Questions concerning this policy chapter should be directed to:

0401 Overview

This chapter establishes Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) financial policies for the application, review, and award of Federal financial assistance.

Key items covered in this chapter include:

  • Grants Program Offices (GPOs) will determine the type of award instrument and their appropriate use, basis for funding, project periods, and distribution of non-competitive awards;
  • GPOs will design and execute a merit review process for the award of discretionary grants, pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.205;
  • GPOs will perform a risk assessment to determine the level of risk posed (low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk) to VA by applicants or recipients; and
  • GPOs will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) to ensure members of Congress are aware of new and competing grant awards.

0402 Revisions

SectionRevisionOfficeReason for ChangeEffective Date
040511Added language requiring compliance with Build America, Buy America Act.OBO-
GMS (045)		OMB released revisions to Title 2 of the C.F.R. adding a new part 184.December 2023
VariousEnsured accuracy of 2 CFR citations and outlined the award process in chronological order.OBO-
GMS (045)		In previous versions the citations to 2 CFR 200 were broad and not specific.December 2023
Appendices B-HAppendices were removed.OBO-GMS (045)Appendices were moved to a practice guide available on the GMS Community of Practice SharePoint site.December 2023
0404 Roles and ResponsibilitiesUpdated and streamlined section.OFP (047G)Reorganized chapter layoutJuly 2022
040511Updated to add awards must include a statement that awardees must comply with all laws, rules, regulationsOFP (047G)Updated to address recent requirements established in OMB memorandumsJuly 2022
Appendix GRemoved Grant Application Rubric.OFP (047G)No OMB authority to support.July 2022

For a complete listing of previous policy revisions, see Appendix A.

0403 Definitions

Cooperative agreement – a legal instrument of financial assistance between VA and a recipient or a pass-through entity and subrecipient that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. §§ 6302-6305, is used to enter into a relationship with the principal purpose of transferring anything of value to carry out a public purpose authorized by a law of the United States. It shall not be used to acquire property or services for the Federal Government or pass-through entity’s direct benefit or use. A cooperative agreement is distinguished from a grant in that it provides for substantial involvement of VA in carrying out the activity contemplated by the Federal award.

Discretionary grant – an award in which VA, in keeping with specific statutory authority that enables the agency to exercise judgment (“discretion”), selects the recipient and/or the amount of Federal funding awarded through a competitive process or based on merit of proposals. A discretionary award may be selected on a non-competitive basis, as appropriate.

Federal award – the Federal financial assistance (grant or cooperative agreement) that a recipient receives directly from VA or indirectly from a pass-through entity including the terms and conditions set forth.

Grant agreement – a legal instrument of financial assistance between a VA or pass-through entity and a recipient that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. §§ 6302, 6304.

Merit Review – an objective process of evaluating competing Federal award applications in accordance with written standards set forth by VA and in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.205.

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) – a formal announcement of the availability of Federal funding through a financial assistance program from VA, whether it is called a “program announcement,” “notice of funding availability,” “broad agency announcement,” “research announcement,” “solicitation,” or some other term. NOFOs provide information such as the type of award, eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria, and application requirements.

Pass-through Entity – a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program.

Period of Performance – the time interval from the start date of a funded portion of an award to the end date of that funded portion during which recipients are authorized to expend the funds awarded, including any funds carried forward or other revisions pursuant to 2 C.F.R § 200.308.

Recipient – an entity that receives a Federal award directly from VA to carry out an activity under a VA grant program.

System for Award Management (SAM.gov) – the Official U.S. Government system used for registering to do business with the federal government, listing contract opportunities, capturing contractor performance, viewing contract data, searching assistance listings, reporting subcontracts, and more.

0404 Roles and Responsibilities

Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Other Key Officials and Administration and Staff Office CFOs are responsible for ensuring compliance with the policies set forth in this chapter.

Approving Official is the individual with the authority or delegated authority to make funding decisions or obligate funds on behalf of the Federal government for a given program.

Reviewer is responsible for reviewing and evaluating grant applications. As part of a merit review panel, reviewers score, and rank received applications. Reviewers may be subject matter experts, grants management experts, financial management of grants experts, or contribute other expertise to the review process.

