Performance_Work_Statement_for_IES_PR_Draft_3-28-17.docx

ED-IES-17-R-0014 3.28.17

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 annual discretionary research grant competitions and the external scientific peer review of report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications submitted throughout the year. In addition to the peer review activities, the contract will use information technology support to maintain, develop and enhance 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 Background

The mission of IES is to provide rigorous and relevant evidence on which to ground education practice and policy and share this information broadly. By identifying what works, what doesn’t, and why, IES aims to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly those at risk of failure. IES is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). IES was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA). 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. Another way in which IES provides evidence to ground practice and policy is through publications funded or produced by the Institute.

Under ESRA, IES is required to establish and maintain rigorous peer review processes for the evaluation of applications for grants and cooperative agreements; additionally, IES is required to conduct a rigorous peer review process prior to publication of all research, statistics, and evaluation report manuscripts conducted by, or supported through, IES. Current IES procedures for the peer review of grant applications, and for the peer review of report manuscripts, were approved by IES’s Board of Directors – the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES) – in January 2006 (https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp).

The peer review processes approved by NBES in 2006 for the scientific review of applications submitted to discretionary grant research competitions were patterned after those of other Federal scientific agencies, particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientific peer review procedures for the review of report manuscripts were also modeled on those of top-tier research journals, and were also approved by the NBES. IES’s scientific peer review activities are carried out by the Office of the Deputy Director for Science (also known as the Standards and Review Office or SRO). Peer review activities and staff are purposefully situated outside of the IES Centers that fund research grants and contracts, provide technical assistance to applicants, and work with grantees and contractors.

In a typical year, IES runs between 9-11 discretionary grant competitions with over 35 topic areas and an unsolicited grant opportunity, and receives between 900-1000 grant applications. In addition to the research grant applications, we review between 50-100 report manuscripts annually. In order to review the large number of applications and report manuscripts received, IES relies on 300-350 external, expert peer reviewers. Research grant applications are reviewed on topically-organized scientific peer review panels. The number of panels each year ranges from approximately 20 to 30; the majority of these are panels that meet in-person, while some smaller panels meet via video teleconference (VTC). In recent years, IES has held peer review panel sessions in the fall and winter/spring. In future years, it is possible panels for some competitions will be held on a rolling basis through the year. Panels can range in size from 4 or 5 for a small VTC panel to 25 for a large in-person panel; the average number of members across all review panels is approximately 16. Our extensive peer review operation spans every month of the year and includes staff from the IES Standards and Review Office, IES Centers, and a large number of contractor staff with broad peer review and IT knowledge and expertise.

For more information on IES, go to http://ies.ed.gov and review materials provided on the website.

1.3 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 Management Online) developed for IES and maintained by a Contractor. This system – 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 educational 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 a database 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 2008 compatible database and capable of being hosted on Internet Information Services (IIS) version 7.5. 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 shall work with the IES technical team/IES Data Center team to maintain and enact improvements to PRIMO, as requested. Additionally, the Contractor shall 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 annual competitions. Applicant LOI submission is voluntary but LOI receipt is an important step in the application process because IES program officers and SRO 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 preliminary and final reports about the LOIs received.

· Application management. All submitted applications are imported into the online peer review management system 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.

· Reviewer identification and 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 nearly 1,800 experts included in this database. IES staff continuously updates and use this database 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; collection of information regarding possible COIs from reviewers and communication of decisions regarding COIs; provision of review materials to reviewers; receipt of critiques and scores from reviewers both prior to and during grant review panel meetings, and receipt of manuscript and unsolicited grant application reviews.

· Transmitting peer review information to IES. PRIMO is used to rapidly develop and provide to IES data necessary for decisions regarding application review and subsequent funding.

· Applicant information and notification. After submitting an application, principal investigators and designated institutional 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 by the Department.

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 customizable reports are available through PRIMO on demand to IES Standards and Review staff, IES program staff, and authorized Contractor staff. The customizable reports available through PRIMO and exportable to other programs (Excel, Word, Adobe) 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.

