Final_Questions_and_Answers_Rec_Workshop_Aug_20.pdf

NFFM5100-18-03490 Recreational Workshop

Questions and Answers

1. Is there a specific list of AV equipment that is required for each workshop?

General meeting equipment (projector, laptop, etc)

2. Is the Estimated Travel Cost line item in the Bill of Materials document referring only to travel costs for our staff to support the execution and facilitation of the workshops or does this include travel costs for attendees as well?

Travel costs for contractor staff to support execution

3. What is the nature of the transportation services required for attendees? Does this include travel and lodging expenses for attendees or is this simply local transportation?

Local transportation

4. Under miscellaneous supplies the example of postage is given. Is there a requirement to mail anything for this solicitation? If yes, can you please provide details on what is required?

Potential to mail invitations to the meeting

5. Is there a requirement for any food beverages to be provided to attendees during the workshops?

Yes

6. Is there an incumbent contractor that planned the previous event that took place in

November 2017?

No. The November workshop was facilitated in house.

7. Is this a new opportunity or is there an incumbent?

No incumbent

8. Is there a requirement for overnight stays for the participant audience?

Potentially, but not likely.

9. Will the participants receive and travel and per diem reimbursement?

Yes, if possible.

10. Is there a requirement for printing and resource/read ahead material? If yes, how many copies, in binders or folders, in color or black/white?

No

11. Please define the term workshop facilitation?

Meeting facilitation (e.g., coordinating the conversation flow and assisting in summarizing discussions) as well as coordinating and hosting the overall meeting logistics (food, travel, hotel rental, etc).

12. Will there be a requirement for food and beverage services? If yes, please define?

Yes, coffee/break snacks and lunch

13. Is there a requirement for attendee registration and resource handout activities?

Yes

14. Within the requirement for Audio/Visual support, is there a need for: projector/screen, podium and microphone, hand held microphones, T1 phone connections for call in webinar participation?

Would like to avoid webinar participation, so just basic meeting A/V support

15. Is there a requirement for signage graphics?

16. Is there a requirement for binder/folder cover graphics?

17. Is there a requirement for a small on-site contractor production room?

18. Is there a requirement for participant Name Badges and Table Tents?

19. Will GARFO/NOAA senior staff act as speakers?

20. Is there a requirement to reimburse and “Guest Speakers?”

If possible for non-Federal speakers

21. Would GARFO/NOAA appreciate having the Workshop session in the same facility for all scheduled events and thus “perhaps” having a saving in costs due to repeat known scheduled activities within the same facility?

We’ve primarily considered different locations to allow for wider participation to keep travel costs down.

22. Besides the anticipated 25 attendees, will there be additional GARFO/NOAA staff attending?

Yes, less than 10, generally.

23. Is there a requirement for the contractor to provide a note taker for either verbatim of summary read outs of the meeting proceedings?

Yes (summary)

24. The Cost Element spread sheet form has a line item for, “Transportation services for attendees.” Please define?

Travel reimbursement

25. The Cost Element spread sheet form has a line item for, “Estimate Travel Cost.” Please define?

Travel reimbursement for attendees and travel costs for facilitator

26. There is no line item on the Cost Element spreadsheet for “Printing.” Is this an oversight?

(see above question 11 on this topic).

27. Even though our SAMS is current and contains a response to the representations and certifications (staring on page 40 of the solicitation, does GARFO/NOAA still require the same information in the submission response?

28. Is there a page limitation on the submission response?

Less than 50

29. The workshop scenario would be like: convene meeting, morning break (15 minutes), lunch break (1 hour), afternoon break (15 minutes) and meeting adjournment. Correct?

30. Please clarify ‘Transportation for attendees’. Does this mean transportation services from an airport to the workshop venue for 25 people? Or full travel arrangement planning, i.e.

airfare, hotel room, etc.? Will the workshops require rental of a bus to transport attendees?

Likely would just be reimbursement for car travel

31. What types of workshop materials will be provided by the agency, if any? i.e. printed materials such as handouts and poster boards.

We can bring handouts and other things, as needed. We would need to work this out through development of the working agenda.