Grant Program Office (GPO) is the organization responsible for programmatic administration of a particular grant program.

Office of Budget (OB) is responsible for the allocation of funds in accordance with the statutory authority for each grant program.

0405  Policies

040501 General Policies

  1. GPOs will determine the appropriate instrument for a Federal award (i.e., grant agreement or cooperative agreement) in accordance with 31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6308. Grants and cooperative agreements are subject to the same rules and regulations contained in 2 C.F.R § 200 and this policy.
  2. A grant or cooperative agreement will be used when the principal purpose is to transfer anything of value to carry out a public purpose authorized by Federal statute.
  3. The distinguishing feature between a grant and cooperative agreement is that under a cooperative agreement, substantial involvement is anticipated. between GPOs and the recipient during performance of the funded activity whereas, with a grant there will be minimal involvement between the GPO and the recipient.
  4. In carrying out the activity contemplated by the Federal award, substantial involvement may include collaboration or participation by GPOs in activities specified in the award and, as appropriate, decision-making at specified milestones related to performance.
  5. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.112, the applicant must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the GPO. GPOs will enforce VA’s conflict of interest policies to identify and manage real or potential conflicts of interest between an applicant and a reviewer.
  6. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.215, VA and recipients are subject to the regulations implementing Never Contract with the Enemy in 2 C.F.R. part 183 which affects grants and cooperative agreements that are expected to exceed $50,000 within the period of performance, are performed outside the United States and its territories, and are in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaged in hostilities.

040502 Risk Assessment

  1. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.206(b)(1), VA GPOs must have in place a framework for evaluating the risks posed by applicants before they receive a Federal award.
  2. When conducting a risk assessment, the following are examples of items, as described in 2 C.F.R. § 200.206(b)(2), that may be considered:
    • Financial stability;
    • Management systems and standards;
    • History of performance;
    • Audit reports and findings; and
    • Ability to effectively implement requirements.
  3. GPOs may use special award conditions that correspond to the degree of risk assessed as a means of protecting the Government’s interests and effecting positive change in the recipients’ performance or compliance pre- or post-award.
  4. Special award conditions may be applied as needed based on the applicant or recipient’s:
    1. History of compliance with the general or specific terms and conditions of a Federal award;
    2. Ability to meet expected performance goals and objectives designed to facilitate the delivery of meaningful results as referred to in 2 C.F.R. § 200.202;
    3. Ability to show achievement of program goals and objectives originally outlined by the program as referred to in 2 C.F.R. § 200.301; or
    4. Improved performance during the period identified in the special award conditions, which may result in lessened monitoring, reporting, or other special conditions.
  5. Additional award conditions may include one or more grant conditions such as those outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208(c).
  6. If GPOs impose additional requirements as a result of a risk assessment, per 2 C.F.R. § 200.208(d), recipients must be notified of their level of risk and of any additional requirements prior to the start of the Federal award, and as applicable:
    1. The nature of the additional requirements;
    2. The reason why the additional requirements are being imposed;
    3. The nature of the action needed to remove the additional requirement, if applicable;
    4. The time allowed for completing the actions if applicable; and
    5. The method for requesting reconsideration of the additional requirements imposed.
  7. Any additional requirements that have been imposed on a recipient by GPOs must be removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied.
  8. GPOs may adjust requirements when a risk-assessment indicates that it may be merited either pre- or post-award.

