SSAA 2021 Evaluation and Selection Plan Final.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

EVALUATION AND SELECTION PLAN

DE-FOA-0002457

STEWARDSHIP SCIENCE ACADEMIC ALLIANCES PROGRAM

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Dr. Mark Anderson, Selection Official Ann Satsangi, SSAA Program Director and Federal Merit Review Panel Chairperson

Delmeria Pacheco, Grants Officer

Mark Anderson Selection Official

Ann Satsangi SSAA Program Director and Merit Review Panel Chairperson

Delmeria Pacheco Grants Officer

Applications Due: July 23, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. GENERAL INFORMATION

III. SUMMARY AND OBJECTIVES

IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE/CONFIDENTIALITY

V. EVALUATION GUIDELINES

V. EVALUATION CRITERIA

VI. MERIT REVIEW EVALUATION

A. Appointments B. Application Review Process C. Evaluation Process D. Chairperson’s Report

VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1. Conflict-of-Interest/Non-Disclosure Certificates Attachment 2. Technical Reviewers List Attachment 3. Record of Administrative Screening Attachment 4. Scoring Standards and Evaluation Information

I. INTRODUCTION

This plan is written to address the evaluation of applications and selection of projects for the Stewardship Science Academic Alliances (SSAA) Program Funding Opportunity Announcement

(FOA) DE-FOA-0002457.

The FOA and all amendments will be posted on Grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov/ and in Fedconnect at https://www.fedconnect.gov. Applicants will apply through Grants.gov.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION

Technical evaluation of applications will be performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.204 and the DOE Merit Review Guide. In evaluating applications, DOE/NNSA will use any assistance deemed advisable, in accordance with applicable regulations, including qualified personnel from other Federal agencies, other Government entities, universities, industry, and DOE/NNSA contractors. These individuals will be required to protect the confidentiality of any specifically identified trade secrets and/or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information obtained as a result of their participation in this evaluation.

III. SUMMARY AND OBJECTIVES

DOE/NNSA Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation is conducting a FOA to competitively seek applications grants for the SSAA Program.

The SSAA Program was established in 2002 to support state-of-the-art research at U.S. academic institutions in areas of fundamental physical science and technology of relevance to the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) mission. The SSAA Program provides the research experience necessary to maintain a cadre of trained scientists and engineers at U.S. universities to meet the nation’s current and future SSP needs, with a focus on those areas not supported by other federal agencies. It supports the DOE/NNSA’s priorities both to address the workforce specific needs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to support the next generation of professionals who will meet those needs.

IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE/CONFIDENTIALITY

Reviewers will be required to protect the confidentiality of all information obtained as a result of their participation in this evaluation. Information contained in the applications shall be only for evaluation purposes unless such information is generally available to the public or is already property of the Government.

All persons involved in the evaluation and selection process must read and sign a Conflict of Interest/Non-Disclosure Certificate (Attachment 1, 1A, or 1B) indicating an understanding of the obligations for participating in the merit review process. Once signed, strict adherence to the agreement is required.

http://www.grants.gov/ https://www.fedconnect.gov/

Reviewers must notify the Merit Review Panel Chairperson of any potential conflicts of interest or any actions that might give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

V. EVALUATION GUIDELINES

Each member of the Federal Merit Review Panel (FMRP) involved in the meritorious review of applications, along with all Peer Reviewers/Subject Matter Experts, ex-officio members, personnel who assist in the review process, and the Selection Official shall strictly adhere to the following guidelines:

• Reviewers shall not discuss the evaluation process with any unauthorized personnel.

• Reviewers shall not divulge their identities to any applicant.

• Reviewers will immediately disclose conflicts of interest and not review any application where a conflict or appearance of a conflict may exist.

• Reviewers shall not contact applicants.

• Reviewers shall not discuss the Panel proceedings outside of the independent Peer Review and the FMRP meeting, even after the selection and award processes are completed.

• Reviewers shall not accept any invitations, gratuities (i.e., meals, gifts, favors, etc.), or job offers from any applicant. If an individual involved with the merit review process is offered any invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or on behalf of any applicant, the individual shall immediately report it to the Contracting Officer.