32. Will the workshop quote need to include providing lunch and refreshments for attendees?

33. The bill of materials attachment does not include a section for the cost element of writing the final report. Should we include costs for that portion under the ‘event planning’ item?

Yes.

34. Do you have any specific locations in mind for these workshops?

No, but we would like to have the workshops in a variety of locations to allow a wide range of participants

35. Are we to use federal travel rates for the travel cost estimate?

Yes.

36. Do you have a specific format you would like for us to submit the statement specifying our agreement with the terms and conditions of RFQ?

No, letterhead confirming your agreement to terms and conditions will suffice.

37. Do you have any preferred format, file type, number of pages etc. for the response?

No more than 50 pages. This is a Simplified Acquisition and does not require f formal contract formatting.

38. Do you have specific requirements and/or specifications for the required audio visual equipment?

39. Regarding transportation of participants, do you have any specifics regarding pick up/drop off location(2), distance, and if there will be multiple pick up locations for each workshop?

Participants would drive themselves

40. Does the government or contractor determine and select attendees? Are invitations sent to potential participants and by whom?

Ideally, we would do this together. Invites should come from the contractor

41. Do we need to include the bill of materials as a separate attachment to the response?

Yes, submit your pricing broken out so detail can be seen as well.

42. Can the questions submitted by other vendors and answers be posted on fbo.gov?

These questions and answers will be posted on FBO.gov.

43. If our company has completed the FAR 52.212.2-3 annual representations and certification electronically via the SAM.gov website within the last 12 months, are we still required to complete a copy and submit with the offer? Yes

44. The Scope of Work and Solicitation call for "coordination of transportation of participants;" however, the Bill of Materials has a line for "transportation services for attendees." Can you provide additional details about what is expected regarding coordination of transportation? Does the line entry for the Bill of Materials correlate with coordination activities, or is there an expectation that the contractor will need to cover local or other transportation costs for attendees? Can we assume that transportation costs and hotel rooms will be paid for by GAR and/or participants?

Local travel costs for participants; not expecting hotel rooms. GAR can only cover government employee travel.

45. Is it expected that the contractor will pay for meeting space rental fees? What is the expectation on who will pay the costs for refreshments and lunch?

Yes; contractor would need to pay for lunch and refreshments and rental fees.

46. The SOW and Solicitation anticipates up to four day-long recreational management workshops, each with approximately 25 attendees. Do the initial planning efforts envision http://fbo.gov/ that the same 25 attendees will participate in each workshop, or will each workshop involve a different set of attendees?

There would be some overlap expected, but would welcome new participants based on the specific topic and location.

47. Who is the project lead for these efforts, and who has been involved in the planning efforts to date?

Moira Kelly, Greater Atlantic Regional Recreational Fisheries Coordinator, and

Mark Grant, Fishery Policy Analyst

48. Can you provide the name of the November 2017 workshop that is related to these workshops?

See attached summary.

49. Is the contractor providing the content, workshop materials including activity plan and all the documents for these workshops

In collaboration

50. Is the contractor providing the facilitator for these workshops?

Yes

51. How far would you want the hotel to be from the participants?

Centrally located

52. Are you considering overnight stay for the participants?

No

53. Are all the participants at the same location where they will be departing for the workshop?

No—local travel

54. Is the contractor responsible for providing food and snacks for the participants?

Yes

55. 38. Is the contractor responsible for communication and coordination among the participants?

56. The place of performance is listed at Gloucester, MA. Does the workshop need to take place in Gloucester, MA or would a location close by work as well? How far outside of

Gloucester, MA would be acceptable?

The workshops should be held in a variety of locations (for example, a location in southern Maine/New Hampshire; one in, say, Scituate; a third in Rhode

Island/Connecticut, and the final one maybe in Boston or Gloucester)

57. Is there a distance/range from the Great Atlantic Fisheries Office you do not want to exceed for lodging and/or workshop location?

It’s more important that the workshops be held in locations convenient for participants

58. Tasks include planning organization, coordination, and execution of up to four (4) recreational management workshops in New England. Will you select the presenter for each workshop?

We would expect to work in collaboration to discuss presenters

59. The "facilitation" of workshops means the planner will work with the presenter to ensure the workshop goes as scheduled and to timeline?

Yes and to moderate the discussion

60. Is there a guesstimate on how many lodging rooms will be needed for each workshop versus how many may attend from the local area and not need lodging?

Not anticipating hotel rooms

61. Do you want meals included in the quote (breakfast & lunch)? I presume dinner would be on the participant.

Lunch and snacks; not breakfast or dinner.

62. Beverage service during the workshops? Water, coffee/tea, sodas?

63. Transportation from the closest airport to the hotel? Transportation from hotel to meeting location?

Local transportation

64. SOW - "hosting a series of workshops to address recreational fisheries management in

New England " Are there specific locations e.g., states/towns in NE) that are of interest for these to be hosted? The last one was in Portsmouth, NH. Will location selections be approved by government?

Yes, we would want to work together to select locations

65. Will the same workshop participants/attendees be at each workshop? Are these invited by the government or open to the public?

We expect some overlap, but the specific topic and location will lead to different participants at different meetings. We would work together to determine invite or general.

66. Will pre-/post-workshop planning meetings with the government be required before/after each workshop, if so how many will be required. If so, will these meeting locations be at the Gloucester office or virtual?

Yes, can be virtual; as needed.

67. Was a workshop result/report prepared for the November 2017 and will that be made available?

Yes—will attach.

68. Are there instructions/directions for the proposal format? Do we put the technical capability, past performance, and price in one document? Is there a specific form for past performance? The price is the bill of materials form, so there is not an SF

1442 or 30 forms?

This is a Simplified Acquisition, so the formal contract format is not necessary. You may address technical capability, past performance and price in one document if you choose. Documents should not exceed 50 pages.

69. Should we include the representations and certifications in the price section of the proposal?

Reps and certs required, but does not matter where you put in your quote

70. Bill of Materials Transportation services for attendees. Is this for event planners or actual workshop attendees?

Both

71. Estimated Travel Cost - are these costs associated event planners and/or actual workshop attendees?

Both

72. Hotel meeting room costs, including AV rental fees, etc. - this will vary based on location and needs. only estimates can be provided. Will a list of needs be provided or will actual costs be reimbursed?

Provide your best estimate based on information provided for attendees and locations as indicated in answers to previous questions.

73. Miscellaneous supplies (postage, easel paper, etc.) - this will vary based on location and needs. Only estimates can be provided. Will a list of needs be provided or will actual costs be reimbursed?

Provide your best estimate based on information provided for attendees and locations as indicated in answers to previous questions.

74. For budgeting purposes, should we plan for 4 meetings on various GARFO service areas?

75. Should we provide proposed meeting locations or will GARFO identify the locations of the meetings?

NOAA GARFO will work with you to identify specific locations and schedule.

76. Is it acceptable to have videoconference planning meetings or should they be face-to-face meetings?

Virtual planning meetings are fine.

77. Will printed meeting materials need to be developed (e.g., agenda, announcements, etc.)?

78. Will electronic meeting materials need to be developed (e.g., agenda, announcements, etc.)?

79. Please provide specific details of the facilitation services required.

Plan, host, moderate discussion, summarize, and write a final report.

80. Should we provide a notetaker during the workshop?

81. What information is expected to be contained in the final report?

Discussion summaries and results for moving the issues forward

82. Can you provide notes or more information from the workshop held in November 2017 referenced in the Statement of Work?

83. What is the contractor’s role during the 8 hour session? Are there multiple facilitated sessions during the 8 hours? Will there be break-out sessions?

Moderate the discussion and ensure adherence to agenda. Likely will have break-out sessions

84. Is there an agenda for the 8 hour session and who sets it?

We would work together to set the agendas.

85. Is the contractor expected to deliver a presentation to the attendees on the recreational fisheries management issues? If yes, will NMFS or the contractor be developing that presentation?

No, NMFS will do that.

86. Is the customer paying for transportation?

Transportation reimbursement for participants should be part of the contract.

