COIs. The contractor must make every effort to check that institutions’ and individuals’ names are properly specified and accurately spelled.

3.8 Applications needing new Department-assigned numbers. The Contractor must alert the COR of any application that requires competition reassignment (that is, a new R award number). The COR will supply the Contractor with a newly assigned number. The Contractor reassigns the application and sends an email notification to applicants whose applications were assigned new numbers. For these applications, the IES Helpdesk will notify the applicant, and authorized representative(s), within 48 hours of the new number assignment. IES will provide the standard language to be used in the email notifications.

3.9 Storage of application and report information in PRIMO. The Contractor must store application information in PRIMO in an organized manner and in accordance with the Department’s information security and records management policies.

3.10 Deliverables related to receipt. Prepare deliverables related to receipt of applications, report manuscripts, unsolicited grant applications, and grant supplement applications. The contractor must validate the data included in these reports and make them available in PRIMO and notify the COR when they can be accessed:

• Report of Applications Received. Screen applications and generate as soon as feasible after the application deadline, a preliminary report—Report of Applications Received—for applications received under each ALN number in a given fiscal year. The Report of Applications Received (generated in PRIMO and downloadable in Excel) will have columns for the following data: (1) Competition Name, (2) Application Number; (3) Applicant Organization; (4) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (5) Application Topic (if relevant);

(6) Application Project type (if relevant); (7) Project Title.

• Report of the Status of All Applications Received. The schedule for validation of this report will be worked out in consultation with the COR. This report should be generated when all compliance and responsiveness reviews are completed and the status of all applications is finalized in PRIMO. This report generated in PRIMO (and downloaded in Excel format) has columns for the following information: (1) Competition Name, (2) Application Number; (3) Applicant Organization; (4) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (5) Application Topic (if relevant); (6) Application Project type (if relevant); (7) Project Title; (8) Resubmission Status (yes or no); (9) Resubmitted number(s) (number of previous submissions for resubmitted applications); (10) Compliance Decision; (11) Responsiveness Decision; (12) Approval Decision, (13) Panel assignment; (14) Whether the application was triaged (i.e., did not go forward for panel discussion). The contractor must refer to the compliance, responsiveness, and approval decision categories as described on pages 9 and 10 of this document. All versions of this report will be available from the Reports module in PRIMO.

The Contractor must make obvious corrections to titles or information pulled from the SF 424 form before delivering the Report of the Status of All Applications Received. Because IES expects there will be some applicants who will have failed to enter topic and/or project type codes, or will have entered incorrect topic and/or project type codes, the Report of Applications Received will be considered preliminary until all cases in doubt are verified by the Contractor, in consultation with IES.

• Report of Resubmitted Applications. Screen applications and generate, for applications received under each ALN number in a given fiscal year about two (2) weeks following the application transmittal deadline. The purpose of this report is to track resubmissions and to identify those applications submitted to the discretionary grant competitions that were submitted to prior competitions and forwarded to peer review so that copies of prior year reviewers’ comments can be made available to reviewers assigned to the current competitions.

The Report of Resubmitted Applications (using Excel format) has columns for the following data: (1) Competition Name, (2) Application Number; (3) Applicant Organization; (4) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (5) Application Topic (if relevant); (6) Application Project type (if relevant); (7) Project Title; (8) Status of the application; (9) Application submitted under the previous competition; (10) what number resubmission the application is (i.e., first submission, second submission, third resubmission, etc.), and panel name (for Report of Resubmitted Applications Summary).

• Report of Resubmitted Applications Summary. The final version of this report will reflect the results of compliance and responsiveness screening that may indicate, for example, applications that are “resubmissions” identified by IES or by the Contractor but not reported as such by the applicants. All versions of this report will be available and clearly labeled from the Reports module in PRIMO.

• ED 424 Report. This report lists all grant applications received under each ALN number in a given fiscal year. This report will be due within one (1) calendar month following the application deadline for each ALN number. This report will be generated in PRIMO and made available in two versions – one version that lists applications received by application number and one version that lists applications received by state.

The ED 424 Report (using Excel format) will have columns for the following data: (1) Application Number; (2) Applicant Organization; 3) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (4) Application Topic (if relevant); (5) Application Project type (if relevant); (6) Project Title; (7) Organization Address 1; (8) Organization Address 2; (9) Organization City; (10) Organization State; (11) Organization Zip; (12) UEI; (13) PI Name (14) PI Phone; (15) PI Email; (16) Authorized Representative Name; (17) AR Phone; (18) AR Email; (19) Estimated Project Funding; (20) Federal Funding; (21) Non-Federal Funding; (22) Program Income. All versions of this report will be available and clearly labeled from the Reports module in PRIMO.

