![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Request for Proposals (RFP): Agricultural Risk Management Education Competitive Grants Program, FY 2001
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19343-19354]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap01-160]
[[Page 19343]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Request for Proposals (RFP): Agriculture Risk Management Education
Competitive Grants Program, FY 2001; Notice
[[Page 19344]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Request for Proposals (RFP): Agricultural Risk Management
Education Competitive Grants Program, FY 2001
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.
ACTION: Notice of Request for Proposals and Request for Input.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests
proposals for the Agricultural Risk Management Education Competitive
Grants Program in fiscal year (FY) 2001. The program will focus on
comprehensive risk management education (RME) for agricultural
producers in the United States. It will address national, regional and
local risk management issues and encourage partnering in program
delivery. The amount available for this program in FY 2001 is
approximately $4,800,000.
This notice sets out the objectives for projects, the eligibility
criteria for projects and applicants, the application procedures, and
the set of instructions needed to apply for an Agricultural Risk
Management Education Competitive grant under this authority.
By this notice, CSREES is also soliciting comments regarding this
Request for Proposals (RFP) from any interested party. These comments
will be considered in the development of future RFP's for the program.
Comments should be submitted as provided for in the Addresses and Dates
portions of this notice.
DATES: Proposals must be received by COB on June 1, 2001 (5:00 p.m.
EST). Proposals received after this date will not be considered for
funding. Comments regarding this request for proposals are requested
within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received
after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals
submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is:
Agricultural Risk Management Education Competitive Grant Program; c/o
Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 1307 Waterfront
Center; 800 9th Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Agricultural Risk Management Education Competitive
Grant Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP
2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
Written user comments should be submitted by first-class mail to:
Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-
CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-
2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments, please
include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which
you are responding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested
parties are encouraged to contact: Dr. Donald A. West; National Program
Leader, Farm Business Management; Economic and Community Systems Unit;
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; STOP 2215; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;
Washington, DC 20250-2215; Telephone: (202) 720-7166; Fax: (202) 690-
3162; e-mail address: dwest@reeusda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Stakeholder Input
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund Availability
C. Definitions
D. Eligibility
E. Restrictions on Use of Funds
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
B. Program Description
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Material
B. Content of Proposals
C. Submission of Proposals
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
B. Evaluation Criteria
C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Additional Information
A. Access to Peer Review Information
B. Grant Awards
C. Use of Funds; Changes
D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
F. Regulatory Information
Stakeholder Input
Stakeholder input for this RFP was obtained through listening
sessions held in: Raleigh, North Carolina; Boise, Idaho; and Kansas
City, Missouri in September 2000. Input was obtained from: producers;
representatives of commodity organizations; representatives of colleges
and universities (e.g., faculty, extension educators, and
administrators); and representatives from the private sector. Written
and oral testimony at those sessions has been used extensively in the
development of this RFP. Transcripts of these sessions are available on
the national AgRisk Electronic Library/Website. The address is http://
www.agrisk.umn.edu.
In addition, CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this
solicitation of applications from any interested party. These comments
will be considered in the development of any future RFP for the
program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or her
designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
(7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit
and consider input on a current RFP from persons who conduct or use
agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating
future RFPs for competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as
provided for in the ``Addresses'' and ``Dates'' portions of this
Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under 10.500, Agricultural Risk Management Education
Competitive Grant Program.
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
Section 133 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, Pub.
L. 106-224, amended the Federal Crop Insurance Act to add section
524(a)(3), which requires the Secretary, acting through the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), to establish
a competitive grants program for the purpose of educating agricultural
producers about the full range of risk management activities. These
activities include futures, options, agricultural trade options, crop
insurance, cash forward contracting, debt reduction, production
diversification, farm resources risk reduction and other risk
management strategies.
[[Page 19345]]
Approximately $4,800,000 will be available for funding in FY 2001.
The RME program will bring the existing knowledge base to bear on
risk management issues faced by agricultural producers and expand the
program throughout the nation. Applicants are encouraged to recognize
the risk management education (RME) needs of all producers, including
small-scale and minority producers and women, while giving special
consideration to educational needs of producers who have had limited
exposure to risk management concepts, tools and strategies.
Subject to the availability of funds, organizations eligible to
apply for and receive grant awards are land-grant colleges or
universities, cooperative extension services, other colleges or
universities, and other qualified public and private entities with a
demonstrated capacity to develop and carry out educational programs for
agricultural producers.
B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund Availability
The program will support a wide range of extension education
activities in risk management for agricultural producers. The primary
purpose is to provide U.S. agricultural producers with the knowledge,
skills and tools needed to make informed risk management decisions for
their operations. Applicant activities should include: the use of
existing and the formation of new educational networks focused on
agricultural producers; the development of agricultural risk management
curricula and materials; the delivery of agricultural RME to producers
using one or more of the wide range of delivery methods; and the
verification of program impacts.
