Ill. Admin. Code tit. 44, § 7000.350 - Merit Review of Grant Application
a) A merit review
is required for discretionary applications for financial assistance in the form
of grants and cooperative agreements, unless prohibited by State or federal
law. This process must be described or incorporated by reference in the
applicable NOFO. An appeals process must be described and incorporated with the
merit review process.
b) If there
is a multi-phase review process, the applicable NOFO must describe the
phases.
c) Pursuant to UR section
200.205, State awarding agencies shall follow the uniform Merit Review process
in this Section. A printable copy of this process can be found in the GATA
Resource Library at https://gata.illinois.gov.
d) Discretionary grant evaluation criteria
must be tied to the objectives or purpose of the federal or State -issued award
program.
1) Evaluation criteria must include,
at a minimum, the following categories of criteria:
A) Need: Identification of stakeholders,
facts and evidence that demonstrate the proposal supports the grant program's
purpose;
B) Capacity: The ability
of an entity to execute the grant project according to project requirements;
and
C) Quality: The totality of
features and characteristics of a service , project or product that indicates
its ability to satisfy the requirements of the grant program.
2) Other evaluation criteria may
be considered in addition to the required criteria in subsection (d)(1).
Examples of other potential categories of criteria include:
A) Societal impact;
B) Economic impact;
C) Cost-effectiveness;
D) Sustainability; and
E) Grant -specific criteria.
e) The merit review
shall be prepared in accordance with UR section 200.205 and include the
evaluation process description, criteria and importance stated in the grant
application. The evaluation process shall include:
1) A statement of the evaluation criteria as
specified in the grant application. The grant application shall state all
criteria and their relative importance, including preferences, technical
assistance options, and tie-breakers for equivalent scores after
evaluation.
2) A statement of
whether there are multiple phases of evaluation, along with a description of
each phase.
3) A review of the
application based solely on the criteria identified in the grant application.
If there is a required change to the evaluation criteria before to the
application deadline, the State awarding agency shall notify applicants of the
change, at a minimum, by posting notice of this change on its website and
amending its CSFA listing to reflect the change.
4) Consideration of cost sharing, if
applicable and stated in the terms of the grant application. The State awarding
agency must specifically define how it will evaluate cost sharing, such as
whether it will assign additional points to cost-sharing applicants or use cost
sharing to break ties among applications with equivalent scores after all other
factors are evaluated. If cost sharing is used as an evaluation factor, this
definition must include any restrictions on the types of costs that are
acceptable (e.g., in-kind contributions).
5) Evaluation by Committee. Evaluation
committee members shall be determined by the State awarding agency, tailored to
the particular grant application, and include, as appropriate, persons with the
appropriate technical expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of
applicants.
A) Conflict of Interest .
Evaluation committee members shall not have any conflicts of interest or
apparent conflicts of interest.
i) Except when
required by statute, evaluation committee members must neither have submitted
an application nor represent an entity that has submitted an application for
the grant program during the grant cycle under review.
ii) Committee members must sign the Merit
Based Review confidentiality agreement and conflict of interest disclosure form
provided by GATU. Evaluation Committee members must not have a conflict of
interest or apparent conflicts of interest. The form documents the individual's
attestation and commitment to confidentiality in the review of grant
applications.
B)
Confidentiality. Committee members shall be assigned a code for identification
in the evaluation process. Evaluator names shall be disclosed only when
required by audit, litigation, or public records request pursuant to FOIA (see
Section 7000.430(e)).
C) The head
of a State awarding agency or a designee may remove committee members for due
cause, such as failure to comply with the directions of the grant application
or evaluation process or failure to ensure the integrity of the awarding
process. The reasons for removing a committee member must be stated in
writing.
6) Evaluation
Based on Numerical Rating. Applications shall be assigned a numerical rating,
unless another scoring methodology is more appropriate due to the unique
circumstances of a particular grant program. In any case, the rating system
must meet the following requirements:
A) Any
scoring tool must reflect the evaluation criteria and ranking of priorities set
forth in the grant application.
B)
Committee members must have an individual score sheet that is completed
independently.
C) A summary score
sheet must be completed that shows the comparative scores and identifies the
resulting finalists for the grant award .
D) Any significant or substantial variance
among evaluator scores shall be reviewed and documented, along with any
resulting revision of individual scores.
7) Verification that the entity has completed
pre-award requirements, including grantee pre-qualification, conflict of
interest and mandatory disclosures, fiscal and administrative risk assessment,
and programmatic risk assessment.
f) Award
1)
Awards shall be made pursuant to a written determination by the evaluation
committee based on the evaluation set forth in the grant application and the
finalists' completion of all pre-award requirements.
2) The agency shall issue a Notice of
State -Issued Award (NOSA) to finalists that enables the finalists to make an
informed decision whether to accept the grant. The NOSA shall include:
A) The terms and conditions of the award ;
and
B) If applicable, any specific
conditions assigned to the finalist based on the fiscal, administrative and
programmatic risk assessments and the merit review.
3) Upon finalists' acceptance of the grant
awards, the State awarding agency shall announce the grant awards in the
CSFA.
4) The agency shall send a
written Notice of Denial to applicants not receiving awards .
g) Appeals Process
1) Appeals of discretionary grants are
limited to the evaluation process. Evaluation scores may not be protested. Only
the evaluation process is subject to appeal.
2) Appeals Review Officer (ARO). The agency
head or a designee may appoint one or more AROs to consider the grant-related
appeals and make a recommendation to the agency head or designee .
3) Submission of Appeal
A) An appeal must be submitted in writing and
must comply with the appeal requirements included in the grant application
document. It must include, at a minimum:
i)
the name and address of the appealing party;
ii) an identification of the grant (i.e.,
CSFA number); and
iii) a statement
of reasons for the appeal.
B) Appeals must be received within 14
calendar days after the date of publication of the grant
award .
4) Response to
Appeal
A) The State awarding agency must
acknowledge receipt of the appeal within 14 calendar days after it received the
appeal.
B) The State awarding
agency shall respond to the appeal within 60 days. If this is impracticable,
the agency must supply to the appealing party a written explanation of why
additional time is required.
C) The
appealing party must supply to the State awarding agency any additional
information requested within the time period identified in the request for
additional information.
5) Stay of Grant Agreement/Contract Execution
When an appeal is received, the execution of the
A) The appeal is resolved; or
B) The agency head or designee determines
that the needs of the State require that the grant program move forward despite
the appeal. This determination, and its rationale, must be documented in
writing.
6) Resolution
A) The ARO shall make a recommendation to the
agency head or designee as quickly as possible after receiving all relevant and
requested information.
B) In
determining this recommendation, the ARO shall consider the integrity of the
discretionary grant process and the impact of the recommendation on the
agency.
C) The State awarding
agency shall resolve the appeal through a written determination. This
determination shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
i) Review of the appeal;
ii) Appeal determination; and
iii) Rationale for the
determination.
7) Effect of Judicial Proceedings
If an action concerning the appeal has commenced in a court
or administrative body, the
h) State awarding agencies shall maintain a
file of the grantmaking process that includes the written determination of
grant issuance, grant application and requirements. The grantmaking file shall
be available for audit-related purposes.
i) State awarding agencies may impose
specific conditions on the awardee based on the merit review (see Section
7000.340(e) (Specific Conditions)).
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.