Draft_PWS___Future_Demands_Impacting_OCAP_1.pdf

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

Impacts of Future Demand Changes on the Objectives of Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the Newlands Project, Nevada

June 16, 2025

1. SCOPE

This Performance Work Statement (PWS) outlines the tasks and deliverables for a Contractor to assess if and how changes in water demands could impact the ability of the Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation’s) Newlands Project, Nevada (Project) (OCAP, 1997) to meet its objectives in the future.

1.1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this contract is to acquire contractor services to assess how changes in Project demands and changes in other demands in the Truckee and Carson River basins could impact the ability of the OCAP to meet its purposes. To accomplish the study objectives, this PWS encompasses the following tasks:

• TASK 1 – Project management and administrative duties

• TASK 2 – Meetings

• TASK 3 – Analyze historical trends in Project demands

• TASK 4 – Identify historical trends in demands impacting the Project

• TASK 5 – Develop future demand scenarios

• TASK 6 – Assess OCAP performance under projected changes in demands

• TASK 7 – Document impacts of future demand changes on OCAP performance

• TASK 8 – Closeout

1.2. BACKGROUND

The Project provides water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for about 57,000 acres of cropland and wetlands in the Lahontan Valley and the town of Fernley, in western Nevada. To help meet Project demands, Derby Dam on the Truckee River diverts water through the Truckee Canal to Lahontan Reservoir to supplement supplies from the Carson River, when needed. The decrease in Truckee River flows below Derby Dam, mostly from diversions to the Project, has lowered Pyramid Lake levels, contributing to the deterioration of endangered and threatened fish species in Pyramid Lake. The impacts of Project diversions on Pyramid Lake fisheries triggered protracted and repeated litigation by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the federal government against the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and other users of Truckee River Project water in both Nevada and California.

To better manage diversions from the Truckee River to the Project, the Secretary of the Interior adopted the initial OCAP in 1967, and several updates have occurred since then. Current operations follow the 1997 Adjustment to the 1988 OCAP (1997 OCAP) (Adjustments to 1988 OCAP, 1997), a federal rule published in the Code of Federal Regulations 418 (OCAP, 1997). The Supplemental Information for the 1997 OCAP identifies the following objectives of the OCAP:

• Provide the appropriate water supply to meet the entitled demand for water,

• Increase the reliance of the Project on water from the Carson River,

• Minimize the use of water from the Truckee River as a supplemental supply,

• Increase efficiency of water use in the Project, and

• Establish a regulatory scheme to manage deliveries to Project water users (OCAP, 1997).

To achieve these objectives, the OCAP establishes procedures to estimate the annual water demand of the Project and to regulate the diversion of water from the Truckee River to help meet that demand consistent with existing decrees. The Contractor should develop metrics based on these objectives to assess the performance of the OCAP under future demand scenarios.

Since the 1997 OCAP was implemented, numerous legal and operational changes have taken place in the Truckee-Carson Basin that require Reclamation to evaluate and potentially update the OCAP.

These changes include the establishment of the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) as well as the reauthorization of the Project under Public Law 101-618 to allow the delivery of water for municipal and wildlife beneficial uses. The passage of time has also revealed ambiguities and problems in the 1997 OCAP language that need to be clarified or resolved.

Reclamation started a scoping effort to update the 1997 OCAP, referred to as the OCAP Revision. In scoping workshops in 2020 and 2021 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2021), as well as an OCAP Vulnerability Workshop in 2025, stakeholders identified the need to better understand how changes in future demands may impact their water concerns related to the 1997 OCAP. Demand changes will have different impacts on the OCAP objectives depending on the magnitude of change and whether it represents a change in the manner of use, point of use, point of diversion, or portion of the water right diverted. Some of the identified trends in demand changes of concern, include:

• Project demands: The irrigated acreage in the Project has roughly ranged from 55,000 to 75,000 acres, generally, but not consistently, trending downwards. Further, the manner of use of Project water expanded under Public Law 101-618 from almost entirely irrigation water to inclusion of wetlands, wildlife, municipal, and industrial uses. Agricultural water transfers and changes in use often also result in changes in point of use and point of diversion. The OCAP were designed for a different set of demand conditions, and its uncertain how these individual and cumulative changes will impact OCAP’s ability to meet its objectives.

• Carson Basin demands, upstream of Lahontan: Development and population growth are placing increasing pressure on the fully appropriated waters of the Carson Basin. As such, municipalities are looking at several options to secure water, including: conversion of agricultural ground water rights to municipal water rights, reclaiming treated wastewater with induction wells, and exercising permitted but under-utilized groundwater rights (Morway et al., 2023). These changes could impact the Carson River inflow into Lahontan Reservoir, a key variable for setting the monthly Lahontan storage targets and need for supplemental Truckee River diversion to meet those targets and Project demands.