• Reviewers shall only evaluate information provided by the applicants in the applications and only evaluate against the published merit review criteria in the FOA. No additional criteria are to be considered by the FMRP.

• Reviewers shall initially independently evaluate applications and document its strengths and weaknesses without consultation with other Reviewers. Reviewers will individually assess all Applications subjected to comprehensive evaluation against the pre-established and published merit review criteria only. These criteria should form the only basis for the review rating and, more importantly, the narrative critique of each application.

• Reviewers will inform the FMRP Chairperson of any personal or organizational conflicts of interest arising out of applications they are asked to review.

• Reviewers may contact the FMRP Chairperson to obtain clarification regarding the applications but will not compare applications while conducting their evaluations.

• Each Reviewer is responsible for properly destroying paper copies and deleting electronic copies of all applications

VI. EVALUATION CRITERIA

All applications passing the initial compliance review will be evaluated. Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance.

• Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;

• Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;

• Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;

• Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

Note that external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific/technical expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. The questions below are provided to elaborate the criteria established by regulation.

SCIENTIFIC AND/OR TECHNICAL MERIT OF THE PROJECT/PROPOSED RESEARCH

• What is the scientific/engineering innovation of proposed effort?

• How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality?

• How might the results of the proposed work impact the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific/engineering fields of research?

• What is the likelihood of achieving influential results?

• Does the proposed research fall within the category of high-risk high-reward, and if so why?

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED METHOD OR APPROACH

• How logical and feasible are the approaches?

• Is there a clearly identified hypothesis (or hypotheses)?

• Is there a clearly defined plan of work?

• How will the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses lead to valid conclusions? If not, why not?

• Does the proposed effort employ innovative concepts or methods? If so, what is the innovation, is the innovation necessary, and what are the associated risks?

• Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and consider alternative strategies?

COMPETENCY OF APPLICANT’S PERSONNEL AND ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED

RESOURCES

• Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities?

• Are the environment and facilities adequate for performing the proposed effort as stated in the proposal?

• How is the assembled team qualified to carry out the proposed work? (If applicable, please also comment on the past performance of the applicant(s).)

• What resources are critical to the success of the application? Is anything missing? If so, what?

REASONABLENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET

• Are the proposed budget and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed research?

• Is the budget reasonable and appropriate for the scope?

Evaluators must provide a narrative discussion of the strengths and weaknesses for each criterion. Additionally, a discussion of the application’s overall strengths and weaknesses is required, as well as a recommendation of one of the following:

• Priority for funding

• Worthy of funding

• Unsuitable for funding

VII. MERIT REVIEW EVALUATION

A. Appointments

The Selection Official (or delegate) will appoint the FMRP. The FMRP will select the subject matter expert reviewers. In selecting the appropriate subject matter expert reviewers, the FMRP will consider the following qualifications:

1. The individual’s scientific or technical education and experience.

2. The extent to which the individual has engaged in relevant work or research, the capacities in which the individual has done so, and the quality of such work or research.

Access to the applications by the reviewers will only be granted after the Merit Review Panel Chairperson has received a signed copy of the Conflict of Interest/Non-Disclosure Certificate form.

Selection Official

Dr. Mark Anderson, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), will serve as the Selection Official for this FOA.

Federal Merit Review Panel

The following DOE Federal personnel are assigned by the Selection Official to serve on the Federal Merit Review Panel (FMRP). This list may be modified by the Selection Official through an amendment to this plan.

Name Site e-mail Federal Panel Ann Satsangi NNSA ann.Satsangi@nnsa.doe.gov FMRP Chairperson, SSAA Program Director Tod Caldwell NNSA tod.caldwell@nnsa.doe.gov FMRP member Douglas (Allen) Dalton NNSA douglas.dalton@nnsa.doe.gov FMRP member

Samantha Calkins NNSA samantha.calkins@nnsa.doe.gov FMRP member

Tiberius Moran-Lopez NNSA tiberius.moran-lopez@nnsa.doe.gov

FMRP member

The following personnel are assigned by the Selection Official to be ex-officio advisors to the FMRP. This list may be modified by the Selection Official through an amendment to this plan.

