A02.12 PWS IEPR Wilmington Harbor dated 2025.08.13.docx

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT WILMINGTON HARBOR 403 LETTER REPORT & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

WILMINGTON DISTRICT INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

1. TITLE

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), North Carolina (including, Brunswick, New Hanover, Bladen, and Pender Counties).

2. GENERAL

The draft Letter Report and EIS were prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in accordance with USACE policies, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, and in accordance with USACE Procedures for Implementing NEPA found at 33 CFR Part 230. It presents the results of investigations and analyses conducted to evaluate potential navigation system improvements at Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.

Introduction

The State of North Carolina, acting through the North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA), completed a feasibility study through the authority of Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), as amended. The study was conducted to determine the feasibility of potential improvements to the Federal Navigation System (FNS) at Wilmington Harbor. The report, recommending deepening the harbor from -42 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to -47 feet MLLW, was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (ASA(CW)) for review in February 2020. In May 2020, the document was transmitted to Congress for authorization. Accompanying the report was the ASA(CW)’s Assessment Report which identified unresolved issues and included recommendations to perform the following work to resolve those issues:

· Reframe assumptions and the screening of alternatives

· Perform economic analysis for multiple depth alternatives using USACE methodology

· Conduct NEPA analysis including supporting engineering modeling and appropriate sea level change information

· Finalize mitigation and real estate plans

· Conduct an IEPR

Congress conditionally authorized the recommended navigation improvements, at a total cost of $834,093,000, through Section 403 of WRDA 2020. The conditional authorization included a requirement to address the issues and concerns identified in the ASA(CW) Assessment Report. In 2022, the USACE Wilmington District (CESAW) was tasked with producing a Letter Report and NEPA documentation to address those outstanding issues through a cost-shared effort with the NCSPA.

The Letter Report documents the results of efforts performed to address the unresolved engineering, economic, environmental and policy comments as identified in the ASA(CW)’s Assessment Report. The EIS is an attachment to the Letter Report and responds to the need to fulfill NEPA requirements.

Proposed Federal Action The CESAW is evaluating potential improvements to the FNS at Wilmington Harbor to determine if proposed deepening would improve cargo transportation efficiencies and better accommodate the larger vessels that are anticipated to comprise the vessel fleet that will serve Wilmington Harbor in the future.

The EIS evaluates the No Action Alterative (Future Without Project (FWOP) condition) and two action alternatives. The action alternatives being considered would deepen most of the FNS from its current authorized depth of -42 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to a new depth of either - 47 feet MLLW (Alternative 1) or -46 feet MLLW (Alternative 2). In both alternatives, the Entrance Channel reaches (Battery Island to Bald Head Shoal Reach 4) would be authorized an additional 2 feet of depth to account for ocean conditions. Furthermore, the proposed Federal action would also expand the width of several of the reaches along the channel and add an additional reach to the Outer Ocean Bar, Baldhead Shoal Reach 4. The Entrance Channel extension would be approximately 9 miles long and would connect the current Entrance Channel to the closest naturally occurring desired depth. The 9-mile extension is illustrated in Figure 1. In addition to lengthening and deepening the existing FNS, the proposed action would widen all or parts of all reaches except for the Upper and Lower Midnight and Bald Head Shoal- Reach 2.

The proposed changes are summarized in Table 1.

Proposed placement areas for both the initial action and operation and maintenance include the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) and various beneficial use placement areas (beaches, bird islands, intertidal marsh restoration, fish habitat enhancement structures, riverbank protection, and back bay marsh restoration). Approximately half of the material dredged for initial construction would be used beneficially rather than placed in the ODMDS.

In summary, the proposed action would deepen, widen, and extend the existing FNS, and would place material in various areas in respect to both beneficial use application and the ODMDS.

Table 1. Alternative 1 (47-Foot-Alternative) Tentatively Selected Plan

Reach

Maintenance Segment

(FT)

Proposed Allowable Overdepth* (FT)

Proposed Total Depth** (FT)

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

no rock overdepth

*Proposed Allowable Overdepth is Proposed Authorized Depth plus two feet.

