Common use of Reviewing Applications Clause in Contracts

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/2021 a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential. b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review. f. For BHA programs, the AtA/BHA may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub. h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFO, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFO. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFO. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses. n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/202110/30/2020 a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential. b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review. f. For BHA programs, the AtA/BHA may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub.the Bureau for Economic Growth, h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFO, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFO. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFO. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses. n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/202103/08/2022 a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential. b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review. f. For BHA programs, the AtA/BHA may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub. h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFO, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFO. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFO. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses. n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).that

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/202106/19/2020 a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential. b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review. f. For BHA programs, the AtA/BHA may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub(E3/GENDEV). h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFOprogram, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFOan RFA or APS. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination a justification to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d 303.3.6.5 must be approved before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFORFA or APS. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses.RFA or APS does n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/202112/23/2019 a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential.Funding b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct direct-hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review.AO f. For BHA the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) programs, the AtA/BHA OFDA director may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub(E3/GENDEV). h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFOprogram, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFOan RFA or APS. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination a justification to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d 303.3.6.5 must be approved before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFORFA or APS. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates Both the AO and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses. n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure use the applicable mandatory templates discussed in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).ADS 300,

Reviewing Applications. Effective Date: 01/19/2021‌ a. At least two individuals (three or more is preferable) must be appointed to serve on each Selection Committee (SC) to review applications. The SC must review the applications using the review criteria stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The SC must keep selection information and applicant proprietary data confidential. b. Committee members must possess the requisite technical knowledge or expertise to review the programmatic merits of the applications. The Agency may make exceptions with the approval of the AO. c. Reviewers from other Federal Departments and Agencies are encouraged to participate on the SC whenever possible. Reviewers from outside the U.S. Government may also participate on the SC. USAID staff (direct hire and Personal Services Contract (PSC) employees) must comprise a majority of the members on the SC. d. The AO must take steps to ensure that members of the SC, both USAID staff and outside reviewers, do not have conflicts of interest with the organizations whose applications are being reviewed. A conflict of interest includes situations when: e. When periodic reviews are specified, the Planner must collect the applications as they are received until the Agency can review a reasonable number in accordance with the provisions of the announcement. If the Planner and AO established a specific timeframe for the review of applications in the NOFO, for example, quarterly reviews, and only a small number of applications are received during that time, the AO may consider the applications received to be a reasonable number. The SC may also include applications it received in response to earlier notices in a periodic review. f. For BHA programs, the AtA/BHA may authorize selection of a sole application received, if the director determines that it is not advisable to wait for more applications. The Activity Planner must provide a copy of such an authorization to the AO. g. When reviewing applications against a criterion related to gender issues, the Activity Planner must coordinate with DDI’s the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub(E3/GENDEV). h. If an unsolicited application reasonably fits within an existing NOFOprogram, the AO and Planner may include the application in a relevant review and selection under that NOFOan RFA or APS. If it does not, the Planner must provide the AO with an approved written determination a justification to restrict eligibility based on programmatic purposes under 303.3.6.5.d 303.3.6.5 must be approved before the AO can issue an award to the applicant. i. The same SC members should review all applications for each specific award. If this is not possible or if there are established procedures for review by separate SCs, the Planner must document the reason and the procedure and submit it to the AO for the agreement files. j. The AO must provide the SC with a written review plan that specifies the criteria and methodology for reviewing the applications consistent with the information published in the NOFORFA or APS. k. The SC must prepare a written selection memorandum of each application as compared to the established review criteria. l. Templates and guides for the selection committee, cost application review, and award memorandum are available on USAID’s internal website at: xxxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/M/OAA/assistance-templates. m. The SC’s narrative in the selection memorandum must detail each application’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the review criteria. If the NOFO does not indicate the relative importance of the review criteria, then all criteria are equally weighted. If the NOFO assigned numerical values to the criteria, then the report must include a discussion of the numerical scoring, in addition to the narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses.RFA or APS does n. The SC must also include a discussion of its review procedure in their review documentation. o. Upon completion of the SC’s review, the Planner then must forward the selection memo to the AO, who must place a copy in the award file. p. AOs must ensure that the solicitation, selection, award, and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements follow all the requirements and guidance of 22 CFR 205, Participation By Religious Organizations In USAID Programs (see 303.3.28).