Loren Data Corp.

'

 
 

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF MAY 6,1997 PSA#1839

Oppts Contract Support Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Fairchild Building -- 7th Floor, 499 S. Capitol Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20024

A -- EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM SOL GP7016 DUE 052397 POC -- Melissa Revely-Brown WEB: NOT AVAILABLE, NOT AVAILABLE. E-MAIL: NOT AVAILABLE, revely-brown.melissa@epamail.epa.gov. The Environmental Protection Agency, using the Simplified Acquisition Procedures of FAR Part 13, intends to award a firm, fixed-price contract to a qualified vendor to conduct an evaluation of the National Estuary Program. The Statement of Work follows: BACKGROUND In 1987, the Clean Water Act was amended to establish section 320, the National Estuary Program (NEP). Since the NEP's inception, 28 estuaries of national significance have been accepted into the program, providing a focus for communities to protect and restore their estuarine resources. Each NEP uses a collaborative, consensus-based process between local, state and federal governments, interest group representatives, and the general public to make decisions about the future of its own estuary through the development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). CCMPs serve as a blueprint for action to restore the estuary by identifying and recommending local solutions within a watershed or other geographic framework. The28 NEPs are at varying stages in the process; some programs are just starting the planning process while others are in the process of implementation. The NEP has served as a national experiment in community-based resource management; it is unique in that substantive public involvement and consensus building in decision-making are integral to its planning process. This was a new concept in 1987 and is still uncommon in practice. The NEP is intended to provide a forum to equalize discussion and decision-making in water quality management, providing all stakeholders the opportunity to participate as equal partners in setting priorities, planning, and implementation. By opening up the process, no one group "owns" the outcome. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The NEP has facilitated the commitment of significant time and resources, from both public and private sources, to develop and implement CCMPs. In addition, many agencies are adopting similar comprehensive approaches, even though in many cases it may be too soon to document environmental results or improvements. For these reasons, EPA seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the NEP process and its value as a management model before expanding the use of this approach or continuing to commit additional resources. In conducting such an evaluation, EPA specifically needs to identify elements of the program that are working well, elements that need enhancement or revision, and improvements in the management of the program on the national level. EPA will use this information to strengthen its program management, define expectations for NEPs, and translate lessons learned to other coastal watersheds. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The focus of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of the NEP process and its value as a management model. Working with the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (OCPD), the contractor(s) will consider the following questions in developing and applying an evaluation methodology, including proposed measures against which performance will be assessed: Does the NEP approach benefit or improve the management of estuaries and their resources? Does the NEP approach provide an efficient and effective means to: -- integrate management efforts, especially in delivering services and achieving environmental goals, -- enable citizen participation and public involvement, -- facilitate consensus, and -- promote local implementation? Are there key elements of the NEP approach that can be transferred or adapted as successful management tools for community-based environmental protection? (Attachment A details specific, program-related questions to be considered in conjunction with these broad questions.) Tasks The Contractor(s) shall perform the following tasks: (1) Within the framework of their evaluation methodology, survey and review existing information and data, including information derived from interviews with relevant individuals and other sources beyond official file documents. This additional information may include: program guidance; estuary program documents; CCMPs; interviews/surveys of EPA Headquarters and Regional staff, estuary program staff, estuary program participants, and others with experience or interest in estuarine management issues; and structured focus groups, review panels, or other advisory consultants. OCPD will assist the contractor(s) as necessary by identifying useful documents and knowledgeable contacts. (2) Based on the initial review, identify any additional information needed to support the evaluation process and amend proposed methodology as necessary in consultation with OCPD. (3) Apply the agreed upon methodology to consider questions listed above and assess program performance based on specified process and outcome measures. (4) Prepare draft and final reports, including a written report of evaluation process, results, and findings. (5) Provide conclusions and recommendations to enhance or improve program operations and management. QUOTE INSTRUCTIONS Quotes shall include the following elements: (1) Coverpage (2) Project summary (3) Proposed approach to evaluate the NEP (phases if any, methodology, survey instrument), including: proposed methodology, including types and sources of information to be collected, estimated data or other needs required to apply the proposed approach and their likely availability; and plan of work to achieve objectives of the proposal, including timelines, steps in process, products and deliverables, and coordination with related efforts. (4) Contractor(s) qualifications documentation of experience in designing and conducting performance, organization, and program evaluations, especially as related to environmental management; experience with all forms of interviewing and small group facilitation experience/credentials of principal investigators, team members, subcontractors, and any other individuals contributing in an advisory capacity to the project; roles of principal investigators, team members, and subcontractors; evidence of ability to complete the evaluation in a timely manner; and demonstrated ability to conduct an objective evaluation without bias or preconceived notions. Curriculum vitae and literature citations may be included as appendices to the proposal. (5) Budget, including: one page summary; special budget items such as panel advisory services, travel, supplies, and proposed subcontractors (Subcontracts require