040503 Grant Funding

  1. Recipients cannot be officially selected, announced, or awarded prior to receipt of an appropriation. NOFOs may be issued prior to receipt of an appropriation; however, the award cannot be made until the appropriation is enacted.
  2. VA will use the appropriation in effect at the time of award, unless a different funding method is authorized or allowed by statute or appropriation.
  3. If there is a continuation of an award, the appropriation in effect at the time the continuation is awarded will be used unless a different funding method is authorized or allowed by statute or appropriation.
  4. The period of performance must be fully funded from the appropriation in effect at the beginning date of the period of performance.
  5. As VA incurs a legal liability when an award occurs an obligation must be recorded for the entirety of the period of performance. For example, if a GPO has a 1-year appropriation and signs a grant agreement on September 25, 2023, for a grant that begins on October 1, 2023, with a two-year period of performance ending September 30, 2025, the award must be obligated for the entire amount of the grant using an FY 2023 appropriation.
  6. There must be a bona fide need at the time of award.
  7. An awarding office will not obligate funds for a grant in a current or future period of performance for unknown or contingent activities.
  8. The terms and conditions of an award govern the recipient’s expenditure of funds. Therefore, the terms and conditions must address the period during which the recipient may obligate funds, how unobligated balances are to be handled, and any authorities for extending the period of availability of awarded funds.
  9. Discretionary grants (including congressional earmarks) are awarded under a “project period” basis. This basis provides the recipient with an indication of the awarding office’s intent to fund the project during the approved project period.
  10. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(a), the approved budget summarizes the financial aspects of the project or program. Recipients must submit requested deviations from the approved budget or project scope or objective and request prior approval as required under 2 C.F.R. § 200.308.
  11. VA GPOs must receive written requests with adequate justification for deviations in project budget, scope, or objective and approve or disapprove such requests in writing. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(j), GPOs should typically respond to requests for deviation considerations (budget revisions or other revisions) within 30 calendar days.

040504 Grants Merit Review Panel

  1. A grant merit review panel, if required, will be convened by GPOs to perform a review of applications received in response to a NOFO.
  2. Relevant materials, including the original NOFO containing the scoring guidelines, statutes, regulations, confidentiality statements, conflict of interest statements, submitted applications, and scoring sheets must be provided to all reviewers prior to their review of applications.
  3. Merit review panel members must:
    1. Be knowledgeable in the field of endeavor or subject matter under review or hold expertise in the area of grants management and or financial management of grant awards;
    2. Be sufficiently independent of the entity applying for assistance;
    3. Be able to render an objective and unbiased evaluation; and
    4. Not have a direct relationship or a personal interest in the award of Federal financial assistance to a particular applicant.
  4. Reviewers shall not have or appear to have any prejudices or biases toward a particular application and must attest to no conflicts of interest prior to scoring the applications. Merit reviewers shall recuse themselves from reviewing a Federal financial assistance application if there is a real or perceived lack of independence, personal interest, prejudice, or bias towards the applicant.
  5. A reviewer has a conflict of interest in an application if that person, member of their family, member of their social network, or previous romantic partner:
    1. Is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee of or consultant to the applicant organization, its parent, or any subsidiary organization;
    2. Is in current negotiations (or has arrangements concerning) with prospective employment (or other similar association) with the applicant organization, its parent, or any subsidiary organization; or
    3. Has a financial interest in the application or the applicant organization, its parent, or any subsidiary organization.
  6. The individual responsible for coordinating the review (e.g., program official or head of the GPO) must ultimately determine whether a reviewer has a conflict of interest and must be removed as a member of a grant merit review panel.
  7. Reviewers will individually review and score each application under consideration utilizing the scoring guidelines outlined in the original NOFO. The review will result in:
    1. An evaluation of all applications to ensure they meet the criteria outlined in the NOFO, including program regulations;
    2. A summary of each application’s weaknesses; and
    3. If applicable, based on GPO operating procedures, a summary of each application’s strengths.
  8. After completion of the review and in accordance with the NOFO, GPOs will collect reviewers’ scores and all applicants will be ranked. These scores and ranking will help to inform GPO’s decisions regarding awards and funding amounts.

040505 Applicant Review and Award Process

  1. GPOs will consider the type and volume of applications expected to be received/reviewed and the needed type(s) of expertise in determining the nature of grant merit review panels and reviewers it will use to carry out the reviews.
  2. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.205, for discretionary Federal awards, unless prohibited by Federal statute, each GPO must design and execute a merit review process for applications with the objective of selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives.
  3. VA requires that the merit review process be described or incorporated by reference in the original NOFO. The results of the merit review are advisory to the approving official and must be considered by that official when making awards.
  4. Applications will be reviewed or scored in accordance with the evaluation criteria included in the NOFO.
  5. GPOs should begin seeking review panel members prior to the application deadline. After applications are received, the GPO will convene a grant merit review panel to evaluate applications.

