B01-RSOI W9126G252SOI5006.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FORT WORTH DISTRICT

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH, TX 76102-0300

27 June 2025

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST

W9126G-25-2-SOI-5006

Applicants must be a member in one of the following Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units Regions:

Gulf Coast and South Florida-Caribbean

Project Title: Monitoring Changes in Population Densities and Reproductive Success in Wading Bird Populations in the Florida Everglades for USACE Jacksonville District.

A cooperative agreement is being offered ONLY to members of the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Program Region(s) identified above. Award will be made upon mutual agreement and acceptance of the terms and conditions contained in the request for proposal and the recipient’s CESU Joint and Cooperative Agreement (also known as the CESU Master Agreement).

Note the established CESU Program indirect rate is 17.5%.

Responses to this Request for Statements of Interest (RSOI) will be used to identify potential organizations for this project.

This RSOI seeks merit-based competitive procedures to encourage participation in USACE (DoD) programs by a broad base of the most highly qualified performers and will be evaluated on Technical Merits of the proposed research and development (R&D) and the potential relationship of the proposed R&D to USACE (DoD) missions.

Approximately $137,273.00 is expected to be available to support this project for the Base Period. Additional funding may be available to the successful recipient for optional tasks and/or follow on work in subsequent years.

Period of Performance. The base period of the agreement will extend 12 months from date of award. There may be up to four 12-month follow-on periods based on availability of funding.

Description of Anticipated Work: See attached Statement of Objectives (SOO).

NOTE: At this time we are only requesting that you demonstrate available qualifications and capability for performing similar or same type of work by submitting a Statement of Interest. A full proposal and budget are NOT requested at this time.

Preparation of your Statement of Interest: Provide the following (Maximum length: 3 pages, single-spaced, 12 pt. font):

1. Name, Organization, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID, CESU Region, and Contact

10 March 2025

Information (Email)

2. Statement of Technical Ability & Qualifications (including):

a. Biographical sketch of the Principal Investigator, to include specific experience and capabilities in areas related to this project’s requirements, meeting the qualifications of holding a PhD in Biology, Ecology, Environmental Science, or other related field of study, AND have direct experience monitoring nesting wading birds in the Everglades, AND have expert knowledge of Everglade’s ecology. Preference given to those with a working knowledge of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

b. Relevant past projects and clients with brief descriptions of these projects

c. Biographical sketched of personnel available to support this project, meeting qualifications in the SOO, and their areas of expertise relevant to this project’s requirements.

d. Innovative techniques and description of other capabilities to successfully complete the project: (e.g. equipment, laboratory facilities, greenhouse facilities, field facilities, subject matter experts, etc.).

3. Summary of the potential relationship of the proposed research and development to the USACE (DoD) missions.

Submission of Your Statement of Interest

• Statements of Interest (SOI) are due by 2:00 P.M., Central Time, on 27 July 2025 via email to the parties listed below.

• Direct questions no later than 9 July 2025 via email to the parties listed below.

Maria Lopez Grants Specialist USACE, Fort Worth District Email: Maria.E.Lopez@usace.army.mil Office: 817-886-1881

AND

Niki Baker Project Manager USACE, Fort Worth District Email: Nicole.D.Baker@usace.army.mil Office: 918-669-4939

Review of Statements Received: All statements of interest received from a member of the CESU Region(s) identified above will be evaluated by a board comprised of one or more people at the receiving installation or activity to determine which statement(s) have the highest rated technical merit, highest capability to successfully meet the program objectives as outlined in the SOO, and the closest alignment between the proposed research and the USACE mission.

10 March 2025

Overall Evaluation Ratings.

Good/Excellent: The SOI demonstrates a thorough understanding of the project’s goals and objectives, and has demonstrated the ability, qualifications, resources to exceed performance and capability standards and includes at least one strength. Strength is an aspect of a proposal that, when judged against the overall evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the Assistance Award.

Acceptable: The SOI demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the project’s goals and objectives, and has demonstrated the ability, qualifications, and resources to successfully support this effort. The SOI meets the overall evaluation criterion.

Unacceptable: The SOI does not demonstrate an understanding of the project’s goals and objectives, and has not demonstrated the ability, qualifications, and resources to meet the performance and capability standards. The SOI includes at least one weakness. Weakness is an aspect that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Respondent’s SOI receiving the highest ratings, Good/Excellent being the highest, and Acceptable the lowest, will be requested to submit a full proposal for further evaluation.

Timeline for Review of Statements of Interest: RSOIs are required to be posted on www.Grants.gov for 30 days prior to the Government making a decision and requesting full proposals.

TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD, THE RECIPIENT AND ANY PROPOSED

SUBRECIPIENTS AND CONTRACT VENDORS MUST HAVE AN ACTIVE NIST SP

800-171 DOD ASSESSEMENT (PERFORMED WITHIN THE LAST 3 YEARS).

