Section 703.6 - Grant Review Process(a) For all Grant Applications that are not administratively withdrawn by the Institute for noncompliance or otherwise withdrawn by the Grant Applicant, the Institute shall use a two-stage Peer Review process.(1) The Peer Review process, as described herein, is used to identify and recommend meritorious Cancer Research projects, including those projects with Cancer Research Product Development prospects, and evidence-based Cancer Prevention and Control projects for Grant Award consideration by the Program Integration Committee and the Oversight Committee.(2) Peer Review will be conducted pursuant to the requirements set forth in Chapter 702 of this title (relating to Institute Standards on Ethics and Conflicts, Including the Acceptance of Gifts and Donations to the Institute) and Chapter 102, Texas Health and Safety Code.(b) The two stages of the Peer Review Process used by the Institute are:(1) Evaluation of Grant Applications by Peer Review Panels; and(2) Prioritization of Grant Applications by the Prevention Review Council, the Product Development Review Council, or the Scientific Review Council, as may be appropriate for the Grant Program.(c) Except as described in subsection (e) of this section, the Peer Review Panel evaluation process encompasses the following actions, which will be consistently applied:(1) The Institute distributes all Grant Applications submitted for a particular Grant Mechanism to one or more Peer Review Panels.(2) The Peer Review Panel chairperson assigns each Grant Application to no less than two panel members that serve as the Primary Reviewers for the Grant Application. Assignments are made based upon the expertise and background of the Primary Reviewer in relation to the Grant Application.(3) The Primary Reviewer is responsible for individually evaluating all components of the Grant Application, critiquing the merits according to explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications, and providing an individual Overall Evaluation Score that conveys the Primary Reviewer's general impression of the Grant Application's merit. The Primary Reviewers' individual Overall Evaluation Scores are averaged together to produce a single initial Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.(4) The Peer Review Panel meets to discuss the Grant Applications assigned to the Peer Review Panel. If there is insufficient time to discuss all Grant Applications, the Peer Review Panel chairperson determines the Grant Applications to be discussed by the panel. The chairperson's decision is based largely on the Grant Application's initial Overall Evaluation Score; however, a Peer Review Panel member may request that a Grant Application be discussed by the Peer Review Panel.(A) If a Grant Application is not discussed by the Peer Review Panel, then the initial Overall Evaluation Score serves as the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application. The Grant Application is not considered further during the Grant Review Cycle.(B) If a Grant Application is discussed by the Peer Review Panel, each Peer Review Panel member submits a score for the Grant Application based on the panel member's general impression of the Grant Application's merit and accounting for the explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications. The submitted scores are averaged together to produce the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.(i) The panel chairperson participates in the discussion but does not score Grant Applications.(ii) A Primary Reviewer has the option to revise his or her score for the Grant Application after panel discussion or to keep the same score submitted during the initial review.(C) If the Peer Review Panel recommends changes to the Grant Award funds amount requested by the Grant Applicant or to the Scope of Work for the proposed project, then the recommended changes and explanation shall be recorded at the time the final Overall Evaluation Score is set.(5) At the conclusion of the Peer Review Panel evaluation, the Peer Review Panel chairperson submits to the appropriate Review Council a list of Grant Applications discussed by the panel ranked in order by the final Overall Evaluation Score. Any changes to the Grant Award funding amount or to the Scope of Work recommended by the Peer Review Panel shall be provided to the Review Council at that time.(d) The Review Council's prioritization process for Grant Award recommendations encompasses the following actions, which will be consistently applied:(1) The Review Council prioritizes the Grant Application recommendations across all the Peer Review Panels by assigning a Numerical Ranking Score to each Grant Application that was discussed by a Peer Review Panel. The Numerical Ranking Score is substantially based on the final Overall Evaluation Score submitted by the Peer Review Panel, but also takes into consideration how well the Grant Application achieves program priorities set by the Oversight Committee, the overall Program portfolio balance, and any other criteria described in the Request for Applications.(2) The Review Council's recommendations are submitted simultaneously to the presiding officers of the Program Integration Committee and Oversight Committee. The recommendations, listed in order by Numerical Ranking Score, shall include:(A) An explanation describing how the Grant Application meets the Review Council's standards for Grant Award funding;(B) The final Overall Evaluation Score assigned to the Grant Application by the Peer Review Panel, including an explanation for ranking one or more Grant Applications ahead of another Grant Application with a more favorable final Overall Evaluation Score; and(C) The specified amount of the Grant Award funding for each Grant Application, including an explanation for recommended changes to the Grant Award funding amount or to the Scope of Work.(3) A Grant Award recommendation is not final until the Review Council formally submits the recommendation to the presiding officers of the Program Integration Committee and the Oversight Committee. The Program Integration Committee, and, if appropriate, the Oversight Committee must make a final decision on the Grant Award recommendation in the same state fiscal year that the Review Council submits its final recommendation.(e) Circumstances relevant to a particular Grant Mechanism or to a Grant Review Cycle may justify changes to the dual-stage Peer Review process described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. Peer Review process changes the Institute may implement are described in this subsection. The list is not intended to be exhaustive. Any material changes to the Peer Review process, including those listed in this subsection, shall be described in the Request for Applications or communicated to all Grant Applicants.