2020 SDP Application Process.pptx

2020 State Damage Prevention (SDP) Grant Annmarie Robertson Senior Program Manager annmarie.robertson@dot.gov 317-964-1670

This presentation serves as an overview of the 2020 State Damage Prevention Grant program, which is administered by the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). It is not designed to be a substitute for the program information found in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, but provides some key information and resources for those interested in the program. Be sure to read the entire Notice of Funding Opportunity before submitting an application.

PIPES Language – Section 60134

(a) In general.—The Secretary may make a grant to a State authority (including a municipality with respect to intrastate gas pipeline transportation) to assist in improving the overall quality and effectiveness of a damage prevention program of the State authority…if the State authority—

(1) has in effect an annual certification under section 60105 or an agreement under section 60106…; and (2)(A) has in effect an effective damage prevention program that meets the requirements of [the nine elements]; or

(B) demonstrates that it has made substantial progress toward establishing such a program, and that such program will meet the requirements of [the nine elements].

(c) Factors to consider.—In making grants under this section, the Secretary shall take into consideration the commitment of each State to ensuring the effectiveness of its damage prevention program, including legislative and regulatory actions taken by the State.

The 2006 PIPES Act established the State Damage Prevention Grant program. The grant is available to state authorities to help the state align with one or more of the Nine Elements of Effective Damage Prevention programs, which were also cited in the PIPES Act. Although not shown on the slide, the statute also requires applicants to be designated by the governor of the state as the authority eligible to apply for the grant for that state. Finally, the state must participate in the pipeline safety program through a certification or agreement with PHMSA. All states currently participate in the pipeline safety program, except Alaska and Hawaii.

Application Process Summary (NOTE: Be sure to read NOFO for details)

Grant announcement posted on February 4, 2020 on www.Grants.Gov, Opportunity # 693JK320NF0006 In order to apply, must be registered in Grants.gov, SAM, and Fedconnect Grants.gov Workspace Instructions can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/grants/pipeline/state-damage-prevention-grants Application submission deadline: March 19, 2020, 11:59 pm ET Questions must be submitted through FedConnect. Register at https://www.fedconnect.net. Deadline for submitting questions: February 27, 2020 More information about the State Damage Prevention Grant program, including a Program Information document, is available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/grants/pipeline/state-damage-prevention-grants

In addition to the Notice of Funding Opportunity, there are several resources available to prospective grant applicants. Technical instructions for the submitting through grants.gov as well as programmatic information are found on the web sites shown.

SDP Grant Evaluation Criteria Criterion 1: Relevance to the Nine Elements Clearly link results to one or more of the nine elements.

Have merit for advancing implementation or continued support of one or more of the nine elements within the state.

Align with the meaning and intent of the nine elements as described in PHMSA’s Damage Prevention Assistance Program (DPAP) Guide (available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/publications/DPAP-Guide-FirstEdition-20080911.pdf Proposed work under each element/project will be evaluated separately. NOTE – NEW for this year: one element per project

Criterion 1: Relevance to the Nine Elements This criterion will be used to evaluate proposed work under each element addressed on the application. This criterion will be used to evaluate proposed projects that:

Clearly link results to one or more of the nine elements.

Have merit for advancing implementation or continued support of one or more of the nine elements within the state.

Align with the meaning and intent of the nine elements as described in PHMSA’s Damage Prevention Assistance Program (DPAP) Guide (available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/publications/DPAP-Guide-FirstEdition-20080911.pdf?nocache=6648).

Proposed work under each project will be evaluated separately. Applicants should select one element per projects. More than one project can be proposed on the application.

Evaluation Criteria Criterion 2: Costs, Results, and Schedule Will produce tangible results within the proposed project period.

Establish clear goals, objectives, milestones, and estimates of project costs.

Have deliverables that do not overlap with the deliverables of any other PHMSA grant award.

Use funds efficiently and effectively.

Will be successful whether or not the applicant receives additional SDP grants in future years.

Criterion 2: Costs, Results, and Schedule This criterion will be used to evaluate proposed work under each element addressed in the application. This criterion will be used to evaluate proposed projects that:

Will produce tangible results within the proposed project period.

Establish clear goals, objectives, milestones, and estimates of project costs.

Have deliverables that do not overlap with the deliverables of any other PHMSA grant award.

Use funds efficiently and effectively.

Will be successful whether or not the applicant receives additional State Damage Prevention grants in future years.

