2015-school-ipm-grants-rfp-economics-of-school-ipm-updated.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Funding Opportunity Announcement:

The Economics of School Integrated Pest Management

(IPM)

(EPA-OPP-2015-007)

July 22, 2015

Corrected July 30, 2015

Funding Opportunity Announcement

The Economics of School Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Overview Information

The following list provides key information concerning this funding opportunity:

A. Federal Agency and Office Name: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Chemical

Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

B. Funding Opportunity Title: The Economics of School Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

C. Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OPP-2015-007

D. Announcement Type: Request for Proposals (RFP)

E. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 66.716 - Research, Development, Monitoring, Public Education, Training, Demonstrations and Studies

F. Statutory Authority: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 20.

G. Dates: Proposals must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov on or before September 9, 2015, by 11:59pm Eastern Time. Proposals received after the closing date and time will not be considered for funding. The estimated project period for the award resulting from this solicitation will begin in January 2016. The proposed project period is up to two (2) years

Brief Description

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is soliciting proposals from eligible parties for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperative agreement to provide financial assistance to an eligible organization to research and analyze the economics of implementing integrated pest management (IPM) in K-12 public and Tribal schools in the United States. IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests that combines biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. The grantee will conduct an analysis of the short- and long-term economics of implementing an IPM program in a school district. This will include highlighting such issues as the costs and/or savings associated with transitioning from calendar-based pesticide applications to an IPM program, the economics of reduced pesticide applications, the economic impacts on school districts from absenteeism related to asthma incidences at school and, if feasible, energy savings realized from pest exclusion activities. Other deliverables should include documents crafted for school administrators that includes key findings from the assessment, and may include other material such as webinars and articles in journals and newsletters.

The current literature on the economics of school IPM contains only anecdotal examples rather than a comprehensive economic assessment. The lack of scientifically robust economic information creates uncertainty within school districts over the costs/benefits associated with establishing and sustaining IPM programs. This project aims to remove this uncertainty by providing an unbiased assessment, supported by robust data, of the economics of IPM program implementation in several different school settings.

This announcement provides qualification and application requirements to those interested in submitting proposals. Consistent with the Applicant Eligibility Section of CFDA 66.716 - Research, Development, Monitoring, Public Education, Training, Demonstrations and Studies, and the EPA’s Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA Order 5700.5A1), competition under this announcement is being limited to a subset of eligible applicants. Under this competition, EPA will accept proposals from the following eligible applicants: states, U.S. territories or possessions, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments and Native American Organizations, public and private universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories, other public or private nonprofit institutions, local governments and individuals. For-profit organizations are not eligible. Non-profit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are also not eligible to apply. The estimated funding available for award is expected to be approximately $300,000. The Agency anticipates making one award of up to $300,000 depending on funding availability, proposal quality, and other considerations. The proposed project period is up to two (2) years.

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. History The Food Quality Protection Act (PL 110-170, Section 303) defines for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as, “a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.” EPA's mandate for IPM in schools comes from basic federal law: “support the adoption of IPM,” which is stated in the U.S. Code at Title 5, Section 136r-1. The EPA mission to protect human health and the environment also contributes to this mandate.

In 2010, EPA increased its commitment to further the implementation of IPM in K-12 public and tribal schools. The goal of EPA’s School IPM Program is to reduce the risks from pests and pesticides in buildings and on grounds around K-12 public and tribal schools in the United States.

EPA’s vision is for all children to be in schools with verifiable and ongoing IPM programs. More information on school IPM is available at http://www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools.

The Agency’s is utilizing a two-pronged approach to increase school districts’ adoption of IPM.

The Agency is collaborating with national organizations to inform school administrators and business officials that IPM can give them a healthier school environment, fewer pest complaints, fewer absences due to asthma, increased revenue with higher attendance, and quality pest control. EPA is also providing compelling information on the benefits of IPM (fewer pests, fewer pesticides, and healthier learning environments) to parents, teachers, and school staff. As part of its ongoing efforts to advance IPM implementation in schools, the Office of Pesticide Programs has offered funding opportunities. Information on school IPM projects funded by EPA since 2012 may be obtained at http://www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/school-integrated-pest-management-ipm-grants.

The cooperative agreement awarded under this program is intended to assess the economics of implementing an IPM program across several school settings and provide accurate, comparable and documented data. Deliverables from this assistance agreement will be used to inform school administrators of the economic aspects of IPM implementation in their districts. This information is critical to decision makers in schools as they weigh the costs and benefits of moving to IPM programs.

B. Authority

EPA expects to award an assistance agreement under the authority provided in Section 20 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136r which authorizes the Agency to issue assistance agreements for research, public education, training, monitoring, demonstration and studies. Regulations governing these agreements are found at 2 CFR Parts 200 and 1500. All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E. In accordance with applicable law, regulation, and policy, any recipient of funding must agree to comply with restrictions on using assistance funds for unauthorized lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (i.e., lobbying members of Congress or lobbying for other federal grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts). See e.g. 2 CFR http://www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools http://www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/school-integrated-pest-management-ipm-grants http://www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/school-integrated-pest-management-ipm-grants

200.450. Funds generally cannot be used to pay for travel by federal agency staff. Proposed project activities must also comply with all state and federal regulations applicable to the project area. The applicant must also review the solicitation for any other programmatic funding restrictions applicable to this program. If awarded funding, the recipient must refer to the terms and conditions of its award for other funding restrictions applicable to its award. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure compliance with these requirements.

C. Program Description

1. Purpose and Scope

The cooperative agreement awarded under this program is intended to provide financial assistance to develop an economic assessment of the implementation of an IPM program in schools. Specifically, it will focus on the economics of transitioning from a pest control program, in which pesticide applications are made on a calendar basis, to an integrated pest management program.

It is well established that implementing an IPM program in a school reduces pesticide applications and pest complaints. The relationship between IPM, pest allergens and asthma in schools has also been documented (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~coby/schal/2009NalyanyaJMEschool allergens.pdf). However, more data is needed on the economic aspects of school IPM implementation. This announcement seeks to assess a broad spectrum of economic impacts realized by school districts that are adopting or have implemented IPM programs. The results should be representative of school districts of varying sizes (as measured by student population) and different settings (urban/rural) in different regional areas (northern/southern) of the U.S. The data could include:

• The costs associated with implementing an IPM program in different school districts, including a comparison of pest management costs before and after implementation.

Reported data should include the costs for pest exclusion, pest monitoring, staff training, pest-related facility maintenance, and the resultant changes in energy consumption and its associated financial value. Questions addressed could include:

o What are the economic impacts (both positive and negative) a school district can expect when implementing an IPM program?

o What elements of the school district budget are impacted by financial gains/losses

(i.e., changes in: contracting costs for pest management services, costs for pest management supplies, energy costs from pest exclusion activities, etc.)?

• Quantifiable cost reductions resulting from fewer pesticide applications and fewer pest complaints.

• Asthma-related absences pre-and post-IPM implementation and the corresponding impact on attendance-based funding the school district receives. (More information on the relationship between IPM, cockroaches, and asthma can be found at (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~coby/schal/2009NalyanyaJMEschool allergens.pdf)

• Indirect financial impacts that result from IPM program implementation. For example, do school districts with IPM programs receive a discount on their liability insurance because of reduced risks to students and staff from pest and pesticide exposure?

• Financial implications of IPM-related activities such as proper pesticide storage, elimination of unneeded pesticide applications, and reductions in the asthma burden within the district.

• A school district’s “willingness to pay” to avoid a pesticide-exposure incident, or a high incidence of absenteeism due to asthma triggered through pest allergens.

2. Goals and Objectives EPA expects that the recipient will use funding provided under this announcement to develop a robust economic assessment of implementing an IPM program in several school settings http://www4.ncsu.edu/%7Ecoby/schal/2009NalyanyaJMEschool%20allergens.pdf http://www4.ncsu.edu/%7Ecoby/schal/2009NalyanyaJMEschool%20allergens.pdf through research, data collection, analysis, and presentation. The main deliverable from the project must be an economic assessment of school IPM implementation. Other deliverables should include documents crafted for school administrators (superintendents, principals, business officials, facility managers) that includes key findings from the assessment, and may include other material such as webinars and articles in journals and newsletters.

