Request for Proposals
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Project Grants
Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program
I. Overview
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is accepting grant proposals for nonpoint source developmental, education or applied research projects (DER) projects and for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Projects to be funded through the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program (Section 319). Proposals will be accepted from local governmental units and other entities interested in leading a nonpoint source pollution control project. The MPCA anticipates that over six million dollars will be available this year, contingent upon Congressional appropriation. The Section 319 Grant Program provides federal grant money for nonpoint pollution abatement and water resource restoration. This year, these funds will be offered for developmental, education or applied research projects (DER) with statewide or regional applicability that demonstrate new or innovative technology, new best management practices, or develop educational programs related to reducing nonpoint source pollution. A research project must answer a research question related to the goal of reducing nonpoint source pollution. All DER proposals must address at least one specific Action Step in the MN Nonpoint Source Management Plan http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html DER proposals are also encouraged to address needs identified by the Impaired Waters Research Symposium http://wrc.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@wrc/documents/asset/cfans_asset_115819.pdf Section 319 funds are available for TMDL Implementation projects addressing TMDL restoration activities. Eligible proposers must have Implementation Plans approved by the MPCA by July 15, 2009. There are no maximum or minimum limits on the amount requested for each project funding request. Projects must be funded with at least a 45% local cash or in-kind match. The Federal share can be no more than 55% of the total project cost. The due date for proposals is 4:30 PM CDT July 15, 2009. Proposals must be sent electronically to Section 319 Proposal Mailbox (CWP-319.grant.program@pca.state.mn.us). Section 319 Grants will be administered via standard four-year grant agreements. Successful applicants will be required to submit a detailed work plan and budget by August 25, 2009.
II. Eligibility Criteria
Eligible applicants. Public and private entities are eligible to apply, including local governmental units such as soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, tribal authorities, cities, counties, regional development centers, local school systems, colleges and universities, local nonprofit organizations, state agencies, and for-profit groups and individuals interested in leading a non-point source pollution control project. Applicants who presently have other active Section 319 grants must be current on all grant agreement requirements to be eligible. Contact your MPCA project manager if uncertain whether this criterion has been met. Ineligible applicants. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff and Federal Government agencies. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Feedlot projects are eligible. If a feedlot project is located in a county that does not have delegated authority to manage their feedlot program, only technical assistance and best management practices activities may be funded. For a list of delegated counties see : http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/feedlot-countyprogram.html • Developmental, education or applied research (DER) proposals with statewide or regional applicability must demonstrate new or innovative technology, new best management practices or develop educational programs related to reducing nonpoint source pollution. • A research project must answer a research question related to the goal of reducing nonpoint source pollution. • Incentives: Section 319 funds may be used to provide additional financial incentives for practices that are already or will be receiving an incentive payment under another government program or source only if the additional incentives increase the measurable water quality benefits of the practice. If additional financial incentives will be included in your proposal, you must check the incentives box on the proposal form and identify the source of the incentive program you plan to supplement. You must also describe how the additional financial incentives will increase measurable water quality improvements for the practice being installed—such as extending the life of the practice, implementing the practice sooner, or enabling activities or approaches that increase the water quality benefits of the practice Incentives proposed will be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. • All proposals for TMDL implementation projects must address RESTORATION activities. Proposals should focus on the estimated effect and prioritization of BMPs identified in the TMDL implementation plan. • For projects to be eligible for these TMDL implementation funds, they must have an EPA approved TMDL and an MPCA approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan by July 15, 2009. • All DER project proposals must address a specific action step in the current Minnesota Nonpoint Source Management Plan (www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html). Ineligible projects. Ineligible projects include any activities other than those outlined above and those intended to benefit a single business or individual. Ineligible projects also include: • Activities addressing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit requirements such as feedlot, wastewater or stormwater permits, any type of point source related activities, and activities addressing enforcement actions. Any non-permitted feedlots addressed with Section 319 money must have a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan or a Manure Management Plan. • Projects whose purpose is primarily water quality monitoring or assessment. • Administrative feedlot activities are not eligible for grant funding. Eligible costs. Eligible costs are those costs directly incurred through work activities that are solely related to and necessary for producing the work products and deliverables as described in the proposal and subsequent work plan and occur during the grant period. Only eligible costs will be reimbursed. Eligible costs include, but are not limited to: • Expenditures incurred on and after the effective date of the grant agreement or date of grant agreement execution, whichever is later; • Actual wages and expenses of grantee employees if specified and documented; wq-cwp7-20c
2
• • • • • • •
• • • • • •
Fringe benefit costs limited to FICA/Medicare, retirement and health insurance of grantee’s employees if specified and documented; Costs such as office materials and supplies, and incoming freight charges for them, maintenance, office utility costs and other related expenses; Computer(s), if unique to the project and specifically approved by the EPA and the MPCA; Equipment, specific to accomplish work plan duties and approved by the EPA and the MPCA; Communication costs, postage, and other related expenses; Production and distribution of publications and periodicals relating to accomplishing work plan activities, with an emphasis upon using electronic methods to accomplish tasks; In-state transportation and travel expenses (such as lodging, meals and mileage) of personnel approved in the work plan in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided for in the current “Commissioner’s Plan” in force at the time of the expenditure and promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management & Budget; Reasonable office rental fees; Advertising costs related to the project and approved in the work plan; Rental of audio visual equipment, as related to the project and approved in the work plan; Costs for subcontractors as specifically approved by MPCA. A competitive process must be followed to solicit subcontractors. Field materials and supplies Best Management Practices activities
Ineligible costs. Ineligible costs for reimbursement means all costs not defined above as eligible costs, including but not limited to the following: • Any costs incurred before the grant agreement is fully executed; • Bad debts, late payment fees, finance charges or contingency funds, interest, and investment management fees; • Costs for preparing proposals in response to this or other RFPs; • Employee worksite parking; • Entertainment, gifts, prizes and decorations; • Fundraising; • Administrative expenses over 10% of grant amount; • Insurance; • Lobbying, lobbyists and political contributions; • Meals and foodstuffs not related to project personnel’s approved travel costs; • Merit awards and bonuses; • Mark-up on purchases and/or subcontracts; and, • Taxes, except sales tax on eligible goods and services. • Ineligible costs include activities addressing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements such as feedlot or stormwater permits, any type of point source-related activities, and activities addressing enforcement actions that involve a financial penalty; • Donations. Match Requirements A minimum 45% of the total project cost matching contribution is required. Match can be cash or in-kind in any combination. Matching contributions consist of money, supplies, and services. Cash – contributions involve the donation of money from you or your partners. Supplies – these contributions involve the purchase or donation of materials specifically for use in the project. This does not include the value of supplies (e.g., land, office space, or equipment) that are already available for use for this and other projects. Service – contributions involve the donation of time to implement the project. The value of the time for people who would normally be paid for the role they will play in the project may be included. The value of volunteer time may also be included. Base the value on what you would have to pay to have the same work done. Important Match Note: Federal funds cannot be used to match Section 319 funds, even if the required non-federal match has been met by local sources. MPCA resources cannot be used as match. wq-cwp7-20c
3
III. Review and Evaluation of Proposals