** Proposed Total Depth is Proposed Authorized Depth plus Required Rock Overdepth of one foot (except as noted) plus Allowable Overdepth

Figure 1. Wilmington Harbor Proposed Entrance Channel Extension and Proposed Authorized Depths

Purpose and Need for Proposed Action The Port of Wilmington is the largest port in North Carolina and is a major component of the State’s economy. Since the last major channel improvements were completed in 2002, the Port of Wilmington has experienced significant growth in cargo volume, and in the size of vessels calling at the port has increased. Over the intervening years, the NCSPA has invested in landside infrastructure to accommodate growth at the Port of Wilmington and the region it serves. The NCSPA is currently implementing Master Plan recommendations valued at over $300 million for yard, gate, and terminal operations improvements to increase annual throughput capacity to 1 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent unit: standard unit for container ship capacity) per year.

The purpose of the proposed federal action is to contribute to national economic development (NED) by addressing transportation inefficiencies for the forecasted vessel fleet, consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment. Action is needed to address the constraints that contribute to inefficiencies in the existing navigation system’s ability to safely and efficiently serve the forecasted vessel fleet and process the forecasted cargo types and volumes.

Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) The results of the origin-destination transportation cost saving benefit analysis are included in the report. The 46-foot alternative marginally maximizes net NED benefits, but both alternatives are justified based on benefits exceeding costs.

The difference in average annual net benefits between the 46-foot and the 47-foot plans is small, about $325,000 per year. Additionally, no unacceptable environmental impacts were identified for either alternative, and the environmental impacts are similar in nature and are not out of proportion in magnitude when compared with each other and the No Action Alternative.

Considering these results along with the scope and intent of this analysis, as well as its existing conditional authorization, the 47-foot alternative is identified as the NED Plan and the Tentatively Selected Plan.

IEPR Process The Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and EIS has been developed to reflect the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) modernized planning initiative, in which project studies use a risk-informed assessment, generally with only enough detail developed for each alternative to allow relative comparison, to determine the appropriate information to identify a TSP. Although this new process has altered the milestones and evaluation procedures in a feasibility study, the manner in which alternatives are developed from problems, opportunities, measures, and constraints remains the same. A primary objective of IEPR is to evaluate whether adequate information was available and appropriate technical analyses were completed to support selection of a TSP within the context of the risk-informed decision-making process.

3. OBJECTIVES

The objective for this performance work statement (PWS) is to conduct an IEPR of the draft Letter Report and EIS in accordance with procedures described in the Department of the Army, USACE peer review policy, Engineer Regulation (ER) 1165-2-217, Civil Works Review Policy, dated 2 September 2024, and the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality

Bulletin for Peer Review, released 16 December 2004.

IEPR is one of the important procedures used to ensure the quality of published information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. Peer review typically evaluates clarity of hypotheses, validity of the research design, quality of data collection procedures, robustness of the methods employed, appropriateness of the methods for the hypotheses being tested, extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and strengths and limitations of the overall product.

The purpose of the IEPR is to assess the adequacy and acceptability of economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used for the Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and EIS. The IEPR will be limited to technical review and will not involve policy review. The IEPR will be conducted by subject matter experts (i.e., IEPR Panel members) with extensive experience in USACE planning, engineering, economics, and environmental issues relevant to the project. They should also have experience applying their subject matter expertise to deep draft navigation projects.

The Review Panel members will be “charged” with responding to specific technical questions as well as providing a broad technical evaluation of the overall project. Per ER 1165-2- 217, Section 6.9, reviewers should identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as well as evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods. The Review Panel should be able to evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are reasonable. Reviews should focus on assumptions, data, methods and models. The Review Panel may offer their opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to base the recommended plan.

All review, documents, and information sharing will be handled electronically via electronic mail, electronic file transfer which may utilize a File Transfer Protocol web site. The following references to USACE regulations shall be followed in conducting the IEPR.

· USACE ER 1165-2-217, Civil Works Review Policy, 2 September 2024.

· USACE ER 1110-1-8159, Engineering and Design, DrChecks, 01 January 2015.