Evaluation Criteria Criterion 3: State’s Commitment to the Nine Elements

This criterion will be used to evaluate the applicant’s description of existing damage prevention activities as they relate to the nine elements.

Criterion 3: State’s Commitment to the Nine Elements This criterion will be used to evaluate the applicant’s description of existing damage prevention activities as they relate to the nine elements.

This criterion will also be used to evaluate applications that demonstrate the State has made substantial progress toward, or has clear and concrete plans for, implementing the nine elements. Applicants will need to describe the state’s program for each element, even if the proposed grant projects do not address the element.

Evaluation Criteria Criterion 4: State’s Commitment to Damage Prevention Program Effectiveness

This criterion will be used to evaluate the applicant’s description of any legislative or regulatory actions (including studies, etc.) taken by the State within the past five (5) years pertaining to damage prevention program improvement.

Criterion 4: State’s Commitment to Damage Prevention Program Effectiveness This criterion will be used to evaluate the applicant’s description of any legislative or regulatory actions (including studies, etc.) taken by the State within the past five (5) years pertaining to damage prevention program improvement.

This criterion will also be used to evaluate applications that demonstrate the State’s commitment to ensuring lasting damage prevention program effectiveness and continuing improvement, including any legislative and/or regulatory actions taken within the past five years or other significant activities…such as efforts of study groups or task teams established to analyze the State’s damage prevention program.

Evaluation Criteria The criteria are weighted as follows:

Criterion 1 - most heavily weighted Criterion 2 - second most heavily weighted Criterion 3 - third most heavily weighted Criterion 4 - fourth most heavily weighted Criterion 5 - fifth most heavily weighted The number of elements/projects addressed in an application will not affect the evaluation of the application.

New for 2020: ONE ELEMENT PER PROJECT. Applications can include more that one project, but only one element may be assigned to each project. If a project aligns with more than one element, select the element with which the project most closely aligns.

The evaluation criteria are weighted in the order shown, with Criterion 1 being most heavily weighted. The number of elements or projects in an application will not affect the evaluation of the application.

Applicants must assign one element to each project. If a project aligns with more than one element, select the element that most closely aligns with the project. Applications can include more than one project. Costs and descriptions should be specific for each project.

Application Questions Applicants must answer the following questions for each of the nine elements:

Provide a brief project abstract/statement of objectives.

Describe existing initiatives within the State (not just within the applicant’s organization) that support each of the elements.

For each element, note whether the project or projects proposed in the grant application addresses the element.

If applicable, describe how the proposed project will enhance or continue implementation of the element.

If applicable, provide a separate budget and budget narrative.

Describe any legislative or regulatory actions taken by the State within the past five (5) years pertaining to damage prevention program improvement, even if those actions were not completely successful.

Indicate if the project is located within a “Qualified Opportunity Zone” (see map here: https://www.transportation.gov/opportunity-zones/opportunity-zones-interactive-map )

Applicants were asked the following questions:

Provide a brief project abstract/statement of objectives.

For each of the nine elements, describe existing initiatives within the State (not just within the applicant’s organization) that support each of the elements.

For each of the nine elements, note whether the project or projects proposed in the grant application addresses the element.

For each of the nine elements addressed by your application, describe how the proposed project will enhance or continue implementation of the element.

For each element of the nine elements addressed by your application, provide a separate budget and budget narrative.

Describe any legislative or regulatory actions (including legislative/regulatory studies or the establishment of committees or teams to develop a plan to improve the State damage prevention program) taken by the State within the past five (5) years pertaining to damage prevention program improvement, even if those actions were not completely successful (300 words or less).

Indicate if the project is located within a “Qualified Opportunity Zone”

Funding Restrictions Per Section D of NOFO May not use funds for lobbying, advocacy or in direct support of litigation.

May not be used for regulatory compliance programs for pipeline operators Meetings/conferences: funding may not be used to cover costs associated with entertainment, alcoholic beverages or meals.

May not use funds for membership dues, professional activity costs, and sponsorship of conferences or events organized by another entity.

May not use funds to cover operational costs of one-call center but new programs or equipment to help align with 9 elements acceptable.

Equipment costs are capped at $5,000.00 for this grant.

Continuing programs from previous years – should provide summary of accomplishments/challenges.

