Statement_of_Work.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

BENCHMARKING OF EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES (PHASE II)

A. BACKGROUND

In the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Grant/Contract Report GCR 09-917-2, Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance- Based Seismic Design, (Reference 4.N.1), four research topics were identified as high-priority in terms of research needs to foster full development and implementation of performance-based seismic engineering (PBSE).

(1) Benchmark current performance-based design methodologies found in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) report ASCE/SEI 41 (referred to as ASCE 41 herein), (Reference 4.N.2).

(2) Improve analytical models and demand assessment capabilities for buildings and their components in near-collapse seismic loading, as initiated for example in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P695 report, (Reference 4.N.3).

(3) Improve procedures for the selection and scaling of earthquake ground motions and the interpretation of results from response history analyses.

(4) Clarify and coordinate translation of existing component and system test results to currently used performance levels.

The subject of this scope of work concerns research topic (1) above, that of benchmarking current performance-based design methodologies. This requirement is a follow-on to Task Order 16-476 / SB1341-13-CQ-0009 under which the Contractor is evaluating a suite of six buildings which have undergone strong earthquake shaking either in the field or on a laboratory shake table. This suite of structures is being evaluated using ASCE 41 and the ATC 78 procedures.

Additional support is now required to extend the current project to: 1) include evaluations of two additional buildings – one that was subjected to earthquake shaking during the 2017 Puebla, Mexico earthquake and one that was tested on the E-Defense shake table in Japan in December of 2015 and 2) study the correlation between the component level and system level response of the buildings and evaluate the global performance acceptance criteria being considered by ASCE 41 committee

B. SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this effort is to evaluate the accuracy of existing seismic evaluation and retrofit standards for reinforced concrete buildings, expanding upon efforts begun under Task Order 16-476.

The Contractor shall perform a comprehensive benchmarking study of two reinforced concrete buildings – one that was subjected to strong ground shaking during the 2017 Puebla, Mexico earthquake and one that was tested on the E-Defense shake table in Japan in December of 2015. The objective is to compare damage predicted by the analyses conducted for the benchmarking study against actual damage observed in these buildings following the earthquake or shake table test. The contractor shall also study the proposed changes in the 2023 edition of ASCE 41 concerning the global acceptance criteria to: 1) improve the generality of the project findings, and 2) provide recommendations for the next edition of ASCE 41.

The findings and recommendations of this work shall be integrated into the report developed for Task Order 16-476 and printed by the Contractor following review and approval by the NIST COR.

This is a firm fixed price requirement.

C. SPECIFIC TASKS

The Contractor shall provide the professional, technical, and support personnel, services, materials, equipment and facilities necessary to address the above-stated Scope of Work and to complete the tasks identified below.

Task 4.1 – Form Project Team: The Contractor shall form a Project Technical Committee (PTC) and a Project Review Panel (PRP). The PTC shall be composed of a Project Director (PD) and at least five additional researchers and practicing engineers.

Qualifications for the PD and other PTC members are identified in Section I – Key Personnel Requirements and Section J – PTC and PRP Requirements. The PD shall have overall responsibility for project management and the PTC shall be responsible for completing the technical objectives of the project. The PRP shall be composed of at least five researchers and practicing engineers meeting the qualifications identified in Section J – PTC and PRP Requirements.

The PRP, with assistance and coordination support from the Contractor, shall be responsible for independently reviewing and providing feedback to the PTC on the project deliverables. The Contractor shall then arrange for deliverable submission to the NIST COR. The NIST COR reserves the right to appoint Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIST, National Science Foundation (NSF), and United States Geological Survey (USGS) employees as ex-officio members of the PRP. The NIST Project Manager will also be an ex-officio member of the PRP. The PTC and PRP shall be available for immediate consultation once selected and shall continue to be available for the duration of this effort’s period of performance, if required. All project documents shall be approved by the PRP and the NIST COR prior to distribution outside of NIST.

Task 4.2 – Develop Project Work Plan: The Contractor shall develop and maintain a Project Work Plan (PWP) that outlines the overall project performance strategy, estimates Contractor resource requirements for task completion, and provides details of all milestones identified for project completion. The initial draft of the PWP shall be sent to the NIST COR for review at least two (2) business days prior to the task order kickoff meeting. The final PWP shall be submitted no later than 20 business days after the task order award. This final PWP shall include mutually agreed upon changes from the kickoff meeting and subsequent follow-up discussions in an effort to finalize the project plan. NIST will approve the PWP or provide comments for revision within fifteen (15) business days of receipt. The revised copy will serve as the project baseline. The PWP shall be revised quarterly throughout the period of performance to accommodate changing priorities and work requirements.

Task 4.3 – Identification of Buildings for Study: The Contractor shall identify a set of two buildings for assessment in this project to complement the six building suite currently being evaluated under Task Order 16-476. One building shall be a reinforced concrete structure damaged due to shaking in the 2017 Puebla, Mexico earthquake. The second building shall be the ten-story building that was tested on the shake table at the E-defense facility in Japan in December of 2015. The recommended buildings shall be submitted to the NIST COR for review and approval.

All of the pertinent information about the two additional buildings selected for the assessment shall be documented in detail as an appendix in the final project report developed for Task Order 16-476. Access to information about these buildings shall be obtained officially from the building owner or the testing laboratory, as appropriate.