Review Process MPCA will review all proposals for eligibility. EPA Section 319 guidance (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html) provides the criteria and procedural conditions under which the MPCA may award assistance. Proposals are reviewed and scored by both the MPCA review team and members of the Project Coordination Team (PCT). The PCT is a public interagency group established in Minnesota Statute who assists the MPCA in recommending to the Commissioner projects that should receive financial and/or technical assistance. After scoring, proposals are ranked to determine which projects can be funded, based on merit and available dollars. Once projects are selected for funding, the project sponsor and MPCA project manager are notified of the next steps in preparing a detailed project work plan and budget. The State shall conduct an evaluation of proposal to this RFP. The evaluations will be conducted in four phases: Phase I - Review for eligibility Phase II - Evaluate proposals Phase III - Select finalists Phase IV - Sign Grant agreements
Phase I - Review proposals for eligibility The purpose of this phase is to determine if each proposal complies with the mandatory terms, conditions, and specifications in the RFP. A proposal must comply with all instructions listed in this RFP. The State reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to modify these RFP specifications, or to waive any informality in the RFP. Any proposal found to be ineligible may be eliminated from further evaluation. Pass/Fail Criteria: 1. Completed proposal submitted on time. 2. Proposers who presently have other active Section 319 grants must be current on all grant agreement requirements to be eligible. Phase II - Evaluate Proposals Only those proposals found to be eligible under Phase I will be considered in Phase II. The State may request clarification from one or more proposers. The clarifications must be made in writing as the State will only use what is in writing for evaluation purposes. The response to the request for clarification may be considered along with the original proposal for the evaluation. However, the State reserves the right to make an award without further clarification of the proposals received. Therefore, it is important that each proposal be submitted in the most complete manner possible. If a Proposer doesn't submit the required information, the proposer will lose points in the evaluation process or, at the State's option, the Proposal may be rejected. a. Criteria DER Weighted Evaluation Criteria: Quality and Completeness of the proposal. The extent to which the proposal defines the project goals and objectives, work activities, budget, and project organization. Cost/Budget. The extent to which the proposed project emphasizes water quality protection or improvement relative to the cost of the project. wq-cwp7-20c
20%
15%
4
Cooperation of Partners/Complements Existing Projects. The extent to which the proposed project includes coordination and cooperation of federal, state and local agencies and units of government for water quality protection or improvement. Ability/Capability of Proposer to Perform Work. The extent to which the project sponsor can manage the grant agreement, has the ability to complete the project on time, has the expertise to do the work and has the resources to complete a project of the stated size. The Project. The likelihood that the proposed project will: 1. serve as a demonstration for water quality protection or improvement 2. determine useful information for the appropriate geographic area, and 3. recommend a plan for information dissemination. 10%
25%
30%
TMDL Implementation Evaluation Criteria: Proposer must address the following criteria, as described in the Clean Water Council December 2008 Legislative Report (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/lrwq-s-lsy09.pdf) recommendations: Have previous successes related to this TMDL project: 25% Local initiatives, previous BWSR/PCA implementation projects Be able to demonstrate that they will make water quality 25% improvements in a reasonable amount of time Demonstrate cost-effectiveness, including low administration costs and enhanced local cooperation to realize economies of scale Include civic engagement and civic science best practices in carrying out project implementation 25%
25%
b. Proposer’s Past Performance It is the policy of the State of Minnesota to consider a proposer’s past performance before awarding subsequent grants to them. State agencies must consider a grant applicant’s performance on prior grants from that agency before making a new grant award of over $5,000. Items of significant concern will be discussed with the grant applicant and resolved to the satisfaction of MPCA staff prior to making recommendation to PCT for funding decisions. (Minn. Stat. 16B.97-Grants Management, Policy Grant Closeout Evaluation, Policy Number: 08-13). c. Financial Stability of Responder (applies to Nongovernmental Organizations ONLY) It is the policy of the State of Minnesota that any grants made to nongovernmental organizations be made to those that have adequate financially stability to carry out the purpose of the grant. Before awarding any grant of over $25,000 to any nongovernmental organization, the MPCA must assess a recent financial statement from the responder. Documents