Name Site e-mail Role Delmeria Pacheco NNSA Delmeria.Pacheco@nnsa.doe.gov Grants Officer Kristee Hall NNSA Kristee.Hall@nnsa.doe.gov Grants Specialist Terri Stone NNSA Terri.Stone@nnsa.doe.gov Program Analyst Michael Kreisler Contractor to NNSA Michael.Kreisler@nnsa.doe.gov Advisor

See Attachment 2 for a list of Technical reviewers.

B. Application Review Process

The application evaluation process will be carried out in multiple steps as described in the FOA, as per the following:

1. Initial Compliance Review of Applications

2. Technical Merit Review of Applications

3. FMRP Consensus Meeting

4. Chairperson’s Report

5. Budget and Financial Evaluation

The technical evaluation of applications will be assisted by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) using their PeerNet system to track reviewer comments.

C. Evaluation Process

All applications meeting the requirements of the FOA and meeting the requirements in the initial compliance review will be evaluated.

1. Initial Compliance Review mailto:ann.Satsangi@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:tod.caldwell@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:douglas.dalton@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:samantha.calkins@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:tiberius.moran-lopez@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:tiberius.moran-lopez@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:Delmeria.Pacheco@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:Kristee.Hall@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:Terri.Stone@nnsa.doe.gov mailto:Michael.Kreisler@nnsa.doe.gov

Prior to conducting the comprehensive merit review, an initial compliance review will be performed to determine whether: (1) the Applicant is eligible for an award; (2) the information required by the FOA has been submitted; (3) all mandatory requirements of the FOA are satisfied; and (4) the proposed project is responsive to the program objectives of the FOA (program determination). The initial review may be performed by the Grants Officer or a designated program official. The results of this review will be documented on the Record of Initial Compliance Review (Attachment 3).

2. Technical Merit Review

All timely applications that meet the requirements as published in the FOA will be eligible for comprehensive technical and management evaluations. The comprehensive evaluation will be conducted in two stages: an independent (non-consensus) technical evaluation conducted by peer reviewers/subject matter experts (SMEs), and a consensus meeting with the FMRP. The SMEs will comment on technical criteria. The technical evaluation criteria are published in the FOA and will be appropriately weighted.

Judgment of the competency, adequacy, and feasibility of the application will of course involve technical opinion by the evaluator based on publications, citations, and general status of the technical field. Evaluators are expected to use their best judgment and evaluate the application accordingly. Additionally, comments regarding the application that will help the applicant raise the ranking of future applications are encouraged.

The evaluation forms will include the evaluation criteria information and weightings provided in Attachment 4. The technical evaluation will consist of the following procedures:

a. The FMRP Chairperson, working with the Source Selection Official and the FMRP with input from the ex-officio advisors, will identify the technical peer reviewers. Three SME reviewers will be assigned to each application.

b. The reviewers will provide a numerical score for each criterion, a written evaluation of the application including strengths and weaknesses, and will bin the overall application into one of the following categories:

• Priority for Funding

• Worthy of funding

• Unsuitable for funding

The SME reviewers will submit their numerical and written evaluations through the ORAU PeerNet system.

3. FMRP Consensus Meeting

a. The FMRP will meet to discuss the applications and their individual ratings and develop a consensus rating based on the criteria. The consensus ratings reflect the collective opinion of all the merit reviewers regarding the technical evaluation criteria of the application.

b. The FMRP will prepare a recommendation for the Selection Official. This recommendation will be based on the evaluations, consideration of programmatic balance and priority, budget, and other factors deemed appropriate by the FMRP.

The recommendations shall be prioritized.

4. Budgetary and Financial Evaluation

A technical cost review will be carried out by the Contracts and Procurement Division (CPD) following the selection of projects for funding.

D. Chairperson’s Report

The FMRP Chairperson will prepare a report to the Selection Official to present the findings of the FMRP. The report shall include:

• the confidentiality statements signed by each FMRP member and reviewer;

• a statement that this evaluation plan was followed;

• a discussion of the applications that were eliminated before the technical evaluation;

• the number of applications received;

• present the recommendations;

• include a summary of all scores;

• discuss how the ranges separating applications worthy of funding and those not deemed worthy of funding were determined; and

• provide any other information pertinent to this evaluation.

The Selection Official may, at their discretion, require the Chairperson or the Committee to present the report orally in addition to the Chairperson's written report.

The Selection Official will identify applications to be funded based on consideration of the FMRP’s recommendation, budget, program priorities, and other factors as appropriate.

VIII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Conflict-of-Interest/Non-Disclosure Certificates

2. Technical Reviewer List

3. Record of Administrative Screening

4. Scoring Standards and Technical Evaluation.

Stone, Terri Is this the correct office name?

ATTACHMENT 1

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Office of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

For Federal Merit Reviewers

Stewardship Science Academic Alliances Program

FOA DE-FOA-0002457

The Department of Energy has a policy that individuals with a conflict of interest cannot participate in the merit review of a financial assistance Application. This certification must be completed by individuals prior to their participation in the merit review process.

1. I will not participate in the review of any financial assistance Application involving a particular matter that would have a direct and predictable effect on any person, company or organization with which I have a relationship, financial or otherwise. For purposes of this statement, the interests of my spouse, my minor child, my general partner, any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee, and any person or organization with whom I am negotiating employment, are attributed to me.

2. Further, I will not participate in the review of any financial assistance Application involving a particular person or a particular matter that I believe would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question my impartiality.

3. Prior to my participation as a merit reviewer, I agree that I will disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that I may have with such duties. In addition, I agree to disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest as soon as I am aware of the conflict.

4. I certify that I will not disclose, except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, any information concerning the assessment and analysis or the content of Applications/proposals either during the proceedings of the merit review or at any subsequent time, to anyone who is not authorized access to the information by the Department of Energy or by law or regulation, and then only to the extent that such information is required in connection with such person's official responsibilities. Furthermore, I will report to the DOE Official responsible for the process any communication concerning the assessment and analysis or the individuals involved in the assessment and selection and activities directed to me from any source outside this process.

5. These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.

Signature Date

Printed Name

ATTACHMENT 1A

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NONDISCLOSURE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

FOR INDIVIDUAL REVIEWERS NOT EMPLOYED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY OR

DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING (M&O) CONTRACTOR

Support of Stewardship Science Academic Alliances Program

This acknowledgment must be completed by individuals prior to receiving applications or other related information pertaining to, and participation in, the merit review process. The acknowledgement provides for each reviewer to understand conflict of interest and nondisclosure requirements associated with their participation in the merit review.

Individuals with a conflict of interest may not participate in the merit review process or use or disclose information obtained during the merit review process, unless DOE has decided that there is acceptable mitigation of the identified conflict.

In anticipation of my participating as a reviewer for the Department of Energy, I, ________________________________________________ (Print Name), acknowledge the following:

(a) I understand that during the course of performing merit and/or peer review services, I may obtain access to confidential or proprietary business, technical, or financial information belonging to the Government or other entities, including information relating to the submissions of applications and other information in connection with any Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA);

(b) To the best of my knowledge and belief, no conflict of interest exists that may either:

(1) Result in my participation on a particular matter involving a FOA that will have a direct and predictable effect upon my financial interest;

(2) Diminish my capacity to impartially assist in the review of applications in response to FOAs; or

(3) Result in a biased opinion or unfair advantage.

(c) In making the above statement, I have considered all the following factors that might place me in a position of conflict, real or apparent, regarding FOA information:

(1) All my stocks, bonds, other outstanding financial interests or commitments;

(2) All my employment arrangements (past, present, and under consideration); and

(3) All financial interests and employment arrangements of my spouse, minor children, and other members of my immediate household as well as my general partners, or any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, or trustee, or with whom I am negotiating for employment.

(4) Any examples of relationships that might create an appearance of a conflict regarding this particular FOA that have been provided to me.

(d) I have a continuing obligation to disclose any circumstance that may create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

If I learn of any such conflict, I will report it immediately to the Merit Review Panel Chairman and I will perform no more duties related to the FOAs until I receive instructions on the matter.