Additional details are provided as a separate attachment to this document.

Thank you for your interest in our Cooperative Agreements Program.

PAIGE E. POORMAN

Grants Officer

Attachment: Statement of Objectives http://www.grants.gov/

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

Wading Bird Colony Location, Size, Timing, and Breeding Success in the Everglades For US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Article III, (D) of the following Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units (CESU):

Gulf Coast, Piedmont–South Atlantic Coast, and South Florida-Caribbean

April 2025

1.0 PURPOSE

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project needed to restore the South Florida ecosystem. Provisions within WRDA 2000 provide for specific authorization for an adaptive assessment and monitoring program. A Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP) (RECOVER 2004, 2006, 2009) has been developed as the primary tool to assess the systemwide performance of the CERP by the Restoration, Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) program. The MAP presents the monitoring and supporting research needed to measure responses of the South Florida ecosystem to CERP implementation.

Wading birds are a dominant predator in the Everglades ecosystem and breeding population responses are considered to be integrative and reflective of many aspects of the wetland habitat; thus, wading birds have been identified as a key ecological indicator of restoration success. Restoration has been centered on several trophic hypotheses regarding wading birds (e.g., appropriate hydrologic conditions will increase fish and macroinvertebrate populations, enhanced foraging opportunities will increase wading bird breeding, and the return of freshwater flow to coastal regions will restore wading bird nesting in those areas). Without the appropriate monitoring of wading bird colonies, these hypotheses cannot be tested, the benefits of CERP may not be documented, and restoration may not achieve its goals. The spatial monitoring coverage of wading bird nesting colonies in the South Florida ecosystem has, in the past, been a patchwork effort, however, and incomplete data over a broad geographic area limits inferences about whether effects are system-wide or local. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor all “patches” of the South Florida ecosystem. This cooperative agreement will complement existing aerial coverage in the Lake Okeechobee basin and Everglades National Park (ENP) with new ground coverage where needed, as well as provide an Optional Task to expand coverage into Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). This cooperative agreement will draw upon prior research conducted in Water Conservation Areas (WCA) 1, 2, 3 and ENP and continue to study how CERP restoration translates into impacts on wading bird populations and reproductive success.

2.0 AUTHORITY

2.1 In agreement with the above stated purpose, the recipient/cooperator agrees to provide the necessary personnel, equipment, and materials required to implement, in part, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-Jacksonville District objectives pursuant to the authority 10 U.S.C. § 4001 - Research and Development.

2.2 In accordance with section 6305 – Using cooperative agreements of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.), all CESU projects must carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation, instead of acquiring goods or services for the exclusive direct benefit of the United States Government. Examples of carrying out a public purpose may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Project results are made available to a wide audience (including nonfederal entities) Project results/outputs add to the scientific literature/knowledge base, with applicability and utility beyond the scope of the project footprint/study area

Academic and other nonfederal partner institutions (and their personnel) gain professional experience, increase knowledge, and develop skills and abilities

Students benefit from direct interaction with federal scientists, program and technical staff, and field unit managers

2.3 In accordance with section 6305 – Using cooperative agreements of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.), substantial involvement is expected between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the cooperative agreement. The DoD agrees to participate at a national level in support of the CESU program as accepted in the Master MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) for the establishment and continuation of the CESU program Article II 1-4 and Article VI 1-7.

2.4 The USACE will participate in study site selections, design, and work plan development. USACE will participate in field data collection efforts as appropriate, will review quarterly status reports, and will provide input to data interpretation for final reports, as well as review quarterly, annual and final reports. USACE will incorporate the data and analysis into a system-wide database that assesses and evaluates ecosystem restoration efforts in central and southern Florida. Scientific and technical information generated from the cooperative agreement will be utilized to evaluate project/restoration performance and system responses to be used in the development of assessment reports describing and interpreting those responses.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this support is to monitor changes in population densities and reproductive success in wading bird populations in the Everglades. Specifically, the objectives of this support include:

1. Annually estimate the size, location, and species composition of nesting aggregations of Great Egrets, White Ibis, Roseate Spoonbills, and Snowy Egrets (hereafter “wading birds”) in the Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3. In addition, provide for enhanced monitoring in Everglades National Park (e.g., ground and aerial surveys, analysis of turnover and super-population estimates).

2. Annually estimate nest success, clutch size, and fledgling success of wading birds breeding in Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3.

3. Standardize survey methods and integrate results from all survey projects monitoring wading birds in the South Florida ecosystem.

3.1 PROJECT TASKS

3.1.1 Task 1 – Kick-off Meeting, Annual Work Plans, and Permits (Mandatory):

The PI shall conduct a Kick-off Meeting (virtually or in person) with the USACE within fifteen (15) business days of cooperative agreement (CA) award and any subsequent Follow-on Period (FOP) awards. The PI shall provide an overview of the project, introduce the project team, and define the project chain of command. The USACE will communicate to the PI any methodological requirements to be used when executing and reporting tasks as outlined. These methodologies are briefly described in this CA in the activities above. The MAP Assessment Strategy (RECOVER 2006) provides guidance in assessment methodologies. The Kick-off Meeting provides the opportunity for the PI and USACE to coordinate the project tasks outlined below. PI will provide kick-off meeting minutes to USACE within fifteen (15) business days of Kick-off Meeting date.

