Attachment_2_-_Questions_for_Solicitation_140M0121Q0028_0001.docx

Questions and Answers for Solicitation 140M0121Q0028 A Vulnerability Index to Scale Effects off Offshore Renewable Energy on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles of the U.S. West Coast (VIMMS)

1. Does BOEM desire the creation of a Graphical User Interface GUI) through which users would interact with the vulnerability assessment?

Answer: A GUI is not a requirement, but BOEM is open to reviewing and considering such a proposal.

2. Can BOEM provide the full citations of the literature cited in the RFP to ensure that we review the intended literature?

Answer: Adams, J., Kelsey, E.C., Felis, J.J., and Pereksta, D.M., 2017. Collision and displacement vulnerability among marine birds of the California Current System associated with offshore wind energy infrastructure (ver. 1.1, July 2017): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1154, 116 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161154.

Barlow, J., Henry. A., and Balance, L.T. 2014. 2014 California Current Cetacean & Ecosystem Assessment Survey (CalCurCEAS): final report to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management regarding surveys of Windfloat and Wave Energy Areas. Report submitted by NOAA Fisheries to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. April 28, 2014. https://www.boem.gov/PR-14-OBS/. 6 pg.

Costa, B.M., and Kendall, M.S. (eds.), 2016. Marine Biogeographic Assessment of the Main Hawaiian Islands. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. OCS Study BOEM 2016-035 and NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 214. 359 p.

Dickinson, M.G., Orme, C.D.L., Suttle, K.B., and Mace, G.M., 2015. Separating sensitivity from exposure in assessing extinction risk from climate change. Sci. Rep. 2015;4:6898. doi: 10.1038/srep06898.

Laidre, K.L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L.F., Wiig, O., Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., and Ferguson, S.H., 2008. Quantifying the sensitivity of arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecological Applications. 18(2): 1-29, S97-S125 p.

Foden, W.B., Butchart, S.H., Stuart, S.N., Vié, J.C., Akçakaya, H.R., Angulo, A., DeVantier, L.M., Gutsche, A., Turak, E., Cao, L., Donner, S.D., Katariya, V., Bernard, R., Holland, R.A., Hughes, A.F., O'Hanlon, S.E., Garnett, S.T., Sekercioğlu, C.H., and Mace, G.M., 2013. Identifying the World’s Most Climate Change Vulnerable Species: A Systematic Trait-Based Assessment of all Birds, Amphibians and Corals. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065427.

Foden W.B., Young, B.E., Akçakaya, H.R., Garcia, R.A., Hoffmann, A.A., Stein, B.A., Thomas, C.D., Wheatley, C.J., Bickford, D., Carr, J.A., Hole, D.G., Martin, T.G., Pacifici, M., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Platts, P.J., Visconti, P., Watson, J.E.M., and Huntley, B., 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2019;10:e551. doi: 10.1002/wcc.551.

Hossain, M.A., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Burgman, M.A, Böhm, M., Kujala, H., and Bland, L.M., 2018. Assessing the vulnerability of freshwater crayfish to climate change. Divers. Distrib. 2018;24:1830–1843. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12831.

Southall, B.L., Amaral, J., Clark, C.W., Ellison, W., Joy, R., Tollit, D., and Pinorakis, D.W., 2018. A risk assessment framework to evaluate the potential relative effects of noise on marine mammals. Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals Conference, Den Hague, The Netherlands.

3. Please confirm that the qualified experts included in Task 4 and the selected group of experts included in Task 5 should be included on the respondents Team and their level of effort included in the pricing or can they be identified in concert with BOEM post proposal submission and serve in a third-party capacity?

Answer: Per Section 5. of the RFQ, “The Contractor shall demonstrate the expertise of its proposed Principal Investigators and Authors. The Principal Investigators and Authors shall be named in the proposal and shall be designated by the Contractor as key personnel. The Project Manager may also serve as a Principal Investigator or Author.” Additionally, in the same section of the RFQ, “Labor Matrix: In the Business/Cost Proposal, the Contractor shall provide a labor matrix, by task, showing the labor categories and labor hours of all contractor personnel designated to perform the requirements.”

4. Section 2.3.3 of the RFP states that at a minimum, the post-award meeting shall include: 2) a draft of the Program Management Plan (PMP) from the Contractor. Whereas Section 4.3.2 of the RFP states that the Technical Volume of the proposal is limited to 20 pages not including the title pages, the table of contents, resumes of Key Personnel, Project Management Plan, and Past Performance forms. Please clarify if a draft PMP is to be included in the Technical Volume.

Answer:

Since the draft PMP will not count towards the Technical Volume page limit, a draft PMP may be included in the Technical Volume. However, per Section 2.3.3 of the RFQ, a draft PMP is required at the post-award meeting, a final PMP required 2 weeks after the post-award meeting, per the Section 2.6 Deliverables schedule.

