B08_RFP 25-R-0005 - QandA_v1_FINAL.pdf

Morris K. Udall and Steward L. Udall Foundation (Udall) National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolut ion

Third Party Science Neutra l (TPSN) for the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) Independent Science Advisory Panel (ISAP)

Question #1 Request for Quote

SF 1449 52.212-1, Page 7

Question #2

Request for Proposal (RFP) 959006-25-R-0005/PWS 2024003

Vendor Questions/Responses

Page 7 of B08 Request for Quote references SF 1449 52.212-1. Bullet one under Pricing Quote Spreadsheet on Page 1 of SF 52.212-1 Instruction to Offers - Commercial Items (March 2023) states, "The following trave l values have been included and shall be used for quote purposes and are not inclusive of any indirect costs or profit".

Can UDALL please verify that t he Contractor can recover indirect in accordance with t heir written and established CAS-D accounting practices? ~------------i

Answer: All indi rect costs associated with travel, materials, and ODCs shall be invoiced in accordance with written and established accounting practices.

B08 Attachment 1 - PWS Could UDALL please verify t hat that Task 3.3.2 ISAP Panelist Services are to include two (2) AMCR orientation meetings and th ree (3) working sessions

Task 3.3.2, Page 4 similar to Task 3.3.1 TPSN for a tota l of 40 hours?

Question #3 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS

Task 3.2.4, Page 4

Answer: Yes. Task 3.3.2 provides t hat all panelists attend and participate in the AMW meetings, which consist of 2 all MRRIC meetings and 3 working sessions (see PWS Section 3.3 for def in ition of the AMW meeting). The total number of hours quoted per panelist is dependent upon the Offeror's techn ical approach.

For task 3.2.4 ISAP Panelist Plenary Meeting, no hours are provided. However, the TPSN Plenary Meeting in Task 3.2.2 is ident ified as being 2.5 days for a total of 20 hours.

Could UDALL please verify t he Contractor is to assume t he same level of effort (LOE) for Task 3.2.4 as Task 3.2.2?

Answer: PWS Task 3.2.4 provides that one (1) panelist shall attend and participate in the plenary. Additional panelists, if required, will be funded through exercise of an optional task(s).

Question #4 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS

Task 3.6.1 stipu lates two (2) D&F activities.

Task 3.6.1 Manage ISAP Panelists tor Discuss & Feedback Engagement, Page 6

Can UDALL please provide an estimate of the hours ant icipated per Discussion & Feedback (D&F) activity?

Question #5 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS

3.2.1, Page 3

Question #6 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS

3.6.2, Page 6, Paragraph 2

Answer:

Answer:

The PWS (page 6) has been revised to account tor the estimated number of hours tor th is task.

Task 3.2.1 limits calls to six (6) virtual working group meetings, however nine (9) working groups are identified in paragraph 2 of task 3.2.1. According to this task, t he Contractor is required to attend all Agenda Work Group meetings.

Can Udall please clarity as to the total number of virtual working group meetings and working group calls to be supported by the Contractor?

The PWS task 3.2.1 (page 3) provides that the contractor shall participate in up to 6 work group meetings. While there are more than 6 work groups identified, t here is no guarantee that each group will meet individually, that groups will not be combined into one meeting, or whether some groups meet at all.

Paragraph 2 of task 3.6.2 indicates two (2) deliverables, wherein tact three (3), are ident ified - i) feedback on the draft charge, ii) draft of written work product, and iii} fi nal of the written work product.

Can UDALL please cla rity as to the total number of deliverables, along with the total number of hours per panelist, to accomplish this task? Moreover, is the Contractor expected to submit draft work products tor review and comment by

UDALL?

If so, what is t he ant icipated time tor UDALL to review and provide comments on any submitted draft work products?

Answer: As stated in the PWS (page 6), "[e]ach ISAP engagement task will have 2 deliverables associated with the task: (1) timely feedback on the draft charge (CORL A005); and (2) 1 draft and 1 f inal written work product (CORL A006). CORL A006 is one deliverable that will be provided in both DRAFT and FINAL versions.

