SOLICITATION NOTICE
R -- Peer Review Services for National Center for Environmental Economics
- Notice Date
- 8/26/2010
- Notice Type
- Presolicitation
- Contracting Office
- Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw, Washington, DC 20460
- ZIP Code
- 20460
- Solicitation Number
- RFQ-DC-10-00219
- Response Due
- 9/3/2010
- Archive Date
- 10/3/2010
- Point of Contact
- Point of Contact, Bradley Austin, Purchasing Agent, Phone (202) 564-5574
- E-Mail Address
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(AUSTIN.BRADLEY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- NAICS Code: 541611 This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and awritten solicitation will not be issued. The solicitation number is RFQ-DC-10-00219 and is being issued as a Request for Quotations (RFQ) in conjunction with FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The solicitation document and incorporated provisions are those in effect through FAC 2005-43. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI), National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is seeking a contractor to provide peer review services with expertise in environmental economics. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541611. The Small Business Size Standard is $7.0M. This requirement is a total set-aside for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB). Contractors shall indicate in its response how it meets the small business type and size standard to qualify for award. EPA anticipates awarding a firm fixed price purchase order for this requirement. The period of performance will be two (2) months from the date of award. Offerors shall submit a price proposal based on the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW). For this requirement, vendors shall assume peer reviews are to be conducted for ten (10) applications. Quotes shall be submitted electronically in Word or Adobe to Bradley Austin, Contracting Officer, Austin.bradley@epa.gov, by 2:00 p.m. EST on September 3, 2010. The following provisions and clauses apply to this acquisition: 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items; 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items; 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation. Specifically, the following clauses cited are applicable to this solicitation: FAR 52.222-3, FAR 52.222-19, FAR 52.222-21, FAR 52.222-26, FAR 52.222-35, FAR 52.222-36, FAR 52.222-37, FAR 52.222-39, FAR 52.232-33, FAR 52.222-41 and FAR 52.222-42. Interested parties may submit their ORCA information (http://orca.bpn.gov) in lieu of the representations and certifications requested above. Prospective sources are reminded that an award can only be made to a Contractor who is registered in the Central Contractor Registration Database, in accordance with FAR 4.11. Contractors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements by calling 1-866-606-8220 or via online at http://www.ccr.gov. Evaluation Factors: Quotes submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated on a best value basis. The Contractor must demonstrate experience and familiarity with environmental economics, including quantitative measurement of costs and benefits. The Contractor must demonstrate experience in conducting technical reviews of economics literature. The Contractor must demonstrate familiarity with EPA programs and/or programs from other government agencies that focus on economic analysis and research methods. The Contractor must demonstrate the ability to administer technical peer reviews of economic research proposals, which may include procuring the skills and services of subject-matter experts affiliated with academic or other research institutions. Proposals shall describe the steps that will be taken by the contractor to provide for peer review, including selection of peer reviewer candidates with appropriate expertise, determining absence of conflict of interest and the appearance of a lack of impartiality, document and reference distribution, establishing schedules, preparing the peer review report, and submittal of the peer review package. Statement of Work: Technical Review Contractor for Peer Review of Assistance Agreement Applications BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is located in the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation and serves as a center of expertise for cutting-edge research and analysis in environmental economics. NCEE's primary function is to assist the EPA's program and staff offices in applying sound economic science in the development of analyses that support the Agency's actions. NCEE conducts and supervises a wide array of research and development on economic analytic methods, and provides guidance and support for performing economic analyses throughout the Agency. NCEE serves as an information resource foe EPA, other government departments and agencies, and the public on benefit-cost analyses, economic impact models and measurement, and economic incentive measures. Peer review is an important component of the scientific process. It provides a focused, objective evaluation of a research proposals, and the criticism, suggestions and new ideas provided by the peer reviewers stimulate creative thought, strengthens the reviewed document and confer credibility on the product. Comprehensive, objective peer reviews leads to good science and product acceptance within the scientific community. PURPOSE: The purpose of this contract is to purchase peer review services of a contractor with expertise in Environmental Economics. There is a serious shortage of empirical data to determine the economic benefits, costs and impacts of measures taken to control pollutants. Although there are substantial academic incentives to write theoretical dissertations and other papers, it is often difficult for graduate students and investigators early in their career to find financial support for empirically-based work in this area. NCEE believes that the provision of such financial support may remedy some of this imbalance. The services under this contract are for peer reviewing applications received in response to a