Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17846-17850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7581]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Objective Merit Review of Discretionary Financial Assistance and
Other Transaction Authority Applications

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice establishes the procedure for program offices
operating under the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy in conducting the objective merit
review of discretionary financial assistance and Other Transaction
Authority funding applications. The effective date for the Objective
Merit Review Procedure contained in this notice is March 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 1-877-337-3463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Applicability of Notice
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report
V. Application of Program Policy Factors
VI. Selection
VII. Deviations

I. Introduction--The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) hereby gives notice of the
procedure for the objective merit review of projects seeking
discretionary financial assistance. The procedures described in this
notice implement the objective merit review provisions of the DOE
Financial Assistance Rules at 10 CFR 600.13. Specifically, this notice
covers the procedure for applications received competitively and non-
competitively. This notice also provides procedures for establishing
peer and merit review panels, naming a Federal Merit Review Manager,
conducting merit reviews, and preparing a Merit Review Advisory Report
for the Selection Official.
DOE provides financial assistance, in the form of grants
cooperative agreements and technology investment agreements. The
principal purpose of these transactions is the transfer of a thing of
value, usually money but occasionally property or other items of value,
to a recipient to accomplish a public purpose identified. DOE funds
only those programs authorized by Federal statute. Financial assistance
may be either discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary financial
assistance means DOE provides funding to a recipient of DOE's choosing;
DOE has the discretion to select a recipient as well as the size of the
award. Mandatory financial assistance means DOE must provide the
assistance to the entities named and the amounts stated by statute.
These procedures do not cover acquisition. Financial assistance
differs from an acquisition, which refers to instruments used when the
principal purpose of the transaction is the acquisition of supplies or
services for the direct benefit of the Government. The procedures
pursuant to this notice do not apply to acquisitions, which are covered
by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
II. Applicability of Notice--These procedures apply to the
evaluation of discretionary financial assistance applications received
for programs within the DOE EERE.
(a) Distinction Between Solicited Applications and Unsolicited
Proposals--Solicited applications constitute direct responses by
interested organizations or individuals to DOE Funding Opportunity
Announcements (FOA) in the form of applications for discretionary
financial assistance awards. Funding opportunities are announced using
the process set forth in 10 CFR 600.8. When a proposal is submitted
solely on the proposer's initiative, and the idea, method or approach
would be ineligible for assistance under a recent, current, or planned
solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive solicitation
would not be appropriate, the proposal is considered an unsolicited
proposal. Unsolicited proposals are awarded on a non-competitive basis
using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c). The two types of
proposals are treated differently for

[[Page 17847]]

merit review and the processes are described below.
(b) Renewals--A renewal award adds one or more budget periods to an
existing award's project period. Applications for renewal awards may be
submitted competitively (against a FOA that provides for renewal
applications) or non-competitively.
(c) Non-competitive Actions--Non-competitive actions are reviewed
and approved in a manner similar to that of unsolicited proposals using
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c) and as described in Section
III(d), herein.
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure--(a) Definition and Purpose--
A merit review constitutes the process of evaluating applications for
discretionary financial assistance while using established criteria.
Reviews shall be thorough, consistent, and independent, and completed
by individuals knowledgeable in the field or subject matter for which
support is requested (see Appendix 1 for EERE merit reviewer
qualification guidelines). The purpose of the merit review is to
provide advice and recommendations on the scientific and technical
merits of an application for consideration by the Selection Official.
The Selection Official has authority to select applications for
negotiation of a financial assistance award.
(b) Review Standards--Solicited Applications--1. Initial Compliance
Review--EERE will review each financial assistance application received
for conformance with initial review criteria and administrative
requirements published in the FOA, program rule or notice.
i. Any application not meeting the initial review criteria will be
determined to be non-compliant and precluded from further technical
merit review.
ii. Any applicant that is determined to be non-compliant will be
notified in writing, along with the reasons the application will not be
evaluated further.
iii. Applications meeting the initial compliance review criteria
will be reviewed for merit in accordance with the stated evaluation
criteria in the FOA, program rule or notice.
2. Merit Review of Solicited Applications--The Merit Review Panel
(Panel) will conduct an objective merit review for each application
that passes the initial compliance review, using the criteria published
in the FOA, program rule, or notice. The criteria to be used in the
merit review and the other mandatory information specified in 10 CFR
600.8 must be included in the FOA, program rule or notice. Typically,
the merit review criteria will be weighted individually to reflect
their relative importance in the overall merit of the application. The
Panel will review solicited applications based on information in the
FOA. The merit review will typically include the following attributes:
i. Applications that pass the initial compliance review will be
reviewed by the Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer review panels will
provide individual evaluations, which may include a score to the
Federal Merit Review Manager. DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will
provide a consensus rating (numeric, adjectival, or comparable) for
each criterion outlined in the FOA, program rule or notice based on the
strengths and weaknesses of the applications.
ii. An overall consensus rating will be determined for each
application by the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel.
iii. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will prepare a Merit Review
Advisory Report for the Selection Official. The report will discuss the
peer review, if any. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will establish
a selection range to include applications that were deemed technically
acceptable. The recommended selection range will be determined at the
conclusion of the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel meeting. Rationale for
the range must be included in the Merit Review Advisory Report.
(c) Review Standards--Unsolicited Proposals--1. Unsolicited
proposals will receive an initial review to determine if the proposal
will be eligible under 10 CFR 600.6(c). For an unsolicited proposal to
be eligible for an award, a proposal must meet one of the following
criteria:
i. The activity to be funded is necessary to the satisfactory
completion of, or is a continuation or renewal of, an activity
presently being funded by DOE or another Federal agency, and for which
competition for support would have a significant adverse effect on
continuity or completion of the activity.
ii. The activity is being or would be conducted by the applicant
using its own resources or those donated or provided by third parties;
however, DOE support of that activity would enhance the public benefits
to be derived and DOE knows of no other entity which is conducting or
is planning to conduct such an activity.
iii. The applicant is a unit of government and the activity to be
supported is related to performance of a governmental function within
the subject jurisdiction, thereby precluding DOE provision of support
to another entity.
iv. The applicant has exclusive domestic capability to perform the
activity successfully, based upon unique equipment, proprietary data,
technical expertise, or other such unique qualifications.
v. The award implements an agreement between the United States
Government and a foreign government to fund a foreign applicant.
vi. Time constraints associated with a public health, safety,
welfare or national security requirement preclude competition.
vii. The proposed project was submitted as an unsolicited proposal
and represents a unique or innovative idea, method, or approach which
would not be eligible for financial assistance under a recent, current,
or planned solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive
solicitation would not be appropriate.
viii. The responsible program Assistant Secretary, Deputy
Administrator, or other official of equivalent authority determines
that a noncompetitive award is in the public interest. This authority
may not be delegated.
2. Unsolicited proposals that pass the initial review shall be
reviewed against the criteria outlined in EERE's Guide for the
Submission of Unsolicited Proposals by a Merit Review Panel. These
criteria include:
i. Unique and innovative methods, approaches or concepts
demonstrated by the proposal;
ii. Overall scientific/technical or socioeconomic merit of the
proposed activity;
iii. Potential contribution of the effort to the DOE's specific
mission;
iv. The proposer's capabilities, related experience, facilities,
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors
for achieving the proposal objectives;
v. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed
principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel who are critical
in achieving the proposal objectives;
vi. The realism of the proposed costs; and
vii. The availability of funding to support the proposed project,
and the relative merit of the project compared with others that could
be supported with the same funds.
(See http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/usp/USPGuide.pdf).
3. When the substance of an unsolicited proposal is available to
the Government without restriction from another source, or closely
resembles that of a pending competitive solicitation, or does not
demonstrate an innovative and

[[Page 17848]]

