opp693JK31852A01-instructions.pdf

NOFO # 693JK31852A01

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 1 of 16

2018 Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program (CAAP) – NOFO

U.S. Department of Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

( PHMSA)

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)

Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program (CAAP)

Fiscal Year 2018

Opening Date: March 5, 2018 Closing Date: April 20, 2018

Closing Time: 11:00AM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA) 20.724

PHMSA Funding Opportunity Number

693JK31852A01

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Article I. Funding Opportunity Description

Section 1.01 Statement of Purpose Section 1.02 Program Authority Section 1.03 Background Section 1.04 Research Topics Section 1.05 Deliverables

Article II. Award Information Section 2.01 Funding Section 2.02 Cost Sharing Section 2.03 Period of Performance Section 2.04 Type of Award

Article III. Eligibility Information Section 3.01 Eligible Applicants Section 3.02 Minimum Requirements

Article IV. Registration and Application Submission Information Section 4.01 Application Submission Medium Section 4.02 Grants.gov Registration Section 4.03 Question Deadline Section 4.04 Application Submission Deadline

Article V. Application Content & Format Section 5.01 Technical Proposal Section 5.02 Budget/Cost Proposal & Budget Narrative Section 5.03 Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances Section 5.04 Lobbying

Article VI. Application Review Information Section 6.01 Evaluation Criteria Section 6.02 Scoring Guidelines Section 6.03 Review and Selection Process

Article VII. Agency Contact Information

Attachment A: Technical Application Template Attachment B: Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances Attachment C: Terms and Conditions

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 3 of 16

Program Summary

Federal Agency Name:

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

(PHMSA)

Federal Agency Contact:

U.S. DOT/PHMSA

Acquisition Services Division, PHF-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room E22-306 Washington, DC 20590 Attn: Ben Patterson

Funding Opportunity Title:

“Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program (CAAP) – FY 2018”

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: 693JK31852A01 CFDA Number: CFDA 20.724

Eligible Applicants:

Applicants must be non-profit institutions of higher education located in the United States or a U.S. territory or possession.

Dates:

NOFO Issue Date: March 5, 2018 Question Deadline: March 19, 2018 at 11:00am EDT Application Due Date: April 20, 2018 at 11:00am EDT

Agreement-Related Questions:

Ben Patterson

(202) 366-5102 ben.patterson@dot.gov

Grants.gov Questions:

Grants.gov Contact Center 1-800-518-4726 support@grants.gov

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 4 of 16

Article I. Funding Opportunity Description Section 1.01 Statement of Purpose

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), through the U.S. DOT, hereby requests applications from non-profit institutions of higher education to obtain funding to research innovative solutions to pipeline corrosion and other known pipeline integrity challenges.

Section 1.02 Program Authority

PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety Research and Development (R&D) Program is authorized by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-355 (December 17, 2002). Further, the authority to enter into cooperative agreements under the CAAP initiative is codified at 49 U.S.C.§ 60117(k).

Section 1.03 Background

Section 1.03-1 Background on Pipelines and PHMSA’s Pipeline R&D Program PHMSA has up to $2.0 million available for awards. Federal funding will not exceed $300,000 per award. The research to be conducted under the agreements will seek a wide set of solutions for corrosion and other pipeline integrity challenges. PHMSA anticipates the period of performance of each award to be no less than 24 months, while not exceeding 36 months.

The pipeline infrastructure in the U.S. is the primary means of transporting natural gas and the majority of hazardous liquids from production basins and ports to areas of consumption. The importance of energy pipelines to the U.S. economy, our standard of living, and potential for safety and environmental impacts requires that these assets be maintained safely and expanded appropriately to sustain demand.

Research must play a larger role in finding the solutions to national, regional, and local pipeline operational safety and environmental challenges. Some of these challenges involve operators having the best technology to efficiently and effectively meet or exceed Federal and state regulatory requirements on the safety and integrity of pipelines. Other challenges include keeping critical industry consensus standards fresh with the latest knowledge so that people, property, and the environment are protected.

