Request for Proposal (RFP) for Legal Assistance in the Area of Environmental Law for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (“SRPMIC” or “Community”) is seeking proposals from attorneys licensed in Arizona. Applicants must have three or more years of substantive experience in environmental law, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Insecticide Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and other federal environmental laws. Prior experience working for or with an American Indian Tribe is desired. Applicant will supervised by the SRPMIC Office of the General Counsel.

BACKGROUND
The Community is located in Maricopa County and is bounded by the cities of Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and Fountain Hills. The Community encompasses 52,600 acres, with 19,000 held as a natural preserve, and has 12,000 acres of active farmland. With two distinct backgrounds and cultures, the Community is comprised of two Native American tribes: the Pima, “Akimel O’Odham” (River People) and the Maricopa, “Xalychidom Piipaash” (People who live toward the water). Today, more than 9,000 individuals are enrolled tribal members.

The Community is constitutionally-organized under Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Comprised of the President, Vice President and seven elected Council members, the Community Council governs the Community.

SCOPE OF WORK
The Community seeks legal assistance in the following areas: 1) the review and revision of existing amendments to the proposed SRPMIC Pesticide Ordinance; 2) legal advice regarding the Clean Air Act, including treatment as a State (TAS), Minor New Source review, permitting and development of a Tribal Implementation Plan, knowledge of Tribal Authority Rule is needed; and 3) legal advice regarding the Clean Water Act, including treatment as a State, review and submittal of surface and ground water quality standards, nonpoint source and groundwater issues, stormwater and permitting.

SUBMITTAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
All respondents are required to follow the format specified below. Applicants shall base their submittals on the “Scope of Work.”
I. Cover Page. The Proposal shall include the Request for Proposal Title, submittal due date, and name, address, fax number, and telephone number.
II. Resume: Qualifications and Experience. This section will contain a description of the Applicant’s educational background, training, and experience in environmental law and working with American Indian tribes.
Applicant (and/or Applicant’s Team). Applicant will provide a list of individuals that would be assigned to this project and what their roles and responsibilities would be. In addition to the Applicant’s professional qualifications, experience and any other information pertaining to their ability to perform the duties shall be provided.

Past Experience. Applicant will discuss a list of at least two (2) representative projects, which are similar in scope and nature to the services requested by the Community. For each past project discussed, the Applicant shall specify the services contracted for, the start and completion dates, and the name, address and telephone number of a contact person.

Arizona Bar Admission. The respondent must be in good standing and licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona.

III. Conflicts of Interest. The respondent must disclose any potential conflicts of interest which might arise if they were to accept an award of a contract with the Community.

IV. Certification. The respondent will provide a certification that the statements contained in their proposal are true and correct to the best of their knowledge.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
Choice of Law. The contract regarding these services will be governed and construed in accordance with and pursuant to the laws of the SRPMIC.

Non-Binding. The Community retains the right to reject all submittals. Selection is also dependant on the negotiation of a mutually acceptable contract between the Applicant and the Community.

Consultant’s Responsibility. The consultant shall be responsible for obtaining a SPRMIC Business License and a SRPMIC Privilege Tax Permit prior to commencing work on the project and complying with the provisions of applicable SRPMIC ordinances and regulations.

Proprietary Information. Any restrictions on the use and ownership of the information contained within the Applicant’s response to this Request for Proposal must be clearly stated within the response. All other material contained in the proposal shall become property of the SRPMIC.

V. Contract Price. During FY 2010, the SRPMIC has only $36,000 available to fund the environmental services requested above. Work will end when available funds are exhausted. Additional funds may become available in FY 2011.

SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE & PROCESS
The evaluation of submittals will follow the following schedule. Dates shown are subject to change.

Distribution/Advertisement: January 4, 2010 — January 25, 2010
Submittal Deadline: January 25, 2010 at 4 p.m. 3 　 　
Five (5) originals of the submittal must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on January 25, 2010 to:

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Office of the General Counsel
Attn: Michael Shiel, General Counsel
10,005 E. Osborn Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85256
Copies received by FAX shall not be deemed delivered or received.

SUBMITTAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Representatives of the Community will review the responses to this RFP which meet the outlined requirements and are received before the designated closing date and time.

Evaluation Factor Score
Conformance to the specified RFP format & Organization and Presentation of the Content
5

Education, experience, and technical competence in the following: 1) Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, FIFRA and other federal environmental laws; 2) the type of services being requested in this RFP; and 3) record of performance, including reference checks and the strength of the credentials.
65

Knowledge and understanding of federal Indian law.
20

Competitive salary range based on experience and credentials.
5

Indian Preference.
5

Total Score
100

Indian Preference. In accordance with the SRPMIC Procurement Policy and Section 7(b) of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 USC 250 (b)), SRPMIC shall give preference when awarding contracts in the following order:
A. Certified Community-owned businesses;
B. Certified Community Member-owned business or individual Community Members;
C. Other certified native American-owner businesses or individual Native Americans and
D. A firm or individual seeking certification as a Community Member-owned or Native American-owned business enterprise shall submit a completed application to the SRPMIC’s Purchasing Department.
Preference in the award of contracts shall be given to qualified Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Financial Act of 1974 (25 USC 1452)
　

Feds, Indians reach $3.4 billion settlement in royalty suit
Dan Nowicki – Dec. 9, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

More than 300,000 American Indians, including about 20,000 in Arizona, would settle their long-standing complaints about U.S. mismanagement of their trust accounts for $1.4 billion, under an agreement announced Tuesday by the Obama administration.

The settlement, which must be approved by Congress and a federal judge, would end a complicated and bitter class-action lawsuit that dates to President Bill Clinton’s administration.
The suit alleges that sloppy bookkeeping by the federal government has robbed the Indians of more than a century’s worth of revenue from mining, grazing, logging and other uses of their land.

Also, as part of the settlement, the federal government will introduce a $2 billion program to buy back and consolidate Indian land that had been “fractionated” into multiple individual owners over generations, making it difficult to develop.

The Interior Department would reform its accounting practices to ensure better quality control of individual Indian trust accounts and assets.

“Today is a monumental day for all of the people in Indian country who have waited so long for justice,” said Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet Tribe member from Browning, Mont., and the lead plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in 1996.

A database released by the Interior Department’s Office of Special Trustee for American Indians shows 20,393 Native Americans who live in Arizona hold Individual Indian Money Accounts that would qualify them for compensation under the proposed settlement.

That number includes members of out-of-state tribes who reside here, as well as members of Arizona-based Indian communities living in the state.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona applauded the prospect of a settlement, which was announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Attorney General Eric Holder.
“The settlement not only resolves past issues but charts a way forward in a manner intended to prevent future disputes,” Kyl said.

As then-chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, McCain introduced legislation in 2005 in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute.

“The financial mismanagement of American Indian trust accounts has long plagued relations between the U.S. government and American Indians,” McCain said.

“I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to determine the next steps for congressional action on this matter.”

Among the Arizona tribes with the highest number of affected members are the Gila River Indian Community, the Navajo Nation, the Tohono O’odham Nation, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
President Barack Obama called the development “an important step towards a sincere reconciliation
<http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/09/20091209cobell1209.html#> between the trust beneficiaries and the federal government” that will lead to better future management of Indian assets.

He urged Congress to take swift action to “correct this long-standing injustice” by endorsing the settlement.

The money for the settlement would come out of a litigation fund maintained by the Justice and Treasury departments and wouldn’t require a new congressional appropriation.

“As a candidate, I heard from many in Indian country that the Cobell suit remained a stain on the nation-to-nation relationship I value so much,” Obama said in a written statement. “I pledged my commitment to resolving this issue, and I am proud that my administration has taken this step today.”

The proposed $3.4 billion settlement represents a small percentage of what the Indians say they’ve lost since 1887. In the past, Cobell and her lawyers <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/09/20091209cobell1209.html#> had claimed the Interior Department owed Indian landowners more than $100 billion.

For her part, Cobell said she personally would have preferred to “litigate for another 100 years.” But many of her fellow beneficiaries are elderly, and the majority live in poverty. They need their money and probably can’t wait for the court case to drag on for 20 more years, she said.
The conciliatory attitude of the Obama administration, which she characterized as a refreshing change from President George W. Bush’s Interior Department, also helped make the time right for a settlement.

“Did we get all the money that was due us? Probably not, but . . . there are too many individual Indian beneficiaries that are dying every single day without their money,” Cobell said. “At least this settlement will give those particular people a payment of that money that has been due them for a number of years.”

John Lewis, executive director of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, called the settlement “a positive action, a good sign for this administration.” His non-profit group, overseen by Arizona tribal leaders, promotes Indian self-reliance.

The Interior Department says it oversees approximately 56 million acres of Indian trust land and $3.5 billion in trust funds and administers more than 100,000 leases. The Cobell class action charged that, for more than 100 years, the federal government did not accurately keep track of royalties <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/09/20091209cobell1209.html#> owed to the Indians for farming, grazing, mining, logging and other activities.

Under the settlement’s $1.4 billion payout, the typical individual in the historical accounting class would get $1,000. The exact number of Indian beneficiaries is unclear. The Interior Department put the figure at more than 300,000, but it could be more than 500,000.

The settlement’s land-consolidation provision is an attempt to undo the consequences of the Dawes Act of 1887, which cut up tribal lands into pieces of 40 acres and 160 acres and allotted them to individual Indians.

Over the years, the properties were divided among their children, grandchildren and subsequent generations until the point where some parcels now have so many owners that productive development is all but impossible. The new program would allow the government to buy back pieces, if the owners wanted to sell, and assemble larger, more useful tracts that the Indian communities would control.

Robert Clinton, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in Indian law, was skeptical that the plan would eliminate the problems associated with the fractional allotments.
“Not immediately,” he said, “and not totally.”

Republic reporter Dennis Wagner contributed to this article.