C05a SF-30 1284LM26Q0117.pdf

(x)

1284LM26Q0117

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

84LM

OGDEN UT 84401-2310

324 25TH ST

USDA-FS CSA INTERMOUNTAIN 2

07/15/20260001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

07/15/2026

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Amendment 0001 incorporates Questions and Answers (pp. 2-5 of this document) and extends the due date for quotes from 08/06/2026 to 08/13/2026.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

JOANNE MEIERS

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Solicitation No. 1284LM26Q0117 Questions and Answers

Question 1: Section 7 of Call Form states: “Please note that using artificial intelligence (AI) to complete this work is not permitted under the resultant call order.” As previous greater sage-grouse land management plan amendments have received tens of thousands of comments, is it permissible to use AI only for Task 5: Content Analysis scoping comment review and response tracking document, with appropriate quality control and assurance procedures?

Answer: The agency does not have an AI governance in place to manage non-FS AI platforms and is currently developing/transitioning to a system to support this task and transparency of AI use is critical to manage as part of our contracts. The agency will require the contractor to use appropriate agency systems and AI tools to the capacity possible to support content analysis of input received during comment periods.

Question 2: Task 5 is entitled “Content Analysis of Public Comments (NOI/scoping and NOA)” and Section 3.4.4 states “Please note that 3.5 Task 5: Content Analysis of Public Comments will inform the majority of the changes needed to finalize the EIS)”. However, Tasks 3.5.1 – 3.5.4 discuss only scoping comment review and deliverables. Should we assume that comment review, tracking document, summary report, and IDT resolution workshops will occur for both scoping and DEIS public comments?

Answer: Processing scoping does not require the amount of processing and documentation that is necessary to support how we considered/integrated/responded to Public Comments on the DEIS. Scoping comments will only need to be summarized and provided to the team while DEIS public comments will require comment review, tracking, summary, and IDT resolution workshops. We will revise the PWS language in the future to clarify that:

Task 3.5.1 applies to scoping comments.

Task 3.5.2 through 3.5.5 applies to DEIS comments, but not to scoping comments.

Question 3: Does the Forest Service anticipate having cooperating agencies for the NEPA process? If so, does the Forest Service have an estimate of how many? Under which tasks should cooperating agency meetings and review periods be scoped?

Answer: We will have cooperating government agencies as part of this, but this contractor would not be supporting any meetings with them, except to prepare any documents or information that we might share related to the current drafts of documents and incorporating any input they might provide. These tasks are reflected in the statement of work as tasks:

3.3.1: Public Participation – Outreach Support and External Communications; and

3.7: Writer and Editor Functions.

The contractor will not be asked to facilitate meetings with cooperating agencies. Our team will be facilitating all meetings with them.

Question 4: We understand that the PWS states no contractor travel is anticipated.

However, does the Forest Service intend to conduct in-person scoping or DEIS public comment meetings?

Answer: This BPA Call Order does not require the contractor to directly support in-person scoping or DEIS public comment meetings, only to provide content to support the FS conducting such meetings, as necessary and as developed as part of the public engagement plan specific to the project. The contractor will not be expected to attend/travel to these meetings.

Question 5: Previous sage grouse land management planning EIS processes by the Forest Service and BLM have resulted in more than one Record of Decision. Please confirm that one draft and final ROD will be necessary, as indicated in Task 3.4.5.

Answer: No, there will be multiple draft and final RODS, but how many is unknown at this time. A final decision on the number of RODs will be made later in the planning process. For now, please assume that we will issue separate draft and final RODs for each state.

Question 6: Can the FS confirm that there are no public meetings anticipated as part of Task 3 (Public Engagement Support) for the EIS?

Answer: This BPA Call Order does not require the contractor to directly support in-person scoping or DEIS public comment meetings, only to provide content to support the FS conducting such meetings, as necessary and as developed as part of the public engagement plan specific to the project. The contractor will not be expected to attend/travel to these meetings.

Question 7: Does the FS anticipate the use of specialist reports to develop the EIS, or will the analysis be limited to Chapters 3 and 4 in the EIS?

Answer: Per section 3.4.3, “[t]he Contractor will support coordination of the IDT to complete all documentation and finalize reports to complement the development of the EIS. This includes references, Best Available Scientific Information (BASI), and other documentation that support the conclusions from their analysis.” Although the contractor may be able to write directly to the EIS for some resources, others may require the preparation of additional reports or appendices for supporting information. Which reports and appendices are needed will be determined at a later date.

Question 8: Is the Contractor expected to prepare a separate BE (RFSS, SCC, or equivalent) for the EIS?

Answer: We do not complete traditional Biological Evaluations for SCC, however the effects to identified SCC will be incorporated through the persistence analysis and incorporated into the EIS as appropriate. There is the potential that some amount of analysis for effects to RFSS will be required. This may or may not be in the form of a traditionally known BE.

Question 9: Approximately how many comments does the FS expect to receive on the

NOI?

Answer: We do not have an estimate at this time. However, we have an AI-based comment analysis tool and agency approved MS Copilot and USAi for drafting, editing, and summarization needs for this work. These tools and systems will be available using government-furnished equipment and a valid LincPass. For comparison:

Per the August 2019 Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions, the Forest Service received 50,535 total responses during the scoping period. See https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa- II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=277706.

The more recent effort by the Bureau of Land Management received “received 258 total submissions containing 1,865 unique comments[]” during the scoping period. See https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406- 001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3#.

Question 10: Approximately how many comments does the FS expect to receive on the Draft EIS?

We do not have an estimate at this time. However, we have an AI-based comment analysis tool and agency approved MS Copilot and USAi for drafting, editing, and summarization needs for this work. These tools and systems will be available using government-furnished equipment and a valid LincPass. For comparison:

Per the August 2019 Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions, the Forest Service “received 33,192 comment letters, of which 622 contained unique or substantially different comments.”.

See https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=277706.

For the more recent effort by the Bureau of Land Management received “[o]ver 38,000 submissions were received, including approximately 6,000 individual comments.” See https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406- 001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3#.

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=277706 https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=277706 https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406-001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3# https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406-001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3# https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406-001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3# https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=d8b882cc-a7f2-f011-8406-001dd8008d46&spid=a26c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3#

Question 11: Please confirm that the contractor will be required to develop a single BA (described in 3.6.1) for the EIS and that a single BA for each national forest included in the programmatic amendment will not be required.

Answer: We anticipate that one Biological Assessment will be prepared for the EIS rather than a single biological assessment per forest.

Question 12: How many objections does the FS anticipate receiving that would require responses?

Answer: We do not have an estimate at this time. The contractor will not be asked to prepare objection responses. The contractor’s role will be limited to indicating which information in the project record is responsive to an objection received. Responses to each objection will be provided by the Forest Service.

Question 13: Will the Forest Service be preparing the Notices of Intent and Availability or should we include those items under the Public Engagement Support task?

Answer: The Forest Service will prepare the Notices of Intent and Availability. The contractor, however, will be asked to provide information and supporting materials to prepare these notices and related presentations, briefings, and other communication documents. For additional information, see section 3.3.1.

Question 14: Will the Forest Service be looking to the contractor to review and catalogue any/all citations and attachments submitted during the scoping and public review period? Or will that be completed by the Forest Service IDT?

Answer: The contractor does not need to review and catalogue every citation provided.

It will, however, need to review and provide citations for scientific literature included in comments deemed substantive.

As discussed in section 3.5.2, “[t]he Contractor will analyze comments to make preliminary determinations and provide categorization for comments that may be substantive . . . .” For comments that may be substantive, the contractor will be expected to review and provide literature citations from the relevant comment letters and their attachments.

How this literature was considered and addressed should also be included in the comment summary report per section 3.5.3.