separate budget breakout); and direct and indirect costs. QUOTE EVALUATION EPA will conduct a technical evaluation on the following criteria: 1) responsiveness to application procedures; 2) thoroughness and innovativeness in addressing the objectives of this announcement; 3) methodological rigor and merit; 4) experience with program evaluation; 5) level of involvement by principal investigator(s); 6) ability to complete the proposed work; 7) demonstrated ability to conduct an objective evaluation; 8) contractor qualifications, including experience with small group facilitation; and 9) price. Award will be made on a best value basis, price, past performance and technical merit being considered. Quotes shall include examples of projects currently in process or completed during the past three years which are similar in nature to the requirements of this statement of work and which demonstrate necessary experience. For each project identified, quotes shall include: Project client, including contact name and telephone number Brief project synopsis, including dates and dollar amounts ATTACHMENT A The following questions reflect specific aspects of the NEP to be considered in its evaluation: Characterization Do characterization and other scientific studies provide information necessary for making decisions? Is this information used in making decisions? Is its use documented? Does characterization fill in data gaps related to priority problems? How and to what extent does characterization improve understanding of the system? Does characterization link causes to identified problems? To what extent are the NEP data available to the public and other users? Are these data used and maintained? How is use of data tracked? Why is the NEP needed? What, institutionally, is/was not functioning that did not allow fishable/swimmable standards (as well as other environmental goals) to be met? Public Participation Does public involvement promote/support the NEP process and objectives? How is "the public" defined? Has public perception of the estuary and its problems changed during the planning process? Has the public's behavior in relation to the estuary changed as a result of the planning process? Who is/was on the management conference and how is/was membership determined? Are/were relevant interest groups represented in the management conference? Do/did those interest groups reflect "the public" as defined above? In addition to public meetings and formal requirements under Section 320, how is the public involved in the decision-making process? What mechanisms are used to involve the public in decision-making? Which ones work best and why? What public participation techniques are effective? Does the public feel they substantially influence the decision-making process and hence influence change? Does the public want to continue to be involved in collaborative decision-making? Have public participation efforts improved public and political support for CCMP development and implementation? How well is/was the private sector represented in the management conference? Based on the identified problems and issues, are the right businesses, industries, trade associations, etc. represented? Has the NEP improved public/private relationships and partnerships? Do all stakeholders participate in decision-making? How do NEPs define consensus? Are decisions based on consensus? Does it break down in conflict? Are some topics off limits due to political concerns? Does strong political support bring extra funding to the program? Does consensus require settling for the "lowest common denominator?" If not, how were the higher levels of commitment reached/agreed to? Intergovernmental Coordination Have governmental entities changed their way of doing business? Is CCMP development and implementation coordinated with other EPA programs (e.g. 310) and other federal programs (Coastal Zone Management)? Has governmental coordination changed as a result of the NEP? Has it promoted greater efficiencies? Include examples. Is the NEP approach applicable at a range of scales; e.g., one county studies versus multi-county, multi-state programs? Is the institutional location of the NEP office appropriate to keep estuary program issues on state and local agendas? Is the NEP office recognized as the focal point of the estuary? Technical Assistance Is the NEP demonstrating state-of-the-art technical and management techniques? Is the NEP effectively transferring information among estuary programs? To federal, state and local watershed, community based environmental protection programs? Is the information being used? Have NEPs sought help/assistance from each other?Have others sought assistance from the NEPs? Community Based Environmental Protection Are estuaries an appropriate scale to manage environmental protection? Are NEP study areas an appropriate scale to integrate management for protecting and enhancing water quality and living resources? Do NEP geographic boundaries affect success? Does coordinated priority setting work? Resources Has funding at federal, state, and local levels been adequate to support NEP activities throughout planning and implementation? Is institutional support (in-kind and other non-monetary services) at federal, state, and local levels adequate? Do the NEPs have appropriate staff support? Is the technical expertise of the staff adequate? How well do EPA staff and program staff work together in developing the CCMP? Is strong EPA involvement helpful? Has lack of resources affected CCMP development and implementation? Implementation What CCMP actions are being implemented (by percentage, category, easy or hard problems, priorities, meeting goals and objectives)? What isn't being implemented and why? Who is implementing (are they keeping their promises)? Do CCMP actions challenge the implementors or simply validate the status quo? In other words, did they promise to do what they were going to do anyway? Are all appropriate organizations still involved? Are there still mechanisms for public involvement? What are the sources of funding? What is the process for amending or revising CCMPs? Have improvements in environmental quality occurred as a result of CCMP implementation? Is progress being monitored? Who speaks for the program? To whom does the program answer? SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Any questions can be email to revely-brown.melissa@epamail.epa.gov. NO PHONE CALLS. Please deliver two (2) copies of your proposal for the following NLT May 23, 1997, 2:30pm EST to: US EPA; 401 M Street, SW; Bid and Proposal Room; Mail Code: 3803F; Room 300; Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Melissa Revely-Brown HANDCARRY TO: US EPA; 499 South Capitol Street, SW; Bid and Proposal Room; Mail Code: 3803F; Room 300; Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Melissa Revely-Brown. (0122)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0001 19970506\A-0001.SOL)


A - Research and Development Index Page