MTA Fund Summary 2006 RFP.doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

MTA Fund Summary 2006 RFP.doc

on

  • 522 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
522
Views on SlideShare
522
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

MTA Fund Summary 2006 RFP.doc MTA Fund Summary 2006 RFP.doc Document Transcript

  • RESOLVE Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund Bruce J. Stedman, Director Washington, D.C. Office 125523rdStreet,NW, Suite275 Washington,DC 20037 Ph: 202.965.6212 Fax: 202.338.1264 mta-fund@resolv.org www.mtafund.org January 27, 2006 MTA Fund – Summary RfP, 2006 Dear Prospective Applicant, We are pleased to provide a Request for Proposals (RfP) for funding from the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund Summary, 2006). This is a special funding round to award one grant of $50,000 to an eligible organization to prepare a summary of the projects and findings from the 103 grants awarded by the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund from 2000 to 2005. The primary purpose of the summary is to further disseminate the principal findings from the completed MTA Fund grants. To assist groups to prepare their proposals, we are providing the attached RfP. This is a competitive grant, so strict adherence to the requirements in the RfP is essential. While the RfP is not lengthy, we have included detailed information on the history of the MTA Fund, the basic steps for applying, and the criteria your organization must meet. The specific questions that you must address in your proposal begin on page 8. As you review this RfP, please be aware of the following:  the proposal MUST be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, February 28 (proposals received after this date will not be considered, at RESOLVE’s discretion);  the financial accounting requirements outlined and the requirement for complying with the Office of Management and Budget circulars in Section IV can be handled in any number of ways and tailored for your existing accounting system (these requirements are identical to grants from federal government agencies and are necessary under the settlement agreement that created the MTA Fund); and  the certifications in Section V are intended to establish that you are eligible for funding. If you are considering applying for this grant, please inform me as soon as possible. Also, we encourage you to contact us as early in the process as possible with any questions about the RfP. Please pass this RfP along to others who might be interested in applying. This document, as well as additional information about the MTA Fund can be found at our Web site, www.resolv.org/mta. Please contact me at any time if you have any questions about the RfP or the application process. Sincerely, Bruce J. Stedman Director, MTA Fund
  • RESOLVE Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund Bruce J. Stedman, Director Washington, D.C. Office 125523rdStreet,NW, Suite275 Washington,DC 20037 Ph: 202.965.6212 Fax: 202.338.1264 mta-fund@resolv.org www.mtafund.org Grant Guidelines & Application Process MTA Fund Summary, 2006 KEY DATES AND DEADLINES TO REMEMBER If you are considering applying for this grant, please inform RESOLVE as soon as possible. The Proposal must be postmarked on or before February 28, 2006. INTRODUCTION As part of a 1998 court settlement1 between U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 39 plaintiffs (non-profit peace and environmental groups around the country), the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund) was established to provide money to non-profit, non- governmental organizations2 and Federally recognized tribal governments working on issues related to the nuclear weapons complex. The MTA Fund was established to help those groups procure technical and scientific assistance to perform technical and scientific reviews and analyses of environmental management activities at DOE sites. Between 2000 and 2005, 103 grants were awarded.3 These grants also supported dissemination of the technical and scientific reviews and analyses undertaken with monies from the MTA Fund; the funds could not be used for litigation, lobbying, administrative support, or fundraising. The MTA Fund represented an opportunity for citizens groups, tribes, and others to conduct their own research and monitoring of DOE environmental management activities at sites throughout the country. The MTA Fund also represented an opportunity to develop new approaches for community-based research that may be applicable to other environmental issues and problems. The MTA Fund summary grant is intended to document the history of the Fund, summarize the technical approaches and findings of the projects, and to further distribute those findings. 1 See the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order, dated December 12, 1998, in Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Richardson et al., Civ No. 97-936 (SS)(AK), United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Settlement Agreement can be found at the following Web sites: U.S. DOE (http://www.em.doe.gov/agreement/) and NRDC (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/9812doe.asp). A copy also can be obtained on request from RESOLVE. 2 A “non-profit, non-governmental” organization is a non-profit organization that is not acting in fact, or was not formed for the purpose of acting, as an agent, agency or advocate for any local (including city or county) or state government or the federal government. Whether a non-profit organization is considered “governmental” will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 3 For a list of the grants, see www.mtafund.org Proposal Packet – Page 2
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary ADMINISTERING ORGANIZATION RESOLVE, Inc. administers the MTA Fund. RESOLVE is a neutral non-profit dispute resolution organization with special expertise in the environmental arena with offices in Washington, DC and Portland, Oregon. Founded in 1977, RESOLVE’s mission is to mediate controversial environmental issues and promote the effective use of conflict resolution in public decisionmaking. RESOLVE has experience managing technical assistance and research funds, and bringing groups together with technical experts to produce the highest quality research with practical applications. Bruce Stedman, a Senior Mediator at RESOLVE directs the MTA Fund, with assistance from Paula Moreno and Jim Wano (RESOLVE’s Controller). RESOLVE formed an Advisory Board4 to oversee use of the MTA Fund and to advise RESOLVE on how the Fund should be distributed. Over the life of the Fund, the Advisory Board has been composed of individuals from organizations that were involved in the lawsuit against DOE that created the MTA Fund and others, including tribes that are and are not Federally recognized. In addition to the Advisory Board, RESOLVE has welcomed input from other organizations, tribes, and individuals, including those who believe their views may not be represented on the Advisory Board, and potential applicants, about how the MTA Fund should be managed and distributed. For this grant the Advisory Board will assist RESOLVE in reviewing proposals and making recommendations to RESOLVE, but will not make funding decisions. Members of the Advisory Board also are available to assist applicants in initiating the proposal process. (See the Proposal Development section, below.) Under the terms of the court settlement, RESOLVE has sole discretion and decision-making authority with respect to the MTA Fund. RESOLVE will make all funding decisions. RESOLVE is required by the settlement agreement to report annually to DOE on expenditures from the MTA Fund and on compliance with the applicable cost principles. While DOE will receive a copy of the final product from this grant, DOE is not reviewing or receiving copies of the applications. DOE has no role in determining how the funds are spent (as long as the settlement agreement and the cost principles are being followed), and DOE has no involvement in how projects are conducted (unless, of course, permission is needed to be on a DOE site to collect data) or in the final product. All decisions regarding the MTA Fund are made independently by RESOLVE. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT While not a requirement, prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to inform RESOLVE of your interest in applying to the MTA Fund at the earliest possible opportunity – by telephone, fax, or email. We ask that you notify us before submitting the proposal so that we may answer any questions you may have and to ensure that your proposal is fully complete as submitted. RESOLVE or an Advisory Board member may assist with:  identifying an appropriate technical advisor or researcher to partner with on an application;  developing methods or strategies for conducting the research or information distribution; and/or  explaining application requirements. If you need assistance identifying an appropriate expert and/or a MTA Fund Advisory Board member to work with in developing your Proposal, please contact RESOLVE. 4 For a list of the current Fund Advisory Board and their contact information, please see page 13. Proposal Packet – Page 3
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary ELIGIBILITY Eligible Organizations and Tribal Governments Grants will be made only to non-profit, non-governmental organizations or Federally recognized tribal governments working on issues related to the nuclear weapons complex. The MTA Fund will consider collaborative proposals from eligible organizations and/or tribal governments. Organizations and communities of color and low-income communities and organizations are encouraged to apply. Please contact MTA Fund Director, Bruce Stedman (202-965-6217) with any questions regarding eligibility. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Grant Amount The Summary Grant will be for $50,000 (inclusive of any General & Administrative and/or fiscal agent fee). Prohibited Uses of Funds Money from the MTA Fund may not be used to conduct litigation, lobbying, or fundraising. In addition, money from the MTA Fund may not be used for basic administrative support or for the purchase of equipment (e.g., computers and other office machinery, software, and laboratory machinery). APPLICATION PROCEDURES APPLICATION PROCESS To speed review and approval of proposals, please follow the instructions and use the application forms provided. Using these forms will reduce the time needed for and improve the application review process. RESOLVE can provide hard copies and electronic versions of the forms and formats discussed in the applications packet upon request (they are also available on the MTA Fund website, MTA Fund Summary Grant RFP). As you prepare your proposal, please keep in mind the following:  please contact RESOLVE early to indicate your intention to make a proposal;  if you have questions, do not hesitate to contact us; and  be concise, clear, and specific in your proposal. The MTA Fund will not pay any costs to prepare the proposal. These costs shall be borne by the submitter. Proposals will not be returned to the submitter, but each submitter will be informed regarding the decision on their proposal. Proposal Packet – Page 4
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary PROPOSAL Applicants are required to submit a proposal based on the Proposal Forms and Procedures section below. Be sure to submit the required Attachment A – Grant Proposal Checklist. Please use the checklist to be sure that all required information and forms are included in your proposal. If any requested information is not included with your proposal submission, in the "comments" section of the checklist please indicate the reason the information is not included and when it will be provided. All proposals must meet the Proposal Evaluation Criteria (see below) to be considered. A proposal that fails to meet all of these conditions cannot be reviewed. Therefore, it is essential that every proposal clearly address each criterion. If you have questions regarding any of the listed criteria, please contact the MTA Fund as soon as possible so we can answer your questions and assist you in determining how the criteria can be met. PROPOSAL DEADLINE Complete Proposals Must Be Postmarked on or before February 28, 2006 The deadline for submission of a proposal is February 28, 2006. We strongly encourage applicants to plan accordingly to meet this deadline. RESOLVE will use the postmark to determine whether an application has been submitted on time. Proposals postmarked after this date will not be considered. Applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as possible. Where to Submit Proposals Please submit one original (with all attachments) and four photocopies of Sections I, II, and III by mail or delivery to: Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund c/o RESOLVE, Inc. Suite 275 1255 23rd Street NW Washington, DC 20037 Please do not staple or otherwise bind the original as this makes it more difficult for us to process proposals. Fax or email submissions will not be accepted. PLEASE BE CERTAIN TO KEEP A COPY OF YOUR PROPOSAL AND ALL OTHER SUBMITTED MATERIALS FOR YOUR RECORDS. Proposal Packet – Page 5
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA All proposals for conducting the MTA Fund Summary must meet the following criteria to be eligible for funding. Therefore, it is essential that every proposal clearly address each criterion. If you have any questions regarding any of the listed criteria, please contact the MTA Fund as soon as possible so we can answer your questions and assist you in determining how the criteria can be met. 1. The applicant will conduct a review of the findings of the grants awarded by the MTA Fund and prepare a summary. A review will also be conducted of the dissemination activities undertaken by the grantees, which will be included in the summary. 2. The proposal describes the methods to be used for researching and reviewing the grants, findings, and grantees, and considers particularly the following:  types of problems grantees addressed;  scientific/technical approaches and methods used by grantees;  findings of the projects;  approaches and methods undertaken by the grantees to disseminate the findings of the projects;  affects on the DOE sites and surrounding communities of the findings; and  history of the MTA Fund (including the lawsuit and settlement). 3. The proposal describes the methods to be used for the researching and reviewing the grants, findings, and grantees. 4. The proposal includes a plan for how the MTA Fund might disseminate the results to the public and others. 5. The proposal is for $50,000. 6. The proposed review and summary will be completed within a maximum of 8 months and issued in final written form. The proposal includes a schedule for completion. 7. The applicant is a non-profit, non-governmental organization or a Federally recognized tribal government working on issues related to the DOE nuclear weapons complex. A non-profit, non-governmental organization is defined as a non-profit organization that is not acting in fact, or was not formed for the purpose of acting, as an agent, agency or advocate for any local (including city or county) or state government or the federal government. 