PHMSA’s core pipeline research program involves all stakeholders in a time-tested process for generating success. Since 2002, this program has been focused on the near-term with demonstrating and deploying technology development and commercialization. Additional information on the existing Pipeline Safety R&D Program is available at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/index.htm.

This research enterprise continues to have a tangible impact toward developing technology, strengthening consensus standards and creating and promoting general knowledge to decision makers. More performance details are available at PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Research website http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm.

Section 1.03-2 Background on the CAAP Initiative The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 as codified under 49 U.S.C. 60101

PIPELINE INTEGRITY, SAFETY, AND RELIABILITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Pub. L. 107–355, § 12, Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2997, and amended by Pub. L. 109–468, § 26, Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3501 tasked DOT and other designated Federal agencies to “carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and standardization to ensure the integrity of https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/index.htm https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/index.htm https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/index.htm http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/performance.htm

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 5 of 16 pipeline facilities.” Specifically, the program’s mission is to sponsor research and development projects focused on providing near-term solutions that will improve the safety, reduce the environmental impact, and enhance the reliability of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system.

The goals and objectives of the CAAP initiative, as discussed below, directly support both the mission and the congressional mandate of PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program.

The CAAP initiative is intended to spur innovation by enabling academic research focused on high-risk and high pay-off solutions for the many pipeline safety challenges. It will potentially deliver solutions that can be “handed-off” to PHMSA’s core research program for demonstration and deployment. The goal is to validate proof of concept of a thesis or theory all the way to commercial implementation into the market.

The pipeline industry and Federal/state regulators are experiencing low numbers of applicants to entry level positions that are technically focused. Consequently, another goal of the CAAP initiative is to expose and engage graduate and PhD research students to participate in subject matter task(s) that are common to pipeline safety challenges and to illustrate how their engineering or technical disciplines are highly needed in the field. The ultimate benefit would be to cultivate new talent in all aspects of the pipeline industry, similar to how programs at other Federal Agencies and non-profit organizations have encouraged talent to consider a career in a certain field.

Section 1.04 Research Topics PHMSA is soliciting proposals in three primary research and development focus areas based on technical gaps identified at PHMSA’s November 2016 Government and Industry Pipeline Research Forum (Research Forum). The Research Forum brought together approximately 230 representatives from Federal, State, and foreign government offices along with domestic and foreign natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators. The Research Forum's goals included identifying key challenges facing industry and government, sharing information on current research efforts, and identifying research that can help to meet the challenges.

The Research Forum further refined pipeline research coordination and collaboration by producing a national research agenda reflective of stakeholder consensus on what research should be solicited now to address identified pipeline challenges. Please visit https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/mtg_111616.htm for more information about this important event and how it crafted the topics solicited in this announcement. PHMSA will only consider proposals that address technical gaps within the on-shore pipeline safety program areas listed below.

Proposals submitted past the closing date and time or outside the identified program areas listed below will not be reviewed or further considered.

The focus areas are intentionally ambitious and broad enough to allow for the acceptance of a wide spectrum of specific proposals that strategically support PHMSA’s mission in pipeline safety.

Proposals are to be focused on high technical risk and high pay-off solutions for the many pipeline safety challenges. Again, anticipated outcomes will potentially deliver solutions that can be handed off to PHMSA’s core research program.

Each application must address only one of the following primary pipeline safety program areas per proposal submission. Applicants may submit multiple proposals.

https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/mtg_111616.htm

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 6 of 16

Research Area #1: Detecting, Mitigating and/or Locating Internal Pipeline Corrosion

Background: New concepts or approaches addressing solutions to internal corrosion threat mechanisms are desired. The fundamentals of corrosion in metallic pipelines are well understood. The National Association of Corrosion Engineers’ (NACE) (http://impact.nace.org/) latest cost of corrosion study estimates the global cost of corrosion to be 3.4 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP).