In order to gather robust data representative of schools across the U.S., the economic assessment should be based on multiple school districts that are beginning or have already implemented IPM programs. Participating school districts should vary in size (as determined by student population) and contain geographic diversity (rural/urban and northern/southern) in order to provide a solid basis for comparison and to account for differences in relative pest pressures. The analysis should be detailed and include comparable measures, such as cost per square foot and/or cost per student.

To the extent possible, the analysis should identify the itemized costs associated with the districts’ implementation of different IPM practices, as described in Section I. A. above. For example, the analysis should differentiate the costs associated with pest identification, pest monitoring, correcting pest conducive conditions, pest control measures (such as pesticide applications), staff training, and pest reporting. Such an assessment would be valuable to school districts as they decide which IPM program elements to implement based on their available resources.

To the extent possible, the analysis should also identify and separate out one-time costs and recurring costs, to allow school districts to identify whether or not costs will decrease over time once an IPM program has been implemented.

EPA encourages projects to utilize national consortia, national partnerships, and other collaborative means in carrying out this projects. The economic impacts on several school districts of varying sizes and geographic locations that implemented IPM programs should be highlighted in the project deliverables

Projects must present accurate, well-documented information. Submissions must contain the specific measures of school IPM impacts that will be used to support the economic assessment, such as the changes in costs when transitioning from a calendar-based pesticide application program to an IPM program, changes in costs for specific pest management activities (pest exclusion, monitoring), changes in energy costs resulting from pest management activities, and the changes in pest-related school absenteeism rates in relation to attendance-based funding. Anecdotal reports of costs and/or savings associated with IPM can be incorporated into the deliverables, but alone are insufficient. The project must only assess school IPM programs that are in compliance with their respective state and tribal pesticide and IPM regulations.

D. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage and Anticipated Outcomes, Outputs and Performance Measures

1. Linkage to EPA Strategic Plan/GPRA Architecture The award made under this announcement will support EPA Strategic Plan Goal 4, Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals & Preventing Pollution; Objective 4.1 Ensure Chemical Safety and Objective 4.2 Promote Pollution Prevention. To see EPA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan visit http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy-2014-2018-strategic-plan.

2. Outputs The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal and objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html measurable during an assistance agreement funding period.

The anticipated outputs of this cooperative agreement include, but are not limited to:

a. a report assessing the economic impact a school district (of a given size, setting, and location) could expect if they were to implement an IPM program;

b. journal articles describing the economics of IPM implementation in school districts, including details such as changes in pest management costs, changes in energy costs due to IPM-related activities such as pest exclusion, and the financial impacts of absenteeism rates due to pest-induced asthma;

c. national webinar(s) for school administrators and business officials presenting the economic assessment of IPM implementation in schools; and

d. outreach and marketing materials (flyers, brochures, etc.) that school officials can use when deciding whether to implement an IPM program in their district.

3. Outcomes The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be (1) environmental, (2) behavioral, (3) health related or (4) programmatic in nature, but must be quantitative. They can be short-term, mid-term, and/or long-term. They may not necessarily be achievable within an assistance agreement funding period.

Expected outcomes from this cooperative agreement include, but are not limited to:

a. developing costs (increases or decreases) on a per student or per square foot of managed space basis that can be used to inform IPM program implementation decisions by school officials;

b. increasing the number of students and staff in K-12 public and tribal schools that are in schools with verifiable IPM programs implemented as a result of informed decision making on the costs and benefits;

c. increasing the square footage of K-12 public and tribal school grounds with verifiable IPM programs implemented as a result of informed decision making on the costs and benefits;

d. demonstrating that school district funding increases when school absenteeism is reduced as a result of IPM program implementation; and

e. increasing the demand for IPM in school districts across the nation through a sound economic assessment.

4. Performance Measures

The applicant should also develop performance measures they expect to achieve through the proposed activities and describe them in their proposal. These performance measures will help gather insights and will be the mechanism to track progress concerning successful process and output and outcome strategies and will provide the basis for developing lessons to inform future recipients. It is expected that the description of performance measures will include the following:

• oversight of project partners, subgrantees, and/or contractors and vendors;

• tracking and reporting project progress on expenditures, purchases, and other fiscal activities;

• tracking and reporting actual accomplishments versus proposed outputs/outcomes and proposed timelines/milestones;

The following are questions to consider when developing output and outcome measures of quantitative and qualitative results:

i) What are the measurable short term and longer term results the project will achieve?

ii) How does the plan measure progress in achieving the expected results (including outputs and outcomes) and how will the approach use resources effectively and efficiently?

II. Award Information

A. Amount of Funding Available The total estimated amount available for award under this announcement is up to $300,000, dependent on the availability of funds.

B. Total Number of Awards EPA anticipates award of one cooperative agreement with a maximum funding level of $300,000, subject to the availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations. EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards.

EPA also reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy and guidance, if additional funding becomes available. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than six months after the original selection decisions.

C. Partial Funding In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund proposals by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

D. Start Date/Project Duration

The estimated project period for awards resulting from this solicitation will begin in January 2016. Proposed project periods is up to two (2) years.

E. Funding Type

Successful applicants will be issued a grant or cooperative agreement as appropriate. A cooperative agreement is an assistance agreement that is used when there is substantial federal involvement with the recipient during the performance of an activity or project. EPA awards cooperative agreements for those projects in which it expects to have substantial interaction with the recipient throughout the performance of the project. EPA will negotiate the precise terms and conditions of “substantial involvement” as part of the award process. Federal involvement may include close monitoring of the recipient’s performance; collaboration during the performance of the scope of work; in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317 and 2 CFR 200.318, as appropriate, review of proposed procurements; reviewing qualifications of key personnel;

and/or review and comment on the content of printed or electronic publications prepared. EPA does not have the authority to select employees or contractors employed by the recipient. The final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient.

F. Pre-Award Costs In accordance with 2 CFR 1500.8, EPA award recipients may incur allowable project costs 90 calendar days before the federal awarding agency makes the federal award. Expenses more than 90 calendar days pre-award require prior approval of EPA. All costs incurred before EPA makes the award are at the recipient’s risk. EPA is under no obligation to reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive a federal award or if the federal award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants Consistent with the Applicant Eligibility Section of CFDA 66.716 - Research, Development, Monitoring, Public Education, Training, Demonstrations and Studies, and the EPA’s Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA Order 5700.5A1), competition under this announcement is being limited to a subset of eligible applicants. Under this competition, EPA will accept proposals from the following eligible applicants: states, U.S. territories or possessions, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments and Native American Organizations, public and private universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories, other public or private nonprofit institutions, and local governments.

Non-profit organization, as defined by 2 CFR Part 200, means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative or other organization that: (1) is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable or similar purposes in the public interest; (2) is not organized primarily for profit; and (3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve and/or expand its operations. While not considered to be a “non-profit organization(s)” as defined by 2 CFR Part 200, colleges and universities, hospitals, state, local and federally-recognized Indian tribal governments are, nevertheless, eligible to submit proposals under 2 CFR Part 200 and this

RFA.

The following are not eligible to apply for this funding opportunity: for-profit organizations and non-profit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

B. Cost Sharing/Matching No matching funds are required under this competition.

C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria These requirements, if not met by the time of proposal submission, will result in elimination of the proposal from consideration for funding. Only proposals that meet all of these criteria will be evaluated against the ranking factors in Section V of the announcement. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15 calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

1. Applicants must be eligible (see Section III.A) to receive funding under this announcement.

2. The proposal must address at a minimum all of the activities to be funded. The activities to be funded are listed under Section I.C.2.

3. Proposals must be submitted through www.grants.gov as stated in Section IV of this announcement (except in the limited circumstances where another mode of submission is specifically allowed for as explained in Section IV) on or before the proposal submission deadline published in Section IV of this announcement. Applicants are responsible for following the submission instructions in Section IV of this announcement to ensure that their proposal/application is timely submitted.

4. Proposals submitted after the submission deadline will be considered late and deemed ineligible without further consideration unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of technical problems associated with Grants.gov or relevant SAM.gov system issues. An applicant’s failure to timely submit their proposal/application through Grants.gov because they did not timely or properly register in SAM.gov or Grants.gov will not be considered an acceptable reason to consider a late submission. Applicants should confirm receipt of their proposal with Cara Finn at finn.cara @epa.gov or 703-305-5659 as soon as possible after the submission deadline—failure to do so may result in your proposal not being reviewed.

5. EPA will consider only the first proposal submitted by each individual investigator. Proposals from different investigators within the same organization are acceptable.

6. Proposals must comply with the submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV. Where page limitations are established, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed.

7. Submissions must contain specific outputs and outcomes (see Section I.D) and state how those will be measured and documented.

8. Submissions must contain the specific measures of school IPM impacts that will be used to support the economic assessment, such as the changes in costs when transitioning from a calendar-based pesticide application program to an IPM program, changes in costs for specific pest management activities (pest exclusion, monitoring), changes in energy costs resulting from pest management activities, and the changes in pest-related school absenteeism rates in relation to attendance-based funding.

9. The maximum funding level requested for a project must not exceed $300,000. Proposals requesting more than the maximum will be rejected.

10. The proposed project period of performance must not exceed two (2) years.

11. Submissions must demonstrate that the project will take place in the United States.

12. Ineligible activities: If a proposal is submitted that includes any ineligible tasks or activities, that portion of the proposal will be ineligible for funding and may, depending on the extent to which it affects the proposal, render the entire proposal ineligible for funding.

http://www.grants.gov/ http://grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://grants.gov/ mailto:powell.mary@epa.gov

IV. Proposal and Submission Information

A. How to Obtain a Proposal Package The required forms are available through EPA’s Office of Grants and Debarment website at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm.

B. Requirement to Submit through Grants.gov and Limited Exception Procedures Applicants, except as noted below, must apply electronically through www.grants.gov for this funding opportunity based on the Grants.gov instructions in this announcement. If an applicant does not have the technical capability to apply electronically through Grants.gov because of limited or no Internet access which prevents them from being able to upload the required application materials to www.grants.gov, the applicant must contact OGDWaivers@epa.gov or the address listed below in writing (e.g., hard copy, email) at least 15 calendar days prior to the submission deadline under this announcement to request approval to submit their application materials through an alternate method.

Mailing Address:

USEPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Mail Code: 3904R Washington, DC 20460

Courier Address:

USEPA Headquarters Ronald Reagan Building 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Rm #51267 Washington, DC 20004

In the request, the applicant must include the following information:

• Funding Opportunity Number (FON)

• Organization Name and DUNS

• Organization’s Contact Information (email address and phone number)

• An explanation of how they lack the technical capability to apply electronically through grants.gov because of 1) limited Internet access or 2) no Internet access which prevents them from being able to upload the required application materials through www.grants.gov.

EPA will only consider alternate submission exception requests based on the two reasons stated above and will timely respond to the request – all other requests will be denied. If an alternate submission method is approved, the applicant will receive documentation of this approval and further instructions on how to apply under this announcement. Applicants will be required to submit the documentation of approval with any initial application submitted under the alternative method. In addition, any submittal through an alternative method must comply with all applicable requirements and deadlines in the announcement including the submission deadline and requirements regarding proposal content and page limits (although the documentation of approval of an alternate submission method will not count against any page limits).

If an exception is granted, it is valid for submissions to EPA for the remainder of the entire calendar year in which the exception was approved and can be used to justify alternative submission methods for application submissions made through December 31 of the calendar year in which the exception was approved (e.g., if the exception was approved on March 1, 2015, it is valid for any competitive or non-competitive application submission to EPA through December 31, 2015). Applicants need only request an exception once in a calendar year and all exceptions will expire on December 31 of that calendar year. Applicants must request a new exception from required electronic submission through Grants.gov for submissions for any succeeding calendar year. For example, if there is a competitive opportunity issued on December 1, 2015 with a submission deadline of January 15, 2016, the applicant would need http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ mailto:OGDWaivers@epa.gov http://www.grants.gov./ a new exception to submit through alternative methods beginning January 1, 2016.

Please note that the process described in this section is only for requesting alternate submission methods. All other inquiries about this announcement must be directed to the Agency Contact listed in Section VII of the announcement. Queries or requests submitted to the email address identified above for any reason other than to request an alternate submission method will not be acknowledged or answered.

