Attachment 5 - PWS for IEPR BPAs 20200312.docx

1 Introduction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires professional technical services in support of independent external peer reviews (IEPR) for its water resources projects. The Institute for Water Resources (IWR) and Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity (HECSA) will administer blanket purchase agreements (BPA) on behalf of USACE to obtain these services. These BPAs will serve the needs of the entire USACE consistent with the general scope of work outlined below.

The purpose of this BPA is to provide IEPR services to USACE for scientific assessments and water resource projects. The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Bulletin M-05-03, “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,” (2004) and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007), as amended, mandate that certain scientific assessments and project studies conducted by USACE shall be subject to peer review by an independent panel of experts. In addition, these authorities and directives and related USACE guidance on review processes allow that USACE may choose to perform IEPR on certain work products.

1.1 Scope

This PWS requires the Contractor to provide management and/or technical services in support of IEPR’s for water resources projects, scientific assessments and related work products consistent with OMB Bulletin M-05-03 and WRDA 2007, as amended, and related USACE guidance. For each order under this BPA, the Contractor will be required to establish a panel of experts, typically in accordance with the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) policy for selecting committee members, and manage peer reviews for project studies, scientific assessments and/or related work products. Specific requirements will be detailed in each order, but typically will include developing a work plan in coordination with USACE, establishing a panel of experts in accordance with specified requirements for expertise and applicable conflict of interest criteria, facilitating meetings among the panel and USACE staff, assessing the adequacy and acceptability of the methods used by USACE, considering any public comments submitted to USACE, submitting a final report that includes the panel’s full analysis of the project study, scientific assessment or work product, and managing and documenting the panel’s evaluation of USACE responses to the panel’s comments. Individual reviews may also include requirements for site visits and briefings to senior USACE officials as specified in each order.

Specific types of project studies, scientific assessments and work products requiring IEPR services under this BPA are expected to include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Reviews of specific project studies. Project studies typically requiring reviews include, but are not limited to feasibility studies, post-authorization change studies and dam safety modification studies. These reviews are sometimes referred to as “Type 1 IEPRs” to distinguish them from “Type 2 IEPRs” which are typically performed after the project study phase, during design and construction. The scope of information provided for Type 1 IEPRs will typically include, but is not limited to analyses and assumptions related to plan formulation, economics, biology and other environmental disciplines, hydrology, hydraulics, geotechnical, structural and other engineering disciplines, as well as the draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and any public comments received by USACE. Expertise related to other scientific and engineering disciplines may be required as specified in individual calls. Specific USACE guidance related to reviews of project studies currently includes Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-217 and the USACE National Planning Centers of Expertise Type 1 IEPR Process Standard Operating Procedure (see 4.3, Applicable Directives).

b. Reviews of specific project studies, scientific assessments and/or related work products by the Louisiana Water Resources Council (LWRC). Section 7009 of WRDA 2007 states that the LWRC: “shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel for activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers in the areas in the State of Louisiana declared as major disaster areas in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) in response to Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005.” Requirements for LWRC peer reviews are expected to be rare, but the requirement is still in force. USACE will provide the Contractor with the names of current LWRC members. As of 2020, it has been several years since USACE required an IEPR by the LWRC and the availability of the current members to participate in future reviews is unknown. Panels of experts established for LWRC reviews must be staffed from the current LWRC members, or as otherwise agreed to by USACE. Requirements under this BPA may also include selection of different experts to change the membership of the LWRC. Selection of new LWRC members may require coordination with USACE and the State of Louisiana.

c. Reviews of models. Model reviews may be required at different stages of model development and usage. Specific requirements will be detailed in each order, but will generally be similar to reviews of project studies as described above. Model reviews may require evaluation of code and model testing and typically require, but are not limited to evaluation of technical quality, system quality and usability. Technical quality criteria generally reflect the accuracy and precision with which the system and relevant science and theory are represented by the model code. System quality criteria generally reflect hardware and software considerations related to development, use and support of the model. Usability criteria generally reflect the ability of users to access the model, receive appropriate training, secure necessary input data, run the model, obtain necessary output, and receive support if technical problems occur. Specific USACE guidance related to model reviews currently includes EC 1105-2-412.

d. Other work products. Examples of other work products that may require review under this BPA include, but are not limited to studies and reports prepared pursuant to specific Congressional authorization, Environmental Impact Statements and related assessments, and work products prepared during other phases of project delivery (for example, during design, construction or operations) which are determined to require a review by external experts that is managed by an “eligible organization” as defined in task 3.2.1 of this PWS.

