SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Judging for the 2007-2008 EPA P3 Award Competition
- Notice Date
- 11/19/2007
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- NAICS
- 541620
— Environmental Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- Bid and Proposal Room, Ariel Rios Building (3802R) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460
- ZIP Code
- 20460
- Solicitation Number
- PR-HQ-08-10307
- Response Due
- 12/19/2007
- Archive Date
- 1/18/2008
- Point of Contact
- KATHRYN N. RILEY, Contract Specialist, Phone: 202-564-2790, E-Mail: riley.kathryn@epa.gov
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to KATHRYN N. RILEY
(riley.kathryn@epa.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- NAICS Code 541620. Environmental Protection Agency intends to issue a sole source contract to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in support of the 2007-2008 EPA P3 Award Competition: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability. The Statement of Work and rationale for sole source purchase order follows. Statement of Work TASK DESCRIPTION: The contractor shall provide the qualified personnel and staff support necessary to evaluate up to 58 2007-2008 Phase I P3 projects, recommending Phase I P3 projects as P3 Award winners, and providing consolidated judges evaluations for each team. To provide this support, the contractor will perform the following sub tasks: 1. Convene a panel of up to 25 judges who are leaders in the fields of engineering, water science, green chemistry, agriculture, green building design, waste issues, energy issues and/or sustainability to serve on the P3 Award evaluation panel, including providing on-site evaluations, on April 20 - 22, 2008 on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The expertise of the selected judges should be based on the Phase I projects to be evaluated. 2. In consultation with the EPA Project Officer prior to the Expo, revise and finalize the judging criteria and a process for scoring the projects. The process needs to address evaluations of both the written reports reviewed prior to the Expo and review of the team presentations provided to the judges when they visit each team at the Expo. The judges are responsible to evaluate the scientific quality and technical merit of the applications assigned to them and to provide the Agency with their critiques. Each judge must provide an independent score reflecting his or her assessment of each application. The highest score is excellent (E). Scores range downward as very good (VG), good (G), fair (F), and poor (P). The scores are defined as follows: Excellent: A truly outstanding proposal with numerous exceptional attributes. Very Good: A very strong proposal with many noteworthy merits. Good: A solid proposal but not among the best, may have some deficiencies. Fair: Not a strong proposal. Poor: A proposal with serious deficiencies. In addition to scoring the proposals, the judges are requested to indicate particular strengths and weaknesses of each proposal in their individual critiques and in the summary evaluation. 3. Deliver the Phase 1 P3 final reports and Phase 2 P3 proposals (a combined document for each team), to the judges three (3) weeks prior to the April 20 - 22, 2008 competition such that the panel will receive the reports no later than April 1, 2008. These documents will be provided by the EPA Project Officer to the contractor. 4. Assign judges to each proposal such that each written proposal is read by a minimum of 4 judges and each team is visited by a minimum of 4 judges at the Expo. Written evaluations are provided by each judge for each proposal they review and each team they visit at the Expo. These written evaluations are then available at the judges? decision meeting and for consultation in preparing the summary evaluations for each team. 5. On the days of the competition, manage the process for obtaining and collating written records of the onsite interviews with the student teams, discussions and decision meeting following the interviews, and the finalizing of the consolidated evaluation for each team. A written summary evaluation will be prepared for each team incorporating comments from review of both the written project report and the team presentation at the Expo that summarizes the individual critiques and the discussion of the application that takes place at the panel meeting. 6. On the final day of the competition, manage the judges meeting such that a numerical ranking of the teams is provided to the EPA Project Officer by 3:00 PM on April 22, 2007. ORD?s National Center for Environmental Research will use this ranking, along with information on available resources, balance of the research portfolio, overall program goals and directions and other criteria or considerations deemed appropriate, to determine which teams will receive the P3 Awards and which teams will receive Honorable Mentions. Final funding decisions will be made by NCER. 7. Pay travel costs for judges to attend the Expo and reimburse judges for their review time at a rate of $200/day (where appropriate). (This is the rate that NCER?s Peer Review Division uses to reimburse Peer Reviewers who participate in our Peer Review panels.) Justification of Sole Source to the American Association for the Advancement of Science I. The Nature of the Acquisition Requires a Contractor that Possesses Unique Capabilities: The nature of the acquisition requires a provider that has the demonstrated ability to identify and obtain participation from a wide range of technical and scientific experts in a wide range of disciplines to solicit their participation as judges for the P3 Program. These unique capabilities are essential for contractor performance because without them we will not have the technical experts available to judge the 58 P3 projects. We need this outside peer review to maintain the scientific credibility of the science being conducted under the P3 Program and the Director for the National Center of Environmental Research depends on the reviews provided by the outside experts to determine which of the teams will received the prestigious P3 Award and associated Phase II grant of up to $75,000. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the only institution which can offer such extensive experience in conducting independent peer review. AAAS also offers access to more than 140,000 members representing all science and engineering disciplines. It further has ready access to nearly 300 sustainability science researchers that take part in its Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development. II. Why the AAAS is the Only Known Source to Satisfy the Government?s Requirements: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the only known source available to satisfy the Government?s requirements because of their ability to identify and reach scientific and technical experts in a wide range of scientific fields and their established Research Competitiveness Program. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world?s largest nonprofit interdisciplinary organization for scientists and engineers. Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science that in turn serve 10 million individuals. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to ?advance science and serve society? through initiatives in science policy, international programs, and science education.
- Web Link
-
The Environmental Protection Agency
(http://www.epa.gov/oam/solam.htm)
- Record
- SN01455076-W 20071121/071119225807 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |