Goal Implementation Team Initiative

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 Project Initiative. 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 the GIT Funding Newsletter.

What this 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.

This year, there are thirteen (13) scopes of work identified as priority projects on which offerors may bid:

  • Scope of Work 1: Quantification of the Value of Green Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation Related to Inland and Coastal Flooding
  • Scope of Work 2: Behavior Change Training & Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Pilot Implementation
  • Scope of Work 3: An ecosystem approach to living shorelines project design
  • Scope of Work 4: Support for Inventory & Evaluation of Environmental and Biological Response Data for Fish Habitat Assessment
  • Scope of Work 5: Development of improved methodology for data collection of Chesapeake Bay Protected Lands indicator
  • Scope of Work 6: Culvert Assessments for Fish Passage and Sediment in the Opequon Watershed of West Virginia
  • Scope of Work 7: Pavement Sealant Protocol Development: Identifying New High-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pollution Sources
  • Scope of Work 8: Pilot a cost effective, real-time dissolved oxygen vertical monitoring system for characterizing mainstem Chesapeake Bay hypoxia
  • Scope of Work 9: Turf to Buffers Stewardship Campaign for Bay Counties
  • Scope of Work 10: Chesapeake Watershed Conservation Finance Intensive Workshop
  • Scope of Work 11: Quantify and support Best Management Practice installation and restoration at schools to contribute directly to Bay restoration goals
  • Scope of Work 12: Scenic Landscape Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Scope of Work 13: Social Marketing to Improve Shoreline Management

Who can apply: Both not-for-profit entities (academic institutions, non-profit organizations) and for-profit entities are permitted to apply.

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

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

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 this program’s manager, Sarah Koser at 410-974-2941, ext. 106.

Program Status: CLOSED

To view the most recent RFP, click here.

Deadline: was February 14, 2019 at 4pm

Application Unavailable

Currently closed. Check back for updates.

Manage an Existing Contract

Manage an existing contract or application

Questions & Technical Support

Sarah Koser
skoser@cbtrust.org
410-974-2941 x106

Frequently Asked Questions:

General Questions

Instructions 3.5 mention that a-f is limited to 5 pages or less. Section f is the CBT Financial Management Spreadsheet (budget). So I’m interpreting the 5 page limit as 4 pages of text and the 5th page as the budget spreadsheet. Is that correct?

The Financial Management Spreadsheet is uploaded in the online application and is not part of the 5 page limit for a-f.

Is there more than one version of this RFP?

Yes. The first version of the RFP, which can be found here, was released on 12/18/18. However, it was brought to the Trust’s attention that information regarding Scope of Work 11’s (Quantify and support Best Management Practice installation and restoration at schools to contribute directly to Bay restoration goals) qualifications of offerors section was omitted in the first RFP version. A second version of the RFP was released on 12/20/18, which included this information. The second version can be found here. A third version of the RFP was released on 1/18/19 to extend the deadline from January 31 at 4pm to February 14 at 4pm. The third version can be found here.

Regarding Scope 3

Do we need engineer stamps on the designs?

The funds would only pay for the design of a living shoreline application, not construction. Therefore, the technical lead for this project does not require engineer stamps/approvals.

Regarding Scope 4

One of the requirements for this project is GIS proficiency. Would the bulk of the GIS work be for map creation or are there other elements that GIS will be used for that are not mentioned in the proposal?

We envision that the GIS work will include not only map creation, but spatial metadata generation and map interpretation. GIS maps will be created and then used by the contractor for a number of purposes including to verify the accuracy of sampling locations (lat/longs) based on sample location descriptions and or discussions with data providers, to describe the spatial extent of areas where biological data exists, and describe the sources and types of data available for different geographic areas.

In the scope it is mentioned that the project lead would like to have weekly face-to-face meetings in addition to monthly meetings. Would they be comfortable having these weekly meetings over video conferencing or the phone and meeting up face-to-face for the monthly meetings?

The ‘kick-off’ meeting, ALL quarterly meetings and the FIRST weekly meeting will need to be in person. The subsequent weekly meetings may be held over video conferencing (the contractor and project lead will need to agree on conferencing software).

