Steps in Conducting the Committee Review (No Voting)
- INTRODUCTION:
The Chair introduces the application and the application number to bereviewed. The Chair asks for any CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Those with conflicts leave the room for that application discussion.
2. OVERVIEW:
All reviewers should have read the application to be reviewed. Allow for a quick read. All three primary reviewers assigned to the application will provide descriptive overviews. The overviews should focus on eachreviewer’s perception of who the applicant is, where it is located, what is being proposed, how it will be accomplished in accordance with the published Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and review criteria, and identify the most significant strength and weakness. All primary reviewers should provide what they consider the most significant strength and weakness as well. If Funding Factors are applicable, discussion around them should be discussed as well.
3. INITIAL SCORING ANNOUNCEMENT:
Each assigned Reviewer provides his/her initial scores by criterion, as well as his/her
overall total.
4. OPEN DISCUSSION:
The Chair invites discussion from all members of the Review Committee. Other
reviewers(as applicable) are expected to ask questions of the primary reviewers to
promote a full discussion and understanding of the application. The Chair participates
to ensure clarity is reached.
5. FORMULATING AND EDITING THE SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The Chair facilitates the panel in editing of the projected summary statement comments.
The Chair will read all the statements listedstarting with weaknesses in eachCriterion before moving on to the corresponding strengths.
The Summary Statement Operator (SSO) makes the edits to the strengths and
weaknesses of each criterion, based on the group discussion. The Chair asks for
reviewers to focus on content, especially on accuracy and consistency.
Differences of opinion regarding strengths and weaknesses noted by the primary
reviewersare to be discussed to derive group consensus.
PANEL DISCUSSION: When group consensus cannot be achieved, dissenting statements will be captured under Panel Discussion. These statements should clearly be supported by the NOFO.
6. SCORING APPLICATION:
The Chair asks each reviewer to enter final scores into ARM by criterion. 100 is the
highest composite score. Every reviewer on the panel will score each application (by criterion)assigned to the committee (or panel)(an individual criterion score may not exceed the maximum specified for that criterion).
7. BUDGET DISCUSSION:
The committee provides recommendations regarding the budget proposal.
Considering the primary Reviewers’ recommendations, the panel discusses and
determines a budget recommendation. Reviewers cannot recommend an
increase in the budget request. If a reduction in the budget request is
recommended, the committee must provide a rationale.
8. FUNDING FACTORS (if applicable):
Funding Factors include Preferences, Priorities and Special Considerations.
The committee provides information on the applicant’s response to Funding
Factors. The panel determines whether Funding Factors have been:
A). requested (if applicable)? B). met? C). if met, based on? D). if not met,
rationale?
9. RECOMMENDATIONS TO HRSA:
Reviewers may provide recommendations to HRSA at this time.
Considering the recommendations, the panel discusses and determines final
recommendations, if any.
Revised April 11, 2017 Step 6.4 Steps in Conducting the Committee Review