· Office of Management and Budget’s guidelines, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, issued 16 December 2004 memorandum M-05-03.

References are available at ER 116-2-217, ER 110-1-8159 and Office of Management and Budget's guidelines, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, respectively.

Government-Furnished Information – USACE will provide a minimum of the following documents for review by the IEPR Panel:

Table 2. Documents for Review

DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW:

Report Total Number of Pages to be Reviewed 1

2,940

FOR REFERENCE:

Total For Reference

3,750

1. The actual number of pages provided to the panel for review may differ from this estimate by plus or minus 20%.

2. For Reference Only. These documents are provided for context only and Panel members are not asked or expected to directly comment on these documents. However, it is possible that a reading of public comments could identify an issue the Panel was not previously aware of which could trigger new review comments to be made.

3. USACE will submit to the Contractor the public comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix A). The Contractor will in turn submit comments to the IEPR Panel. The anticipated date that public comments would be provided by USACE is identified in Appendix A. USACE will submit to the Contractor all comments as they were received up to approximately 200 pages. If USACE receives more than approximately 200 pages of public comments, then USACE will submit to the Contractor a collated list of public comments according to the comments’ subject or topic. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional supporting documentation provided to the Panel.

4. Please note that there are additional pages that contain boring logs, data, and graphs. However, the reviewer is not expected to review each page of boring lots, data, and graphs except in reference if needed while they are reviewing the narrative. Therefore, these additional pages have not been included in the page count for review but for reference only.

Option 1: 300-page increase in the public comments

This option will be exercised if the public comments received after the close of public review exceed the estimated 100 pages as listed in Table 1. This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to 300 pages of additional public comments.

Option 1 has a quantity of 4 units containing 300 pages of additional public comments per each unit for a total possible increase of up to 1,200 additional pages. Pricing for Option 1 should be shown per unit and shown in the grand total as if the total quantity of all options is exercised.

Option 2: 300-page increase in the review documents

This option will be exercised if the estimated number of pages of review documents provided after the notice to proceed has been issued exceeds the number of pages estimated in Table 2 including a 20% contingency. This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to an additional 300 pages of review documents beyond the 20% threshold.

Option 2 has a quantity of 4 units containing 300 pages of additional review documents per each unit for a total possible increase of up to 1,200 additional pages. Pricing for Option 2 should be shown per unit and shown in the grand total as if the total quantity of all options is exercised.

4. SPECIFIC TASKS

There are some instances when concurrence or approval by USACE is necessary to assure policy compliance with ER 1165-2-217. However, the following tasks shall be performed independent of government supervision, direction, or control of the technical considerations of this review.

Task 1: Work Plan to Conduct IEPR

The Contractor shall prepare a draft and final work plan that describes the process for conducting the IEPR. The work plan will include screening criteria for Panel members, working schedule, selection of Panel members, Review Charge to Panel members (provided by USACE to include in final work plan), communication and meetings with USACE project team, quality control, and compilation/dissemination of Review Panel members’ comments. The Contractor shall conduct the IEPR in accordance with the work plan to ensure that all services are performed, reviewed, and provided in a manner that meets professional engineering quality standards. Also included in this task will be one conference call to discuss the USACE comments on the draft work plan. If needed, the Contractor can coordinate with the study Project Manager and PCX IEPR Lead, via conference call, to ask questions about key events in the timeline leading up to the completion of the decision document and supporting documentation. The Work Plan will not include a site visit for the Review Panel at any time during the IEPR process. Both the draft and final work plan must be thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate contracting staff and submitted free of grammatical errors, references to other projects, font inconsistencies, and misspelling of words.

The process to prepare Corps decision documents is complex and the coordination with the IEPR schedule involves many factors, some of which are outside of the control of the District Project Delivery Team and the Review Management Organization. The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on the dates in the working schedule. The Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate Government-caused delays of up to three (3) months in delivering materials and information. After USACE and the Contractor agree on the schedule for a meeting date, the Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate up to two (2) schedule changes requested by the Corps for each meeting.

Task 2: IEPR Panel

The Contractor shall identify Review Panel members based on the descriptions below. The final selection of the Panel will be based on screening criteria included in the work plan (Task 1).