1.2 Exclusion of Architect-Engineering (A-E) Contract Services The scope of this contract does not include A-E services, as defined by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Subpart 36.6 and USACE Engineering Pamphlet (EP) 715-1-7 (2012).

2 General Requirements This section describes the general requirements for this effort. The following sub-sections provide details of various considerations on this effort.

2.1 Non-Personal Services

The Government shall neither supervise Contractor employees nor control the method by which the contractor performs the required tasks. Under no circumstances shall the Government assign tasks to, or prepare work schedules for, individual Contractor employees. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to manage its employees and to guard against any actions that are of the nature of personal services, or give the perception of personal services. If the Contractor believes that any actions constitute, or are perceived to constitute personal services, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Contracting Officer immediately.

2.2 Business Relations

The Contractor shall successfully integrate and coordinate all activity needed to execute the requirement. The Contractor shall manage the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification. The Contractor shall provide corrective action plans, proposal submittals, timely identification of issues, and effective management of subcontractors. The Contractor shall seek to ensure customer satisfaction and professional and ethical behavior of all Contractor personnel.

2.3 BPA Administration and Management

The following subsections specify requirements for management and personnel administration under this BPA.

2.3.1 Management

The Contractor shall establish clear organizational lines of authority and responsibility to ensure effective management of the resources assigned to all requirements under this BPA.

2.3.2 Administration

The Contractor shall establish processes and assign appropriate resources to effectively administer all requirements under this BPA. The Contractor shall respond to Government requests for contractual actions in a timely fashion. The Contractor shall have single points of contact with the Government for contractual matters, programmatic delivery and for delivery of individual orders.

2.3.3 Personnel Administration

The Contractor shall provide the following management and support as required. The Contractor shall provide for employees during designated Government non-work days or other periods where Government offices are closed due to weather or security conditions. The Contractor shall maintain the currency of their employees by providing initial and refresher training as required to meet the PWS requirements. The Contractor shall make necessary travel arrangements for employees. The Contractor shall provide necessary infrastructure to support requirements. The Contractor shall provide administrative support to employees in a timely fashion (time keeping, leave processing, pay, emergency needs).

2.4 Subcontract Management

The Contractor shall be responsible for any subcontract management necessary to integrate work performed on requirements under this BPA and shall be responsible and accountable for subcontractor performance on all orders. The prime contractor will manage work distribution to ensure there are no Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) considerations. Cross teaming may or may not be permitted.

2.5 Contractor Personnel, Disciplines, and Specialties

The Contractor shall accomplish the assigned work by employing and utilizing qualified personnel with appropriate combinations of education, training, and experience. The Contractor shall ensure that labor rates and man-hours utilized in the performance of each order issued hereunder will be the minimum necessary to accomplish the requirements.

2.6 Location of Work

Accomplishment of the results contained in this PWS requires work primarily at the Contractor’s and subcontractor’s location, with occasional domestic travel to be determined at the individual order level.

2.7 Travel / Temporary Duty (TDY)

Travel to government facilities or other locations may be required and will be specified in the PWS for individual orders. All travel under this BPA shall be in accordance with the limitations set forth in FAR 31.205-46.

3 Performance Requirements The following section specifies the Performance Objectives and Performance Elements for the contract.

3.1 Peer Review

The process to prepare USACE project studies, scientific assessments and other related work products is complex and the schedules are subject to many factors, some of which are outside of USACE control. When USACE provides a draft working schedule in the PWS for individual orders, USACE does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on the dates in the draft working schedule. Final schedules will be developed as part of the work plan for the requirements under each order and modified thereafter with the consent of both parties. Allowable schedule deviations will be specified at the individual order level through the PWS and work plan.

USACE project studies, scientific assessments and other related work products are often prepared under aggressive schedules. USACE will provide as much detail as possible in the PWS for individual orders, but due to schedule requirements, orders may be solicited and issued before draft documents and assessments subject to review have been completely scoped or prepared. In such cases, the PWS for individual orders may be structured with optional tasks for additional increments of documentation and review to expedite continuity in reviews should the actual documentation and information requiring review exceed USACE’s initial estimate when soliciting an order.

As part of each order solicitation, USACE will provide a draft Charge for the review panel. USACE may request Contractor input on the draft Charge. The Charge to the reviewers will contain instructions regarding the objective of the review and the specific advice sought. Reviews should be conducted to identify, examine, and comment upon assumptions that underlie analyses, as well as to evaluate the soundness of models and analytic methods appropriate to the Charge. The Charge should be determined in advance of the selection of the reviewers. It should include specific technical questions while also directing reviewers to offer a broad evaluation of the overall document. Panels should also be able to evaluate and provide comment on whether the information presented supports the conclusions. To provide effective review, in terms of both usefulness and credibility of results, the Charge should give reviewers the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of decision makers. However, reviewers will be explicitly instructed in the Charge to not make a recommendation on whether a particular alternative should be implemented, as USACE is ultimately responsible for the final recommendations and decisions of its work products.

3.1.1. The Contractor shall host and participate in meetings as required per order.

Specific requirements for meetings will be specified in each order. Meeting requirements may include, but are not limited to:

· Kickoff meeting between Contractor and USACE;

· Kickoff meeting among Contractor, review panel members and USACE (meeting may take place as part of site visit);

· Mid-review meeting to provide an opportunity for review panel members to ask clarifying questions of USACE;

· Comment clarification meeting to discuss any clarifications that USACE requires regarding the IEPR report and panel comments; and

· Briefings for USACE senior officials. Briefing requirements, number of attendees and meeting format will be determined at the individual order level, but typically require the Contractor to prepare and communicate a concise summary of the IEPR review process and results to USACE senior leaders.

Meetings may be held virtually or in-person as specified in each order. The Contractor may be required to host and facilitate meetings as specified in each order. All meetings will be scheduled and held within allowable schedule deviations as specified in each order.

3.1.2. The Contractor shall establish and manage review panels as required per order.

The PWS for each order will specify required areas of expertise, minimum professional qualifications and known potential conflicts of interest as identified by USACE. The Contractor is responsible for the final selection of panel members. Selection of review panels must be in accordance with the Applicable Directives (see 4.3). The Contractor is responsible for properly identifying, disclosing and managing potential and real conflicts of interest with the individual panel members. In the event that a real conflict of interest (as defined in the Applicable Directives) is identified with a review panel member after order award, the Contractor will provide a replacement review panel member at no additional cost to the Government. Panel members must represent a balance of organizations and areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. For example, proposed panels with the majority of reviewers from the same organization, or with the majority of reviewers consisting of retired USACE personnel will not be considered balanced. USACE may review and comment on criteria for panel selection and proposed panel members as specified in each order.

The Contractor is also expected to provide programmatic balance in the use of individual reviewers across multiple orders. Continued use of the same reviewers across a majority of orders will not be considered balanced.

The Contractor shall be solely responsible for establishing the review panel, ensuring the availability of review panel members for the duration of the work and managing the performance of the review panel independent of Government supervision or control.