• Truckee Basin demands: Development in the Reno-Sparks area has increased demands for municipal and industrial water, leading to a transfer of irrigation water rights to municipal and industrial water rights. Continued growth in this region is projected to increase the portions of water rights exercised in the Truckee Basin, potentially leading to less Truckee River water in the lower reaches (Bureau of Reclamation, 2015). This could limit the water available for diversion through the Truckee Canal to help meet Project demands.

The objective of this study is to further assess these and other changes in demand to determine their impact on the ability of the OCAP to meet its objectives in the future. Reclamation expects that the results from this study will be used to develop potential alternatives to the 1997 OCAP that address identified vulnerabilities and to assess how potential alternatives to the 1997 OCAP perform under different demand scenarios. The following subsubsections provide further context to approach the study objective.

2. REFERENCES

The following list of documents are required in the performance of this contract:

Adjustments to 1988 Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the Newlands Irrigation Project in Nevada. Part V: Rules and Regulations, Pub. L. No. Federal Register. Vol. 62, no. 243, 66251 (1997). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1997-12-18/97-32795

Bureau of Reclamation. (2015). Truckee Basin Study.

https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/truckee/tbsbasinstudy.pdf

Carson Water Subconservancy District. (2016). Comprehensive Regional Water System Plan for the Carson River Watershed. https://www.cwsd.org/comprehensive-regional-water-system-plan-for-the-carson-river-watershed/

Douglas County. (2020). Douglas County 2020 Master Plan.

https://www.douglascountynv.gov/government/departments/community_development/planning _division/master_plan/master_plan_text_update_2020

Kitlasten, W., Morway, E. D., Niswonger, R. G., Gardner, M., White, J. T., Triana, E., & Selkowitz, D.

(2021). Integrated Hydrology and Operations Modeling to Evaluate Climate Change Impacts in an Agricultural Valley Irrigated With Snowmelt Runoff. Water Resources Research, 57(6), e2020WR027924. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027924

Morway, E. D., Buto, S. G., Niswonger, R. G., & Huntington, J. L. (2023). Assessing potential effects of changes in water use in the middle Carson River Basin with a numerical groundwater-flow model, Eagle, Dayton, and Churchill Valleys, west-central Nevada. In Scientific Investigations Report (Nos. 2023–5008). U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235008

Niswonger, R. G., Morway, E. D., Triana, E., & Huntington, J. L. (2017). Managed aquifer recharge through off-season irrigation in agricultural regions. Water Resources Research, 53(8), 6970– 6992. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020458

Operating Criteria and Procedures for the Newlands Reclamation Project, Nevada, Pub. L. No. 43 CFR Part 418, 43 Code of Federal Rules (1997). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/part-418

Truckee Meadows Water Authority. (2020). 2020-2040 Water Resource Plan.

https://tmwa.com/wrp2020/

US Bureau of Reclamation. (2020). 1997 Adjusted OCAP Biological Assessment Hydrologic Modeling Technical Memorandum (Technical Memorandum No. TM-2020-01).

US Bureau of Reclamation. (2021). Draft-Review of TROA Operating Model: Carson Division Demand Investigation [DRAFT].

US Bureau of Reclamation. (2022). Draft-Review of TROA Operating Model: Truckee Division Demand Investigation [DRAFT].

Yager, R. M., Maurer, D. K., & Mayers, C. J. (2012). Assessing potential effects of changes in water use with a numerical groundwater-flow model of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California. US Geological Survey.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/sir20125262

3. TASKS

The contractor shall perform the following tasks to achieve the objective of this PWS.

3.1. TASK 1 – Project management and administrative duties

3.1.1. Oversee activities, staff, and resources

(1) The Contractor shall conduct all managerial and administrative duties to manage this contract. This includes project management and oversight of contractor activities, staff, and resources.

3.1.2. Develop Project Management Plan

(1) The Contractor shall develop a Project Management Plan (PMP) no later than one (1) month after contract award that includes the Contractor’s understanding and approach to the deliverables outlined in this PWS by sub-task, the Contractor’s approach to completing the Project within schedule, key staff, and contact information.

(2) The Contractor shall develop a schedule of activities by sub-task identified in the PWS for discussion no later than one (1) month after contract award, ensuring all appropriate tasks and milestones for each product are identified. The project schedule shall be in a Gantt chart format, use the Critical Path Method, and be delivered to Reclamation in Microsoft (MS) Project format and .pdf format. The schedule shall contain necessary predecessor/successor logic, clearly show the Project’s critical path, and show planned and actual durations. The schedule should also include project deliverables.

(3) The Contractor shall make any modifications required to the PMP and schedule of activities and obtain Government approval before the contract performance period start date.

3.1.3. Develop Quality Control Plan

(1) The Contractor shall develop a Quality Control Plan (QCP) no later than one (1) month after contract award that demonstrates how they will ensure the quality of work performed by their staff or their subcontractors. In compliance with the contract clause, the Contractor shall provide the QCP to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and may include the QCP in the PMP. All quality control review forms shall be submitted with the deliverables to Reclamation.

(2) The Contractor shall make any modifications required to the QCP and obtain Government approval before the contract performance period start date.