Each panel member should be a professional from academia, a public agency, a non- governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in their area of expertise. At minimum, the panel should include the necessary expertise to assess the engineering, environmental, and economic adequacy of the decision document as required by ER 1165-2-217. All members should be well versed in the conduct of deep draft navigation studies. Panel members may fill multiple disciplines. The Contractor will provide USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The disciplines that should be included are:

· Civil Works Planner. The Review Panel member must be from academia, a public agency, a non‐governmental entity, or an Architect‐Engineer (A‐E) or consulting firm with a minimum of 10 years of demonstrated experience as a water resources planner for deep draft navigation (DDN) channel improvement projects and have a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in a related field. The Review Panel member must have demonstrated experience applying USACE plan formulation processes, procedures, and standards to DDN channel improvement projects and dredged material management evaluations and recommendations (e.g., beneficial use, upland placement, ocean placement).

· Economics. The review panel member must be from academia, a public agency, a non‐ governmental entity, or an A‐E or consulting firm with at least a bachelor’s degree in economics and a M.S. degree in either economics or a related field. They must have at least 10 years of demonstrated experience performing economic evaluations of waterborne containerized commercial trade moving on DDN projects and applying USACE procedures and standards to evaluate alternative plans for channel improvement projects. Experience using tools employed for economic analysis, applying risk analysis, and developing trade/fleet forecasts is required. Experience with or using models similar to the Corps’ HarborSym model to estimate transportation cost savings is required. Active participation in related professional societies is preferred.

· Environmental. The environmental specialist must be a scientist from academia, a public agency, a non‐governmental entity, or an A‐E or consulting firm with 10 years of demonstrated experience directly related to performing water resources environmental evaluations and National Environmental Policy Act compliance for DDN channel improvement and dredged material placement projects (e.g., beneficial use, upland placement, ocean placement). The panel member should have a M.S. degree or higher in a related field. Additionally, the Review Panel member must also have extensive experience in evaluating environmental compliance documents and cultural resources assessments in support of navigation projects, including those that required blasting to construct channel improvements. The panel member should be an expert in compliance requirements of environmental laws, policies, and regulations, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Magnuson Stevens Fish Conservation and Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

· Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Coastal Engineer. The Review Panel member should be a Registered Professional Engineer from academia, a public agency, or an A‐E or consulting firm with a M.S. degree in civil, coastal, or hydraulic engineering. The Review Panel member should have 10 years of demonstrated experience in the design of DDN channel improvement projects and related navigation infrastructure and have expertise in the field of coastal and riverine hydraulics and dredged material placement (e.g., beneficial use, upland placement, ocean placement). The review panel member must also have demonstrated experience in port and harbor development, dredging, sediment transport, shoreline or coastal structure engineering, developing channel cross-sections, establishing design depths and side slopes, and applying sediment transport and hydrodynamic principles to ensure navigational efficiency and long-term stability. Experience in calculating dredge and fill volumes using digital terrain models, bathymetric survey data, and appropriate software is required (e.g., Civil 3D, HEC-RAS, SMS). The Review Panel member must be familiar with the application of USACE risk and uncertainty analyses and coastal engineering requirements for feasibility studies (including channel design and effects of currents, sea level rise, sedimentation, and water quality on navigation channels). The Review Panel member should be familiar with standard USACE hydraulic/coastal computer models, Delft3D, and have 5‐10 years’ experience working with numerical modeling applications for navigation projects. The Review Panel member must also have expertise in climate change assessments for both inland and coastal navigation projects.

· Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist. The Review Panel member should be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ demonstrated experience in design/evaluation of DDN channel improvement projects including assessment of the behavior of soils, site characterization, slope stability, channel design, blasting as means of constructing proposed improvements, risk analysis, and dredged material placement requirements (e.g., beneficial use, upland placement, ocean placement). The Review

Panel member should have a M.S. or higher in engineering or a related field and actively participate in professional engineering societies/organizations.

Privacy Act Requirements: The Outside Eligible Organization will discuss disclosure of peer reviewer’s personal information (name, credentials, and affiliation) with them prior to initiating reviews.