Within fifteen (15) days following the Kick-off Meeting, the PI shall submit an electronic copy of the Draft Work Plan. The RECOVER Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) will respond with comments to the PI within fifteen (15) business days after the receipt of the Draft Work Plan. The PI shall address comments and submit a Final Work Plan, which will be submitted to the USACE fifteen (15) days upon receipt by the PI. Upon its approval in writing (email approval is sufficient) by the USACE RECOVER TPOC the Final Work Plan shall become the working document for this agreement.

The PI shall proceed with the performance of the agreement in accordance with the approved Final Work Plan and the requirements of this CA. In the event of any conflict between this CA and the Final Work Plan, the Final Work Plan shall take precedence. The Final Work Plan will be updated, as necessary, at the beginning of each new FOP.

The PI shall also begin preparations to execute field sampling within fifteen

(15) days of CA execution. This includes acquiring and assembling any specialty equipment needed and working with USACE staff to become familiar with sampling protocols and equipment provided to the PI by the

USACE.

Submittal of a CA for a project that will take place on Department of Interior (DOI) lands is acknowledgement that the PI has reviewed and understands the permit requirements for all applicable federal and state agencies and tribal lands, including the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of Florida, and federally recognized Tribes. Any required permits obtained in support of the project shall be delivered to the USACE RECOVER TPOC.

3.1.2 Task 2 – Wading Bird Surveys (Mandatory):

Colony Size, Composition, and Location The PI will conduct surveys to record all Great Egret, White Ibis, Roseate Spoonbill, and Snowy Egret nesting colonies in Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) 1, 2, and 3 on a monthly interval from January through June. The initiation and conclusion of surveys will be coordinated with the TPOC to ensure that all nesting activity is recorded.

Breeding Success The PI will conduct surveys of breeding success at a subset of all colonies using appropriate methods to yield annual species-specific estimates of nest success, average clutch size, and number of chicks fledged. The number of colonies surveyed must be communicated and coordinated with the USACE TPOC. The number of samples collected must be sufficient to make statistically robust inferences of breeding success at the colony level.

3.1.3 Task 3 – Data Analyses (Mandatory):

The PI will summarize, analyze, and report annual measures of the metrics used by RECOVER to track restoration progress and success (Frederick et

al. 2009): number of nesting pairs of wading birds, Wood Stork nest initiation date, proportion of nesting that occurs in the marsh-mangrove ecotone within Everglades National Park, ratio of visual to tactile forager nests, and the interval of exceptionally large (irruptive) white ibis nesting events, for inclusion in the RECOVER Annual Assessment Report and the CERP System Status Reports. Any additional survey data generated from funded optional tasks will also be summarized, analyzed, and reported.

3.1.4 Task 4 – Participation in RECOVER Regional Team Support (Mandatory):

The PI is required to participate in up to six (6) 2-hour virtual RECOVER meetings and up to two (2) 6-hour in-person workshops each year to provide updates on or engage in discussions regarding the project or project-related RECOVER efforts. Prior workshops have taken place in West Palm Beach, Davie, and Homestead, Florida.

The PI shall attend, and participate, in up to four (4) Greater Everglades

Regional Team meetings during the course of each Period of Performance.

Meetings can be virtual.

The PI will present a summary of completed support to a Regional Team or other science meeting when scheduled by the RECOVER TPOC after the conclusion of each field monitoring season. This presentation shall include an MS PowerPoint presentation that summarizes all support that has been provided, including data analysis and interpretations that highlight all spatial and statistical relationships found. The PI shall also list recommendations for further data analysis and/or collection. The PI shall provide the USACE an electronic copy via email of the MS PowerPoint presentation made at the scheduled Regional Team meeting.

If electronic files are too large to submit via email, the PI may choose to transfer such files through an FTP site or to provide it on a compact disc.

3.1.5 Task 5 – Expansion of Spatial Scope of Surveys (Optional):

The spatial coverage of surveys conducted under Task 2 may be expanded with this Optional Task to areas not mentioned above (e.g., Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, etc.) The support of this task would be directed by USACE in collaboration with the PI. The results of any expansion in effort will be appropriately incorporated into the Annual Report. Initiation of this task is subject to the availability of funding and must be submitted as part of the annual project work plan.