For the number of hours of panelist, reference task 3.6.2 (page 6) "historically, t he effort required tor the services covered in this section have been approximately 10 total hours or less per panelist."

t~l',u,~.,,e:a••- -~~•ra111

CORL A006 provides t hat the government has 30 days to provide comments.

I

Question #7 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS Task 3. 7 .8 indicates participation in one (1} virtual LA/LFT virtual meeting while referencing task 3.1.2 which indicates participation in six (6) virtual LA.LFT Task3.7.8, Page 10 meetings.

Can UDALL please cla rity as to the total number of LA/LFT meetings tor participation along with the anticipated total number of hours tor each?

Answer: Task 3.7.8 has been updated to include a quantity of 12 meetings. As stated in Task 3.1.2, each LA/LFT meeting is estimated to be 1 hour in duration.

Question #8 B08 Attachment 1 - PWS Section 3. 7 .10 indicates participation in two (2) plenary meetings while referencing Section 3.2.2 wh ich indicates attendance at one (1} plenary meeting.

Task3.7.10, Page 10

Can UDALL please cla rity as to the total number of plenary meetings tor attendance along with the anticipated total numbers of hours?

Answer: Task 3.7.10 are optional tasks which would be in addition to 3.2.2 (if exercised}.

The tasks to be performed in each instance of Task 3. 7 .10 (if exercised} would be t he same as the tasks in Task 3.2.2. Each plenary is approximately 2.5 days.

Question #9 B08 Attachment 11 - Could UDALL please verity that Column F in t he price quote template (B08 PRICE Quote Template, Tabs Attachment 11} should indicate a quantity of 1 versus a quantity of 6?

20xx, option Years, etc.

The PWS (B08 Attachment 1 }, Section 3.4.3 ident ity 18 tota l hours, but NOT Task 3.4.3 (line 84), Column F number of quantity/instances.

Answer: Yes. The attachment, B08 Attachment 11, has been updated to clarity the quantity. The PWS provides a quantity of one (1} Fall Science Meeting in Section

3.4. While each subtask 3.4.1-3.4.4 contains an estimated number of hours tor t hat subtask, the Fall Science Meeting will only occur once per year.

Question #10 B08 Attachment 11 - In the PWS (B08 Attachment 11 }, Task 3.2.3 indicates participation in one (1} PRICE Quote Template, Tabs TPSN Plenary Consensus Meeting, wh ile Task 3.7.11 of the PWS identifies 20xx, option Years, etc. participation in two (2) meetings. Similarly, Column F in the Price Quote

Template (B08 Attachment 11} indicates participation in two (2) meetings.

Reference I I Question Task 3.7.11 (Line 201 ), Column F

Question #11 Page Count

Answer:

Answer:

Can UDALL please cla rify as to the number of TPSN Plenary Consensus Meetings for participation along with the total number of hours for each?

3. 7 .11 is an optional task which wou ld be in addition to 3.2.3 if the government chooses to exercise the optional task. Each plenary consensus meeting is anticipated to be approximately two hours in duration.

General Comment. We also have a question on the page count. We assume the page limit (e.g., 20 for Technical) excludes the cover, table of contents and the list of acronyms. Please clarify.

The RFQ (page 4) provides "[i]fthe quote contains annexes, appendices, attachments, or other documentation not specifically required by this solicitation, such will count against the page limitations unless otherwise indicated in the specific Volume instructions below". The RFQ does not specif ically address a requ irement for cover sheets, table of contents, and/or a list of acronyms. The RFQ has been amended to clarify that one (1) cover sheet, one (1) table of contents, and one (1) list of acronyms will be excluded from the page count under the technical approach file.

Reference pertaining to Questions #12 - 34 The following paragraphs provide context. Specific questions on the RFQ follow below.

Question #12 General - Panel Members

Question #13

Many current ISAP and ad hoc members-whether on standing or ad hoc committees-have supported MRRIC for several years. Thei r technical knowledge and historical experience with the MRRP are invaluable assets. In addition, t he current members have been selected in a rigorous and lengthy process that involved review and approval by MMRIC members, Lead agencies, and USIECR (RFQ Attachment 13). We recognize that t he process of nominating and securing government approval for new members is both time-intensive and potentially disruptive. To ensure continuity of operations, it is essential that a newTPSN organization has access to current ISAP members, enabling the retention of their expertise. This requires the current ISAP members not having an "exclusivity agreement" with the incumbent. Please confi rm that t his is in fact t he case.

In addition, the information on the MRRP website seems to be dated. Although we have been working with several of the ISAP members on other peer review efforts, we respectfully request a list of current members of ISAP and ad hoc panels, and the date of their initial appointment or reappointment. Th is information would help significantly level the playing field.

Answer: The current contract is si lent on the use of "exclusivity agreements". Where t he contract and applicable documents are inconsistent with each other, the contract shall prevail.

The current ISAP panel members are listed on the MRRIC website, which can be found at https:/ /projects.ecr .gov/moriversciencepanel/ AdvisoryPanel.aspx.

General- Schedule The RFQ was released on January 17, 2025 and the PWS, a controlled document, was provided on January 20, 2025. Questions are due by January 29, 2025, and proposals are due by February 19, 2025. It is anticipated that the government will take several working days, likely through early or mid-February, to provide clarifications and answers to submitted questions. This time line leaves on ly one to two weeks for developing t he fi nal proposal. As several of the government's responses are critical for ensuring a level playing field and for supporting the development of a practical, competitive proposal, we respectfully request an extension of the proposa l submission deadline by 4 working weeks after receipt of government responses to all questions.

Question #14

Answer: Due to the release of the questions received on this RFQ, Amendment 1 was posted to SAM.gov to extend the quote due date to 24 March 2025, by 2:00 PM

(MST)(AZ).

RFQ, Volume I - Item 3 contains multiple references to " staff" and "personnel," including " staff Technical Approach (pp3} level," "an effective plan to use the staff," and "plans and programs to ensure t he retent ion of skilled personnel." In add it ion, the bold-faced text at the bottom of this section states that "All Documentation submitted related to staffing shall be contained in the appropriate volume. *Note: No names of personnel shall be referenced in t he quote. Any resumes submitted tor evaluation shall be redacted of all personal information, to include names".

There are several questions here:

a. What is the difference between " staff" and "personnel?"

Answer: Personnel is inclusive of all contracted positions. Staff and personnel are used interchangeably.

b. Is the government asking tor resumes of TPSN staff and ISAP members?

Answer: There is no requirement tor resume submission.

C. If summarized, redacted resumes are to be included, will they be counted towards the 20-page limit of techn ical proposal? Since we assume the winning otteror would begin the contract with the current ISAP members, it seems only TPSN staff resumes would be required. Please clarity.

Answer: Resumes shall be submitted as needed tor the Otteror's technical approach.

The RFQ (page 5) has been updated to reflect t hat resumes will not be counted in t he page limitation of the techn ical approach.

ct. Is there a template tor providing such information or at least major elements of it to facilitate the government's comparison of bids (e.g., Education, Summary and years of experience, relevancy of experience to MRRP technical and process aspects)?

Answer: No template is provided. All relevant information, as described with in the Offeror's technical approach (if applicable), shall be included within the quote.

Question #15 RFQ, Volume I - There are 3 items under this section. They refer to providing a "quote" tor Technical Approach (pp3} technical approach, understanding, etc. Otterors technical proposals usually demonstrate thei r understanding of the project and the technical approaching t hey would be taking to accomplish the objectives of the task. The use of the word "quote" implies price comparison to be considered under technical evaluation.

The eva luation of whether the quote is fair, reasonable and balanced will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as sated in the RFQ. Please clarity t he government's intention in their conduct of techn ical evaluation.

Answer: The quotes will be evaluated as stated in the RFQ document (pages 8-1 1 ). Under FAR Part 13, t he government may issue either an RFP or a RFQ. An otter received under an RFP can be used by the government to create a contract unilatera lly by

Question #16 RFQ, Technical Evaluation Approach (pp7)

-~~•ra111 accepting the offer/proposal submitted. A quote received is not considered an offer, tor contractual purposes. A contract is created when the Offeror signs the offer received from the government and/or performs services provided in the government's offer.

This section includes the evaluation criteria tor the technical evaluation. There is only one factor (Item a) listed. Are there any other evaluation criteria (e.g., Items b, c) that are missing. If Item a is the on ly factor, it would be helpfu l to break it out, similar to government's approach in its 2018 solicitation tor the same effort, into several factors to allow tor a structured development and evaluation of proposals. Please clarity.

In addition, there are no criteria provided tor assigning ratings to t he evaluation factor. Could the government clarity whether there is a defin ition of the rating scale (Outstanding, Excellent, Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable)?

Specifically, we would appreciate clarification on how each rati ng is defined and applied. If th is is a Low Cost Techn ically Acceptable Acquisition, please specify. ---------------~ Answer:

Question #17 RFQ, Volume 2, Past performance (pp3)

The factor to be eva luated is Technical Approach. The RFQ Technical Eva luation Approach, Understanding of the Task (page 9- Section 1 (a)), defines the criteria to which the technical approach of the quote will be evaluated against. There are no subfactors to the technical approach.

The defin itions tor the evaluation factors have been added to the RFQ (pages 10 -11 ). This RFQ is evaluated under the trade-off analysis best value approach, see FAR Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items (November 2021 ) Addendum (pages 8 - 9) tor the factors to be evaluated and the relative weights of each factor.

The solicitation states that past performance information should include relevant projects, with " relevant" defined as" ... having directly supported the collaborative nature of a project and possessing substantive knowledge about endangered and threatened species with in the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP)." Th is unique requ irement limits competition to the incumbent, as only t hey have supported the MRRP program. While it is essential tor Panel members to have experience and knowledge relevant to MRRP (e.g., as ident if ied in Attachment 13, ISAP Approach), t hey do not necessarily need to have worked specif ically on the MRRP project. Instead, TPSN expertise in forming and managing ISAPs, along with facilitating the flow of information, should be based on experience with similar water resources and ecosystem recovery projects adhering to TPSN/ISAP requi rements in the charter (Attachment 13).

We respectfully request modifications to the solicitation to allow offerors to demonstrate relevancy by discussing the scope, complexity, and size of past performance projects that align with MRRP's objectives. This is consistent with t he subsequent RFQ statement that reads: "The performance record must be relevant to the requ irement in size and complexity and describe details pertaining to quality, schedule, cost control, personnel management, and business relations." Consideration of scope, size and complexity has been referenced in FAR.

Answer: The RFQ (page 6) has been updated to clarify the definition of relevant as it relates to submission of past performance.

Question #18 RFQ, Volume Ill - Price (pp4) The RFQ specifies that the offeror's price quote spreadsheet should include

"direct labor (rate), indirect costs/overhead, G&A expenses, and profit/fee."

These requirements are typically associated with cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.

However, th is contract appears to be structured as Time and Materials (T&M), as indicated on page 7, Item c., which states, "The Government will award a Time & Materials contract." Could you please confi rm whether this is indeed a T&M contract and not one requiring cost-plus-fee information?

If it is a T&M contract, can offerors submit their standard fully-loaded Time and Materials rates, simi lar to what is typically provided under GSA schedules instead of information relevant to a different type of contract?

Answer: This RFQ will result in a Time & Material (T&M) contract. In order to properly evaluate the labor rates that will be fixed on the contract, all prices associated with the labor rate will be evaluated to determine the overall labor rate is fair and reasonable, which includes profit.

