&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 6 Brownfields Program
FY10 Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup (ARC)
Grant Competition: Proposal Guidelines Q&A/Clarifications
Question: I am concerned that submitting a proposal that includes a for-profit team member (i.e.
contractor) that was not selected via a competitive process may disqualify our proposal. Can you advise
me on this issue and any precedents you are aware of?
Response: Please see the guidelines section where these statements are made "Applicants must compete
contracts for services and products, including consultant contracts, and conduct cost and price analyses to
the extent required by the procurement provisions of the regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as
appropriate. ...Applicants are not required to identify subawardees/subgrantees and/or contractors
(including consultants) in their proposal/application. However, if they do, the fact that an applicant
selected for award has named a specific subawardee/subgrantee, contractor, or consultant in the
proposal/application EPA selects for funding does not relieve [emphasis added] the applicant of its
obligations to comply with subaward/subgrant and/or competitive procurement requirements as
appropriate. Please note that applicants may not [emphasis added] award sole source contracts to
consulting, engineering, or other firms assisting applicants with the proposal solely based on the firm's
role in preparing the proposal/application."
Please become familiar with the federal regulations concerning open competition of procurements under
federal grants. Procurement of professional services in a non-competitive manner would be a potentially
ineligible grant cost. If you participate in a grant writing workshop or get a copy of the presentation, you
will learn that EPA recommends applicants do not raise cost eligibility "red flags" in their proposals. Red
flags cause lower rankings. Lower ranked proposals are not selected for funding.
While applicant's planned procurement procedures are not a "Threshold Criteria" (basic grant eligibility
issue), discussions in proposals about applicant's procurement plans can impact the ranking review and
ultimate selection for funding.
Question: Site acquisition without All Appropriate Inquiry/Due Diligence where contamination of
concern is indoor contaminant.
Response: Because the non-profit recently acquired the site without performing an All Appropriate
Inquiry, it seems unlikely that the non-profit could successfully claim Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
(BFPP) liability protection to pass Cleanup grant Threshold Criteria related to CERCLA liability.
If the site contamination, however, is limited strictly to indoor contamination (asbestos) and a valid and
robust argument can be made that based on type of material (non-friable), or location (secured rooms,
enclosed ceiling area), or building condition (maintained, always occupied or never vandalized), an
applicant can present information in a proposal contending that CERCLA (federal Superfund) liability
never applied (and does not apply) to the situation because there is/was not a release or potential release to
the environment. If CERCLA does not apply, then CERCLA liability as a Threshold Criteria becomes
1
-------
not applicable to the situation also. Ultimate EPA decision on this complicated issue will be done after
formal proposal submittal. During the EPA Threshold Review process (after proposal submittal), EPA
may contact the applicant for clarifications of proposal statements related to Threshold issues (but not
ranking).
Question: Are Economic Development Corporations and Management Districts excluded from being Key
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in proposal?
Response: Some economic development groups are actually part of a city organization (reports to Mayor
or City Manager). If the economic development group is a separate entity from any local government,
then yes, it might be considered a business or civic group and a potential Key Community Based
Organization (CBO) for the grant proposal. Given the gray area of this matter, you might want to assure
the description of the organization in the proposal is clear so national reviewers have the information they
need to properly review and score your proposal.
Question: Is Tribal Trust land a potential eligible site for brownfields grants?
Response: For the purposes of grant purposes, a property held as Trust land for a Tribal Entity can satisfy
the "solely owned" Threshold Criteria for EPA Brownfields cleanup grants.
Please review the attached EPA grant national Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for the Brownfields
Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup (ARC) grant programs. The eligibility of Trust lands is
discussed in several places.
EPA has clarified (pg 16 & 17) that Trust land does not trigger the "Control of US government"
Brownfields Site Exclusion
"Q29. What sites are not eligible for property-specific funding determinations for Brownfields grants?
A29. The Brownfields Law excludes the following three types of properties from funding eligibility and
prohibits EPA from making property-specific determinations on these properties:
1) Facilities listed (or proposed for listing) on the National Priorities List (NPL);
2) Facilities subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, administrative orders on consent or
judicial consent decrees issued to or entered into by parties under CERCLA; and
3) Facilities that are subject to the jurisdiction, custody or control, of the United States government.
(Note: Land held in trust by the United States government for an Indian tribe is generally eligible for
brownfields funding.)"
EPA has clarified (pg 19) that Trust land does not trigger the "Control of US government" Brownfields
Site Exclusion
"Q31. Are properties on lands held in trust by the Federal government for Indian tribes eligible for
brownfields grant funding?
A31. Generally, properties on lands held in trust by the Federal government for Indian tribes are eligible
for brownfields grant funding."