(e) I agree to treat this information as proprietary and confidential and comply with agency procedures for the protection of such information (including electronic information) and use my best efforts to safeguard such information. I will not disclose the contents of, nor release, any such information to anyone either during or after the merit review evaluation other than:

(1) To individuals within the review process that are directly concerned with the performance of this effort and who have executed this Conflict of Interest and Nondisclosure Acknowledgment;

(2) To other individuals designated by the DOE Contracting Officer; or

(3) Pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

(f) I shall not accept any invitations or gratuities (i.e., meals, gifts, favors, etc.) from any applicant. If I am offered any invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or on behalf of any applicant, I will immediately report to the Contracting Officer or Federal Merit Review Manager.

(g) Whenever DOE furnishes any FOA information to me, I, the reviewer, agree to use such information only for the purpose of conducting the review and to treat the information obtained in confidence. Further, I will not use such information for my own private gain or the private gain of others. This requirement for confidential treatment applies to information obtained from any source, including the submitter, without restriction. Any notice of restriction placed on such information by either DOE or the submitter of the information shall be conspicuously affixed to any reproduction or abstract thereof and its provisions strictly complied with. Upon completion of my duties, I will return all copies to the DOE office that initially furnished such information or I will destroy the files (paper and electronic) and certify to the Contracting Officer that I have done so.

Signature/Date: _______________________________________________

Name/Title: __________________________________________________

Phone number: _______________________________________________

Email address: _______________________________________________

EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE REAL OR APPARENT CONFLICTS

1. AFFILIATION WITH AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION

(In this document, “Institution” will be used to mean the inclusive set of all types of institutions, organization, companies, or other entities.)

You may have a conflict, subject to possible mitigation if agreed to by DOE after notification and consideration, if you have/hold/are:

• Current employment at the institution in any capacity

• Other current employment with the institution as a consultant or advisor

• Previous employment with the institution within the last 12 months

• Being considered for employment at the institution

• Formal or informal reemployment arrangement with the institution

• Ownership of securities of companies involved in the application

• Current membership on a visiting committee or similar body at the institution

• Any office, governing board membership, or relevant committee chairpersonship in the institution (Ordinary membership in a professional society or association is not considered an office.)

• Current enrollment as a student at that institution

• Received and retained an honorarium or award from the institution within the last 12 months

• Some other business or financial relationship

2. RELATIONSHIPS WITH AN INVESTIGATOR, PROJECT DIRECTOR, OR OTHER PERSON WHO HAS A

PERSONAL INTEREST/ROLE IN THE APPLICATION

• Known family relationship as spouse, child, sibling, or parent

• Business or professional partnership

• Past or present association as thesis advisor or thesis student

• Recent collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, paper, journal, compendium, or conference proceedings

3. OTHER AFFILIATIONS OR RELATIONSHIPS.

• Interests of the following persons are to be treated as if they were yours: Any affiliation or relationship of your spouse, of your minor child, or a relative living in your immediate household or of anyone who is legally your partner that you are aware of.

• Other relationship (including but not limited to a close personal friendship, a person with whom the reviewer has a longstanding difference, a recent student or teacher, or a former employer) that you think might tend to affect your judgment or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.

ATTACHMENT 1B

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NONDISCLOSURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF A

DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING (M&O) CONTRACTOR

Support of Stewardship Science Academic Alliances Program

In anticipation of my participating as a reviewer for the Department of Energy, I, ____________________________________ (Print Name), acknowledge the following:

(a) I understand that during the course of performing merit and/or peer review services, I may obtain access to confidential or proprietary business, technical, or financial information belonging to the Government or other entities, including but not limited to Department plans, policies, reports, studies, financial plans, internal data protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), data which has not been released or otherwise made available to the public, information relating to the submissions of applications and other information in connection with any Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA);

(b) To the best of my knowledge and belief, no conflict of interest exists that may either:

(1) Result in my participation on a particular matter involving a FOA that will have a direct and predictable effect upon my financial interest;

(2) Diminish my capacity to impartially assist in the review of applications in response to FOAs; or

(3) Result in a biased opinion or unfair advantage.

(c) In making the above statement, I have considered all the following factors that might place me in a position of conflict, real or apparent, regarding FOA information:

(1) All my stocks, bonds, other outstanding financial interests or commitments;

(2) All my employment arrangements (past, present, and under consideration); and

(3) All financial interests and employment arrangements of my spouse, minor children, and other members of my immediate household as well as my general partners, or any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, or trustee, or with whom I am negotiating for employment.

