[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR206.4]

[Page 390-391]
 
                       TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
 
        CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CONTINUED)
 
PART 206_NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP) GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF 
 
Sec. 206.4  Proposal development and review.

    The purpose of this section is to explain the NSEP review process. 
[Note: A number of important approaches to proposal development and 
review have

[[Page 391]]

been adapted from guidelines developed by the Department of Education's 
Office of Postsecondary Education for its ``Fund for the Improvement of 
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)''.] This information if intended to aid 
institutions in the development of proposals and to provide guidance 
concerning the criteria that may be used in reviewing and evaluating 
proposals.
    (a) The grants to institutions program will be administered by the 
National Security Education Program Office (NSEPO). However, the NSEPO 
will function as an administrative office much in the same manner as the 
Institute of International Education and the Academy for Educational 
Development function in administering NSEP scholarship and fellowship 
programs, respectively. The NSEPO will not review or evaluate proposals. 
The proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by national screening 
panels.
    (b) The NSEP will use a two-stage review process in order to 
evaluate a broad range of proposal ideas. In the first stage, applicants 
will submit a five-page summary (double-spaced) of their proposal. An 
institution may submit more than one proposal, but each proposal should 
be submitted and will be evaluated separately and independently.
    (c) NSEP expects competition for grants to be intense. By 
implementing a two-stage process, potential grantees are given an 
opportunity to present their ideas without creating a paperwork burden 
on both the proposal authors and the reviewers.
    (d) The preliminary review process. The review of preliminary 
proposals will be undertaken by panels of external reviewers, not 
members of the NSEPO. Panels of not less than three will be assembled to 
review preliminary proposals. Panel members will be drawn primarily from 
faculty and administration in higher education but might also include 
representatives from the research, business, and government communities. 
Every effort will be made to ensure balance (geographical, ethnic, 
gender, institutional type, subject matter) across the entire 
competition.
    (e) Panel members will reflect the nature of the grants program. 
Each panel will include a recognized expert in a field of international 
education. Other panelists may include experts in area studies, foreign 
language education, and other fields and disciplines with an 
international focus.
    (f) Preliminary proposals will be reviewed according to a set of 
criteria developed in consultation with representatives from higher 
education, and provided to the panels. The applicant shall, at a 
minimum, deal with the following issues in the preliminary proposal:
    (1) How the proposal addresses issues of national capacity in 
international education.
    (2) What area(s), language(s), and discipline(s) the proposal 
addresses and the importance of these to U.S. national capacity.
    (3) What the applicant is proposing to do.
    (4) How the proposal deals with the key characteristics of the NSEP.
    (5) Demonstration of thorough knowledge of the state of the art in 
the particular area of the proposal and how this proposal develops or 
builds capacity, not duplicates existing capacity.
    (g) The applicant must also include a budget estimate. This budget 
estimate, for the first year of the proposal, must include the 
following:
    (1) A summary of anticipated direct costs including professional 
salaries, funds for students, travel, materials and supplies, 
consultants, etc., and how or why these costs are needed.
    (2) An estimate of institutional indirect costs. The budget estimate 
must also indicate whether funding is also being requested for a second 
year and, if so, an estimate of the amount to be requested.
    (h) Panelists will review and rank proposals and forward their 
recommendations to the NSEPO. NSEPO will review and analyze these 
recommendations and inform all applicants of decisions.