[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3904]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Invitation for Proposals For Projects Designed To Support
Decisionmaking Process Associated With DOE's Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management Programs
AGENCY: Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of program interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management (EM) may award grants or cooperative
agreements to companies and universities, to fund (in whole or part)
projects or cost share in projects that will provide for planning,
conducting, and communicating environmental risk assessments at DOE
facilities and sites in order to determine the public health and
environmental risk associated with DOE's environmental management
programs. DOE is interested in receiving proposals that describe
capabilities, experience, and proposed methods for conducting credible
risk assessments. DOE is specifically interested in receiving proposals
that include statements of the proposer's capabilities, experience, and
proposed methods for assessing risk to human health and the
environment. Proposals must also show experience in effective and
efficient management of the tasks required in support of risk
assessments, in preparing and presenting reports, and in working with
stakeholders and decision makers at all levels. Proposals must also
identify the technical and scientific staff, their professional
experience and their level of program involvement.
Applicants must demonstrate that they can apply the most recent,
cost-effective technology in their approach for evaluating and managing
risk assessments for environmental management. The proposal must
demonstrate that:
1. The offeror is capable of conducting scientifically valid and
responsible risk assessments without bias or organizational conflicts
of interest in protecting the public health and environment. These risk
assessments must include clear statements of what is known and the
level of uncertainty of the risk data.
2. The offeror's risk assessments will be supportable by
independent external review by technical experts.
3. The offeror has the experience and capability to plan, organize,
manage, and facilitate local and national stakeholders' involvement in
the development of credible risk assessments.
4. The offeror has the experience and ability to effectively
communicate complicated scientific information on potential risks and
uncertainties, to local and national stakeholders, other concerned
citizens, and decision makers at all levels.
5. The offeror presently has or is capable of obtaining staff with
the training, expertise, and experience needed to conduct
scientifically complex risk assessments. Such assessments should
include statements that clearly identify sensitive populations and
exposed populations, and that characterize the degree of risk and the
level of uncertainty in the process and assessments.
6. The offeror has the ability to integrate the activities of all
organizations conducting risk assessments.
7. The offeror has management capability for both financial and
scientific management and a demonstrated skill in planning and
scheduling.
DATES: Due to programmatic constraints, proposals related to credible
risk assessment at DOE facilities need to be received as early as
possible. To be assured of consideration, these proposals should be
received by the Department within 45 days after the date of this
notice. Proposals shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they
are either: (1) Received on or before the deadline date or (2)
postmarked on or before the deadline date and received in time for
submission to the review panel. Applications which do not meet the
deadline will be considered as late applications and may not be
considered. Proposals should be submitted to the Unsolicited Proposals
Management Section, Reports and Analysis Branch, HR-532, Procurement
and Assistance Management Directorate, Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
For more information about risk assessment, interested institutions
or corporations are referred to the National Research Council's report
``Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the
Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program,'' National
Academy Press, 1994, and the presentations contained therein by
Assistant Secretary Thomas Grumbly and concerned stakeholders. This
booklet may be obtained by contacting the National Academy of Sciences
at (800) 624-6242 or at (202) 334-3313 in the Washington Metropolitan
Area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Requests for technical information about this
notice of program interest should contact Dr. Michael Heeb, EM-6,
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-6173. For
procurement related information, contact Mr. Ron Logerwell, Department
of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,
Office of Acquisition Management, (EM-16), Washington, DC 20585, (202)
586-1031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Scope
II. Responsible Official
III. Deviations
IV. Evaluation Process
I. Purpose and Scope
A. The Department of Energy desires to work towards environmental
excellence, and science and technology leadership. DOE intends to
progress towards EM's goal and involve the best national science and
engineering communities. The primary objective of the Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management is to meet the challenge
of greater environmental responsibility.
B. This announcement incorporates the merit review process for EM
review of financial assistance applications as published in the Federal
Register on May 6, 1991 (56 FR 20602) and fulfills the requirements set
forth in DOE Financial Assistance Rules 10 CFR part 600.
C. Merit review is the process of evaluating applications for
discretionary financial assistance using predetermined criteria. The
review is thorough, consistent, and independent and is completed by
individuals with expert knowledge in the field in question. The purpose
of the review is to provide analysis on the merits of applications to a
Program Official having decision-making authority (the Selection
Official) over the award of discretionary financial assistance.
II. Responsible Official
The EM Director of the Office of Integrated Risk Management or his/
her designee will be responsible for this system of objective merit
review of discretionary financial assistance applications funded by EM.
III. Deviations
Single-case deviations from the following procedures may be
authorized in writing by EM's Responsible Official upon the written
request by a member of the EM staff. Whenever a proposed review would
deviate from 10 CFR part 600, the deviation must also be authorized in
accordance with the procedures prescribed in that part.