One approach is for University teams to evaluate and develop new tool(s) that demonstrate the presence and corrosivity of water as an important component of internal corrosion identification. By conducting additional field trials, acceptance of this methodology for assessing the risk of internal corrosion may result in improvements and potential commercialized systems could be identified.

Project Challenge: This topic is focused on evolving different methodologies that have potential to significantly reduce or mitigate the discovery time and/or cost of detecting internal corrosion as compared to existing inspection technologies for identifying internal corrosion. Innovative solutions that may mitigate internal corrosion and/or develop low-cost, easy to use systems combined with advancements in modeling solutions to locate areas of water accumulation and internal corrosion are of keen interest to regulators and numerous pipeline operators.

Research Area #2: Engineering Improvements to Pipeline Computational Models to Reduce Variance

Background: Operators and regulators are inundated with data, which increases needs for improved data management systems and advancements in computational-based system analytics to manage the incoming information request while controlling variables and unplanned variances. With the rapidly changing environment – including machine learning and data – and speed of modern improvements, information technology may expand the gap in material science and integrity analysis. The issue continues to be difficult to address regarding how data will be used. A comprehensive data and information fusion methodology is critical for operational risk management in a dynamic and adaptive way.

A University team would develop and demonstrate improved assessment models that result in lowering variance of model outputs while interrogating threat prevention issues impacting the pipeline integrity.

Metrics for the variance reduction in the prognostics for various threats should be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Anticipated objective and finds will broaden the understanding of interacting threats while strengthening and improving integrity management decisions.

Project Challenges: Project(s) of this nature would likely require Finite Element Analysis (initially) in addition to industry guidance and/or data with some level of materials validation test in real world feature(s) versus fabricating/simulating anomalies. Areas of focus could be for mechanical damage with coincident features such as cracks with corrosion, seam anomalies assessment methods for lack of fusion, selective seam weld corrosion, hook cracks, or cold welds. The project would need to clearly define features of such threats and how to distinguish one from the other. This project has a significant opportunity to address gaps in knowledge and/or technology facing the pipeline industry while development of predictive tools for natural variability of damage size and morphology, measurement noise, model uncertainty, data completeness, quality and industry standards, reporting protocols, and deliverables.

http://impact.nace.org/

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 7 of 16

Research Area #3: Develop Advanced Knowledge Base Models from Root Cause Failure Analysis of Past Pipeline Incidents

Background: Failure analysis investigation performed at testing laboratories helps explain the expected or derogations to a point where pipeline materials become no longer safe to use. Based on a pipe’s history, established testing protocols will perform a root cause failure analysis using the necessary testing and inspections to identify the cause of failure. A metallurgical failure analysis may include any of the following wide-range of mechanical tests: Metallurgical evaluation, chemical analysis, nondestructive testing or dimensional inspection services. The analysis looks for:

• Material composition

• Mechanical properties

• The existence of flaws or inconsistencies

Root Cause Failure Analysis is typically used as a reactive method of identifying event(s) causes, revealing problems, and solving them. Analysis is done after an event has occurred. Insights in Root Cause Failure Analysis make it potentially useful as a preemptive method. In that event, Root Cause Failure Analysis can be used to forecast or predict events even before they occur. While one follows the other, Root Cause Failure Analysis is a completely separate process to incident management.

When the failure analysis is completed, a Failure Analysis Report with findings from the investigation may include recommended actions to be taken with similar parts of materials to prevent a recurrence in the future.

Project Challenges: A University team could investigate Root Cause Failure Analysis comprised of many different tools, processes, and philosophies rather than one sharply defined methodology. However, several very broadly defined approaches or “Schools” can be identified by their basic approach or field of origin: safety-based, production-based, assembly-based, process-based, failure-based, and systems-based.

• Safety-based Root Cause Failure Analysis arose from the fields of accident analysis and occupational safety and health.

• Production-based Root Cause Failure Analysis has roots in the field of quality control for the pipeline industry.

• Process-based Root Cause Failure Analysis is a follow-on to production-based analysis to include construction business practices.