1.4 Anticipated Period of Performance

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

SECTION 2: CONTRACT TASKS

For Fiscal Years (FY) 2017 through 2022, IES requires integrated support for the full range of scientific peer review activities, including the review of applications submitted for the annual 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 and Transition Activities

1.1 Contract kick-off meeting. The Contractor shall contact the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to set up a post-award conference with the COR, IES Standards and Review Office (SRO) designated staff, Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) within 24 hours after the start date of the contract. The meeting shall be held in-person at IES’s facilities, and the Contractor shall bring 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 (i.e., 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, pre-meeting and post-meeting scores and critique deadlines, and information regarding the discretionary grant competitions to be held in the next fiscal year.

1.2 Transition-in activities. The Contractor shall provide an incoming transition plan for 30 business days from the existing contract to the new contract. A sample plan shall initially be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal and updated after award. After award, but no later than 48 hours, the Contractor shall begin to coordinate with the COR to plan and implement a complete transition. A final transition-in plan will be due to the COR within 15 business days of contract award.

The transition-in plan will describe in detail how the Contractor shall transition in to the resultant contract to include being capable of providing full performance on the day after the end of the transition-in period. The Contractor shall consider including in the transition-in plan a schedule for meeting with the existing support contractor to discuss the transition and collect and necessary materials that are necessary for the transition. The COR will provide contact information for the existing contractor.

1.3 Transition-out activities. The Contractor shall provide an outgoing transition plan for 60 business days from the existing contract to the follow-on contract. The plan shall initially be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal and updated after award. This transition may be to a government entity, another Contractor, or to the existing Contractor under a new contract. The Contractor shall assist the COR in planning and implementing a complete transition from this Contractor to the successful offeror. The plan shall include formal communication with government staff and successor management and staff. The plan shall also include delivery of copies of existing policies and procedures, and delivery of required metrics, statistics and requirements documents. A schedule for deliverables will be determined at a later date.

1.4 Contractor employee security screening requirements. The Department has established policy on personnel security screening for all contractor and subcontractor employees and their field staff. The relevant Departmental Directive is OM: 5-101. It was last updated in July 2010 and can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/acsom5101.pdf . The Contractor must comply with the personnel security-screening requirements in OM: 5-101 throughout the life of the contract.

All Contractor and Subcontractor employees must undergo personnel security screening if they will be employed for thirty (30) days or more.

The type of screening and the timing of the screening will depend upon the nature of the contractor position, the type of data the contractor employee will have access to, or the type of Departmental information technology (IT) system they will access. Personnel security screenings will be commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm the individual could cause to the Department or the public. A position risk level will be assigned to each contractor employee position, before a solicitation is released, consistent with the descriptions in Appendix I of OM: 5-101. Hence, each Contractor employee working on this contract must be assigned a position risk level. Depending on the risk level assigned to each person's position, a follow-up background investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may occur.

The Contractor must identify one of their employees as a security liaison for this process. This Contractor Security Liaison coordinates the distribution, collection, and dissemination of various forms required in this process. They answer general questions from their employees on completing the security screening process. And, they are the first point of contact for contractor employees in using the OPM’s Internet based security screening portal called e-QIP ( http://www.opm.gov/e-qip/ ). The contractor is also responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors follow these personnel security screening procedures.

IES requires each contractor employee to have or apply for a clearance for the security level designated for the position held on a contract.

Contractor employees who have undergone appropriate personnel security screening for another Federal agency will be required to submit proof of that personnel security screening for validation.

The COR will provide more information to the Contractor at the time of the contract kick-off meeting.

1.5 Ongoing communications with Contractor and COR. The Contractor shall establish a weekly or biweekly 1-hour phone call with the COR, as determined during the kick-off meeting. The Contractor shall also plan for 1-2 in-person meetings per year, as needed.

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

2.1 Specific working knowledge of Grants.gov. The Contractor must be familiar with the Standard Form (SF) 424 Research and Related (R&R) form family and with the Grants.gov application forms packages that accompany these forms. Before application receipt, the Contractor shall 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 Specific working knowledge of IES’s Request for Applications (RFAs). The IES RFAs are typically released in the spring and can be found on the IES webpage, under Funding Opportunities (http://ies.ed.gov/funding/). The Federal Register Notice inviting applications is also released in the spring and can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/. IES expects the Contractor to carefully review all RFAs and federal register notice(s) released in a given year.

2.3 Application receipt plan. The Contractor shall prepare an application receipt work plan and finalize application-processing procedures (levels of administrative review; date for IES feedback on compliance reports and feedback on other competition milestone events and deliverables owed by IES to the Contractor; size of review groups; deadline; and contact persons for the review).

2.4 Contractor staffing. The Contractor shall make appropriate staffing arrangements to provide for quality control of information processing, editing, and data management/reporting functions resulting in the production of deliverables. To the extent possible, the Contractor shall aim for continuity of expertise as applied to critical functions. IES also expects the Contractor staff to have experience with an online peer review management system and associated database and reporting functions, similar to PRIMO.

For panels reviewing applications submitted to the annual 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 as soon as possible. Before, during and after the peer review meetings, the SROs work closely with the IES staff and 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 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 SRO is a nonvoting 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.

The Contractor shall need to recruit SROs, who will need to be highly skilled professionals who possess years of experience in peer review procedures as well as knowledge of education and behavioral research. These scientists typically hold a Ph.D. 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 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.

2.5 Referrals to Grants.gov. The Contractor must have working knowledge of the basic requirements of Grants.gov in order to make referrals of IES applicants to the Grants.gov Helpdesk at the time of grant application receipt, given that IES applications will be submitted via this web portal. Examples of inquiries from IES grantees could include, how applicants can find IES funding opportunities, what are the IES application deadline dates and times, and the use of mandatory PDF attachments to submit specific parts of the IES application.

2.6 Update and use a Panel Member Agreement (PMA) form. The PMA will incorporate by reference three attachments: a Work Order, a COI Policy Statement, and a Reviewer Honorarium and Travel Policy Document. 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 and Travel Policy document. Using the PMA will minimize the number of forms a reviewer must sign before receiving application or report manuscript assignments. Report manuscript and unsolicited grant 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 (but excluding Travel Policy Information that is irrelevant to the report manuscript and unsolicited grant application review panel). For grant peer review and report manuscript and unsolicited grant review, ensure that these documents are available to reviewers via PRIMO, and that reviewers can upload their completed documents into PRIMO.

2.7 Reviewer materials. Improve and enhance the ease of access to necessary reviewer materials, reviewer training and reviewer recruitment. This task includes ensuring that reviewer materials are easily available in PRIMO. This task can also include assisting with reviewer training webinars, assisting with the creation of reviewer training videos and instructional PRIMO how-to videos.

2.8 Demographic information. The Contractor shall confidentially and securely collect reviewer-provided demographic information via PRIMO. A demographic report must be produced and shall include panel members’ sex, ethnicity, and race. The report will only be accessible to IES staff responsible for peer review activities.

2.9 PRIMO’s reviewer database. The Contractor shall maintain and, as needed enhance, a reviewer database and modules within PRIMO that be used by IES staff as reviewers are recruited and review panels assembled.

2.10 PRIMO document repository. Implement and update, as needed, an expanded Document Repository in PRIMO to provide concise information to users through User Guides about a specific aspect of the PRIMO system. The Contractor shall 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 a specific task in PRIMO. Contents to be included in the PRIMO Document Repository include but are not limited to:

For IES Users: Request for Applications; How to use the Application Processing Module (including How to Use the Responsiveness Review component, How to Make Changes/Edits to the Personnel List, and How to Use the Action Required/Action Taken feature); How to use the Panel Management Module (including How to View, Confirm, and Declare COIs in the COI Module, How to Assign Reviewers to a Panel, How to Assign Applications to a Panel, and How to Assign Reviewers to Applications).

For Reviewers: How to Generate Scoring Reports; 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); Meeting Factsheets; Reviewer Materials, including RFAs and other training and informational materials provided by IES.

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

NOTE: Most reports are available via PRIMO. For all scoring reports made available through PRIMO, the Contractor shall validate those reports and notify IES that validation has taken place and reports are ready for use by IES staff. In addition, if possible, the Excel reports downloaded from PRIMO must be properly formatted.

NOTE: For reports in PDF and Excel formats delivered to IES via email, the Contractor shall clearly indicate the date and time the report was prepared. The Contractor shall also format these reports appropriately for printing (for example, using the correct orientation, proper column headers, and page width).

