(a) The Secretary evaluates an application for a grant as follows:

(1)(i) The Secretary evaluates the application on the basis of the selection criteria in § 645.31.

(ii) The maximum score for all the criteria in § 645.31 is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.

(2)(i) If an applicant for a new grant proposes to continue to serve substantially the same target population and schools that the applicant is serving under an expiring project, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's prior experience of high quality service delivery under the expiring Upward Bound project on the basis of the outcome criteria in § 645.32.

(ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in § 645.32 is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.

(iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published application materials for the competition.

(iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the designated project years for which annual performance report data are available.

(v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three project years assessed.

(b) The Secretary makes grants in rank order on the basis of the application's total scores under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(c) If the total scores of two or more applications are the same and there are insufficient funds for these applications after the approval of higher-ranked applications, the Secretary uses whatever remaining funds are available to serve geographic areas that have been underserved by the Upward Bound Program.

(d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate an application for a grant:

(a) Need for the project (24 points). In determining need for an Upward Bound project, the Secretary reviews each type of project (Regular, Math and Science, or Veterans) using different need criteria. The criteria for each type of project contain the same maximum score of 24 points and read as follows:

(1) The Secretary evaluates the need for a Regular Upward Bound project in the proposed target area on the basis of information contained in the application which clearly demonstrates that—

(i) The income level of families in the target area is low;

(ii) The education attainment level of adults in the target area is low;

(iii) Target high school dropout rates are high;

(iv) College-going rates in target high schools are low;

(v) Student/counselor ratios in the target high schools are high; and

(vi) Unaddressed academic, social and economic conditions in the target area pose serious problems for low-income, potentially first-generation college students.

(2) The Secretary evaluates the need for an Upward Bound Math and Science Center in the proposed target area on the basis of—

(i) The extent to which student performance on standardized achievement and assessment tests in mathematics and science in the target area is lower than State or national norms.

(ii) The extent to which potential participants attend schools in the target area that lack the resources and coursework that would help prepare persons for entry into postsecondary programs in mathematics, science, or engineering;

(iii) The extent to which such indicators as attendance data, dropout rates, college-going rates and student/counselor ratios in the target area indicate the importance of having additional educational opportunities available to low-income, first-generation students; and

(iv) The extent to which there are eligible students in the target area who have demonstrated interest and capacity to pursue academic programs and careers in mathematics and science, and who could benefit from an Upward Bound Math and Science program.

(3) The Secretary evaluates the need for a Veterans Upward Bound project in the proposed target area on the basis of clear evidence that shows—

(i) The proposed target area lacks the services for eligible veterans that the applicant proposes to provide;

(ii) A large number of veterans who reside in the target area are low income and potential first generation college students;

(iii) A large number of veterans who reside in the target area who have not completed high school or, have completed high school but have not enrolled in a program of postsecondary education; and

(iv) Other indicators of need for a Veterans Upward Bound project, including the presence of unaddressed academic or socio-economic problems of veterans in the area.

(b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources:

(1) For Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers—

(i) (1 point) Academic performance (GPA);

(ii) (1 point) Academic performance (standardized test scores);

(iii) (2 points) Secondary school retention and graduation (with regular secondary school diploma);

(iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous secondary school program of study;

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and

(vi) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.

(2) For Veterans Upward Bound—

(i) (2 points) Academic performance (standardized test scores);

(ii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion;

(iii) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and

(iv) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.

(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary determines the quality of the applicant's plan of operation by assessing the quality of—

(1) The plan to inform the faculty and staff at the applicant institution or agency and the interested individuals and organizations throughout the target area of the goals and objectives of the project;

(2) The plan for identifying, recruiting, and selecting participants to be served by the project;

(3) The plan for assessing individual participant needs and for monitoring the academic progress of participants while they are in Upward Bound;

(4) The plan for locating the project within the applicant's organizational structure;

(5) The curriculum, services and activities that are planned for participants in both the academic year and summer components;

(6) The planned timelines for accomplishing critical elements of the project;

(7) The plan to ensure effective and efficient administration of the project, including, but not limited to, financial management, student records management, and personnel management;

(8) The applicant's plan to use its resources and personnel to achieve project objectives and to coordinate the Upward Bound project with other projects for disadvantaged students;

(9) The plan to work cooperatively with parents and key administrative, teaching, and counseling personnel at the target schools to achieve project objectives; and

(10) A follow-up plan for tracking graduates of Upward Bound as they enter and continue in postsecondary education.

(d) Applicant and community support (16 points). The Secretary evaluates the applicant and community support for the proposed project on the basis of the extent to which—

(1) The applicant is committed to supplementing the project with resources that enhance the project such as: space, furniture and equipment, supplies, and the time and effort of personnel other than those employed in the project.