040506 Non-Competitive Review

  1. GPOs will not use the merit review process if the method for selection and award is based on a statutory, appropriations, or regulatory required formula or another non-competitive construct; or if the award is granted an extension of funding or time in writing by VA.
  2. GPOs may utilize non-competitive review processes for:
    1. Grant award extensions involving time and/or funding; or
    2. Grant programs where awards are determined through formulas.

040507 Grant Award Extensions

  1. Unless prohibited by statute, regulation, or grant agreement, 2 C.F.R. § 200.308 allows for a period of performance to be extended with or without additional funds if written approval is provided by VA.
  2. NOFOs should state whether non-competing continuation applications of time and/or funding, also known as grant award extensions, are possible.
  3. Grant award extensions must not be exercised merely for the purpose of using unobligated amounts.
  4. To approve a grant award extension of time and/or funding, this can be determined and approved prior to the decision to extend. If funding is unavailable, an extension of funding may not be possible.
  5. Offers of grant award extensions must be made uniformly, fairly, and with adequate notice to all potential recipients, which is best accomplished through the NOFO.
  6. If permitted by the original NOFO, the recipient may request a grant award extension for extended time and/or funding, but it must be approved in writing by VA and must not exceed the five-year expiration of funds limit on fixed appropriations.
  7. GPOs may use annual performance or progress reports in addition to the grant award extension request as the basis for determining whether continued funding should be provided.
  8. Each GPO should have a documented process to review the award amendment request. This process must be followed when determining whether additional time and/or funding may be awarded.
  9. GPOs must review applicable, relevant documents which could include the proposed budgets for continuing awards or grant award extensions for allowability (per 2 C.F.R. § 200.403), reasonableness (per 2 C.F.R. § 200.404), and allocability (per 2 C.F.R. § 200.405). GPOs may also include as part of this review any applicable progress reports, financial reports, and performance reports along with the timeliness of those submissions; the most recent SF-425 submission to determine if there are unobligated balances or unusual expenditure patterns; and the conditions of the award to ensure that all relevant conditions have been completed.

040508 Required Reviews and Reporting

  1. Pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.206(a)(2), GPOs are required to review the responsibility/qualification and exclusion records available in the non-public segment of the OMB-designated integrity and performance system. This is accessible through the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to making a Federal award where the Federal share is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (See 41 U.S.C. § 2313).
    1. The GPO must consider all of the information available in SAM with regard to the applicant and any immediate highest-level owner, predecessor (meaning, an organization that is replaced by a successor), or subsidiary identified for that applicant in SAM.
    2. The information in the system for a prior recipient of a Federal award must demonstrate a satisfactory record of executing programs or activities under Federal financial assistance or procurement awards, and integrity and business ethics.
    3. The GPO may make a Federal award to a recipient that does not fully meet these standards if it is determined that the information is not relevant to the Federal award under consideration or there are specific conditions that can appropriately mitigate the effects of the risk associated with the recipient in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.208.
  2. GPOs must also consult the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) to determine compliance with Audit Requirements, subpart F of 2 C.F.R. § 200 as well as to determine if there are audit findings relevant to the interest of GPOs.
  3. GPOs will perform an evaluation of the adequacy of financial management, whether potential recipients can administer Federal funds properly. This may be done through the pre-award risk assessment or by another method.
  4. GPOs will determine whether the recipient has the financial capability necessary to sustain operations and perform the planned project. An intended recipient may have questionable financial capabilities if:
    • It is newly established;
    • It has never received a Federal grant award or a VA grant award; and
    • It has known financial difficulties; or there is a reasonable doubt as to its financial capabilities based on known facts or circumstances.
  5. If a GPO does not make a Federal award to a non-Federal entity because the GPO determines that the non-Federal entity does not meet either or both of the minimum qualification standards as described in 2 C.F.R. § 200.206(a)(2), the GPO must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.gov, only if the circumstances outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.213(a) apply.
  6. GPOs will inform recipients of prohibitions outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.216.
  7. If a GPO reports a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award, the GPO must notify the non-Federal entity as described in 2 C.F.R. § 200.213(c).
  8. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.213(e), GPOs must not post any information that will be made publicly available in the non-public segment of the responsibility/qualification records in SAM.gov that is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If an applicant asserts within seven calendar days to the GPO that some or all of the information made publicly available in SAM.gov is covered by a disclosure exemption under FOIA, the GPO must remove the posting within seven calendar days of receiving the assertion. Prior to reposting the releasable information, GPOs must resolve the issue with VA’s FOIA Office and submit a request via the National FOIA Portal.

