Kawerak, Inc. v. Acting Juneau Area Director, 24 IBIA 194 (1993)

:

v. : : Docket No. IBIA 93-92-A

Appellant Kawerak, Inc., seeks review of an April 8, 1993, decision issued by the Acting Juneau Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Area Director; BIA), denying appellant's application for a FY 1993 Planning grant. For the reasons discussed below, the Board of Indian Appeals (Board) affirms that decision.

Pursuant to an announcement published at 57 FR 54411 (Nov. 18, 1992), appellant filed an application for a Continuation Planning grant. The application was reviewed by a panel of reviewers in the Juneau Area Office. On April 8, 1993, the Area Director notified appellant that its application received a score of 84.33, and that the lowest score for which funds could be awarded was 88.33. Accordingly, the Area Director informed appellant that its application could not be funded.

On appeal, appellant contends that two of the reviewers gave it low scores although the narratives provided were positive. It argues that the scores were subjective, and that it should have received full scores in the Eligibility, Work Statement, Applicant Capability, and Management or Self-Monitoring System Categories. One reviewer deducted only 1 point in these four categories, while the other reviewers deducted 18 and 23 points.

The Board has previously considered allegations that the rating process for competitive grant programs is subjective. In Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma v. Acting Anadarko Area Director, 18 IBIA 98, 100 (1989), the Board held:

It is undeniable that a certain amount of personal judgment enters into the evaluation of any application. This is because the evaluation is done by human beings. The objective in evaluating such applications is, therefore, to minimize the number of things left to personal judgment, through, for example, providing guidance as to what factors should be present in the application, requiring a specified evaluation if certain conditions are present or not present, and having the application evaluated by a number of people so that personal judgments can be averaged out of the final evaluation.

See also La Jolla Band of Mission Indians v. Acting Sacramento Area Director, 18 IBIA 263, 267 (1990).

The Area Director explained the process through which the scores were determined. The process included the review of all Planning grant applications by the same review panel, initial independent review of each application, a discussion of each application among the reviewers, and final...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT