Skip to main content

Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team (GIT) Funding Program

The Chesapeake Bay Trust has been designated to receive federal funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team Funding Program. The work funded by this initiative advances outcomes identified in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Each year, certain outcomes are chosen by the Chesapeake Bay Program as top priorities to address, and these stretch across all Goal Implementation Teams (GIT) and workgroups. For more information about the initiative, view how the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership is organized into committees, goal implementation teams, workgroups and action teams.

What this funds:  This program funds consultant services to provide technical assistance to support Chesapeake Bay Program goals and outcomes. Specific outcomes from several management goals are identified as top priorities and are listed in the Request for Proposals (RFP). This funding is from the CFDA # 66.466.

Offerors may bid on one or more of the following Scopes of Work:

Scope # FFY22 Scope Title Maximum Bid Amount
Scope of Work 1: Understanding and Addressing the Impacts of Wetland Mowing to Facilitate Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Wetland Enhancement Goals $75,000
Scope of Work 2: Protecting Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Given Changing Hydrologic Conditions: Priority SAV Area Identification and Solutions Development $85,000
Scope of Work 3: Optimizing Riparian Forest Buffer Implementation for Climate Adaptation and Resilience $70,000
Scope of Work 4: Addressing Regional Tree Supply Challenges & Opportunities $70,000
Scope of Work 5: Mapping Non-Tidal Vegetated Wetlands in Areas with Outdated Wetland Maps $90,000
Scope of Work 6: Monitoring Vegetation Condition Throughout the Delmarva Peninsula $80,000
Scope of Work 7: Determining Evidence-Based Criteria to Highlight how Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs) are Advancing K-12 Student Outcomes $70,000
Scope of Work 8: Career and Workforce Programming Landscape Assessment $75,000
Scope of Work 9: Stewardship Network Study and Asset Mapping $65,000
Scope of Work 10: Literature Review: Building Climate Resilience in Stream Restoration Practices $55,000
Scope of Work 11: Advancing Social Marketing Through Two Pilot Programs $75,000
Scope of Work 12: Community Response to Land Use Changes $90,000

How much can be awarded: A maximum bid amount is listed above for each Scope of Work included in the RFP.

Is match required: Match is encouraged but is not required.

Who can apply: Both not-for profit organizations (academic institutions and non-profits) AND for-profit entities may apply.

Application Process: The Chesapeake Bay Trust’s applications are all submitted though an online system. If you have questions regarding the application process, please contact the Trust Program Manager, Nguyen Le at 410-974-2941, ext. 110 or at

Frequently Asked Questions

1. In Section II, it states that “Each successful bidder for each Scope may be engaged in one additional phase of work through this procurement action.” What does this mean?

There may be a case where once awarded, there is a need to add an additional task to a scope of work (and subsequently provide additional funding to complete this additional task) and so this language lets the bidder know this may happen.

2. Are bidders allowed to apply for more than one scope of work?

Yes, a bidder may apply to multiple scopes of work (as separate applications); we do not have restrictions on the number of applications a bidder may submit.

3. For Scope 10:

a. The timeline for Step 1 and Step 3 says 1/5/2023 and 1/10/2023, respectively. Can you clarify if this is correct?

These dates are formatted as day/month/year and we unfortunately overlooked them. They should be 5/1/2023 for Step 1 and 10/1/2023 for Step 3. All other dates in the RFP are formatted in the month/day/year format.

b. The work requires assembling a TAG to help guide the project and several tasks (Step 3, Step 5, Step 7) include presenting to the TAG and the SHWG at a specific SHWG meeting.  Can you confirm that these tasks should include just one meeting (the SHWG meeting) and the TAG members would attend this meeting (vs holding two separate meetings, one for the TAG and one for the SHWG)?

This would be just the one SHWG meeting for each step.

c. What is the expected number of meetings with the TAG?

The only required meetings are those specified in the steps.

d. Will the SHWG meetings be in person or virtual?

They likely will be virtual.

4. Will supplemental proposal information such as photos and letter of commitment be excluded from the 5-page limit for the project Narrative? Is the Additional information listed under bullet point 8 on page 9 of the RFP included in or excluded from the 5-page limit?

Any supporting items such as photos and letters of commitment are not included in the 5-page limit. Any additional information provided is also not included in the page limit.

5. I see that letters of commitment are included as possible attachments in the RFP. I assume these will be from proposed project partners or those providing match. Is that correct? Will CBT consider general letters of support as well?

Our Letter of Commitment Guidance and Policy is posted on our website at and a direct link to the document is at

6. For Scope of Work 11:

a. Could you please clarify the role of CBT in implementation and evaluation? For example, after we have provided the printed materials and implementation plan, will CBT have the resources to handle the actual distribution of materials and be set up on the ground to run the pilot? Similarly, will CBT be set up to manage data collection (per contractor guidance) and then provide that information to the contractor for reporting?