(1) The Institute may use a preliminary evaluation process if the volume of Grant Applications submitted pursuant to a specific Request for Applications is such that timely review may be impeded. The preliminary evaluation will be conducted after Grant Applications are assigned to Peer Review Panels but prior to the initial review described in subsection (c) of this section. The preliminary evaluation encompasses the following actions:(A) The criteria and the specific Grant Application components used for the preliminary evaluation shall be stated in the Request for Applications;(B) No less than two Peer Review Panel members are assigned to conduct the preliminary evaluation for a Grant Application and provide a preliminary score that conveys the general impression of the Grant Application's merit pursuant to the specified criteria; and(C) The Peer Review Panel chairperson is responsible for determining the Grant Applications that move forward to initial review as described in subsection (c) of this section. The decision will be based upon preliminary evaluation scores. A Grant Application that does not move forward to initial review will not be considered further, and the average of the preliminary evaluation scores received becomes the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.(2) The Institute shall assign all Grant Applications submitted for recruitment of researchers and clinicians to the Scientific Review Council.(A) The Scientific Review Council members review all components of the Grant Application, evaluate the merits according to explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications, and, after discussion by the Review Council members, provide an individual Overall Evaluation Score that conveys the Review Council member's recommendation related to the proposed recruitment.(B) The individual Overall Evaluation Scores are averaged together for a final Overall Evaluation Score for the Application.(C) If more than one recruitment Grant Application is reviewed by the Scientific Review Council during the Grant Review Cycle, then the Scientific Review Council shall assign a Numerical Ranking Score to each Grant Application to convey its prioritization ranking.(D) If the Scientific Review Council recommends a change to the Grant Award funds requested by the Grant Application, then the recommended change and explanation shall be recorded at the time the final Overall Evaluation Score is set.(E) The Scientific Review Council's recommendations shall be provided to the presiding officer of the Program Integration Committee and to the Oversight Committee pursuant to the process described in subsection (d) of this section.(3) The Institute may assign continuation Grant Applications to the appropriate Review Council.(A) The Review Council members review all components of the Grant Application, evaluate the merits according to explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications, and, after discussion by the Review Council members, provide an individual Overall Evaluation Score that conveys the Review Council member's recommendation related to the progress and continued funding.(B) The individual Overall Evaluation Scores are averaged together for a final Overall Evaluation Score for the Application.(C) If more than one continuation Grant Application is reviewed by the Review Council during the Grant Review Cycle, then the Review Council shall assign a Numerical Ranking Score to each continuation Grant Application to convey its prioritization ranking.(D) If the Review Council recommends a change to the Grant Award funds or to the Scope of Work requested by the continuation Grant Application, then the recommended change and explanation shall be recorded at the time the final Overall Evaluation Score is set.(E) The Review Council's recommendations shall be provided to the presiding officer of the Program Integration Committee and to the Oversight Committee pursuant to the process described in subsection (d) of this section.(4) The Institute's Peer Review process described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section may include the following additional process steps for Product Development of Cancer Research Grant Applications:(A) A Grant Applicant may be invited to deliver an in-person presentation to the Peer Review Panel. The Product Development Review Council chairperson is responsible for deciding which Grant Applicants will make in-person presentations. The decision is based upon the initial Overall Evaluation Scores of the primary reviewers following a discussion with Peer Review Panel members, as well as explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications.(i) Peer Review Panel members may submit questions to be addressed by the Grant Applicant at the in-person presentation.(ii) A Grant Application that is not presented in-person will not be considered further. The average of the primary reviewers' initial Overall Evaluation Scores will be the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.(iii) Following the in-person presentation, each Peer Review Panel member submits a score for the Grant Application based on the panel member's general impression of the Grant Application's merit and accounting for the explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications. The submitted scores are averaged together to produce the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.(B) A Grant Application may undergo business operations and management due diligence review and an intellectual property review. The Peer Review Panel submits a list of applications recommended for due diligence review to the Product Development Review Council. The Product Development Review Council decides which Grant Applications submitted by the Peer Review Panel will undergo business operations and management due diligence and intellectual property review. The decision is based upon the Grant Application's final Overall Evaluation Score, but also takes into consideration how well the Grant Application achieves program priorities set by the Oversight Committee, the overall Program portfolio balance, and any other criteria described in the Request for Applications. A Grant Application that is not recommended for due diligence and intellectual property review will not be considered further.(i) Business operations and management due diligence may be conducted by an outside vendor, contracted by the Institute or by members of the Product Development Review Council.(ii) It will be at the Institute's discretion as to who to use to perform business operations and management due diligence; factors may include volume of work and expertise required.