• Failure-based Root Cause Failure Analysis originates in the practice of failure analysis as employed in engineering and maintenance.

• Systems-based Root Cause Failure Analysis has emerged as an amalgam of the preceding schools, incorporating elements for other fields such as change management, risk management, and system analysis.

Despite the above different approaches among the various schools of root cause analysis, all share some common principles. Several general processes for performing Root Cause Failure Analysis can also be defined.

One path that may be considered involves team members query other industries/organizations studying similar advancements in open source tools and/or computational modeling toward Root

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 8 of 16

Cause Failure Analysis available. In parallel the team could calibrate with pipeline operators to investigate their past and current methods for Root Cause Failure Analysis in addition to gaining knowledge of advancements across the industry in analytical approaches to address this issue.

A project of this nature would likely require close information sharing with operator(s) when the University Team evaluates operator historical information on past incidents/accidents while studying this issue.

General Notes:

1. This year’s full application, Section 4.01 Application Submission Medium, instructs that applicants must submit through two portals. That information is provided below.

2. PHMSA intends to make one or more awards to each of the focus topic areas.

Section 1.05 Deliverables The following deliverables will be required for all awarded agreements. Report templates and guidance will be provided once award documents are signed.

• Hold Kick Off Meeting;

• Submit Performance Progress Reports (format/content in accordance with SF-RPPR);

*Note: Reporting period begins on the effective date of the cooperative agreement.

o Quarterly progress reports via email and uploaded to PHMSA’s R&D database (MIS) –

Due NLT 30 days after reporting period ends

• Prepare, travel to, and present a poster at a remote government and/or public event up to one time per year;

• Draft Final Research Report Due NLT 30 days prior to agreement expiration;

• Produce a Public Final Research Report (once reviewed and comments incorporated); and,

• Deliver a close-out Internet-Based Presentation.

Article II. Award Information

Section 2.01 Funding Subject to the availability of funds, the amount of Federal funding for each agreement may not exceed $300,000 at award. Applicants may submit more than one application, but each individual application must not exceed $300,000 in Federal funding (See Section 1.03).

Section 2.02 Cost Sharing There is a mandatory minimum 20 percent cost-sharing requirement for this agreement as codified in Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 or the PIPES Act of 2016 Pub. L. 1114–183, § 22(b)(2)(C)(ii), Jun. 22, 2016. The Federal government will fund no more than 80 percent (up to $300,000) of the total cost of each project.

Firm letters of commitment for resource sharing must be provided with the proposal. Proposals without commitment letters for resource sharing will not be reviewed or considered for an award.

See Section 5.02 for additional information regarding budget/cost proposals.

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 9 of 16

Section 2.03 Period of Performance PHMSA anticipates a period of performance of no less than 24 months but not exceeding 36 months from the date of award for each agreement. Modifications within the scope of the cooperative agreement will be handled on a case-by-case basis with the prior agreement of all parties. PHMSA anticipates awarding the agreements during the third quarter of fiscal year 2018.

Section 2.04 Type of Award All awards resulting from this announcement will be issued as cooperative agreements.

Article III. Eligibility Information Section 3.01 Eligible Applicants Applicants must be non-profit institutions of higher education located in the United States or a U.S.

Territory or possession. PHMSA will consider an application from an eligible higher education institution that partners with other eligible recipients, pipeline industry, and/or with any private organization, as long as the cost for the proposed partnership does not exceed 20 percent of the proposed amount of Federal contribution to the project (which may be up to $300,000). In other words, a portion of the Federal funding provided under the resulting cooperative agreement (up to $60,000) may go to a sub-recipient of the non-profit institution of higher education that is the primary party to the agreement.

Section 3.02 Minimum Requirements The following are minimum requirements that all applicants must meet to be considered. Failure to meet these requirements at any time pre- or post-award will result in either removing an application from further consideration or is grounds for termination of the agreement. The application must include a letter on the submitting institution’s letterhead that certifies these minimum requirements are understood and will be met. The letter must be signed by the Dean or equivalent level of that college, department, or program and inserted as Appendix A to the technical application (first page of the Appendix).