1) Authority: Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114), as amended by Section 1044 of the WRRDA of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), and WRDA 2018 (P.L. 115-270) (33 U.S.C.

2343).

2) Purpose: To notify potential peer reviewers of the requirement to make public the review reports and the names and qualifications of panel members.

3) Routine Uses: Peer reviewer’s information will be shared with Congress and posted on the internet, as required by law.

4) Effects of nondisclosure: Disclosure of the information sought is voluntary; however, failure to agree will not allow reviewers to participate in reviews.

The Contractor will provide the USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The final selection will be based on availability, technical credentials, and absence of perceived or actual conflict of interest. The IEPR Panel members shall not have any financial or litigation association with the USACE; the State; the design A-E, or their engineering teams, subcontractors, or construction contractors. The Review Panel members shall fully disclose any known or potential conflict of interest that may arise from the performance of the work. Areas of conflict may include current employment by Federal or State governments; participation in developing the subject project; a publicly documented statement advocating for or against the subject project; current or future interests in subject project or future benefits from the project; and paid or unpaid participation in litigation against the USACE.

The Contractor will prepare a scope of work for each Review Panel member. A request for quotation, including the scope of work and conflict of interest inquiry will be prepared and sent to each reviewer. Upon receipt of the potential reviewers’ written quotations indicating willingness to participate and the absence of a conflict of interest, the Contractor will establish contracts with the peer reviewers at agreed upon rates and hours to ensure/secure participation.

Task 3: Meetings

A kick-off teleconference between USACE personnel and Contractor personnel will be conducted after the notice to proceed (NTP) is issued. The intent of this meeting is to define the IEPR roles for USACE and the Contractor.

An additional kick-off teleconference meeting will be held after final selection of the Review Panel members. This meeting will be between USACE personnel, Contractor personnel, and the IEPR Panel members. The purpose of this first meeting is for USACE to familiarize the Review Panel members with the project and to discuss the specific objectives of the review. All Review Panel members will participate.

Contractor staff and all IEPR Panel members will participate in a teleconference at the approximate midpoint of the review process. The purpose of this meeting is to allow Review Panel members to ask clarifying questions of USACE in order to assist in the development of comments and to potentially limit the total number of Final Panel Comments. Except for the Senior Leaders’ Meeting, all meetings under this Task shall be arranged and hosted by the Contractor.

The Corps Senior Leaders’ Meeting will occur after the public review of the draft EIS and Letter Report has ended and IEPR Task 5 of the PWS has been completed. The Senior Leaders’ Panel will be arranged and hosted by USACE and will be conducted via teleconference and web- meeting. One Contractor staff and the lead Review Panel member will attend the meeting via teleconference. The Contractor should be prepared to provide comments on IEPR findings as well as discuss any significant comments identified for the study.

Other teleconference meetings will be held as described below under Tasks 4 and 6. If the need arises for other meetings, it is expected that they will be held as teleconferences.

Task 4: Conduct IEPR

The Contractor will provide the Review Panel members with copies of the technical documents for review, as listed above in Section 3. USACE will provide these documents to the Contractor for distribution to the Review Panel members. The Contractor will prepare and deliver a letter to instruct the Review Panel members to undertake the reviews including a template format for responding to Review Charge questions. The letter will also outline the steps and deadlines which will include a list of the documents for review listed in Section 3. Working with USACE, the Contractor will respond to any Review Panel member questions or information requests during the review process. The Contractor will document all communications between USACE and the Review Panel members.

The Review Panel members will complete their review and provide comments to the Contractor. When the individual Review Panel member comments have been received from the Review Panel members, the Contractor will collate the individual Review Panel member comments and ensure that they are complete and responsive to the Review Charge. The Contractor will identify the overall issues and themes that were either identified by multiple Review Panel members or repeatedly by one Review Panel member, comments that indicated conflicting Review Panel member opinions, and other noteworthy comments. Then, the Contractor will convene one or more group Review Panel comment review meetings via teleconference with the IEPR Panel members to discuss the Review Panel’s comments. The goal of the meeting is to provide a forum for Panel members to discuss the comments and agree (or agree to disagree) on the comments of highest priority, identify which issues should be carried forward as “Final Panel Comments,” decide who will lead the development of those final comments, and to address any contradictory comments. This meeting will ensure the exchange of technical information among the Review Panel members, many of whom will be from diverse scientific backgrounds. This information exchange provides additional context to Review Panel members and is considered crucial in the development of a comprehensive IEPR Final Report.

Final public review comments will be provided by USACE to the Contractor approximately 3 working days after the close of the concurrent review period. The Contractor should provide these public review comments to the Review Panel for their consideration and at that time work with the Review Panel to determine if any additional Final Panel Comments will be developed or if any revisions to already prepared Final Panel Comments are required. Once this review and determination have occurred on final public review comments the IEPR Final Report can be prepared as discussed in Task 5.

Task 5: Prepare IEPR Final Report

The Contractor shall consolidate the Review Panel members’ comments (see Task 4) to eliminate redundant or overlapping comments and to identify dissenting or diverging comments. Each comment will be formatted into a 4-part comment including the following:

1) A clear statement of the concern.

2) The basis for the concern.

3) The significance of the concern (the importance of the concern with regard to ability to implement the project).

4) A description of additional research that would appreciably influence the conclusions and, when appropriate, the actions necessary to resolve the concern.

The Contractor shall prepare a final report of the Review Panel findings. The report shall have an executive summary describing the recommendations and resolutions. Following the executive summary the report shall list in detail all the referenced criteria, computations, comments made, and all other pertinent information along with IEPR Panel recommendations and final resolution. The report is intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process. The report will also include a summary of the Review Panel members’ qualifications and a brief discussion of the methodology used to conduct the IEPR. The Contractor will submit the IEPR Final Report to the PCX IEPR Lead for review and acceptance of the product. Once the PCX IEPR Lead accepts the product, he/she will forward the product to USACE for review.

The Final IEPR Report must be submitted no later than 45 working days from when the review documents are provided to the panel for review or within 5 working days from when the public comments are provided to the panel for review and consideration. The final report outline previously approved by the Government will be used for all reports with any agreed-to modifications required. The Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and quality assurance of the Final IEPR report to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

Option 3: Addendum to the Final IEPR Report

This option is for the additional effort to prepare an addendum to the Final IEPR Report. This option will be exercised if the close of the public comment period is delayed and/or the District does not have sufficient time after the close of public comment period to collate comments into themes/topics for the panel’s review (i.e., there is insufficient time to consolidate and produce a

Final IEPR Report within 45working days after the review documents have been provided to the panel). This option will also cover any necessary meetings, back and forth with the Panel regarding their findings and Final Panel Comment language, and time to enter the additional Final Panel Comments and Backchecks into DrChecks. Additionally, this option will account for all Contractor effort necessary to execute this option and produce an Addendum to the Final IEPR Report.

Task 6: Comment/Response The Contractor shall provide the IEPR Final Panel Comments to USACE in Microsoft Word format via email. The IEPR Final Panel Comments provided in Microsoft Word format should include the corresponding sections and page numbers in the report documentation, as appropriate, in order to assist the USACE project delivery team to develop responses to Final Panel Comments. In addition, the Contractor will enter the IEPR Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. USACE will submit clarifying questions to the Contractor to coordinate with the IEPR Review Panel, if necessary. The Contractor and USACE will participate in a teleconference call to discuss the comment/response process.

USACE will provide draft evaluator responses to the Contractor in Microsoft Word format via email. In response to the 4-part comment submitted by the IEPR Review Panel, USACE should submit a “concur” or “non-concur” evaluation to each Final Panel Comment and include a concise, standalone statement as to why the response was “concur” or “non-concur.” In addition, in response to each IEPR Final Panel Comment Recommendation for Resolution, USACE shall include a statement to “adopt” or “not adopt”, along with a response describing how and where the report documentation would/would not be expanded, revised, or changed. If recommendations are not accepted, the reported reason for the rejection shall be documented in the draft evaluator responses. The Contractor shall coordinate a teleconference call with USACE and the IEPR Panel to discuss USACE’s draft evaluator responses to the IEPR Final Panel Comments.