The Chesapeake Bay Trust (Trust) is the administrator of this program and handles the administrative components of the awarded contracts. The Trust is not directly involved in the implementation of the scopes of work. The contractor is expected to conduct the scope of work with input from the Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team (GIT) Technical Lead and steering committee. The contractor is responsible for data collection and conducting the pilots. The contractor submits the deliverables to the Trust for each step and the Trust will send them to the GIT Technical Lead for approval. Upon approval from the GIT Technical Lead, the Trust would then release the payment to the contractor for completion of that step.

b. Knowing that there can be seasonal variations to behaviors like fishing, does CBT expect the target behaviors to occur within the timeframes proposed for piloting?

The project timeline in the RFP is the recommended timeframe for completion of each step; however, the Trust and funding partners are open to the contractor’s recommendations for adjustments with proper justification such as seasonal variations to behaviors as you mentioned.

7. For Scope of Work 7, it seemed to be focused on starting with a pretty broad literature review process as a big emphasis. That piece sounded like it could get potentially quite broad very quickly, knowing the literature around EE programs is extensive and diffuse.  Is that an accurate read, or is there a narrower focus than I’m picking up?

A literature review is one aspect of the data collection that the contractor will complete. The data collection also includes conducting interviews with researchers and listening sessions with school district personnel. In step 1, the contractor and project team will discuss data collection methods and identify researchers to interview and studies to review. The goal of the data collection is to determine what evidence exists that demonstrates the MWEE framework directly addresses school district priorities and if this data demonstrates correlation or causation. Therefore, the literature review will be conducted with this focus in mind.

8. For Scope of Work 5, could you elaborate on the intent behind the requirement for an “open source” model and information about the CBP GIS Team’s “capacity to compile, run, and maintain the model code”? Would a workflow using the Python programming language and open source machine learning frameworks in the context of ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro be acceptable, or does the workflow require a purely free and non-proprietary implementation for steps 2-4? Ultimately, bringing the model output into compliance with FGDC standards and NWI requirements using USFWS QAQC tool will require the data in the proprietary ESRI file geodatabase format.

A workflow that uses free and non-proprietary implementations is preferred. For example, a workflow that utilizes the Python programming language and open-source machine learning frameworks within an environment that can be easily recreated using Conda. The final output can be in the Shapefile format, which is commonly used and easy to process. However, if this is not possible for you, the way you proposed is also acceptable.

9. For Scope of Work 1, would the Wetland Workgroup consider mowing Hydrilla in creeks immediately adjacent to wetland as “wetland mowing” that might qualify for a proposal?

No, mowing of Hydrilla is not considered wetland mowing. The Wetland Workgroup is interested in potential loss of water quality ecosystem services caused by mowing and the possible limits that mowing may place on marsh migration. These interests are not relevant to the removal/mowing of Hydrilla. Hydrilla is considered as submerged aquatic vegetation, thus it is not considered wetlands in this context.

10. For Scope of Work 3:

a. Are there specific stream types or locations this scope is most interested in focusing on? Ex. Trout streams, TMDL goals, agricultural BMPs, coastal intrusion/ ghost forests.

No, this scope doesn’t have predetermined stream types or locations we are interested in focusing on. This scope is interested in focusing on areas that are either particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, or where riparian restoration could generate increased resilience to climate change. The Steering Committee can provide additional input as the contractor works to identify specific climate adaptation benefits to include in the Synthesis Report.

b. What level or types of geospatial data and processes are they looking for us to identify and include in the StoryMap? Ex. Chesapeake Bay watershed-wide, Maryland, county level, federal, all of the above?

The focus would likely be watershed-wide or state-wide datasets, but local datasets could also be included if particularly relevant or if it would help demonstrate how GIS analyses could be used to target RFB implementation or conservation.

c. How many people are expected to be recruited in the steering committee?

Steering committees are usually 8 to 12 people, but this is not a set number. Finding key representatives of local and state government, practitioners, and resource experts that understand the interests of this scope are more important than the quantity.

11. How are the funds paid out through this award program?

Awards will be managed as firm-fixed-price contracts. The deliverables schedule you’re asked to provide in your application allows you the opportunity to break down the proposed cost associated with each set of deliverables expected with each report (see #4 on page 8 of the RFP). This schedule helps determine when and the amount of funds that will be dispersed with each report—each report and associated deliverables are approved by the GIT Technical Lead before funds are dispersed.

12. What do I need to include if a subcontractor being proposed for service in my project is less than $10,000?

If you are using a subcontractor, describe your subcontractor processing for choosing them. Since the services being proposed are under $10,000, you do not need to specifically demonstrate compliance with federal procurement guidelines (see 3.7 of the RFP on page 4); however the Offeror shall be able to demonstrated that Good Faith Efforts were used to engage minority/disadvantaged/women/small business enterprises. All subcontractors must be verified by checking at to ensure that they have not been suspended, debarred, excluded, or disqualified to do work with federal government resources.

Program Status: CLOSED

Deadline was: Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 4pm EDT

Click Here to View the Most Recent Request for Proposals (RFP)

Manage an Existing Contract

Manage an existing contract or application

Manage Contract

Learn more about previously awarded projects on our interactive map!

View Map

Questions & Technical Support

Whitney Vong
410-974-2941 x122

Close Menu