C. Grants.gov Proposal Submission Instructions (see Attachment A)

Your organization’s AOR must submit your complete application package electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) no later than September 9, 2015 by 11:59pm Eastern Time. Please allow for enough time to successfully submit your application process and allow for unexpected errors that may require you to resubmit.

Proposals submitted through Grants.gov will be time and date stamped electronically.

If you have not received a confirmation of receipt from EPA (not from Grants.gov) within 30 days of the application deadline, please contact Cara Finn at finn.cara@epa.gov or 703-305-5659. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed.

D. Content of Proposal Submission

The proposal package must include all of the following materials, in the sequential order shown. Additional guidance on completing the documents is available through EPA’s Office of Grants and Debarment (http://www.epa.gov/ogd/).

1. Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance

Complete the form available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm. There are no attachments. Be sure to include organization fax number and e-mail address in Block 5 of the SF-424 form. Clearly state the total funding amount requested for the ENTIRE project period in Block 15.

Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number must be included on the SF-424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at no cost by calling the toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705- 5711. Alternatively, applicants may also request a DUNS number online by going to http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform and following the instructions for a cooperative agreement.

2. SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs Complete the form available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm. There are no attachments. The total amount of federal funding requested for the project period should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of SF-424A. The amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 6(j). The indirect cost rate (i.e. a percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be indicated on line 22. Clearly state the total funding amount requested for the ENTIRE project period in Block 15.

3. Project Proposal

a. Cover Page (page 1). The cover page must list the following information with your letterhead:

EPA docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-007 Project Title:

http://www.grants.gov/ mailto:finn.cara@epa.gov http://www.epa.gov/ogd/ http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm

Project Coordinator:

Organization Name and Address:

Telephone No.: Fax No.: Email Address:

Project Duration (including Starting Date and Ending Date):

First Year Funding Request:

Second Year Funding Request, if applicable:

Total Funding Request (for the entire project):

Indicate if this application is for new activities connected with a previously EPA

Funded project. If yes, please provide the following:

o EPA Assistance Number: _________________________ o Budget Period of Project: _________________________

b. Table of Contents (Page 2): A one-page table listing the different parts of the application and the page number on which each part begins.

c. Executive Summary (page 3). Stand-alone, one page document that concisely explains the project objectives, outputs, and outcomes. It must also include an assurance that the eligibility factors, as listed in Section III (Eligibility Information), are addressed in the proposal.

d. Project Narrative (10 pages or less). The description shall contain the Parts I – V as identified below. The project narrative must be 10 pages or less typewritten on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, single spaced. The project narrative must contain the following information in the sequential order shown:

Project title

Part I. Project Summary and Approach

i. Purpose Statement: One sentence description of what will be accomplished as a result of the economic assessment of school IPM implementation.

ii. Project Design: Describe the project activities, including how the research will be implemented, how the information will be marketed/distributed, and how the economic assessment may facilitate the increased adoption of IPM by schools nationally, and how increased IPM adoption will improve human health, the environment, and/or school communities. Describe how the project activities build upon or consider lessons learned from existing efforts. Describe the target audiences in terms of the national scope intended for this project, and how you will engage with relevant national groups and organizations to support the success of the project. Explain the project benefits to the public, and specifically the potential audience(s) served. Provide evidence of stakeholder participation, consortia involvement, or partnerships in the project. If choosing to request a cooperative agreement, explain how EPA will be substantially involved in the project.

Part II. Technical Merit Declare the project impact area(s) - environmental, human health, economic, and/or community. Outline the specific technical and scientific approaches, how they will be used to achieve individual project goals and used to measure project objectives, and the anticipated project outputs and environmental, human health, economic, or environmental outcomes.

Part III. Outreach, Transferability, and Sustainability Describe the applicant’s history of collaborating with organizations at a national level, as well as their history of developing and successfully implementing similar economic assessments. Explain how the project design promotes meaningful involvement of partner organizations and national stakeholders to facilitate information collection and increase IPM adoption by school districts. Outline how the project will be promoted to ensure project information and outcomes are clearly presented and reach the intended audience. Describe how the project will ensure that information and outcomes will be of use to school districts, regions, states, and/or tribes across the U.S. so that the project impacts may continue after EPA funding ends.

