Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JANUARY 15, 2012 FBO #3704
SOLICITATION NOTICE

R -- Peer Review of a Stated Preference Survey Conducted to Support Benefits Estimate

Notice Date

1/13/2012
 

Notice Type

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
 

NAICS

541620 — Environmental Consulting Services
 

Contracting Office

HPODUS Environmental Protection AgencyAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.Mail Code: 3803RWashingtonDC20460USA
 

ZIP Code

00000
 

Solicitation Number

RFQ-DC-12-00020
 

Response Due

1/26/2012
 

Archive Date

2/25/2012
 

Point of Contact

Dennis James Bushta
 

E-Mail Address

Contract Officer
(bustha.dennisjames@epa.gov)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Total Small Business
 

Description

Peer Review of a Stated Preference Survey Conducted to Support Benefits Estimates for the 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule Estimated Period of Performance: The period of performance shall be for approximately 2 months from the Effective date of the Purchase Order. Purchase Order Project Officer: TBD U.S. EPA Office of Water BACKGROUND INFORMATIONIn January 1993, responding to recommendations in the report, ?Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions,? Administrator William Reilly issued an Agency-wide policy for peer review. Administrator Carol Browner confirmed and reissued the policy on June 7, 1994, and instituted an Agency-wide implementation program. The principle underlying the Peer Review Policy is that all major scientific and technical work products should be peer reviewed. Peer review is a process for enhancing a scientific or technical work document so that the decision or position taken by the Agency, based on the technical document, has a sound, credible basis. The goal of the Agency?s Peer Review Policy is to ensure that scientific and technical work products receive appropriate levels of critical scrutiny from independent scientific and technical experts as part of the overall decision making process. In 2006, the Agency reaffirmed its commitment to quality decision‐making by updating the Agency Peer Review Policy and issuing the third edition of the Peer Review Handbook (http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf), which amplifies and clarifies key Agency peer review issues. The Handbook states that, in general, all influential scientific and technical work products related to Agency decisions should normally be peer reviewed. Peer review is a documented, critical review of a work product performed by experts who are independent of those who developed the product. Work products that are developed to support regulations, such as risk assessments, should be evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for ?influential scientific and/or technical work products? and thus should be subject to peer review. Regulations themselves are not peer reviewed. The straight‐forward application of accepted, previously peer‐reviewed economic methods or analyses in Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), are not typically subject to formal peer review. If, however, the particular facts and circumstances of any piece of economic analysis in an RIA warrant peer review, the Agency should accommodate those needs on a case‐by‐case basis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Section 316(b) requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The EPA estimates that more than 1,500 industrial facilities use large volumes of water from lakes, rivers, estuaries, oceans, or other waters of the U.S. for cooling, including steam electric power generators, pulp and paper makers, chemical manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and manufacturers of primary metals like iron, steel, and aluminum. Cooling water intake structures cause adverse environmental impact by pulling large numbers of fish and shellfish, or their eggs, into cooling systems (entrainment). There, the organisms may be killed or injured by heat, physical stress, or by chemicals used to clean the cooling system. Larger organisms may be killed or injured when trapped against screens of an intake structure (impingement). EPA is developing Section 316(b) regulations. In December 2001, EPA published final regulations addressing all new power plants and facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons of water daily from waters of the U.S. (Phase I). On February 16, 2004, EPA took final action on the Phase II rule governing cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that are point sources; that, as their primary activity, both generate and transmit electric power or generate electric power for sale to another entity for transmission; that use or propose to use cooling water intake structures with a total design intake flow of 50 MGD or more to withdraw cooling water from waters of the United States; and that use at least 25 percent of the withdrawn water exclusively for cooling purposes. See 69 FR 41576 (July 9, 2004). Industry and environmental stakeholders challenged the Phase II regulations. On judicial review, the Second Circuit (Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83, (2d Cir., 2007)) remanded several provisions of the Phase II rule. Some key provisions remanded include: EPA improperly used a cost-benefit analysis as a criteria for determining BTA, and EPA inappropriately used ranges in setting performan ce expectations. In addition, the Second Circuit further ruled restoration was not permissible as BTA, and that EPA?s cost-benefit site-specific compliance alternative was also not in accord with the Clean Water Act. In response, EPA suspended the Phase II regulation in July, 2007 pending further rulemaking. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to Entergy Corportation on cost/benefit decision made by the Second Circuit and on April 1, 2009 the Court, in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., decided that ?EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards ? as part of the Phase II regulations.? EPA is now taking a voluntary remand of the rule, thus ending Second Circuit review. In June of 2006, EPA promulgated the 316(b) Phase III Rule for existing manufacturers, small flow power plants (facilities that use cooling water intake structures with a total design intake flow of less than 50 MGD to withdraw cooling water from waters of the United States; and that use at least 25 percent of the withdrawn water exclusively for cooling purposes), and new offshore oil and gas facilities. Offshore oil and gas firms, and environmental groups petitioned for judicial review, which was to occur in the Fifth Circuit. On July 23, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a favorable decision upholding EPA's CWA section 316(b) rule for new oil and gas facilities and accepted EPA's request to remand the existing facility portion of the rule back to the Agency for further rulemaking. EPA has now voluntarily remanded the existing facilities portion of the Phase III rulemaking, and combined the two phases into one rulemaking covering all exis ting facilities. EPA is develop revised regulations to provide national performance standards for controlling impacts from all existing facilities with cooling water intake structures under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA has published a proposed Existing Facilities Rule in April of 2011, which is available at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm. The Final 316b Existing Facilities Rule is expected to be signed in July of 2012. SCOPE OF WORKThe purpose of this Purchase Order is to conduct external, independent peer reviews that will evaluate the stated preference survey materials and implementation process, and the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology that are to be used in partial support of the Section 316(b) rulemaking. This stated preference survey is designed to elicit survey respondents? willingness-to-pay for reducing I&E at cooling water intakes. Under the guise of this Purchase Order, peer reviewers will evaluate the stated preference survey materials and implementation process, and the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology. The reviewers will comment on the appropriateness of the survey for the Section 316(b) valuation of fish, eggs, and larvae, fish population impacts, and ecosystem health, the use of the choice experiment framework, the appropriateness of the survey implementation process, the statistical method for correcting for non-response bias, and the willingness-to-pay estimation meth odology. STATEMENT OF WORK The Contractor shall support US EPA to identify and select peer reviewers, conduct peer reviews, and prepare a peer review report as specified in this statement of work. The Contractor shall perform all activities under this Purchase Order in accordance with EPA Agency Peer Review Policy procedures outlined in the following publication, Science Policy Council Handbook - Peer Review 3rd Edition (EPA 100/B-06/002, January 2006, http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf). For this Task, the Contractor shall perform the following subtasks to complete peer review of the stated preference survey materials and implementation process, and the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology. Task 1 : Identify Peer Reviewer Pool The Contractor shall identify a group of candidate peer reviewers to prepare and submit to the EPA PO the credentials of ten nationally-recognized technical experts who are qualified to independently peer review the stated preference survey materials and implementation process, and the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology according to EPA peer review guidelines. The potential pool of peer reviewers shall include experts in environmental and natural resource economics, and econometric analysis, with specific experience in the estimation of non-use, fisheries, and/or recreation benefits. The peer review panel shall not include any experts that directly or indirectly (by consultation) contributed to EPA?s rulemaking for section 316(b), nor those experts advising other parties in this matter or associated with any of the data used for various case studies. The EPA will review and approve the potential pool of peer reviewers based on credentials and expertise to fulfill the role of peer reviewers of EPA technical documents. The EPA may reject the use of any particular candidate based on qualifications, conflicts of interest, or past direct involvement with the work under review. Task 2 : Conduct Peer ReviewFollowing review and approval by the PO of the peer reviewer pool, the Contractor shall choose five peer reviewers from the peer review panel of the ten candidates approved by the EPA PO, determine their availability to perform the review, and initiate the peer review effort. The Contractor shall distribute the stated preference survey materials, implementation documentation, the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology, background information on the 316(b) rule, and the Charge to Peer Reviewers (provided to the Contractor by EPA, see Government Responsibilities below) to each selected peer reviewer. The Contractor also shall provide the peer reviewers any supplemental information requested by the reviewers and deemed necessary by the EPA PO to complete a thorough review. The Contractor shall coordinate with the peer reviewers and monitor their progress to complete the review within the required time and LOE constraints described in this Purchase Order. Peer reviewers shall conduct their review according to the guidelines detailed