3.1.3. The Contractor shall conduct IEPRs as required per order.

The Contractor shall manage IEPRs in accordance with the Applicable Directives (see 4.3) and the requirements for each order. The Contractor will ensure that all services are performed, reviewed, and provided in a manner that meets professional engineering quality standards. Specific requirements for reviews will be specified in the PWS for each order. IEPR requirements may include, but are not limited to:

a. Preparation of draft and final work plans. Requirements for work plan contents may include, but are not limited to a description of the processes for conducting the IEPR, screening criteria for peer reviewers, selection of peer reviewers, charge to peer reviewers, communication and meetings with the USACE project team, quality control, and compilation and dissemination of panel comments.

b. Transmittal of documents. The Contractor will ensure that all applicable documents are made available to the review panel members in accordance with schedule requirements. As specified in each order, transmittals are generally expected to be made electronically, but may require expedited shipping of hardcopy documents and digital media.

c. Consideration of public comments. WRDA 2007 states that a duty of the peer review panel is to receive from the Chief of Engineers the public written and oral comments. As specified at the individual order level, the Contractor will ensure that public comments provided by USACE are considered by the review panel in evaluating the project study, scientific assessment or other work product. The amount of public comments may vary widely among different orders depending on the scope, complexity and perceived controversies of the projects and studies. For each order solicitation, USACE will provide an estimate of the expected pages of public comments to be provided based on public input received at that point in the study. The actual number of pages of public comments provided to the Contractor may differ from the estimate. Where a large number of comments are expected, USACE may provide an organized summary of comments in addition to the full text of comments, as specified at the individual order level.

d. Manage peer review. The Contractor will facilitate, manage and document communications between the review panel and USACE. The Contractor will ensure that the review panels’ work and comments are complete and responsive to the Charge for the review. The Contractor will identify overall issues and themes that were identified either by multiple review panel members or repeatedly by one reviewer as well as comments that indicated conflicting review panel member opinions, and work with the review panel to eliminate redundant or overlapping comments and identify dissenting or divergent opinions. The Contractor will work with the review panel to prepare final comments for USACE formatted according to the following 4-part structure:

(1) A clear statement of the concern;

(2) The basis for the concern;

(3) The significance of the concern (in accordance with programmatic definitions developed in coordination with USACE); and

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

e. Manage review panel participation in comment response process. The comment response process allows USACE to have a better understanding of the panel’s comments and concerns, and to discuss USACE’s intended responses and actions with the panel to determine if the panel is in agreement that the intended responses and actions will address the comments and concerns. As specified at the individual order level, the Contractor shall manage participation by the members of the review panel as needed to complete the comment response process.

3.1.4. The Contractor shall deliver documentation of IEPRs as required per order.

Specific requirements for documentation of reviews will be specified in each order. USACE may, but is not required to provide templates and/or programmatic guidance on content for IEPR documentation. Requirements for hardcopy and electronic format of deliverables will be specified at the individual order level. Requirements may include expedited shipping of hardcopy deliverables. All submitted documentation must be of professional quality and be free from spelling, grammatical, and copy and paste errors as well as formatting inconsistencies. Required documentation may include, but is not limited to:

a. Draft and final work plans. Work plans will typically describe the processes for conducting the IEPR, including screening criteria for peer reviewers, selection of peer reviewers, charge to peer reviewers, communication and meetings with the USACE project team, quality control, and compilation and dissemination of peer reviewers comments. Other requirements for work plan contents may be specified at the individual order level.

b. Review panel comments. The Contractor will document the review panel’s comments in a format to be determined at the individual order level and provide to USACE. The use of the ProjNet Design Review and Checking System (DrChecksTM) may be required as specified at the individual order level. USACE will provide the Contractor with necessary access to the DrChecks system.

c. Comment response process documentation. As specified at the individual order level, USACE may develop responses to the final review panel comments and provide to the Contractor. If DrChecks is used, the Contractor may be required to enter the USACE responses in DrChecks. Following receipt of the USACE responses, the Contractor shall manage panel participation in developing backcheck responses to the USACE responses. Backcheck responses will document the final panel opinion as to whether or not the USACE responses will address the comments and concerns raised in the final panel comments. Following completion of the backcheck responses, the Contractor will finalize documentation of the comment response process and provide to USACE as specified at the individual order level.

d. Final review report. Contents of review reports will typically include, but are not limited to:

· An executive summary describing the review recommendations and resolutions;

· A summary of the review panel members’ qualifications;

· A brief discussion of the methodology and criteria used to conduct the IEPR;

· Documentation of the review panel’s comments made, along with USACE responses and final comment resolution.

e. Multiple or supplemental reports and report addenda. The scope of individual orders may include preparation of multiple review reports; for example, both model review and project study review reports, or reports for reviews of different phases of work as part of the same project study, scientific assessment or other work product. In some cases, there may be requirements for additional peer review identified after completion of an IEPR that may require preparation of supplemental reports or report addenda in accordance with specific order requirements. The Contractor will ensure that multiple reports and addenda prepared as part of one project study, scientific assessment or other work product clearly identify their relationship with one another and the subject review documents.