8. The proposal identifies the appropriately qualified candidate authors(s) to conduct the review and prepare the summary. 9. If the applicant received or served as an expert on a previous MTA Fund grant, the applicant must have a record of high quality work on the previous MTA Fund grant and of timely adherence to MTA Fund reporting requirements. 10. The applicant demonstrates the capacity to produce the summary within the proposed timeframe and budget. 11. The proposal identifies the officers and key individuals responsible for managing the grant. 12. The applicant has the capacity to handle and account for money from the MTA Fund in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122 or Circular A-87. For information on these OMB circulars, please see Section IV of this RfP. Proposal Packet – Page 6
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary 13. To the extent the research involves collecting data from or about individuals, the applicant demonstrates the capacity to adhere to established rules concerning research with human subjects, that the applicant can safeguard the rights and welfare of any people who are the subject of the research and the methods used to obtain information are consensual, adequate and appropriate. 14. Neither the applicant nor the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has a material financial interest relating to DOE and the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. A material financial interest is defined as: (a) being employed by, or a contractor, subcontractor, or consultant to, DOE within the past 36 months, unless the applicant or the expert(s) has particular expertise or information, the use of which for the proposed project has the potential to enhance environmental protection and public safety in DOE’s environmental management programs; or (b) a financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from the site(s) involved in the proposal. A material financial interest does not include (i) grants or other awards of financial assistance to organizations or tribal governments from DOE for environment, health, or safety projects, even for the same site(s) included in the proposal, but which do not involve providing services to DOE, (ii) “contracts” given by DOE for the purpose of reimbursing expenses associated with organizations or tribal governments attending advisory or public meetings, or (iii) projects that are not related to the nuclear weapons complex. 15. The proposal does not include uses of funds for conducting litigation, lobbying, or fundraising, or for general administrative support. FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact the MTA Fund Director, Bruce Stedman by phone to 202.965.6217; by fax to 202.338.1264; by e-mail at bstedman@resolv.org. (Please note there is no “e” at the end of “resolv” in RESOLVE’s e-mail address.) Proposal Packet – Page 7
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary PROPOSAL PROCEDURES AND FORMS KEY DATES AND DEADLINES If you are considering applying for a grant, please inform RESOLVE as soon as possible. Proposals must be postmarked on or before February 28, 2006. Instructions Please include all of the requested information in the order given (below) for Sections I and II. Be sure to include the applicable attachments requested in Section VI – Attachments. Section I – General Information  Please provide the following information in the order shown.  Your replies to each requested item must be titled and numbered as shown (i.e. please organize your proposal as follows, using each of the item headings in the order shown below).  Please do not omit any of the requested items; if any requested information is not applicable, indicate with N/A. 1. Date of Application Date application was completed or date submitted. 2. Applicant Name Name of eligible organization or tribal government sponsoring the project. If using a fiscal agent, please include the name of the primary contact person at the fiscal agent as well as for the applicant. 3. Project Title 4. Contact Person Include name, title, mailing address, direct telephone, and fax numbers of contact person who will work with MTA Fund staff, as necessary, to provide additional information and clarification as needed. Include an e-mail address if you have one. 5. Applicant’s (or Fiscal Agent’s) Federal Tax Identification Number 6. Name(s) of Person(s) Who Will Conduct the Review and write the Summary and Their Organizational Affiliation Include, as appropriate, candidate author(s) to conduct the review and summary, applicant staff members, and other partners/collaborating organizations. Please indicate who will be paid from the requested MTA Fund grant, who will be paid from other sources, and who may be donating their labor (i.e., receiving no pay). 7. Project Duration Provide a project timeline for the period April 1 to November 30, 2006 that includes all activities including dissemination of the summary once complete. 8. Names and Titles of Officers, Directors, and Key Staff of a Non-Profit Organization, or if a Tribal Government the Officers and Individuals Responsible for Managing the Grant 9. Name and Title of the Person Who Prepared the Proposal Proposal Packet – Page 8