TASK 4: Post-Receipt, Pre-Meeting, and Panel Assignments for All Discretionary Research Grant Competitions

4.1 ANS emails. Invite applicants and Authorized Representatives (ARs) to PRIMO’s Applicant Notification System (ANS) by an email notification to activate accounts at any time in the process, but likely shortly after receipt of applications (and at the discretion of the COR), after applications are imported into PRIMO from G5 and screened for compliance and responsiveness. The invitation email will contain an embedded link for applicants to follow in order to activate an account associated with their application(s).

Applicants and ARs will receive an email notification when there is new activity in ANS related to their application; this includes notifications that applications will not be considered because they are determined to be duplicative or non-responsive or non-compliant or withdrawn. For these applications, the Contractor must notify the applicant within 48 hours of the IES determination in PRIMO.

4.2 Assignment of reviewers and applications to panel. For each panel to be convened, IES provides the Contractor with the following by entering the information via PRIMO:

• For discretionary research grant competitions, Applications Assigned to Panel, and Reviewer Assignments to Panel. Both sets of assignments—applications to panels and reviewers to panels—should occur within the same general time frame: depending on the numbers of applications and review panels, about eight to nine (8-9) weeks prior to fall or late spring/summer review panel meetings, and thirteen to fourteen (13-14) weeks prior to the winter/spring panel meetings. Typically, most reviewers are assigned to panels as soon as IES determines the composition of the panel, and additional reviewers are sometimes added later to complete the makeup of the panel. For some panels, reviewers are assigned to the panel on a rolling basis.

Once applications and reviewers have been assigned to panels, or report manuscripts have been assigned to reviewers, the appropriate paperwork must be signed and submitted by the reviewers. After this, the Contractor must provide reviewers with access to the assigned applications or report manuscripts.

Additional conflicts of interest (COIs) may be identified and reported at this stage.

For report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications, an IES/Office of Science staff person will provide the Contractor all review materials as soon as possible; IES will assign the reviewers in PRIMO as soon as possible after identification of appropriate reviewers.

NOTE: For applications submitted to the discretionary research grant competitions, reporting and resolving COI situations are accomplished through the COI module of PRIMO. IES staff will make final application and reviewer assignments to panels taking into consideration COIs that have been identified, reported, and resolved through this module.

Each application or report manuscript must have a minimum of two (2) written evaluations (critiques), while some applications require a minimum of three (3) written evaluations (critiques). Some applications on could have up to five (5) written evaluations. The process of assigning applications to specific reviewers will rely on accurate and complete COI information reported by reviewers and IES’s verification/determination of COIs based on the information contained in the Personnel List.

4.3 COI and related reviewer paperwork. For all discretionary research grant competitions, through the PRIMO COI module, provide panel members/reviewers the opportunity to review in PRIMO the Personnel List and the abstracts of the applications assigned to their panel so that they can identify and declare potential conflicts of interest. COI information reported by reviewers, as well as any COI information discovered independently by IES or Contractor staff, will be documented in the COI component of PRIMO.

For reviewers participating in the review of applications submitted to discretionary research grant competitions and reviewers conducting report manuscript, unsolicited grant application, or grant supplement application reviews, use a relevant Panel Member Agreement (PMA) or Participant Agreement forms. Signed and submitted forms will serve to inform IES that reviewers acknowledge they have read and will abide by the terms and conditions outlined in the Work Order/PMA, COI and/or Confidentiality Policy Statements, and the Reviewer Honorarium documents incorporated into their agreements. The forms must be signed and submitted by a reviewer before a reviewer is able to access any review materials in PRIMO.

Work in conjunction with IES staff to ensure that no reviewer participating in the review of applications submitted to discretionary research grant competitions has access to an application with which that reviewer has a COI. For report manuscript and unsolicited grant applications reviews, the Contractor must ensure that each reviewer has access only to the report manuscript or application to which the reviewer has been assigned.

4.4 Securing Panel Members and Initial Reviewer Communications. IES staff will conduct an initial screening to identify potential reviewers with appropriate expertise for each necessary scientific peer review panel. At the point where IES assigns reviewers to panels, IES will convey the information to the Contractor. The Contractor will then secure reviewers and will begin all necessary communications for the review work.