B08.02 W912HQ25R0016 form SF33 dated 2025.07.11.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 04:30 PM local t ime 31 Jul 2025

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F 33

34 - 41 X H 42 - 45

David.A.Kaplan@usace.army .mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 45

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

W912HQ 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and electronic submission required conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

DAVID A KAPLAN 703-428-8487

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

2 - 6

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

7 - 23 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

25 - 26 X K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 27 - 28 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 29 X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIO NS AND INSTRUCTIO NS

PART III - LIST O F DO CUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND O THER ATTACHMENTS

30 - 31

PART II - CO NTRACT CLAUSES

USACE HUMPHREYS ENGR CTR SPT ACTIVITY

ATTN: CEHEC-CT,

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3860

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATE ISSUED

11 Jul 2025

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

W912HQ25R0016

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Project IEPR Little Blue River

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete the Base Tasks (Tasks 1-6) in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, Cass County and Jackson County, Missouri.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

1001 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 1

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 1 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, Cass County and Jackson County, Missouri.

1002 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 1

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 1 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 1003 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 1

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 1 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 1004 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 1

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 1 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 2001 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 2

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 2 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 2002 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 2

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 2 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 2003 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 2

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 2 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, 2004 1 Project OPTION IEPR Little Blue River - Opt Task 2

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 2 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Little Blue River Flood Risk Management Study

Kansas City District

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

1. TITLE

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for Little Blue River Flood Risk Management (FRM) Study, Cass County and Jackson County, Missouri.

2. GENERAL

The Little Blue River is a 45.4-mile tributary of the Missouri River. The watershed is located in Cass and Jackson Counties of the U.S. State of Missouri. The watershed drains 224 square miles from a network of tributaries, covering a variety of land uses. Some tributaries to the Little Blue River include Oil Creek (Belton, MO), Mouse Creek (Lee’s Summit, MO), Cedar Creek (Lee’s Summit, MO), Little Cedar Creek (Lee’s Summit, MO), White Oak Creek (Raytown, MO), Wildwood Creek (Raytown, MO), Maybrook Creek (Lee’s Summit, MO), Adair Creek (Independence, MO). Longview Lake and Blue Springs Lake are two federal, multipurpose reservoirs. Longview is on the Little Blue mainstem; Blue Springs Lake is on the East Fork of the Little Blue. Approximately 15 miles of the Little Blue River was channelized in the 1980s to manage flood risk.

The goal of the Little Blue River FRM Study is to explore opportunities to improve and enhance the quality of life within the Little Blue River Watershed and the affected communities by researching and evaluating measures that will lower flood risk, restore land and aquatic habitat, and build resiliency.

Primary

• Reduce the risk of life loss from flooding along the Little Blue River mainstem and tributaries over a fifty-year (50) period of analysis.

• Reduce the economic damages from flooding along the Little Blue River mainstem and tributaries over a fifty (50) year period of analysis.

• Increase resilience (flood risk & climate adaptation) within the Little Blue

River watershed over a fifty (50) year period of analysis.

• Increase quality and quantity of riparian and aquatic habitat in the Little Blue

River watershed over the fifty (50) year period of analysis.

Figure 1 – Study Area Map.

IEPR Process The Little Blue River FRM 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 Little Blue River FRM 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 FRM and Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (ECO) studies.

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:

Little Blue River FRM Study for IEPR Panel Review

Anticipated Date of Report/Data

Approximate Number of Pages

Integrated Feasibility Report/EIS 12 AUG 2025 250

Appendix A: Engineering 12 AUG 2025 100

Appendix B: Hydraulics & Hydrology 12 AUG 2025 300

Appendix C: Economics 12 AUG 2025 100

Appendix D: Environmental 12 AUG 2025 200

Appendix E: Cultural Resources 12 AUG 2025 100

Appendix F: Real Estate 12 AUG 2025 50

Appendix G: Cost Estimate 12 AUG 2025 50

Appendix H: HTRW 12 AUG 2025 50

Public Involvement & Agency Comments1, 2 12 AUG 2025 100

Risk Register1 12 AUG 2025 10

Report total number of pages to be reviewed 1,3103

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 inland risk management and aquatic ecosystem restoration 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 flood risk management projects. Candidate must be familiar with the USACE flood risk management analysis and economic benefit calculations, including use of standard USACE computer programs including HEC-FDA, RMC-LifeSim, and IWR Planning Suite. In addition, the Panel member must have experience related to evaluating traditional National Ecosystem Restoration plan benefits associated with ecosystem projects, to include experience in Corps methodologies for performing cost effectiveness/incremental cost analysis (CE/ICA), and experience in determining the cost effectiveness of fish passage.

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. 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 is required.

