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