Following the teleconference call, USACE will submit final responses to the IEPR Final Panel Comments. In addition, USACE will enter final responses to Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. The Contractor shall receive backcheck responses to draft evaluator responses from the IEPR Review Panel. All responses provided by the USACE and IEPR Panel members will be labeled as “concur” or “non-concur” to indicate agreement or non-agreement, respectively. The Contractor shall enter the IEPR Panel backcheck responses to the USACE final responses to Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. The Contractor will provide USACE with a .pdf printout of the DrChecks project file once all IEPR comments are closed following backcheck responses. In addition, the Contractor will provide the Microsoft Word file containing the final iteration of the IEPR Final Panel Comments, the USACE final evaluator responses to IEPR Final Panel Comments, and the IEPR Panel backcheck responses to the USACE final evaluator responses.

5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall provide all document reproduction. Electronic submittals shall contain all electronic files in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats. The briefings for the teleconferences will be furnished in Microsoft PowerPoint or Adobe PDF format. Reports generated by the peer review Contractor or their subcontractors shall not be released for publication or dissemination without the Contracting Officer’s written approval following coordination with the Contracting Officer’s representative. The USACE will determine which documents to publish in the public domain. The Contractor shall provide monthly status updates to USACE. Status updates will include the status of efforts associated with this PWS as well as any changes to scope and schedule. These updates will be informal and normally conducted through electronic mail messages.

All electronic and hard copy submittals (whether draft or final) must be thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate contracting staff prior to submittal to USACE and/or the PCX. The Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and quality assurance for all deliverables to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

6. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall have the following qualifications:

a. Experience establishing and administering Review Panels;

b. Qualified as an Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) organization and be exempted from Federal tax under Section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

c. Shall be a scientific or professional society, a firm specializing in peer review, or a non-profit organization with experience in peer review;

d. Is an independent science and technology organization;

e. Shall be free from conflicts of interest with the Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and EIS;

f. Does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources projects; and

g. Proven ability to deliver under significant time constraints.

7. PLACE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, AND TRAVEL

a. Place of Performance. A majority of the work will be conducted at the Contractor’s facilities.

b. Period of Performance. The performance period shall be from the date of the NTP through 20-NOV-2026.

c. Travel: Travel is not required.

8. RESTRICTIONS

There are no known conflicts of interest with the Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and EIS and IEPR Panel members that are assembled.

9. AUTHORITIES STATEMENT

No person other than the Government Contracting Officer has the authority to make changes to this contract action that impact cost or schedule. Authority from the Contracting Officer to the contractor to make changes that impact cost or schedule will be in the form of an official, signed modification.

10. RELEVANCE

The USACE is a division of the U.S. Army. USACE has been directed by Congress to develop the Wilmington Harbor 403 Letter Report and EIS.

11. CAPABILITY STATEMENT

In accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114), Section 2034, the peer review must be completed by reviewers external to the Government, thus the requesting agency does not have the necessary in-house capability to perform the tasks specified in this PWS.

12. POINTS OF CONTACT

PCX IEPR Project Lead

Contracting Officer’s Representative

Project Manager

Lead Planner

APPENDIX A

WILMINGTON HARBOR 403 LETTER REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Wilmington, North Carolina Independent External Peer Review Draft Schedule1

USACE Submits Draft Work Plan

Teleconference ( if necessary)

USACE Provide comments on Draft Work Plan

CONTRACTOR requests input from USACE on the conflict of interest (COI) questionnaire

USACE Provides comments on COI

USACE provides comments on selected Panel members

Complete subcontracts for Panel members

CONTRACTOR Kickoff meeting with USACE

Kickoff meeting with USACE and IEPR Panel

IEPR mid-point teleconference

IEPR Panel members provide response to charge in Final Panel Comments

Final Panel Comments Teleconference between USACE, contractor, and IEPR Panel members to discuss Final Panel comments and USACE draft Evaluator responses

1 The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on dates indicated by this draft schedule. See description of work in Task 1 for more discussion of potential schedule delays.

*- Deliverable image1.png