Attachment 3- Example IEPR PWS 20200220.pdf

EXAMPLE ONLY: Actual calls may vary in scope, schedule, subject matter and required expertise

EXAMPLE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

FOR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

1. TITLE

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Woodbridge, VA.

2. GENERAL

The Occoquan Peninsula is approximately 8 square miles, located between the Occoquan and Marumsco Rivers. The two rivers join near Deephole Point to form Belmont Bay Harbor. Belmont Bay is a natural tidal estuary sheltered from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier islands. The Occoquan Peninsula is the historic core and urban center of the City of Woodbridge and is home to 100,000 people. The shoreline of the peninsula has undergone dramatic changes, predominantly by landfilling of the intertidal zone. Early maps show that over one-third of the present-day peninsula has been “reclaimed.”

The Occoquan Peninsula experiences coastal storm surge inundation that adversely affects the economic sustainability of Occoquan, places populations at risk, and limits or completely restricts access to critical facilities, emergency services, and evacuation routes. Relative sea level rise is expected to exacerbate the impacts of coastal storm surge flooding over time.

The problems identified for the study include effects resulting from coastal storm surge inundation, posing risks of damages to structures and contents and to human health and safety. Based on historical storm events, there is a risk of loss of life. Identified study risks to date include the use of existing information, assumptions regarding subsurface conditions, locations of underground utilities, and future improvements to the Port of Woodbridge. All study risks are considered low risk and typical of feasibility studies at the beginning of the study.

Figure 1: Occoquan Peninsula, Woodbridge, VA Study Area

(Figure intentionally blank for example PWS)

IEPR Process:

The Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Woodbridge, VA has been developed to reflect USACE modernized planning initiatives, 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 Tentative Selected Plan (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.

Under the SMART Planning paradigm, IEPR occurs during concurrent review of the Decision Document, between the TSP Milestone meeting and the Agency Decision Milestone (ADM) meeting (refer to the SMART Feasibility Study diagram). To help explain the results of the risk-informed assessment and alternative evaluation, a risk register and other risk management documentation will accompany the feasibility study decision documents. 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 Decision Document in accordance with the applicable directives listed below.

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 Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study. 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 coastal storm risk management.

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 EC

1165-2-217, Paragraph 11 , 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 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.

Applicable Directives The following guidance shall be followed in conducting the IEPR. Unless otherwise specified, copies of these directives are available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil.

• The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007, Sections 2034 and 7009; as amended by Section 1044 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 and Section 1141 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin M-05-03, “Final Information Quality Bulleting for Peer Review,” (2004); available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/bulletins/.

• National Academy of Science’s (NAS) “Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest” (2003); available at:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_0 69688.pdf.

• EC 1165-2-217, “Review Policy for Civil Works,” 2018.

• USACE National Planning Centers of Expertise Type 1 IEPR Process Standard Operating Procedure https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/bulletins/ http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_069688.pdf http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_069688.pdf

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

Documents for Review

Report Title for IEPR Panel Review

Anticipated Date of Report/Data

Approximate Number of Pages

[1] Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study Report

9 March, 2020 506

Appendix A: Plan Formulation 9 March, 2020 88 Appendix B: Engineering 9 March, 2020 1,288 Appendix C: Economics 9 March, 2020 125 Appendix D: Environmental 9 March, 2020 622 Appendix E: Real Estate Plan 9 March, 2020 37

Public Comments [2] [3] 9 March-9 April 2020 200

Total 2,866

[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 Attachment 1). 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 Attachment 1. 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.

Option Task 1: 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 1 (including a 20% contingency as specified in Table 1). This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to an additional 300 pages of review documents.

Option Task 2: 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 200 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.

4. SPECIFIC TASKS

There are some instances when concurrence or approval by USACE is necessary to assure policy compliance with EC 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, terms of non-disclosure agreements for panel members (as needed), working schedule, selection of Panel members, Review Charge to Panel members (draft provided by USACE in Attachment 2), 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 Planning Center of Expertise (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 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 USACE for each meeting.

