26770 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices

office, i.e., the USIA Office of African

Affairs (AF), Office of American

Republics Affairs (AR), Office of East

Asian and Pacific Affairs (EA), Office of

East European and Canadian Affairs

(WEU) and the Office of North African,

Near Eastern, and South Asian Affairs

(NEA) and relevant USIA posts

overseas, where appropriate. Proposals

may also be reviewed by the Office of

the General Counsel or by other Agency

elements. Funding decisions are at the

discretion of the USIA Associate

Director for Educational and cultural

Affairs. Final technical authority for

assistance awards (grants or cooperative

agreements) resides with the USIA

contracts officer.

Review Criteria

Technically eligible applications will

be competitively reviewed according to

the criteria stated below. These criteria

are not rank ordered and all carry equal

weight in proposal evaluation:

Academic Review Criteria

Proposals are reviewed by

independent academic peer panels, with

geographic and disciplinary expertise,

which make comments and

recommendations to the Agency based

on the following criteria:

(1) Reasonable and feasible project

objectives which are clearly related to

the project plan and activities.

(2) Appropriate and feasible project

plans and a detailed schedule which

must include a well-reasoned

combination of useful and appropriate

teaching, lecturing, faculty

development, curriculum development,

collaborative research, and outreach.

Activities should be clearly related to

the project objectives, but not

necessarily equally emphasized within

the proposal.

(3) Inclusion of exchange visits of a

length which will further the project

goals and activities. Visits of one month

or less are kept to a minimum (except

planning visits); visits of one academic

quarter or semester are strongly

preferred.

(4) Promise of the development of

expertise and the advancement of

scholarship and teaching in the eligible

academic disciplines or themes.

(5) Quality of exchange participants’

academic credentials, skills, and

experience relative to the goals and

activities of the project plan (e.g.,

language skills).

(6) Institutional resources adequate

and appropriate to achieve the project’s

goals. Relevant factors are: the match

between partners; the financial and

political stability of the institutions; and

availability of a critical mass of faculty

willing and able to participate.

(7) Evidence of strong institutional

commitment by all participating

institutions, including demonstration of

relevant and successful prior

interactions between institutions and an

indication of collaborative proposal

planning.

(8) Evidence of a strong commitment

to internationalization by participating

institutions (i.e., developing other

international projects and/or building

upon past international activities).

(9) An effective evaluation plan which

defines and articulates a list of

anticipated outcomes clearly related to

the project goals and activities and

procedures for on-going monitoring ad

mid-term corrective action.

Agency Review Criteria

(1) Clear indication that the proposal

seeks to establish a truly reciprocal and

mutually beneficial institutional

affiliation overseas or to innovate an

existing affiliation. The benefits do not

have to be the same for each partner or

precisely balanced, but must be

essentially mutual.

(2) Positive assessment of program

need, feasibility, and potential impact

by the relevant USIA post overseas.

(3) Academic quality, reflected in the

academic review panel’s comments and

recommendations.

(4) Institutional and geographic

diversity of the U.S. and overseas

institutions (i.e., racial, ethnic, and

gender composition of student

enrollments; small underrepresented

institutions, two-year/community

colleges, and institutions in

underrepresented geographic locations).

(5) The promise of sustainability and

long-term impact which should be

reflected in a plan for continued, nonU.S. government support and follow-on

activities.

(6) Cost effectiveness (i.e., competitive

cost sharing, sufficient number of

participant exchanges relative to the

project goals and plan).

(7) Institutional track record and

ability. The Agency will consider the

past performance of prior recipients and

the demonstrated potential of new

applicants.

Notice

The terms and conditions published

in this RFP are binding and may not be

modified by any USIA representative.

Explanatory information provided by

the Agency that contradicts published

language will not be binding. Issuance

of the RFP does not constitute an award

commitment on the part of the

Government. The needs of the program

may require the award to be reduced,

revised, or increased. Final awards

cannot be made until funds have been

fully appropriated by Congress and

allocated and committed through

internal USIA procedures.

Notification

All applicants will be notified of the

results of the review process on or about

July 1, 1996. Awards will be subject to

periodic reporting and evaluation

requirements.

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Dell Pendergrast,

Deputy Associate Director, Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–12174 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

Advisory Commission on Public

Diplomacy Meeting

AGENCY: United States Information

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: A meeting of the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public

Diplomacy will be held on May 17 at

the national Foreign Affairs Training

Center for 10 a.m.–12:15 p.m. The

Commission will be given an overview

of the National Foreign Affairs Training

Center by Acting Deputy Director Barry

Wells. At 11 a.m. the Commission will

hold a panel discussion on Public

Diplomacy Training. The panelists are

Mr. Berry Wells, Acting Deputy

Director, National Foreign Affairs

Training Center; Mr. Gregory Lagana,

Director, Training Division, USIA; and

Ms. Diana Weston, Chair, Task Force in

Public Affairs Training, Department of

State.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please call Betty Hayes, (202) 619–4468,

if you are interested in attending the

meeting.

Dated: May 12, 1995.

Rose Royal,

Management Analyst, Federal Register

Liaison.

[FR Doc. 95–12173 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M