Part IV. Project Performance Measures and Expected Outcomes and Outputs Identify the expected project outputs (see Section I.D.2) and how progress towards achieving the expected outputs will be tracked and measured.

Identify the expected quantitative and qualitative outcomes of the project (see Section I.D.3), including what performance measurements, timeline of milestones, or other means will be used to track and measure your progress towards achieving the expected outcomes and outputs and how the results of the project will be evaluated.

Part V. Past Performance - Programmatic Capability and Environmental Results Past Performance Submit a list of federally and/or non-federally funded assistance agreements (assistance agreements include Federal grants and cooperative agreements but not Federal contracts) similar in size, scope and relevance to the proposed project that your organization performed within the last three years (no more than 5 agreements, and preferably EPA agreements) and describe (i) whether, and how, you were able to successfully complete and manage those agreements and (ii) your history of meeting the reporting requirements under those agreements including whether you adequately and timely reported on your progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of those agreements (and if not, explain why not) and whether you submitted acceptable final technical reports under the agreements. Include the Project Officer’s name, email address, and phone number of these past projects. In evaluating applicants under these factors in Section V, EPA will consider the information provided by the applicant and may also consider relevant information from other sources, including information from EPA files and from current/prior grantors (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information provided by the applicant). NOTE: If you do not have any relevant or available past performance or past reporting information, please indicate this in the application and you will receive a neutral score for these factors (a neutral score is half of the total points available in a subset of possible points). If you do not provide any response for these items, you may receive a score of 0 for these factors.

In addition, provide information on your organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and your staff expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the proposed project.

4. Budget Narrative In addition to the SF-424A form, prepare a detailed budget with narrative, explaining/outlining the need for funding under each of the appropriate budget categories as listed below. Link each task or activity from the project work plan to the associated resources needed to accomplish the activity.

Personnel: Include only direct costs for salaries of those individuals who will perform work directly for the project. Identify the personnel type by full time employee. Personnel costs do not include: costs for services of consultants, contractors or other partner organizations.

Include the requested federal and any non-federal cost share in these estimates.

Travel: Include the travel location(s), estimated number of trips, estimated total mileage, applicable reimbursement rate, and number of nights lodging required throughout the entire project period.

Equipment: Include only equipment proposed to be purchased as a direct cost. This does not include equipment to be leased/rented and service/maintenance contracts. Include costs for each item.

Supplies: Include tangible personal property other than equipment. Include a brief description of the supplies required to perform the work and categorized by major supply category. Example: office supplies, computer supplies, etc.

Contractual/Consultant Services: List services and associated costs that are to be carried out by an individual or organization other than the applicant in the form of a procurement relationship. Include a brief description of the scope of work or services to be provided.

Other Direct Costs: Include only those types of direct costs that do not fit in any of the other budget categories. Examples include: printing/photocopying and sub-award costs.

Sub-awards: Any award of financial assistance by any legal agreement made by the recipient to an eligible sub-recipient.

Include sufficient detail for EPA to determine if the costs are eligible, allocable, reasonable, and allowable. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/tips.htm and for guidelines and a sample budget, see http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/budget%20sample.pdf.

If recommended for funding, you will be required to submit a copy of your organization’s Indirect Cost Rate Agreement if your proposed budget includes indirect costs.

Coalitions: Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a coalition and submit a single application for this assistance agreement. However, one entity must be responsible for the cooperative agreement. Coalitions must identify which eligible organization will be the recipient of the assistance agreement, and which eligible organization(s) will be sub-awardees of the recipient. EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the recipient even if other eligible applicants are named as partners or co-applicants or members of a coalition or consortium. The recipient is accountable to EPA for the proper expenditure of funds.

5. Appendix A: Timetable Provide a timetable that details each project objective.

6. Appendix B: Letters of Support Provide letters of support from the organization(s) with whom you intend to collaborate.

