Common use of Review and Selection Process Clause in Contracts

Review and Selection Process. A team consisting of qualified, unbiased experts will review all applications. The review process will include the following:  Applications will be screened to determine eligibility for further review using the criteria detailed in Section III, Eligibility Information, of this solicitation.  An evaluation rubric will be developed by HHS, which will consist of critical elements identified in Section V, Application Review Information, of this solicitation. This evaluation rubric will be used by qualified, unbiased experts in their review of all applications. Applicants will receive a score of up to 200 points. The objective review panel may include federal reviewers and/or non-federal reviewers.  The results of the objective review of applications by qualified experts will be used in conjunction with the other factors noted in the FOA (See Section II. 7, Factors Affecting Application Selection) to determine the technical merit of the applications and advise the approving HHS official. Final award decisions will be made by a HHS program official. In making these decisions, the HHS program official will take into consideration: the regulatory requirement that there be at least two types of Navigators in each Marketplace and that one of these Navigators be a community and consumer-focused nonprofit; populations the applicant expects to serve; ranking of the applicant based upon recommendations of the review panel; reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, to include performance under a current Navigator award; pre-award business review; the reasonableness of the estimated cost to the government and anticipated results; and the likelihood the proposed cost will result in the benefits expected.  Successful applicants will receive one cooperative agreement award.  Unsuccessful applicants will be advised by letter or electronic mail (sent to the individual signing the application on behalf of the organization) that its application will not be held for further consideration or be funded. The decision not to award a grant, or to award a grant at a particular funding level, is discretionary and is not subject to appeal to any OPDIV or HHS official or board.

Review and Selection Process. A team consisting of qualified, unbiased experts will review all applications. The review process will include the following:  • Applications will be screened to determine eligibility for further review using the criteria detailed in Section III, Eligibility Information, of this solicitation.  • An evaluation rubric will be developed by HHS, which will consist of critical elements identified in Section V, Application Review Information, of this solicitation. This evaluation rubric will be used by qualified, unbiased experts in their review of all applications. Applicants will receive a score of up to 200 points. The objective review panel may include federal reviewers and/or non-federal reviewers.  • The results of the objective review of applications by qualified experts will be used in conjunction with the other factors noted in the FOA (See see Section II. 7, Factors Affecting Application Selection) to determine the technical merit of the applications and advise the approving HHS official. Final award decisions will be made by a HHS program official. In making these decisions, the HHS program official will take into consideration: ranking of the applicant based upon recommendations of the review panel; the regulatory requirement that there be at least two types of Navigators in each Marketplace and that one of these Navigators be a community and consumer-consumer- focused nonprofit; populations the applicant expects to serve; ranking of the applicant based upon recommendations of the review panel; reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, to include performance under a current and/or previous Navigator award; pre-award business reviewand risk assessment review (see below for additional information); the reasonableness of the estimated cost to the government and anticipated results; and the likelihood the proposed cost will result in the benefits expected.  Successful • As noted in 45 CFR Part 75, CMS will do a review of risks posed by applicants will receive one cooperative agreement prior to award.  Unsuccessful applicants In evaluating risks posed by applicants, CMS will be advised by letter or electronic mail (sent to consider the individual signing the application on behalf below factors as part of the organization) that its application will not be held for further consideration or be funded. The decision not to award a grant, or to award a grant risk assessment (applicant should review the factors in their entirety at a particular funding level, is discretionary and is not subject to appeal to any OPDIV or HHS official or board.xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=30572eb720fd047981e26dcf89370678&ty=HTML&h

Review and Selection Process. A team consisting Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement and Grants Office (PGO), and for responsiveness by NCBDDD. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet submission requirements and will not receive further consideration. Applications, which are complete and responsive, will be subjected to a preliminary evaluation (triage) by a scientific review group (Special Emphasis Panel—SEP) composed of qualified, unbiased experts external (non-CDC) peer reviewers to determine if each application is of sufficient technical and scientific merit to warrant further review by the SEP. Applications that are determined to be non-competitive will not be considered. Subsequent to the review all applicationsmeeting CDC will notify the investigator/program director and the official signing for the applicant organization of that determination. Applications determined to be competitive will then be reviewed and scored under the formal SEP peer review process. The review process will include the following:  Applications will be screened to determine eligibility for further review using the criteria detailed in Section III, Eligibility Information, of this solicitation.  An evaluation rubric will be developed by HHS, which will consist of critical elements identified in Section V, Application Review Information, of this solicitation. This evaluation rubric will be used by qualified, unbiased experts in their review of all applications. Applicants will receive a score of up to 200 points. The objective review panel may include federal reviewers and/or non-federal reviewers.  The results of the objective review of applications by qualified experts will be used in conjunction with the other factors noted in the FOA (See Section II. 7, Factors Affecting Application Selection) to determine the technical merit of the applications and advise the approving HHS official. Final award decisions will be made by a HHS program official. In making these decisions, the HHS program official will take into consideration: the regulatory requirement that there be at least two types of Navigators in each Marketplace and that one of these Navigators be a community and consumer-focused nonprofit; populations the applicant expects to serve; ranking of the applicant based upon recommendations of the review panel; reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, to include performance under a current Navigator award; pre-award business review; the reasonableness of the estimated cost to the government and anticipated results; and the likelihood the proposed cost fully competitive applications will result in the benefits expecteddetermination of the score and ranking for those applications.  Successful applicants will receive one cooperative agreement award.  Unsuccessful applicants Subsequent to the formal peer review of all competitive applications by the SEP a second level of review will be advised conducted by letter or electronic mail (sent senior CDC program staff. This review will not revisit the scientific merit of the applications, but will evaluate the overall budget implications of the applications against funding ceilings and may not make recommendations as to the individual signing the application on behalf final ordering of the organizationtop ranked applications for part A and part B, they may not actually change the ranking order (or scores). It is possible that the second level of review may recommend funding the highest ranked proposal under part A (or part B) and also funding that same organization under its application will not for the other part of the announcement. That could occur in the event that an organization with the highest ranking in one part ranks among the highest three applicants in the other part. This would be held for further consideration or done to take into account economies of scale and establish the capacity to conduct non-redundant programs to best meet the purposes of this announcement. In such a case, the total approved budget may be funded. The decision not less than the sum of the two applications due to award a grant, or to award a grant at a particular funding level, is discretionary staff time commitment duplications and is not subject to appeal to any OPDIV or HHS official or boardother considerations.

Review and Selection Process. A team consisting of qualified, unbiased experts will review all applications. The review process will include the following:  • Applications will be screened to determine eligibility for further review using the criteria detailed in Section III, Eligibility Information, of this solicitation.  • An evaluation rubric will be developed by HHS, which will consist of critical elements identified in Section V, Application Review Information, of this solicitation. This evaluation rubric will be used by qualified, unbiased experts in their review of all applications. Applicants will receive a score of up to 200 points. The objective review panel may include federal reviewers and/or non-federal reviewers.  • The results of the objective review of applications by qualified experts will be used in conjunction with the other factors noted in the FOA (See Section II. 7, Factors Affecting Application Selection) to determine the technical merit of the applications and advise the approving HHS official. Final award decisions will be made by a HHS program official. In making these decisions, the HHS program official will take into consideration: the regulatory requirement that there be at least two types of Navigators in each Marketplace and that one of these Navigators be a community and consumer-focused nonprofit; populations the applicant expects to serve; ranking of the applicant based upon recommendations of the review panel; reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, to include performance under a current Navigator award; pre-award business review; the reasonableness of the estimated cost to the government and anticipated results; and the likelihood the proposed cost will result in the benefits expected.  • Successful applicants will receive one cooperative agreement award.  • Unsuccessful applicants will be advised by letter or electronic mail (sent to the individual signing the application on behalf of the organization) that its application will not be held for further consideration or be funded. The decision not to award a grant, or to award a grant at a particular funding level, is discretionary and is not subject to appeal to any OPDIV or HHS official or board.