Question #19 PWS, Section 12.1 - There is no clear description of who the key personnel are, and as noted in Key Personnel (pp14) another question, it is unclear whether the term "personnel" refers specifically to the TPSN staff, the ISAP Panel members, or both. Additionally, Section 12.2 identifies three sets of positions, mentions science advisors for t he ISAP, and discusses panel members complying with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) policy. It seems that the term "personnel" applies to both TPSN staff, ISAP advisors identif ied and hired by t he TPSN, and ISAP panel members. Could you please cla rify if t his is correct?

Answer: Key personnel shall be identified by the Offeror in the technical approach. The RFQ (page 5) has been revised to clarify t his instruction. See Question 14a for response regarding the term "personnel" and "staff". The PWS Section 12.2 t~l',u,~.,,e:a••- -~~•ra111 clearly provides that the TPSN must possess the KSAs shown (page 15) and identifies 7 required credentials of each ISAP member (pages 15-16).

Question #19 PWS, Section 12.2 - The description of personnel qualifications for the 3 listed KSAs appear to align Personnel Qualifications (pp15) with 3 separate labor categories of TPSN staff, independent of ISAP members.

Please clarify.

Answer: The PWS Section 12.2 clearly provides that the TPSN must possess the KSAs shown (page 15) and identifies 7 required credent ials of each ISAP member (pages 15-16).

Question #20 PWS, Section 12.2 - The RFQ states that t he Contractor shall select science advisors for the ISAP, Personnel Qualifications (pp15) including those with "adequate institutional knowledge" of MRRP. This requirement limits the government's ability to select the best TPSN staff or ISAP personnel who offer the highest level of expertise, even if they do not necessarily have "institutional knowledge of MRRP."

a. It is unclear whether the requirement for "adequate institutional knowledge of MRRP" is meant to apply to the ISAP, ISAP science advisors, or the TPSN organization itself. Could you please clarify?

Answer: The PWS Section 12.2 (page 15) has been revised.

b. Institutional knowledge is generally the responsibility of t he TPSN organization, not t he individual experts serving on the ISAP. This requirement could potentially limit competition to the incumbent, who is the only one with t he institutional knowledge, undermining the goal of a level playing f ield. We believe our extensive experience in establishing and managing panels of experts for several major multi-billion-dollar programs is highly relevant to the scope of TPSN activities for the MRRP and shou ld be considered as directly applicable, regard less of specific institutional knowledge of MRRP.

Answer: See response in Question #20a above.

Question #21 PWS, 2.0 Applicable Documents This section lists 10 specific references. We have searched t he MRRP and (pp2) MRRIC websites for the most recent information on current activities; however, it appears t hese websites have not been updated in several years. We respectfully request the following documents, wh ich should be publicly available:

This information is crucial for offerors, as current data is not readily available on t he MRRP or other websites.

a. 2023 and 2024 annual reports t~l',u,~.,,e:a••- " -~~•ra111

Answer: The FY2023 Annual Report is posted to t he MRRP website in the library documents. The document is located at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.orgLutils/getfile/collection/p16021 coll7 /id/25437 . The FY2024 Annual Report is not available at this t ime.

b. Number of small and large reviews conducted in calendar year 2024, along with one example of each review.

Answer: The number of reviews in previous years is not relevant to the requi rements of t his PWS.

C. List of MRRIC activities, which used to be avai lable in a spreadsheet format, showing recommendations and their status.

Answer: This document is no longer maintained.

d. Meeting notes and presentation slides from the 2024 plenary, Fall Science Meeting, Adaptive Management Workshop or other major meetings.

Answer: The science applicable meeting notes and presentation slides from the 2024 Plenary, Fall Science Meeting, and the Adaptive Management Workshop have been included as attachments to this Q&A response document. In addition, sample documents for a large and small review are included as attachments.

Question #22 PWS, Task 3.7.2.3, It is stated that "communications between panelists and members of Group ISAP Panelist Participation in must adhere to pertinent guidelines in the ISAP engagement Strategy". Please Large Review provide a copy of the reference strategy document.

Answer: Reference PWS page 3 item j, "USACE_MRRIC_ISAP Approach_FINAL_Approved 5-24-18: Third Party Science Neutral Support to Establish an Independent Science Advisory Panel (ISAP) for the Missouri River Recovery Program Approved by MRRIC on Thursday, May 24th, 2018." This document was provided as "B08_Attachment 13 - USACE_MRRIC_ISAP Approach_FINAL_Approved 5-24- 18".

Question #23 RFQ, Form 1449 (PP 0) It appears that t he Small Business (SB) box has been partially checked, despite other sections of the solicitation referencing full and open competition.

Please clarify if this procurement is set aside for small businesses or if it is indeed for full and open competition.

Answer: The Small Business box on the SF1449 (page 1) appears partially marked. This is due to system limitations when creating the document. This is solicitation is not set aside for small business. Th is is solicitation is competed through a full and open competition.

Question #24 PWS, Section 3, Tasks PWS, Section 3, Tasks, requires Contractor, TPSN and/or ISAP to attend and participate in meetings. Since the PWS does not explicitly state the number of personnel from TPSN to attend these meetings, how will the government ensure an apples-to-apples comparison?

Answer: Historically the TPSN position has been held by one person, but it is up to individual offerors to determine how they choose to staff t he TPSN function.

Question #25 RFQ, 2. Past Performance Is there a limit on the number of past performances an offeror can or shou ld Eva luation Approach provide (e.g., 3, 5).

Answer: There is no limit on the number of past performance references that can be provided; however, all submitted information must be within the page limitations for that factor (RFQ, page 5).

Question #26 RFQ, Volume Ill (pp 5) Travel/Material/ODC is a fixed amount of $18,000 annually. Where does t he offeror include the cost of t ravel time?

Answer: Direct labor is paid for hours in performance of tasks. The Government does not pay direct labor for travel t ime. The amounts associated with t ravel/materials/ODCs are not fixed, t hey are estimated and will be paid as incurred.

Question #27 RFQ, Price+Quote_Template a. The spreadsheet includes a column for "dates." What should be entered as dates in this column?

Answer: The date column shall not be used and has been deleted.

b. Also, should t he column called "CUN" be filled out for various activities (and if so what numbering system should be used) given that the proposed prices are added up at the Section level and rolled up into the total price.

Answer: The CUN column shall not be used and has been deleted.

C. In addition, there are five rows under each subsection in the spreadsheet. Is each row intended to be used for one labor category?

Answer: Additional rows are provided for f illing in labor categories (one line per labor category). Additional lines may be added if needed.

d. If so, are there specific labor categories that should be used (e.g. , Project Manager, Analyst, ISAP Member, ad hoc member)?

t~l',u,~.,,e:a••- " -~~•ra111

Answer: The labor category quoted depends on the Offeror's technical approach.

e. The RFQ provides little instructions on how to fi ll out the spreadsheet. Please clarify. This information will enable offerors to provide information in a consistent format to develop a reasonable price proposal and also simplify government evaluation and comparison of price proposals to its Independent Government Cost Estimate.

Answer: The RFQ (pages 6-7) provides detai ls on how to complete (to include additional tabs and/or formu la adjustments, as needed) the price quote template. On the preexisting tabs, the yellow areas are to be completed with the quoted labor category, hourly rate, and quoted hours tor each task. The formula, if needed, shall be adjusted to account tor a total task price times the quantity tor a task total value.

Question #28 General - Pricing In reference to tasks which include TPSN Management Services, several estimated hours are provided. Are these estimated hours based on the combined effort of the TPSN, or individual TPSN staff members/labor categories?

Answer: Historically the TPSN position has been held by one person, but it is up to individual offerors to determine how they choose to staff t he TPSN function. The estimated hours are total tor the task where hours are included.

I

Question #29 General- Pricing Template The pricing template is set up in such a way that, tor tasks involving ISAP members, t he quantity is listed as a multiple of 7 (the number of ISAP members).

This, coupled with the line-item mult iplier, implies that the ISAP rates should be billed as an average rate tor all lSAP members, wh ich ensures a level playing field. Please confirm.

Answer: The quantity, when listed as 7, represents all lSAP member participation with one instance of that task.

