August 2022
NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY
PROCEDURES FOR THE SOLICITATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF COMPETITIVE
PROPOSALS BY THE SEA GRANT PROGRAMS
The National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) has delegated to the Sea Grant programs the primary
responsibility for planning, evaluation, and selection of competitive projects. In accordance with the
National Sea Grant College Program Act,
[i]
this NSGO policy provides standardized procedures for
review of competitive proposals based on those outlined in the Department of Commerce (DOC) Grants
Manual
[ii]
(chapter 8) for reviewing, selecting, approving, and notifying applicants of funding decisions.
The NSGO’s intent is to outline a clear competition policy that ensures compliance with federal review
processes and generates research, education, and outreach projects of high quality, while reducing the
time and effort required to process proposals.
This document provides standard procedures that the Sea Grant programs must implement for evaluating
and selecting proposals subject to competition, whether research, education, or extension work. This
policy applies to all competitive projects included in federal funding award applications (federal plus
match dollars) awarded through the NSGO. The Sea Grant program determines which pool of projects are
deemed 'competitive' and subject to this policy when they designate projects as ‘competitive’ in the
federal financial award application and in the Sea Grant Planning Implementation and Evaluation
Resources (PIER) database. Non-competitive projects included in federal funding award applications are
not subject to this policy, but may be subject to a merit review. Refer to any related federal funding
opportunity for more information on merit review requirements. This policy does not directly apply to
funds that the program leverages outside of the federal financial awards, however, Sea Grant programs
should always adhere to the principle of running open, transparent, and fair competitive processes.
The NSGO has identified six primary processes that each Sea Grant program must consider in selecting
competitive projects -- (1) strategic planning, (2) request for proposals, (3) pre-proposal (if applicable) (4)
written peer review, (5) panel review (if applicable), and (6) proposal selection criteria. At the completion
of the competitive process, the program will be required to develop a memo outlining recommended
projects for funding (Letter of Intent). These processes help ensure that strategic planning reflects state
priorities as determined by broad constituency participation, that proposal selection reflects strategic
plans, and that proposal selection is fair and clearly understood by participants and potential applicants.
The entire competitive process must be free from conflict of interest as defined by the NOAA Conflict of
Interest (COI) policy.
[iii]
Per the NOAA policy, the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other
interest which conflicts with the service of the individual in the review because it (1) could significantly
impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or
organization. The process should also be free from the perception of conflict of interest.
1 | Page
August 2022
The Sea Grant Research Coordinators Network has developed recommendations and best management
practices on how to execute this policy. Please refer to the the following document for this guidance:
Sea Grant Research Coordinators: Good Practices and Other Ideas For Running Competitions (available
on Inside Sea Grant-Implementation page).
Strategic Planning
Sea Grant programs are required to use an external advisory planning process, broadly involving
representatives of relevant industries, government, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the
public, to develop a strategic plan that is aligned with Sea Grant’s national strategic plan. The plans are
expected to guide programmatic priorities and set the stage for aligning state/local needs and
opportunities with national needs and opportunities. These plans are then implemented through more
detailed project narratives included in funding applications like the program’s omnibus award. Policies
and procedures for developing a strategic plan can be found on the Inside Sea Grant-Planning page.
Request for Proposals
Generally, Sea Grant programs begin a competitive selection process by developing a request for
proposals (RFP), which should be consistent with the program's strategic plan and the project objectives
and narrative for the award funding the competition. The RFP must include:
● Information on the proposal format, required materials, and applicant eligibility.
● An outline of the evaluation method for proposals. This outline includes clearly describing, as
applicable:
○ the pre-proposal review process including the evaluation criteria,
○ the review process with a detailed description of the written and panel review processes,
including the criteria for evaluation used at each step,
○ how the Sea Grant program will determine final recommendations for selection.
● A method to collect demographics information using the demographics question approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Associated information can be found on the Inside
Sea Grant-Implementation page.
● A statement that to be recommended for funding, applicants must provide a valid data
management plan (or alternative statement if no data management plan is needed), as well as a
completed Abbreviated Environmental Compliance Questionnaire (and copies of associated
permits, if applicable). Associated guidance can be found on the Inside Sea Grant-Implementation
page.