3.1.6 Task 6 – Wading Bird System Status Report Assessment (Optional):

The PI shall provide up to ten (10) days to work with the Regional Coordinator(s) to assist in the development of the System Status Report (SSR) as applicable. Most information provided will be drawn from the Annual Reports submitted for Task 4. The PI will contribute to the RECOVER System Status Report with an assessment of wading bird breeding activity in the context of CERP implementation and other factors that influence wading bird restoration metrics. The RECOVER System Status Report will provide an assessment of whether the goals and purposes of CERP are being achieved by comparing monitoring results to established interim goals (incremental restoration benchmarks established for the ecological indicator), when applicable. The USACE RECOVER TPOC will provide clear and concise recommendations to guide development of the SSR.

3.1.7 Task 7 – Wading Bird Performance Measure Updates (Optional):

Information generated from mandatory Tasks 2-4 above may be used to construct a RECOVER Performance Measure to include methods to predict wading bird breeding responses, and/or update current methods used to interpret real-world responses of wading bird breeding activity, to hydrologic variation associated with CERP implementation.

3.1.8 Task 8 – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Surveys (Optional):

The PI will conduct surveys of wading bird colonies to generate species-specific nest counts and breeding statuses with unmanned aerial vehicles.

The PI will coordinate with the RECOVER TPOC to determine the number of colonies and frequency of surveys to be conducted to ensure that data collected is consistent with the needs of RECOVER. If there is overlap between colonies surveyed under Task 2, then a comparison of results of both methods will be included in the Annual Report.

3.1.9 Task 9 – Monitoring Plan Evaluation (Optional) NFE:

RECOVER will update the MAP within the duration of this 5-year Cooperative Agreement. Support of this task will entail the cooperator provide a statistical review of monitoring methodology to determine if the monitoring efforts are robust and align with RECOVER’s need to assess whether the goals and objectives of CERP are being met. This Task will occur concurrently with Mandatory Tasks and is anticipated to be executed and completed prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2026 (September 30, 2026).

4.0 CONSIDERATION

The PI is not required to perform services on federal holidays:

New Year’s Day Labor Day Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday Columbus Day Washington’s Birthday Veteran’s Day Memorial Day Thanksgiving Day Juneteenth National Independence Day Christmas Day Independence Day

5.0 QUALIFICATIONS

Successful applicant should hold a PhD in Biology, Ecology, Environmental Science, or other relevant related field of study and should have direct experience monitoring nesting wading birds in the Everglades. Applicants should have expert knowledge of Everglades’ ecology, and those with a working knowledge of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will be treated preferentially.

6.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIALS OR PROPERTY

Physical Data: Data sets and information associated with this project are the property of USACE and the DOD. Recipient/Cooperator may use the data sets and information associated with this cooperative agreement for internal research and educational purposes, including but not limited to publication.

7.0 FOLLOW-ON PERIODS

In addition to the Base Year, four (4), twelve (12) month Follow-on Periods (FOP) are anticipated subject to availability of funds.

8.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

All tasks (mandatory and optional) will be for a period of 12 months that will begin from date of each task award.

9.0 COORDINATION

Niki Baker Project Manager Regional Planning and Environmental Center U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nicole.D.Baker@usace.army.mil Cell: (918) 402-2546

Jennifer John RECOVER Project Manager Planning and Policy Division Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Blvd.

Jacksonville, FL 32207 Jennifer.H.John@usace.army.mil

Tasso Cocoves, MS Biologist – RECOVER Technical Point of Contact Planning and Policy Division Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Blvd.

Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tasso.C.Cocoves@usace.army.mil

10.0 DELIVERABLES

Detailed descriptions of any required deliverables required (reports, plans, etc.) and formats. Provide delivery schedules. At a minimum these deliverables should include:

10.1 Work Plans and permits (see Task 1)

10.1.1 One (1) electronic copy (email attachment in MS Word format) of a

Draft Work Plan shall be submitted within ten (10) days after the mailto:Nicole.D.Baker@usace.army.mil mailto:Jennifer.H.John@usace.army.mil mailto:Tasso.C.Cocoves@usace.army.mil execution of the work order.

10.1.2 One (1) electronic copy (email attachment in MS Word format) of the Final Work Plan shall be submitted within forty-five (45) days after the execution of the work order.

10.1.3 Any and all permits associated with or required to support awarded Tasks in the Final Work Plan shall be included with the Final Work Plan in an appendix.

10.2 Four (4) Quarterly Status Reports (QSR) or Progress Reports (PR) will be submitted for every three-month period, or quarter, following the award of the CA and any subsequent Follow-on Periods. These QSRs will summarize progress made on all executed Tasks, provide an update on the budget status of each Task, point out any problems or challenges that may have arisen during the previous three months.

Quarters:

Q1: Oct-Dec Q2: Jan-Mar Q3: Apr-Jun Q4: Jul-Sep

10.2.1 Deliverable 1.1: Electronic copy (email attachment in Microsoft [MS]

Word format) of the QSR every quarter from award of CA and subsequent Follow-on Periods.

10.3 Annual Reports (AR) will be submitted twelve months after the award of the CA and any subsequent Follow-on Periods. Each AR will summarize activities and results from all executed Tasks, including any and all executed Optional Tasks, within each Period as well as analyses of spatial and temporal trends in the parameters of interest. The ARs will summarize results to date, provide the information needed to develop the next System Status Report (SSR), and include an assessment and/or analysis of the data as it relates to CERP hypotheses from the MAP. ARs will be comprised of an introduction placing monitoring into the context of CERP and Everglades restoration, summaries of all executed Tasks within the existing Base or Follow-on Periods, results of any analyses and assessments conducted, discussion of results, and conclusions presented within the context of CERP and Everglades restoration. The Draft Annual Report will be reviewed by the USACE RECOVER Technical POC and the RECOVER Greater Everglades Regional Coordinators within fifteen (15) days upon submission. Comments will be provided for the PI to address in the Final Annual Report. A data file (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet or CSV file) of all quality assured data will accompany each Annual Report.

10.3.1 Deliverable 2.1: Electronic copy (email attachment in MS Word format) of a Draft Annual Report will be submitted in September of each year.

10.3.2 Deliverable 2.2: Electronic copy (email attachment in MS Word format) of a Final Annual Report will be submitted in September of each year.

10.3.3 Deliverable 2.3: Electronic copy of all data collected and quality assured submitted as a Microsoft Excel or CSV file.

10.4 Task 6 Deliverable: PI Contribution to the System Status Report (SSR) – Upon the execution of Task 6 (Optional), results of the work performed under this CA will be used to develop the cumulative annual findings outlined in the System Status Report (SSR). The SSR will provide an assessment of whether the goals and purposes of CERP are being achieved by comparing monitoring results to established interim goals (incremental restoration benchmarks established for the ecological indicator), when applicable. The PI of this CA will be required to collaborate with the Greater Everglades Regional Coordinator(s) in developing the SSR and their participation will be included as a Task (Task 6) in this work breakdown structure.

10.5 Task 7 Deliverable: Performance Measure Documentation Sheet. Electronic copy of the draft RECOVER Performance Measure Documentation Sheet will be provided to the RECOVER TPOC for technical review by RECOVER. The PI will address comments and submit a draft final RECOVER Performance Measure Documentation Sheet for RECOVER approval. The RECOVER TPOC will provide a documentation sheet template for use by the PI. An electronic copy (email attachment in MS Word format) of RECOVER Performance Measure Documentation Sheet will be submitted at the completion of this Optional Task of the CA.

10.6 Task 9 Deliverable: Upon the completion of Task 9, the PI will submit a separate report to summarize methods and results of a statistical review of monitoring methodology and a discussion of it’s alignment with RECOVER’s need to assess whether the goals and objectives of CERP are being met. The PI will also submit all data sets and statistical code developed to conduct analyses used to examine the monitoring methodology. An electronic copy of the report (email attachment in MS Word format) and supporting files used for the statistical review will be submitted at the completion of the Optional Task of the CA.

10.7 Draft Final Project Report – Electronic copy of a draft final report should be submitted no later than one month before end of the project. At a minimum, the report will summarize activities and results from all executed Tasks, including any and all executed Optional Tasks, within each Period as well as analyses of spatial and temporal trends in the parameters of interest. The report will summarize results to date, provide the information needed to develop the next System Status Report (SSR), and include an assessment and/or analysis of the data as it relates to CERP hypotheses from the MAP. The report will be comprised of an introduction placing monitoring into the context of CERP and Everglades restoration, summaries of all executed Tasks within the existing Base or Follow-on Periods, results of any analyses and assessments conducted, discussion of results, and conclusions presented within the context of CERP and Everglades restoration. USACE POC staff will review and provide comments, if any, within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt.

10.8 Final Project Report. One (1) paper copy of the final report, incorporating USACE

POC review comments on the draft, if any, shall be submitted no later than fifteen

(15) days after receipt of the USACE POC comments. Additionally, one (1) copy of the final report shall be submitted in a MSWord file(s), on digital media. All data gathered for project Tasks shall be submitted with the Final Project Report as a Microsoft Excel or Comma Separated Value (CSV) file.

10.9 This cooperative agreement may be administered through a CESU only upon mutual agreement and official authorization by both parties of the acceptance of the application of the CESU Network Indirect Cost Rate (17.5%).

Any resulting cooperative agreement will be subject to and recipient/cooperator shall comply with 2 CFR 200.313 “Equipment”, 200.314 “Supplies”, and 200.315 “Intangible Property” which includes use of research data.

11.0 POST AWARD AND INVOICE PROCESS

11.1 Payment Requests and Progress Reports (Invoice Package):

Submit Payment Request and additional required documents to:

swf-cesu-invoice@usace.army.mil.

Carbon Copy the assigned USACE Project Manager as well as your organization’s point of contacts (POCs) for the additional required documents and for delinquent accounts.

