IBM14R0003-A001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE RATING

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

A001

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07/14/2014

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

IBWC_CODE

International Boundary and Water Commission

(IBWC)

USIBWC - ACQUISITIONS DIV

4171 NORTH MESA, STE. C100

EL PASO, TX 79902-1441

Laura A. Baker

NAME

915-832-4119

TEL.

laura.baker@ibwc.gov

EMAIL

6. ISSUED BY IBWC_CODE

International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)

USIBWC - ACQUISITIONS DIV

4171 NORTH MESA, STE. C100

EL PASO, TX 79902-1441

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

IBM14R0003

CONTACT DUNS

CODE FACILITY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, country, state and ZIP Code) (X)

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06/25/2014

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X XThe above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended, Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning __3__copies of the amendment;(b)By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.__3__X

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this Amendment A001 is to post the answers to the questions received against the Solicitation. The Questions & Answers are attached.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Laura A. Baker

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED

By (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

IBM14R0003

Amendment A001

Questions & Answers Question 1: Is there an anticipated minimum participation requirement for the prime contractor once awarded (how much of the work can be performed by the subcontractors vs. the prime contractor)? As a small business, our likeliest scenario is to build a team of multiple small businesses, none of which are capable of addressing all of the services anticipated in the presolicitation notice on their own. Therefore, regardless of who acts as "prime" we expect a high proportion of the work to be completed by the subcontractors.

Answer 1: According to FAR 52.219-14, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

Question 2: Is this the previous contract: "IBM09Q0002 USIBWC Environmental Services Contract"? I cannot find an archived award notice for this solicitation on FBO.

Answer 2: The previous solicitation number is IBM09R000R and is accessible on FBO.

Question 3: Regarding IBM14R0003, does the prime contractor have to assert that their (small business) firm will do at least 50% of the work, or can all small businesses combined, including small subcontractors, do 50%?

Answer 3: According to FAR 52.219-14, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. The “concern” is the prime small business. The 50% does not include subcontractors that are small business. As provided for in 13 CFR 125.6, the definition for “cost of contract performance incurred for personnel” is direct labor costs and any overhead which has only direct labor as its base, plus the concern's General and Administrative rate multiplied by the labor cost.

Question 4: In Attachment 5, Factor 3 Professional Qualifications it says:

Project Manager or Principal Investigator should have at least one Ph.D. degree within the disciplines listed in the Scope of Work (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, ecological sciences, cultural, and natural resources).

Field Supervision will have at least one Masters Degree for the five disciplines listed in the Scope of Work (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, cultural, and natural resources).

Could you please elaborate on exactly what this means?

Answer 4: For both the Project Manager and Field Supervision positions, at least one individual with the appropriate level of education (PM – PhD, FS – Masters degree) from any one of the six disciplines listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) is required by the prime contractor for the overall PWS [This is at the CONTRACT LEVEL]. For individual Task Orders, PMs/PIs and Field Supervisors will have to meet the education level descriptions as provided for in the Task Order Statement of Work.

Question 5: As a follow-up to the previous question [see Question 4], what is the difference between Contract Manager and Project Manager/Principal Investigator?

What key personnel are to be identified in the proposal—there are two different definitions in the PWS.

To what does the PWS apply? The entire contract, or individual TOs? The following is from the PWS (underline added):

1.13. Key Personnel: The following personnel are considered key personnel by the government. The Contractor shall provide a contract manager who shall be responsible for the performance of the work.

6.2. Professional Personnel: Project Manager or Principal Investigator(s). The Contractor shall appoint a Project Manager (PM) or Principal Investigator (PI) and alternate to serve as a single point of contact and liaison between the Contractor and the CO and/or COR for the services required under the Contract. The PM or PI shall be responsible for the coordination of the services provided under the Contract and shall respond to questions regarding clarification of project deliverables. Services shall be accomplished with adequate internal controls and review procedures to reduce conflicting errors and omissions and provide for the technical adequacy of TO requirements. The PM or PI shall have direct control of the professional aspects of the entire program under this Contract. The PM or PI shall possess adequate qualifications and expertise according to the qualifications standards of their profession to conduct research and resource management programs. The PM or PI shall be responsible for all data recovery, study, analysis and reporting undertaken as a result of this solicitation. The administrative and management aspects inherent in the Contract shall be the responsibility of the PM or PI. For example if the TO is for paleontological work, the PM or PI shall be a qualified paleontologist and shall demonstrate a firm working knowledge of acceptable standards and guidelines within the profession.