(d) I have a continuing obligation to disclose any circumstance that may create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

If I learn of any such conflict, I will report it immediately to the Merit Review Panel Chairperson, and I will perform no more duties related to the FOAs until I receive instructions on the matter.

(e) I agree to treat this information as proprietary and confidential and comply with agency procedures for the protection of such information (including electronic information) and use my best efforts to safeguard such information. I will not disclose the contents of, nor release, any such information to anyone.

(f) I shall not accept any invitations or gratuities (i.e., meals, gifts, favors, etc.) from any applicant. If I am offered any invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or on behalf of any applicant, I will immediately report to the Contracting Officer or Federal Merit Review Manager.

(g) Whenever DOE furnishes any FOA information to me, I, the reviewer, agree to use such information only for the purposes stated in a task or subtask assignment and to treat the information obtained in confidence. Further, I will not use such information for my own private gain or the private gain of others. This requirement for confidential treatment applies to information obtained from any source, including the submitter, without restriction. Any notice of restriction placed on such information by either DOE or the submitter of the information shall be conspicuously affixed to any reproduction or abstract thereof and its provisions strictly complied with. Upon completion of my duties, I will return all copies to the DOE office that initially furnished such information, or delete all electronic copies.

Signature/Date: _______________________________________________

Name/Title: _______________________________________________

Organization: _______________________________________________

Phone number: _______________________________________________

Email address: _______________________________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

TECHNICAL REVIEWERS

Name Site e-mail

TBD

ATTACHMENT 3

RECORD OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING

Lead Applicant

Grants.gov Application Number

Project Title

Topic Areas*

*Topic Areas in FOA Topic Area # 1: Properties of Materials under Extreme Conditions and Energetic Environments Topic Area # 2: Hydrodynamics, Instabilities, and Hypersonics Topic Area # 3: Low Energy Nuclear Science Topic Area # 4: Radiochemistry

Date Submitted

Principal Investigator Name

Sub-Applicants

DOE/NNSA

Lab/Site collaborator

Estimated Budget: $

Lead Applicant Grants.gov Application Number

Item # Information or Items Required Mandatory? Submitted Comments Yes/No Yes No N/A Qualified Organization Eligible for Award* *Review of System for Award Management (SAM)

Application Received Prior to Deadline ☐ ☐ ☐ Application Package requirements:

1 SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance (R&R)

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

2 Research and Related (R&R) Other Project Information

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

3 Project Summary/Abstract Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

4a & b Project Narrative Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ 4c Appendices

Appendix 1: Biographical Sketch Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Appendix 2: Current and Pending Support Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Appendix 3: Identification of Potential

Conflicts of Interest or Bias in Selection of Reviewers

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

Appendix 4: Bibliography & References Cited

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

Appendix 5: Facilities & Other Resources Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Appendix 6: Available Equipment Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Appendix 7: Non U.S. Citizen Support List Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Collaboration Letters Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

6a SF424 Research and Related Budget Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ 6b Budget Justification Narrative Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

6c Government Approved Indirect Rates and

Cost Allocations Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

9 Financial Assistance Environmental Checklist (NEPA) – to be submitted if selected for award

Yes if selected for award

10 Project/Performance Site Location Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

11a Certification Regarding Lobbying Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

11b Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Yes if applicable

12 Assurances in SAM.gov Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

13a Sub-Applicant Budget Evaluation Yes if selected for award

13b Sub-Applicant Risk Assessment Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

Sub-applicant Application Package(s) Sub-applicant Name:

Qualified Organization Eligible for Award* *Review of System for Award Management (SAM)

1 SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

7a R&R Subaward Budget Form Yes ☐ ☐ ☐ Budget Justification Narrative Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

7b Certification Regarding Lobbying Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Yes if applicable

Government Approved Indirect Rates and Cost Allocations

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

12 Assurances for Non-Construction Programs in SAM.gov

Yes ☐ ☐ ☐

Compliance Reviewer’s Determination:

☐ Based upon the Reviewer’s preliminary review, it has been determined that the information required by the announcement has been submitted and merit review is recommended.