11.2 Frequency:

Quarterly plus 30-day grace period (except for the final invoice package noted below). If the coverage dates are not quarterly or preapproved by the PM (or the first/last submittal), the invoice package will be rejected.

Invoice pkgs due No Later Than (NLT):

Quarters:

Q1: Oct-Dec Q1: 31 Jan Q2: Jan-Mar Q2: 30 Apr Q3: Apr-Jun Q3: 30 Jul Q4: Jul-Sep Q4: 31 Oct mailto:swf-cesu-invoice@usace.army.mil

11.3 Payment Requests must be submitted on form SF270 Request for Advance or Reimbursement with the accompanying Standard Form-Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR), otherwise the SF270 will be rejected.

11.4 SF270 Request for Advance or Reimbursement

11.4.1 Block 9, Recipient Organization. For successful set up of Electronic Transfer of Funds (EFT), the Recipient’s name and address shall reflect the exact name and physical address that appears in the System for Award Management (SAM), https://sam.gov/.

11.4.2 Blocks 11, (a), (b), & (c) are for the description of funds. Preferred description is: CLIN/POP Type, POP start and end dates, amount awarded (see example below); at minimum include the CLIN. If the description or the minimum CLIN information is missing, the SF270 and SF-PPR will be rejected.

Example:

CLIN 0001 / Base

22SEP23 – 21SEP24

$100,000.00

Funding must be separated as specified on the Award document. Sub- CLINs that specify “for funding only” (e.g., numbered 000101, 000102, etc.) may be rolled into the primary CLIN (e.g., 0001) unless otherwise instructed. All others required PM approval.

The SF270 may have multiple pages.

An SF270 in Excel format may be requested at: swf-cesu-invoice@usace.army.mil, however, must be submitted in pdf format otherwise will be rejected.

11.5 SF-PPR Standard Form-Performance Progress Report: The Recipient shall tailor the SF-PPR to include, at minimum, the following information:

Separate details by CLIN as applicable Achievements (must detail work during quarter associated with the invoice) Percent Completion Project Status Problems encountered and impact of activities and personnel on schedule.

Anticipated work in next reporting period.

If the SF-PPR is incomplete, the SF-PPR and SF270 will be rejected.

A tailored SF-PPR form may be requested at: swf-cesu-invoice@usace.army.mil https://sam.gov/

11.6 The Final invoice package is due no later than 90 days from final (funded/exercised) POP end date and must include the following documents:

If any of the required information below is missing, the final invoice package will be rejected:

Final SF270

SF-PPR

Final SF425

DD882

SF428 plus attachment B (C&S if applicable)

SF298

Final Report

Forms may be requested from the district office at swf-cesu-invoice@usace.army.mil or found at https://www.grants.gov/forms.

12.0 This cooperative agreement may be administered through a CESU only upon mutual agreement and official authorization by both parties of the acceptance of the application of the CESU Network Indirect Cost Rate (17.5%).

Any resulting cooperative agreement will be subject to and recipient/cooperator shall comply with 2 CFR 200.313 “Equipment”, 200.314 “Supplies”, and 200.315 “Intangible Property” which includes use of research data.

13.0 FIGURE 1: General Project Area

https://www.grants.gov/forms

14.0 REFERENCES

Monitoring and Assessment Plan (Part 2), Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP), December 2006.

[End of SOO]

For ALL new opportunities with the Government, including modifications to existing awards, a NIST score is REQUIRED.

The attached guides are provided to assist in obtaining access to the systems and to upload your self-assessment NIST score.

In accordance with DoDI 5200.48, EO 13566, and Part 2002 of the Title 32 CFR 2002 Recipients and Subrecipients (Sub-Recips) are required to provide adequate security on all covered Recipient/Sub-Recip information systems, are required to implement NIST SP 800-171, and are required to have at least a Basic NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment that is current (i.e., not more than 3 years old unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation).

SPRS provides storage and access to the NIST SP 800-171 assessment scoring information. To access the NIST SP 800-171 Assessments module, users must be registered in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) https://piee.eb.mil/ and be approved for access to SPRS.

The NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology is located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cyber/safeguarding.html#nistSP800171.

Please direct any questions related to this requirement to Paige.E.Poorman@usace.army.mil and Cheryl.R.Vendemia@usace.army.mil.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cyber/safeguarding.html#nistSP800171 mailto:Paige.E.Poorman@usace.army.mil mailto:Cheryl.R.Vendemia@usace.army.mil

NIST Requirement Notice Attachment to (SOI or RFP).pdf

NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology, Version 1.2.1, June 24, 2020 Additions/edits to Version 1.1 are shown in blue

NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology, Version 1. 2.1

Table of Contents

1) Background

2) Purpose

3) Strategically Assessing a Contractor’s Implementation of NIST SP 800-171

4) Levels of Assessment

5) NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Scoring Methodology

6) Documenting NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Results

7) Glossary of Terms

Annex A - NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Scoring Template

Annex B - Basic (Contractor Self-Assessment) NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Results Format

