[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