SOW mentions a database but not a platform (Access, mySQL, Oracle, etc).  It mentions “Excel and/or other database software” for experience. Has the platform been set? Or should the proposer recommend?

Access is the preferred database platform. ESRI geodatabases are the preferred GIS database platform. Excel is acceptable for flat files.

Regarding quarterly meetings with advisory committee… these at CBPO in Annapolis? Or elsewhere? 

Quarterly meetings may be in Annapolis (CBPO, MD DNR Tawes, or other Annapolis location agreed upon by the advisory committee)

Mentions getting data may require in-person meetings?! Can data be sent by email?

If the data provider is willing to send by email, then yes.

Does CBT/CBP have a list of where current databases reside or who contacts are?

As mentioned in the project RFP, the project team has compiled a large but incomplete list of some data sources and some contact information. Most of the biological data in this list is for non-tidal waters. Most of the tidal water data is stressor and habitat related. It will be part of the work of the contractor to identify other sources and collect metadata and observational data from all tidal water sources. Other data sources may include state agencies, non-profit groups, academic institutions, etc.

Comparison of available Bay data to Gulf of Mexico and SE Regional Assessments. There is no mention of where this other data is or if it’s readily available.  Will that data also be provided?

The project team can assist the contractor with information and/or contacts related to these regional assessments.

Regarding Scope 5

In general, is the role of the contractor who will be awarded this grant more as a facilitator or a data management specialist?

The contractor would be working with current authoritative data providers with the GIT Technical Lead’s assistance. The GIT Technical Lead would serve as a key team member.

Are you looking more to improve data being provided by groups already involved in the process, or is on-boarding new groups with new data also a priority for the meetings and improved indicator?

If missing data sources were uncovered during this process then the GIT Technical Lead would help to make contact and bring them in. There are currently approximately 31 data sources for the protected lands database.

Should we be budgeting for in person meetings with stakeholders, or is it assumed that the meetings could be done remotely with protected lands stakeholders and data providers?

Suggest offerors budget some money for in person meetings (2-3).

Regarding Scope 6

Are there any additional procedures or tools necessary for performing the culvert assessments beyond filling out the referenced form?

No. The task is to fill out the form for each assessment and upload the results for each culvert to the interactive website mentioned in the Table 2 scope of work. Some of the items on the form require some time, knowledge, and possibly experience to assess and fill out. For example, it will be helpful to be able to recognize bankfull indicators so that one can estimate the width of the stream above and below the culvert, and one should be able to estimate velocity using a small float or another method.

Could training other than NAACC training, be substituted? 

If you’re referring to Task 1.4, we want the training to be on this specific methodology. If you’re referring to the preferred qualifications of the bidder, then it would helpful to have a brief description of how the MBSS methodology experience that the bidder possesses is similar to NAACC methodology.

The RFP specifies two watersheds but does not name them.  What two watersheds? 

The assessment is to cover 2 sub-watersheds of the Opequon: Tuscarora Creek and Mill Creek watersheds.

The scope notes that culverts may be located on private land.  Will CBP or the Project Technical Lead be able to provide confirmation of landowner permission to access sites? Is there a local agency or volunteer group that can provide support in contacting landowners to obtain permissions?  If not, is the Contractor expected to obtain these permissions? 

The contractor will be expected to obtain these permissions. Some support may be provided by the Project Technical Lead and local volunteers, if needed.

The RFP specifies we, “[h]ire four individuals.”  We would prefer to use some current staff, especially to supervise interns on the surveys.  MUST four employees be new hires?

Current staff may be used.

When is the QAPP approved?  

The QAPP should be approved before survey/data collection. Task 1.1 and Task 1.2 should read “1-month-post-funding-receipt.”

Do we organize the Stakeholders or are designated and recruited by CBP? 

The GIT Technical Project Lead has already alerted these stakeholders about the project and will suggest opportunities for the offeror to interact with them in ways that will not substantially impact the work or the budget, e.g,. some stakeholders will be present at the project kickoff meeting that is already part of the plan of work or some might have a landowner contact that would be useful.

Regarding Scope 12

In working through the tasks and the associated budget, I have come to  the conclusion that it is premature to jump from an unevaluated “pilot  development and application of a standard methodology” to training (Task 5). Therefore, the funding might be better directed toward additional communication with the advisory group, deeper exploration of  implementing the selected framework, and evaluating the case study,  which would require fieldwork.