3.2 Program Management.

3.2.1 The Contractor shall maintain eligibility to provide peer review services.

In order to be eligible for orders under this BPA, the Contractor must continue to meet all requirements in the applicable directives (see 4.3) to provide independent peer review services to USACE. Eligibility requirements are defined in Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 which states that:

“The term ‘‘eligible organization’’ means an organization that—

(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(B) is independent;

(C) is free from conflicts of interest;

(D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources projects; and

(E) has experience in establishing and administering peer review panels.”

3.2.2 The Contractor shall participate in meetings for program management.

a. BPA kickoff meeting. Contractor single POCs (see 3.2.3) shall attend one virtual programmatic kickoff meeting. This meeting will be conducted virtually and will not require travel. This meeting will be scheduled to be held no later than two months after award of the BPAs. This meeting is expected to be three hours in duration. The purpose of the meeting is to review BPA requirements and administrative procedures.

b. Quarterly program review meetings. The Contractor shall participate in virtual quarterly program review meetings hosted by USACE. Quarterly program review meetings are expected to be one hour in duration. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss issues, best practices and evolving requirements.

c. Additional programmatic in-person meetings. The Contractor may be asked to attend specific programmatic meetings in person as specified in separate orders. Locations and requirements for in-person programmatic meetings will be identified in a PWS issued with each order.

3.2.3 The Contractor shall provide program management for work assigned.

The Contractor shall provide a single POC for program management as well as a single POC with contracting authority. The Contractor must have the ability to manage multiple orders and subcontractors simultaneously as well as the ability to hire and retain personnel associated with work assigned. The Contractor Program Manager shall answer requests for programmatic information by USACE in a prompt manner. Examples of programmatic reporting include, but are not limited to, recommendations for formatting deliverables and lists of individual reviewers used in each order.

4 Special Requirements This section describes the special requirements for this effort. The following sub-sections provide details of various considerations on this effort.

4.1 Security

AT Level I Training: All contractor employees, to include subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities, controlled access areas, or require network access, shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after contract start date or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable. Upon request, the contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor employee and subcontractor employee, to the COR or to the contracting officer (if a COR is not assigned), within 5 calendar days after completion of training by all employees and subcontractor personnel. AT Level I awareness training is available at the following website: http://jko.jten.mil/courses/atl1/launch.html; or it can be provided by the RA ATO in presentation form which will be documented via memorandum.

Access and General Protection/Security Policy and Procedures: All contractor and all associated sub-contractors employees shall comply with applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative). The contractor shall also provide all information required for background checks or background investigation and to meet installation/facility access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements as directed by DOD, HQDA and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any installation or facility change, the Government may require changes in contractor security matters or processes.

4.2 Government Furnished Documents

The Government will make available the study documents required for each peer review as specified within each order.

4.3 Applicable Directives

The Contractor shall comply with all documents listed below as mandatory and referenced above. Unless otherwise specified, copies of these directives are available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil. These directives may be superseded and new directives may be issued during the ordering period of the BPA. USACE will inform the Contractor of any changes to the applicable directives. The Contractor shall comply with any new or superseded directives issued during the ordering period of the BPA.

· 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_069688.pdf

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

· EC 1105-2-412, “Assuring Quality of Planning Models,” 2011 (as extended by Planning Bulletin 2013-02)

· USACE National Planning Centers of Expertise Type 1 IEPR Process Standard Operating Procedure

4.4 Quality

This section describes the Quality Control components for this effort. The following sub-sections provide details of various considerations on this effort.

4.4.1 Quality Control

The Contractor shall develop a quality control plan (QCP) and maintain an effective quality control program to ensure services are performed in accordance with the requirements of this PWS and individual orders issued under the BPA. The Contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. The Contractor’s QCP is the means by which he assures himself that his work complies with the requirements of the BPA and individual orders.

The finalized QCP will be accepted by the Government 30 days after date of the BPA award. The Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor of required modifications to the plan during the period of performance. The Contractor then shall coordinate suggested modifications and obtain acceptance of the plan by the Contracting Officer. Any modifications to the program during the period of performance shall be provided to the Contracting Officer for review no later than 10 working days prior to effective date of the change. The QCP shall be subject to the Government’s review and approval. The Government may find the QCP "unacceptable" whenever the Contractors procedures do not accomplish quality control objective(s). The Contractor shall revise the QCP within 10 working days from receipt of notice that QCP is found "unacceptable."

4.4.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

The Government shall monitor the Contractor’s performance under this BPA and each order in accordance with the Government’s QASP.

5 Deliverables The Contractor shall provide deliverables as specified by the Government in individual orders.

Draft screening criteria for peer reviewers to include conflict of interest statement, schedule, qualifications of candidates and recommended selection of peer reviewers, draft charge to peer reviewers (provided by USACE to include in final work plan), communication and meetings with the USACE project team, draft quality control plan, and draft plan for compilation and dissemination of peer reviewers’ comments.

Screening criteria for peer reviewers to include conflict of interest statement, schedule, qualifications and selection of peer reviewers, charge to peer reviewers (provided by USACE to include in final work plan), communication and meetings with the USACE project team, quality control, and compilation and dissemination of peer reviewers’ comments.

Shall include date of meeting, names of all personnel attending, summary of items discussed, and action items.

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 pertinent information along with IEPR panel recommendations and final resolution. The reports are intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process. The report shall also include the methodology for conducting the peer reviews.

The Contractor will finalize documentation of the comment response process and provide to USACE as specified at the order level.

The Contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

Performance Requirement Summary (PRS)

b) Acceptable deviations from schedule dates will be defined for each order.

c) After finalizing work plan, schedule dates and acceptable deviations may be adjusted with the consent of both parties.

b) Panel members meet minimum qualifications and expertise as required by each order.

c) Contractor discloses and appropriately manages potential conflicts of interest for Contractor staff as well as review panel members.

d) Panel members remain available for period of performance of each order.

e) Contractor provides acceptable replacement for a panel member who is found to have a real conflict of interest (as defined in the Applicable Directives).

f) Contractor provides programmatic balance in panel participation across individual orders. The use of an individual panel member in more than one-half (50%) of the Contractor’s orders will be coordinated with USACE for approval.

Re-perform at no cost to the Government.

b) Contractor ensures that reviews and review comments are responsive to the final Charge to the reviewers.

c) Contractor appropriately eliminates redundant or overlapping comments and comments that are inappropriate when considering the Charge for the review, Applicable Directives and specific order requirements.

d) Contractor appropriately facilitates communication among USACE staff and the review panel members in accordance with the Applicable Directives and programmatic guidance.

e) Submitted work products shall be of professional quality and free of:

(1) spelling and grammatical errors as identified by Microsoft Word Spelling & Grammar tool;

(2) copy and paste errors, for example such as references to other project studies; and

(3) formatting and font inconsistencies.

Re-perform at no cost to the Government.

b) Submitted work products will utilize any templates provided and required by USACE.

c) Submitted work products shall be of professional quality and free of:

(1) spelling and grammatical errors as identified by Microsoft Word Spelling & Grammar tool;

(2) copy and paste errors, for example such as references to other project studies; and

(3) formatting and font inconsistencies.

Re-perform at no cost to the Government.

b) Contractor is responsive to requests for proposals to participate in face-to-face meetings.

b) Contractor provides single POC as program manager.

c) Contractor shall manage multiple orders and subcontractors simultaneously.

d) Contractor shall hire and retain personnel associated with work assigned.

Contractor shall take corrective action and ensure effective management of the resources assigned to all requirements under this BPA at no additional cost to the Government.