Priority will be given to projects that recognize and document the
RME needs of producers as they exist at regional, state and local
levels, and propose effective educational programs that address those
needs. Regionally based programs should be flexible while addressing
special needs as determined by: producer audiences; commodity mixes;
types of risks associated with production, marketing, financial, legal
and human resource conditions; and/or other factors that hold the
greatest potential for assisting producers.
There is no commitment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards.
C. Definitions
For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the
following definitions are applicable:
(1) Administrator means the Administrator of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is
delegated.
(2) Agricultural Risk Management means the informed use, as
appropriate, of the full range of agricultural risk management
activities, including futures, options, agricultural trade options,
crop insurance, cash forward contracting, debt reduction, production
diversification, farm resources risk reduction and other risk
management strategies, by agricultural producers. It includes those
risks encountered in the production, marketing, financial, legal, and
human resource(s) aspects of farm and ranch operations.
(3) Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any
employee of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify
grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
(4) Authorized organizational representative means the president,
director, chief executive officer, or other designated official of the
applicant organization, who has the authority to commit the resources
of the organization.
(5) Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months)
into which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting
purposes.
(6) Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including
the outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third
parties.
(7) Department or USDA means the United States Department of
Agriculture.
(8) Education activity means formal classroom instruction,
laboratory instruction, and practicum experience in the food and
agricultural sciences and other related matters such as faculty
development, student recruitment and services, curriculum development,
instructional materials and equipment, and innovative teaching
methodologies.
(9) Extension activity means an act or process that delivers
science-based knowledge and informal educational programs to people,
enabling them to make practical decisions.
(10) Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible
organization or individual to assist in meeting the costs of
conducting, for the benefit of the public, an identified project which
is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as
identified in these guidelines.
(11) Grantee means the organization designated in the grant award
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
(12) Matching means that portion of allowable project costs not
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind
contributions.
(13) Partnering means a joint effort among two or more
institutions, organizations and/or other entities with the capacity to
conduct projects intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the
program.
(14) Peer review means an evaluation of a proposed project for
scientific or technical quality and relevance performed by experts with
the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed
work or to give expert advice on the merits of a proposal.
(15) Peer review panel means a group of experts qualified by
training and/or experience in particular fields to evaluate eligible
proposals in those fields submitted under this RFP.
(16) Performance target means expected measurable accomplishments
that can be used to document the extent of change brought about by the
project.
(17) Principal investigator/Project director means the single
individual designated in the grant application and approved by the
Secretary who is responsible for the direction and management of the
project.
(18) Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent
by an authorized departmental officer as defined in (3) above.
(19) Producers means individuals, families, or other entities in
the U.S. engaged in the business of agricultural production and
marketing before the farm gate.
(20) Project means the particular activity within the scope of the
program supported by a grant award.
(21) Project period means the period, as stated in the award
document, during which Federal sponsorship begins and ends.
(22) Qualified Public and Private Entities means public or private
groups, organizations, or institutions that have established and
demonstrated capacities to conduct projects that accomplish the
purposes of the program as designated in these guidelines.
(23) Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is
delegated.
(24) Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions
of property or services provided by non-
[[Page 19346]]
Federal third parties, including real property, equipment, supplies and
other expendable property, directly benefitting and specifically
identifiable to a funded project or program.
D. Eligibility
Proposals are invited from qualified public and private entities.
This includes all colleges and universities, Federal, State, and local
agencies, nonprofit and for-profit private organizations or
corporations, and other entities.
Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based
on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an
applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program (e.g.,
debarment and suspension, a determination of non-responsibility based
on the information submitted).
E. Restrictions on Use of Funds
Program funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment
of research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in
such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or
construction of buildings or facilities.
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
1. Regional Centers
RME Centers will be supported/established in the Northeastern,
Southern, North Central and Western Regions of the United States. The
Regional RME Centers will be initially supported at a level of up to
$1.25 million for approximately one year at levels reflective of the
activities proposed. The extent of Center's proposed activities and the
amount of the award is expected to vary in accordance to the number of
producers in the region, the number of public and private institutions
and other partners involved, the types of agricultural risks that
prevail, the range of commodities and specialty crops involved and
other relevant factors. A Regional Centers proposal may call for the
establishment of a satellite center to meet the needs of specially
targeted audiences. The budget request should be at levels reflective
of the scope of the proposed activity, recognizing the program
complexity and the numbers and characteristics of targeted producers.
The Regional Centers are expected to conduct projects within their
region. These projects are to be solicited and selected for funding by
the RME Center recipient through a competitive process. The Centers may
also support special projects for training, coordination and
communication networks that are developed, with stakeholder input, and
conducted by the Centers.
Receipt of a Regional Center grant under this RFP is not a
guarantee of receipt of future grant funds under this program.
Applications for continuation grants under this program in future years
will be subject to competition.
2. Standard Projects
Approximately $960,000 is available for proposals for national or
multi-regional grants in FY 2001. Proposals can be up to three years in
length with a budget of not more than $300,000 for the full period
proposed.
B. Program Description
Proposals should build on effective programs on agricultural risk
management that have been developed within the Land Grant College and
University System and/or have evolved within the past three years with
support from the Risk Management Agency of USDA and involvement of
partners in the private sector. A national AgRisk Electronic Library
(Website: http://www.agrisk.umn.edu) established in 1998, provides
ready access to materials documenting these programs. The applicant
should focus on providing RME to producers, building on the educational
base and networks that have been established. This expanded program
will take place through the four Regional Centers and the series of
projects funded at the national, multi-state or state levels through
Standard Project grants.
Regional Risk Management Education Centers
The USDA, using stakeholder input, has placed a high priority on
the establishment of Regional RME Centers as a means of meeting the
specific risk management education needs that exist within regions. The
Centers will assist the USDA and its other partners to conduct a
national RME program to address regional, state and local needs. The
process to develop the Regional Centers will begin in FY 2001 with the
formation of four geographically based Regional Centers with one each
in the Northeastern, Southern, North Central and Western Regions of the
United States. The establishment of Regional Centers should address
specific regional risk management education needs, diverse audiences,
commodity and enterprise mixes, and other conditions that exist at the
regional, state and local levels. Educational programs will cover the
full range of risk management activities, including futures, options,
agricultural trade options, crop insurance, cash forward contracting,
debt reduction, production diversification, farm resources risk
reduction, and other risk management strategies.
Development and delivery of effective RME programs must take into
account regional, state and local issues affecting producers as well as
common RME components that exist across the nation. The Centers should
facilitate rapid feedback from producers and other stakeholders within
the region, and tailor the RME program to meet specific and emerging
needs.
Regional RME Centers will have primary responsibility for
development and implementation of agricultural RME programs within
their respective regions. However, smaller satellite centers,
coordinating with the Regional Center, may be established to meet the
needs of specially targeted audiences. Regional RME Centers will be the
locus for building partnerships among pubic and private entities. The
Centers will solicit and select regional projects through a competitive
process taking into consideration stakeholder input. The Centers should
promote collaboration that includes the exchange of materials and
information, open communication, and integration of activities around
RME issues within the region. Centers should bring together the
expertise and knowledge needed to address RME issues, drawing from
regional sources and from national or multi-regional projects that
provide broad or specialized knowledge for a particular situation.
The four Regional RME Centers will be the primary vehicle for
delivering RME to agricultural producers recognizing the special needs,
audiences, commodities, production and marketing conditions and other
regional factors that must be considered in developing and delivering
effective RME programs. They will be expected to verify activities and
report program results on a continuing basis.
Applicants for the four Regional RME Centers should present plans
that demonstrate their program and administrative capacity to solicit,
select and support a set of RME projects that address the RME
priorities within their region. These plans should indicate how RME
coverage will be provided to all producers within the region and should
recognize the role of women in risk management decision-making. They
should give special consideration to targeted producer audiences,
including small-scale and minority producers that have special RME
needs.
[[Page 19347]]
Proposals will be expected to meet the following objectives:
1. Provide regional RME program leadership and coordination,
including a plan for reaching agricultural producers with RME programs.
This includes developing and implementing mechanisms that identify
agricultural RME needs that are specific to producers within the
region. Applicants should recognize the importance of specialty crops
within the region and risks associated with them. An emphasis should be
placed on the development and implementation of programs to reach
producers with little or no prior exposure to RME, and that recognizes
minority producers and the role of women, spouses and the family in
decision-making.
2. Give attention to RME needs of specially targeted audiences
including small-scale and minority producers and to specific types of
risks, commodities and other conditions that exist within the region.
This may involve the development of satellite center(s) within the
region to provide more direct focus for associated programs. Focus on
specially targeted audiences will include the development and/or
acquisition of relevant materials and curricula, and providing updates
on changes in crop insurance and other risk management programs in
formats that communicate with these audiences.
3. Establish an entity, such as an Advisory Council, that
represents stakeholders and will ensure that planning, project
selection and funding determined at the regional level occurs with a
broad base of support consistent with stakeholder needs. Plans should
include procedures for regional representation on a national
coordinating body.
4. Develop and implement a competitive process for selection of
regional projects and allocation of regional funds. This process must
be consistent with the requirements and guidelines established for the
entire RME program.
5. Promote partnering among public and private entities within the
region.
6. Conduct regional training workshops on existing or emerging risk
management topics, as needed.
7. Establish a regionally-based RME program verification system and
communication network that will document program results and promote
communication within and across regions, and nationally.
Proposed budgets for the Regional RME Center grants may include
funding for the Center Director and support staff. Additional funding
may be used to support Center activities including needs assessment,
stakeholder input and guidance, regional competitive processes,
regional training efforts and materials development and other necessary
activities conducted by the Center.
Standard Projects
Approximately $960,000 has been allocated to support Standard RME
Projects. These projects must have nationwide or multi-state
applicability and complement the entire Agricultural RME Competitive
Grants program. Requested funds for a single proposal for a national
project cannot exceed a total of $300,000 for a duration of up to three
years. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities
proposed. These projects are expected to address special and emerging
issues, foster nationwide exchanges of RME information and materials,
enhance verification and reporting of results, and promote coordination
across regional programs while avoiding duplication of efforts.
