{"content":[{"text":"Tribe maintains that its application was not given an in-depth review. It asserts that the evaluation notes of two of the \n three reviewers were especially difficult to read which it attributes to a hastily conducted review. In its view, the overall \n impression of the reviewers' comments indicates that the reviewers were hurried, rushed, and somewhat confused as \n they addressed and assigned points to the various rating criteria addressed in its proposal. Tribe attributes this cursory \n review to the fact that the reviewers had 83 applications to examine and score.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.03897,"width":0.9403140000000001,"height":0.088394}},{"text":"ED responds that Tribe misunderstands the nature of the rating process. Tribe's application was rated by one of twelve \n panels used by the Department to review the 80 applications. ED reports that the panels worked on a full-time basis over \n a five-day period to review the 80 applications and that each panel consisted of three individuals with relevant expertise \n and included one Native American. Therefore, in ED's view, there is no basis for concluding that the review process was \n anything other than thoughtful, fair, and thorough.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.139348,"width":0.9466270000000001,"height":0.088394}},{"text":"The Tribe's application was given adequate consideration. Each panel reviewed seven to eight applications over a five- \n day period and, therefore, it appears that approximately one-half of one day was spent reading and evaluating each \n application. The comments by Tribe's three reviewers reflect that each reviewer had read and evaluated the Tribe's \n application as it pertained to each rating category. While their comments were not necessarily written in complete \n sentences, this was obviously due, in part, to the limited space on the review sheet. Nevertheless, the comments \n addressed the strengths and weaknesses in the various categories as perceived by the reviewers and reflected a genuine \n effort to evaluate the application. Given these circumstances, Tribe's application received an adequate review.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.239727,"width":0.931902,"height":0.12248500000000004}},{"text":"Tribe raises numerous objections to the comments by the reviewers regarding the weakness of its application in an effort \n to raise its overall rating. Its overall standardized score was 19.81 which reflected the average of the three standardized \n scores of 17.68, 21.47, and 20.29 by the reviewers. Thus, in order to move within the rank of the funded applicants, \n Tribe's standardized score must be raised over 60 points.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.374197,"width":0.9464509999999999,"height":0.07134800000000002}},{"text":"In its brief, ED assigned, as a general matter, the various objections by Tribe to one of several general categories. One \n category, for example, was that Tribe's objection plainly missed the point of the reviewer's comment. The effect of this \n overly generalized approach is that ED failed, in many instances, to address the specific merits of Tribe's objections. On \n other occasions, ED failed to respond to an objection by Tribe. Such omissions will be considered as concessions.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.45753,"width":0.941686,"height":0.071349}},{"text":"When there is an express or implied concession by ED of error by a reviewer or a determination of error by the tribunal, \n such error must be measured against the standard of review to determine whether a reviewer's score warrants an \n adjustment. An adjustment is proper if “there is significant error.” In re Sisseton Wahpeton Community College, Dkt. \n No. 95-86-O, U.S. Dept. of Education, (Aug. 7, 1995) at 6.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.540864,"width":0.9414899999999999,"height":0.07134799999999997}},{"text":"Initially, Tribe argues that the reviewers rated its application “low” in most categories because they failed to \n comprehend that the grant program was part of an effort to expand an existing program funded by Tribe. ED responds \n that there is no legal basis for any special consideration for the applicant due to these circumstances and suggests, in any \n event, that the reviewers were possibly aware of this circumstance. Tribe does not explain the manner in which this \n circumstance affected its scores and, therefore, there is no substance to its argument. Moreover, the tribunal cannot \n perceive any partiality in the criteria or an evaluation thereunder whether the application proposes a new program, the \n continuation of an existing program, or the expansion or modification of an existing program. Therefore, this argument \n is rejected. In addition, Tribe's concern about the effects of its rural location and its “hands on” approach to vocational \n training is also misplaced. The applications are evaluated based upon criteria which are clearly defined and equally \n applicable in all of these circumstances.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.624197,"width":0.9448239999999999,"height":0.17362100000000003}},{"text":"Tribe raises various concerns regarding each of the criteria evaluated by the reviewers. These concerns are addressed \n below.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.809803,"width":0.9173340000000001,"height":0.0372579999999999}},{"text":"Part A: The reviewers rated the program factors category as mid-level inadequate (5 of 25 points by reviewers A and C) \n and the upper range of inadequate (8 points by reviewer B). The reviewers raised several weaknesses which were not \n challenged by Tribe. The weaknesses were noted primarily in the description of the goals of the project and were also \n present in the topics dealing with the targets of the program and the program approach addressing the selection, \n assessment/feedback and the curriculum of the project.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.859045,"width":0.940941,"height":0.08839400000000008}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}