in the charge to peer reviewers. Peer reviewers shall respond to the specific question asked in the charge or briefly indicate why the question cannot or should not be addressed. It is not necessary that the peer reviewers jointly reach consensus on their findings and recommendations. It is expected that no single peer reviewer would expend more than 40 hours performing the peer review; expending less than 20 hours is not acceptable. Task 3: Prepare Peer Review Report Upon obtaining comments from the peer reviewers, the Contractor shall assemble and provide to the EPA all unedited peer review comments and any additional materials submitted by peer reviewers. A summary of peer review comments is required. If the EPA PO makes a request for clarification of any peer review comment upon receipt, the Contractor shall contact the peer reviewer and obtain the needed clarification. Upon the written request by the EPA PO, the Contractor may be required to present the peer review findings to any of the following: EPA technical expert panel, EPA managers, non-EPA or other interested stakeholders identified by EPA PO (e.g., EPA sponsored meeting). DELIVERABLE SCHEDULEThe Contractor shall provide the following deliverables to the EPA PO. All text deliverables shall be compatible with Word 2007 and provided in electronic format (i.e., e-mail) to the PO. Two hard copies and one electronic copy on CD or DVD of all deliverables shall be submitted to EPA. Two hard copies of any handwritten comments, corrections, or edits provided by the individual peer reviewers on the original materials provided by EPA should be provided to the EPA PO. Note that EPA anticipates that subtask 1 of this Purchase Order can be initiated immediately. Subtask 2 will be initiated once EPA provides the peer review charge information and example peer reviewer list. Task 1Identify peer reviewer pool: The Contractor shall submit a list and credentials for ten potential peer reviewers within one week after Contractor receipt of the survey and supporting material and charge peer review documents. Task 2Conduct peer review: The Contractor shall choose five peer reviewers and begin peer review within one week after EPA approval of the peer review pool. The Contractor shall complete peer review within one month of the peer reviewers? receipt of the documents. Task 3 Prepare DRAFT peer review report: The Contractor shall complete and submit to the EPA PO the peer review report within one week after receiving comments from peer reviewers. Prepare FINAL peer review report: The Contractor shall complete and submit to the EPA PO the peer review report within one week after receiving comments from peer reviewers. CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe contractor shall ensure that individual reviewers have disclosed any actual or potential conflict of interest and have signed and submitted a Conflict of Interest Form. The contractor must ensure that none of the conflicts disclosed are direct and substantial as to rule out a particular reviewer. The Contractor must also adhere to the following requirements regarding conflict of interest. 1)Upon receipt of the Purchase Order, and prior to commencement of any work, the Contractor shall notify both the EPA Contracting Officer (CO) and Project Officer (PO) of any actual or potential organizational or personal conflicts of interest. The Contractor shall not conduct peer review of documents prepared by the Contractor, its subcontractors, or consultants. 2)The Contractor shall provide a written certification, within 15 days of receipt of a Purchase Order, or similar tasking document, that:a)Either all actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest have been reported to the EPA CO or that no actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest exist. The Contractor is directed to assure that none of the conflicts disclosed are so direct and substantial as to rule out a particular reviewer.b)All personnel who perform work under this Purchase Order or relating to this Purchase Order have been informed of their obligation to report personal and organizational conflicts of interest to the EPA CO.c)The Contractor recognizes its continuing obligation to identify and report any actual or potential conflicts of interest arising during performance of this Purchase Order. 3)If an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest is identified during performance under this Purchase Order, the Contractor shall immediately make a full disclosure in writing to the EPA CO. The disclosure shall include a description of action which the Contractor has taken or proposes to take, after consultation with the EPA CO, to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or potential conflict of interest. TRAVELNo travel is anticipated under this Purchase Order. Any travel directly chargeable to this Purchase Order must be submitted by written or e-mail request to and approved by the EPA PO prior to undertaking any travel. GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIESThe PO will provide to the Contractor the stated preference survey materials, implementation documentation, the willingness-to-pay estimation methodology, background information on 316(b) rule, peer review charge questions, information on the results of the previous peer review report that was conducted on an earlier version of the survey, and any other necessary information or documents required by the Contractor to perform the Purchase Order.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/RFQ-DC-12-00020/listing.html)
 

Place of Performance

Address: US Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylanvia Ave NWWashingtonDC20406USA

Zip Code: 20406
 

Record

SN02654847-W 20120115/120113234758-fc5376b574985c8627c1a89b33329e41 (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 |