(3) The Contractor is responsible for subcontractor performance and quality. Reclamation shall be notified if the subcontractor is not performing or meeting the contract schedules. The Contractor shall communicate the objectives and scope for each task with any subcontractors. The Contractor shall ensure that the subcontractors are provided reasonable timeframes to complete and provide their work product including the technical and quality review cycles. The Contractor shall designate milestones at which time the subcontractor work is reviewed, and the COR is apprised of the effort.

(4) Records documenting quality shall be kept and made available to the Contracting Officer (CO) and COR (when requested) throughout the contract performance period and for the period after contract completion, until final settlement of any claims under this contract.

3.1.4. Develop Records and Data Control Plan

(1) The Contractor shall develop a Records and Data Control Plan no later than one (1) month after contract award that outlines how the records will be managed throughout the project and closed out at the end of the project. The Contractor may include the Records and Data Control Plan in the

PMP.

(2) The Contractor shall make any modifications required to the Records and Data Control Plan and obtain Government approval before the contract performance period start date.

(3) All records, files, metadata, model runs, coding, models, documents, emails, notes, calculations, and data are the property of the Federal government. The Contractor shall be responsible for creating and maintaining required records specifically cited in Sections 5 and 6 or required by the provisions of a mandatory directive listed in Applicable Publications and Forms. If requested by Reclamation, the Contractor shall provide the original record or data files including any metadata, or a reproducible copy of any such records, within five (5) working days of receipt of the request.

3.1.5. Develop Risk Management Matrix

(1) The Contractor shall complete a Risk Management Matrix no later than one (1) month after contract award that demonstrates how they will manage risks that may impede goals, objectives, success, and schedule. The Contractor shall use the Risk Management Matrix for identifying, prioritizing, and tracking risks. The Contractor shall apprise the subcontractors of the risks andconsequences associated with their tasks. The Contractor may include the Risk Management Matrix in the PMP.

(2) The Contractor shall make any modifications required to the Risk Management Matrix and obtain Government approval before the contract performance period start date.

3.1.6. Prepare monthly status reports and invoices

(1) The Contractor shall prepare and submit monthly status reports and invoices, that include the date, contract number, invoice number, CO, COR, contract amount, task number, percent complete, current invoice amount, and cumulative complete.

(2) The Contractor shall prepare and submit the final invoice and release of claims.

3.2. TASK 2 – Meetings

3.2.1. Kickoff meeting

(1) Within one month of the contract award, the CO, COR, and LBAO’s Project Manager (PM) will schedule a Kickoff Meeting with the Contractor via webinar to discuss the project direction and schedule. Discussion topics at the meeting shall include but are not limited to, requirements and deliverables of the contract, roles of personnel assigned to this contract, and the project schedule.

3.2.2. LBAO meetings

(1) The Contractor shall participate in twice-a-month meetings with LBAO's PM and LBAO's

Technical Team (i.e., Special Studies Division Manager and Special Studies Division Staff) to assess the status of the study and determine if additional direction or information is needed. The Contractor shall participate in up to forty-two (42) 1-hour teleconferences. Up to two (2) hours of pre-meeting preparation are anticipated per call.

(2) The Contractor shall prepare an agenda, give progress updates, record meeting notes, and solicit feedback from LBAO's PM and LBAO's Technical Team for each meeting. Draft meeting notes shall be delivered within five (5) business days of the meeting. Final notes, incorporating comments and suggested changes, shall be provided within three (3) business days of receipt of all comments.

3.2.3. Site visit (Optional)

(1) If requested and determined necessary by Reclamation and the Contractor, the Contractor may conduct up to one site visit to the Project facilities and lands within 365 days after the award to get a better understanding of Project operations and to meet with Reclamation staff in person.

3.3. TASK 3 – Analyze historical trends in Project demands

3.3.1. Identify trends in historical Project demands

(1) Use data from Reclamations’ records, particularly the Annual Determination from 2013 to 2024, and the Nevada State Engineer’s Office to determine the following trends related to Project water demand and use:

a. Trends in anticipated irrigated acreage (acres) and volume of anticipated irrigation water demand (acre-feet).

b. Trends in actual irrigated acreage (acres) and actual irrigation water demand (acre-feet).

c. Trends in manner of use, i.e., volume of water (acre-feet) demanded for each use (irrigation, wetlands, municipal and industrial, etc.) and transfers between uses.

d. Trends in point of diversion and place of use changes.

(2) Results should be reported separately and combined for the Truckee Division and the Carson Division of the Project and should identify similarities and difference in trends between the Truckee Division and Carson Division.

(3) Contractor should attempt to fit trendlines to the data, if possible, and report the significance (ex., R-squared, p-value, and/or other goodness of fit metrics).

3.3.2. Assess uncertainties in historical Project demand data

(1) Significant uncertainties and in some cases, errors, exist in both Reclamation and the Nevada State

Engineer’s Office data regarding water rights and water use in the Newlands Project. The Consultant shall assess and document the magnitude and source of uncertainties in the source data as they apply to the historical trends analysis.