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary 10. Authorized Signatures Please indicate the names and titles of individuals who are authorized to enter the organization or tribal government into contracts or other binding agreements. Such individuals often include Executive Director, President, Tribal Council Chief or Executive, Fiscal Agent authorized representatives etc. (You need not provide the actual signatures at this time.) Section II – Narrative (maximum for Proposal: 3 pages)  Please provide a brief descriptive narrative that includes items 1 through 7 (described below) in the order shown.  Your replies to each requested item must be titled and numbered as shown (i.e. please organize your proposal as follows, using each of the item headings in the order shown below).  Please do not omit any of the requested items; if any requested information is not applicable, indicate with N/A. 1. Description of Organization (not required of Tribal Governments) Please provide a brief description (1 paragraph) of the applicant organization addressing applicant’s eligibility status as a) a non-profit, non-governmental organization, and b) working on issues related to the DOE nuclear weapons complex; please indicate recent related work. 2. Objectives What are the specific objectives of the review and summary as you see it? What are the objectives of the information dissemination effort? 3. Approach A. Methods How will the review and summary be conducted? What are the specific methods that will be used? What are the specific tasks the project staff and experts will conduct? What outcomes do you expect? B. Effectiveness What difficulties, problems, or challenges to you foresee? Why will the proposed approach effective for solving the problem(s) to be addressed? 4. Capacity Identify the staff, authors, experts, and/or volunteers who will conduct the project, and describe their qualifications (attach current resumes or curricula vitae and a letter from the primary authors documenting the specific set of tasks they will be conducting for the project, the financial rate they will be charging, and a proposed schedule of their activities – see Section V.H.). How were the authors selected? How much will you be depending on volunteers to conduct the project? 5. Schedule Provide a simple timeline that shows the important deadlines or milestones. Proposal Packet – Page 9
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary Section III - Proposal Budget Request Please submit the Proposal Budget Summary Sheet (Attachment B) and budget narrative, which should include the following required elements: – the hourly labor rates, the number of labor hours, and labor cost for each individual staff member, and any associated fringe benefits and overhead expenses – include under the Applicant Staff Labor budget category – and for each subcontractor – include under the Experts budget category; – assumptions for each budget item, so that it will be clear how the costs of personnel, travel, experts, and other items were calculated; – if you anticipate needing the services of an outside vendor, in the Miscellaneous budget category please include an estimate of the fees per unit (e.g., cost per unit test or sample); and – a list of items and total costs for items included under Miscellaneous. In preparing your budget, please note: 1. you will be asked to submit a brief project status and expenditure report for the period March – June 2006, and 2. payment will be distributed in three installments following submission of required reports and the final product(s): $20,000 after signing of grant agreement; $20,000 after satisfactory progress report due July 31, 2006, and $10,000 after final completion of all tasks. Additional instructions and examples for preparing a detailed budget are available on request. Section IV - Accounting and Audit Requirements; Requirements for Fiscal Agents IV. A. Accounting and Audit Requirements The Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order establishing the MTA Fund requires that applicants comply with the cost principles set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations, effective June 1, 1998 (63FR 29794), or Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (60FR 26484, 62 FR 45934). In addition, non-profit organizations expending $300,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year are subject to the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133 and must provide, as a condition of award, a copy of their latest independent auditors’ report as required under OMB Circular A-133. In general the OMB Circulars establish cost principles and standards for determining direct and indirect costs that are considered allowable to be reimbursed with money from the MTA Fund. OMB Circular A-122 applies to applicants that are qualified non-profit organizations. Examples of allowable direct costs include the salaries of technical staff, project supplies, project publications, telephone toll charges, travel costs, and costs for specialized services wherever identifiable to a particular program. Examples of allowable indirect costs include the salaries and wages of administrative and clerical staff, rent, certain public relations costs, and non- project related supplies, postage, and local telephone costs not directly related to a project. Examples of unallowable costs are lobbying, litigation, entertainment, alcohol, donations to other groups and the costs of advertising and public relations costs incurred solely to promote Proposal Packet – Page 10
