Review and Selection Process Clause Samples

Review and Selection Process. ‌ 1. Review and Selection Process: Applications will be reviewed in three phases

Review and Selection Process. SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on:  the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers;  when the individual award is over $150,000, approval by the CMHS and CSAP National Advisory Councils;  availability of funds;  equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; and  In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If ▇▇▇▇▇▇ chooses not to award a fundable application, SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (▇▇▇) [currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)].

Review and Selection Process. The County reserves the sole right to exercise its judgment concerning the selection and review of the contents of the Responses submitted pursuant to this WOS and to determine which Respondent best serves the interests of the County. As a result of this WOS, the County may: 1. Request further information, documents, presentations, and/or conference call or in-person interviews substantiating Respondents’ qualifications, experience, and readiness to provide the services described in the WOS; 2. Award a Work Order to Respondent(s); and/or 3. Take no further action at this time on this matter.

Review and Selection Process. A team consisting of qualified experts will review all applications. The review process will include the following: A. Applications will be screened to determine eligibility for further review using the criteria detailed in the Section III, Eligibility Information of this Funding Opportunity Announcement. Applications that are received late or fail to meet the eligibility requirements as detailed in this Funding Opportunity Announcement or do not include the required forms will not be reviewed. B. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of grant applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist the applicant in understanding the standards against which each application will be judged. Review criteria are used to review and to rank applications. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist the applicant in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria, according to which all applications will be evaluated, are outlined above with specific detail and scoring points. Applications will be evaluated by an objective review committee. Applicants should pay strict attention to addressing all these criteria, as they are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate their applications. C. Final award decisions will be made by an HHS program official. In making these decisions, the HHS program official will take into consideration: recommendations of the review panel; reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance; the reasonableness of the estimated cost to the government and anticipated results; and the likelihood that the proposed project will result in the benefits expected. The Department reserves the right to conduct pre-award Budget Negotiation with potential awardees. If the applicant applies for Level Two Establishment and is found to not meet the review criteria, the applicant may reapply for a Level One Establishment award provided that the final application due date has not passed.

Review and Selection Process. SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on:  the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers;  when the individual award is over $150,000, approval by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment’s National Advisory Council; and  availability of funds.

Review and Selection Process. For detailed information on the review and selection process, please refer to Appendix V,

Review and Selection Process. The City will undertake a completeness review of proposals for responsiveness. This review will focus on determining whether or not submissions are complete based on the REOI requirements. Completeness of proposals will be determined by the City at its sole and absolute discretion. If a proposal fails to satisfy the City’s determination of completeness, the City may, but is under no obligation to, issue a rectification notice identifying the deficiencies and providing the Proponent an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies within a rectification period as defined by the City. If the Proponent is unable to satisfy the deficiencies within the rectification period, the proposal will not be considered further. The City will establish a review team for the purpose of reviewing proposals. The following items will be considered, generally in decreasing order of priority, by the evaluation team when reviewing proposals in response to this REOI: • Achievement of the affordable housing objective and requirements (Section 3.1.2), including number of affordable and attainable housing units, level of affordability and duration of affordability; • Community benefit, including mechanisms proposed to ensure benefits beyond the initial occupants (e.g. financial tools, legal agreements, ownership by mission- aligned organizations, or operational approaches); • Urban design/conceptual site plan/timing and the proposal’s achievement of the remaining objectives (Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3-3.1.6); • The Proponent’s or consortium’s experience, qualifications, capability and capacity; • The Proponent’s or consortium’s development history; • Information provided in the proposal itself; • Information provided in response to enquiries of credit and industry references; • Information received in response to enquiries made by the City of third parties in relation to the reputation, reliability, experience and capabilities of the Proponent; • The experience and qualifications of the Proponent’s or consortium’s senior management and project management; • Innovative approaches proposed by the Proponent in the proposal; and • Any other criteria, which the City deems relevant, whether or not disclosed in this REOI. Through this review process, the City wishes to identify a Proponent with whom the City can enter into negotiations for an Agreement. The City may proceed to negotiate with any number of Proponents, at the same or sequentially, at its election, until negotiations succeed with one...

Review and Selection Process. The NOFO may indicate who reviews the applications (e.g., USAID personnel, representatives from the local American embassy, host governments, or private sector individuals) and note that the AO makes the final selection.

Review and Selection Process. We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant’s use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).