3.4. TASK 4 – Analyze historical trends in demands impacting the Project Primarily using sources outside of Reclamation, determine historical trends in volume of water demands by manner of use that impact, or could impact, the Project.

3.4.1. Identify trends in water use upstream of Lahontan Reservoir in the Carson Basin

(1) Quantitatively and qualitatively summarize trends in the volume, timing, and manner of use, of water rights and groundwater and surface water use in the Carson Basin upstream of Lahontan

Dam based on Morway et al. (2023), Kitlasten et al. (2021), the forthcoming Carson Watershed 30- Year Regional Water Plan, and others.

3.4.2. Identify trends in water use in the Truckee Basin

(1) Quantitatively and qualitatively summarize trends in the volume, timing, and manner of use, of water rights and surface water use in the Truckee Basin upstream of Derby Diversion Dam based on Truckee Meadows Water Authority (2020), US Bureau of Reclamation (2020), Bureau of Reclamation (2015), and others.

3.5. TASK 5 – Develop future demand scenarios

3.5.1. Identify primary drivers of demand changes

(1) Based on the findings from Tasks 3 and 4 and additional resources (ex., Carson Water

Subconservancy District (2016), Douglas County (2020), Niswonger et al. (2017), et al), identify the primary drivers of changes in historical and projected future demand, e.g., economic development, increase in the urban population, decrease in the agricultural population, increased environmental regulation, etc.

3.5.2. Develop future demand scenarios in RiverWare

(1) Based on the findings from Tasks 3 and 4 and expected trends in the primary drivers of demand changes, develop approximately two (2) to four (4) demand scenarios that capture the range of plausible future demand scenarios and are compatible with the TROA Planning Enabled Operations RiverWare Model. Future demands scenarios can derive from scenarios used in other studies (ex. Truckee Meadows Water Authority, 2020; US Bureau of Reclamation, 2020; Bureau of Reclamation, 2015; Yager et al., 2012), or represent “new” future demand scenarios. Each demand scenario must abide by all Nevada and California water rights use and transfer laws, the water rights appropriations set forth in the Alpine Decree (Carson River) and Orr Ditch Decree (Truckee River), and any other legal requirements for water management in the Truckee-Carson Basin (ex.

TROA).

(2) The Contractor must consult with each major water rights holder/representative in the Truckee- Carson Basin when developing and finalizing the future demand scenarios, including, but not limited to: Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, California Department of Water Resources, City of Fernley, Churchill County, and Carson Water Sub-Conservancy. The Contractor must demonstrate that each major stakeholder has reviewed and accepted their projected demands in the future scenarios.

(3) Included in the development of demand scenarios, update the monthly distribution of Carson Division Demands and the monthly and weekly distribution of Truckee Division Demands in RiverWare, as needed. LBAO initiated efforts to update these demand distributions, which should serve as a basis for this effort (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2021, 2022).

(4) Test the future demands scenarios in the TROA Planning Enabled Operations Model to ensure they perform as expected and intended.

3.5.3. Develop a qualitative and quantitative description of each future demand scenario

(1) Accompany each demands scenario with a qualitative and quantitative description of the scenario including evidence from Tasks 3 and 4 to justify the conditions portrayed in the future scenarios.

3.6. TASK 6 – Assess OCAP performance under projected changes in demands

3.6.1. Identify a baseline scenario

(1) Identify a baseline scenario in the TROA Planning Enabled Operations model to compare with the developed future demand scenarios.

3.6.2. Identify OCAP performance measures

(1) In consultation with LBAO and based on the OCAP objectives listed in Section 1.2, identify a set of metrics, or other measures, to assess the performance of the OCAP under the future demand scenarios. Performance measures must:

a. Accurately assess the OCAP objectives,

b. Convey significant changes to OCAP performance,

c. Reflect Reclamation and other stakeholder’s concerns, and

d. Be easily understandable by Reclamation and other stakeholders.

3.6.3. Assess OCAP performance under projected future changes in demands

(1) Complete runs in the TROA Planning Enabled Operations model with the Baseline and future demand scenarios and the Truckee Carson Dataset (TCDAT) (1901-1999) and the TROA Daily Historical Planning Model Dataset (1986-2021+).

(2) Each scenario shall be assessed individually and compared with one another based on the identified performance measures.

(3) Any significant vulnerabilities in OCAP performance under future scenarios or other key takeaways shall be identified and analyzed.

3.7. TASK 7 – Document impacts of future demand changes on OCAP performance

(1) Document the impact of future demand changes on OCAP performance in a Technical

Memorandum (TM) that includes the following:

a. Executive summary.

b. Summary of historical trends in Project demands (TASK 3 – Analyze historical trends in Project demands).

c. Summary of historical trends in demands impacting the Project (TASK 4 – Identify historical trends in demands impacting the Project).

d. Description of the developed future demands scenarios including evidence in support of their development, primary drivers of change, and a qualitative and quantitative description of each scenario (TASK 5 – Develop future demand scenarios).

e. Assessment of OCAP performance under projected future changes in demands through a comparison of performance under the baseline and future scenarios and identification of any significant vulnerabilities in OCAP performance under future scenarios or other key takeaways (TASK 6 – Assess OCAP performance under projected changes in demands).

f. Any other pertinent information.