Standard Projects will be encouraged to coordinate with the regional
projects and complement cross-regional activities. Proposals that build
on existing information networks and offer innovative or expanded
activities are encouraged.
Standard Project proposals will be expected to meet one or more of
the following objectives:
1. Meet a specialized RME need that is either national, multi-
regional, or multi-state in scope, e.g. educational programs focused on
legal or human resource risks that occur in non-contiguous regions or
states and that have common characteristics that can be addressed in a
single project;
2. Identify emerging agricultural risk management issues with
nationwide implications and develop innovative approaches and
educational materials to assist producers in managing them;
3. Provide a national source of RME information, materials and
software that may be readily accessed nationally and internationally
through electronic media;
4. Develop and maintain a national database that compiles results
from Regional RME Centers and other projects, including verification of
accomplishments, and compile reports that can be used to inform
stakeholders;
5. Conduct national conferences and/or workshops that enhance
sharing of regional RME program results, promote program coordination
and train educators on new risk management tools and strategies.
C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
Funded projects will be expected to verify program accomplishments.
Accomplishments can include expanded awareness of the importance of
risk management and greater knowledge of risk management tools and
strategies among program participants. Evidence of actual or intended
beneficial changes in their risk management behavior is particularly
desirable, in addition to documentation of producer involvement in
program activities. The evidence is expected to include participants'
assessment of the value of program materials and instruction, and
suggestions for addition or deletion of topics and instructional
materials.
Grantees must prepare semi-annual reports that document significant
activities or events that show movement toward achieving goals and
objectives of the project. The reports should specify performance
targets for that period and contain evidence that verifies the extent
to which these targets have been met. Regional projects should
contribute regularly to a national database which shows the combined
impact of the program.
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Material
Program application materials are available at the CSREES website
(www.reeusda.gov/RME). If you do not have access to our web page or
have trouble downloading material, you may contact the Proposal
Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-
5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you
are requesting forms for the Fiscal Year 2001 Agricultural Risk
Management Education Competitive Grants Program. These materials may
also be requested via Internet by sending a message with your name,
mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. State
that you want a copy of the Program Description and application
materials (orange book) for the Fiscal Year 2001 Agricultural Risk
Management Education Competitive Grants Program.
B. Content of Proposals
1. General
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to
more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic,
consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page
using
[[Page 19348]]
standard size (8\1/2\" x 11") white paper, one inch margins, typed or
word processed using no type smaller than 12 point font, and single or
double spaced. Use an easily readable font face (e.g., Geneva,
Helvetica, Times Roman).
(b) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary,
budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered
sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner.
Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in
one package, along with 10 copies of the ``Project Summary'' as a
separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations
(photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to
prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
2. Cover Page
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an ``Application for
Funding'', Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the
original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing
principal investigator(s)/project director(s) (PI/PD) and the
authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary
authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant
resources to the project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose
signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any
resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the
bottom of the ``Application for Funding'' form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant
database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately.
The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for
errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Legal Name of Organization (Block 1). Be sure to indicate the
full name of the submitting organization, e.g. University of (state),
Cooperative Extension Service.
(b) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be
brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the
effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of
nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology
should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases
such as ``investigation of,'' ``research on,'' ``education for,'' or
``outreach that'' should not be used.
(c) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). ``RME'' or Risk
Management Education Competitive Grants Program.
(d) Program Area and Number (Block 8). Leave blank.
(e) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new.''
(f) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block
15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PD's creates
problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-
PI/PDs, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore
discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary,
but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will
assist in the processing of the proposal.
(g) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be
placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will
carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted
by an 1862 Land-Grant institution but the work will be performed in a
department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural
experiment station, box ``03'' should be checked. If portions of the
effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that
applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(h) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms
of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within
USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has
been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application
to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the
identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting
your proposal to other potential sponsors will not prejudice its review
by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be
provided. Complete the ``Application for Funding,'' Form CSREES-661, in
its entirety.
(i) One copy of the ``Application for Funding'' form must contain
the original signatures (in ink) of the PI/PD(s) and authorized
organizational representative for the applicant organization.
3. Table of Contents
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal
must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page.
The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of
the proposal. Page numbers should begin with the first page of the
Project Description.
4. Project Summary
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on
a separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of
Contents and should not be numbered. The names and institutions of all
PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be listed on this form, in addition to the
title of the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific
description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on:
overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish
the project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the Agricultural
Risk Management Education Competitive Grants Program. The importance of
a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
5. Project Description
The written text may not exceed 15 single-or double-spaced pages of
written text for Standard Project grant proposals and 20 single- or
double-spaced pages for Regional Centers proposals including figures
and tables, but excluding citations.
Standard Projects
Each Standard Project proposal's Project Description should contain
the following:
a. Introduction--A clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and
supporting objectives of the proposed activities should be included.
Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates the need for the
proposed project. Describe ongoing or recently completed significant
activities related to the proposed project, including the work of key
project personnel. Preliminary data/information pertinent to the
proposed project should be included.
b. Relevance and significance--The objectives' specific
relationship to the goals of the RME program should be stated. Include
a description of the significance of the activity and its value in
improving agriculture. Clearly describe the potential impact of the
project.
c. Approach--The activities proposed or problems being addressed
must be clearly stated and the approaches being applied clearly
described. The following should be included: (1) A description of the
activities proposed; (2) methods to be used in carrying out the
project, including the feasibility of the methods; (3) expected
outcomes; (4) means by which results will be analyzed, assessed, or
interpreted; and (5) how results or products will be used.
d. Project Timetable--The proposal should outline all important
phases as
[[Page 19349]]
a function of time, year by year, for the entire project, including
periods beyond the grant funding period.
e. Verification and Monitoring--Provide a plan for assessing and
verifying the accomplishments of the stated proposal objectives during
the project and describe ways to determine the effectiveness of the end
results during and upon termination of the project.
f. Collaborative Arrangements--Identify collaborations and provide
a full explanation of the nature of the collaborations.
g. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved--Cooperative,
multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary applications are encouraged.
Identify each institutional unit contributing to the project and
designate the lead institution or institutional unit. When appropriate,
the project should be coordinated with the efforts of other State,
Regional and/or national programs. Clearly define the roles and
responsibilities of each institutional partner of the project team.
h. Facilities and Equipment--All facilities which are available for
use or assignment to the project during the requested period of support
should be reported and described briefly. All items of major equipment
or instrumentation available for use or assignment to the proposed
project should be itemized. In addition, items of nonexpendable
equipment needed to conduct and bring the project to a successful
conclusion should be listed, including dollar amounts and, if funds are
requested for their acquisition, justified.
Regional RME Centers
Each Regional RME Center proposal should include all the above
items required for a Standard Project proposal, but should also include
the following:
a. Substantiate the need for a Regional Center as opposed to a
single project approach including how the consortia will add value over
funding of separate efforts.
b. Management Plan--It is expected that centers projects will
require more extensive and complicated coordination and collaboration
than is typically proposed for Standard Projects. Therefore, explain
how the Center will be managed to ensure efficient administration of
the grant and how activities will be integrated most effectively. The
Management Plan should be inserted as the last part of the Project
Description.
c. Evaluation and Monitoring of Project Administration--In addition
to the verification and monitoring of accomplishments associated with
the Center, evaluation and monitoring of the administration of the
Center must also be included. This description should include how funds
and resources will be allocated so that collaborative participation of
all parties throughout the duration of the project is ensured. This
description should be placed after the Verification and Monitoring
Section described above under Standard Projects.
6. Appendices to Project Description
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are
directly germane to the proposed project (e.g. documentation of
previous related program impacts, widely distributed materials, or
other brief indicators of previous program effectiveness.)
7. Key Personnel
The following should be included, as applicable:
a. The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD and/or collaborator
should be described;
b. An estimate of time commitment for each PI/PD and/or
collaborator including current and pending projects; and
c. Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate and other professional
personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are
expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought
for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages in
length, excluding publication lists. List only those technical
publications that have relevance to the proposed project. All authors
should be listed in the same order as they appear on each paper cited,
along with the title and complete reference as these usually appear in
journals.
8. Conflict-of-Interest List
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals
involved in the project (i.e., each individual submitting a vitae in
response to item 7.(c) of this part). Each list should be on a separate
page and include alphabetically the full names of the individuals in
the following categories: (a) all collaborators on projects within the
past four years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all
co-authors on publications within the past four years, including
pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field
with whom you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the
past four years who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and (d)
all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within the past four years
(some may wish to call these life-time conflicts). This form is
necessary to assist program staff in excluding from proposal review
those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with the personnel in
the grant proposal. The Program Director must be informed of any
additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the proposal is
submitted.
9. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual Arrangements
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or
collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be
fully explained and justified. In addition, evidence should be provided
that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services.
If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal
narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services,
a statement of work to be performed, the rate of pay, and a resume or
curriculum vita for each consultant. For purposes of proposal
development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project personnel
and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative arrangements
and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be
explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work
and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive
programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third
party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units
of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of
your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are
excluded from this requirement.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please
note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR Part
3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to
subrecipients. Required clauses from Sections 40-48 (``Procurement
Standards'') and Appendix A (``Contract Provisions'') to 7 CFR Part
3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and it is
necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to
debarment/suspension. In addition, Form AD-1048 must be completed by
each subcontractor or consultant and retained by the grantee.
[[Page 19350]]
10. Budget
a. Budget Form--Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance
with instructions provided. A budget form is required for each year of
requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required
detailing the requested total support for the overall project period.
The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be
requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that
the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under
the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles,
and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the
successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also
include a Budget Narrative to justify their budgets (see section b
below.)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal
budget(s):
1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges and
may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project in
proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If
salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel
and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces
provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or
rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in
addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period
of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the
normal policies of the institution.