☐ Based upon the Reviewer’s preliminary review, it has been determined that forms identified as mandatory were not submitted with the application package by the Lead institution; therefore, the application package is considered non-responsive, will not be forwarded for merit review, and will be eliminated from further consideration.

☐ Based upon the Reviewer’s preliminary review, it has been determined that forms identified as mandatory were not submitted with the application package by the Subawardee institution(s); therefore, the application package is considered non-responsive, will not be forwarded for merit review, and will be eliminated from further consideration.

☐ Other (Please explain):

Compliance Reviewer Digital Signature:

ATTACHMENT 4

SCORING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION INFORMATION

Technical For purposes of this evaluation, a strength is an aspect of an application that, when compared to stated evaluation criterion, leaves virtually no doubt regarding the applicant’s capability to perform the criterion.

A weakness is an aspect of an application that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, provides evidence that the applicant may not be capable of meeting the criterion successfully. A weakness is minor when it is easily correctable. A weakness is considered to be significant when it leaves no doubt regarding the applicant's capability to perform and such weakness cannot be corrected without a major revision to the application. Several minor weaknesses within a criterion may become a significant weakness.

The reviewer shall use the following scale in rating the applications. He/she should generally provide scores of integer value or at best precision a half (such as 8.5). A rating of zero may not be entered into the evaluation form. These point values will be multiplied by the weighting to give the total points for the criteria. All of the points will be added to result in the overall score for the application.

8–10 Superior: Applicant comprehensively addresses all aspects of the criterion, contains no weaknesses, and leaves virtually no doubt regarding the applicant's capability to meet the criterion.

6–7 Satisfactory: Applicant comprehensively addresses all aspects of the criterion and may have few, but easily correctable weaknesses.

3–5 Marginal: Applicant fails to address some aspects of the criterion, and has significant, but correctable weaknesses.

0.5–2 Unsatisfactory: Applicant fails to address most aspects of the criterion, has significant weaknesses, and correcting weaknesses would require a major revision.

The scientific and technical merit of the application and its appropriateness should be judged based on what is proposed in writing. Judgment of the competency, adequacy, and feasibility of the applicant(s) to achieve what is proposed will, of course, involve technical opinion by the reviewer based on publications, citations, and general status of the technical field. Reviewers are expected to use their best judgment and evaluate the application accordingly. Additionally, comments regarding the application that will help the applicant raise future applications to a higher level are required.

Solicitation # Applicant

Title Application #

Reviewer Signature

Evaluation Information / Technical Evaluation Criterion # Criteria Title Weight Rating

(0.5–10) a SCIENTIFIC AND/OR TECHNICAL MERIT OF THE

PROJECT/PROPOSED RESEARCH

• What is the scientific/engineering innovation of proposed effort?

• How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality?

• How might the results of the proposed work impact the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific/engineering fields of research?

• What is the likelihood of achieving influential results?

• Does the proposed research fall within the category of high-risk high-reward, and if so why?

40% b APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED METHOD OR

APPROACH

• How logical and feasible are the approaches?

• Is there a clearly identified hypothesis (or hypotheses)?

• Is there a clearly defined plan of work?

• How will the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses lead to valid conclusions? If not, why not?

• Does the proposed effort employ innovative concepts or methods? If so, what is the innovation, is the innovation necessary, and what are the associated risks?

• Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and consider alternative strategies?

20% c COMPETENCY OF APPLICANT’S PERSONNEL AND

ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED RESOURCES

• Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities?

• Are the environment and facilities adequate for performing the proposed effort as stated in the proposal?

• How is the assembled team qualified to carry out the proposed work? (If applicable, please also comment on the past performance of the applicant(s).)

What resources are critical to the success of the application? Is anything missing? If so, what?

d REASONABLENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE

PROPOSED BUDGET

• Are the proposed budget and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed research?

• Is the budget reasonable and appropriate for the scope?

Total Score Sum of all points 100%

Evaluators must provide a narrative discussion of the strengths and weaknesses for each criterion. Additionally, a discussion of the application’s overall strengths and weaknesses is required, as well as a recommendation of one of the following:

• Priority for funding

• Worthy of funding

• Unsuitable for funding