87. Is the Government paying for transportation?

Yes for government employees.

88. Does the vendor pay for transportation services?

89. Does this requirement require insurance for the contractor using a boat or airplane for clarification purposes

Sc ience, Serv ice, S tewardsh ip 1

NOAA

FISHERIES

SERVICE

Improving New England Recreational Fisheries Management

Workshop Summary Report

November 13, 2017

Workshop Summary

Charter and party boat captains, private anglers, state fishery management partners, and others came together with NOAA Fisheries staff for a workshop on improving recreational fisheries management in New England. After agreeing on a common set of issues, workshop participants discussed potential ideal scenarios for each of the key issues. Participants then highlighted the hurdles or challenges that are preventing us from achieving the ideal state and possible approaches for overcoming those challenges. Time constraints left some issues without a full list of hurdles or solutions. However, we hope this will be the beginning of a productive effort to advance these issues into meaningful change.

The table at the end of the report summarizes the discussions.

Key Issues The key issues with New England recreational fisheries management were summarized into seven categories: Stability; timing;

consistency; data; communication; effectiveness; and accounting for different needs among user groups. These issues are connected and should be addressed holistically, where appropriate.

Stability, Timing, Consistency, and Effectiveness Regulations that change annually, that are not final in advance of the fishing season, and different regulations in different parts of the ocean make planning difficult for businesses and customers alike. The ability of the for-hire fleet to market and book trips in advance of the fishing season is paramount to long-term business planning and security.

Workshop participants suggested the following ideal scenario: Multi-year management measures that maximize the season length and

New England Recreational Fisheries

2 N O A A F IS H E R IE S S E R V IC E N OV E M B E R 2 0 17

provide for pre-planned adjustments, if necessary, that are announced at the start of the calendar year, and that are designed with a high probability to prevent overfishing but achieve long-term stability of the fishery. Participants suggested that the current management plan, the Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, competing priorities among the public, the risk of over- or under-utilizing a species, and data limitations are key hurdles to overcome to get to the ideal scenario. Recommended solutions were Council action to revise management, and redirecting resouces from surveying for-hire boats to improving private angler surveys, while using validated vessel trip reports as a census of for-hire information.

Data

Underlying our entire fishery management process are the recreational catch data. Primarily, recreational data come from the

Marine Resource Information

Program, or MRIP, a federal-regional-state partnership to collect recreational fisheries data and estimate total recreational catch.

Concerns about the validity of the data make coming to consensus on management measures difficult.

Participants identified a transparent, fine-scale dataset built on electronic reporting and as much data as possible as the goal scenario. Challenges include cost, fishing community and scientific buy-in on various data collection tools and sources, the scale of the fishing community, and a sense of

“not knowing enough to know what to ask” to understand the data and the collection process. Potential solutions include using recreational fishing license fees to increase data collection, a review of the current survey methods with an eye towards cost effectiveness, real-time public data input, education and outreach on the importance of accurate data, training on reporting tools, and several suggestions on outreach materials or workshops on improving the understanding of how MRIP works and how the estimates are calculated (i.e., “show your work”).

Communication

Transparent and frequent communication between fisheries managers and for-hire captains and private anglers is critical to the success of our management program. The ideal scenarios suggested by workshop participants included regular, formalized, and representative mid-season engagement with captains to understand not only what they are catching, but what they are seeing on the water, enhanced coordination between NOAA

Fisheries and our state partners, increased scientist participation in discussions with fishery participants, and support recruiting participants (captains and anglers) into the fishery. Challenges include time and resources, complicated topics that are hard to summarize and distill, the regulatory process, and business uncertainty, among others.

Accounting for Differences in User Groups

One of the more controversial aspects of recreational fisheries management is trying to ensure fair and appropriate management measures for user groups with different needs and preferences.

Private anglers, charter/6-pack captains, and party boat captains likely have different ideas on what

“successful” management looks like. The ideal state to accounting for these differences may include increased enforcement (patrols and penalties), accounting for stock movement and jurisdictional issues, and designing different regulations for each sector of the recreational community. The Magnuson-

Stevens Act, lack of money, and value judgement differences were noted as challenges. An agreed upon standard probability of achieving a catch target across all modes and an agreed upon percent contribution to the overall target were suggested as potential solutions.