1. Eligible applicants are non-profit institutions of higher education located in the U.S. or a U.S.

territory or possession.

2. The academic research agreement will be with the institution and not with individual students.

3. The research scope must be executed by undergraduate, graduate, and/or PhD research students. Institution faculty/staff should design the scope and oversee student execution of the scope. Applications that do not propose student involvement will be deemed non-responsive and will be removed from consideration. NOTE: Students must be identified no later than the first quarter of the period of performance.

4. Institution faculty, staff, and students that are proposed to be involved with the research agreement must be U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or possess current visas that will allow them to remain in the country long enough to complete the research project. Federal funding is solely for allowable charges necessary for executing the research scope, such as institution overhead, the procurement of expendables, and any required labor. Purchasing of new or existing testing equipment will not be permitted with Federal funds. Also, Federal funding cannot be used toward construction of new facilities or refurbishing of existing facilities. Post-delivery financial audits may occur.

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 10 of 16

5. Applications must meet the cost sharing requirements stipulated at Section 2.02; failure to meet the required cost sharing threshold (20 percent) shall result in an application being removed from consideration.

Article IV. Registration and Application Submission Information

Failure to comply with the requirements described in this section shall result in an application not being reviewed.

Section 4.01 Application Submission Medium Applicants are required to submit their complete applications through Grants.gov.

Section 4.02 Grants.gov Registration To submit an application, applicants must be registered at www.grants.gov. New users must register for an account. Please note that new user registrations for Grants.gov can take up to two weeks to complete. For additional questions on how to register, contact Grants.gov support.

Section 4.03 Question Deadline All questions regarding this NOFO must be emailed to Ben Patterson (ben.patterson@dot.gov) with a copy to Mr. Warren Osterberg (warren.osterberg@dot.gov). Applicants may not contact any other PHMSA personnel during the solicitation phase. All questions must be received on or before March 19, 2018 at 11:00am EDT to be considered. Answers to all questions will be posted in Grants.gov as an amendment to the initial announcement.

Section 4.04 Application Submission Deadline Complete applications must be received electronically through Grants.gov by 11:00am EDT on April 20, 2018. Applicants will receive an automated receipt from Grants.gov of the date and time of application submission. If the timeliness of a submission comes into question, the date and time recorded in Grants.gov will take precedence over that of MIS.

Article V. Application Content & Format

Section 5.01 Technical Proposal In preparing their technical proposal, applicants must use the technical application template attached to this opportunity (Attachment A). The attachment includes instructions regarding required content and information. Applicants must only apply for funding that can reasonably be spent within the proposed period of performance.

The following Technical Application requirements are summarized below but described in detail in the provided template. Failure to follow these requirements shall result in the removal of your application from consideration.

1. All information supporting the evaluation criteria must be contained within 20 pages, which does not include the Cover Page, the Technical Application Information Page, or the Appendix.

2. The Certification Letter of Minimum Requirements must be the first page in the Appendix.

3. The Appendix may include additional information; however, this information will not be used by reviewers in evaluating the proposal (except to determine that each applicant has submitted a certification letter regarding minimum requirements; ref: Section 3.02).

http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ mailto:ben.patterson@dot.gov mailto:warren.osterberg@dot.gov

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 11 of 16

4. Times New Roman 12-pt font and 1.15 line and paragraph spacing for text body.

Technical proposals in the format prescribed by Attachment A must be uploaded to the “Project Narrative” section of the Grants.gov application.

Section 5.02 Budget/Cost Proposal & Budget Narrative Applicants must use Standard Form (SF) 424A through Grants.gov to submit their budget/cost proposal. The budget should reflect the applicant’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint to perform the work. No fee or profit should be proposed, as this is a resource-sharing arrangement.