that will satisfy this request include: internal financial statement; IRS Form 990 (if annual income does not exceed $349,999); or, certified financial audit (annual audit), whichever is applicable. Items of significant concern will be discussed with the grant applicant and resolved to the satisfaction of MPCA staff prior to making recommendation to management for funding decisions. (Minn. Stat. 16B.97-Grants Management, Policy on the Financial Review of Nongovernmental Organizations, Policy Number: 08-06). Phase III - Select Finalist(s) Only those proposals that are found to be eligible under Phases I and II will be considered in Phase III. First consideration will be given to the proposal with the highest total points in the criteria listed in this RFP. In the event that negotiations are unsuccessful, the proposer with the next highest number of points will be wq-cwp7-20c
5
selected for consideration. Except at the invitation of the evaluation coordinator and with the approval of the Contract Specialist, no activity or comments from responders regarding this RFP shall be discussed with any of the evaluation committee persons during the evaluation of the responses. A proposer who contacts an evaluation committee member may, as a result, have its proposal rejected. The final award recommendation will be made by the PCT. The commissioner or designate may accept or reject the recommendation of the evaluation team. In addition to the ability to make reduced awards, the MPCA reserves the right to refrain from awarding any grants. Non-selection of any proposal will mean that either another proposal was determined to be more advantageous to the State, there were insufficient Section 319 funds to fund the project, or that the State exercised its right to reject any and all proposals. At its discretion, the State may perform an appropriate cost and pricing analysis of a proposal, including an audit of the reasonableness of any proposal. At any time during the evaluation, the State may request that a proposer provide explicit written clarification to any part of its proposal. Grant awards shall be made to those project sponsors that best meet the criteria identified in the RFP as funds allow. In addition to the ability to make reduced awards, the MPCA reserves the right to refrain from awarding any grants. Notification. All proposers will be notified by MPCA staff on August 4, 2009. Proposers selected for funding will be sent the Work Plan guidance and format along with their notification.. Phase IV - Sign Grant Agreement Grant Agreement. Each recipient must formally enter into a grant agreement. The grant agreement will address the conditions of the award, including implementation of the project. The grant agreement is a legal, binding document requiring several signatures for execution. Once fully executed, the recipient is expected to read and comply with all conditions of the grant agreement. Recipients are also expected to keep accurate financial records of the project
IV. Process for Proposal and Work Plan Submission
Proposals Proposal deadlines: • Proposals Due: Proposals must be electronically submitted no later than 4:30 p.m. CDT, July 15, 2009. Submissions received after the deadline will not be eligible for consideration during this funding round. Faxed submittals will not be accepted. Paper copies will not be accepted. The MPCA is not responsible for application receipt delays caused by Internet connection variability or reliability. All costs incurred in responding to this RFP will be borne by the applicant. • Proposals must be electronically submitted to: CWP-319.grant.program@pca.state.mn.us Proposal Content: A complete proposal will consist of the following items: • Proposal Form: (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-cwp7-20d.doc) • Conflict of Interest/Organizational Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (See General Terms below). • Work Plans Requirement to Submit a Work Plan: Only successful proposers will be contacted to submit a Work Plan, which should include a detailed budget and schedule.
Work Plan deadlines: Work Plans Due: Work Plans from successful proposers must be submitted electronically no later than 4:30 p.m. CDT, August 25, 2009 to CWP-319.grant.program@pca.state.mn.us Submissions received after the deadline will not be eligible for consideration. Faxed submittals or paper copies will not be accepted. Work Plan Content: A complete Work Plan will include the following items: • Work Plan, including the budget form and Gantt chart provided in http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-cwp7-20g.pdf • Nongovernmental Organizations ONLY: internal financial statement; IRS Form 990 (if annual income does not exceed $349,999); or, certified financial audit (annual audit), whichever is applicable. wq-cwp7-20c 6
Questions. Questions should emailed to Section 319 Proposal Mailbox: CWP-319.grant.program@pca.state.mn.us Email is the preferred method for questions. Applicants may also call Sara Johnson at 651-757-2473. A list of Frequently Asked Questions http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-cwp7-20e.pdf is on the MPCA web site. As questions come in and are answered, they will be added to this list. Check back often.