competitive solicitation issued by NCEE inviting research proposals under the area "Data Gathering for Dissertation and Early Career Research on the Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental Economics." STATEMENT OF WORK:The peer review services required by this contract necessitate the independent review of all eligible applications, culminating in the preparation of an evaluation summarizing and overall rating for each of these applications by each of two independent reviewers. Each evaluation summary shall support and be consistent with the overall rating that is assigned. Before the contractor shall be allowed to participate in the review process, the contractor shall have disclosed any actual or potential conflicts of interest and shall have signed and submitted to a Conflict of Interest/Confidentiality Form supplied by EPA. The contractor is directed to assure that none of the conflicts disclosed are as direct and substantial as to rule out a particular reviewer. EPA will supply the contractor with all materials submitted by applicants for review. Task 1. The contractor shall select a group of peer reviewers and determine their availability for the task and absence of both conflict of interest and the appearance of a lack of impartiality, and establish a schedule for the peer review. The contractor is directed to assure that none of the conflicts disclosed are as direct and substantial as to rule out a particular reviewer. Two peer reviewers shall participate in the review for each proposal. It is expected that no single peer reviewer may charge more than 8 hours to the review of a proposal. Reviewers selected by and working for the contractor shall be approved by the EPA Project Officer in writing prior to their beginning work. Minimally, all peer reviewers shall be accomplished in the subject matter of the proposed research topics identified in the research proposals and proficient in the technical subjects they are reviewing. This should be demonstrated primarily by publications in peer-reviewed journals covering that subject matter. Approval submissions shall include the reviewers' names and curriculum vitae. Task 2. The contractor shall arrange for the selected peer reviewers to review the research proposals. Peer reviewers will evaluate the acceptability of an application based on the following criteria listed in descending order of importance: (i)The originality and creativity of the proposed research and the appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed research methods.(ii)Practical and technically defensible approach that can be performed within the proposed time period.(iii)Research contributes to scientific knowledge in the topic area.(iv)The proposal is well prepared with supportive information that is self-explanatory or understandable.(v)Budget: Although budget information does not reflect on the application's scientific merit, the reviewers are asked to provide their view on the appropriateness and/or adequacy of the proposed budget and its implications for the potential success of the proposed research. Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged acceptable, so an unacceptable rating on any individual criterion may not necessarily render the entire application unacceptable. The overall rating of acceptable or unacceptable provided by extramural reviewers should reflect their assessment whether the project serves as a creative and practical approach having technical and scientific merit, and is expected to contribute to the body of research in the field of environmental economics. Each reviewer shall provide a written justification of their score, organized by the criteria above. Task 3. The contractor shall monitor peer reviewers' progress to assure timely completion of their reviews. The contractor shall collate peer review comments, and organize the information into a unified peer review "comment" document for each applicant's proposal. The contractor shall provide a peer review "comment" document for each proposal, signed conflict of interest forms from all peer reviewers, and all of the individual peer reviews submitted to the contractor by the peer reviewers. SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES: Task 1a.Draft list of external peer reviewers and template for peer review "comment" document within 1 week of Work Plan approval Task 1b.Revised list of external peer reviewers and template for peer review "comment" document in response to comments prepared by the WAM (within 1 week of receipt of comments on Task 2a deliverable). Task 2aDocumentation on delivery of proposal materials to peer reviewers within 3 business days of completion of Task 2b (list of identified peer reviewers), and signed conflict of interest forms from all peer reviewers. Task 2b.Weekly progress reports on status of peer reviews, preparation of peer review "comment" documents, and any questions and comments received from reviewers concerning application materials and review responsibilities. If contractor observes that the receipt of any peer reviews is expected to be delayed from the scheduled delivery date, the contractor will report on their strategy and efforts taken to obtain these late reviews. This information may include the likelihood of a need to identify alternative reviewers to insure two independent reviews are completed for each proposal within the scheduled period of performance of the contract. Weekly reports to be delivered on a cycle commencing one week after completion of Task 3a. Task 3a.Draft peer review "comment" documents and all peer review comments received from peer reviewers for all reviewed proposals within 3 weeks of completion of Task 3a. Task 3b.Final peer review "comment" documents and all peer review comments from peer reviewers for all reviewed proposals. Revisions prepared in response to comments prepared by the WAM within 1 week of receipt of comments on Task 3a materials.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/RFQ-DC-10-00219/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02256096-W 20100828/100826235842-957f838081911da1fa76433925dd07dd (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 |