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary the organization. The requirements under OMB Circular A-87, which apply to federally recognized tribes, are generally similar. Applicants should not be discouraged from applying for a MTA Fund grant solely because of these Circulars. Although they are lengthy and detailed (approximately 60 pages each) only limited sections may apply to your organization. It is very important that each grantee determine how the Circulars apply to them. RESOLVE is unable to provide guidance about how the Circulars may apply to your situation. If you have questions about the Circulars we recommend that you consult an accountant or another organization familiar with Circulars, although you are not required to do so to apply for or receive a grant. All grantees, and RESOLVE, must comply with the cost principles in the appropriate Circular. The OMB Circulars may be obtained on line from the OMB web site at http://www.whitethouse.gov/OMB. A copy can also be obtained on request from RESOLVE. All applicants shall have in place a financial accounting system that can be manual, computerized or a combination of both, and a system of internal controls so as to assure the proper accounting for and safeguarding of awarded funds. The system must address at a minimum, the following: ♦ proper segregation of direct contract and grant costs from indirect and other non- contract costs, ♦ a timekeeping system that identifies employees’ labor by contract, grant, or other account (i.e., general and administrative), and ♦ identification of contract/grant costs by line item or major budget category, if required under the award. Satisfying the above criteria is a condition to award of a grant. RESOLVE will keep all of this information confidential and it will not be included in any review materials seen by members of the Advisory Board. IV. B. General Requirements for Fiscal Agents 1. A fiscal agent is an eligible organization serving the financial and administrative management roles, but not directly conducting the project. 2. An eligible organization can serve as the fiscal agent on multiple proposals in each round and on proposals in subsequent rounds. 3. If an employee of the fiscal agent organization will be involved in project implementation, the organization is no longer considered a fiscal agent. The organization then must comply with all requirements for receiving a grant from the MTA Fund. 4. A fiscal agent is required to comply with the cost principles set forth in OMB Circular A-122. The fiscal agent is legally responsible for the project and for compliance by the organization or group conducting the project with the cost principles set forth in OMB Circular A-122. Proposal Packet – Page 11
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary 5. If a fiscal agent charges a fee for serving as the fiscal agent, the fiscal agent must provide RESOLVE with a satisfactory explanation of the basis for the fee and how it is calculated. In addition, the fee must be applied consistently to all organizations for similar services. Section V – Attachments Please provide the attachments requested below, as applicable. These items are integral pieces of a complete proposal. A. Grant Application Checklist (form provided). B. Budget (form provided). C. Certifications (form provided). D. Documentation that applicant is either a non-profit corporation (please provide Articles of Incorporation and by-laws) or a Federally recognized tribal government. E. Most Recent Annual Report (if available) or most recent financial statements. F. Latest Independent Auditor’s Report -- if available, or if required under OMB Circular A-133. (Otherwise submission of this item is not required.) G. References who can attest to the ability of the organization to successfully carry out the proposed work on budget and on schedule (only required for non-governmental organizations). Please include contact information (i.e., name, title, organizational affiliation, direct telephone numbers, and - if available - fax number and e-mail address) for at least two individuals outside of your organization. Please do not send actual letters of reference. H. An example of a published or distributed report or other writing sample from the lead author. I. If you are using an outside author (or authors), provide a letter from each of your proposed authors documenting: a) the specific set of tasks they will be conducting for the project and a defined schedule of activities, b) the hourly rate(s) they will be charging for their labor, c) the estimated number of hours required to perform their tasks, and d) an estimate of their anticipated non-labor expenses. J. Access to DOE Site(s) – if access to DOE site(s) is necessary to the success of the project, please provide written documentation that DOE will permit researchers from your organization and/or your consultants access to the site(s) (including the type(s) of activities permitted on the site) or explain how you plan to obtain access. Additional documentation may be required prior to funding an approved proposal. Proposal Packet – Page 12