These deliverables include, but are not limited to:

Report on Deliverables. Prepare a list of “sample reports” to be delivered throughout the current year at the discretion of the Contractor, but within a time period that is beneficial to IES. The “sample reports” list prepared and delivered at this time will be informed by practical issues and needs of reports and activities surrounding peer review in the current year. This document will be descriptive and will include a sample of each scheduled deliverable and indicate the content, format, delivery method, and timeline for each. The “sample reports” document shall also serve to highlight any deliverables that are questionable or redundant and shall include Contractor recommendations for improvements and efficiencies.

Ad hoc reports. Ad hoc reports as required, including, but not limited to information necessary to address the Office of Management and Budget’s calls for peer review meeting data, and data calls from the Department’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

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-screening checklist forms for each annual grant competition. Prior to posting in PRIMO, the Contractor will submit to the COR for approval.

Prepare reviewer critique and summary statement templates for each annual competition and submit the templates to the COR for approval. IES expects the Contractor to do the necessary quality control for the summary statement templates. This will require the Contractor to check the templates against the review criteria and other related narrative outlined in the respective RFAs to ensure that the critique templates are accurate and consistent with information already provided in 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 and unsolicited grant applications. Cover letters and critique forms for use in PRIMO include both the criteria that the reviewer is requested to address in evaluating the quality of the report or unsolicited application.

PRIMO reviewer feedback form. Prepare an online administered reviewer feedback form to solicit comments from reviewers about the review process and submit the form to the COR for revisions and approval. Following each peer review session, the Contractor shall provide the reviewer feedback to the COR in PDF and Word format.

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

3.1 Report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications. Receive report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications for external (non-IES) scientific peer review from IES on an ongoing basis via PRIMO. Upon uploading a report manuscript or unsolicited grant application for review in PRIMO, the identified IES/SRO contact person will receive electronic confirmation.

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 shall: 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.

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 shall 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 annual 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 assure 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. The Contractor shall 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 goal to which the application was submitted (such as requirements related to age group, and including required elements within the research design). The Contractor shall 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 an in depth knowledge of the compliance requirements of the IES RFAs. An example of this latter application category is a paper application accepted by IES because the applicant requested and received an exemption to the electronic submission requirement. A Compliance Report is needed for each Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number (CFDA) 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 goal. Any additional compliance notes the initial screener has 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 shall highlight any compliance issues needing a decision, especially any applications where the topic and/or goal are unclear or missing; 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 case where the applicant has not indicated the topic and/or goal, or the topic and/or goal are not clear, the Contractor shall indicate this during compliance screening. The Contractor shall contact the applicant to obtain the missing topic and/or goal information or verify unclear topic and/or goal information; upon receiving a response from the applicant, the Contractor shall make necessary updates to the application in PRIMO. The Contractor shall not contact any applicant whose application has been marked as “late” to verify the topic and/or goal.

NOTE: If the applicant has not clearly indicated the application’s topic and goal information in Item 4b of the SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance, then the screeners ought to look in the application’s abstract and project narrative. The IES RFAs ask applicants to indicate topic and goal information both in the abstract as well as the code for the topic and/or goal that the application addresses in Item 4b (Agency Routing Number) of the Application for Federal Assistance.

In consultation with the COR, create a Responsiveness Screening Form 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 screening 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 goal 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

· 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 prepare a Personnel List (in PRIMO) for applications. This report will list all personnel cited in each application to be reviewed. The schedule for delivery of this report will be worked out in consultation with the COR. However, IES expects the report can be delivered to the COR within four (4) weeks of receipt of applications, or sooner for smaller competitions, by the Contractor from the Department’s G5 system. 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 CFDA/competition): (1) Application Number; (2) Application Topic; (3) Application Goal; (4) Project Director/Principal Investigator; (5) Project Director’s Organization; (6) Project Title; (7) PIs, Co-PIs, and Staff (Key Personnel); (8) Consultants and Advisory Board Members; (9) Panel Name (after application is assigned to a panel). Column 7 shall include a list of all personnel cited in the application as key staff members and their institutions. This 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. NOTE: Each relevant institution (i.e., the applicant organization and any organizations that have subcontracts identified in the application) shall be listed first (and bolded), followed by all relevant personnel from that institution. In cases where there are multiple individuals who all are from the same institution, the institution name shall be entered only once. In addition, the Contractor shall make every effort to include in Column 7 the campus or campuses involved in cases of large, multi-campus institutions, and to use the commonly recognized names of institutions. For example, “Regents of the University of California” might become “University of California, Los Angeles” or “University of California, Riverside, etc. Column 8 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 shall 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 shall alert the COR of any application that requires competition reassignment (i.e., a new number). The COR will follow the Department’s competition reassignment procedures and 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 information in PRIMO. The Contractor shall store application information in PRIMO in an organized manner and in accordance with the Department’s information security policies and records management policies.