IV. Evaluation Process
A. Initial Screening Procedure
1. Applications will normally be submitted to the Department of
Energy, Office of Management Support, HR-532, Washington, DC 20585.
Applications will be assigned a control number by HR-532 and those
pertaining to the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management (EM) will be provided to EM. EM will assign an EM Project
Office for initial screening to assure the following standards are met
before conducting a detailed merit review and evaluation:
a. Appropriateness to the EM Mission: Applications must be relevant
to EM mission requirements as stated in this notice.
b. Technical/Scientific Content and Merit: Those applications
judged to be without sufficient detail for evaluation will not be
considered.
c. No Unnecessary Duplications or Overlap: Applications proposing
to perform research already being supported by DOE or other Federal
agencies generally will not be subjected to formal merit review unless
there is a convincing programmatic reason to do so.
d. Completeness: Applications not meeting the requirements of 10
CFR 600, subpart A, may be returned to the sender for correction or
modification. Until the application meets the above standards, it will
not be given detailed merit review.
B. Proposal Format
The proposal must consist of two sections, technical and cost.
Technical Proposal will be no more than 50 pages in length; resumes
of key personnel involved should be submitted as an appendix and will
not be considered part of the technical proposal 50 page limit. It is
left to the proposer to determine how best to use the 50 pages: however
the technical proposal should be divided into the following four
sections:
Section 1--Executive Summary
Section 2--Proposal
This section will provide the detailed technical explanation of the
proposed activities. The activities should be addressed with respect to
the preliminary screening standards and technical evaluation criteria
listed in Subsection G, Evaluation Criteria.
Section 3--Statement of Work
A statement of work is to be supplied that discusses the specific
tasks to be carried out to achieve the goals stated in Section I.
Section 4--Selection Criteria Index
An index must be provided showing the pages on which each of the
selection criteria are addressed.
Appendix A.--Key Personnel
Resumes should be succinct and clearly illustrate how the
individuals technical background and experience are related achieving
the proposals objectives.
Cost Proposals will have no page limit or page layout requirement.
However, the cost proposal must include a summary breakdown of all
costs, and give a detailed breakdown of costs on a task-by-task basis
for each task appearing in the Statement of Work. In addition, any
expectation concerning cost sharing shall be clearly stated. While cost
sharing is encouraged, it shall not be consideration in the selection
process and shall be considered only at the time the award is
negotiated.
2. The determination to return an application based on the above
standards will be made in writing by the EM Project Officer. In cases
where the Project Officer is also the selection official, approval will
be obtained from at least one level higher than that of the Project
Officer.
C. Qualifications of Reviewers and Selection Official
1. The members of the reviewing group may be a mixture of Federal
or non-Federal experts. The review group, when possible, will consist
of at least three qualified persons from outside the Office of
Integrated Risk Management in addition to the designated Project
Officer if the Project Officer serves on the group. When possible, the
merit review group will exclude anyone who, on behalf of the Federal
Government, performs any of the following functions:
a. Providing substantial technical assistance to the applicant.
b. Approval/disapproval or having any other decision-making role
regarding the application.
c. Serving as the project manager or otherwise monitoring,
auditing, evaluating the recipient's programmatic performance.
d. Exercising line authority over anyone ineligible to serve as
reviewers because of the above limitations.
2. Reviewers will be chosen by the Director of the Office of
Integrated Risk Management based on their expertise and professional
qualifications as related to the proposed work.
3. Reviewers may be Federal employees, including those from EM that
are neither the selection official nor those in a direct line of
supervision above the Project Office. Non-Federal employees may also be
reviewers.
4. Reviewers will not include former employees of the Project
Officer's immediate office or any former employee having line authority
over that immediate office within the past 1 year.
5. The designated Project Officer will not serve on the review
group or be an external reader unless specifically approved by the
Responsible Official.
6. Selection officials and reviewers must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 1010 (a) and 1010.302(a)(1) concerning conflict
of interest. Individuals who cannot meet these requirements with regard
to a particular application may not review, discuss, or make an
evaluation of an application in which they have a conflict of interest;
and may not participate in any meeting involving the review of an
application in which there is a conflict of interest.
D. Project Officer/Contracting Officer Representative
1. The Project Officer will be a Federal Employee, from
Headquarters or the field, assigned to review the application. The
Project Officer may also be designated as the Contracting Officer
Representative (COR) from an eventual contract action. This assignment
will be made in writing by, or with the concurrence of, the employee's
supervisor.
2. The Project Officer will be responsible for coordinating the
Merit Review and providing guidance to external reviewers as described
in this notice.
3. The Project Officer is responsible for conducting the initial
screening. If the application does not satisfy the initial screening,
the Project Officer will provide the applicant a rejection letter
(informing appropriate officials) or request additional information if
required.
4. The Project Officer will be responsible for compiling the
information from the Merit Review and preparing the Selection Report/
Justification for Acceptance for the Selection Official. This report
should address the evaluation criteria including the information from
the initial screening, any programmatic comments reflecting a Federal
policy perspective, and the rationale for selection or rejection.
