Both Lead Applicants and subrecipients may procure contractors in compliance with competitive procurement requirements as described in Section III.B of the NOFO.
It depends. Your Master Service Agreement may not be so “stale” that it does not reflect current market conditions and cannot be a non-competitive retainer type of consulting contract prohibited by 2 CFR 200.319(b)(4). As indicated on page 13 in our Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services, Supplies, and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements, which is referenced in the NOFO including in Appendix G, EPA will accept properly competed long-term contracts that are 5 years or less in length. We also expect recipients to ensure that the pricing under Master Service Agreements remains consistent with market conditions to meet the “reasonable cost” standard in 2 CFR 200.404, which applies to all expenditures of grant funds.
For the first question, yes, provided the procurement process complied with the requirements specified in the Procurement Standards in 2 CFR Part 200, the Good Faith Efforts to encourage participation of small and disadvantaged businesses described in 40 CFR 33.301, and the compensation that you intend to charge to the grant for individual consultants (if any) complies with 2 CFR 1500.10. Please refer to the Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services, Supplies, and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements, which is incorporated into the CCG NOFO as well (See Appendix G).
And yes, this requirement applies to engineering contracts as well, although for architectural and engineering (A/E) services you may use a qualifications-based competitive procurement as long as the requirements in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2)(iv) are met. EPA also recognizes that geographic preferences may be used as provided in 2 CFR 200.319(c). Note that EPA takes the position that qualifications-based and geographic preference procurements may only be used to acquire services such as the development of building specifications that must be performed by a licensed A/E firm under state or local law.
Yes, in certain very limited circumstances. For example, as Appendix A to EPA’s Subaward Policy (incorporated into Section III B. of the NOFO) notes, a for-profit firm can receive a subaward for a project to install pollution-control equipment at its facilities, since the firm in that case is not providing goods or services to the recipient on commercial terms.
Similarly, an investor-owned utility could receive a subaward to provide energy efficient HVAC equipment to residents of low-income communities via subsidies or actual installation of equipment. The utility would not be providing the recipient with the services (energy transmission or other services/products the utility “sells” to ratepayers or others) that generate profits for its investors. Forprofit firms may receive rebates or subsidies for purchases of pollution control equipment including electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure as program participants under 2 CFR 1500.1(b) and the EPA Guidance on Participant Support Costs, which is referenced in Appendix G of the NOFO.
No. As stated in Section III.B of the NOFO, for-profit private companies cannot be Collaborating Entities that receive subawards. When a for-profit firm is providing commercial services to the recipient as a vendor, then the recipient cannot circumvent competitive procurement requirements by providing the firm a subaward even if the firm agrees not to “profit” from the transaction.
- Read more about 3. Can subawards only be granted to Collaborating Entities named in the application?
Applicants need to identify and describe existing relationships with Collaborating Entities in the application based on the NOFO requirements and as indicated in Appendix G for the budget template. However, grant recipients may find it necessary to issue subawards to entities not originally named in the application. Replacing a previously named Collaborating Entity requires prior approval by an authorized EPA official pursuant to 2 CFR 200.308(e)(6).
Collaborating Entities will receive subawards as explained in the NOFO, including in Section III.B and Appendix G, but the NOFO also acknowledges in Section III.B that there may be “other subrecipients” in addition to those recognized as Collaborating Entities. Subawards may be made to Statutory Partners (CBOs, Federally recognized Tribes, local governments, and institutions of higher education), as well as entities that cannot legally be Statutory Partners (e.g., states, territorial governments, Alaska Native Corporations, and international organizations).
In limited circumstances, projects to benefit U.S. disadvantaged communities near an international border may require some international work to be performed within 100 kilometers of that border (e.g., within 100 km south of the U.S.-Mexico border or north of the U.S.-Canada border). See Section II.B of the NOFO. In these cases, there may be some limited instances where a Collaborating Entity may be located outside of the United States. This may also apply to projects benefitting U.S. Territories.
No, the NOFO doesn’t indicate a required number of subawards to Collaborating Entities.
Yes, a Tribe can apply as a Lead Applicant for a project, even if it isn’t on tribal land, if their project benefits a disadvantaged community as described in Appendix A of the NOFO and meets all the other requirements noted in the NOFO. The determination of who becomes the Lead Applicant is up to the Tribe and its Statutory Partner.
Yes, as long as the contractor operating the FFRDC is a nonprofit organization and can meet the definition of a CBO in Section III.A of the NOFO. The nonprofit contractor operating the FFRDC may apply as part of a Statutory Partnership as described in Section III.A of the NOFO in its nonprofit capacity if they otherwise meet the requirements for a CBO in Section III.A of the NOFO and other NOFO requirements, and the Department of Energy or another Federal agency operating the FFRDC gives the FFRDC contractor permission to apply for the grant.