3.10 Deliverables related to receipt. Prepare deliverables related to receipt of applications, report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications:

· 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 CFDA number in a given fiscal year. The purpose of this report is to document the topic and the goal for every application received.

The Report of Applications Received (generated in PRIMO and downloadable in Excel) will have columns for the following data: application number, application topic, application goal, project director/principal investigator, applicant organization, project title, status of the application, and panel name, if application is forwarded for review (this column will only be relevant in the Report of Applications Received – Final). IES expects that where will be at least two versions of this report: Report of Applications Received – Preliminary and Report of Applications Received – Final. However, a Report of Applications Received – Penultimate might also be needed.

The schedule for delivery of the two or three sequential versions of this report will be worked out in consultation with the COR. The Report of Applications Received – Preliminary will be due to IES as soon as feasible following the application transmittal deadline. IES expects that this will be no later than two (2) weeks following the transmittal of applications from the Department’s G5 to the Contractor.

The Report of Applications Received – Penultimate, if needed, will be due to IES as soon as feasible following the clarification or verification of topic and goal information received from applicants pursuant to follow-up.

And, the schedule for delivery of the Report of Applications Received – Final will be worked out in consultation with the COR. The delivery of the Report of Applications Received – Final shall occur when all compliance reviews, both the Contractor screening comments and the IES compliance and responsiveness comments, are completed and the status of all applications is finalized in PRIMO. All versions of this report will be available and clearly labeled from the Reports module in PRIMO.

IES will use the SF 424 R&R Application for Federal Assistance form Item 4b to collect application topic and goal information based on codes IES provides in the annual RFAs. In addition, the Contractor shall make obvious corrections to titles or information pulled from the SF 424 form before delivering the Report of Applications Received – Final. Because IES expects there will be some applicants who will have failed to enter topic and/or goal codes, or will have entered incorrect topic and/or goal 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 CFDA number in a given fiscal year, a Report of Resubmitted Applications. This report will be due as soon as feasible, 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 annual 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) will have columns for the following data: application number, application topic, application goal, project director/principal investigator, applicant organization, project title, and the application number of the corresponding application submitted under the previous competition, what number resubmission the application is (i.e., first submission, second submission, third resubmission, etc.), and panel name (for Final Report of Resubmitted Applications).

IES expects that there will be two (2) versions of this report: a Preliminary Report of Resubmitted Applications and a Final Report of Resubmitted Applications. 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 – create a report that lists all grant applications received under each CFDA number in a given fiscal year. This report will be due within one (1) calendar month following the application deadline for each CFDA number. This report will be delivered 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: application number; applicant organization; applicant mailing address; project director/principal investigator name, mailing address, phone, fax, and email address; authorized representative name and mailing address, phone, and email address; and title of project. The report will also include columns for topic, goal, estimated funding, federal and non-federal funding, and 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 Annual 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 shall notify the applicant within 48 hours of the IES determination in PRIMO.

4.2 Onsite meeting logistics. Prepare a review meeting management and logistics plan, including confirming meeting dates and locations with IES and securing meeting site(s). The Contractor shall identify hotel sites with available sleeping rooms at the government rate, and contract with the hotel to guarantee the rooms. No meeting room cost is assumed for the meetings held at an IES or Contractor meeting facility. IES expects the Contractor to identify meeting sites in close proximity to Metro, within the District of Columbia if possible, unless the Contractor, in consultation with the COR, determines that cost is prohibitive or that sites are not available.

4.3 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 annual discretionary research grant competitions, a List of Applications Assigned to Panel, and a List of Reviewer Assignments to Panel. Both sets of assignments—applications to panels and reviewers to panels—should occur within the same general time frame, and depending on the numbers of applications and review panels, about eight to nine (8-9) weeks prior to fall review panel meetings, and thirteen to fourteen (13-14) weeks prior to the winter/spring panel meetings.