7. Appendix C: Resumes Provide brief resumes (not to exceed two pages) for each of the major project participants.

E. Intergovernmental Review

Applicants must comply with the Intergovernmental Review Process and/or consultation provisions of Executive Order 12372 or Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, if applicable, which are contained in 40 CFR Part 29. Further information regarding this requirement will be provided if your application is selected for funding.

http://www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/tips.htm http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/budget%20sample.pdf

F. Allowable Costs

EPA grant funds may only be used for purposes set forth in the assistance agreement, and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Assistance agreements funds may not be used to match funds for other federal grants, lobbying or intervention in federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, federal funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other governmental entity. All costs identified in the budget must conform to applicable Federal Cost Principles contained in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E.

G. Additional Provisions For Applicants Incorporated Into The Solicitation:

Additional provisions that apply to this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, including but not limited to those related to those related to confidential business information, pre-proposal/application assistance, management fees, contracts and subawards under grants, and duplicate funding, can be found at. http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/solicitation_provisions.htm.

These, and the other provisions that can be found at the website link, are important, and applicants must review them when preparing proposals for this solicitation. If you are unable to access these provisions electronically at the website above, please communicate with the EPA contact listed in this solicitation to obtain the provisions.

V. Proposal Review Information

All proposal packages received will be reviewed by the Agency Contact, or their designee who will determine if the proposals meet the threshold eligibility criteria established in Section III. Proposal packages that meet the threshold eligibility criteria will be evaluated by a review panel convened by the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, against the evaluation criteria described below.

A. Evaluation Criteria Each eligible proposal will be evaluated according to the criteria set forth below. Applicants must directly and explicitly address these criteria as part of their proposal package submittal. Each proposal will be rated under a points system, with a total of 100 points possible.

Criteria Points

1. IPM in Schools Priorities. Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on the extent to which the project clearly addresses the goals and objectives identified in Section I.C.2.

2. Project Design. Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on the extent to which the project:

(a) describe a technically sound and unbiased approach with clearly described project goals and measurable objectives, this approach should include accurate, documented, consistent and comparable data and analysis (10 points), and

(b) involve multiple schools with diverse characteristics (10 points), and

(c) includes a detailed breakdown of the economic elements associated with the implementation of a verifiable school IPM program (5 points) and,

(d) builds upon or consider lessons learned from existing efforts (5 points).

3. Transferability and Sustainability. Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on:

(a) the extent to which the project includes meaningful involvement of consortia, partner organizations, collaborating entities, and/or stakeholders to increase IPM implementation in the nation’s school districts (10 points),

(b) how the project deliverables will be of use to school districts, regions, states or tribes (10 points).

4. Project Performance Measures & Expected Outputs and Outcomes. Under this criterion, the Agency will evaluate the performance measures proposed by the applicant and how they will be used to effectively track and measure progress toward achieving expected project outputs and outcomes. (15 points) http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/solicitation_provisions.htm

Criteria Points

5. Past Performance--Programmatic Capability and Reporting on Environmental Results: Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to successfully complete and manage the proposed project taking into account the applicant’s:

(a) past performance/history of meeting the reporting requirements under the assistance agreements identified in response to Section IV.D.3.d.V of the announcement including whether the applicant submitted acceptable final technical reports under those agreements and the extent to which the applicant adequately and timely reported on their progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes under those agreements and if such progress was not being made whether the applicant adequately reported why not (5 points),

(b) organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully achieving the objectives of the proposed project (5 points), and

(c) staff expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the proposed project (5 points).

NOTE: Note: In evaluating applicants under items a and b of this criterion, the Agency will consider the information provided by the applicant and may also consider relevant information from other sources including agency files and prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information supplied by the applicant). If you do not have any relevant or available past performance or past reporting information, please indicate this in the application and you will receive a neutral score for these subfactors (for items a and b above-a neutral score is half of the total points available in a subset of possible points). If you do not provide any response for these items, you may receive a score of 0 for these factors.

7. Budget/Resources: Under this criterion, the Agency will evaluate the following factors:

(a) whether the proposed project budget is appropriate (e.g., realistic, reasonable) to accomplish the proposed goals, objectives, and measurable environmental outcomes, (5 points)

(b) whether the budget narrative provides details of the budget designated for each major activity and…