General Terms
Individual and Organizational Conflicts of Interest. (MS§16B.97-Grants Management, Conflict of Interest Policy for State Grant-Making, Policy Number: 08-01) Applicant must provide a list of all entities with which it has relationships that create, or appear to create, a conflict of interest with the work that is contemplated in this request for proposals. The list should indicate the name of the entity, the relationship, and a description of the conflict. An organizational conflict of interest occurs when: a grantee is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the State due to competing duties or loyalties; a grantee’s objectivity in carrying out the grant is or might be otherwise impaired due to competing duties or loyalties; and a grantee or potential grantee has an unfair competitive advantage through being furnished unauthorized proprietary information or source selection information that is not available to all competitors/applicants. The list should indicate the name of the entity, the relationship, and a description of the conflict. All applicants must complete and submit a Conflict of Interest/Organizational Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, regardless of whether an apparent or actual conflict of interest exists. The Form is on the MPCA web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-cwp7-20b.pdf The applicant agrees that if after the award an individual or organizational conflict of interest is discovered, an immediate and full disclosure in writing must be made to the MPCA. If a conflict of interest is determined to exist, the MPCA may, at its discretion, cancel the grant agreement. In the event the grantee was aware of a conflict of interest prior to the award of the grant and did not disclose the conflict, the MPCA may terminate the award for default. Data Practices Information. Responses submitted by a grantee are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name and address of the grantee and the amount requested is public. All other data in a response is private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. After a granting agency has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data in the responses is public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in M.S.§13.37. A statement by a grantee that the response is copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the response. (M.S.§13.599, Sub. 3) Prevailing Wage. Any and all services, articles, or equipment offered and furnished shall comply fully with all local, State, and federal laws and regulations, including Minn. Stat. § 181.59, prohibiting discrimination, and Minn. Stat. §§ 177.42 - 177.44, concerning prevailing wages. It is the Grantee’s or subcontractor’s responsibility to pay prevailing wages on construction projects to which state and federal prevailing wage laws apply. All laborers and mechanics employed by grantees and subcontractors funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part with funding under this grant shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor (DOL) in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. If the Contractor has any questions about the application of prevailing wage rates, the Contractor should call the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) at 651.284.5091. The Grantee is solely responsible for payment of all required Prevailing Wage rates. Reporting Requirements. All projects must submit semi-annual reports for the duration of the grant agreement period. Semi annual reports are due on August 1 for the period covering January 1 through June 30 each year, and on February 1 for the period covering July 1 through December 31 each year. The final report is due 30 wq-cwp7-20c
7
days after the end date of the grant agreement. No payments will be made if required reports are outstanding or not approved. Best management practice data must be entered into E-Link by February 1 and monitoring data must be entered in STORET by December 1 annually. If the grant recipient has an active Web site, the recipient shall display the semi-annual and final reports on its Web site. Reports must be posted on the recipient’s Web site and available to the public. For recipients without active Web sites, the MPCA shall display these reports on its own Web site. Definitions: 1. Best Management Practices: Behavioral actions taken or structural practices installed to benefit water quality. 2. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan: A conservation plan for animal feeding operations that
incorporates environmental practices to utilize animal manure and organic by-products as a beneficial resource, to ensure that both production and natural resource protection goals are achieved.
3. Construction project: For the purposes of projects receiving State funding, “construction” is defined as any work on real property which uses the skill sets of any trades covered by Labor Code and Class under prevailing wages, see prevailing wages for list of affected trades. 4. Developmental, Education, and Research (DER) Projects: (formerly “demonstration” projects) are those that demonstrate new or improved Best Management Practices (BMPs) that promote nonpoint source pollution control, generate information/educational materials for the public relating to nonpoint source pollution and its impact on water quality, or answer a research question related to the above topics. 5. Nonpoint Source: Unregulated sources of pollution. 6. Restoration Activities: Actions taken to return a waterbody to meeting water quality standards. 7. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The amount of pollution a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. Also refers to a study done to determine this, and allocate loads to sources of pollution. 8. TMDL Implementation Projects: Projects geared toward implementing management practices and activities that will reduce pollutant loads to meet the TMDL for waterbodies.
wq-cwp7-20c
8