unique method, approach or concept, the unsolicited proposal shall not
be accepted. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), part 15.607(a).
4. Additional guidance for reviewing noncompetitive proposals,
including renewal applications, and the template for the review plan
are provided in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance (available at http://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf). Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance, rather than Sections IV-VI of this Notice, applies to the
review of unsolicited proposals.
(d) The Merit Review Panel--1. The Merit Review Panel can be
established in many ways. It should always include at least one DOE
Federal employee. Non-DOE Federal experts may be part of the Merit
Review Panel as Peer Reviewers, but are not required. The most typical
arrangements are a peer review panel and a DOE Federal employee; a peer
review panel and a DOE Federal panel; or only a DOE Federal panel. Peer
review panels and DOE Federal panels should include at least three
technically qualified individuals. Merit review that involves a Federal
review panel is preferred over merit review that involves only one
Federal reviewer. The names of the Merit Review Panel will not be
released to the public.
2. Merit Review Panel Member Selection. The DOE Senior Procurement
Executive (SPE) has the ultimate responsibility for designating a
Selection Official. DOE officials, in accordance with the applicable
designation, may be appointed as the Selection Official. The SPE may
delegate authority to designate a Selection Official to other DOE
officials. Examples of officials to whom the authority may be delegated
include the Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Executive Director of Field
Operations, Head of Contracting Activity, the Program Managers, or
other similar positions within DOE. The Selection Official may not be a
member of the Merit Review Panel. Members of the Merit Review Panel
must be qualified personnel. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers may include
qualified personnel from Federal agencies, other Government entities,
academia, industry, and DOE contractors, including national laboratory
employees. The Contracting Officer may serve on the Merit Review Panel
in an ex officio capacity.
3. Conflicts of Interest. The Federal Merit Review Manager, in
consultation with Legal Counsel or the Contracting Officer, shall
review instances of potential conflicts involving members of the Merit
Review Panel. Merit Review Panel members must act in a manner
consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 et seq. Merit Review Panel members with
a conflict of interest shall immediately notify the Federal Merit
Review Manager of the conflict of interest and comply with any
mitigation measures required by the Federal Merit Review Manager,
including excusing themselves from all deliberations involving the
application for which they have a conflict of interest.
i. In determining potential conflicts, the Federal Merit Review
Manager shall give close scrutiny to reviewers who perform any of the
following:
a. Have any decision-making role regarding the application or
provide technical assistance to the applicant in regards to the
application;
b. Audit the recipient for the project; or
c. If included in the review, will give the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
ii. Situations that could be perceived as conflicts of interest may
include:
a. The application being reviewed was submitted by a reviewer's
recent student, recent teacher, former employer, close personal friend
or relative of the reviewer, spouse, or the reviewer's minor children.
b. The application being reviewed was submitted by a person with
whom the reviewer has had longstanding differences.
c. The application being reviewed is similar to projects being
conducted by the reviewer or by the reviewer's organization.
iii. When situations arise that present a perceived or actual
conflict of interest, the Federal Merit Review Manager, with
consultation from Legal Counsel, may permit reviewers to participate if
a Conflict of Interest (COI) waiver is granted and an acceptable
mitigation plan is implemented. The mitigation implemented shall be
reflected in the Merit Review Advisory Report. However, in no event
will a waiver be granted to permit a reviewer to evaluate an
application/proposal for his/her/host or affiliated organization or if
participation is prohibited by language in the FOA.
iv. Each member of the Merit Review Panel, including ex-officio
members, shall sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement, which requires adherence to the
following guidelines:
a. Reviewers shall not discuss the evaluation process with any
unauthorized personnel.
b. Reviewers shall not divulge their identities to any applicant.
c. Reviewers shall not contact applicants.
d. Reviewers shall not discuss the Panel proceedings outside of the
Merit Review Panel meeting, even after the selection and award.
e. Reviewers shall not accept any invitations, gratuities (i.e.,
meals, gifts, favors, etc.), or job offers from any applicant. If a
reviewer is offered any invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or on
behalf of any applicant, the reviewer shall immediately report it to
the Contracting Officer.
f. Reviewers shall only evaluate information provided by the
applicants in the applications and only evaluate against the published
criteria. No additional criteria are to be considered by the Panel.
g. Typically, reviewers shall initially rate all applications
independently and without consultation between reviewers.
h. Reviewers will inform the Federal Merit Review Manager of any
personal or organizational conflicts of interest arising out of
applications they are asked to review.
i. Reviewers may contact the Federal Merit Review Manager to obtain
clarifications regarding applications.
For more details see the DOE's Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance at http://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf.
4. Authorized Uses of Information. The Merit Review Panel must act
in a manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15 when dealing with
applications containing trade secrets, privileged, confidential
commercial, and/or financial information.
5. Federal Merit Review Manager--The Selection Official must
appoint a person from the EERE headquarters program as Federal Merit
Review Manager of the Merit Review Panel. The Federal Merit Review
Manager is responsible for:
i. Selecting the Merit Review Panel members and obtaining approval
from the EERE Program Manager;
ii. Ensuring a comprehensive and robust Evaluation and Selection
Plan;
iii. Overseeing the merit review process and all panel meetings,
ensuring that merit review procedures are followed consistently, as
well as applicable statutes and regulations including, but not limited
to, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2;
iv. Ensuring that Merit Review Panel members understand the
evaluation criteria and merit review procedures/process;
v. In the event of multiple Merit Review Panels due to large number
of

[[Page 17849]]

applications, ensuring consistency among the panels;
vi. Ensure each application is evaluated by the Merit Review Panel
in accordance with the Evaluation and Selection Plan;
vii. Ensuring that reviewers provide sound, well documented
evaluations;
viii. Addressing any unexpected or unique circumstances presented
and maintaining the integrity of the Merit Review process;
ix. Reviewing and approving the written summary of the evaluation
and recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review
Advisory Report;
x. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review
Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
xi. Ensuring that the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel take
appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit Review
Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
xii. Recommending application of the program policy factors, when
appropriate; ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared
in conformity with guidance set out in Part IV, herein; and
xiii. Making a presentation, if requested, to the Selection
Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the form of a
pre-selection briefing.
6. Co-Federal Merit Review Manager--The Selection Official may
appoint a person from the program's field staff as Co-Federal Merit
Review Manager. The Co-Federal Merit Review Manager is responsible for:
i. Preparing the Evaluation and Selection Plan for Federal Merit
Review Manager and Selection Official approval;
ii. Managing merit review logistics, including panel meetings,
etc.;
iii. Obtaining signed certificates of confidentiality from all
Merit Review Panel members to be kept on file at the issuing agency;
iv. Preparing the written summary of the evaluation and
recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review
Advisory Report;
v. Ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared in
conformity with guidance set out in Part V, herein;
vi. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review
Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
vii. Working with the Federal Merit Review Manager to ensure that
the technical merit review procedures are followed consistently when
carrying out the technical merit review. In the event of multiple merit
review panels due to large number of applications, the Federal Merit
Review Manager shall ensure consistency among the panels;
viii. Working with the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel to
take appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit
Review Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
ix. Assisting the Federal Merit Review Manager with the merit
review process;
x. Assuring control and security of applications;
xi. Preparing the Merit Review Advisory Report for the Selection
Official;
xii. Assisting in making a presentation, if requested, to the
Selection Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the
form of a pre-selection briefing;
xiii. Notifying unsuccessful applicants; and
xiv. Maintaining all merit review documentation.
7. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers typically will provide additional
expertise to the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer reviewers provide
specialized expertise and technical input to the DOE Federal Merit
Review Panel by reviewing applications and providing written and
sometimes verbal comments and ratings (numeric, adjectival or
comparable) based on their reviews of applications. Peer Reviewers must
be fully briefed by the Federal Merit Review Manager regarding the
review criteria and the peer reviewers must be aware that any criteria
not specified in the solicitation must not be used to evaluate the
applications. Peer Reviewers must sign a Confidentiality and Conflict
of Interest Certification and Acknowledgement, as provided in 10 CFR
600.13(d). All Peer Reviewers forward their comments and scores as
required to the Merit Review Panel. At the DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel's discretion, all or a subset of the Peer Reviewers may be
invited to present their scores and identified strengths and weaknesses
so the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel may discuss the Peer Reviewers'
comments and better understand the Peer Reviewers' scores and comments.
However, unless specifically allowed by statute, the Peer Reviewers may
not provide consensus scores or comments to the DOE Federal Merit
Review Panel. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will dismiss all non-
Federal reviewers prior to making any decisions regarding
recommendations to the Selection Official for award selection or
establishment of the selection range.
i. The Merit Review Panel should only task the minimum number of
Peer Reviewers necessary to effectively review the submitted
applications; and
ii. Selection of Peer Reviewers shall be done in accordance with
the selection of members of the Merit Review Panel, part III(d)(2)
herein.
IV. Merit Review Advisory Report--The purpose of the Merit Review
Advisory Report is to present the findings of the Merit Review Panel
and recommend applications that merit funding to the Selection
Official. The Federal Merit Review Manager shall provide the complete
report for review and obtain concurrence from the Contracting Officer
and Legal Counsel prior to submitting the report to the Selection
Official. The report will typically include four sections--one to
establish the purpose of the report, a second to document the
compliance review performed, a third to record the merit review process
used and any deviations from protocol, and a fourth that contains a
draft Selection Statement for execution by the Selection Official. In
addition, relevant attachments will be included as referenced below.
(a) Section 1 shall include the following:
1. A brief statement as to the purpose of the Merit Review Advisory
Report; and
2. A brief summary of the number of applications received and the
number deemed technically acceptable by the DOE Federal Merit Review
Panel for selection for negotiation of award.
(b) Section 2 shall include the following:
1. A list of applications rejected in the Initial Compliance
Review, if any; and
2. A list of the reasons why the application was rejected and not
comprehensively reviewed.
(c) Section 3 shall include the following:
1. The number of members on the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel and
the number of peer reviewers, their names and a brief discussion of
their qualifications, a statement that all applications were
independently reviewed in accordance with the requirements contained
herein, and a statement that all Panel members, including ex-officio
members, signed a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Certification and Acknowledgement;
2. A discussion of the peer review process for all applications;
3. Details of the Merit Review Panel meeting and the process
followed, including a discussion of any deviations, such as issues with
conflicts of interest;
4. A discussion of the development of consensus scores for each
application, the ranking process, the number of