All awards are subject to 2 CFR Part 200 restrictions

Section D of the solicitation addresses funding restrictions. Be sure to review these restrictions, there are some new restrictions this year, especially under equipment costs and meetings.

Review Process Administrative Review: PHMSA will conduct an administrative review to ensure the application meets the eligibility criteria. (Section C)

Technical Review: PHMSA and damage prevention stakeholder peers will conduct a technical review of the application to assess how the proposed work is to be performed and whether the application(s) are responsive to the applicable program requirements (i.e. performance measurement, methodology, and technical merit). (Section E)

Programmatic Review: PHMSA will conduct a programmatic review to assess programmatic factors identified in Section E.1. Programmatic factors are those factors that are relevant and essential to the process of selecting applications that best achieve the program objectives, in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines. Other programmatic factors may include history of performance, program priorities, and other modal needs (i.e. rural areas and Qualified Opportunity Zones). (Section E)

PHMSA’s review process occurs in three ways. First, there is an administrative review to confirm that the application meets eligibility requirements, shown in Section C on the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Second, a technical review panel comprised of damage prevention peer experts conducts a review of each application against the evaluation criteria shown in Section E of the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Third, PHMSA conducts a programmatic review to understand how proposed projects align with program objectives, policies, regulations and guidelines.

Priorities: In addition to administrative, technical and programmatic reviews, PHMSA will consider its safety priorities when making award recommendations.

Priority 1 Element 3: A process for reviewing the adequacy of a pipeline operator's internal performance measures regarding persons performing locating services and quality assurance programs.

Element 7: Enforcement of state damage prevention laws and regulations for all aspects of the damage prevention process, including public education, and the use of civil penalties for violations assessable by the appropriate state authority.

Element 9: A process for review and analysis of the effectiveness of each program element, including a means for implementing improvements identified by such program reviews.

PHMSA has designated the Nine Elements into three categories of Priorities. Elements 3,7 and 9 are considered Priority 1. Element 3 addresses operators use of performance measures for locators. Element 7 addresses fair and consistent enforcement of the law. Element is about data analysis to continually improve program effectiveness. Note that applicants are eligible for up to $100,000 under any Priority.

Priorities: In addition to administrative, technical and programmatic reviews, PHMSA will consider its safety priorities when making award recommendations.

Priority 2 Element 4: Participation by operators, excavators, and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of effective employee training programs to ensure that operators, the one-call center, the enforcing agency, and the excavators have partnered to design and implement training for the employees of operators, excavators, and locators.

Element 5: A process for fostering and ensuring active participation by all stakeholders in public education for damage prevention activities.

Element 8: A process for fostering and promoting the use, by all appropriate stakeholders, of improving technologies that may enhance communications, underground pipeline locating capability, and gathering and analyzing information about the accuracy and effectiveness of locating programs.

Priority 2 Elements include Elements 4, 5 and 8. Element 4 addresses partnership in employee training. Element 5 addresses partnership in public education about the safe digging process. Element 8 addresses the use of enhanced technology to improve damage prevention.

Priorities: In addition to administrative, technical and programmatic reviews, PHMSA will consider its safety priorities when making award recommendations.

Priority 3 Element 1: Participation by operators, excavators, and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of methods for establishing and maintaining effective communications between stakeholders from receipt of an excavation notification until successful completion of the excavation, as appropriate.

Element 2: A process for fostering and ensuring the support and partnership of stakeholders, including excavators, operators, locators, designers, and local government in all phases of the program.

Element 6: A process for resolving disputes that defines the State authority's role as a partner and facilitator to resolve issues.

Priority 3 Elements include Elements 1,2 and 6. Element 1 addresses enhanced communication between operators and excavators throughout the safe digging process. Element 2 is about fostering support and partnership among all stakeholders for improved damage prevention. Element 6 addresses the enforcement agencies’ role in addressing issues.

Questions During the application process, all questions must be submitted through FedConnect:

https://www.fedconnect.net

Per Section F.1 of Solicitation:

Applicant may not use funds for lobbying, advocacy or in direct support of litigation.

Applicant may not use funds to cover operational costs of one-call center but new programs or equipment to help align with 9 elements acceptable.

For continuing programs from previous years – you should provide summary of accomplishments/challenges.

Things to remember Be sure to read the Notice of Funding Opportunity Request letter from Governor asap Become familiar with 2 CFR 200 Refer to SDP Program Information document image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image4.jpeg image1.jpg