National Ground-Water Monitoring Network

“What Makes a Good Proposal?”

2020 NGWMN Funding Opportunity

NGWMN Program Board

Outline• Review 2020 Funding Opportunity

– Changes in Program Announcement– Points to Remember

• What makes a good proposal presentation• Support resources• Questions

Funding Opportunity for 2020• Application period is open from September 30th, 2019

through January 17th, 2020

Changes in Program Announcement• Clarified that annual funding cannot exceed $150,000 and that the maximum funding

for a project is $300,000. The annual limits apply to both active work under existing awards and work included in a proposal submitted for this round of funding

• Removed $135,000 per year limit on work under Objectives 1, 3, 4, and 5. Still must meet $150,000 per year limit

• Added link to spreadsheet of well densities. Applicants should consult this before proposing adding new wells to the NGWMN

• Added statement that work used as match should be done at NGWMN sites• Added a section describing the Final Project Report. This was previously included in

Attachment C• Provided additional details on what is needed on maps• Clarified use of links to address references for methods• Added a request for a table showing funding for NGWMN agreements (past and

current proposal) by objective• Match is no longer required for work under Objectives 1 or 2

Changes in Program Announcement (continued)• Objective 1 is now only to support new data providers• Objective 2- Persistent Data Services

– Increased amount allowed for routine Objective 2 work to $20,000 per year– Added work to provide updates to Data Provider pages as a supported task– Objective 2 work has two parts (A and B)

• A. Routine Persistent Data Services work • B. Special work to update services or add services or a large number of sites

• Require a paragraph for each well under Objective 4-5 that describes the need for the work and planned approach

• Objective 4- Well Maintenance– Added statement encouraging a quantitative approach for well integrity testing

• Objective 5- Well Drilling– Added requirement to justify well drilling methods– Added statement encouraging construction diagrams for wells– Added requirement that the agency meet state drilling requirements – Clarified that all wells drilled must be added to the NGWMN– Consider NGWMN well density guidelines when proposing new wells– Specified that wells drilled as in-kind services should be described in the same

manner (summary paragraph) and added to the Well Registry

Changes in Program Announcement (continued)• Added statement that specifies the Data Management Plan should include all water-

level or water-quality data collected by the agency for the NGWMN• Added new ‘Technical Quality’ criteria to quantify the quality of the work apart from

the quality of the proposal as part of the proposal evaluation• Requirements for detailed budgets for contracted work have been expanded. Need to

provide more details on contracted work.• Example budgets were revised to reflect:

1. Removal of match requirement for Objectives 1 and 22. Additional details needed for contract work

Note that in November the SOGW changed the sampling frequency requirement for water-quality network Surveillance wells from once every 5 years to once every 10 years. The relevant tip sheets have been updated

Points to Remember• Please contact Daryll Pope if you have any questions.• Applications which show an understanding of and reference to the Framework

Document and Tip Sheets will be scored higher.• Do not include work under Objectives 4 or 5 in a proposal to become a new data

provider. • For Objective 1, make sure you include a map with your potential sites and any

existing NGWMN sites in your state (including those from other data providers) and include the Principal aquifers.

• For Objectives 3-5, include a separate map for each objective that shows the sites where work is proposed and the Principal aquifers. For Objective 5, always show any existing NGWMN sites on the map in addition to any new or replacement wells.

• Include a scale bar, north arrow, and an explanation for each map. If the map is zoomed in for detail, make sure to include an inset map showing the location on a statewide map.

• If you are proposing work at specific sites for Objectives 3-5, make sure you include a table of the sites you will be working on. The table must include the NGWMN ID. All sites for which work is proposed (except new wells proposed for drilling) must be in the NGWMN Well Registry by January 17th, 2020.

Points to Remember (continued)• For well rehabilitation and well drilling work, include a paragraph describing each well

where work is proposed. This should include the need for the work, a description of the work planned, and how the work benefits or fills gaps in the NGWMN.

• Always include in-kind services match for each objective for any work proposed under Objectives 3, 4, or 5. Objectives that have less than 50% match will be scored lower during proposal evaluation.

• Use the budget formats described in Section 11.C and depicted in the examples included in Attachment B.

• Make sure the Budget Summary and the budget in the SF-424A form are consistent with the detailed budgets for each objective included in the proposal.

• Make sure to proofread your proposal before submitting.• If your project involves a contract, you must provide details on the cost estimates for

the work under the contract. Costs for contract work must be itemized. See the example budgets for objectives 1 and 5 for reference.

• Allow enough time to hire contractors (drillers, well rehabilitation) so that the project is not delayed. This will help reduce the number of no-cost extensions. Please include this on the timeline for objectives that involve contractors. Make sure to proofread your proposal and double check the budgets.

What Makes a Good Proposal?

– Points to Remember – Contact me– NGWMN perspective– Maps– Tables– Drilling and Well

Maintenance descriptive paragraphs

– Drilling considerations– Well Maintenance

considerations

– Match– Budgets– Contracts– Proofreading proposal– Ideal proposal is ‘Simple

and complete’– Proposal review criteria

During the proposal review meeting last year the Program Board talked about what we could do to improve the quality of the proposals. This presentation is the result of that discussion. Here are the topics we will be discussing.

Points to Remember

• Paying attention to the ‘Points to Remember’ section is the best way to ensure you have a good proposal

• We have condensed the most important factors to consider when putting a proposal together into this one page summary

• The rest of this section on ‘What Makes a Good ‘Proposal’ is based on the ‘Points to Remember’ section and adds details to the points listed there

Contact me

• I can answer questions about your proposal. Please contact me with any questions you have

• I cannot see or review your proposal before it is submitted

• But if you have questions about:– We want to do ___, is this allowed?– What Objective would ___ best fit it?– Is ___ allowed under Objective ___?,Please contact me and we can discuss

NGWMN Perspective

• The main goal of the funding opportunity is to develop and enhance the NGWMN

• We do want the work that we fund to be beneficial to your agency. In most cases, proposed work can benefit the NGWMN and still meet your agency goals too

• Keep the NGWMN perspective and goals in mind when proposing work

• Always make sure that the benefits of the work to the NGWMN are clear in your proposal– Tie work to the NGWMN Framework Document– Refer to Tip sheets– Keep well density in mind– Focus on Principal and Major aquifer scale

Maps• Maps help convey lots of information

– New Data Provider proposals (Objective 1) should show prospective sites to include in the NGWMN, existing current NGWMN sites in the area, and Principal aquifers

– Proposals for Objectives 2-5 should show locations of all sites for which work is proposed under that Objective. These should also include current NGWMN sites, prospective sites, and principal aquifers as appropriate

• All maps should:– Have a scale bar– Have a north arrow– Have an explanation

• If a map is zoomed in, make sure there is an inset box shown on a map of the state

Map for new data provider project• Explanation• Scale bar• Principal

aquifers• Potential

sites• Current

NGWMN sites (CRN)

Map courtesy of the Kentucky Geological Survey

Map for Objective 4 work• Explanation• Scale bar• Principal

aquifers• Proposed

sites• Past and

ongoing sites

Map courtesy of the Iowa Geological Survey

GIS Resources for Maps• We have recently added some GIS data to the ‘Data

Providers’ tab on the NGWMN Data Portal – https://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/learnmore.jsp#dataProviders

• You can now download a zip file that contains Shapefiles of the ‘Principal Aquifers of the United States’ and ‘Aquifers of Alluvial and Glacial Origin’

• You can also download a zip file that contains a Shapefile of the sites in the NGWMN as of December 1st, 2019

• Both of these will be helpful in putting maps together for the funding opportunity.

Tables• Sites for which any work is proposed under objectives 3-

5, should be presented in a table • The table needs to include the NGWMN-ID (Site

Number)• Therefore the sites need to be in the Well Registry on

the date that proposals are due (January 17, 2020)• Sites can be in the Registry and have display turned off if

they do not meet NGWMN criteria yet, but if the proposed work would fill NGWMN gaps

• Having an estimated cost per well in the table is often beneficial

• Please show the Principal aquifer• Describing work proposed at each site can be helpful

Example table of sites for well maintenance activites

Costs

hidden

Table courtesy of the Iowa Geological Survey

Costs

hidden

Drilling and Well Maintenance descriptive paragraphs

• For each site for which any well maintenance or well drilling work is proposed, you need to have a paragraph describing: The well identifier, the need for the work, the approach you are taking to do the work, and benefits of doing the work (to the NGWMN)

• Is helpful to include cost estimates for each well so that funding decisions can be made on a per well basis if needed

• Still need a table showing all sites for which you will do work

Example well maintenance paragraph

Example courtesy of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

Example well drilling paragraph

Example courtesy of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

Drilling considerations• Well construction diagrams are very helpful and

encouraged. Can use a generic one instead of needing one for each well

• Make sure you mention that you will meet your states well drilling requirements

• Specify that new wells and wells drilled as in-kind services will be added to the NGWMN

• Describe wells drilled as in-kind services using same paragraph format as for funded wells

• Justify any special drilling techniques proposed. Make sure additional cost benefits the NGWMN

• Drilling is construction. Need form SF-424D (Assurances for Construction Programs)

Example well construction diagram

Diagram courtesy of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Diagram courtesy of the Washington Department of Natural Resources

Well Maintenance considerations• Make sure you explain the need for the work, your

proposed approach, and how the approach will meet the needs for the work

• Include references for methods you will be using (can be links). This should be for data collection, data analysis, well rehabilitation, etc.

• Pictures can be very helpful for well maintenance work

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Maryland Geological Survey

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Match• No match is required for Objectives 1 or 2• For Objectives 3-5, please demonstrate at least 50%

agency match FOR EACH OBJECTIVE (can be in-kind services)

• Include the match in your detailed budgets• Include details on the match, not just a lump sum as

match. Describe match tasks in the same way as you describe USGS funded work

Budgets• Use the format provided for the detailed budgets. These

budgets contain the information we need to make decisions. If you leave any of this information out, it may affect the ranking of your proposal

• Proposals need: a budget summary for project, a detailed budget for each Objective applied for, and a SF-424 budget form. Make sure these budgets are consistent

• Include in-kind services in the detailed budget. List specific tasks

• Review new budget guidelines for contracts• Proofread/check your budgets• Make realistic budget estimates

Contracts• Need to provide specific costs for contract work• Contract budgets should be similar to budgets for work

your agency does• Cannot provide a lump sum for contract work

– Will score lower in Budget category– This may delay your award

• Allow time in your objective timeline for establishing contracts– This always takes longer than expected. – We want to minimize requests for no-cost extensions. – These are often related to delays in the contracting process

Example detailed budget for contracted portion of work

Budget considerations during project• Work must be conducted within the performance period

of the award. We want to limit the number of no-cost extensions. So please think about your timeline

• Budget changes of more than 10% of the total award amount require an award modification

• All funds must be used within the same objective whether an award modification is needed or not

• Our cooperative agreements are a competitive process. Proposals are reviewed by the NGWMN Program Board and they make their recommendations based on the merits of the work described in the proposal. Please prepare realistic budgets– You can’t get additional funding if you underbudget– You can’t use excess funds (>10% of total) for additional work

Proofreading your proposal

• Make sure you allow adequate time to review your proposal

• Basic proofreading is a must• Shortcoming will result in a lower score in our new

‘Proposal Quality’ Criteria• Have someone else review the proposal before

submitting it• Make sure to review your budgets carefully. We are

going to be paying much closer attention to them during the proposal review process

Ideal proposal is ‘Simple and complete’

• We don’t need (or want) excessively long proposals• We want the proposals to include the required

information but to be as simple as possible• Provide requested background information even if you

have submitted previously– We have new members to the Program Board each year

who need this background information– Ongoing members do not have access to previous

proposals. After review they must destroy them

Proposal review criteria• Each objective proposed will be evaluated and ranked by

the NGWMN Program Board using the following criteria1. Relevance

Considers relevance and importance of the activity as it relates to the USGS NGWMN Program goals.

2. Technical qualityConsiders the merit of the proposed approach, chance of success, attentions to NGWMN requirements, and completion of previous project.

3. Proposal qualityConsiders the overall quality of the proposal. Were requirements met? Is it clear?

4. BudgetConsiders whether the proposed budget reflects the level of effort to accomplish the work. Also consider completeness and accuracy of detailed budgets.

Proposals are reviewed and scored by the NGWMN Program Board. Six of the 10 members represent data provider agencies

Relevance scoring

RelevanceThis factor considers the relevance and importance of the activity as it relates to the USGS NGWMN Program goals and can include the geographic area and Principal aquifers being proposed. • The Proposed work helps fill gaps in the NGWMN• The Proposed work enhances the data available to the NGWMN• The Proposed work supports the long-term goals of the NGWMN• The work addresses Secretarial Priorities for Financial Assistance (Attachment

D) by using science to manage water resources (Priority 1a) and expanding lines of communication with state or local water resource agencies (Priority 3b)

Score Description1 Proposed work does not address needs of the NGWMN.2-3 Proposed work primarily meets applicant agency needs. Does not significantly fill

gaps in the NGWMN, enhance data available to the NGWMN, or support the goals of the NGWMN.

4-5 Proposed work is adequate. Only one of the following is met: 1) Helps fill NGWMN gaps. 2) Enhances data in the NGWMN. 3) Supports the long-term goals of the NGWMN.

6-7 Proposed work is adequate. Two of the following are met: 1) Helps fill NGWMN gaps. 2) Enhances data in the NGWMN. 3) Supports the long-term goals of the NGWMN.

8-9 Proposed work is good. Helps fill NGWMN gaps. Enhances data in NGWMN. Supports the long-term goals of the NGWMN.

10 Proposed work is superior. Helps fill gaps in the NGWMN, enhances data in to the NGWMN, and supports the long-term goals of the NGWMN.

Technical Quality scoring

Technical Quality

This factor considers the merit of the proposed approach, the chance of success, attention to NGWMN requirements, and completion of required products. • The work plan for the objective follows the requirements of the Program

Announcement and adequately describes the work needed• Includes considerations of requirements from the NGWMN Framework

DocumentScore Description1 Proposed work is deficient. Approach is questionable and not documented. Program

Announcement requirements were not followed. No evident familiarity with Framework Document.

2-3 Proposed work has deficiencies. Missing some Program Announcement requirements. Limited or no understanding of Framework Document is evident.

4-5 Proposed work is adequate. Only one of the following is met: 1) Approach is acceptable and documented and will meet NGWMN Goals. 2) Follows Program Announcement requirements. 3) Demonstrates familiarity with Framework Document.

6-7 Proposed work is adequate. Only two of the following are met: 1) Approach is acceptable and documented and will meet NGWMN Goals. 2) Follows Program Announcement requirements. 3) Demonstrates familiarity with Framework Document.

8-9 Proposed work is good. All three of the following are met: 1) Approach is acceptable and documented and will meet NGWMN Goals. 2) Follows Program Announcement requirements. 3) Demonstrates familiarity with Framework Document.

10 Proposed work is superior. Approach is sound and well-documented and meets NGWMN goals. Follows all Program Announcement requirements. Strong familiarity with Framework Document is evident.

Proposal Quality scoring

Proposal QualityThis factor considers the quality of the proposal relative to the objective.• The proposal is well written and adequately proofread• The proposal is complete but concise• Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement

Score Description1 Proposal is deficient. The proposal is not well written or well organized. Required

elements are missing. Maps and figures do not meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement.

2-3 Proposal is poor. Only one of the following is met: 1) Proposal is well written, 2), Proposal is organized, 3) Required elements are available, 4) Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement.

4-5 Proposal is weak. Two of the following are met: 1) Proposal is well written, 2), Proposal is organized, 3) Required elements are available, 4) Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement.

6-7 Proposal is good. Three of the following are met: 1) Proposal is well written, 2), Proposal is organized, 3) Required elements are available, 4) Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement.

8-9 Proposal is strong. All four of the following are met: 1) Proposal is well written, 2), Proposal is organized, 3) Required elements are available, 4) Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement.

10 Proposal is superior. The proposal is very well written and organized. All required elements are included. Maps, figures, and tables meet the guidelines of the Program Announcement and are of good quality.

Budget Scoring

BudgetThis factor considers whether the proposed budget reflects the level of effort required to accomplish the work. • The required budgets are complete and follow the format specified in the

Program Announcement• Budgets have sufficient detail• Costs are reasonable and justified• Proposals for work under Objectives 3, 4, or 5 that provide less than 50% in-kind

services match will be scored lower.Score Description1-2 Cost for proposed work is high. Budgets are incomplete and lack detail. Costs are not

well justified and are unreasonable3-4 Only one of the following is met: 1) Budgets are complete and follow specified format,

2) Budgets have sufficient detail, 3) costs are reasonable and justified5-6 Two of the following are met: 1) Budgets are complete and follow specified format, 2)

Budgets have sufficient detail, 3) costs are reasonable and justified7-9 All three of the following are met: 1) Budgets are complete and follow specified

format, 2) Budgets have sufficient detail, 3) costs are reasonable and justified10 Cost for proposed work is low, all budgets are complete and accurate, budgets are

details, and costs are reasonable and justified. Penalty Subtract three points from score above if in-kind services match is less than 50% for

work proposed under Objectives 3, 4, or 5 or if there is no direct match of drilling services for Objective 5. Minimum score is 1.

Thanks• Thanks to the following agencies for allowing us to use

examples from their proposals– Kentucky Geological Survey (new data provider map)– Iowa Geological Survey (Obj 4 map and table)– Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey (example

paragraphs on maintenance and drilling)– Missouri Department of Natural Resources (well

construction diagram and borehole camera images)– Washington Department of Natural Resources (well

construction diagram)– Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (photo of irrigation

well with pump for removal)– Maryland Geological Survey (photo of shelter needing

repair)

Support• ACWI Subcommittee on Ground Water page

http://acwi.gov/sogw/index.html• Framework Document

http://acwi.gov/sogw/ngwmn_framework_report_july2013.pdf• NGWMN Web Page

http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/– NGWMN Cooperative agreements page

http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/cooperativeagreements.jsp• Includes Frequently Asked Questions

http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/cooperativeagreementsfaq.jsp• This Presentation

http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/doc/GoodProposal_2020.pdf

Tip Sheets• Created to help data providers with common tasks• Current tip sheets

– NGWMN Subnetwork– NGWMN Monitoring Categories (revised Nov 2019)– NGWMN WL Criteria (revised Nov 2019)– NGWMN WQ Criteria (revised Nov 2019)– NGWMN Well Registry– NGWMN Minimum Data Elements– NGWMN Web services– Standard Elements for Water-Quality Web Services

http://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/learnmore.jsp‘Data Provider’ tab – ‘Resources for New Data Providers’

GIS Resources• Select GIS resources are now available on the ‘Data

Providers’ tab of the NGWMN Data Portal – https://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/learnmore.jsp#dataProviders

• Zip file contains Shapefiles of the ‘Principal Aquifers of the United States’ and ‘Aquifers of Alluvial and Glacial Origin’

• Zip file that contains a Shapefile of the sites in the NGWMN as of December 1st, 2019

• Daryll Pope dpope@usgs.govOffice: (804) 261-2630Cell: (609) 462-7119

http://acwi.gov/http://acwi.gov/sogw/index.htmlhttp://cida.usgs.gov/ngwmn/

Questions