(2) The Contractor shall perform an internal quality control review of the TM. The Contractor shall have a Senior Hydrologist or Senior Hydrologic Engineer review and provide comments on the TM, before review by Reclamation. The contractor shall provide the internal comment and response sheet to Reclamation.

(3) The Contractor shall provide the TM as a draft for review by the LBAO’s PM and LBAO’s Technical Team, as well as other basin stakeholders. The report will require the submission of a draft, draft-final, and final report, providing Reclamation and other stakeholders the opportunity to review each draft iteration and provide feedback. The Contractor will address each of the comments in a standard comment sheet, including comment disposition and back-check by Reclamation/stakeholders to document whether the comment response was accepted.

(4) The Contractor shall submit with each report version the accompanying models, files, datasets, and reviews listed in Section 5 Data and Reports.

(5) The Contractor shall prepare and present the results of Tasks 3-7 in a 1-2 hour presentation to Reclamation. The Contractor should also be prepared for the potential to present this information to other stakeholders in the basin on one occasion during a two (2) hour session.

3.8. TASK 8 – Closeout

(1) Contractor will submit final invoice and written “Release of Claims.”

4. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

4.1. Monitoring performance

The COR will track the Contractor's performance during the evaluation period. Interim (mid-term) evaluations may be provided to identify strengths and weaknesses in the Contractor's performance during the period being evaluated. At the end of the period, the COR will assess the Contractor's performance following the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) described in Section 4.6 and report Contractor performance to the CO.

Annually, the COR will complete a performance evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

4.2. Contractor self-assessment

Following each evaluation period, the Contractor may provide a written self-assessment of its performance to the COR to be considered in its report to the CO. The self-assessment shall be submitted not later than five (5) working days after the end of each evaluation period. The self-evaluation shall not exceed one page per PRS element. The self-assessment shall address both the strengths and weaknesses of the Contractor's performance during the evaluation period. Where deficiencies in performance are noted, the Contractor shall describe the actions planned or taken to correct such deficiencies and avoid their recurrence. The self-assessment itself will not be the basis for the disincentive determination.

4.3. COR recommendation

The COR will consider all evaluations and any other pertinent information, including the Contractor self-assessment, and will prepare a report to the CO with findings and recommendations. The Contractor will be provided a copy of the draft findings and recommendations of the COR and will be allowed to identify factual errors. The COR's draft recommendation is not subject to negotiation and the COR will not engage in discussions with the Contractor. Any errors identified by the Contractor will be addressed by the COR in its final report. The Contractor will be provided a copy of the final COR report at the same time the report is submitted to the CO.

4.4. Payment determination

The CO may meet with the COR to discuss the COR's report. The CO will make a final determination in writing as to the percentage of work successfully completed, and the resulting payment to be made.

A copy of the determination will be provided to the Contractor no later than 45 calendar days after the end of the period being evaluated. All CO decisions regarding disincentives are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

4.5. Deduction

Notwithstanding any other clause of this contract, deduction of the disincentive will be made within the later of 60 days after the end of the evaluation period or 30 days after receipt of an approved invoice.

4.6. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is one evaluation method the government uses for surveillance performance to determine whether the Contractor meets the standards of performance as defined in the PWS. The absence of a QASP for any contract requirement, however, shall not detract from its enforceability or limit the rights or remedies of the government under any other provision of the contract in determining the quality of the Contractor's performance.

Table 1. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Performance Requirements Summary.

Task No. Performance Objective

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy

Coincides with Tasks under Section 3.1.2, All

Schedule – the Contractor shall conduct statement of services tasking in alignment with the negotiated schedule timelines.

Number of performance and products that meet or exceed the schedule and magnitude of resulting delays/impacts

Statement of services is performed without causing programmatic delay to the government or violating the schedule or milestones identified as part of the program.

The Contractor shall prepare a PMP detailing deliverables and schedules.

Exceptional: >90% of performance and products meet or exceed the schedule with few exceptions, resulting in minimal delays.

Satisfactory: 80-90% of performance and products meet the schedule with few exceptions, resulting in minimal delays.

Marginal: 20-79% of performance and products result in moderate delay or impact on programs.

Unsatisfactory: >20% of performance and products result in unacceptable (the government may incur additional costs) delays or impact to programs.

Incentive: Above Satisfactory rating on work performed for early schedule completion.

Satisfactory rating on work performed if Contractor meets schedule requirements.

Unsatisfactory rating of work performed for late schedule completion.

Remedy: Inspection of Services. The Contractor shall develop a plan for recovery. Continuous review until performance is satisfactory or better.

Elevate to a higher level of contract management if actions fail to result in improvement. If the acceptable scheduling level falls below

Objective

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy satisfactory, additional task orders may not be issued.

