Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team Project Support

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 how the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership is organized into committees, goal implementation teams, workgroups and action teams here.

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 twelve (12) scopes of work identified as priority projects on which offerors may bid:

  • Scope of Work 1: Improved Technical Service Delivery to Landowners: Achieving Multiple CBP Outcomes
  • Scope of Work 2: Building a Bay-Wide Scorecard to Track Climate Resilience for Watershed Communities
  • Scope of Work 3: Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Nursery Habitat Assessment
  • Scope of Work 4: Piloting the Development of Probabilistic Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curves for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
  • Scope of Work 5: Development of the “Maryland Stream Crossing Design Guidance: A Fish-Friendly Stream Crossing Design Handbook”
  • Scope of Work 6: Development of Technical Guidance Manual and Outreach Materials for Small-scale Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries
  • Scope of Work 7: Targeted Local Outreach for Green Infrastructure in Vulnerable Areas
  • Scope of Work 8: Increasing Diversity in the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership through Cultural Competency Training
  • Scope of Work 9: Developing a Regional Outdoor Learning Network to Support MWEE Implementation
  • Scope of Work 10: Correctional Conservation Collaborative: Achieving Pennsylvania Forestry Goals through Workforce Development
  • Scope of Work 11: Implementation of Chesapeake Healthy Watersheds Assessment in Maryland’s Tier II Watersheds
  • Scope of Work 12: Cross-outcome Watershed Educational Materials for Local Governments

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

View the RFP, here.

Deadline: was December 12, 2019 at 4pm EST

Application Unavailable

Currently closed. Check back for updates.

Manage an Existing Contract

Manage an existing contract or application

Questions & Technical Support

Sarah Koser
410-974-2941 x106

FY20 RFP Frequently Asked Questions:


Question #1: Should we submit the Budget Justification as an Appendix in the Technical proposal, or as a separate document.  We understand the budget itself will be the Excel file linked in the RFP. 

Answer #1: Use the Application Budget worksheet in the Financial Management Spreadsheet (FMS) accessible at, and if needed, provide additional justification or explanation as an attachment to the proposal (appendix to the technical proposal is acceptable).  It is also an option in our online application to populate the budget justification box with a text explanation.

Question #2: For any subcontractors we propose, we plan to submit their cost as a line item under the Budget Category “Contractual” in the Excel File.  Please let us know this is the preferred way for us to show subcontractor costs, or if you require that any subcontractors use the same budget template provided in the RFP.

Answer #2: Correct, subcontractors should be included as a line item (with their organization name) under the Budget Category “Contractual” in the required Financial Management Spreadsheet (FMS) accessible at

Question #3: We understand the NICRA requirement and we’ve looked into this process. We understand that organizations obtain NICRA agreements after the project is awarded. Is that the case here and which federal agency would we need it?

Answer #3: Correct, the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) requirements would need to be submitted if you were awarded a project and your indirect rate is over 10%.  If your proposed indirect rate is higher than 10% of the direct costs and your proposal is selected for funding, you will be required to provide the NICRA documentation.

Question 4: Can we collaborate with another institution to put in a joint proposal? Specifically, in Section 3.8 of the RFP, can you define “a collaborative or partnership with an identified project lead” in regards to bidding on a single scope? How would this differ from a subcontractor?

Answer 4: This project is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  No partnering with Federal funds is allowed for these scopes since the Chesapeake Bay Trust must follow 2 CFR 200 to meet Federal procurement requirements and guidelines.  Please be aware that you will need three estimates from sub-contractors, or you will need to put the project out to bid after it is awarded (for all subcontracting services equal to or greater than $3,000).  If you have a subcontractor selected after receiving three estimates, they would be considered part of your team and you would likely want to include them in the narrative and include their resumes.

Question 5:  On the project deliverables table, should each deliverable cost be inclusive of expenses (travel, printing, etc.) associated with creating that deliverable?

Answer 5:  Yes, that is correct; each deliverable should include all associated costs for which you would request reimbursement.

Question 6: May the proposal cover page, cover letter, fly sheets and/or divider pages, and required confidentiality information per page 6 of the RFP be excluded from page count?

Answer 6: Yes, the items above are not included in the 5-page narrative page count.  Please refer to page 4 of the RFP, which states that the narrative must include responses to a through e in a concise (≤ 5 page) description. Items f, g, and h may be addressed outside of the 5-page limit and may be attached as additional pages. All material must be submitted in one electronic file.

Scope 1

Question 1: Regarding the three regional focus areas in this Scope (Eastern Shore, Susquehanna River Basin, lower Western Shore), are both Maryland and Virginia included in the lower Western Shore?

Answer 1: It is envisioned that the primary focus for the lower Western Shore focal area should be Virginia.

Scope 2

Question 1:  One more question: Scope of Work 2 refers to a “…framework recommended by ERG Inc. (2018)…” can you provide the citation for this document or its location?

Answer 1:  All Final Reports and documents for EPA GIT Scopes are uploaded on our website here:  The Scope #2 ERG Inc. (2018) framework is located here:

Scope 3

Question 1: What constitutes “communication products” as stated in the Deliverables section under #8. Is the contractor required to provide printed materials or just input for the development of an example product(s)?

Answer 1:  No, the contractor would not be expected to deliver finished communications materials (this is outside the technical expertise we are looking for) but rather to provide their input, advise on messaging, and help synthesize their results in a way that can be readily shared with stakeholders when the project is complete.


Scope 4

Question 1: The RFP mentions an attached Table 1 on page 16 of Appendix A. Where can I find this table?

Answer 1:  Please see the table 1 located here.

Scope 5

Question 1: Two of the deliverables for this scope are: 1. Draft stream crossing standards language for review by stakeholder work group and 2. Final stream crossing standards language for inclusion in final stream crossing design guidance. Could explain what exactly Stream Crossing Standards Language is? Is it asking for an outline of the document or is it specifically asking for the words and paragraphs that will be used in the document? 

Answer 1:  We are asking for the actual language (words and paragraphs) not an outline.

Scope 6

Question 1: It appears that there is a mistake in the proposal with Steps 7, 8, and 9 repeating the tasks associated with step 6.   The final deliverables are described as being due in Month 18 (Aug 2021)  and then the RFP asks for the final deliverables again in January of 2022. Is it safe to assume that everything past Step 6 is erroneous? Task 6.33 is to print and bind all materials and then Step 9, which is farther down the page, says we should print and bind them again.  The list of deliverables says we should only do it once.

Answer 1: An error has been identified in Scope #6: Development of Technical Guidance Manual and Outreach Materials for Small-scale Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries (CBT Request #17339). In the Project Steps and Timeline Section, Steps 7, 8, and 9 should be deleted. These steps were mistakenly copied into the timeline and should be disregarded. Step 6 – for work to be completed during months 17 and 18 – is the final step, and the final deliverables listed are due at the end of month 18.

Scope 10

Question 1: Can you provide guidance on what type of correctional facilities would be appropriate to include for reaching out for this scope, specifically, can we include both adult and juvenile (greater than high school age) in the trainings?

Answer 1: Both juvenile and adult populations in correctional facilities would be okay for the trainings.