The RFP must be sent to the assigned NSGO program officer for concurrence prior to publication and
distribution. Prior to or during the NSGO RFP review process, the program should discuss with their
program officer their competitive process including how the programs will share the RFP, obtain written
2 | Page
August 2022
reviewers, select panel reviewers, and final selection criteria. The NSGO program officer is expected to
respond with written concurrence within ten business days of receiving the RFP.
The Sea Grant programs must share explicit guidelines for preparation and submission of full proposals.
If this guidance is developed as a separate document from the initial RFP, it must also adhere to the RFP
requirements, including review by the NSGO program officer at the time of the initial RFP review.
The RFP must be distributed widely to individuals and unit heads at all institutions of higher learning and
other research institutions, within that state or region, with relevant research or educational capability.
The National Sea Grant College Program champions diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility
by recruiting, retaining, and preparing a diverse workforce, and proactively engaging and serving the
diverse populations of coastal communities. Sea Grant is committed to building inclusive research,
extension, communication, and education programs that serve people with a diversity of backgrounds,
circumstances, needs, perspectives, and ways of thinking. Sea Grant programs should encourage
proposals that include diverse participants with regards to age, race, ethnicities, national origins, gender
identities, sexual orientations, disabilities, cultures, religions, citizenship types, marital statuses, education
levels, job classifications, veteran status types, income, and socioeconomic status.
Pre-proposal (if applicable)
For competition processes with potentially large applicant pools, many Sea Grant programs use a
pre-proposal stage. As outlined in the Department of Commerce Grants Manual,
[ii]
utilizing a pre-proposal
process can assist potential applicants by giving them realistic feedback on whether their project ideas and
proposal aligns with the goals and objectives of a particular program, and provide feedback to strengthen
the proposal. Such pre-proposal review is intended to allow applicants to avoid incurring significant
expenditures in preparing proposals that are not consistent with Sea Grant program goals and objectives.
The format, length, and content requirement of the pre-proposal should be determined by the Sea Grant
program to meet their needs for this stage of the review process. For some solicitations, requesting a short
project summary (commonly referred to as a letter of intent) may be more appropriate and still allow the
program to begin planning review in advance, and/or helps to mitigate short timeframes when conducting
a multi-step competition.
If the program intends to use the pre-proposal stage to encourage or discourage proposals, then the Sea
Grant program must devise a system that scores, ranks, or categorizes the pre-proposals. The process must
be free from conflict of interest, and each applicant must be informed of the evaluation outcome. The RFP
must clearly outline this evaluation process. The Sea Grant program may encourage or discourage
investigators to develop full proposals, but are required to permit all applicants that submitted a
pre-proposal to submit to the full proposal process. Full proposal guidance must be made available in the
same manner to all applicants who submit a pre-proposal and are therefore eligible to submit a full
proposal.
3 | Page
August 2022
Written Peer Review
Peer review is the responsibility of the administering Sea Grant program. The review process must
include significant input external to the Sea Grant program (i.e., Sea Grant staff from the administering
program) to benefit from a diversity of perspectives. Oversight of the peer review process is the
responsibility of the NSGO. This division of responsibilities for peer review follows recommendations of
the National Research Council.
[iv]
The statements below outline principles, responsibilities, and requirements that standardize the written
peer review process, and help ensure the highest quality projects through engagement of a national
community of peers.
● Each fully developed proposal must receive a minimum of three written peer reviews. Written
review provided by review panelists may count towards this requirement.
● Selection of peer reviewers must be free of conflict of interest, and should be free of perceived
conflict of interest.
● All peer reviewers must provide signed statements certifying no conflict of interest with the
applications they are reviewing.
● Sea Grant programs should make special efforts to ensure that diversity, equity, inclusion, justice,
and accessibility values are prioritized when recruiting and selecting peer reviewers.
● Sea Grant programs should offer resources to train reviewers on bias awareness and management
or otherwise ensure reviewers have been previously trained on that topic.
● The criteria for written peer review must be clearly described in the RFP so applicants know and
understand how their proposals will be evaluated. The criteria cannot be changed or elaborated
upon when provided to peer reviewers.