Sc ience, Serv ice, S tewardsh ip 3

Issue Ideal State Challenges Solutions

Stability Multi-year plan

* Fixed or Decision Tree

* % change w/in plan

* FMP Structure/Council Process

* MSA Limitations

* Risk of under/over-utilization

Amendment Council Action

Maximize season (at least for for-hire) * Need better data for better decisions

* Low/inaccurate quotas

* Public tolerance/competing priorities

Census of for-hire catch, with validation;

redirect resources to private angler surveys

Time Horizon

* Set number of years

* Between stock assessments

* Need to change FMP

* Risk of under/over-utilization

* Data limitations/no confidence

Timing By January 1 (no later than March 1) * Data availability/cycle

* NEPA

* Electronic reporting

* Adjust cycle by 1 quarter

Consistency Strive for consistency

Between Feds and States * Communications

* Timing

* Process/bureaucratic inconsistencies

* Ensure measures available soon enough for all parties to implement for start of fishing year

* Communication

* Coordination

Across States * State sovereignty

* Competing needs between states

Between stock assessments * Sufficient data quality for projections and harvest monitoring

* Assessment prioritization

Balance between stocks (ecosystem accounting)

* Too many data gaps

* MSA single species focus

Transparency * Regulatory Process

Data Enhanced ability to use MRIP at finer scale

Cost * Use rec license fees to improve data

* Cost efficiency review of current methods

(both state and Fed)

Census * Scientist buy-in on data

* Cost prohibitive/scale for private anglers

* Accurate self-reporting

* Real-time public data input

Summary of Participant Discussions

4 N O A A F IS H E R IE S S E R V IC E N OV E M B E R 2 0 17

Validity -- quality vs timeliness * Scale/cost

* Ability to validate self-reporting on private boats

Educate captains on the importance of accurate data

Multi-year aggregation

Use electronic reporting appropriately

* Training (how)

* Understanding (why)

* Accurate reporting (completeness)

* Scientist buy-in

* Industry buy-in

Require training and reporting to be issued license

Transparency * Each state and Fed have a unique process

* Don't know what to ask for

* Workshop on MRIP and high-level resource manual on how MRIP works

* Make formulas available

* Clear estimation method

* Show your work in an accessible manner

* Release all data (to allow for recreation of estimates)

* Use plain language

Effectiveness Perception of/actual opportunity No/low quota

Slot limits, where appropriate * Enforcement/lack of compliance

* Year class fluctuations

Point-system (each sps = # of points, limits on total points)

* Complicated enforcement

* FMP/MSA limits

* Projection complications

Provide more model output options to

Council

* Time

* NEPA

Flexibility in the bag limit by season (vs closure)

* Analyses

* Compliance

* Risk of overfishing

No unlimited bag limits * Arbitrary (need a reasoned decision)

Higher probability options * Inaccurate predictions of success

* Changing conditions

* Less popular options

Strive for effective measusres to prevent overfishing, maintain access

Sc ience, Serv ice, S tewardsh ip 5

Communication Manager/captain engagement

* What are you catching?

* What are you seeing?

* Representative survey--not all the highliners in one week

* Federal time and resources

* Ensuring use of data, formalizing process

Explain how data are assembled and catch estimates

* Broad base with different background knowledge

* Hard to summarize

Better outreach--enhanced coordination with states

Regulatory process is not transparent

Recruit anglers * Hard to do because of a lack of faith in an improving future

* Business uncertainty

Increased center/modelers participation in discussions

* Limited staff time

* Language/communication skills

Accounting for differences among user groups

Account for stock movement better in management body (CT, RI, MA on

MAFMC)

MSA

Increased enforcement -- more patrols and higher penalties

* Lack of money

* Lack of people

Potential for different regulations between private, charter, and party

Value judgement on targets * Agreed upon standard probability of achieving catch target across modes

* Agree percentage contribution to the overall target