[[Page 17850]]

applications deemed technically acceptable, and any observations or
findings that impacted the decision regarding the acceptable selection
range; and
5. Details of the Panel's process to set the selection range, and a
reference to the final list of applications deemed technically
acceptable in the Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications.
(d) Section 4 shall include the following:
1. A request for action from the Selection Official regarding
application of the program policy factors and selection of applications
for negotiation of award; and
2. Instructions regarding these actions and subsequent
communication of his/her decision to the Contracting Officer.
(e) Attachments to the Merit Review Advisory Report shall include
the following:
1. Record of Consensus Strengths and Weaknesses for each
application;
2. Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications;
3. Program Policy Factor Information Sheet; and
4. Draft Selection Statement for execution by the Selection
Official.
(f) For non-competitive applications including renewal
applications, the report to the Selection official will consist of
individual review forms and a summary statement consistent with that
found in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial
Assistance (available at http://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf). Additionally, a Selection Statement will be prepared to
document the Selection Official's selection of the project.
V. Application of program policy factors--Each application deemed
technically acceptable by the Merit Review Panel may receive a program
policy review by the Selection Official or personnel designated by the
Selection Official. The Selection Official may, at his/her discretion,
consider the program policy factors when making selections.
VI. Selection--The Selection Official will complete the Selection
Statement. The Selection Official will document all selections with a
written narrative, noting which program policy factors, if any, were
applied in making the selections. The Selection Official shall notify
the Contracting Officer in the selection statement of the applications
designated as ``alternate.'' In addition, the Selection Official may
identify negotiation strategies, if any, in the second page of the
Selection Statement entitled ``Negotiation Strategy.''
VII. Deviations--If an EERE program office intends to deviate from
these procedures for merit review of an application or a class of
applications but will still follow the rules of 10 CFR 600.13, that
office must obtain written permission from the Assistant Secretary of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Permission to use procedures
which deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be requested in writing addressed to
the responsible DOE Contracting Officer in accordance with 10 CFR
600.4. The Head of Contracting Activity has the authority to approve
such procedures for a single case deviation, while the Director,
Procurement and Assistance Management (Senior Procurement Executive)
has the authority to approve a class deviation. A deviation may be
authorized only upon written determination that the deviation is
necessary for any of the reasons set forth in 10 CFR 600.4(b).

Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy.

Appendix 1--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Reviewer
Qualification Guidelines--May 28, 2010

For typical EERE Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs),
examples of reviewer qualifications are identified below. Stronger
qualifications may be needed for certain FOAs. For example, the
Energy Innovation Hubs are modeled after Bell Labs, which recruited
the nation's best and brightest and sought a level of scientific
quality not possible in all R&D endeavors. The Department plans to
invest more than $120 million over five years in the Hubs, with a
possible extension to ten years. Therefore, reviewer selection
criteria should be consistent with the high quality of science
expected and the significant level of investment. Reviewer
qualifications for typical EERE FOAs:
At least 5 years of experience in a relevant field.
People with less experience should have some other strong
credentials, e.g., a PhD with a strong publication or patent record
specific to the technology being evaluated, a young investigator
award, or a strong pedigree (e.g., a PhD from a high caliber
institution or under a recognized leader in the field). If a newly
minted PhD with a strong pedigree is being considered as a reviewer,
he/she should have some additional accomplishments such as a seminal
paper in the field, or an invited talk to a major conference.
Publications and Patents. This could include having a
significant number of peer-reviewed publications and/or patents in
the technology being evaluated. For those who have a lengthy and
diverse publication history, the timeframe of publications and/or
patents should reflect that the reviewer's knowledge of the
technology is relevant and not outdated.
Other evidence that the person is a recognized expert
in the field. This could include having managed a public policy
program that has had a national impact, a record of bringing
innovations to the market, or holding key patents.
An advanced degree (Ph.D., Sc.D., D.Eng., M.S., or
M.B.A.) in a relevant field. Those with a Bachelors degree should
have more experience and/or a record of accomplishments indicating
their expertise in the field.
Relevant awards. This would include being a recipient
of a National Medal of Science, American Chemical Society National
Award, Young Investigator Award, R&D 100 Award, or other awards
specific to a technology (e.g., Fuel Cell Seminar Award).
Key Society Membership. Member of the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) or Engineering (NAE) member, American Physics
Society Fellow, National Laboratory Fellow.

[FR Doc. 2011-7581 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P