● Letters of support from potential end-users of the proposed research may also be submitted with
proposals, if allowable per the RFP, but they do not substitute for external peer review.
Review Panel
The Sea Grant program should use one or more review panel(s) capable of interpreting written peer
reviews within the specialized fields of the proposals under consideration. The review process must
include significant input external to the Sea Grant program (i.e., Sea Grant staff from the administering
program) to benefit from a diversity of perspectives. These requirements apply to all review panels
(including advisory board panel input) that provide input to the final decision for recommendation of
funding and all such panels must be laid out as part of the competitive process in the RFP. The purpose of
a panel is to evaluate proposals on overall quality based on the published criteria and individually advise
the Sea Grant program on which proposal should be considered for funding.
● Review panels can include members that served as written peer reviewers. This may serve to
reduce the burden of finding additional reviewers.
4 | Page
August 2022
● Review panels are expected to operate by procedures that are free of conflict of interest. In order
to enhance the intellectual rigor and innovativeness of our panels and reduce the impact of
disciplinary or other biases on the long-term research of a program, we require that programs use
review panels tailored to each competition. The same reviewers should not participate in panels
for the same program on a regular basis.
● All panelists must provide signed statements certifying no conflict of interest with the
applications they are reviewing.
● Sea Grant programs should make special efforts to ensure that diversity, equity and inclusion
values are prioritized when recruiting and selecting panelists.
● Sea Grant programs should offer resources to train reviewers on bias awareness and management
or otherwise ensure reviewers have been previously trained on that topic.
● Sea Grant programs must notify the NSGO program officer of each panel they intend to hold
related to the competition. The panel dates must be planned in coordination with, and approved
by the NSGO program officer prior to the date(s) being set. The program officer or their designee
may attend, at their discretion.
● Scores assigned by the panelists must be based upon evaluation criteria described in the RFP,
which must be clearly communicated to all panelists. Scores can be numeric or descriptive.
● The panel must make a final determination on the fundability of each individual proposal (i.e.,
fundable or not fundable). Any project deemed ‘unfundable’ cannot be recommended for funding
by the program, even if future funds are made available.
● In the event that the review panel(s) or peer reviewer comments recommend a reduction in scope
and/or budget for the project, that rationale needs to be documented by the Sea Grant program
and included in the Letter of Intent (see Letter of Intent section below). Subsequently, the
applicant will be asked to include an addendum to the original proposal outlining the revised
work plan and budget, as applicable.
● Periodically, the NSGO will evaluate the review process executed by each Sea Grant program,
and recommend or require changes or improvements if needed. The quality of a program’s
competitive process and corresponding record-keeping may affect federal funding for the
program.
It is often useful to convene one or more review panels to synthesize the results of the written peer
reviews, and help the Sea Grant program determine which proposals are fundable. Using a panel(s) is the
default plan for all competitions, though there are reasons given below for why it may not be needed in all
cases. If the Sea Grant program believes a competition may not require a review panel, they must obtain
approval from their NSGO program officer, and clearly describe the process in the RFP. A review panel
may not be necessary when, for example (i) a small number of proposals is anticipated, (ii) written peer
review is conducted by the same reviewers for all submitted proposals, and/or (iii) there is a narrow
topical focus of the competition, such that further review/synthesis beyond the written peer reviews is not
helpful.
5 | Page
August 2022
Proposal Selection Criteria
The Sea Grant program must establish selection criteria to determine the final list of applicants to be
recommended for funding to the NSGO. Selection criteria must include the recommendations from the
written peer review and panel review (if applicable), but can also provide flexibility to select out of rank
order, if needed. The selection criteria must be clearly described in the RFP and free from conflict of
interest. If the program does not define selection criteria in the RFP, then the panel ranking and
recommendations must be used to determine final selection (or written reviews if the NGSO program
officer approves a panel will not be used).
Proposal Recommendations and Letter of Intent
Following the review, the Sea Grant program determines final proposal recommendations based on the
evaluation and selection criteria listed in the RFP. Before notifying applicants of the outcome, the Sea
Grant program must seek concurrence of the program’s intended decisions and corresponding rationale by
submitting a Letter of Intent (LOI) via email to the NSGO program officer. The Sea Grant programt’s LOI
must include the following:
● A summary of all stages of the competition, including process, outcomes, and rationale for
recommendations. If applicable, an explanation must also be provided of why any proposals were
selected out of rank order based on the selection criteria as described in the RFP.