(2) Resources secured through written commitments from community partners.

(i) An applicant that is an institution of higher education must include in its application commitments from the target schools and community organizations;

(ii) An applicant that is a secondary school must include in its commitments from institutions of higher education, community organizations, and, as appropriate, other secondary schools and the school district;

(iii) An applicant that is a community organization must include in its application commitments from the target schools and institutions of higher education.

(e) Quality of personnel (8 points). To determine the quality of personnel the applicant plans to use, the Secretary looks for information that shows—

(1) The qualifications required of the project director, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects;

(2) The qualifications required of each of the other personnel to be used in the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project;

(3) The quality of the applicant's plan for employing personnel who have succeeded in overcoming barriers similar to those confronting the project's target population.

(f) Budget and cost effectiveness (5 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which—

(1) The budget for the project is adequate to support planned project services and activities; and

(2) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives and scope of the project.

(g) Evaluation plan (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of the evaluation plan for the project on the basis of the extent to which the applicant's methods of evaluation—

(1) Are appropriate to the project and include both quantitative and qualitative evaluation measures; and

(2) Examine in specific and measurable ways the success of the project in making progress toward achieving its process and outcomes objectives.

(a) In the case of an application described in § 645.30(a)(2)(i), the Secretary—

(1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring Upward Bound project;

(2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's expiring Upward Bound grant and the information the applicant submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the number of PE points; and

(3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award any PE points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate PE points are incorrect.

(b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved number of participants is the total number of participants the project would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

(c) The Secretary does not award PE points for the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) of this section (Number of participants) if the applicant did not serve at least the approved number of participants.

(d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to the following PE criteria:

(1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (Academic performance) and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section (Secondary school retention and graduation).

(2) Veterans Upward Bound PE criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section (Education program retention and completion).

(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the following outcome criteria:

(1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers.

(i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

(ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants served during the project year who had a cumulative GPA at the end of the school year that was not less than the GPA specified in the approved objective.

(B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants served during the project period who met the academic performance levels on standardized tests as specified in the approved objectives.

(iii) (3 points) Secondary school retention and graduation. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants served during the project year who returned the next school year or graduated from secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma.

(iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary school program of study. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to current and prior participants with an expected high school graduation date in the school year who completed a rigorous secondary school program of study.

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard current and prior participants with an expected high school graduation date in the school year who enrolled in a program of postsecondary education within the time period specified in the approved objective.

(vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who enrolled in a program of postsecondary education and attained a postsecondary degree within the number of years specified in the approved objective.

(2) Veterans Upward Bound.

(i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

(ii) (3 points) Academic improvement on standardized test. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program during the project year and who improved their academic performance as measured by a standardized test taken by participants before and after receiving services from the project.

(iii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants served during the project year who remained in or completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program.

(iv) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program and enrolled in an institution of higher education within the time period specified in the approved objective.

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who enrolled in and completed a program of postsecondary education within the number of years specified in the approved objective.

(a) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of—

(1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for new grants; and

(2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second and subsequent years of a project period.

(b) If the circumstances described in section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA exist, the Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the grant at the lesser of—

(1) $200,000; or

(2) The amount requested by the applicant.

A project period under the Upward Bound program is five years.

(a) Technical or administrative error for applications not reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated during the competition may request that the Secretary review the application if—

(i) The applicant has met all of the application submission requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published application materials for the competition; and

(ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

(2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an application includes—

(i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition;

(ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding consideration, which may include, but is not limited to—

(A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by an ineligible applicant;

(B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the published page limit;

(C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding greater than the published maximum award; or

(D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing critical sections of the application; and

(iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the competition.

(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

(ii) If the total score assigned the application would have resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of the application if—

(i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

(ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

(i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned PE points to the peer reviewer score.

(ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points—

(A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the other published application materials for the competition, or guidance provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

(B) Does not consider relevant information included in the appropriate section of the application.

(ii) The term “scoring error” does not include—

(A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

(B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other published application materials for the competition; or

(C) Any error by the applicant.

(c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded after the second review is completed.

(2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank order as described in § 645.30 based on the available funds for the competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

(3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the applicant's PE score, if applicable.

(4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose application received a score within the funding band as described in paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose application received a score within the funding band as described in paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.

(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be received by the Department or submitted electronically to the designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the Secretary.

(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained in the initial review.

(11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the available funds that have been set aside for the second review of applications.

(d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second review of applications.

(2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second review of applications.

(3) The funding band is composed of those applications—

(i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

(ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the competition.

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not subject to further appeal or challenge.

(2) An application that scored below the established funding band for the competition is not eligible for a second review.