(C) After receipt of the business operations and management due diligence and intellectual property reviews for a Grant Application, the Product Development Review Council and the Primary Reviewers meet to determine whether to recommend the Grant Application for a Grant Award based upon the information set forth in the due diligence and intellectual property reviews. The Product Development Review Council may recommend changes to the Grant Award budget and Scope of Work.(D) The Product Development Review Council assigns a Numerical Ranking Score to each Grant Application recommended for a Grant Award.(f) Institute Employees and Oversight Committee members may attend Peer Review Panel and Review Council meetings. If an Institute Employee or an Oversight Committee member attends a Peer Review Panel meeting or a Review Council meeting, the attendance shall be recorded and the Institute Employee or Oversight Committee member shall certify in writing compliance with the Institute's Conflict of Interest rules. The Institute Employee's and Oversight Committee member's attendance at the Peer Review Panel meeting or Review Council meeting is subject to the following restrictions:(1) Unless waived pursuant to the process described in Chapter 702, § 702.17 of this title (relating to Exceptional Circumstances Requiring Participation), Institute Employees and Oversight Committee members shall not be present for any discussion, vote, or other action taken related to a Grant Applicant if the Institute Employee or Oversight Committee member has a Conflict of Interest with that Grant Applicant; and(2) The Institute Employee or Oversight Committee member shall not participate in a discussion of the merits, vote, or other action taken related to a Grant Application, except to answer technical or administrative questions unrelated to the merits of the Grant Application and to provide input on the Institute's Grant Review Process.(g) The Institute's Chief Compliance Officer shall observe meetings of the Peer Review Panel and Review Council where Grant Applications are discussed.(1) The Chief Compliance Officer shall document that the Institute's Grant Review Process is consistently followed, including observance of the Institute's established Conflict of Interest rules, and that participation by Institute employees, if any, is limited to providing input on the Institute's Grant Review Process and responding to committee questions unrelated to the merits of the Grant Application. Institute Program staff shall not participate in a discussion of the merits, vote, or any other action taken related to a Grant Application.(2) The Chief Compliance Officer shall report to the Oversight Committee prior to a vote on the award recommendations specifying issues, if any, that are inconsistent with the Institute's established Grant Review Process.(3) Nothing herein shall prevent the Institute from contracting with an independent third party to serve as a neutral observer of meetings of the Peer Review Panel and/or the Review Council where Grant Applications are discussed and to assume the reporting responsibilities of the Chief Compliance Officer described in this subsection. In the event that the independent third party observes the meeting of the Peer Review Panel and/or the Review Council, then the independent third party reviewer shall issue a report to the Chief Compliance Officer specifying issues, if any, that are inconsistent with the Institute's established Grant Review Process.(h) Excepting a finding of an undisclosed Conflict of Interest as set forth in § 703.9 of this chapter (relating to Limitation on Review of Grant Process), the Review Council's decision to not include a Grant Application on the prioritized list of Grant Applications submitted to the Program Integration Committee and the Oversight Committee is final. A Grant Application not included on the prioritized list created by the Review Council shall not be considered further during the Grant Review Cycle.(i) At the time that the Peer Review Panel or the Review Council concludes its tasks for the Grant Review Cycle, each member shall certify in writing that the member complied with the Institute's Conflict of Interest rules. An Institute Employee or an Oversight Committee member attending one or more Peer Review Panel meetings during the Grant Review Cycle shall certify compliance with the Institute's Conflict of Interest rules.(j) The Institute shall retain a review record for a Grant Application submitted to the Institute, even if the Grant Application did not receive a Grant Award. Such records will be retained by the Institute's electronic Grant Management System. The records retained by the Institute must include the following information:(1) The final Overall Evaluation Score and Numerical Ranking Score, if applicable, assigned to the Grant Application;(2) The specified amount of the Grant Award funding for the Grant Application, including an explanation for recommended changes to the Grant Award funding amount or to the Scope of Work;(3) The Scientific Research and Prevention Programs Committee that reviewed the Grant Application;(4) Conflicts of Interest, if any, with the Grant Application identified by a member of the Scientific Research and Prevention Programs Committee, the Review Council, the Program Integration Committee, or the Oversight Committee; and(5) Documentation of steps taken to recuse any member or members from the Grant Review Process because of disclosed Conflicts of Interest.(k) For purposes of this rule, a Peer Review Panel chairperson or a Review Council chairperson that is unable to carry out his or her assigned duties due to a Conflict of Interest with regard to one or more Grant Applications or for any other reason may designate a co-chairperson from among the appointed Scientific Research and Prevention Programs committee members to fulfill the chairperson role. Such designation shall be recorded in writing and include the specific time and extent of the designation.25 Tex. Admin. Code § 703.6
The provisions of this §703.6 adopted to be effective December 21, 2009, 34 TexReg 9213; amended to be effective March 2, 2014, 39 TexReg 1386; amended to be effective September 17, 2014, 39 TexReg 7342; Amended by Texas Register, Volume 40, Number 10, March 6, 2015, TexReg 1092, eff. 3/11/2015; Amended by Texas Register, Volume 41, Number 49, December 2, 2016, TexReg 9527, eff. 12/7/2016; Amended by Texas Register, Volume 42, Number 22, June 2, 2017, TexReg 2937, eff. 6/8/2017; Amended by Texas Register, Volume 44, Number 22, May 31, 2019, TexReg 2723, eff. 6/5/2019; Amended by Texas Register, Volume 48, Number 35, September 1, 2023, TexReg 4863, eff. 9/7/2023