2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit costs
if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide that
organizational contributions to employee benefits (e.g. social security
and retirement) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit costs may be
included only for those personnel whose salaries are charged as a
direct cost to the project.
3. Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible
nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged
directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an
acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower, depending on institutional
policy) or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation
or other nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by
description and estimated cost in the Budget Narrative. This applies to
revised budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may
change.
4. Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and
supplies which are required to carry out the project should be
indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the Budget
Narrative.
5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to
project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If travel
is proposed, the destination, the specific purpose of the travel, a
brief itinerary, inclusive dates of travel, and estimated cost must be
provided for each trip. Airfare allowances normally will not exceed
round-trip jet economy air accommodations. U.S. flag carriers must be
used when available. See 7 CFR Part 3015.205(b)(4) for further
guidance.
6. Publication Costs/Page Charges. Include anticipated costs
associated with publications in a journal (preparing and publishing
results including page charges, necessary illustrations, and the cost
of a reasonable number of coverless reprints) and audio-visual
materials that will be produced. Photocopying and printing brochures,
etc., should be shown in Section I., ``All Other Direct Costs'' of Form
CSREES-55.
7. Computer (ADPE) Costs. Reimbursement for the costs of using
specialized facilities (such as a university--or department--controlled
computer mainframe or data processing center) may be requested if such
services are required for completion of the work.
8. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not
included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated
costs and justified in the Budget Narrative. This also applies to
revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change.
Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual
costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile,
shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are
encouraged to consult the ``Instructions for Completing Form CSREES-55,
Budget,'' of the Application Kit for detailed guidance relating to this
budget category.
9. Indirect Costs. If available, the current rate negotiated with
the cognizant Federal negotiating agency should be used. Indirect costs
may not exceed the negotiated rate. If a negotiated rate is used, the
percentage and base should be indicated in the space allotted under
item K. on the Budget Form. If no rate has been negotiated, a
reasonable dollar amount for indirect costs may be requested, which
will be subject to approval by USDA. In the latter case, if a proposal
is recommended for funding, an indirect cost rate proposal must be
submitted prior to award to support the amount of indirect costs
requested. CSREES will request an indirect cost rate proposal and
provide instructions, as necessary.
A proposer may elect not to charge indirect costs and, instead,
charge only direct costs to grant funds. Grantees electing this
alternative, however, will not be allowed to charge, as direct costs,
indirect costs that otherwise would be in the grantee's indirect cost
pool under the applicable Office of Management and Budget cost
principles. If indirect costs are not charged, the phrase ``None
requested'' should be written in this space. Having requested no
indirect costs, a grantee will not be permitted at a later date to
revise its budget to allow for indirect costs.
b. Budget Narrative--All budget categories, with the exception of
Indirect Costs for which support is requested, must be individually
listed (with costs) and justified on a separate sheet of paper and
placed immediately behind the Budget Form. Explanations of project
matching, including in-kind contributions, are to be included in this
section.
c. Matching Funds--Matching under this program is encouraged but
not required. Applicants proposing to provide matching support should
show the sources and amount of all matching from outside the applicant
organization. This should be summarized on a separate page and placed
in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge
arrangements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the
summary of the matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be
established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants
should refer to OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Tribal
Governments, A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, and
for for-profit organizations, the cost principles in the Federal
Acquisition Regulations at 48 CFR Subpart 31.2 (see 7 CFR 3015.194).
11. Current and Pending Support
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current
public or private support (including in-house support) to which key
personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their
time, whether or not salary support for
[[Page 19351]]
person(s) involved is included in the budget. Analogous information
must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered
by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible
sponsors, including other USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent
submission of identical or similar proposals to the possible sponsors
will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by the CSREES for this
purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially
with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by
another organization or agency will not be funded under this program.
Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending
section of the form.
12. Assurance Statement(s), (Form CSREES-662)
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects
require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before
funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other
situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is
expected that some applications submitted in response to these
guidelines will involve the following:
a. Protection of Human Subjects--Responsibility for safeguarding
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing
organization. Guidance on this issue is contained in the National
Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, as amended, and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Department under 7 CFR part 1c. If you
propose to use human subjects for experimental purposes in your
project, you should check the ``yes'' box in Block 21 of Form CSREES-
661 and complete Section C of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project
involving human subjects results in a grant award, funds will be
released only after the appropriate Institutional Review Board has
approved the project.
13. Certifications
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing
certifications required by 7 CFR Part 3017, as amended, regarding
Debarment and Suspension and Drug-Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018,
regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the
application package for informational purposes only. These forms should
not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661
your organization is providing the required certifications. If the
project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/
consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for
retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
14. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing NEPA), the
environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES
so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In
some cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be
required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the
requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is
needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the
possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary;
therefore, Form CSREES-1234, ``NEPA Exclusions Form,'' must be included
in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that
the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons
therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project
falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be
identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be
included as the last page of this proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,
CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if
substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
C. Submission of Proposals
1. When To Submit (Deadline Date)
Proposals must be received by COB on June 1, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST).
Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding.
2. What To Submit
An original and 14 copies must be submitted. In addition submit 10
copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals
and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
3. Where To Submit
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals
via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the
USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Agricultural
Risk Management Education Competitive Grants Program; c/o Proposal
Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre;
800 9th Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Agricultural Risk Management Education Competitive
Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP
2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore,
applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where
designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address
is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by
letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number,
please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant
does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission
deadline, please contact the Program Director.
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
Each proposal will be evaluated using a two-part process. First,
each proposal will be screened to ensure that it meets the
administrative requirements as set forth in this request for proposals.
Second, a panel will consider the relevance, technical merits and
management/delivery capacity identified in the proposal.
Priority consideration will be given to recipients providing
matching, either cash or in-kind, that is commensurate with the
project's scope and the organization's resources.
The peer review panel will be comprised of representatives from
USDA and other federal agencies, agricultural producers and/or
commodity organizations, experts from colleges and universities, and
others representing public and private entities as needed.
[[Page 19352]]
Overall, peer review panel members will be selected based upon
their training and experience in relevant education or extension fields
taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of formal
scientific, technical education, and/or extension experience of the
individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in
relevant education and/or extension activities; (b) the need to include
as peer reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within
relevant education, and extension fields; (c) the need to include as
reviewers other experts (e.g. producers and operators of related
agribusinesses) who can assess relevance and efficacy of the proposals
to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as
peer reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g.,
colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private
profit and non-profit organizations), and geographic locations; (e) the
need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups with
regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age
distribution; and (f) the need to include members that can judge the
effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each
proposal.
B. Evaluation Criteria
1. Regional RME Education Center Proposals
Proposals for RME Centers will be evaluated based on the criteria
described below.
a. Focused Development and Delivery of Relevant Risk Management
Education Programs to Agricultural Producers--40 points
Focus on Producers.
Factors include demonstrated understanding of agricultural RME
needs including use of feedback mechanisms that identify emerging needs
of producers and indicate program relevance and effectiveness.
Programs targeted to Regional Agricultural Risk Management
Education Needs.
Proposals should identify how RME programming will address
regional, state and local risk management issues recognizing
educational needs associated with specially targeted audiences,
including minorities, women and other family members, and with types of
agricultural risks associated with specialty crops and climatic
conditions.
Use of RME Materials Appropriate for Regional Educational
Needs.
Factors to be considered will include ready access to existing RME
materials that apply to regional risk management issues and the ability
to develop additional materials as needed.
Demonstrated Ability to Effectively Deliver Nonformal RME
Programs To End-Users.
Successful applicants will exhibit a strong track record of
attracting end-users to educational offerings and evidence of effective
communication and interaction with participants.
b. Management Capacity To Develop and Maintain a Regional Risk
Management Center With Networks To Deliver RME Programs--30 points
Documentation of how Producer RME needs will be identified
and addressed.
Suggested approaches may include the use of surveys and feedback
mechanisms to identify RME needs and the formation of Advisory Councils
to provide guidance for competitive processes that solicit and select
projects at the regional level. Factors that will be considered include
the balanced representation of stakeholders within the Region and a
defined role for advisory groups in the decision-making processes for
Center activities.
Use of a Competitive Process to Select Projects at the
Regional Level.
This process should ensure that public and private entities have
equal access to opportunities to submit proposals for regional RME
projects, that regional RME objectives are clearly identified, and that
partnering and joint efforts are encouraged.
Development of a Regional RME Delivery Network.
This process should ensure that public and private entities
involved in RME participate in an institutional/organizational
framework that can coordinate delivery of RME programs to agricultural
producers.
Expertise and Institutional/Organizational Support.
Center staff should possess adequate training, experience and the
capacity to develop and manage regional RME programs, conduct training,
and participate in national coordination activities. Institutional/
organizational support including facilities should be available.
c. Verification of Program Impacts--15 points
Definition of Performance Targets.
Performance targets should be closely related to program objectives
and expected outcomes; and should focus on change in the knowledge and
behavior of program participants. Indicators may include participant
assessments of improved knowledge and stated intentions to alter
behavior that improves their management of risks.
Regular and Accurate Reporting of RME Program Activities
and Impacts.
The process should include the formation of an accountability and
reporting system integrated with program objectives and focus on
performance, and its use for semi-annual and/or requested reporting at
regional and national levels.
d. Effective Regional Communication Networks and Linkage to a National
Network--15 points
Capacity to Provide Effective RME Communication at Intra-
and Inter-regional levels.
This includes use of media outlets and the distribution of regional
RME materials that have nationwide application.
Establishment of a Regional Communication Source.
This source should be readily accessible by regional project
directors and should be linked to the national Agriculture Risk Library
(Website).
Participation in National Conferences and Workshops.
This activity should promote program coordination and sharing of
materials. Priority will be given to projects that are multistate,
multi-institutional, multidisciplinary or projects that integrate
agricultural research, education and extension.
2. Standard Project Proposals
Proposals for Agricultural Risk Management Education national
projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
a. Addresses a Nationwide or Multi-State RME (Special) Need--40 points
Identifies Nationwide RME Special Needs and Proposes
Actions To Meet Them.
Successful proposals will address a special or emerging need that
has nationwide applicability and/or cannot effectively or efficiently
be addressed within a single region. Suggested topics may include
education on risks associated with use of agricultural labor that
prevail in noncontiguous states or regions; legal risks that are common
across regions, and agricultural risks associated with new
technologies. Proposals that complement regional efforts such as
maintenance/expansion of a national AgRisk electronic library, design
and conduct of national training conferences, formation of a national
project verification and reporting system, and development of distance
learning techniques applicable to RME audiences will be welcomed.
[[Page 19353]]
Addressing Emerging RME Issues.
Proposals should indicate how the RME issue can be addressed,
solutions proposed and results/materials be made available nationwide
within the time and funding limits set for Standard Projects.
b. Program Complementarity and Innovative Characteristics--20 points
Complements the Total RME Program.
Factors to be considered include the extent to which the proposal
indicates how the purpose and objectives complement the total RME
program in an effective manner.
Adopts Innovative Approaches and Methods.
Consideration will be given to those proposals which identify
innovative approaches and methods that can lead to more effective and
efficient delivery of RME.
c. Capacity To Conduct Projects and Verify Results--40 points
Expertise and Support.
Entities submitting successful proposals will employ, or have
access to, personnel with knowledge and experience in agricultural RME
and who are able to communicate effectively with other RME projects
across the nation. Necessary support personnel and infrastructure are
required. Ready access and familiarity with existing RME databases and
the ability to use them appropriately to achieve project results is
desirable.
Verification of Impacts and Distribution of Results.
Demonstrated capacity to assemble, summarize, and present data that
verify RME program impacts and to deliver project materials and results
to stakeholders and other RME project leaders with the ability to
communicate effectively with a wide range of stakeholders.
C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to
prevent any actual or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may impact
review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts-of-
interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution
shall be determined by reference to the January 1999 issue of the Code
Book for Compatible Statistical Reporting of Federal Science and
Engineering Support to Colleges, Universities, and Nonprofit
Institutions, prepared by Quantum Research Corporation for the National
Science Foundation.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as
proposal content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential,
except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted
by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain
confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names
of reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the
fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way
that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any
particular proposal.
Part V--Additional Information
A. Access To Review Information
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers,
will be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been
completed.
B. Grant Awards
(1) General
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding
official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible
applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the
procedures set forth in this RFP. The date specified by the
Administrator as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than
September 30. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated
on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so
that project goals may be attained within the funded project period.
All funds granted by CSREES under this RFP shall be expended solely for
the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the
approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and
conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and
the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015, 3016, and 3019 of
7 CFR).
(2) Organizational Management Information
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be
submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility
determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP,
if such information has not been provided previously under this or
another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended
for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward
process.
(3) Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(a) Legal name and address of performing organization or
institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the
terms of this request for proposals;
(b) Title of project;
(c) Name(s) and address(es) of PI/PD(s) chosen to direct and
control approved activities;
(d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department
intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for
funds;
(f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by
the Administrator during the project period;
(g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to
carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the
purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be
prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the
grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
All grants awarded under this program will be awarded using a
funding mechanism whereby CSREES agrees to support a specified level of
effort for a predetermined time period without additional support at a
future date.
C. Use of Funds; Changes
(1) Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the
grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another
person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or
expenditure of grant funds.
(2) Changes in Project Plans
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key
project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to
changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to
expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee
and/or the PI/PD(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with
this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized
Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
[[Page 19354]]
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by
the grantee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO prior to
effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be
approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the
grantee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO prior to effecting
such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic
work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether
or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee
and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers,
unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended
by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional
period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill
the purposes of an approved project. Any extension of time shall be
conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing
by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of
a grant, but in no case shall a grant period of performance exceed 5
years.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to
instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or
expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the
applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or in the
grant award.
D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant
proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under
this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1.1--USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information
Act.
7 CFR part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129
regarding debt collection.
7 CFR part 15, subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,
implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as
well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of
Departmental financial assistance.
7 CFR part 3016--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR part 3017--USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment
and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for
Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR part 3018--USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying.
Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification
related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants,
cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit
Organizations.
7 CFR part 3052--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133,
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3407--CSREES procedures to implement the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR
part 15b (USDA implementation of statute)--prohibiting discrimination
based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally
assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR
part 401).
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record
of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request.
Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential,
privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the
extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant
wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary
should be clearly marked within the proposal. The original copy of a
proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the CSREES
for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a
proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to
the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time
prior to the final action thereon.
F. Regulatory Information
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR
part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is
excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements
contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No.
0524-0022.
Done at Washington, D.C., this 9th day of April 2001.
K. Jane Coulter,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
[FR Doc. 01-9197 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P