5. Section 2.1 states “use expert elicitation to inform identified data gaps (including potential mitigative trade-offs of offshore renewable energy development), as appropriate” Does the RFP scope include development of the mitigative trade-offs? Is the intent of evaluating the mitigative trade-offs directed at actions that the developer intends to take on a larger ecological scale or on local-scale mitigation actions specifically during construction and operations (e.g., slow speed zones); or is the intent to evaluate mitigative trade-offs from a large scale climate perspective?

Answer: The RFQ does not include development of mitigative trade-offs. Rather, the proposer is invited to identify any potential mitigative trade-offs that they feel should/could be investigated when the details of offshore floating wind projects along the U.S. West Coast are available.

6. Section 2.3.3, Task 5 in the RFP states “The index will be designed in such a way that this approach will be able to accommodate updates to reflect the evolving state of knowledge.” Does this scope intend to allow BOEM staff to update the vulnerability indices as more data are acquired such that the corresponding visualization products are also updated? Or is the intent that periodic updates to the indices would be commissioned outside of BOEM?

Answer: The scope of the RFQ does not incorporate future updates to the vulnerability indices, but rather requires that the structure/framework will be able to accommodate future updates.

7. Section 2.3.3, Task 1 indicates that the Post-Award meeting will occur within one month of the contract award; however, the Deliverables table in Section 2.6 indicates that the Post Award meeting will take place within 2 weeks of contract award. Could BOEM please clarify when this meeting shall occur?

Answer: The Post-Award meeting will occur within one month of the contract award. RFQ Section 2.6 – Deliverables Table – A has been updated to denote this change.

8. Item #10 “ This Acquisition is” , on the first page of the Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028, has the unrestricted box checked but also lists the size standard as $16.5 million.

a. Is there any revenue size restrictions for firms pursuing Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028?

Answer: No, this acquisition is unrestricted.

b. Is any preference given to small businesses or other types of businesses for Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028?

Answer: No, this acquisition is unrestricted, and no preference will be given to small businesses.

9. Would the qualifying firm performing the work outlined in Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028 be in a conflict of interest (COI) position with regard to representing potential offshore wind development clients, currently or in the future, on the West Coast or elsewhere?

Answer: No. Studies proposals are reviewed by an independent team, and each proposal is evaluated based on its responsiveness, merit, and other factors that do not include other ongoing or potential future work of the offeror. Further, offerors provide data and information to BOEM SMEs who then interpret and incorporate that information into independent agency documents, recommendations, and decisions. BOEM Is not aware of, nor does it have influence over how 3rd party companies choose to work with on any given project. Those decisions are made outside of the purview of the agency.

10. What would BOEM broadly consider COI in regard to the firm(s) conducting work under Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028 but also involved in representing potential offshore wind development clients?

Answer: Conducting an environmental study for BOEM, and concurrently developing a NEPA or similar document for BOEM making recommendations based upon the results of the subject study.

11. If there could be COI, would BOEM consider mitigation to avoid COI if a firm were working for or planning to work for wind developers?

Answer: No. See answers to Question 9 and 10 above.

12. Does BOEM have a target cost estimate for the performance of Solicitation No. 140M012Q0028?

Answer: Yes, however, this information cannot be shared. The contractor’s offer is a business decision in what it shall take to complete the work.

13. Is there a budget limit?

Answer: See answer to Question 12 above.

14. Is there an expectation to undertake a formal expert elicitation for pertinent data gaps or via individual contact?

Answer:

BOEM relies on the proposers to use their expertise to propose, and provide details on, an effective strategy to incorporate the expert elicitation required in the RFQ.

15. Is there an expectation to undertake a formal expert elicitation for final ratings or is expert review by independent consultation sufficient?

Answer:

BOEM relies on the proposers to use their expertise to propose, and provide details on, an effective strategy to incorporate the expert elicitation required in the RFQ.

16. What is the anticipated size of the expert group per factor?

Answer: BOEM relies on the proposers to use their expertise to propose, and provide details on, an effective strategy to incorporate the expert elicitation required in the RFQ.

17. Can further details of ‘environmental stressors to be reviewed and ranked be provided?

Answer: BOEM relies on the proposers to use their expertise to initially identify relevant environmental stressors (to include, for example, anthropogenic noise, vessel strikes, entanglement). BOEM will work with the successful proposer to expand or refine these as appropriate.

18. Is it reasonable to focus compensatory abilities on ability to feed (or breed) in alternate defined regions or time periods?

Answer: All relevant and appropriate compensatory abilities should be taken into consideration, including the ability to feed (or breed) in alternate defined regions or time periods.

19. Is the use of available CetMap habitat data and Cetsound acoustic data an acceptable source of baseline cetacean habitat and noise level information?

Answer: CetMap is an acceptable source of baseline cetacean habitat information as long as it aligns with the most up-to-date information available on the California Offshore Wind Energy Gateway (https://caoffshorewind.databasin.org/). Cetsound is an acceptable source of baseline noise level information. Any additional data sources that BOEM becomes aware of will be made available as appropriate.