U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Reclamation
Contact Us | Site Index
Bureau of Reclamation Banner
Financial Assistance Process

Substantial Involvement

Substantial Involvement Exists If:

  1. Responsibility for the management, control, or direction of the project is shared by Reclamation and the recipient; or
  2. Responsibility for the performance of the project is shared by Reclamation and the recipient.

Providing technical assistance or guidance of a programmatic nature does not constitute substantial involvement if:

  1. The recipient is not required to follow such guidance;
  2. The technical assistance or guidance is not expected to result in continuing Reclamation involvement in the performance of the project; or
  3. The technical assistance or guidance pertains solely to the administrative requirements of the award.

In cooperative agreements, Reclamation has the right to intervene in the conduct or performance of project activities for programmatic reasons. Intervention includes the interruption or modification of the conduct or performance of project activities.

Development of Evaluation Criteria:

Develop criteria that include all aspects of technical/scientific merit. The idea is to develop criteria that are conceptually independent of each other, but inclusive when taken together. While criteria will vary from one solicitation to another, the criteria should:

  1. Focus reviewers attention on the project's underlying merit (i.e., significance, approach, and feasibility). The criteria should focus not only on the technical details of the proposed project but also on the broader importance or potential impact of the project.
  2. Be easily understood. If the criteria are susceptible to varying interpretations, proposals will contain various interpretations and Government reviewers will use their own interpretation.
  3. Be stated as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Example 1 - Evaluation Criteria:

The application/proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the following three criteria:

  1. Significance: The extent to which the project, if successfully carried out, will make an important and/or original contribution to the field of endeavor.
  2. Approach: The extent to which the concept, design, methods, analyses, and technologies are properly developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project.
  3. Feasibility: The likelihood that the proposed work can be accomplished within the proposed budget by the investigators or the technical staff, given their experience and expertise, past progress, available resources, institutional/organizational commitment, and (if appropriate) access to technologies.

Example 2 - Evaluation Criteria:

Evaluation factors include:

  1. Technical Factors:
    1. Demonstrated familiarity with the current technology in the field of work and understanding of the potential difficulties in carrying out the work.
    2. Impact of the proposed work on the current technology and on its related economics if a completely successful outcome were achieved.
    3. Novelty of approach to the work.
    4. Probability of a successful outcome of work.
    5. Availability of equipment, instruments, and test facilities required for the work.
  2. Managerial Factors:
    1. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed project manager and other key personnel who are critical to achievement of the proposed objectives.
    2. Adequacy, completeness and realism of the research schedule, task phasing, and milestones.
    3. The offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposed objectives.
  3. Pricing Factors:
    1. Cost realism and reasonableness. This requires that costs be directly relatable to items in the research work plan, reasonable, and be appropriate to the project in terms of dollar amount and quantity.
    2. Cost-share. Offerors proposing to provide the most cost-share shall be given greater consideration.

Example 3 - Evaluation Criteria:

  1. Qualifications of the applicant's personnel who will be working on the project;
  2. Adequacy of the applicant's facilities and resources;
  3. Cost-effectiveness of the project;
  4. Adequacy of the project plan or methodology;
  5. Management capability of the applicant;
  6. Sources of financing available to the project. Any requirement concerning cost sharing shall be clearly stated.
  7. Relationship of the proposed project to the objectives of the solicitation;

CFDA Number

A CFDA number is a unique number created in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) database It tracks all domestically-funded Federal programs available to state and local Governments (including the District of Columbia); Federally-recognized Indian tribal Governments; territories (and possessions) of the United States; domestic public, quasi-public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized groups; and individuals.

Common RFP or Solicitation Contents

Provide information as may be necessary to allow potential applicants to decide whether to submit an application, to understand how applications will be evaluated, and to know what the obligations of a recipient would be. Each solicitation may include:

  1. A control number assigned by the issuing office;
  2. The amount of money available for award and, if appropriate, the expected size of individual awards broken down by areas of priority or emphasis, and the expected number of awards;
  3. The type of award instrument or instruments to be used;
  4. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the program;
  5. Who is eligible to apply;
  6. The expected duration of Reclamation support or the period of performance;
  7. An application form or the format to be used, location for application submission, and number of copies required;
  8. The name of the responsible GCAO to contact for additional information, and, as appropriate, an address where application forms may be obtained;
  9. Appropriate periods or due dates for submission of applications and a statement describing the consequences of late submission. If programs have established a series of due dates to allow for the comparison of applications against each other, these dates shall be indicated in the solicitation;
  10. The types of projects or activities eligible for support;
  11. A listing of program policy factors, if any, indicating the relative importance of each, if appropriate. Examples of program policy factors are:
    1. Geographic distribution;
    2. Diverse types and sizes of applicant entities;
    3. A diversity of methods, approaches, or kinds of work; and
    4. Projects which are complementary to other Reclamation programs or projects;
  12. References to or copies of:
    1. Statutory authority for the program;
    2. Applicable rules;
    3. Other terms and conditions, including allowable and unallowable costs and reporting requirements;
    4. Policies and procedures for patents, data, copyrights, audiovisual productions and exhibits;
  13. Date, time, and location of any briefing for applicants;
  14. Dates by which selections and awards are expected to be made and whether unsuccessful applications will be returned to the applicant or be retained by Reclamation and for what period of time;
  15. A statement that Reclamation is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made. If an award is made, such costs may be allowable as provided in the applicable cost principles;
  16. A statement that Reclamation reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to the solicitation; and
  17. Any other relevant information, including explanatory information or factual basis for justifications required by this part.

General Description of a Good Proposal

This description of the project should include three basic elements: 1) an abstract; 2) a detailed statement of work; and 3) a summary of potential and current research support of the project.

The abstract should present a concise description and state the principal and subordinate objectives of the proposed project, and the nature of the scientific approach to be undertaken in pursuit of these objectives.

The project description should describe the scientific issue to be pursued and thesis to be tested and how the will be work will be conducted, including a milestone plan. The results and benefits to be derived from the project should be identified in relation to the objectives, including a plan for measuring the project and performance against specific milestones or agreed objectives. Also to be included are the facilities and major equipment to be utilized, a broad schedule of major events and specific tasks, and a list of deliverable items. The proposal should also indicate the anticipated percentage of time to be devoted to the project by the principal investigator(s) and any associates.

The proposal should summarize all current and potential research support for the project. This information should include the titles and dates of current contracts or assistance awards, the source of funds, annual budget amounts, and the fraction of effort devoted to each project by each of the senior personnel. The proposal must also provide similar information for any proposals (including the proposal being submitted) which are being considered by, or which will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors.

Appraisal of the scientific merit of the proposed project is based primarily on this information. A more complete and detailed statement of work requires less time in review and negotiation than a less comprehensive proposal. Every effort should be made to present a carefully prepared and complete document.

A well-prepared budget justifies all expenses and is consistent with the proposal narrative. Some areas in need of an evaluation for consistency are:

  1. The salaries in the proposal in relation to those of the applicant organization should be similar;
  2. If new staff persons are being hired, additional space and equipment should be considered, as necessary;
  3. If the budget calls for an equipment purchase, it should be the type allowed by the grantor agency;
  4. If additional space is rented, the increase in insurance should be supported;
  5. If an indirect cost rate applies to the proposal, the division between direct and indirect costs should not be in conflict, and the aggregate budget totals should refer directly to the approved formula; and
  6. If matching costs are required, the contributions to the matching fund should be taken out of the budget unless otherwise specified in the application instructions.

Qualifications:

The official selecting reviewers should consider the following:

Officials may want to recruit a variety of reviewers, some whose expertise is directly relevant and some, who are knowledgeable but are not working directly in the specific subject area, to act as a check on possible bias. It is highly recommended that program officials use reviewers from outside the program/project office responsible for the financial assistance program. External reviewers can bring fresh view points, alternative perspectives, and state-of-the-art understanding to the evaluation process.

Adherence to Original Budget Estimates

The recipient bears the primary responsibility for fiscal accountability. Unless previously agreed to by the parties and spelled out in the award document, expenditures incurred before the effective date of the award may not normally be charged under the award. In addition, commitments may not be incurred after the expiration date of the award. While the principal investigator is free to alter the direction of research when changes seem scientifically advantageous, the recipient must give full consideration to the effects of budget reallocations on the cost-sharing and indirect cost portions of the budget. The recipient must remember that it may not exceed the amount of funds obligated on the award. Likewise, items not included in the approved award budget will not be charged to the award unless approved by the GCAO.

Adherence to Research Objectives

The principal investigator, operating within the established policies of his or her institution, should feel free to pursue interesting and important leads which may arise during the conduct of the research. The principal investigator may discontinue or materially modify unpromising lines of inquiry, without jeopardizing continuation of support for the remainder of the award period, when it appears from a scientific standpoint that the inquiry as originally contemplated will no longer be fruitful or that a related line of inquiry will be more promising. When new and promising leads or potential lines of inquiry do arise leading to possible major deviations from original research objectives, approval by the GCAO is required and an award modification may be initiated.

There are six OMB circulars that apply to recipients depending on type of entity: