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 Occoquan Peninsula Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Study, Woodridge, 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 CSRM Study has been developed to reflect the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) modernized planning initiative, in which project studies use a risk-informed assessment, generally with only enough detail developed for each alternative to allow relative comparison, to determine the appropriate information to identify a TSP. Although this new process has altered the milestones and evaluation procedures in a feasibility study, the manner in which alternatives are developed from problems, opportunities, measures, and constraints remains the same.

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 procedures described in the Department of the Army, USACE peer review policy, Engineer Regulation (ER) No. 1165-2-217, Civil Works Review Policy, dated May 01, 2021, and the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review released December 16, 2004.

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

The purpose of the IEPR is to assess the adequacy and acceptability of economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used for the Occoquan Peninsula CSRM 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 ER 1165-2-217, Paragraph C .1 , reviewers should identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as well as evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods. The Review Panel should be able to evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are reasonable. Reviews should focus on assumptions, data, methods and models. The Review Panel may offer their opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to base the recommended plan.

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

IEPR.

• USACE ER 1165-2-217, Civil Works Review Policy, dated May 01, 2021.

• USACE ER 1110-1-8159, Engineering and Design, DrChecks, May 10, 2001.

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

The ER documents are available at:

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

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

Report Title for IEPR Panel Review

Anticipated Date of Report/Data

Approximate Number of Pages

Integrated Feasibility Report/EIS 09 MAR 2025 560

Appendix A: Plan Formulation 09 MAR 2025 88

Appendix B: Engineering 09 MAR 2025 1,288

Appendix C: Economics 09 MAR 2025 125

Appendix D: Environmental 09 MAR 2025 622

Appendix E: Real Estate Plan 09 MAR 2025 37

Public Comments1,2 09 MAR 2025 200

Risk Register1 09 MAR 2025 10

Report total number of pages to be reviewed 2,8763

1. 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.

2. USACE will submit to the Contractor the public comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix A). The Contractor will in turn submit comments to the IEPR Panel. The anticipated date that public comments would be provided by USACE is identified in Appendix A.

USACE will submit to the Contractor all comments as they were received up to approximately 200 pages. If USACE receives more than approximately 200 pages of public comments, then USACE will submit to the Contractor a collated list of public comments according to the comments’ subject or topic. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional supporting documentation provided to the Panel.

3. The actual number of pages provided to the panel for review may differ from this estimate by plus or minus 25%.

Option 1: 300-page increase in the public comments

This option will be exercised if the public comments received after the close of public review exceed the estimated 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.

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

Option 2: 300-page increase in the review documents

This option will be exercised if the estimated number of pages of review documents provided after the notice to proceed has been issued exceeds the number of pages estimated in Table 1 including a 25% contingency. This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to an additional 300 pages of review documents beyond the 25% threshold.

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

4. SPECIFIC TASKS

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

Task 1: Work Plan to Conduct IEPR

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

The process to prepare Corps decision documents is complex and the coordination with the IEPR schedule involves many factors, some of which are outside of the control of the District Project Delivery Team and the Review Management Organization. The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on the dates in the working schedule housed in work plan. The Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate Government-caused delays of up to six (6) months in delivering materials and information. The delay of 6 months must be calculated based upon the schedule agreed to in the work plan, and not the draft plan located in this PWS. After USACE and the Contractor agree on the schedule for a meeting date, the Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate up to two (2) schedule changes requested by the Corps for each meeting.

Task 2: IEPR Panel

The Contractor shall identify Review Panel members based on the descriptions below.

The final selection of the Panel will be based on screening criteria included in the work plan (Task 1). Each panel member should be a professional from academia, a public agency, consulting firm, or similar vocation with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in their area of expertise. At minimum, the panel should include the necessary expertise to assess the engineering, environmental, and economic adequacy of the decision document as required by ER 1165-2-217. All members should be well versed in the conduct of coastal storms risk management studies. Experience conducting other IEPR’s or similar reviews does not constitute relative expert experience. Panel members may fill multiple disciplines as long the following disciplines are not combined: economics, environmental, and engineering. The Contractor will provide USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The disciplines that should be included are:

Planning Formulation/Economics: The Review Panel member should be from academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in public works planning and water resource economic evaluation or review with a minimum of a master’s degree in the relevant field. The Review Panel member shall have a minimum of five years’ experience directly dealing with the USACE six-step planning process, which is governed by ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook. The Review 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. The panel member should have experience with tropical and extra-tropical storms. Candidate should be familiar with the USACE flood risk management analysis and economic benefit calculations, including use of standard USACE computer programs including G2CRM.

Environmental Resources: The Review Panel member should be a scientist from academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm with a minimum 10 years demonstrated experience in evaluation and conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) impact assessments, including cumulative effects analyses. The Environmental Resources reviewer should have experience in the integration of environmental evaluation and compliance requirements pursuant to the “Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (ER 200-2-2), national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements, into the planning of Civil Works projects. Experience with Endangered Species Act, essential fish habitat, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act is required. The panel member should have particular knowledge of construction impacts on riverine and terrestrial ecology of the mid-Atlantic coast of North America. Active participation in related professional societies is encouraged.

Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineer: The panel member should be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, or a professor from academia with extensive background in hydrology and hydraulics, with a minimum master’s degree or higher in engineering. The panel member should have extensive experience associated with coastal theories and hydraulic theory and practices. The panel member should have experience modeling coastal storm and possesses a thorough understanding of the dynamics of storm waves and coastal storm risk. In addition, the panel member should understand riverine hydraulics. The panel member should be familiar application of risk and uncertainty analyses in flood risk management studies. The panel member should also be familiar with standard hydrologic and hydraulic computer models such as ADCIRC, STWAVE, and SWAN.

Civil / Structural Engineering: The panel member should be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in structural engineering, or a professor from academia with extensive background in structural engineering, with a minimum master’s degree or higher in engineering. The panel member should have demonstrated experience in performing civil engineering design for all phases of coastal storm risk management projects. The panel member should also be familiar with and have demonstrated experience related to floodwalls, earthen levees, and pumping station design and construction. Panel member should be familiar with the construction industry.

Additionally, the panel member should be capable of addressing life safety aspects of all projects. Active participation in related professional engineering and scientific societies is encouraged.

Geotechnical Engineering: The panel member should be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in geotechnical engineering, or a professor from academia with extensive background in geotechnical engineering theory and practice, with a minimum master’s degree or higher in engineering. The panel member should have demonstrated experience in geotechnical engineering analyses for all phases of flood risk management projects. Additional experience and familiarity of geotechnical practices associated with floodwalls and levee. Additionally, this Panel Member should be capable of addressing life risk aspects of all projects. Active participation in related professional engineering and scientific societies is encouraged.

One of the engineering disciplines must include the following requirement:

Since project designs are initiated in the decision document phase, Safety Assurance Review (SAR) is incorporated into the IEPR. The initial evaluation of SAR as part of IEPR includes, at a minimum, addressing the following questions (ER 1165-2-217, Appendix C, Section C.3.2.2.2.

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?

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

1) Authority: Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-114), as amended by Section 1044 of the WRRDA of 2014 (P.L. 113- 121), and WRDA 2018 (P.L. 115-270) (33 U.S.C. 2343).

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

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

4) Effects of nondisclosure: Disclosure of the information sought is voluntary;

however, failure to agree will not allow reviewers to participate in reviews.

The Contractor will provide the USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The final selection will be based on availability, technical credentials, and absence of perceived or actual conflict of interest. The IEPR Panel members shall not have any financial or litigation association with the USACE; the State;

the design A-E, or their engineering teams, subcontractors, or construction contractors.

The Review Panel members shall fully disclose any known or potential conflict of interest that may arise from the performance of the work. Areas of conflict may include current employment by Federal or State governments, participation in developing the subject project, a publicly documented statement advocating for or against the subject project, current or future interests in subject project or future benefits from the project, and paid or unpaid participation in litigation against the USACE.

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

Task 3: Meetings

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

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

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

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 the lead Review Panel member will attend the meeting via teleconference. The Contractor should be prepared to provide comments on IEPR findings as well as discuss any significant comments identified for the study.

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

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

1) a clear statement of the concern;

2) the basis for the concern;

3) the significance of the concern (the importance of the concern with regard to project implementability);

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

The Contractor shall prepare a final report of the Review Panel findings. The report shall have an executive summary describing the recommendations and resolutions. Following the executive summary the report shall list in detail all the referenced criteria, computations, comments made, and all other pertinent information along with IEPR Panel recommendations and final resolution. The report is intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process. The report will also include a summary of the Review Panel members’ qualifications and a brief discussion of the methodology used to conduct the IEPR. The Contractor will submit the IEPR Final Report to the PCX IEPR Lead for review and acceptance of the product. Once the PCX IEPR Lead accepts the product, he/she will forward the product to the USACE for review. The Final IEPR Report must be submitted no later than 45 days following the close of the public comment period.

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 quality assurance of the Final IEPR report to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

Option 3: Addendum to the Final IEPR Report

This option is for the additional effort to prepare an addendum to the Final IEPR Report.

This option will be exercised if the close of the public comment period is delayed and/or the District does not have sufficient time after the close of public comment period (in time for the ADM) to collate comments into themes/topics for the panel’s review (i.e., there is insufficient time to consolidate and produce a Final IEPR Report within 45 days after the review documents have been provided to the panel). This option will also cover any necessary meetings, back and forth with the Panel regarding their findings and Final Panel Comment language, and time to enter the additional Final Panel Comments and Backchecks into DrChecks. Additionally, this option will account for all Contractor effort necessary to execute this option and produce an Addendum to the Final IEPR Report.

Task 6: Comment/Response

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

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

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

5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall provide all document reproduction. Electronic submittals shall contain all electronic files in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats. The briefings for the teleconferences will be furnished in Microsoft PowerPoint or Adobe PDF format.

Reports generated by the peer review Contractor or their subcontractors shall not be released for publication or dissemination without the Contracting Officer’s written approval following coordination with the Contracting Officer’s representative. The USACE will determine which documents to publish in the public domain. The Contractor shall provide monthly status updates to USACE. Status updates will include the status of efforts associated with this PWS as well as any changes to scope and schedule. These updates will be informal and normally conducted through electronic mail messages.

All of the electronic and hard copy submittals (whether draft or final) must be thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate contracting staff prior to submittal to USACE and/or the PCX.

The Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and quality assurance for all deliverables to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

6. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall have the following qualifications:

a. Experience establishing and administering Review Panels;

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

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

d. Is an independent science and technology organization;

e. Shall be free from conflicts of interest with the Occoquan Peninsula CSRM

Study;

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

and

g. Independent science and technology organization; and

h. Proven ability to deliver under significant time constraints.

7. PLACE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, AND TRAVEL

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

b. Period of Performance. The performance period shall be from the date of the NTP to 30 January 2026.

c. Travel: Travel is not required.

8. RESTRICTIONS

There are no known conflicts of interest with the Occoquan Peninsula CSRM Study and IEPR Panel members that are assembled.

9. AUTHORITIES STATEMENT

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

10. RELEVANCE

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a division of the U.S. Army. USACE has been directed by Congress to develop the Occoquan Peninsula CSRM Study.

11. CAPABILITY STATEMENT

By public law WRDA 2007 (Public Law 110-114), Section 2034, the peer review must be completed by reviewers external to the Government, thus the requesting agency does not have the necessary in-house capability to perform the tasks specified in this PWS.

12. POINTS OF CONTACT

PCX IEPR Program Manager/Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/PCX IEPR Manager

EXAMPLE

Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office EXAMPLE Email EXAMPLE Phone EXAMPLE

PCX IEPR Lead

EXAMPLE

Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office EXAMPLE Email EXAMPLE Phone EXAMPLE

Project Manager

EXAMPLE

Agency EXAMPLE Office EXAMPLE Email EXAMPLE Phone EXAMPLE

Lead Planner

EXAMPLE

Agency EXAMPLE Office EXAMPLE Email EXAMPLE Phone EXAMPLE

APPENDIX A

Occoquan Peninsula CSRM Study, Woodbridge, VA

Feasibility Report and Environmental Document

Independent External Peer Review

Draft Schedule1

TASK ACTION # of DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTION

Notice to Proceed (NTP) 01 JUN 2025 Review documents available 01 JUL 2025 Concurrent Review Period 01 JUL 2025 – 31 JUL 2025

USACE Submit Draft Work Plan

Teleconference (if necessary)

USACE Provide comments on Draft Work Plan

*Submit Final Work Plan Within 15 working days of NTP

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

USACE Provides comments on

COI

*Submit list of selected Panel members

Within 17 working days of NTP

USACE provides comments on selected Panel members

Complete subcontracts for Panel members

CONTRACTOR Kickoff meeting with USACE

Kickoff meeting with USACE and IEPR Panel

IEPR mid-point teleconference

Agency Decision Milestone Meeting

01 OCT 2025

Review documents sent to Panel members

Anticipated: 01 JUN 2025

Furnish Combined Public Comments to Panel

Within 15 working days of concurrent review period completion. The District (Government) reserves the right to extend the public comment processing period if

TASK ACTION # of DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTION there are an extensive number of comments. The District will provide at least a 5 working day notice to the contractor of any extension of the delivery date.

IEPR Panel members provide response to charge in Final Panel Comments

5 *Submit IEPR Final Report IEPR Final Report will be prepared and delivered no later than 45 days from the close of the concurrent review period.

*Provide IEPR Final Panel Comments to USACE via email and DrChecks

Within 7 working days after submitting IEPR Final Report

USACE Project Delivery Team provides draft Evaluator responses and clarifying questions to CONTRACTOR (this task includes time for RMO review of draft Evaluator responses)

Within 20 working days of receipt of IEPR Final Panel Comments

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

USACE submits final Evaluator responses via DrChecks

Within 5 working days of Final Panel Teleconference

IEPR Panel completes comment backcheck and enters backcheck responses into DrChecks

Within 8 working days of receipt of USACE final Evaluator responses

*Contractor submits .pdf printout of comment/response dialog and closes out comments in DrChecks as appropriate

Within 1 working day of entering of IEPR Panel backcheck responses into DrChecks

Contract Closeout Final invoice submitted within 60 working days of completion of all tasks

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

*- Deliverable