If the completion of Scope of Work 12 is considered a success, then a second project would develop training materials, design field and in-class exercises, and present three in-person workshops that includes the theory and principles behind the landscape approach, how this approach fits with traditional viewpoint-oriented visual impact assessments, adapting the GIS model to available data, and evaluating validity and reliability by comparing field data, viewpoint analyses, and the GIS model. While it may be possible to conduct training that runs through the GIS commands used in the pilot case study, preparing and delivering meaningful training will require a more substantial budget than is available for Scope of Work 12.

The offeror makes a reasonable point about providing a more robust project by addressing the training in a future effort. Therefore, applications from offerors will be considered that do not include training (task 5). These applications would propose a scope of work that will provide final products that would be used to conduct the training as outlined in task 5.

Regarding Scope 13

Are bidders expected to conduct new or existing audience research?

There is some relevant audience research the contractor will consider, but we anticipate that they will need to conduct research with whichever audience is chosen.

Regarding Scope 11

1.1 What type of GIS program will need to be created? Is the idea to have something that can be searched for online that describes school and school district BMP use and impact on Bay health?

The goal is to create an online environment for Education Workgroup members to access information about sustainable schools that will help them target and communicate about programs and priorities. The tool should be accessible online so all Workgroup members can access, but the platform does not necessarily need to be ArcGIS Online if a better platforms exist. Ultimately, the tool will be maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Program GIS team and any new datasets will be need to be added by them. It is not intended to be used by the general public.

1.2 Since the definition of a BMP can be very broad, would we be focusing on structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, or both?

Interviews and data collection should be on all applicable CBP BMPs (both structural and nonstructural) or a subset suggested by the Offeror and approved by the Education Workgroup either during the bid process or during the initial phases of the project. Because nutrient and sediment reduction is a primary objective, structural BMPs which provide known reductions (including green infrastructure and urban tree canopy) should be a primary focus of the GIS tool developed. Nonstructural BMPs that eventually lead to nutrient and sediment reduction, habitat improvement, etc. should also be considered and included as appropriate and achievable within the scope of the project.

1.3 The scope makes a point to try and involve and engage students and faculty in this project. Is the idea just to educate them about their school/school districts effect on bay health or would we want them to contribute ideas for BMPs and possibly volunteer to help make them? 

The objective of the interviews is to gauge an understanding of faculty and administrators’ knowledge and attitudes, as well as information about projects, barriers, etc. Students are not involved either as interviewees or an intended audience of this project. “Increase students’ and teachers’ knowledge of environmental impacts to their local watersheds” is a goal of the GIT Team (not the Offeror).

2.1 Is the scope of this task limited to just public schools or does it include private schools as well?

Public K-12 and public charter schools are the target for the GIS and survey.

2.2 Can you clarify if the online tool is supposed to display data from all schools in the Chesapeake Bay vs. just the data collected through the interviews and provided by the 5-7 sustainable schools recognition programs?

Both. GIS “online tool” will display the environmental and demographic data and show relevant information about districts that were represented in the survey (as appropriate).

2.3 Will a bay-wide GIS layer of schools be made available to the selected contractor for this project?

Because school data changes regularly, the Offeror is expected to obtain the most up-to-date GIS school shapefile from the states. The CBP can help to connect the Offeror with the appropriate state contacts for this data.

2.4 Who are the intended users of the GIS tool (available to the public vs just provided to the workgroups and other partners)?

The goal is to create an online environment for Education Workgroup members to access information about sustainable schools that will help them target and communicate about programs and priorities. The tool should be accessible online so all Workgroup members can access, but the platform does not necessarily need to be ArcGIS Online if a better platforms exist. Ultimately, the tool will be maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Program GIS team and any new datasets will be need to be added by them. It is not intended to be used by the general public.

2.5 If the GIS tool is meant to display existing school and other relevant info from the entire Bay watershed, will the contractor be expected to store the data on their own account, or will the CBP host the data?

Successful Offeror will collect and organize the GIS data for delivery to CBP.