Task 2: IEPR Panel

The Contractor shall identify Review Panel members in accordance with the descriptions below and the applicable directives (above). The final selection of the Panel will be based on screening criteria included in the work plan (Task 1). As needed, the Contractor will ensure that selected Review Panel members execute non-disclosure agreements with terms and conditions coordinated with USACE through the development of the final work plan. Each panel member should be a professional from academia, a public agency, consulting firm, or similar vocation with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in their area of expertise. Panel members should be familiar with large, complex water resources projects with high public and interagency interests. At least one panel member will have experience with USACE Coastal Storm Risk Management feasibility studies.

The Contractor will provide USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The disciplines that should be included are:

Planning Formulator/Economist: The Review Panel member must have a minimum of 15 years demonstrated experience in academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm and a minimum MS degree or higher in economics. The panel members experience must include a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience with public works projects and a minimum of five years’ experience directly working with the USACE six-step planning process, which is governed by ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook. The panel member must have experience in the analysis of national economic development (NED) benefits and costs.

The panel member must be very familiar with USACE plan formulation process, procedures, and standards as it relates to hurricane and coastal storm risk management projects. Familiarity with regional economic development (RED) and other social effects (OSE) account considerations related to coastal storm risk reduction is preferred.

Familiarity with the Generation Two Coastal Risk Model (G2CRM) is preferred.

Environmental Law Compliance Specialist: The Review Panel member must be a scientist from academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architectural- Engineering or Consulting Firm. The Review Panel member must have at least 15 years’ experience directly related to water resources environmental evaluation or review and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and analysis, and have a biological or environmental background that is familiar with the project area and environmental impact analysis and mitigation. Knowledge of impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology of coastal regions of the mid-Atlantic coast of North America is highly preferred.

Hydrology and Hydraulic/Coastal Engineer [1]: The panel member must be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in coastal and hydraulic engineering, or a professor from academia with extensive background in coastal processes and hydraulic theory and practice, with a minimum Master’s Degree or higher in engineering. The panel member should be familiar with USACE application of risk and uncertainty analyses in hurricane and coastal storm risk management studies. The panel member should also be an expert in the field of coastal storm surge and storm wave modeling. Specific experience with the use of coupled ADCIRC, STWAVE, and SWAN numerical models is highly preferred.

Civil/Structural Engineer [1]: The Review Panel member must be a registered professional engineer or a professor from academia with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in civil engineering and specifically the design of coastal storm risk management structures. The panel member must have experience with floodwall and levee design. Familiarity with USACE engineering manuals, circulars, technical letters, and regulations on design, analysis, and implementation of coastal storm risk management projects is highly preferred.

[1] At least one of the engineering disciplines must be able to address the following requirements in the charge to the review panel:

Since project designs are initiated in the decision document phase, Safety Assurance Review (SAR) is incorporated into Type I IEPR. The initial evaluation of SAR as part of Type I IEPR includes, at a minimum, addressing the following questions (per EC 1165-2- 217, Para. 11.g(3)(c)):

1. In accordance with ER 1110-2-1150, is the quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering sufficient for a concept design?

2. Are the models used to assess hazards appropriate?

3. Are the assumptions made for the hazards appropriate?

4. Does the analysis adequately address the uncertainty and residual risk given the consequences associated with the potential for loss of life for this type of project?

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 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.

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 meeting and site visit will be held after final selection of the Review Panel members. This meeting will be between USACE personnel, Contractor personnel, and the IEPR Review Panel members. The meeting will take place at the USACE project office in Woodbridge, VA. The purpose of this meeting is for USACE to familiarize the Review Panel members with the project and to discuss the specific objectives of the review. All of the Review Panel members will participate. The site visit and kick-off meeting would include a full business day and should be attended by the full panel to the extent practicable and include the OEO Project Manager.

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 panelists to ask clarifying questions of USACE in order to assist in the development of comments and to potentially reduce the total number of final Panel comments.

Agency Decision Milestone Meeting:

The Corps ADM meeting occurs after the public review of the draft decision document has ended and IEPR Task 5 of the PWS has been completed. The ADM meeting is generally a teleconference and webmeeting. One Contractor staff and a 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.

If required, the ADM meeting will be arranged and hosted by USACE.

Task 4: Conduct IEPR

The Contractor will provide the Review Panel members with copies of the technical documents for review 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 also will 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 one week 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 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 project implement ability);

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 format and presentation will conform to examples of recently completed reports available at:

https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Completed-Peer- Review-Reports/. The report is intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process.

The report must 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 the USACE for review.

The Final IEPR Report must be submitted no later than 45 days following the close of the public comment period (unless an addendum is required then the options would be exercised and schedule revised to accommodate the ADM date). The final report outline previously approved by the Government will be used for all reports with any agreed-to modifications required. Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Completed-Peer-Review-Reports/ https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Completed-Peer-Review-Reports/ 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 Task 3: Addendum to the Final IEPR Report (300 additional pages)

This option will be exercised in the case where the close of 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 panel’s review allowing sufficient time to consolidate and produce a Final IEPR Report at least 2 weeks in advance of the scheduled ADM. This option assumes that the panel had reviewed all other documents provided but the public comments. This option will cover additional effort for the panel to review up to 300 pages of additional public comments (beyond the 200 pages estimated in the base contract in Table 1). This option will also cover any necessary meetings, back and forth with the Panel regarding their findings, Final Panel Comment language and time to enter the additional Final Panel Comments and Backchecks into DrChecks.

Additionally, this option will account for all OEO 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 submittals (whether draft or final) and deliverables must undergo thorough quality review prior to submittal to USACE. 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

In addition to the requirements of the Blanket Purchase Agreement, the Contractor shall have the following qualifications:

a. Shall be free from conflicts of interest with the Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study.

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 30 January 2021.

c. Travel: Contractor and Review Panel members are required to travel to one site visit at Woodbridge, VA (see task 3). No other travel is required.

Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study Independent External Peer Review

Attachment 1

Draft Schedule1

PWS

Task

Action (* denotes deliverable)

NTP + Calendar Days, Estimated Completion Date

-- Call issued / notice to proceed (NTP) NTP + 0, 01 Jun 2020 3 * Kickoff teleconference (USACE and Contractor) NTP + 4, 05 Jun 20 2 Contractor requests input from USACE on the conflict of interest (COI) questionnaire and non-disclosure agreement (NDA) terms for review panel members

NTP + 4, 05 Jun 20

1 * Contractor delivers draft work plan NTP + 10, 11 Jun 20 1 USACE provides comments on draft work plan NTP + 11, 12 Jun 20 1 Teleconference to discuss draft work plan

(if necessary) NTP + 11, 12 Jun 20

1 * Contractor delivers final work plan NTP + 15, 16 Jun 20 2 * Contractor delivers list of selected panel members NTP + 15, 16 Jun 20 2 USACE provides feedback on selected panel members NTP + 21, 21 Jun 20

2 Contractor completes subcontracts with panel members

NTP + 30, 01 Jul 20

USACE provides review documents to Contractor NTP + 30, 01 Jul 20 (If exercised) Optional task 1, USACE provides up to

300 pages of additional review documents to the Contractor

(Not required unless option is exercised)

3 * Kickoff meeting and site visit (USACE, Contractor and Review Panel)

NTP + 37, 08 Jul 20

3 * Midpoint review teleconference (USACE, Contractor and Review Panel)a

NTP + 51, 22 Jul 20

Public review period closes 22 Jul 20 4 USACE provides public comments to Contractor NTP + 58, 22 Jul 20 (If exercised) Optional task 2, USACE provides up to

300 pages of additional public comments to the Contractor

(Not required unless option is exercised)

5 * Contractor delivers Final IEPR Report NTP + 88, 28 Aug 20 (no later than 04 Sep 20)

