Red_Tree_Vole_Solicitation.pdf

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS 1. REQUISITION NUMBER PAGE 1 OF

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, & 30 964129 1 of 6

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE 4. ORDER NUMBER 5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE

DATE

12046W19Q0038

DATE

06/11/2019

7. FOR SOLICITATION INFORMATION

CALL:

a. NAME

Carol Hughes (Technical)

Leslie Solberg (Contracting)

503-808-2661

503-668-1667

8. OFFER DUE DATE/ LOCAL

TIME: 1:00pm

06/25/2019

9. ISSUED BY CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS UNRESTRICTED OR SET ASIDE: 100 % FOR

SMALL BUSINESS WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

HUBZONE SMALL (WOSB) ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM NAICS:

SERVICE DISABLED EDWOSB

VETERAN- OWNED SIZE STANDARD:

SMALL BUSINESS 8(A)

Mt. Hood National Forest

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, Oregon 97055

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINATION

UNLESS BLOCK IS MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS 13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED

ORDER UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13b. RATING

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFP

15. DELIVER TO CODE

See specifications.

16. ADMINISTERED BY CODE

See block 9.

17a. CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

Email Address_______________________________________

DUNS #____________________________________________

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

All invoices will be processed using the Department of

Treasury’s Invoice Processing Platform (IPP), visit http://www.ipp.gov to learn more. Contractors must follow the instructions on how to register and submit invoices via

IPP.

TELEPHONE N0.

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT SUCH ADDRESS IN 18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a UNLESS BLOCK BELOW

OFFER IS CHECKED

SEE ADDENDUM

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

ITEM N0. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

RED TREE VOLE VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

NAICS CODE: 541690

In accordance with the attached specifications, terms and conditions.

FAR Clauses and provisions incorporated by reference in this

Request for Quotation may be viewed in full text at the following web address www.arnet.gov/far

NOTE: Offerors must be registered in the System for Award

Management (SAM) https://www.sam.gov, including Online Representations and Certifications: FAR 52.212-3 (OCT 2018)

See web page: https://www.acquisition.gov.

(Use Reverse and/or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary)

Lump Sum

XXXXXXXXXX

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

See IAS requisition.

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Govt. Use Only)

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1, 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3 AND 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN _______1________ 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF. OFFER

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY DATED .. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED (BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS: ____________________

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 31c. DATE SIGNED

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV.2/2012)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.212 http://www.ipp.gov/ http://www.arnet.gov/far https://www.acquisition.gov/

RED TREE VOLE QUALITATIVE VIABLITY ANALYSIS

STATEMENT OF WORK

JUNE 10, 2019

BACKGROUND:

The Red tree vole is a USFS Region 6 Survey and Manage species that is endemic to western Oregon and a small portion of northern California within the Northwest Forest Plan area. It is considered uncommon and is a prey species of the Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) which is listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Red tree vole requires specific survey efforts and management of their nests and identified habitat areas in order to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence. New information is available since the species was last assessed (2003) for its persistence (viability). The agency has a need to evaluate this new information to determine the level of concern for species persistence.

In addition, the Forest Service has since issued a new planning rule (2012) that provides guidance on land management plan development, revision and amendment. The rule requires an assessment of potential at-risk species (called species of conservation concern) and requires that the plan maintains a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the land management plan area. The 2012 Planning Rule emphasizes plan components that provide ecosystem integrity and sustainability that provide for ecological conditions that provide for viable populations of species of conservation concern. If plan components are insufficient to provide for such ecological conditions, then species-specific plan components must be included in the plan to provide for such ecological conditions in the plan area.

The Red tree vole qualitative viability analysis would help prepare Region 6 to move forward with forest plan revisions or amendments within the Northwest Forest Plan area in regards to Red tree vole conservation.

NATURE OF THE ACQUISITION:

The nature of this acquisition is to establish a contract to conduct a GIS based, qualitative viability assessment for the Red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, across its full range and on each national forest within its range based on the current land management plans as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Record of

Decision. The end result will be a Bayesian Network model and final peer reviewed report summarizing and interpreting results, and documenting those results. In addition, the report should clearly identify habitat, risk factors and how those risk factors influence habitat quality and populations.

The key project objective is to determine Red tree vole viability outcomes for each national forest within the range of the Red tree vole and a viability outcome for the full range of the species.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

The vendor for the Red tree vole qualitative viability assessment will provide services to:

1. The overall task is to conduct a viability assessment consistent with applicable procedures conducted for national forests in northeastern Washington (see PNW-GTR-907, https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55255). “Applicable” procedures are noted since the Red tree vole viability assessment is for one species as compared to over 209 terrestrial species assessed for national forests in northeastern Washington, therefore, there is no need to identify species of conservation concern and identify surrogate species.

a. Citation for PNW-GTR-907 is “Gaines, WL, Barbara C. Wales, Lowell H. Suring, James S.

Begley, Kim Mellen-McLean, and Shawn Mohoric. 2017. Terrestrial Species Viability

Assessments for National Forests in Northeastern Washington. PNW-GTR-907.”

2. Detailed tasks are to:

a. Gather available data on Red tree vole ecological requirements.

i. The specific data to understand the species ecological requirements are source habitats, fine-scale habitats, dispersal habitats and capabilities, and home range size. This data would be based on existing vegetation and habitat models, existing information, and published manuscripts.

b. Develop a Bayesian Network model for planning areas (national forests) and fifth-field watersheds within those national forests.

i. This consists of determining coarse and fine-scale habitat variables, risk factors to species viability, and how those risk factors influence habitat quality and populations.

ii. The model would be based on the current national forest land management plans as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, yet the model would be developed to be responsive to different management actions (once national forests within the range of the

Red tree vole do initiate plan revision).

1. The Region 6 national forests within the range of the Red tree vole are the Mt.

Hood, Willamette, Umpqua, Rogue River-Siskiyou and Siuslaw National Forests and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

2. The Region 5 national forest within the range of the Red tree vole are the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests.

c. Collaborate with scientists and managers to review and refine the Bayesian Network models.

This includes coordinating with scientists knowledgeable about Red tree voles and viability analyses, and managers in an effective manner to receive and incorporate their comments. A workshop format would likely be most effective.

d. Incorporate needed changes to the preliminary Bayesian Network model from collaboration with scientists and managers and then coordinate with a subgroup for review of the preliminary results from the model and make adjustments, as needed.

e. Write and submit a final peer-reviewed report.

PROJECT DELIVERABLES and DUE DATES:

1. Provide data gathered on Red tree vole ecological requirements.

a. Due date: Two months after start work date.

2. Submit a draft of the Bayesian Network model developed using Netica software for Red tree vole viability assessment for the current national forest land management plans as amended by the 1994

Northwest Forest Plan that is responsive to different management actions. Provide list of scientists and managers that will review the model.

a. Due date: Four months after Deliverable 1 has been received.

3. Submit a final Bayesian Network model.

a. Due date: Two months after the draft Bayesian Network model.

4. A written peer-reviewed report documenting Red tree vole viability procedures and outcomes. This involves summarizing, interpreting results, and documenting results. Specifically, document the Red tree vole ecological requirements (as noted above), habitat and risk factors incorporated into the model, and the data relied upon. Also, the report would include a list of scientists and managers conducting reviews, the data sources that were utilized to develop the model, and literature cited.

a. Due date: No later than September 30, 2020

CONTRACT CLAUSES

FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar http://www.dm.usda.gov/procurement/policy/agar.html

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES

52.207-7 System for Award Management (OCT2018)

52.204-13 System for Award Management Maintenance (OCT 2018)

52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal (JAN 2017)

52.209-10 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (NOV 2015)

52.219-6 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2011)

52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (JULY 2013)

52.222-3 Convict Labor (JUN 2003)

52.222-21 Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (APR 2015)

52.222-26 Equal Opportunity (SEPT 2016)

52.222-36 Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (JULY 2014)

52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (MAY 2014)

52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons (MAR 2015)

52.223-6 Drug-Free Workplace (MAY 2001)

52.223-17 Affirmative Procurement of EPA-designated Items in Service and Construction

Contracts (MAY 2008)

52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving

(AUG 2011)

52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (JUN 2008)

52.232-1 Payments (APR 1984)

52.232-8 Discounts for Prompt Payment (FEB 2002)

52.232-9 Limitation on Withholding of Payments (APR 1984)

52.232-11 Extras (APR 1984)

52.232-16 Progress Payments (APR 2012)

52.232-23 Assignment of Claims (MAY 2014)

52.232-25 Prompt Payment (JAN 2017)

52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer – System for Award Management

(JULY 2013)

52.232-39 Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (JUNE 2013)

52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (DEC 2013)

52.233-1 Disputes (MAY 2014)

52.233-3 Protest After Award (AUG 1996)

52.233-4 Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004)

52.237-2 Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation (APR 1984)

52.243-1 Changes--Fixed-Price (AUG 1987)--Alternate I (APR 1984)

52.244-6 Subcontracts for Commercial Items (NOV 2017)

52.245-1 Government Property (JAN 2017) Alternate I (APR 2012)

52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services (APR 2012)

52.246-25 Limitation of Liability—Services (FEB 1997) https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar http://www.dm.usda.gov/procurement/policy/agar.html

52.249-1 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price) (Short From)

(APR 1984)

52.249-8 Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service) (APR 1984)

52.253-1 Computer Generated Forms (JAN 1991)

AWARD DETERMINATION

The Government will issue an order as a result of this Request for Quotations to the responsible quoter whose quote, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

a) Technical Capability (Viewed as a measure of contractor’s relevant experience and past performance)

b) Price

Technical capability and Past performance, when combined, are of primary, but not exclusive or limiting importance. Pricing is an important but secondary factor.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION FACTORS:

Technical capability is comprised of an offerors experience and past performance. Provide contact information for previous projects that will be utilized in evaluating each offerors technical and past performance.

1. Experience:

a. Do you have experience conducting wildlife species viability assessments?

i. If yes, how many years?

ii. Please describe and demonstrate that experience.

b. Do you have experience with the Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule?

i. If yes, how many years?

ii. Please describe and demonstrate that experience.

c. Do you have experience with developing, running and analyzing Bayesian Network models that relies upon Netica software?

i. If yes, how many years?

ii. Please describe and demonstrate that experience.

d. Do you have Geospatial Information System (GIS) experience?

i. If yes, how many years?

ii. Please describe and demonstrate that experience.

2. Past performance:

a. Have you ever failed to complete any work awarded to you?

b. Has work ever been completed by a performance bond?

c. If yes, to questions 1 or 2, specify the project(s) and reason(s) why.

PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR QUOTE:

Page 1 of the solicitation

Technical evaluation experience/past performance information

Quote is due by 1:00pm (PST) on 06/25/19. Email to: lsolberg@fs.fed.us mailto:lsolberg@fs.fed.us