Sol_140F0721Q0024_Amd_0001.pdf

(x)

140F0721Q0024 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

F07

ANCHORAGE AK 99503-6199

1011 E TUDOR ROAD

FWS, DIVISION OF CONTRACTING AND GE

04/20/20210001

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

04/08/2021

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.)

Legacy Doc #: FWS

LIST OF CHANGES: Amendment 0001 issued to provide answers to vendor questions. All vendors submitting quotes must sign and acknowledge this amendment with their quote.

Date distributed : 08-APR-21 changed to 20-APR-21

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

Period of Performance: 05/03/2021 to 12/30/2022

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)

Tina Baker

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 .

Amendment 0001 to Solicitation 140F0721Q0024

Questions and Answers:

Q1: Why type of contract type does FWS anticipate awarding for this contract (e.g. labor hour, T&M, firm-fixed price, etc.)?

A1: Firm-fixed price

Q2: Does FWS anticipate the contractor coordinating with FWS’s general counsel during the review process?

A2: The Project Manager with FWS will coordinate with their Solicitor to get the draft BO reviewed. Solicitor comments will need to be addressed by the contractor before the BO is signed.

Q3: What support will FWS provide? For example, will FWS provide a single point of contact to coordinate, organize, and consolidate agency comments? Or will the contractor be responsible for managing and coordinating commentor efforts and timeframes?

A3: I’m assuming that ‘agency comments’ and ‘commentor efforts’ refer to the BA and BO reviews. The Project Manager and a few FWS staff will be in close contact with the contractor.

The contractor will be reviewing the BA when it comes in, but we will also have FWS species leads looking at the BA too. Any FWS comments will be provided to the contractor to compile into one draft BA with all comments, so that the Project Manager can send it to the action agency for editing. Timeframes will be discussed and outlined throughout the project and will come from the Project Manager. All comments and edits to the BA and BO will be completed by the contractor.

Q4: Is this a new procurement or follow on work from a previous vendor?

A4: New procurement.

Q5: When does the government expect to award this procurement?

A5: One to two weeks after the solicitation expires.

Q6: Has the USFS ever requested or completed formal or informal consultation with the USFWS for a similar mining project at the same location in the past, prior to the SGP now being contemplated by the USFS? If so, when?

A6: There have not been any section 7 consultations for similar scale mining projects at the same location. Completed consultations in the same project area include restoration activities and small-scale exploratory mining.

Q7: Prior to issuance of the DEIS for the SGP in August 2020, did the USFWS provide written or verbal guidance and recommendations to the USFS, Midas Gold Idaho, Inc (MGI), USACE, and/or MGI consultants regarding the SGP, including voluntary conservation measures to avoid and minimize the effects of the action:

To ESA-listed species?

To MBTA species?

To WOTUS?

A7: The Service has been working with USFS, NOAA/NMFS, ASCAE, EPA, Perpetua Resource Corp and their contractor on all aspects of this project since 2017.

Q8: Have MGI or their representatives already initiated drafting of the biological assessment on behalf of the USFS for the purposes of completing section 7 consultation with the USFWS?

A8: I'm unsure if a draft BA has started to be written yet. A preferred alternative and Final EIS have yet to be selected/completed by the USFS, so there isn't much to write yet.

Q9: Did the USFWS provide official agency comments to the USFS during the NEPA public comment period in 2020?

A9: No

Q10: Did the USFWS provide (or intend to provide if not completed) official agency comments to the USACE during the public notice period ?

A9: No

Q10: Are any species targeted for listing actions in the USFWS FY21-25 National Domestic Listing Workplan anticipated to be affected by the SGP? If yes, please identify which species.

A10: No

Q11: Have all pertinent fish, wildlife, and floristic surveys been conducted (as determined necessary by the USFWS for the biological opinion) in order to inform the likelihood of site occupancy of ESA species and direct/indirect exposure SGP stressors? If yes, have survey reports (with survey results and survey methodology) been produced to inform the draft biological opinion for the SGP?

A11: The Service will not accept a final biological assessment without the necessary surveys and modeling data. We do not yet have that information

Q12: Has MGI (or others acting on behalf of MGI) ever implemented voluntary wildlife management and conservation actions specifically intended to benefit species listed under the Endangered Species Act or other species at risk as identified by the Idaho Game and Fish Department in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan? If yes, is there any written documentation describing the management actions and/or any follow-up monitoring of the management actions to evaluate success?

A12: Perpetua Resources Corp (formerly Midas Gold) has not implemented any management or conservation actions of which we are aware.

Q13: Has the Department of Interior been actively participating in and accompanying the Department of Agriculture in their effort to conduct Tribal Consultation (formal) meetings with the Native American Tribes having an interest or stake in the outcome of the SGP?

A13: The USFS has conducted government-to-government consultation regarding the Project with three federally recognized tribes. DOI did not actively participate in these efforts, but the Service is aware of tribal concerns.

Q14: Have any species, natural resources, or sites with a cultural significance to any Nation or Tribe been identified as potentially or adversely affected by the proposed SGP construction and operation?

A14: Any section 106 review would be completed by the USFS archaeologist.

Q15: Since most of the activities to complete the four components described in the Statement of Work can be completed remotely, will the selected contractor nonetheless still be required to be licensed/approved by the Idaho Secretary of State to conduct business within the State of Idaho?

A15: The program did not know.

Q16: What types and coverages are required by the USFWS for insurance of the selected contractor?

A16: The program did not know.

Q17: Will the Certificate of Insurance be required as a component of the submitted proposal or be required after the contractor is selected?

A17: The program did not know.