Question #30 PWS, Section 3.3 - According to the PWS, t he AMW consists of 2 all-MRRIC meetings and 3 working Adaptive Management sessions. The PWS indicates the 3 working sessions are each 6-8 hours, Workshop however, the PWS does not indicate an expected meeting duration tor t he all-

MRRIC meetings. Please clarify the estimated or expected duration of the 2 all- MRRIC meetings.

Answer: Reference 3.3.3 tor TPSN time and 3.3.4 tor ISAP time.

t~l',u,~.,,e:a••- -~~•ra111 I In the int roductory text under Task 3.3 the reference to two MRRIC meetings is synonymous with the reference to pre-AMW meetings in Tasks 3.3.3 & 3.3.4.

Question #31 PWS, Section 3.4.1 , 3. 7 .13 - The Fall Science Meetings listed on the PWS are listed on the provided Pricing Fall Science Meetings Template as "2-day add on" (3.4.1 - Base Task} and "2-day standalone" (3. 7 .13 - (Standalone or Addon} Optional Task} with a 20 hour estimate for 3.4.1 and a 2 day estimate for 3.7 .13.

- believes these descriptions may have been switched. Please clarify the description of these meetings, including the meaning of "2-day add on" vs "2-day standalone".

Answer: The "2-day add on" and "2-day standalone" parenthetical on t he pricing quote have been removed. An add-on Fall Science Meeting wou ld be an in-person two-day meeting scheduled immediately before or after an in-person plenary meeting. A standalone Fall Science Meeting wou ld be the same but scheduled on dates that are not contiguous to another in-person meeting.

I

Question #32 PWS, Section 3.6.1 - No estimated hours are provided for this task in the PWS. Please provide an Manage ISAP Panelists for estimate of hours based on historical records for which to base our price Engagement Task estimate. - --

Answer: See response to Question #4 above.

Question #33 PWS, Section 3.7.1.2, 3.7.2.2- PWS lists this task as "TPSN Management" as opposed to Ad-Hoc Participation.

Optional- Please clarify if this task is to be priced as t he TPSN managing Ad-Hoc TPSN Manage Ad-Hoc personnel, or if th is task is to be priced for services rendered by Ad-Hoc Panelist(s} for ... Review personnel. If this task is to be priced as t he TPSN managing Ad-Hoc personnel, under wh ich task should offerors include pricing for services rendered by Ad- Hoc personnel?

Answer: The PWS, Tasks 3. 7 .1.1 and 3. 7 .2.1 have been revised to clarify the task of the TPSN management of ISAP panelists (to include both standing and ad-hoc panelists} for either a small or large review.

Question #34 RFQ, pp 5, 52.212-1 , It is stated that prices for all years should be included on SF1449. We presume Instructions to Offerors t his information should be provided under blocks 19-24. Please confirm.

Answer: Yes. All CLINs will be established and clearly identified in Section B of the contract (Blocks 19 - 24).

Question #35 The Technical evaluation criterion primarily emphasizes "Understanding of the Task," with less consideration given to the "qualif ications," "capabilities," and "experience" of the organization and its staff in conducting the requi red activities.

Since the RFQ requests information in the proposal that highlights qualif ications, capabilit ies, and experience (e.g., resumes), aligning the evaluation Tech evaluation criterion with these aspects would ensure consistency with the RFQ requirements.

The 2019 RFQ for the same effort included four evaluation factors that were aligned with the requirements in the technical evaluation criteria:

Factor A: Senior-level experience configuring, convening and managing independent, interd isciplinary scientific review panels.

Factor B: Experience Assisting Others in Addressing Complicated Scientific and Technical Questions where Methods and/or Data are Incomplete.

Factor C: Experience Assisting Others with Controversial or Uncertain Scientific Issues that Impact Numerous Parties with Disparate Views and Perspectives

Factor D: Demonstrated knowledge of Best Practices for scientific peer review

Answer: The techn ical evaluation approach (RFQ page 9) is not revised.

I