The panel member should have particular knowledge of construction impacts on riverine and terrestrial ecology of central North America. Ideally, the Review Panel member should be familiar with the habitat, fish and wildlife species, and tribal cultures and archaeology that may be affected by the project alternatives in this study area. Active participation in related professional societies is encouraged.

Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineer: The Panel member must 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 flood risk management projects and ecosystem restoration with an emphasis on large river control structures, including dams, levees and floodwalls, detention basins, and channel modification. The panel member should have experience modeling large river systems and possess a thorough understanding of the dynamics of urban hydrology and hydraulics, open channel flow systems, floodplain hydraulics, and interior flood control systems. 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 HEC-RAS 1D and HEC-RAS 2D.

Structural/Civil Engineering: The panel member must 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 flood risk management projects. The panel member should also be familiar with and have demonstrated experience related to earthen dam structures, concrete spillways, concrete floodwalls, earthen levee foundations, channel modifications, diversion structures, and pumping station design and construction, bank stabilization, channel morphology, open channel dynamics, and non-structural solutions. 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 must 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 concrete floodwalls, earthen levee foundations and dams, soils and subsurface geology, material and bank stability and stabilization, grading, and line of protection under seepage concerns. 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 web meeting. 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 Little Blue River FRM 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 11 September 2026.

c. Travel: Travel is not required.

8. RESTRICTIONS

There are no known conflicts of interest with the Little Blue River FRM 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 Little Blue River FRM 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

To be provided at time of contract award.

APPENDIX A

Little Blue River FRM Study, Cass County & Jackson County, Missouri

Feasibility Report and Environmental Document Independent External Peer Review

Draft Schedule1

TASK ACTION # of DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTION Notice to Proceed (NTP) 14 July 2025 Review documents available 12 August 2025 Concurrent Review Period 12 August 2025 – 12 September 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 17 July 2026

Review documents sent to Panel members Anticipated: 19 August 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

*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

Section E - Inspection and Acceptance

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government 1001 Destination Government Destination Government 1002 Destination Government Destination Government 1003 Destination Government Destination Government 1004 Destination Government Destination Government 2001 Destination Government Destination Government 2002 Destination Government Destination Government 2003 Destination Government Destination Government 2004 Destination Government Destination Government

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.246-4 Inspection Of Services--Fixed Price AUG 1996

Section F - Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 11-SEP-2026 1 INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCES

NO CONTACT IDENTIFIED

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315

N/A

W26HM4

1001 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1002 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1003 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1004 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2001 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2002 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2003 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2004 11-SEP-2026 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER (AUG 1989)

(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by written order to the Contractor, require the Contractor to stop all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days after the order is delivered to the Contractor, and for any further period to which the parties may agree. The order shall be specifically identified as a stop-work order issued under this clause. Upon receipt of the order, the Contractor shall immediately comply with its terms and take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage. Within a period of 90 days after a stop-work is delivered to the Contractor, or within any extension of that period to which the parties shall have agreed, the Contracting Officer shall either--

(1) Cancel the stop-work order; or

(2) Terminate the work covered by the order as provided in the Default, or the Termination for Convenience of the Government, clause of this contract.

(b) If a stop-work order issued under this clause is canceled or the period of the order or any extension thereof expires, the Contractor shall resume work. The Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the delivery schedule or contract price, or both, and the contract shall be modified, in writing, accordingly, if--

(1) The stop-work order results in an increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor's cost properly allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract; and

(2) The Contractor asserts its right to the adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of work stoppage;

provided, that, if the Contracting Officer decides the facts justify the action, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon the claim submitted at any time before final payment under this contract.

(c) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the Contracting Officer shall allow reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order in arriving at the termination settlement.

(d) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for default, the Contracting Officer shall allow, by equitable adjustment or otherwise, reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order.

(End of clause)

Section G - Contract Administration Data

252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving

Reports

DEC 2018

252.201-7000 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE (DEC 1991)

(a) "Definition. Contracting officer's representative" means an individual designated in accordance with subsection 201.602-2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions.

(b) If the Contracting Officer designates a contracting officer's representative (COR), the Contractor will receive a copy of the written designation. It will specify the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer. The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or any other term or condition of the contract.

CONTRACT ADMIN

G001 CONTRACTING OFFICER/AUTHORITY

All contractual administration will be carried out by a warranted Contracting Officer acting within their delegated limits. Communications pertaining to contract administration matters shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer shown on the front page of the contract award. No changes in or deviation from the Performance Work Statement shall be effected without a contract modification executed by the Contracting Officer authorizing such changes.

The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to issue changes or otherwise change the terms and conditions of contractual actions. In the event the Contractor effects any such change at the direction of any person other than the Contracting Officer, the Contractor is at risk that no adjustment will be made in the contract action’s price to cover any increase(s) in costs incurred as a result thereof.

(End of…