Coincides with Tasks under Sections 3.1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7

Quality – The Contractor shall provide documents, data, and work products in alignment with the negotiated quality requirements outlined in the QCP.

Contractor shall submit data and work products as required in PWS and QCP.

Difference between the quality of submitted data and work products and the quality requirements outlined in the QCP.

Methodologies and technical products are scientifically sound, defensible, consistent and reflective of referenced documents.

QASP and review personnel and processes are approved by Reclamation and followed by Contractor.

Quality checks at the established milestones are developed; if unsatisfactory, corrective action is initiated.

Exceptional: >90% of performance and products meet quality expectations with few exceptions, resulting in minimal changes.

Satisfactory: 80-90% of performance and products meet quality expectations with some changes.

Marginal: >20% of performance and products result in moderate corrective action.

Unsatisfactory: >20% of performance and products are unacceptable (do not meet the standards outlined in the QASP and extensive corrective action is

Incentive: Above Satisfactory rating on work performed that exceeds standard requirements.

Satisfactory rating on work performed that meets requirements.

Unsatisfactory rating of work performed below standard.

Remedy: Inspection of Services. The Contractor shall develop a plan for recovery. Continuous review until performance is satisfactory or better.

Elevate to a higher level of contract management if actions fail to result in

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy

Contractor shall document the review process by submitting quality review forms with specific signatures.

required. The government may incur additional costs, delays, or impact on programs.

improvement. If the acceptable scheduling level falls below satisfactory, additional task orders may not be issued.

Coincides with Tasks under Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7

Goals, Objectives, Milestones – The Contractor, with Reclamation's approval, shall determine goals, objectives, and milestones before initiating a task order.

Contractor shall document and evaluate goals, objectives, and milestones and ensure the work or task will meet these goals.

Performance and ability to develop and meet goals, objectives, and milestones. Ability to identify problems and communicate timely solutions.

Ability to lead a team and to represent Reclamation’s interest in the development of goals and objectives.

Ability to lead a team in developing alternatives to meet the goals and objectives, representing Reclamation’s interest.

Exceptional: >90% Performance and ability to develop and meet goals, objectives, and milestones. Ability to identify problems and communicate timely solutions.

Satisfactory: 80-90% Performance and ability to develop and meet goals, objectives, and milestones. Ability to identify problems and communicate timely solutions.

Marginal: 20-79% Ability to develop and

Incentive: Above Satisfactory rating on work performed if goals, objectives, and success exceed standards for scientifically sound and defensible products.

Satisfactory rating on work performed if goals, objectives, and success meet standards.

Unsatisfactory rating of work performed if Contractor is unable to develop and meet

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy

Contractor shall set frequent milestones.

Methodologies and technical products are evaluated at a frequency or milestone that would allow recovery.

meet goals, objectives, and milestones. Unable to identify problems and communicate timely solutions.

Unsatisfactory: <20% Ability to develop and meet goals, objectives, and milestones. Unable to perform project management at the standard of care necessary to complete tasks. Extensive corrective action is required. The government may incur additional costs, delays, or impact on programs.

goals, objectives, and success measurements.

Remedy: Inspection of Services. The Contractor shall develop a plan for recovery. Continuous review until performance is satisfactory or better.

Elevate to a higher level of contract management if actions fail to result in improvement. If the acceptable scheduling level falls below satisfactory, additional task orders may not be issued.

Coincides with Tasks under Sections 3.3, 3.4, Measurements of Success Metrics – The Contractor with Reclamation's approval shall determine the measurements of success metrics

Portion of deliverables that meet the measurements of success metrics

Contractor leads the team to identify metrics for each task.

Ability to lead the team and

Exceptional: >90% of deliverables meet the established metrics.

Satisfactory: 80-90% of deliverables meet the established metrics.

If not, ability to

Incentive: Above Satisfactory rating on work performed where metrics are met and exceed standard requirements.

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy

3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 before initiating a task.

Contractor shall develop metrics that are measurable, preferably quantitatively, using standard Project Management Institute (PMI) methodology.

assess goals using metrics.

Measurement of success may be quantitative or qualitative but shall be scientifically sound and defensible.

determine abandonment or alternative plan of action. Ability to recover from delays.

Marginal: 20-79% of deliverables meet the established metrics.

Performance and products result in moderate corrective action.

Unsatisfactory: <20% of deliverables meet the established metrics.

Performance and products are unacceptable (do not meet the standards) and extensive corrective action is required. Inability to find solutions. The government may incur additional costs, delays, or impact on programs.

Satisfactory rating on work performed when metrics meet standard requirements.

Unsatisfactory rating of work performed if Contractor is unable to develop metrics or a recovery plan.

Remedy: Inspection of Services. The Contractor shall develop a plan for recovery. Continuous review until performance is satisfactory or better.

Elevate to a higher level of contract management if actions fail to result in improvement. If the acceptable scheduling level falls below satisfactory, additional task orders may not be issued.

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy

All Leadership – The Contractor with Reclamation’s approval shall lead the project and be able to ascertain the big picture.