The concepts presented in the FAQs are also reflected in the National Guidelines for the grants.
Question: Can you get a Brownfield's grant for a superfund site?
Response: When Congress wrote the national law which authorizes EPA to provide Brownfields grants,
Congress specifically excluded EPA Superfund/CERCLA National Priority Listed (NPL, proposed or
actual listed) from receiving EPA brownfields funds. EPA Superfund proposed or listed NPL sites are not
eligible for EPA brownfields grant funds.
-------
EPA Superfund Removal sites have a different situation. While EPA Superfund Removal sites have
eligibility challenges, depending on the situation, EPA might be able to allow such a site to be eligible for
brownfields funding by issuing a Property Specific Determination. The Property Specific Determination
option is not available for EPA Superfund NPL sites.
Question: I am with the City in Texas, and we are applying for an assessment grant for Petroleum and
Hazardous Substances. In order to meet the threshold requirements for the assessment grant do I need to
have a letter of Support from the Texas Railroads Commission?
Response: Assure that you attach a current (this year) State Acknowledgement Letter from TCEQ to your
proposal. While not absolutely necessary, it would be good to also get a State Acknowledgement Letter
from RRC. EPA requires a minimum of one State Acknowledgement Letter and TCEQ's will suffice to
pass Threshold. Since you are coming in for Petro, having RRC letter also attached would be a good idea.
Question: For the assessment grant, do I need to notice the submittal of the assessment grant?
Response: Public Notice (e.g., notice 2 weeks before submittal, meeting before submittal) requirements
only apply to Cleanup grants. Public Notice is not a grant eligibility requirement (Threshold Criteria) for
either Assessment or RLF. If you are requesting RLF or Assessment funds, you do not have to comply
with EPA Brownfields pre-proposal Public Notice requirements.
Remember that pre-proposal activities are part of the Ranking Criteria for Community Engagement (e.g.,
"Discuss your plan for involving the affected community ...in site selection, cleanup decisions, or reuse
planning, including activities that have already occurred.").
Question: Does it depend on specific contaminants for a mine scarred site to be eligible for assessment
and cleanup?
Response: Candidate brownfields sites which are former mine scarred lands do not have to be potentially
contaminated with more common pollutants (e.g., hazardous substance, petroleum by-products) to be
potentially eligible for brownfields grant funds. The federal Brownfields Site definition for mine scarred
land is broad. Please see Appendix 1 of the guidelines for more information.
Question: Is salt brine still considered hazardous?
Response: For the purposes of grant fund expenditure, the EPA national brownfields program considered
salt brine from oil production activities to be better characterized as a "hazardous" rather than a
"petroleum" contaminant.
Question: Is the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) smaller this year?
Response: Yes. Under this announcement (proposals due Oct 16), EPA anticipates awarding an
estimated 7 new RLF grants for approximately $7 million. Last years grant round resulted in 17 RLF
being selected for funding using general program funds totaling $18.6 million and 3 RLF under recovery
act funds totaling $4 million. Recovery Act funds were available last year to supplement brownfields
regular funding but will not be available during the pending grant round (proposals due Oct 16)
Question: How do I find the state environmental person for my state?
-------
Response: Please see the workshop handout link on the region webpage
(www.epa.gov/region6/brownfields) for the one page handout of all state contact information
Question: Can you tell me why it is better to snail mail a proposal rather than emailing it?
Response: EPA encourages applicants to submit proposals in accordance with the instructions for hard
copy submissions. While electronic submissions (email) is available as an option, the increased potential
for miscommunication using this method seems like an avoidable risk that an applicant would be wise to
shun.
Question: What is the best source of information concerning the demographics of my target area if there
isn't a health department in this area?
Response: There are many sources of information which can be used to support statements provided in
the proposal. The "best source" is dependant on the unique attributes of the communities. The applicant
is advised to search widely for applicable and appropriate information to explain to the national reviewers
the situation in the applicant's communities.
Question: Should you talk about other Brownfield communities in your area?
Response: Yes, if related to applicant's responses to Ranking Criteria. The national brownfields program
strongly encourages local programs to learn from each other. Some of the core principles or values of the
overall program are collaboration and cooperation. EPA wants its grantees to be successful (sites cleaned
up and reused, grant accomplishments, grant requirements complied with). The more an applicant knows
about how the overall program works, the more likely it is that the applicant will succeed.
Question: Does the 2000 census data still contain viable information for a FY10 proposal?
Response: Applicants should use the best available data to support statements provided in the proposal.
Question: If a grant has been received previous for this target area, should that be discussed in this year's
proposal?
