Summary and Purpose of PPN: To set forth the process which will be used when the recipient uses and Outside Review Committee to review responses to an RFP issued for the purpose of selecting vendors to provide Ryan White Part A-funded services. The purpose of the Outside Review Committee (ORC) is to provide an objective and independent review of applications for Atlanta EMA Ryan White Part A funding and to provide funding recommendations to the recipient. In accordance with the requirements set forth by Part A of the Treatment Extension Act and the administrative guidelines provided by HRSA, the recipient for the Atlanta EMA has developed an allocations process which exists and operates outside of the purview of the Planning Council.

Authority:

  • 45 CFR Part 92.36
  • 45 CFR Parts 74.40 through 74.48
  • Fulton County Code of Laws § 102-358
  • Fulton County Board of Commissioners Item #029, RCM 1/16/1991
  • Fulton County Board of Commissioners Item #03-1234, approved 10/1/2003

Table of Contents:

TOPIC / PAGE
GLOSSARY / 3
CREATION / 3
NUMBER / 3
COMPOSITION / 4
MEMBER SELECTION PROCESS / 4
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES / 4
PREPARATION PRIOR TO ORC / 7
CONDUCT OF THE MEETING / 8
CONFIDENTIALITY REGULATIONS / 11
ORC MEMBER CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATIONS / 12
ORC PARTICIPATION REGULATIONS / 12
APPENDIX 1: FLOW OF APPLICATION DISCUSSION / 26
APPENDIX 2: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / 27
APPENDIX 3: RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS / 28
APPENDIX 4: CONFIDENTIALITY FORM / 29
APPENDIX 5: CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM / 30
APPENDIX 6: ORC MEMBER CONTACT FORM / 31
APPENDIX 7: NON-ORC MEMBER CONTACT FORM / 32

Glossary

Board / The Board of Commissioners of Fulton County, Georgia.
Chief Elected Official or CEO / The Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Fulton County, Georgia or the Commissioner designated by the Board to carry out the duties of the Chief Elected Official as proscribed in Ryan White legislation.
Council and/or Planning Council / The Metropolitan Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council.
County / Fulton County, a legal subdivision of the State of Georgia.
Day / A normal business day of Fulton County Government (8:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday exclusive of official holidays.
EMA / Atlanta Eligible Metropolitan Area.
HAB / HIV/AIDS Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
HRSA / The Health Resources and Services Administration of the Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Member / Individual duly appointed to serve on the Outside Review Committee regardless of voting status.
Objective Review / The thorough and consistent examination of applications by persons outside the program line of authority who are knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which support is requested in order to provide advice to awarding officials based on an evaluation of the merit or other relevant aspects of the application proposal.
Outside Review Committee or ORC / The temporary entity created by the recipient to collectively perform the objective review by determining the scoring and outcomes of the review of a given number of competitive applications.
Part A / As codified at title XXVI of the Public Health Services Act, Part A provides grant funding for medical and support services to Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs) and Transitional Grant Areas (TGAs). EMAs and TGAs are population centers that are the most severely affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Recipient / The entity designated to administer the Fulton County Ryan White Part A Program.
Staff / Employees of the Fulton County Ryan White Part A Program

Creation

The Outside Review Committee is selected, appointed, and empaneled by the recipient and shall exist as a body for a term as established by the recipient.

Number

For each review cycle, the recipient determines the number of reviewers based on the volume of applications. The number of members may fluctuate depending on the number of applications under consideration, but it is anticipated that the ORC will generally be comprised of 8-10 people.

Composition

Each ORC is comprised of a chair and reviewers. The individuals are categorized by their experience, expertise and affiliations. Persons with expertise in fields such as finance, clinical services, relevant program areas, grants management, etc. will be selected as appropriate. Each ORC shall include persons living with HIV.

