-140R8125Q0004_Questions_and_Answers_0001.pdf

Solicaiton Number:140R8125Q0004 Questions & Answers

Question #1

The primary institution that will apply for the needs to include an expert matter (with specific conditions), can I be the prime institution and also be the expert matter?

Response: Yes. PWS Section 2 states the Contractor shall provide SMEs "internally or externally". Therefore, an individual from the prime institution could serve as an SME, provided that individual personally meets all the specific SME qualification requirements detailed in PWS Section 3.2 (including experience, degree, credentials, specific expertise category per 3.2.3) and does not have a conflict of interest as defined in PWS Section 3.3. The SME qualifications are distinct from the Contractor's organizational qualifications (PWS Section 3.1). Note that three SMEs are required.

Question #2 What is the budget and timeframe for this effort?

Response: PWS Section 5 states, "The preferred period of performance of the contract is 90 days from the receipt of the award," though it allows for proposing an alternate date with justification.

Specific task deadlines within this period are listed in the table in PWS Section 6. The Contractor should submit a budget with their proposal that they feel is commensurate to complete the scope of work.

Question #3.What additional topics will be included beyond those covered in the 2004 report?

Response: PWS Section 1 states that the new TM 2024, which is the subject of the review, "details Reclamation's transition from a soil resistivity-based methodology to an approach that analyzes multiple environmental factors and multiple design factors in a risk-informed approach.

This analysis can inform selection of an appropriate combination of corrosion mitigation techniques such as pipe material selection, corrosion monitoring, protective coatings, and cathodic protection." This risk-informed approach analyzing multiple factors is the core difference from the previous methodology.

Question #4. Do the three reviews need to converge on a shared conclusion or perspective?

Response: No, the PWS does not require the SMEs' reviews to converge. PWS Section 2.2 states that review comments will be "attributed to the individual SME." Furthermore, PWS Task D-2 requires the final report to include consolidation of the SMEs' "attributed, individual answers to the three Review Questions noted in Task B."

Question #5. In addition to the three individual reviews, do you know if a consolidated or summarized version is also required?

Response: Yes. PWS Task D requires the Contractor to deliver both a "Consolidated Comment Matrix" (D-1) compiling individual SME comments and a "single consolidated report of findings" (D-2) that includes sections such as an executive summary, methodology, key findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the individual SME reviews.

Question #6. Is the expectation a single deliverable, or should updates to the extended report also be submitted?

Response: The PWS outlines several distinct deliverables with specific due dates, as shown in the table in Section 6. Key deliverables include the Consolidated Comment Matrix (due 60 days after award) and the final Report of Findings (due 60 days after award).

Question #7 Is there any specific format for the quote?

Response: There is no specific format for the quote.

Question #8

The Category 1 SME is defined as a Water Utility Representative with a minimum of 15 years of corrosion control and prevention experience and practical knowledge of the requirements and responsibilities of water utility owners and operators.

Is it Reclamation’s intent that the Category 1 SME be currently employed with a Water Utility? Please clarify the requirements for this Category and whether this could be filled by a consultant with relevant professional experience with water utilities.

Response: The PWS distinguishes between the SME categories. PWS Section 3.2.3.a defines Category 1 as "Water utility representatives..." while PWS Section 3.2.3.b defines Category 2 as "Consultants...". The intent for Category 1 is an individual actively or recently employed by a water utility owner/operator, distinct from a consultant. A person identified primarily as a consultant, even one with extensive experience working with water utilities, would align directly with the definition provided for Category 2.

Question #9 Please clarify Reclamation’s intent to have the Contractor redact SME identities in the proposal as noted on page 22. This requirement seems counter to the language within PWS 2.2 that indicates each of the SMEs’ identities will be disclosed in the report of findings and review comments will be attributed to the individual SME – and the report of findings will be publicly published as an appendix to TM 2024.

Response: The PWS requires both, but at different stages. Identities are redacted for the proposal submission but are required to be disclosed and attributed in the final public report.

Question #10 Paragraph 7.3 of the PWS describes the potential for GFI, work products, and deliverables to be considered CUI. Does Reclamation anticipate designating the Contractor-produced and GFI related to this contract as Public Information (non-CUI)?

Response: GFI, work products, and deliverables are designated Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) by default. Because the final report of findings will be publicly published, this specific deliverable will ultimately be Public Information (non-CUI). The draft TM 2024 (provided as GFI) and/or other intermediate work products are designated CUI and so the handling requirements for CUI outlined in Section 7.3 would apply to those items unless otherwise specified by Reclamation.

Question #11 Can we assume that the first copy may include the SME identifies along with all pricing and identifiable information related to the company or individuals, including company names and logos? If so, this may conflict with the statement refere.

Response: Yes, first copy shall include pricing and identifiable information such a, company name and personal information of candidate. The purpose for the second copy is to enable a blind evaluation, redating all company, names of personnel, and price information that could prejudice or sway an evaluator.

Question #12 As stated, the second copy would NOT include any pricing – simply the redacted response to PWS Section 3. Correct?

Response: Correct, the purpose for the second copy is to enable a blind evaluation, redating all company, names of personnel, and price information that could prejudice or sway an evaluator.

Question #13

Some of our best experts with practical knowledge in this area do not PhD or CP4, and they can offer better guidance and considerations for this review. Will alternative credentials be considered?

Response: Per PWS Section 3.2.2., individuals must hold at least one of the following to be considered an eligible SME: P.E. license, Ph.D. in engineering, or a NACE CP4 certification