1) Background

a) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, requires contractors and subcontractors to provide ‘adequate security’ to safeguard covered defense information, hereto referred to, for the purposes of this methodology, as Department of Defense (DoD) controlled unclassified information (CUI)1, when residing on or transiting through a contractor’s/subcontractor’s internal information system or network, and to report cyber incidents that affect that system or network to DoD. DFARS clause 252.204-7012 further states that to provide adequate security, the Contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the security requirements in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations. Contractors are also required to flow down DFARS Clause 252.204- 7012 to all subcontracts for operationally critical support, or for which subcontract performance will involve DoD CUI. Contractors must mark or otherwise identify, in accordance with direction contained within the specific contract, DoD CUI that is collected, developed, received, transmitted, used, or stored by or on behalf of the contractor in support of performance of the contract.

b) DFARS provision 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls, requires, among other things, offerors to represent they will implement the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the contracting officer. To document implementation of NIST SP 800-171, the contractor must develop, document, and periodically update a system security plan that describes system boundaries, system environments of operation, how security requirements are implemented, and the relationships with or connections to other systems. If implementation of the security requirements is not complete, companies must develop and implement plans of action to describe when and how any unimplemented security requirements will be met.

c) Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (USD(A&S)) memorandum, “Strategically Implementing Cybersecurity Contract Clauses,” dated February 5, 2019, directed the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to pursue, with companies for which they administer contracts, the application of a standard methodology and approach to assess a contractor’s implementation of NIST SP 800- 171 at a strategic (corporate-wide) level as an alternative to the requirement for

1 DoD is transitioning from the use of the term ‘covered defense information’ in the DFARS to “DOD Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), consistent with DoDI 5200.48, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)” contractors to document implementation of NIST SP 800-171 on a contract-by-contract basis.

2) Purpose

a) The NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology, Version 1.2 documents a standard methodology that enables a strategic assessment of a contractor’s implementation of NIST SP 800-171, a requirement for compliance with DFARS clause 252.204-7012.

b) This methodology is used for assessment purposes only and does not, and is not intended to, add any substantive requirements to either NIST SP 800-171 or DFARS clause 252.204-7012.

c) DoD will use this methodology to assess the implementation of NIST SP 800-171 by its prime contractors. Prime contractors may use this methodology to assess the implementation status of NIST SP 800-171 by subcontractors.

d) This methodology informed the conduct of pilot NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessments performed by DCMA, in partnership with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and the DoD Components, during 2019. DoD will update and codify this methodology in policy/regulation.

3) Strategically Assessing a Contractor’s Implementation of NIST SP 800-171

a) The NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology enables DoD to strategically assess a contractor’s implementation of NIST SP 800-171 on existing contracts which include DFARS clause 252.204-7012, and to provide DoD Components with visibility to the summary level scores of strategic assessments completed by DoD, thus providing an alternative to the contract-by-contract approach.

b) The NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment consists of three levels of assessments (see Section 4 of this document). These three types of assessments reflect the depth of the assessment, and the associated level of confidence in the assessment results.

c) Assessment of contractors with contracts containing DFARS clause 252.204-7012 is anticipated to be once every three years unless other factors, such as program criticality/risk or a security-relevant change, drive the need for a different assessment frequency.

4) Levels of Assessment

a) Basic (Contractor Self-Assessment) NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment

i) The Basic Assessment is the Contractor’s self- assessment of NIST SP 800-171 implementation status, based on a review of the system security plan(s) associated with covered contractor information system(s), and conducted in accordance with

NIST SP 800-171A, “Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information” and Section 5 and Annex A of this document.

ii) The Basic Assessment results in a confidence level of ‘Low’ in the resulting score because it is a self-generated score.

iii) The summary level scores resulting from Basic NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessments should be documented as indicated in Section 6 and Annex B of this document.

b) Medium NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment

i) The Medium Assessment is conducted by DoD personnel who have been trained in accordance with DoD policy and procedures to conduct the assessment. It is anticipated that Medium Assessments will be conducted primarily by Program Management Office cybersecurity personnel, as part of a separately scheduled visit (e.g., for a Critical Design Review).

ii) The assessment will consist of a review of the system security plan description of how each requirement is met to identify any descriptions which may not properly address the security requirements.

iii) The Medium Assessment results in a confidence level of ‘Medium’ in the resulting score.

iv) The DoD assessor will document summary level scores resulting from Medium NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessments as indicated in Section 6 of this document.

c) High (On-Site or Virtual) NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment

i) The High Assessment, conducted by DoD personnel who have been trained in accordance with DoD policy and procedures to conduct the assessment, requires a thorough on-site or virtual2 verification/examination/demonstration of the Contractor’s system security plan and implementation of the NIST SP 800-171 security requirements.