MEMBER SELECTION PROCESS

  1. Guiding Principles:

In determining the composition of the ORC, the Recipient shall be guided by the following principles:

  1. The ORC should be diverse in its composition with respect to the HIV status, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation of the members.
  2. Ideal candidates for appointment should be:
  3. familiar with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the EMA
  4. somewhat experienced in the review of applications for funding
  5. knowledgeable of human service delivery systems
  6. free of conflict of interest
  1. Nominations:
  1. Nominations for membership may originate from any source.
  1. Planning Council Members:

Membership on the Metropolitan Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council does not necessarily make an individual ineligible to serve on the ORC, and individual members of the Planning Council may be considered for ORC Membership. However, any such individual selected to serve on the ORC would do so in his or her capacity as a person who is knowledgeable on HIV/AIDS issues and service delivery systems and not as a representative, unofficial or otherwise, of the Planning Council. To avoid perceived conflict of interest, no member of the Planning Council’s Executive Committee or Planning Council Support staff shall be appointed as an ORC member.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. Chair: The ORC Chair will be appointed by the Recipient from the ORC membership. The Chair presides over the review process in accordance with established rules of order and assures complete and impartial review of each application. Specific duties include:
  1. Order of proceedings and/or preparation of an agenda;
  2. Assurance that reviewers have received all relevant materials;
  3. Reaffirmation that no member has a conflict of interest. Ensuring that all persons in attendance at an ORC session sign conflict of interest forms and that these forms are certified and submitted to the Assistant Director, Ryan White Program; and,
  4. Assuring that reviewers are aware of their responsibilities and understand procedures to be followed in reviewing, rating, and voting on applications.
  1. Reviewers: A Primary Reviewer, Secondary Reviewer, and Staff Reviewer will be assigned for each application. All reviewers are voting members of the ORC.
  1. Primary Reviewer: The Primary Reviewer is responsible for reading the entire application, evaluating it against prescribed criteria, and completing a Reviewer Score Sheet Report prior to arriving at the meeting. The report should be brought to the ORC session. At the meeting, the Primary Reviewer provides an oral summary of the application to the Committee as a whole.
  1. Secondary Reviewer: The Secondary Reviewer is responsible for reading the entire application, evaluating it against prescribed criteria, and completing the Reviewer Score Sheet Report. The report should be brought to the ORC session. At the meeting, the Secondary Reviewer contributes to the oral summary of the application when his/her comments add substantially to, or differs markedly from, that of the Primary Reviewer. If the Primary Reviewer is absent, the Secondary Reviewer assumes the role of the Primary Reviewer.
  1. Staff Reviewer: The Staff Reviewer is responsible for reading the entire application, evaluating it against prescribed criteria, and completing the Reviewer Score Sheet Report. The report should be brought to the ORC session. At the meeting, the Staff Reviewer contributes to the oral summary of the application when his/her comments add substantially to, or differs markedly from, that of the Primary Reviewer or Secondary Reviewer.
  1. Priorities Committee Chair: Non-Voting Member of the ORC.
  1. Assists with the Orientation Session by providing an overview of the priority-setting process and an explanation of the priority categories and directives of the Priorities Committee; and,
  2. Provides clarification on issues related to the priorities and directives of the Priorities Committee.
  1. Ryan White Part A Staff:
  1. Director, Ryan White Program: As the recipient, ensures that policies, procedures and expectations for the ORC are carried out in accordance with prescribed requirements.
  1. Participates in orientation to reinforce understanding of the review process (reviewer presentation, voting, scoring, etc.);
  2. Provides clarification of Planning Council Directives; Ryan White Treatment Extension Act requirements, and HRSA regulations;
  3. Selects ORC members;
  4. Appoints the ORC Chair;
  5. Empanels and dismisses the ORC;
  6. Clarifies issues around administrative requirements and budget justifications;
  7. Alerts the ORC Chair that issues have not been resolved;
  8. Captures potentially controversial or questionable points for further discussion with the ORC Chair; and,
  9. Serves as a Staff Reviewer for assigned applications.
  1. Assistant Director, Ryan White Program:
  1. Participates in orientation to reinforce understanding of the review process (reviewer presentation, voting, scoring, etc.);
  2. Provides clarification on issues related to performance of applicants who have been funded in the past;
  3. Provides or clarifies information on the program expectations, and/or application instructions, as needed by the Committee;
  4. Serves as a Staff Reviewer for assigned applications;
  5. Provides clarification of Planning Council Policies, Treatment Extension Act requirements, and HRSA regulations;
  6. Clarifies issues around administrative requirements and budget justifications;
  7. Alerts the ORC Chair that issues have not been resolved;
  8. Maintains signed conflict of interest forms of all persons in attendance at an ORC session;
  9. Captures potentially controversial or questionable points for further discussion with the ORC Chair.
  1. Project Officer:
  1. Collects signed conflict of interest forms after certification;
  2. Assists with the revision of the computer model used during the sessions to reflect decisions of the ORC; and,
  3. Serves as a Staff Reviewer for assigned applications;
  1. Administrative Coordinator: Non-voting ORC Member.
  1. Responsible for minutes from the sessions;
  2. Responsible for electronically recording sessions;
  3. Assists with the revision of the computer model used during the sessions to reflect decisions of the ORC; and,
  4. Assists in collecting primary and secondary reviewer reports and ensures that, for each application, the reviewer’s numerical scores match the overall assessment.
  1. Fiscal Manager: Non-Voting ORC Member.
  1. Responsible for the development of combined spreadsheet for use during ORC;
  2. Responsible for the computer model used during the sessions to reflect decisions of the ORC; and,
  3. Assists with the minutes from the sessions.
  1. Metropolitan Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council:
  1. In compliance with the requirements of the Treatment Extension Act and the administrative regulations set forth by HRSA, the Planning Council’s role in this process is limited to:
  2. the selection and ranking of service priority categories (based on the Comprehensive Plan, local Needs Assessment, etc.) to support the EMA’s continuum of care;
  3. the assignment of percentages and dollar amounts for each identified service priority category; and,
  4. the development of directives to the ORC to ensure that the goals and objectives established by the Community and codified by the Planning Council are clear.
  1. The Planning Council, as a whole or in part, shall not be involved in the ORC process and shall not have the authority to:
  2. create or establish the ORC;
  3. select the Members of the ORC;
  4. select agencies or organizations to provide services; nor,
  5. revise the recommendations of the ORC.
  1. Within the framework of the Recipient’s Grievance Procedures, the Planning Council, as a whole or in part, shall have the right to file a grievance related to the decisions of the ORC.

PREPARATION PRIOR TO THE ORC

  1. The Recipient develops the application guidance and evaluation criteria and announces the Request for Proposals (RFP).
  2. Once the application submittal deadline has passed, staff undertakes a preliminary review of each application submitted prior to the deadline to assess for completeness and eligibility.
  1. Should the review indicate that an application is incomplete, the Recipient may direct staff to contact the applicant to request that missing information be provided. A list of the agencies with incomplete applications, a copy of the letter requesting the missing information, and a copy of the applicant’s response shall be provided to the appropriate Reviewers.
  2. Should the review indicate that an application requests funding for line items, programs, or activities which are incompatible with the intent of the Atlanta EMA’s Part A Program or that of the Treatment Extension Act, notification of that fact shall be provided to the appropriate Reviewers during the ORC session.
  1. Staff may, at the Director’s discretion, develop an “Agency Review” document which indicates, for each applicant agency which has been previously funded under Part A of the Treatment Extension Act, the following information (without limitation):
  2. the level of success the agency has had in meeting goals and objectives;
  3. the number of clients served v. the number of clients proposed to be served;
  4. the agency’s history of compliance with contractual obligations; and,
  5. the level of funding provided under Part A.

Findings and conclusions shall be documented in a standard, comprehensive review document which shall be available to the appropriate Reviewers during the ORC process.

  1. The recipient shall develop a preliminary list of individuals to be asked to serve on the ORC. The recipient, or Part A Program staff shall contact each potential Reviewer to request the individual’s participation on the ORC.
  1. The Recipient will send a letter to each potential reviewer asking for confirmation of interest and availability to participate in the ORC process. All potential reviewers shall be provided with a copy of the “Conflict of Interest” provisions and a list of all agencies under consideration for funding. All potential ORC members must confirm their availability to serve by returning a signed Conflict of Interest Form.
  1. After confirmation is received, Part A staff will provide each reviewer a written description of their responsibilities and a copy of these procedures.
  1. Part A staff shall coordinate the assignment of applications to be reviewed and ensure that all pertinent materials are distributed to reviewers at least one week in advance of the meeting date.

The materials to be transmitted shall include, without limitation, the following:

  1. the applications for which the Member is the Primary Reviewer (Reviewers will receive only those applications which they are required to review)
  2. the applications for which the Member is the Secondary Reviewer
  3. a copy of the “Standard Operating Procedures: Outside Review Committee”
  4. the priority service areas, funding percentages, and directives developed by the Priorities Committee and approved by the Council
  5. a copy of the Request For Proposals
  6. the Primary and Secondary Reviewers will be given a Reviewer Score Sheet form for each application which will reflect the requirements set forth in the RFP and Guidance. The summary report contains the evaluation criteria and maximum number of points for each criterion. Points for each criterion are determined by Ryan White staff based on program expectations and priorities. The criteria and corresponding points are announced in the RFA.
  1. Part A staff will provide an orientation session for ORC members to:
  • provide an overview of the process,
  • review the RFP guidance and score sheets,
  • answer reviewer questions
  1. The reviewers shall review the assigned applications, score the applications and shall complete the necessary review forms. The reviewer score sheet must include written comments in the sections for strengths and/or weaknesses to support the reviewer’s score.

CONDUCT OF THE MEETING

Order of Business

  1. Introduction: The Chair of the ORC shall:
  1. Call the meeting to order.
  2. Provide an overview of the agenda to be followed.
  3. Review, for all in attendance, the rules and regulations related to participation by ORC Members and those in attendance who are not ORC Members.
  4. Review, for all in attendance, rules of conflict of interest and confidentiality.
  5. Direct all ORC Members to re-certify the following forms and to provide them to the Assistant Director:
  6. “Conflict of Interest” forms
  7. “ORC Confidentiality” forms
  8. “ORC Member Contact” forms
  9. Direct the Staff to provide a copy of the rules and regulations regarding participation in the ORC process to all individuals in attendance who are not ORC members and to obtain the signature of these individuals certifying that a copy has been received.
  10. Call on each ORC Member by name and request a verbal declaration of the information submitted on the forms listed above in subsection e). The Assistant Director will then be asked to certify that the verbal declarations are in line with the written declarations.
  1. Session Orientation:
  1. The Recipient shall provide an overview of the Planning Council Policies, Treatment Extension Act requirements, and HRSA regulations which relate to the ORC process and the selection of service providers and the awarding of funds.
  2. The Assistant Director, Ryan White Program, shall provide an explanation of the intent for Ryan White Part A funding and shall review the funding exclusions as set forth by the Treatment Extension Act and by HRSA.
  3. The Chair of the Priorities Committee shall provide an explanation of the Service Priority Categories and the directives developed by the Council.
  4. The ORC Chair shall provide an overview of review procedures and the evaluation criteria to ensure that all Members are interpreting the criteria in the same manner.
  5. Prior to discussion and voting, the ORC Chair shall summarize the ORC session proceedings and the flow of application discussion (see Appendix 1).
  1. Discussion and Voting:[Detailed directions are contained in the “Objective Review: Policies and Procedures” -- Appendix 2]
  1. The reviewers present their findings. The reviewers present their overall score to the full Committee and discuss their findings by individual application section along with the corresponding section score.
  2. The Chair will then lead the full Committee in a discussion of the application.
  3. After the discussion, the remaining Committee members will each assign an overall score and these scores will be averaged. The final score of the application will be based on the Primary Reviewer’s score, the Secondary Reviewer’s score and the average score of the remaining Committee members. This score will be used during the next phase of the process. The full Committee will vote individually on their recommendation for each application. (Recommendation options are included in Appendix 3).
  4. During the financial review, it will not be allowable to take agencies back to last year’s level as a means of reaching the allocation level for priority categories.
  • This action, in effect, negates the scores of agencies and provides a “Pass/Fail” approach to allocating funds.
  • Some agencies with higher scores, and who have a large number of clients to be served and a low cost/client may have justified the need for expanded funding and this should be considered by the ORC. Conversely, some agencies with lower scores, and/or who have a smaller number of clients to be served and/or a high cost/client may not have justified the need for funding at previous levels and this should be considered by the ORC.
  • No agency/applicant shall be funded at an amount less than $100,000.00.
  1. If reviewer scores are 10 or more points apart the reviewers should convene to jointly review the application to determine if scores need to be adjusted.
  1. Conclusion:
  1. At the close of the review and at the request of the ORC, the ORC Chair will review each Primary and Secondary Reviewer Score Sheet to ensure that all changes discussed in the meeting are reflected in the Score Sheet. If modifications to the Score Sheet are necessary, it is the Chair’s responsibility to see that those modifications are accurately recorded and that the final ORC Report supports the score and overall assessment of the full Committee.
  2. The ORC Chair will direct the Staff to collect all forms, materials, copies of applications, etc. that have been used in the ORC process.
  3. The ORC Chair will conclude the ORC business.
  4. The Director will dismiss the ORC.

CONFIDENTIALITY REGULATIONS