Additional budgetary information, broken out as described in subparagraphs a. through h. below, must provide detailed information on each cost element, consistent with the applicant's cost accounting system. The amounts requested for each budget category must be justified in a Budget Narrative document and uploaded to the “Budget Narrative” section of the application. Budget Narratives must address the following items:

a. Personnel: List individually all personnel and include for each, the requested hours to be funded and the respective compensation rates (salary/wages and fringe benefits). This section of the Budget Narrative must include the following information:

i. Supplemental schedule identifying the number of hours, hourly rates, and cost by labor classification for each budget year;

ii. Basis/explanation for the proposed number of hours and hourly rates (for instance, number of hours could be based on past experience, an engineering estimate, etc. and hourly rates could be actual rates for the individuals who will perform the work, an average labor rate for the labor classification, or a departmental average rate); and,

iii. In cases where an individual’s salary/wage increases between budget years, explain the basis for the increase and provide substantiating documentation, if available.

b. Fringe Benefits: Applicants must provide a copy of or a web link to the university’s policy stating the appropriate fringe rates for each labor classification.

c. Travel: Proposed travel must be directly related to the performance of the project. In the Budget Narrative, state the reason(s) for travel, the type and duration of the travel, and its relation to the project. Additionally, recipients may anticipate travel requested by PHMSA to present their findings up to once each 12 months of the project. Provide an itemized list of associated travel costs.

d. Equipment/Supplies: Provide an itemized list of each piece of proposed equipment/supplies.

Include individual costs for each item exceeding $5,000 and the basis for estimating the cost (e.g., vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Reference Section 3.02, Item 5, where it states that “Purchasing of new or existing testing equipment will not be permitted.”

e. Contractual (Consultants/Subcontractors): List the names of consultants and describe the activities to be performed, duration of the service, and the compensation involved. Provide the hourly or daily rate along with the basis for the rate. Furnish resumes or similar information regarding qualifications and experience. Provide at least two invoices reflecting hourly or daily rates charged to customers other than the Government. A statement signed by the consultant certifying

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 12 of 16 his or her availability and salary must be provided. If travel or incidental expenses are to be charged, give the basis for these costs. For proposed subcontractors, provide their total cost per year. Detailed subcontractor costs should appear in the subcontractor’s budget explanation. The total cost of consultants and/or subcontractors should not exceed 20 percent of the proposed amount of Federal contribution to project.

f. Other Direct Costs: Provide an itemized list with associated costs for any other item proposed as a direct cost that is not included in another category. State the basis for each proposed item.

g. Indirect Charges: Provide a copy of or a web link to the university’s negotiated indirect rate agreement. Explain/demonstrate how the total indirect charges were calculated.

h. Resource Sharing, In-House Contributions: Cost/budget proposals must show the breakout between Federal and non-Federal funding sources, and the Budget Narrative must explain what the non-Federal sources are comprised of and how the associated values were derived. Non- Federal contributions may include cash, personnel, donated goods/services (provided that the market value of the good/service is substantiated by a letter or other form of evidence from the provider of the good/service), equipment, and other resources. All resource sharing or matching contributions, including cash and third party contributions, must meet the following criteria, which can be found in CFR §200.306: “Cost sharing or matching”:

i. Are verifiable from the non-Federal entity’s records;

ii. Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award;

iii. Are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives;

iv. Are allowable under Subpart E – Cost Principles of this part;

v. Are not paid by the Federal government under another Federal award, except where the

Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs;

vi. Are provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency;

and,

vii. Conform to other provisions of this part, as applicable.

Section 5.03 Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances Applicants must sign, date, and return with the application, the “Standard Title VI/Non- Discrimination Assurances” specified in Attachment B: Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. Specifically, applicants must complete and return this attachment. The completed documents should be submitted as an attachment with the other application materials.

Section 5.04 Lobbying Funds may not be used in direct support of litigation, lobbying, for direct advocacy for or against a pipeline construction or expansion project or other pipeline policy matters, or for activities associated with regulatory compliance or typical operations and maintenance of pipeline facilities.

Each application must include a signed Grants.gov Lobbying Form to be considered for award.