3.1 What is the desired scope of the ArcGIS tool in terms of environmental data, demographic data, and locations?

All public K-12 and public charter schools in the Bay watershed should be included in the dataset. Offeror should suggest the scope of environmental and demographic data that can be gathered within the timeframe (e.g., US Census (education level, income, etc.), US EPA EJSCREEN (air quality, “at risk” populations, etc.), USDEd (national rank, graduation rates, etc.).

3.2 Do you have a specific list of environmental and demographic data you want included?

Offeror should suggest the scope of environmental and demographic data that can be gathered within the timeframe (e.g., US Census (education level, income, etc.), US EPA EJSCREEN (air quality, “at risk” populations, etc.), USDEd (national rank, graduation rates, etc.). Once the contract is awarded, the contractor will work with CBP partners to determine all specifics of the project.

3.3 Should it include data on every school in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? AND 3.4 If it’s just a subset, do we need to include schools from each of the watershed states and DC?

The tool should include data for every school and school district (depending on level of data collation) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Much of this information is publicly available or available through previous work by the Education Workgroup. Additional information about the schools and school districts that are surveyed may also be included in the tool if appropriate and achievable within the scope.

3.5 How will this ArcGIS tool be used?

The goal is to create an online environment for Education Workgroup members to access information about sustainable schools that will help them target and communicate about programs and priorities. The tool should be accessible online so all Workgroup members can access, but the platform does not necessarily need to be ArcGIS Online if a better platforms exist. Ultimately, the tool will be maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Program GIS team and any new datasets will be need to be added by them. It is not intended to be used by the general public.

3.6 Regarding the interviews, what do you consider a “representative sample of school districts”?

The goal is to create an online environment for Education Workgroup members to access information about sustainable schools that will help them target and communicate about programs and priorities. The tool should be accessible online so all Workgroup members can access, but the platform does not necessarily need to be ArcGIS Online if a better platforms exist. Ultimately, the tool will be maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Program GIS team and any new datasets will be need to be added by them. It is not intended to be used by the general public.

3.7 There are many products that provide general guidelines on schoolyard BMPs …. What do you hope to gain beyond those with this project (i.e., how do you envision this project expanding on them)?

This question is difficult to answer without specific information about the tools being referenced. The products developed will build upon an existing EPA product (Storm Smart Schools). The Offeror may suggest spring boarding from other related tools as they see fit.

3.8 Do you have the workgroup members already established for this project, or is this something the contractor would do?

CBP GIT and workgroups are established. The Education Workgroup will assist the contractor in identifying the appropriate staff to be included in the project.

4.1 Does the project proposal for scope #11 need to be watershed-wide? We would like to have the freedom to develop the scope of the project and the geography based on the results of the survey but we are also considering how the variability in our focus could affect the budget.

Yes. A representative sample of schools/school districts should be created in consultation with the Education Workgroup for the surveys/interviews. In addition, all public K-12/public charter schools and/or public school districts in the Bay watershed should be included in the datasets to be displayed in the GIS tool.

Projects funded to date and access to final reports:
(Projects listed below without links to final report are still in progress.)

Sustainable Fisheries GIT

Protect and Restore Water Quality GIT

Maintain Healthy Watershed GIT

Foster Chesapeake Stewardship GIT

  • Development of baseline indicator of citizen stewardship (FY14)
  • Metrics finalization and state implementation plans/Environmental literacy planning (FY14)
  • Leveraging local lessons / Development of a crowd sourced database as part of the Chesapeake Network to promote shared outreach and marketing case studies, results, and materials (FY14)
  • Phase II: Development of Baseline Indicator of Citizen Stewardship (FY15)
  • Public Access Data Quality Assurance and Application Integration (FY15)
  • Promoting Meaningful Stormwater Mitigation on Urban/Suburban School Grounds (FY16)
  • Phase III: Development of Baseline Indicator of Citizen Stewardship (FY16)
  • Environmental Justice Screen (FY16)

Enhance Partnering and Leadership GIT

Scientific, Assessment, and Reporting Team - Climate Resiliency Workgroup

  • Cross-Goal Climate Resiliency Analysis and Decision-Making Matrix and Implementation Methodology (FY15)
  • Development of Climate Change Indicators and Metrics for the Chesapeake Bay Program (FY16)