● A list of all full proposals submitted with:
○ Principal investigators' names and affiliations.
○ Score assigned by the written peer reviewers and panelists to each proposal (this can be
numeric or descriptive).
○ Determination of fundability (i.e., fundable or not fundable).
○ Whether the project is being recommended for funding at this time.
○ Proposals with an aquaculture topical focus area should be identified in the list of
projects, as these are tracked separately by NSGO as part of our ongoing National
Strategic Investment in aquaculture.
○ Demographics information collected using the OMB-approved demographics question.
○ The annual and total original and final budget request, separately noting both federal and
match contributions
● The name, professional affiliation, and contact information (email address) of all panelists, or
written reviewers if panelists are not used.
A template for the list of all full proposals is available on the Inside Sea Grant Implementation page. Use
of this template is preferred but currently optional as an appendix to the LOI, with flexibility on
formatting for program needs.
The NSGO program officer is expected to review the LOI within approximately ten business days. The
program officer will review the LOI for alignment with this policy and in the context of ensuring that a
fair and open process was followed to reach the decisions. This review is not intended to influence
6 | Page
August 2022
programmatic decisions on individual projects. If, after discussion with the Sea Grant program, there are
issues related to the fairness and openness of the review process that cannot be resolved, the director of
the National Sea Grant College Program will make the final funding recommendation. Upon final review,
the NSGO program officer will provide a signed concurrence letter via email.
After NSGO concurrence is received, the Sea Grant program may notify all applicants of the
recommendation regarding their proposals in writing. Anonymous copies of the corresponding reviews
and a statement outlining the funding decision must accompany this notification. Sea Grant programs may
only inform applicants that the proposal is being recommended, as selection decisions are not finalized
until signed by the NOAA Grants Management Division. Projects may not be announced publicly until
the award action has been accepted at the host institution.
The Sea Grant program must submit the recommended proposals for approval to the NOAA Grants
Management Division through the Grants Online system. Proposals will either be included with program
application materials for new federal financial awards, or submitted to existing awards using an Award
Action Request to satisfy the Specific Award Conditions for the appropriate Future Competed Placeholder
project. Sea Grant programs must include the entire proposal package for each recommended project
(including project narratives, budget forms and budget justifications, data management plan, a completed
Abbreviated Environmental Compliance Questionnaire, and any necessary permits). The programs should
not include the LOI and concurrence letter from the NSGO program officer (the program officer will
upload those directly as internal documents to the grant file).
Record-keeping
Records of the proposal and decision-making process are necessary for any subsequent evaluations of the
process. These records, which must be maintained for three years from the submission of the final
financial report of the corresponding award (2 CFR § 200.333), shall be made available to NOAA or
NSGO upon request, and include the following:
● A copy of the RFP and the distribution list for the RFP.
● List of titles, principal investigators, and institutional affiliations of all pre-proposals and
proposals received in response to the RFP.
● Complete copies of all written peer reviews.
● List of names, professional affiliations, and contact information (email address) for each written
peer reviewer and review panelist, with a list of proposals assigned to each reviewer.
● Signed statements certifying no conflict of interest for all written peer reviewers and review
panelists.
● A copy of the LOI and the concurrence letter from the NSGO program officer.
7 | Page
August 2022
[i] 33 U.S.C. ⸹1123(c)(2).
[ii] The Department of Commerce Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual, 20 April 2021.
[iii] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Policy on Conflict of Interest For Peer Review
Subject to OMB's Peer Review Bulletin
[iv] Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council, 1994. A Review of NOAA National Sea Grant
College Program, National Academy Press, Washington, p. 3.
This policy replaces the following documents:
● National Sea Grant College Program National Competition Policy (Version dated November
2020)
● Request For Proposals Policy (Last updated September 2018)
● FY 2020-21 Technical Review Panel Considerations and Timeline (Last updated August 2019)
● Program Core Funding: Procedures, Solicitation, Review and Approval of Proposals (1998)
8 | Page