6.4. Key Personnel:

a. Key personnel shall include the PM or PI, and Field Supervisors. These key personnel shall be continuously responsible for the conduct of and for close involvement with the technical efforts identified herein.

Answer 5: The Contract Manager is responsible for overall IDIQ contract management and associated contract management (responding to RFPs and the CO) of the individual Task Orders. The PM/PI is responsible for individual Task Order level project management to include project updates, coordination with the CO/COR on Task Order requirements/submittals, management of technical team and project investigations/field work, and lead on the final project submittals.

Key personnel shall include the qualifications for the Contract Manager, individuals that would serve as PM/PI for individual task orders, individuals that will serve as Field Supervisors for individual task orders, and any other personnel that are considered essential to the successful completion of the work to be performed.

The PWS applies to the overall IDIQ contract; however, Parts 5-7 are applicable to the individual task orders issued under the IDIQ contract.

Question 6: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 1, Subfactor A – Management. This section refers to 3 complex projects. Do we need to provide client contact information for these projects in this section?

Answer 6: Client contact information is requested as part of Merit Factor 2 and should be supplied in that section.

Question 7: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 2 – Past Performance. The RFP requests contact information from three clients. Are these the same clients for projects requested in above in Factor 1 – or different clients?

Answer 7: Merit Factor 2 does not limit the contact information to 3 clients; however, Section L.01 has a minimum of 3.

Subfactor E indicates the proposal shall provide a list of past contracts and references will be emailed a performance survey to determine customer satisfaction.

Question 8: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 2, Subfactor E –Customer Satisfaction. This section requests a “list of past contracts.” How many past contracts are required? Is there a minimum or maximum? Are these past contracts different from the projects requested above?

Answer 8: The list of past contracts should be no less than three (include contracts listed under Merit Factor 1), but there is no maximum number. Relevant past performance is in the last three years.

Question 9: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 3, Subfactor A – Project Manager or Principal Investigator and Discipline Managers. No. (1) requires one Ph.D. for five of the listed six disciplines. Can one individual serve in multiple roles? For example, can a Ph.D. in Biology also serve as the Ecologist Ph.D. and/or Natural Resources Ph.D.? If not, what is the definition of biology, ecology, and natural resources?

Answer 9: See Answer #4.

Question 10: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 3, Subfactor A – Project Manager or Principal Investigator and Discipline Managers. A vitae, list of authored reports, articles, and research or management reports is requested for PM, PI, Discipline Managers, and Field Supervisors. Is this documentation included in the 60 page limit for Volume I or are they to be attached as an appendix and not included in the 60 page limit?

Answer 10: All items are included in the 60 page limit of Volume I.

Question 11: For the Technical Proposal (Volume I), does the 60 page limit include all resumes for professional qualifications, or are resumes to be included as an attachment in addition to the 60-page limit?

Answer 11: All resumes/professional qualifications are included in the 60 page limit of Volume I.

Question 12: Is the font size limitation for all parts of the Technical Proposal 12 point?

Answer 12: Yes.

Question 13: Is the page size limitation for all parts of the Technical Proposal 8.5 x 11?

Answer 13: Yes. All pages must be 8.5 x 11 inches.

Question 14: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 6 – Sample Task Order TECHNICAL PROPOSALS requests that three (3) Work Plans be prepared in accordance with section 5.3 Work Plans as provided in the PWS. Section 5.3 of the PWS has a requirement for the Work Plans to be no smaller than 12 point font and be no more than 30 pages in length. By following the Section 5.3 requirements, the length of the three Work Plans could total up to 90 pages, which would greatly exceed the overall page limit for the Technical Proposal. Are the three Work Plans part of the overall page limit for the Technical Proposal (i.e., the Work Plans must be substantially less than 30 pages in length) or are they to be included as an attachment?

Answer 14: The Volume I 60 page limit applies to the overall IDIQ proposal. Work plans for the Sample Task Orders will be considered an attachment to Volume I and each Work Plan shall not exceed 30 pages.

Question 15: For the third Sample Task Order TECHNICAL PROPOSALS (Attachment 8, Merit Factor 6) based on the Statement of Work for the Collection of Orthoimagery and Elevation Data for the Tijuana River Watershed, please confirm that sediment transport modeling is part the Statement of Work and is to be included in the Work Plan.

Answer 15: The sediment transport modeling is part of the SOW requirements and is to be included in the Work Plan

Question 16: It still states that it’s not a solicitation on the FedBiz Ops website, but it is a solicitation since there’s a due date, correct?

Answer 16: Please make sure you are accessing the posting on www.fbo.gov. If accessed using the following link:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/IBWC/IMD/ElPasoTX/IBM14R0003/listing.html it reflects that it is a “Solicitation”.

Question 17: We don’t see a scope and it’s very uncommon to have such ambiguity in an RFP, so can you please advise me on what to do.

Answer 17: The scope is accessible on FBO utilizing the link provided in Answer 16. The scope is accessible under the section titled “ALL FILES” on the right side of the screen. The scope is “Attachment 1”.

Question 18: Are table of contents, acronym lists, dividers, and other “non-narrative” materials included in the 60 page limit imposed on the technical volume?

Answer 18: All items are included in the 60 page limit.

Question 19: Under Merit Factor 1, subfactor B, specialized experience, the 3rd item is asking for training in hydraulics modeling, ecosystem preservation, surveying, and GIS development. Are you referring to training received, training given, or both?

Answer 19: Training received by Contractor staff in the listed disciplines.

Question 20: How many awards does the USIBWC anticipate?

Answer 20: The USIBWC may award as many contracts as needed to ensure that our requirement can be satisfied. The USIBWC can award one or more contracts.

Question 21: Section L, Pricing (Page 34 of 38) states that, “Offerors shall provide their fully burdened labor rates … for all disciplines that may be necessary to support the PWS.” Will the IBWC specify the labor categories? If not, what will be IBWC’s approach to evaluating price proposals in terms of comparing the labor rates proposed by various offerors, if the categories may be different for each offeror’s proposal?

Answer 21: The USIBWC will not be specifying the labor categories. Offerors are to propose the labor categories and provide a description for each labor category. The USIBWC will be utilizing the price proposals provided for the Sample Task Orders for comparative reasons. The USIBWC will review the labor mix proposed for the Sample Task Orders. The review will include if the proposed labor mix is appropriate for completing the requirement and if the price is fair and reasonable.

Question 22: Are the proposed labor rates to be composite rates applicable to both the prime contractor and all subcontractors, or can we opt to submit a different set of rates for each team member?

Answer 22: You may submit different rates for the prime and subcontractors.

Question 23: The requirement in Merit factor 3 seems to conflict with Attachment 1, Section 6.5a, which allows a Doctoral *or* Masters Degree for the PM/PI. Please clarify and explain the education/experience requirements.

Answer 23: See Answer #4.

Question 24: RFP page 34: Are we limited to only three client references, or may we submit more? Must all these references be only from the Prime contractor or may we include references from other team members?

Answer 24: Minimum of 3 but additional references can be provided. References for other team members can be included.

Question 25: Please identify what, if any, information is excluded from the limit of 60 pages. Specifically, does this include the cover page, table of contents, resumes, and technical proposals for the three sample projects?

Answer 25: The 60 page limit of Volume I includes all items (cover page, resumes, etc.) except for the technical proposals/work plans for the 3 sample task orders. The technical proposals/work plans can be submitted as an attachment to Volume I and must not individually exceed 30 pages.

Question 26: Attachment, Exhibit 1, Evaluation Factors states: “Merit factor 1and 6 are twice the importance of merit factors 2, 3, and 4. Merit factors 2, 3, and 4 are of equal importance. Merit Factor five 5 will be considered 1/4 of importance as factors 2, 3, and 4.” Please clarify these relative weights: does this mean that the sum of the weights of 1 and 6 receives twice the rating of the sum of 2, 3, and 4; and that 5 is weighted as ¼ of the sum of 2, 3, and 4? or does it mean that 1 and 6 are each twice the weight of 2 (which is weighted the same as 3 and 4), and that 5 is weighted ¼ that of 2?

Answer 26: Merit factor 1 is twice the weight of 2. Factor 2 is equal weight to 3 and equal weight to 4. 5 is ¼ weight of 2. 6 is twice the weight of 2. Total = 2*factor 1 + factor 2 + factor 3 + factor 4 + ¼*factor 5+ 2*factor 6

Question 27: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 1, Experience. What is the definition of a “project” (e.g., Would an IDIQ contract be considered a project? Would a group of related task orders be considered a project?)

Answer 27: A project would be one contract (non-IDIQ) or one task order (IDIQ). An overall IDIQ contract is not one project. Merit Factor 1 requests demonstration of managerial ability for 3 complex projects, such as one project requiring coordination with multiple governments or states.

Question 28: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 1, Experience, Subfactor B(3). Does this refer to training of the offeror’s personnel or the offeror providing training as part of a project?

Answer 28: Training received by Offeror’s personnel in the listed disciplines.

Question 29: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 2, Past Performance, Subfactors A through E.

It is unclear if the offeror is to provide information for these subfactors other than the requested references or if the government will base evaluation solely on responses from references and other past performance available to the government.

Answer 29: The government will base evaluation from references and other past performance available.

Question 30: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 3, Professional Qualifications. Please clarify the PhD requirement. Must we show a total of five PhDs (one for each of five of the six identified technical areas) or one PhD?

Answer 30: See Answer #4.

Question 31: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 3, Professional Qualifications. Please clarify the Masters requirement. Must we show a total of five Masters Degrees (one for each of five of the six identified technical areas) or one Masters?

Answer 31: See Answer #4.

Question 32: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 6, Sample Task Orders. Does the USIBWC intend to award the sample task order projects?

Answer 32: No. But may award similar Task Orders at a future date.

Question 33: Attachment 4, Merit Factor 6, Sample Task Orders. Are the three Work Plans included in the 60-page limit for Volume I of the proposal? Guidance for these Work Plans directs the offeror to Section 5.3 Work Plans, which notes a 30-page limit per Work Plan.

Answer 33: The Volume I 60 page limit applies to the overall IDIQ proposal. Work plans for the Sample Task Orders will be considered an attachment to Volume I and each Work Plan shall not exceed 30 pages.

Question 34: Attachment 4, Exhibit 2: Evaluation Sheets. Please confirm that the heading on page 11 should be Factor 6:

Sample Task Order Technical Proposals?

Answer 34: Yes, the heading on page 11 should be Factor 6: Technical Proposals.

Question 35: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. What is the average width of the proposed corridor to be assessed and included in the NEPA analysis over its proposed 5.5-mile length? How wide is the USIBWC's average right-of-way?

Answer 35: For the purpose of this sample task order, assume that an average total width of 300 feet (including north and south floodplain and channel) will need to be surveyed and included in the NEPA analysis.

Question 36: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Does USIBWC have any existing studies concerning natural or cultural resources within the Proposed Action's Area of Potential Effects (APE) that they can provide? Any existing "Waters of the US" delineations or related materials?

Answer 36: Publicly available USIBWC reports and studies can be found at http://www.ibwc.gov/EMD/reports_studies.html

Question 37: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Please provide all relevant materials that satisfy the need to identify/perform (and cost/level of effort):

Biological surveys of terrestrial and aquatic natural resources, including endangered species, to ground-truth existing vegetation/habitat maps by specialized technical personnel Archeological surveys by specialized technical personnel Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands for Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and 404, permitting applications. Delineation shall be carried out in accordance with the latest USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and by personnel who have completed training in the use of the Manual and have experience in south Texas

Review of historical records, photography, and other sources of information concerning waste disposal activities at or near the project area.

Answer 37: The project area is a 5.5 mile reach of the Arroyo Colorado between Highway 77 and FM 509. The assumed average total width will be 300 feet (see Answer #35). All publicly available information is located at http://www.ibwc.gov/EMD/reports_studies.html

Question 38: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. How is the Proposed Action of the Sample Task Order related to the January 2008 Final PEIS/ROD for Improvements to the USIBWC Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Texas-Mexico Border? Will this be a tiered, site-specific EIS, tiered from this PEIS? Are there any other directly relevant NEPA documents to this Proposed Action?

Answer 38: This EIS will not be tiered from any previous NEPA documents. The January 2008 Final PEIS/ROD can be used as a reference. The December 2003 FEIS/2004 ROD for Alternative Vegetation Management Practices for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project may also be used as a reference. All publicly available documents are located at http://www.ibwc.gov/EMD/reports_studies.html

Question 39: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Please provide summary of all regulatory agency consultation/communication to date concerning the Proposed Action, if any and as applicable (USFWS, TPWD, USACE, TCEQ, TXSHPO, federally recognized Native American tribes, etc.)

Answer 39: This is considered a new sample project. Agency coordination has not been conducted for the sample project proposed action.

Question 40: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Please provide copies of all environmental permits, if any, obtained to date relative to prior, similar actions within the Proposed Action's APE.

Answer 40: No permits exist for sample project or other similar projects in the area.

Question 41: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Please provide quantitative and clear data concerning the specifics of the USIBWC's proposed scoping meeting (if any), public hearings on the Draft EIS, and any other meetings proposed in terms of anticipated level of consultant involvement, duration, location, etc.

Answer 41: Consultant will be the lead for scoping and public hearing meetings with USIBWC participation. A minimum of four meetings will be conducted with regulatory agencies at the USIBWC field office in Mercedes, Texas and a minimum of one public hearing would be conducted in Harlingen, Texas. One or more regulatory agency meetings may require a site visit.

Question 42: Attachment 6: EIS Sample Task Order. Will IBWC coordinate and lead all publication notices for this NEPA process, or will that be the responsibility of the consultant?

Answer 42: Publication notices will be the responsibility of the consultant.

Question 43: Attachment 8: Tijuana River Watershed Sample Task Order #3. Does the scope of services for the sample task order include actual hydraulic and sediment transport modeling or is it limited to collection of data necessary for that modeling to be performed in the future?

Answer 43: Hydraulic and sediment transport modeling is part of the task order scope of work

Question 44: Attachment 8: Tijuana River Watershed Sample Task Order #3. Has IBWC collected and analyzed suspended sediment and/or bed material samples from the Tijuana River? Those types of data are necessary to create a sediment transport model. If those data have not been collected and sediment transport modeling is part of the sample task order SOW, should we include sample collection and analysis in our SOW?

Answer 44: No data for the sediment transport model has been collected. If any data necessary to perform the model is not in the scope of work then it is the contractor’s expertise to provide all necessary work in the proposal.

Question 45: Attachment 8: Tijuana River Watershed Sample Task Order #3. Are there any existing HEC-RAS hydraulic models available for the project? If so, what storm events have been modeled? Also, have those hydraulic models been calibrated?

Answer 45: There has been a preliminary HEC-RAS model of a 100 year storm event done only in the United States portion of the watershed. No models for Mexico, which is the bulk of the watershed.

Question 46: Attachment 8: Tijuana River Watershed Sample Task Order #3. Is Attachment 8 intended to have a Section 5.4.2, or is the sediment transport model project description complete with only Section 5.4.1?

Answer 46: It is complete with Section 5.4.1

Question 47: Attachment #4. Please confirm that Field Supervisor positions have a requirement for a minimum of 3 years experience. While most places in the RFP note 3 years, the Evaluation Sheet in Exhibit 2 notes 5 years for all evaluated positions.

Answer 47: Field supervisor is 3 years

Question 48: Attachment #6: EIS Sample Project. Has any conceptual or other design been performed related to the Proposed Action and specifically proposed dredging and/or sediment removal in the floodway?

Answer 48: This is a sample task order; no conceptual or other designs have been generated. The proposed action includes the option of dredging/sediment removal as a proposed action; locations and volumes have not been determined.

Question 49: Attachment #6: EIS Sample Project. Can the cost of any sample Task Order exceed the specified $475,000 maximum as set forth in the RFP?

Answer 49: Submit costs as you see appropriate for your effort.

Question 50: Attachment #6: EIS Sample Project.

Answer 50: USIBWC has performed H&H modeling for the Arroyo Colorado. H&H modeling will not be required for this sample task order.

Question 51: Attachment #8: Tijuana Watershed Sample Project. The QA/QC table in Section 5.3.2, under Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control Review, is preceded by a sentence stating that the section is provided for coordination purposes and is not for proposal and bid. Section 5.3.1, does not have the same qualifying statement before it. Is this omission intentional, and if so, then is the work in Section 5.3.1 part of the SOW or will it be provided by a separate, independent contractor?

Answer 51: Section 5.3.2 is for coordination of an independent contractor to check the QA/QC of the contractors work. Section

5.3.1 is the QA/QC for the task order

Question 52: Attachment #8: Tijuana Watershed Sample Project. Section 3 Government-Furnished Property and Services, the SOW mentions that the USIBWC will work with MXIBWC to assist the contractor in obtaining the proper permit(s) required for piloting aircraft in Mexico. There is no mention of ground support on the Mexican side of the border. Typically there is an extensive ground QA/QC component in addition to ground establishment of survey control and orthophotography requirements. These have a substantial influence on the final precision and accuracy of the aerial datasets. Can we expect USIBWC and MXIBWC to provide ground support on the Mexican side of the border for tasks associated with aerial data collections?

Answer 52: The USIBWC will work with the Mexican side to coordinate and permit all of the required activities associated with the Task Order.

Question 53: Attachment #8: Tijuana Watershed Sample Project. Section 1 discusses use of the sediment transport model to address trash and garbage loads in the river, but Section 5.4, Development of a sediment transport model, makes no mention of trash or garbage. Is the primary focus of the Phase I evaluation of sediment transport models intended to be on trash and garbage transport? If not, what is the sediment issue (e.g., estuary deposition, infrastructure blockage/capacity loss) that IBWC wants addressed by the model?

Answer 53: Section 1 is only an introduction to the problems existing in the region. This SOW is to develop a sediment transport model.