040509 Selection of Recipients

  1. GPOs will make recommendations to the approving official about which applications to approve. The approving official may consider the ranking and any other information described in the NOFO, statute, Executive Order, or regulation.
  2. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.212, GPOs will post a list of which applicants were approved on USAspending.gov for public view. GPOs must also post a list of the selected recipients on their program website.
  3. GPOs will send a letter to applicants when a decision has been reached, including applications that have been rejected.
  4. Decisions to award grants are discretionary and not appealable by applicants unless stated otherwise in statute or regulation.

040510 Budget and Financial Review

  1. Prior to making an award, GPOs will determine based on a budget review or cost analysis, whether the application budget meets specified cost allowability requirements for the work to be carried out under the award and contributes to the objectives of the program.
  2. Prior to making an award, GPOs will determine funding and resource requirements found in respective Federal statutes and regulations are met and funding is available prior to award.

040511 Issuance of Grant Agreement

  1. GPOs will provide recipients with a grant agreement.
  2. The grant agreement will be signed by the designated GPO or another program designee unless a different authority is required by statute or regulation and no appropriate delegation is on record.
  3. Each grant agreement will contain at a minimum the information outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.211, which includes:
    • Federal award performance goals;
    • General Federal award information;
    • General terms and conditions;
    • Specific terms and conditions; and
    • A statement that recipients must comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive orders (e.g., Public Law 117-58, EO M-22-11 Build Back Better, 2 CFR Part 184, The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, The Drug Free Workplace Act, etc.).
  4. Each grant agreement will include at a minimum general terms and conditions that address the following, as appropriate, whether pre-printed on the grant agreement, incorporated by reference, or included in the whole text or in part:
    1. VA and GPO administrative regulations that apply to the award;
    2. Recipient integrity and performance matters per 2 C.F.R. § 200.211(c)(1)(iii);
    3. National policy requirements per 2 C.F.R. § 200.211(c)(1)(ii);
    4. Per 2 CFR 200.211(c)(1)(iv), an indication that subsequent budget periods are subject to the availability of funds, program authority, satisfactory performance, and compliance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award, if it is anticipated that the period of performance will include multiple budget periods;
    5. The applicable cost principles based on the recipient’s organizational type (2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E);
    6. The contact information of the GPO;
    7. Reporting requirements, including information such as the name of any required forms, any formatting instructions, due date(s), and submission instructions (manual or electronic) and, as applicable, a Web site for further information. This includes financial reporting, progress reporting, and, as applicable, research integrity/misconduct and invention reporting;
    8. How any program income earned under the award will be used, if appropriate;
    9. For cooperative agreements, a specific statement of the nature and extent of the awarding office’s anticipated substantial programmatic involvement in the project;
    10. The post-award requirements of applicable public policies, including protection of human subjects, and new restrictions on lobbying (38 C.F.R. Parts 16 and 45);
    11. Termination provisions;
    12. The following statement: “The VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) maintains a toll-free number (1-800-488-8244) for collecting information concerning fraud, waste, or abuse under grants and cooperative agreements. Information also may be submitted by web form on the OIG Hotline website or by mail to VA Inspector General Hotline (53E), 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20420. Such reports are treated as sensitive material and submitters may decline to give their names if they choose to remain anonymous;” and
    13.  All recipients/recipients must comply with Build America Buy America Act requirements, Public Law 117-58, and 2 C.F.R. Part 184, which ensures that all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials are produced in the United States.
  5. In addition to the general terms and conditions, awards may contain specific conditions, as allowed by 2 C.F.R. § 200.208.
  6. When applicable, the grant agreement should indicate that the recipient may assign its payments to a financial institution (bank, trust company, or other financing institution, including any Federal lending agency) if necessary, to finance the costs of the federally supported project.