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 13 of 16

Article VI. Application Review Information Section 6.01 Evaluation Criteria PHMSA will use the following evaluation criteria to rate and select among competing applications.

These criteria are intended to identify projects that target high-risk areas, offer well-defined plans, and produce results that are measurable and transferable to further investigations in the CAAP initiative or PHMSA’s core research program.

The two (2) technical evaluation criteria are as follows:

Review Criterion Criterion 1: Scientific Merit and Quality

1. To what extent does the proposed project suggest/explore creative and original concepts and/or scientific/engineering principles to describe the challenges?

2. To what extent does the proposed research describe how the output/result advances a potential solution toward an identified pipeline challenge(s)?

3. To what extent does the proposed research describe how the quality of results will be peer reviewed? (Did applicant identify Subject Matter Expert (SME) oversight?)

4. To what extent does the proposed research involve partnering to validate/demonstrate scientific results and/or quantify engineering principles?

Criterion 2: Feasibility of Management Plan, Work Task, Budget, and Schedule

1. How well is the scope of work, tasks, and milestones defined? Are the specific assigned tasks that will be performed by student(s) defined?

2. How well are the research goals or objectives defined?

3. Does the institution have access to appropriate facilities to conduct the proposed work?

4. How well is the project schedule defined and tied to the management plan?

5. How detailed is the plan to regularly oversee student(s) by the academic organization’s faculty/staff with the relevant knowledge and experience in the proposed area?

In addition, PHMSA expects the proposed results of the projects to be factual, unbiased, verifiable, and repeatable to the extent practicable. Applicants should also be aware that a cooperative agreement will not convey any authority to recipients to secure information or cooperation from pipeline operators.

Section 6.02 Scoring Guidelines The following rating definitions will be used to evaluate the applicant’s proposal in accordance with Criterion 1 – Scientific Merit and Quality and Criterion 2 – Feasibility of Management Plan, Budget, and Schedule:

Rating Criterion Description

Outstanding 1

Proposed project meets requirements and demonstrates an exceptional level of scientific merit and quality. No weaknesses or deficiencies are identified.

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 14 of 16

Management plan, work task, student(s) task assignments, budget, and schedule demonstrate no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal recipient effort and normal Government monitoring will be able to overcome any difficulties. Risk of poor performance is considered low.

Very Good

Proposed project meets requirements and demonstrates an above- average level of scientific merit and quality.

Proposal contains strengths that outweigh any weaknesses.

Management plan, work task, student(s) task assignments, budget, and schedule demonstrate minimal potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal recipient effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. The risk of poor performance is moderately low.

Acceptable 1

Proposed project meets requirements and demonstrates an adequate level of scientific merit and quality. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 15 of 16

Management plan, work task, student(s) task assignments, budget, and schedule present a manageable potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special recipient emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome or prevent difficulties. The risk of poor performance is no more than moderate.

Unacceptable

Proposed project does not meet requirements and contains one or more major weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Application is unacceptable for award.

Management plan, work task, budget, and schedule are likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Absence of student(s) task assignments.

Recipient is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special emphasis and close Government monitoring. The risk of poor performance is high.

Section 6.03 Review and Selection Process PHMSA will conduct an initial administrative review of each application to determine if it is complete and meets the minimum eligibility requirements per Article III, Eligibility Information. A team composed of PHMSA representatives and, potentially, industry experts will then conduct a review to evaluate and rate each application against the evaluation criteria (see Section 6.01) and to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed budget. Cooperative agreements will be awarded to applicants having the highest merit rating until the available funding is exhausted.

Article VII. Agency Contact Information

Agreement-Related Questions Primary Point of Contact:

Ben Patterson, Agreement Administrator (AA) Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

U.S. DOT/PHMSA Page 16 of 16

Acquisition Services Division (PHF-20) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-5102 Email: ben.patterson@dot.gov

Grants.gov Questions Grants.gov Contact Center Phone: (800) 518-4726 Email: support@grants.gov

***** LAST ARTICLE *****

Article VII. Agency Contact Information