  • Citizens’ Monitoring And Technical Assessment Fund Request For Proposals: MTA Fund Summary Advisory Board (Organizations are indicated for identification purposes only.) updated: January, 2006 Katie Brown Francis Macy Department of Environmental Health Tri-Valley CAREs University of Cincinnati 2812 Cherry Street P.O. Box 670056 Berkeley, CA 94705 Cincinnati, OH 45267 Phone: 510.540.7120 Phone: 513-558-0092 Fax: 510.649.9605 Fax: 513-558-4838 fmacy@igc.org katie.brown@uc.edu LeRoy Moore Jay Coghlan Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center Nuclear Watch of New Mexico P.O. Box 1156 551 W. Cordova Road, #808 Boulder, CO 80306 Santa Fe, NM 87505-4100 Phone: 303-444-6981 Phone: 505.989.7342 Fax: 303-444-6523 Fax: 505.989.7352 leroymoore@earthlink.net jcoghlan@nukewatch.org Rudi H. Nussbaum Sharon Cowdrey NW Radiation Health Alliance Miamisburg Environmental Safety & Health 2393 SW Park Place #301 5491 Weidner Road Portland, OR 97205 Springboro, OH 45066 Phone: 503.222.5643 Phone: 937.748.4757 d4rn@odin.pdx.edu Fax: 937.748.0349 Deeohn Ferris David Richardson Global Environmental Resources, Inc. School of Public Health P.O. Box 15395 Bank of America Plaza, Suite 32 Washington, DC 20003 University of North Carolina Phone: 202.637.2467 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8050 Fax: 202.399.5480 Phone: 919-966-2675 gerinc@mindspring.com Fax: 919-966-6650 david_richardson@unc.edu Geoffrey Fettus Natural Resources Defense Council Jennifer Viereck 1200 New York Ave., NW Suite 400 Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth Washington, DC 20005 Post Office Box 420 Phone: 202.289.2371 Tecopa, CA 92389-0420 Fax: 202.289.1060 Phone: 760.852.4151 gfettus@nrdc.org heal@h-o-m-e.org Susan Gordon Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 1914 N. 34th Street, #407 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: 206.547.3175 Fax: 206.547.7158 susangordon@earthlink.net Mary Elizabeth Lampert Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 Phone: 781.934.0389 Fax: 781.934.5579 lampert@adelphia.net Proposal Packet – Page 13
  • PLEASE INCLUDE THIS FORM WITH PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT A – GRANT PROPOSAL CHECKLIST Include this checklist with your grant Proposal. • If any requested information is not included, in the "comments" section please state the reason the information is not included and when it will be forthcoming. Otherwise, please simply check. • Make certain that ALL requested information has been included with your grant Proposal. Failure to include all requested information will delay processing of your grant Proposal. The Checklist assists applicants to assure that their proposal is complete and allows the applicant to inform RESOLVE if and why certain items are not included in the proposal. Applicant: __________________________________ Information Included With Grant Proposal Comments  5 copies included (1 original with attachments, 4 copies without attachments); remember to make 1 additional copy for your files Section I – General Information  1. Date of Application  2. Applicant Name  3. Project Title  4. Contact Person (include name, title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address)  5. Federal Tax ID number  6. Person(s) who will author summary (include name, title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address)  7. Project Timeline  8. Officers – names of officers, directors and key staff responsible for managing the grant (include title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address)  9. Name of Proposal Preparer (include title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address)  10. Authorized Signatures Section II – Narrative ATTACHMENT A – GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Proposal Packet – Page 14
  • Information Included With Grant Proposal Comments  1. Description of Applicant Non-governmental Organization  2. Objectives  3. Approach (Methods and Effectiveness)  4. Capacity  5. Schedule Section III – Budget  1. Budget Narrative Section IV – Proposal Attachments  A. Grant Application Checklist (this form, pages 15-16)  B. Budget Summary Sheet with detailed notes (page17)  C. Certifications (pages 18-19)  D. Documentation of status as a non-profit, non- governmental organization (not applicable to Tribal Governments)  E. Most Recent Annual Report (if available) or Most Recent Financial Statements  F. Latest Independent Auditor’s Report (if available or if required under OMB Circular A-133)  G. 2 References (only required for non-governmental organizations)  H. Letter from Proposed Author(s) (documenting the specific set of tasks they will be conducting for the project, the financial rate they will be charging, estimated hours needed, projected expenses, and a defined schedule of activities)  I. Writing sample from the lead author  J. Documentation of Additional Funding (if proposal requires funding beyond what the MTA Fund can provide) ATTACHMENT A – GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Proposal Packet – Page 15
  • PLEASE INCLUDE THIS FORM WITH PROPOSAL Attachment B: Proposal Budget Summary Sheet Applicant: ___________________________ Period Covered by Budget: ___________ Cost Category Funds Requested NOTES A. PERSONNEL COSTS 1. Applicant Staff Labor 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Overhead Subtotal Personnel Costs B. DIRECT COSTS 1. Expert(s), if any 2. Staff Travel 3. Printing/Copying 4. Postage/Shipping 5. Telephone/Fax 6. Supplies 7. Equipment Rental 8. Training 9. Miscellaneous* * provide detail in narrative Subtotal Direct Costs C. GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (for project only) D. TOTAL BUDGET Not to exceed $50,000 ATTACHMENT B – BUDGET Proposal Packet – Page 16
  • PLEASE INCLUDE THIS FORM WITH PROPOSAL Attachment C: Certifications Applicant: __________________________________ Each applicant shall provide the following representations and certifications: The applicant organization or tribal government, by signing the proposal, hereby represents and certifies that, as of the date of submission (please check the applicable statements and provide additional information as requested; please identify whether statement pertains to applicant or expert): Relationship to Advisory Board (check one) ____ 1.A. Neither the applicant nor the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has any legal or financial affiliation with any member of the Advisory Board. ____ 1.B. The applicant or the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has a legal or financial affiliation with a member(s) of the Advisory Board as follows: (If this certification is checked, you must provide an explanation here.) _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________. Previous Experience with DOE (check one) ____ 2.A. Neither the applicant nor the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has been employed by, or a contractor, subcontractor, or consultant to, DOE within the past 36 months. ____ 2.B. The applicant or the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has been employed by, or a contractor, subcontractor, or consultant to, DOE within the past 36 months as follows: (If this certification is checked, you must provide an explanation here and also for certification 2.B.1.) _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________. 2.B.1. The applicant or the expert(s) has particular expertise or information, the use of which for the proposed project has the potential to enhance environmental protection and public safety in DOE's environmental management programs as follows: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________. ATTACHMENT C – CERTIFICATIONS Proposal Packet – Page 17
  • Financial Benefit (check one) ____ 3.A. Neither the applicant nor the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has financially benefited, directly or indirectly, from the site(s) involved in the proposal. ____ 3.B. The applicant or the expert(s) involved with implementing the proposal has financially benefited, directly or indirectly, from the site(s) involved in the proposal as follows: (If this certification is checked, you must provide an explanation here.) _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________. Use of Funds ____ 4. No money from the MTA Fund will be used to conduct litigation, lobbying, or fundraising, or for general organizational administrative support. Financial Accounting System (See Section IV) (Check both if appropriate. If you cannot check certification 5.B., you cannot receive money from the MTA Fund and you may want to consider using a fiscal agent. Please contact the MTA Fund as soon as possible to discuss options. ____ 5.A. The applicant complies or will comply with OMB Circular A-122 or A-87, as the case may be. ____ 5.B. The applicant’s financial accounting system includes, or upon receipt of a grant from the MTA Fund, will include: • proper segregation of direct contract and grant costs from indirect and other non-contract costs; • a timekeeping system that identifies employees’ labor by contract, grant, or other account (i.e., general and administrative); and • identification of contract/grant costs by line item or major budget category if required under the award. Signature: __________________________________________ _______________________________ Signature of Authorized Official Date Please print name and title of Authorized Official here ATTACHMENT C – CERTIFICATIONS Proposal Packet – Page 18