040512 Congressional Notification

  1. Coordination between the VA grant program and the Office for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) is required to ensure members of Congress receive prompt notification of all new and competing grant awards to domestic organizations. This includes significant program expansion supplements.
  2. GPOs will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA), including the Office of Congressional Liaison (OCL). This coordination may occur simultaneously to the VA concurrence process.

040513 Deliberations and Documentation

  1. Documentation generated throughout the merit review process will be handled in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the individual reviewers’ identity, comments, and their assessment of the overall ranking.
  2. Except where the authorized GPOs assert any applicable exemptions from the disclosure requirements in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and/or 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1014, certain documents related to the review may be made available to the public exclusive of scores and rankings.

0406 Authorities and References

0407 Rescissions

VA Financial Policy Volume X, Chapter 4 – Grant Application Review and Award Process, July 2022.

0408 Policy Approval

This policy was approved by the VA Chief Financial Officers’ Council on December 13, 2023.

Appendix A: Previous Revision Table

SectionRevisionOfficeReason for ChangeEffective Date
VariousReformatted to new policy format and completed 5-year review.OFP (047G)Reorganized chapter layout.July 2022
VariousUpdated grant application and award process for program offices.OFP (047G)OMB released revisions to Title 2 of the C.F.R. for Federal grants.July 2022
0403 DefinitionsUpdated Definitions.OFP (047G)Updated and added definitions for clarity.July 2022
0404 Roles and ResponsibilitiesUpdated and streamlined section.OFP (047G)Reorganized chapter layout.July 2022
040511Updated to add awards must include a statement that awardees must comply with all laws, rules, regulations.OFP (047G)Updated to address recent requirements established in OMB memorandums.July 2022
Appendix GRemoved.OFP (047G)No OMB authority to support.July 2022
VariousInsert FAPIIS information with link and SAM information with link.Grants Management Service (047GD) January 2017
 VariousUpdated references to “grants,” “grant programs,” and “grant offices” to incorporate definition clarifications from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
VariousIncluded verbiage regarding types of wards from updated OMB Uniform Grant Guidance and removed references to superseded guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
VariousUpdated references to “awarding office” and “grantee/recipient” to incorporate definition clarifications from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
VariousAdded new OMB Uniform Grant Guidance regarding framework to evaluate applicant risk.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
VariousIncluded reference that NOFA is addressed in Chapter 3.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
VariousUpdated years referenced to make funding periods generic.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
040202  Grant Application      Review of MeritIncluded the requirement of a merit review process for applicants, per OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.   Removed reference to “objective review” based upon updated guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
40202.03 Application ScreeningUpdated references to “funding opportunity announcement,” “grant,” and “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014 
040202.03 CFurther clarified the definition of a conflict of interest, per OMB Uniform Grant Guidance. Updated references to “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
40202.05 Conducting the ReviewUpdated references to “funding opportunity announcement,” “grant,” and “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
40202.07 Documentation of the ReviewUpdated references to “funding opportunity announcement,” “grant,” and “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
040203 Grant Application and Deliberate ReviewUpdated references to “funding opportunity announcement,” “grant,” and “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance. Updated references of superseded guidance to the current guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
040204 Federal Financial Assistance AwardsUpdated references to “funding opportunity announcement,” “grant,” and “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
040204.02 Notice of AwardUpdated to include addressing risk per OMB Uniform Grant Guidance. Updated superseded guidance to correct references.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
0403 Authority and ReferencesUpdated all superseded guidance to the correct references.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
DefinitionsUpdated references to “objective review” to incorporate definition clarification from OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014
Appendix AFurther clarified conflict of interest representation to reflect OMB Uniform Grant Guidance.Grants Management Service (047GD) October 2014