5 USACE accepts Final IEPR Report deliverable NTP + 91, 31 Aug 20 6 * Contractor delivers IEPR Final Panel Comments to

USACE via email and DrChecks NTP + 91, 31 Aug 20

(If exercised) Optional task 3, Contractor delivers addendum to Final IEPR Report based on USACE delay in providing all public comments

(Not required unless option is exercised)

6 USACE provides draft Evaluator responses and clarifying questions to Contractor

NTP + 121, 30 Sep 20

6 * Final panel comments teleconference (USACE, Contractor, and Review Panel)

NTP + 128, 7 Oct 20

6 USACE provides final comment evaluator responses via DrChecks

NTP + 158, 6 Nov 20

6 * Contractor delivers final comment backchecks via DrChecks

NTP + 172, 20 Nov 20

6 * Contractor closes DrChecks review and delivers PDF report of comment/response dialog.

NTP + 172, 20 Nov 20

3 * Contractor participates in Agency Decision Milestone (ADM) meeting

Tentatively scheduled for Oct

Contractor submits final invoice No later than 60 days following completion of all requirements

(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.

Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study Independent External Peer Review

Attachment 2

Draft Charge to Reviewers

The following Charge to Reviewers outlines the objective of the Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the subject study and the specific advice sought from the IEPR panel.

The objective of the IEPR is to obtain an independent evaluation of whether the interpretations of analysis and conclusions based on analysis are reasonable for the subject study. The IEPR panel is requested to offer a broad evaluation of the overall study decision document in addition to addressing the specific technical and scientific questions included in the charge. The panel has the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of decision makers, including positive feedback or issues outside those specific areas outlined in the charge.

The panel review is to focus on scientific and technical matters, leaving policy determinations for USACE and the Army. The panel should not make recommendations on whether a particular alternative should be implemented or present findings that become “directives” in that they call for modifications or additional studies or suggest new conclusions and recommendations. In such circumstances the panel may have assumed the role of advisors as well as reviewers, thus introducing bias and potential conflict in their ability to provide objective review.

Panel review comments are to be structured to fully communicate the panel’s intent by including the comment, why it is important, any potential consequences of failure to address, and suggestions on how to address the comment. The IEPR Performance Work Statement provides additional details on how comments should be structured.

Broad Evaluation Charge Questions

1. Is the need for and intent of the decision document clearly stated?

2. Does the decision document adequately address the stated need and intent relative to scientific and technical information?

Given the need for and intent of the decision document, assess the adequacy and acceptability of the following:

3. Project evaluation data used in the study analyses,

4. Economic, environmental, social, and engineering assumptions that underlie the study analyses ,

5. Economic, environmental, social, and engineering methodologies, analyses, and projections,

6. Models used in the evaluation of existing and future without-project conditions and of economic or environmental impacts of alternatives,

7. Methods for integrating risk and uncertainty,

8. Formulation of alternative plans and the range of alternative plans considered,

9. Quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering sufficient for conceptual design of alternative plans, and

10. Overall assessment of significant environmental impacts, social justice, and any biological analyses.

Further,

11. Evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are reasonable, and

12. Assess the considered and tentatively selected alternatives from the perspective of systems, including systemic aspects being considered from a temporal perspective, including the potential effects of climate change.

For the tentatively selected plan, assess whether:

13. The models used to assess life safety hazards are appropriate,

14. The assumptions made for the life safety hazards are appropriate,

15. The quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering are sufficient for a concept design considering the life safety hazards and to support the models and assumptions made for determining the hazards, and

16. The analysis adequately address the uncertainty and residual risk given the consequences associated with the potential for loss of life for this type of project.

Since project designs are initiated in the decision document phase, for the tentatively selected plan, assess whether:

17. In accordance with ER 1110-2-1150, is the quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering sufficient for a concept design?

18. Are the models used to assess hazards appropriate?

19. Are the assumptions made for the hazards appropriate?

20. Does the analysis adequately address the uncertainty and residual risk given the consequences associated with the potential for loss of life for this type of project?