5. For solicited applications, once the Selection Official approves
the Selection Report, the Contracting Officer will inform the
applicant. For other applications, once the Selection Official approves
the Justification for Selection, the Project Officer is then
responsible for preparing the rejection letter or Procurement request
documents. The Project Officer will also recommend assignment to a
field office for award and implementation if the award is not made at
Headquarters.
E. Formal Review Mechanism
There will be one mechanism available to accomplish a merit review.
At least three qualified individuals will perform the review. In those
instances where three or more qualified reviewers cannot be obtained to
conduct a formal merit review, the selection official must issue a
waiver, which is based upon a written explanation of the situation by
the assigned Project Officer. In the event that the Project Officer is
a reviewer and is also the selection official, this waiver shall be
considered and issued by an EM official one level higher than that of
the Project Officer or selection official. The formal review mechanism
is as follows:
1. Review Group
a. An organization of standing committees called Technical Peer
Review Groups (TPRGs) will be the principal method of application
review. These review groups are appropriate when required by
legislation or when:
(1) Sufficient number of applications on a specific topic is
received on a regular basis in accordance with a predetermined review
schedule.
(2) Sufficient number of people is available to accept
appointments, serve over reasonably protracted periods of time, and
convene regularly or at the call of the chairperson.
(3) Legislative authority for particular programs extends for more
than 1 year.
b. persons outside the cognizant program office shall constitute at
least one half the reviewers unless a deviation has been approved under
10 CFR 600.18(g).
c. Members of TPRGs will independently review applications and will
individually present results of their reviews to the Project Officer.
Reviewers will not meet to review and present a general recommendation.
Reviewers may be called together by the Project Officer to receive
material, review issues, or share information, but no attempt will be
made to achieve a group consensus.
2. Field Readers
a. Field readers may be used for applications that cannot be
effectively reviewed by the TPRG. This may include applications which
are outside the scope of TPRGs, when the workload of TPRGs requires
augmentation, or when specific expertise is required.
b. Field readers will follow the guidance provided by the Project
Officer for conducting their review. Field readers will independently
review applications and will individually present results of their
reviews to the Project Officer.
c. Field readers may be called together by the Project Officer to
reassess material, review issues, or share information but no attempt
will be made to achieve a group consensus.
F. Review Process
1. The EM Project Officer will provide reviewers with a copy of the
application, programmatic guidance, conflict of interest disclosures,
certificates of confidentiality, and other information needed to
conduct the review (such as site-specific needs and schedules for
technologies). The Project Officer may provide instructions to
comparatively evaluate proposals if there are multiple proposals.
2. Reviewers should sign the certificate of confidentiality and
conflict of interest disclosures and return them before initiating
their review.
3. Based upon his/her review of the application and related
documents, the reviewer is expected to provide the EM Project Officer
with a written analysis based on the guidance and/or other program
information for each application.
4. All reviews serve as input for the decision by the selection
official and are not binding. Significant adverse evaluations will be
addressed in writing in a selection statement document.
5. Upon request by applicants, a written summary will be provided
to the applicants on the evaluation of their applications.
G. Evaluation Criteria
Review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following
list. These criteria will be used by reviewers after the application
has been through the initial screening. For unsolicited applications,
this review may also address guidance the Project Officer provides from
the initial screening.
1. Capabilities, experience, and proposed methods for conducting
credible risk assessments and proposed methods for assessing risks to
human health and the environment.
2. Experience in effective and efficient management of the tasks
required in support of risk assessments in preparing and presenting
reports, and in working with stakeholders and decisionmakers at all
levels.
3. Quality, availability, and experience of organization, technical
and administrative staff and their level of involvement.
4. The appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed budget.
H. Awards
Approximately one to ten awards may be made during FY 1994. An
award will not exceed $5 million in total award value. If sufficient
acceptable applications are submitted available funding may determine
the number of awards. Awards, if any, will be determined through
evaluation of applications received against the evaluation criteria and
the availability of funds. Awards for either grants or cooperative
agreements will be made only to technically acceptable applicants.
Awards will be on a schedule to be agreed to by DOE and the awardee.
Budget and project periods may be negotiated to meet the needs of
particular projects. DOE reserves the right to support or not support
any portion, all, or none of the proposals submitted.
I. Selection
Selection of an application for award will be based on the findings
of the conformance to elements 1 through 4 of the Summary, Section
IV.A.a-d, adherence to the proposal format as stated under Subsection B
and G, and finally, how well the application serves the EM program
objectives. Furthermore, selection of an application for award is
subject to the availability of funds.
Issued in Washington, on February 15, 1994.
Richard J. Guimond,
Rear Admiral, USPHS, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.
[FR Doc. 94-3904 Filed 2-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