Contractor shall lead and provide project direction, using standard PMI methodologies.

Performance and ability to lead through proposing a process to meet goals, objectives, and milestones.

Percent of the management that conforms to the PMI methodology.

Leads team and identifies proposed process and how it will be attained.

Ability to represent Reclamation’s interest in a scientifically sound and defensible manner.

Exceptional: >90% of the management conforms to the PMI methodology.

Contractor communicates innovative ideas and demonstrates exceptional project management and leadership.

Satisfactory: 80-90% of the management conforms to the PMI methodology.

Contractor communicates innovative ideas and demonstrates project management and leadership.

Marginal: 70-79% of the management conforms to PMI methodology.

Contractor infrequently communicates innovative ideas and

Incentive: Above Satisfactory rating on work performed under leadership and project direction that exceeds the standard PMU methodologies.

Satisfactory rating on work performed that follows standard PMI methodologies.

Unsatisfactory rating of work performed if Contractor is unable to follow standard PMI leadership methodologies.

Remedy: Inspection of Services. The Contractor shall develop a plan for recovery. Continuous review until performance is satisfactory or better.

Elevate to a higher level of contract

Performance Indicator

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Remedy demonstrates project management and leadership.

Unsatisfactory: <70% of the management conforms to PMI methodology.

Contractor does not communicate innovative ideas nor demonstrate project management and leadership.

management if actions fail to result in improvement. If the acceptable scheduling level falls below satisfactory, additional task orders may not be issued.

5. DATA AND REPORTS

The contractor shall provide the following data and reports as follows:

Item No.

Description

Content

Format

Medium

Delivery

1 Project Management Plan and Deliverables Schedule

See PWS Section 3.1.2

Tasks, Milestones

Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) and MS Project or similar

No later than

(NLT) 1

month after contract award

2 Quality Control Plan See PWS Section 3.1.3

Contractor’s choice

Adobe PDF NLT 1 month after contract award

3 Records and Data Control Plan

See PWS Section3.1.4

Contractor’s choice

Adobe PDF NLT 1 month after contract award

4 Risk Management Matrix

3.1.5 Contractor’s

choice

MS Excel NLT 1 month after contract award

5 Monthly progress reports and invoices

See PWS Section 3.1.6

Contractor’s choice

Adobe PDF Monthly to

CO, COR,

and LBAO

PM

6 Future demand scenarios

See PWS Section 3.5

RiverWare demand scenario

RiverWare NLT 15 months after contract award

7 Draft TM – Impacts of future demand changes on OCAP performance

See PWS Section 3.7

Reclamation’s Visual Identity Template

MS Word NLT 17 months after contract award

8 Draft-Final TM – Impacts of future demand changes on OCAP performance

See PWS Section 3.7

Reclamation’s Visual Identity Template

MS Word NLT 1 month after Draft TM reviewed by LBAO’s PM and

Technical Team

9 Final TM - Impacts of future demand changes on OCAP performance

See PWS Section 3.7

Reclamation’s Visual Identity Template

MS Word

Adobe PDF

NLT 2 weeks after Draft- Final TM reviewed by LBAO’s PM and Technical Team and stakeholders

10 Accompanying Models, Files, and Datasets

See PWS Section 3.7

Contractor’s choice;

consult with LBAO’s PM

Various At the time of submission of the Draft, Draft-Final, and Final TM

6. DELIVERABLES

The contractor shall submit the reports in Section 5 Data and Reports following the guidance for development and submittal here:

6.1. Guidelines for project deliverables

(1) The Contractor shall document all decisions that will affect the technical aspects of the approach.

The Contractor shall discuss with the COR these changes before initiation to determine if these changes should be incorporated for a better product.

(2) The Contractor shall provide reference material used to inform decisions, e.g., scientific literature, etc. This material shall be submitted to the COR as an electronic packet to be used during the review cycles.

(3) The Contractor shall provide an electronic QCP (see Section 3.1.3). All deliverables must meet or exceed the Contractor’s QCP requirements.

(4) The Contractor shall prepare all documents as draft, draft-final, and final, unless otherwise specified in this PWS. All submitted draft, draft-final, and final reports must meet the contract quality control standards and follow the quality management program used by Reclamation. The draft-final and final versions of the documents shall be submitted as complete, ready-to-be-published documents containing a table of contents, executive summary, all tables and figures (including captions), and complete appendices.

(5) For each defined task the Contractor shall develop the analysis goals, objectives, metrics, and schedule (milestones), not to exceed the cost for the level of effort.

(6) All reviews must document comments received, how the comments were integrated into the document or analysis, and comment close-out. The Contractor shall use track changes when updating the draft report in response to comments. Key changes requiring decisions will be documented on a table that acknowledges how the document was revised. The Contractor shall conduct web meeting(s) with reviewers when key changes need discussion. The Contractor shall suggest various changes and be prepared to change the document with collaboration from the reviewers.

(7) All deliverables shall be delivered to the COR at LBAO by the specified due dates listed in Section 5.