Response: Please review the Programmatic Capability section of the Ranking Criteria. There is a
Ranking Criteria related to previous grants the applicant received. If, however, there are other grants
which benefited the effort to revitalize area brownfields, which were not received from the applicant, the
applicant should consider discussing the accomplishments or impact of these resources in applicable
responses the applicant develops for the Ranking Criteria. The information about other entities area
grants should be included in the proposal, only, if it supports and explains the applicant's proposal
statements relating to Ranking Criteria.
Question: When listing estimated costs for Phase I's can you make it different for different locations?
Response: The assessment guidelines state in the budget Ranking Criteria section that the applicant
should provide "In addition to the budget table, describe each task in detail, including the basis for the
estimated cost as well as the projected outputs where possible (e.g., conduct Phase 1 assessments on five
sites at a cost of $2,500 each for a total of $12,500)." The applicant should use the best information it has
to respond to the criteria. Remember that this is a proposal budget which will be refined at work plan
development stage, should the proposal be selected. If the proposal jurisdiction is sufficiently large, or
-------
there are other reasons, to warrant varying Phase I projected costs, then the applicant should indicate this
and explain the situation to the best of its ability.
Question: What salaries qualify to be mentioned in the Budget?
Response: Direct costs associated with programmatic and site specific grant activities, including salaries,
are potentially eligible under brownfields grants. Please review the Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)
section concerning the Administrative Cost Ban for more information on potential programmatic
activities under the grant. The FAQ document can be found on the regional brownfields page
(www.epa.gov/region6/brownfields).
Question: Why is it not in the best interest of the proposal to send form letters?
Response: The guidelines direct application to attach letters from all community-based organizations
mentioned that describe their roles and affirm any referenced commitments. Since each organization is
unique, it is reasonable for EPA to expect roles and commitments of the organizations to be distinct.
Unique information is not commonly conveyed in form letters.
Question: If there is a lot to say in the grant proposal what happens if the number of pages exceeds the
guidelines?
Response: Pages in excess of the page limits described in Section IV for the narrative proposal and
transmittal letter will not be reviewed by EPA and will not therefore be considered for ranking score.
Pages beyond the stated page limit will be removed from the document provided to national reviewers to
develop scores from. National reviewer's scores of the applicant's Ranking Criteria responses determine
in large part selection or non-selection of proposal for funding.
Question: Should collaborative relationships be emphasized in the proposal?
Response: Yes, if appropriate for the local project(s) or program(s). Some of the core principles or
values of the overall brownfields program are collaboration and cooperation. A typical brownfields
project needs assistance and resources from multiple sources to reach the goal of site cleanup and
redevelopment. Remember that brownfields projects are usually "bigger" than the EPA brownfields grant
since EPA brownfields funding can not be used beyond the site cleanup stage. A brownfields project will
need other resources, beyond the EPA brownfields grant - often obtained thru collaboration and
leveraging, to get to land revitalization objective.
Question: Are there any forms or handouts that might be useful on the Brownfield website?
Response: EPA recommends the applicants review workshop handouts (see www.epa.gov/region
6/brownfields) and other available information about the overall brownfields program (e.g.,
www.epa.gov/brownfields, local and state program websites). EPA wants our grantees to be successful,
have sites cleaned up and revitalized, and to be compliant with grant requirements. The more
knowledgeable the applicant is about the program and grant conditions, the more likely the applicant is to
do well.
Question: What is the best way to work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), if demolition
is involved?
-------
Response: The guidelines state "If historic properties or threatened or endangered (T&E) species may be
impacted by the assessment or cleanup of a site, the requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may apply, respectively. Grantees are required to
consult with EPA prior to conducting any on-site activity (such as invasive sampling or cleanup) that may
affect historic properties or T&E species to ensure that the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA and
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA are met. Assessment grantees should plan for these consultation
requirements."
Question: How valuable is it to include a schematic line map in the proposal?
Response: Frequently a schematic line map or plan can be an effective tool in a proposal and assist a
national reviewer to more fully understand the situation in the applicant's community. Remember that
proposal copies which national reviewers actually read for scoring purposes are always non-color and
frequently copies of copies. Applicants should assure that any information provided in the proposal
remains legible when copied multiple times. Also, narrative responses to Ranking and Threshold Criteria
should be a higher priority than diagrams, should proposal page limitations become an issue.
Question: Are smaller projects less competitive?
Response: No. There is no Ranking Criteria related to size of project.
Question: Can you have too many coalition members?
Response: An applicant for an RLF grant or Assessment Coalition grant should assure they have the
minimum necessary independent coalition members to: pass Threshold Criteria, justify funding request,
and effectively manage the grant should they be selected.
------- |