ii) The High Assessment is conducted using NIST SP 800-171A, “Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information.” The assessment will determine if the implementation meets the requirements by reviewing appropriate evidence and/or demonstration (e.g., recent scanning results, system inventories, configuration baselines, demonstration of multifactor authentication).

iii) An on-site High NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment is the preferred methodology for a full evaluation of the risk to DoD CUI because of the ability to verify and validate the effectiveness of the safeguards that implement security

2 A virtual High Assessment was developed in response to the COVID-19 epidemic to allow protections of assessors and DIB personal to limit travel and exposure of staffs whilst still being able to assess contractor risk. The government may utilize this methodology in the future as required in response to similar or other scenarios.

requirements defined in NIST Special Publication 800-171. While a High Assessment maybe be conducted virtually in lieu of onsite, a virtual assessment will not fully cover all the NIST SP 800-171 requirements, resulting in a less than full understanding of overall risk.

iv) A virtual High Assessment utilizes the same methodology as the on-site with added data protections processes enacted to protect the DIB data that is shared with assessment teams. All data is transmitted through DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), is only reviewed locally on each assessor’s computer (screen sharing is conducted utilizing DoD collaboration mediums that are approved for processing CUI) and contractor data is destroyed post assessment using NSA guidance for data destruction. With concurrence from the DIB companies being assessed, the assessment verifies and examines all documents utilizing the NIST SP 800-171A methodology minus the demonstration or testing of some requirements. In some cases, a follow-up on-site assessment of the items not assessed may be required or requested.

v) The first step in a High Assessment is for the contractor to conduct a Basic Assessment and submit results to the Department using the procedures in Annex B of this document. The High Assessment consists of a review of the Basic Assessment, a thorough document review and discussion with the contractor regarding the results to obtain additional information or clarification as needed, combined with government validation that the security requirements have been implemented as described in the system security plan. Network access by the assessor(s) is not required.

vi) The High Assessment results in a confidence level of ‘High’ in the resulting score.

vii) The DoD assessor will document summary level scores resulting from High NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessments as indicated in Section 6 of this document.

5) NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Scoring Methodology

a) This scoring methodology is designed to provide an objective assessment of a contractor’s NIST SP 800-171 implementation status. With the exception of requirements for which the scoring of partial implementation is built-in (e.g., multi-factor authentication, security requirement 3.5.3) the methodology is not designed to credit partial implementation.

b) Conduct of the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment will result in a score reflecting the net effect of security requirements not yet implemented. If all security requirements are implemented, a contractor is awarded a score of 110, consistent with the total number of NIST SP 800-171 security requirements. For each security requirement not met, the associated value is subtracted from 110. The score of 110 is reduced by each requirement not implemented, which may result in a negative score.

c) While NIST SP 800-171 does not prioritize security requirements, certain requirements have more impact on the security of the network and its data than others. This scoring methodology incorporates this concept by weighting each security requirement based on the impact to the information system and the DoD CUI created on or transiting through that system, when that requirement is not implemented.

d) Weighted requirements include all of the fundamental NIST SP 800-171 ‘Basic Security Requirements’ - high-level requirements which, if not implemented, render ineffective the more numerous ‘Derived Security Requirements’; and a subset of the ‘Derived Security Requirements’- requirements that supplement the Basic Security Requirements - which, if not implemented, would allow for exploitation of the network and its information.

i) For security requirements that, if not implemented, could lead to significant exploitation of the network, or exfiltration of DoD CUI, 5 points are subtracted from the score of 110. For example, failure to limit system access to authorized users (Basic Security Requirement 3.1.1) renders all the other Access Control requirements ineffective, allowing easy exploitation of the network; failure to control the use of removable media on system components (Derived Security Requirement 3.8.7) could result in massive exfiltration of CUI and introduction of malware.

(1) Basic Security Requirements with a value of 5 points include 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.3, 3.9.2, 3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.12.1, 3.12.3, 3.13.1, 3.13.2, 3.14.1, 3.14.2, and 3.14.3.

(2) Derived Security Requirements with a value of 5 points include 3.1.12, 3.1.13, 3.1.16, 3.1.17, 3.1.18, 3.3.5, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.4.7, 3.4.8, 3.5.10, 3.7.5, 3.8.7, 3.11.2, 3.13.5, 3.13.6, 3.13.15, 3.14.4, and 3.14.6.

ii) For Basic and Derived Security Requirements that, if not implemented, have a specific and confined effect on the security of the network and its data, 3 points are subtracted from the score of 110. For example, failure to limit access to CUI on system media to authorized users (Security Requirement 3.8.2) or failure to encrypt CUI stored on a mobile device (Security Requirement 3.1.19), put the CUI stored on the system media or mobile device at risk, but not the CUI stored on the network itself.

(1) Basic Security Requirements with a value of 3 points include 3.3.2, 3.7.1, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.9.1, 3.11.1, and 3.12.2.

(2) Derived Security Requirements…