(8) All electronic deliverables to be posted externally will be Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 compliant.

(9) All electronic deliverables to be posted and all materials made available to the general public will meet Reclamation’s Visual Identity Standards.

(10) All draft electronic deliverables shall be in MS Word and all final deliverables will be in both MS Word and Adobe PDF formats.

6.2. Document submittals

(1) The Contractor shall provide an annotated table of contents to the COR and LBAO’s PM for approval before initiating work for each document submittal.

(2) Any accompanying models, files, datasets, and reviews used in the analyses shall be documented and submitted to the COR and LBAO’s PM as an electronic packet to be used during the review cycles.

(3) The Contractor shall provide an FTP website or similar system to facilitate the transfer of large files between Reclamation and the Contractor. For large files where FTP will be difficult, the Contractor shall ship or deliver large files on thumb drives.

(4) One (1) electronic copy of each deliverable shall be submitted.

7. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

7.1. Organizational chart and resumes

The Contractor shall name the project manager and other key personnel and provide an organizational chart with the names and reporting structure to Reclamation. The Contractor’s project manager shall be the primary contact for Reclamation’s CO and the COR. Resumes for the project manager and key technical staff shall be provided.

7.2. Personnel changes

The Contractor’s project manager and other key personnel cannot be changed unless Reclamation agrees in writing to the change.

7.3. Chain of command

The Contractor’s project manager is to take no direction from any source other than Reclamation’s CO during this work; particularly direction that deviates from the requirements stated in this PWS.

7.4. Personnel qualifications

The Contractor and its personnel should have the appropriate education, knowledge, expertise, and experience to accomplish the project. The Contractor’s technical staff should have appropriate hydrology, water resource engineering, and/or agricultural engineering experience needed to complete the tasks in this PWS. Experience working in the State of California and/or Nevada is desirable. The Contractor’s technical staff must have modeling experience in RiverWare software.

At a minimum, the Contractor personnel shall include the following:

(1) The Project Manager shall have at least five (5) years of experience managing water resource projects. The Project Manager shall have documented experience in using the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide for managing projects.

(2) Senior Hydrologist or Senior Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H&H)/ Water Resources/ Agricultural Engineer shall have at least 15 years of experience in performing and reviewing hydrology and water management studies. The Senior Hydrologist or Senior Engineer shall have prior experience working on water management planning, irrigation systems, transboundary diversions, and similar tasks as those outlined in the PWS. The Senior Hydrologist or Engineer shall have significant experience with RiverWare modeling.

(3) Hydrologist or H&H/ Water Resources/ Agricultural Engineer shall have at least three (3) years of experience in water resources projects. The Hydrologist or Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer or Agricultural Engineer shall have prior experience completing similar tasks as those outlined in the PWS as well as RiverWare modeling experience.

8. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

8.1. Type of contract

The government will award a Firm-Fixed Price type contract.

8.2. Period of performance

The period of performance for the project is from the Date of Award to June 30, 2027. Anticipated award date is September 2025.

8.3. Government provisions

The Government will not furnish any property, services, utilities, etc.

8.4. Recognized holidays

The contractor is not expected to perform work on the following federal holidays:

(1) New Year’s Day (7) Labor Day

(2) Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday (8) Columbus Day

(3) President’s Day (9) Veteran’s Day

(4) Memorial Day (10) Thanksgiving Day

(5) Juneteenth (11) Christmas Day

(6) Independence Day

8.5. Hours of operations

The Contractor is responsible for conducting business, between the hours 0800 to 1700 Pacific time Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays or when the Government facility is closed due to local or national emergencies, administrative closings, or similar Government-directed facility closings. The Contractor must always maintain an adequate workforce for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined within this PWS when the Government facility is not closed for the above reasons. When hiring personnel, the Contractor shall keep in mind that the stability and continuity of the workforce are essential.

8.6. Place of performance

All the work to be performed under this contract will be performed at the Contractor’s office.

Reclamation will not be providing an area office or space for the Contractor to work.

8.7. Security

The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining rights-of entry and/or permission from Reclamation or District and/or private landowners regarding any in-person meetings. The Contractor shall be responsible for safeguarding all government equipment, information, and property provided for Contractor use. At the close of each work period, government facilities, equipment, and materials shall be secured.

8.8. Data rights and compatible software

The following FAR Clause 52.227-14 applies to all data for this project: FAR Part 27, Subpart 27.4 Rights in Data and Copyrights. Specifically: 27.401-1 Unlimited rights data.

The Contractor shall coordinate with the COR as to compatible software and to ensure that GIS data meets the Reclamation standards for importation into Reclamation’s database. Compatible software includes:

(1) Word Processing: MS Word

(2) Electronic Spreadsheets: MS Excel

(3) Electronic Document Distribution Format: Adobe PDF

(4) Scheduling Software: MS Project

(5) Text Graphics: MS PowerPoint

(6) Data Base: MS Access

(7) Geographic Information Systems: CAD, ArcMap, AutoCAD

(8) River and Reservoir Modeling: RiverWare