Task 4.4 – Assessment and Evaluation: The Contractor shall conduct an in-depth detailed assessment and evaluation of the selected buildings using ASCE 41. These studies shall include the four evaluation procedures allowed in Tier 3 analysis of ASCE 41 including nonlinear dynamic, nonlinear static, linear static, and linear dynamic procedures. The Contractor shall provide detailed evaluation results, including relevant computations for each evaluation procedure, documented in a manner similar to that found in References N.4, N.5 and N.6. Ground motions utilized shall include actual recorded ground motions from the locale for actual buildings damaged by shaking, or the ground motions used for testing in the case of shake table results. Evaluation results using the nonlinear static and dynamic procedures shall be compared against available reconnaissance or experimental data to establish the accuracy of the model as well as compared with the other evaluation methods to establish relative accuracies. A mix of engineering practitioners, academic researchers and graduate students shall be employed to accomplish this work as appropriate.

Task 4.5 – Advanced Evaluation I: The Contractor shall conduct an in-depth assessment and evaluation using the FEMA P695 procedure to determine collapse probabilities for the buildings evaluated in Task 4.4. The results shall be compared against the evaluations obtained using ASCE 41, Eurocode and other procedures as appropriate, and the actual damage data.

Task 4.6 – Advanced Evaluation V: The Contractor shall conduct an in-depth study on the linkage between the component-level and global-level acceptance criteria using incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) for the Collapse Prevention (CP) and Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance levels. The contractor shall conduct a sensitivity study to investigate the impact of parameters that will affect the results of this task. In addition, the contractor shall study the impact of the proposed changes to the 2023 edition of ASCE 41 concerning the new component-level and global acceptance criteria on the damage assessment of a minimum of three buildings of the eight evaluated between Task Order 16-476 and the two buildings evaluated within the scope of this project.

Task 4.7 –Guidelines and Standards Development: The outcomes of the evaluation methodologies, in terms of the actions required to improve the building performance as well as the main deficiencies that reduce performance of the buildings as a function of assessment methodology, need to be identified and compared with respect to each other. The Contractor shall provide detailed comparison among the evaluation results from the different standards/guidelines and identify the fundamental differences between the evaluation results from each standard/guideline with the post-earthquake damage evaluation. The Contractor shall investigate the various actions (e.g. shear, axial failure) that trigger the retrofitting approach in each standard/guideline and use this information to identify the needs for improving the ASCE 41 evaluation methodology.

The Contractor shall synthesize these state-of-the-art research results to produce clear and concise recommendations on the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology, as well as improvements to evaluation and assessment procedures found in ASCE 41.

Task 4.8 – Project Report Review Meeting: The Contractor shall produce a written draft project report that integrates results from the work outlined above into the final project report developed for Task Order 16-476. In this report, the Contractor shall outline any critical issues and research needs based on this work concerning assessment and evaluation procedures, nonlinear analysis, structural modeling, and computer simulation for seismic applications. The Contractor shall submit the draft of this document to the COR for review.

A review meeting shall be held between the PTC, PRP, NIST COR and outside participants, invited by the NIST COR at no additional cost to the Contractor, to review the results of this project. The Contractor shall document feedback from the meeting participants and provide a written draft final project report to the COR for review.

Task 4.9 - Progress Review Meetings: The Contractor shall present a verbal and written summary of work performed in this task order as a part of planned semiannual (June and December of each year following award) contract status review meetings.

The June meetings shall be held at NIST in Gaithersburg, MD, and the December meetings shall be held via videoconference or at the Contractor’s facility. Meetings will be scheduled at the discretion of the COR.

Task 4.10 - Final Report: The Contractor shall prepare a written draft and final report of the work performed in this task order, integrated with the final project report developed for Task Order 16-476, at the close of the project to be published as a NIST GCR. The Contractor shall request a NIST GCR number from the NIST COR prior to submitting the report to the COR for review and approval.

D. DELIVERABLES AND DELIVERABLE DUE DATES

In addition to the Deliverables that are outlined in the Specific Tasks, the Contractor shall submit the following deliverables. All deliverables shall be submitted to the NIST COR in accordance with the review process identified in Task 4.1.

Unless a due date is already identified below, the Contractor shall propose due dates for submission of the following deliverables to the NIST COR within the required due dates indicated below:

1. Commencing within 60 calendar days of award, the Contractor shall submit the names of all proposed project members, including members of the Project Technical Committee (PTC) and Project Review Panel (PRP) (Task 4.1) to the NIST COR for review and approval. Should NIST request changes in the proposed PD, PTC, or PRP membership, the Contractor shall submit a revised membership roster to the NIST COR within seven calendar days of receiving the NIST review comments.

2. Commencing no later than 90 calendar days from the date of award, the Contractor shall provide written quarterly progress reports regarding achievements during the immediate past quarter in this task order, including work plans for the upcoming quarter. These written reports shall be submitted (via email) to NIST COR no later than 14 calendar days beyond the end of the reported quarter.

3. The Contractor shall submit the list of buildings to be evaluated for review by the COR no later than 3 months from the date of task order award (Task 4.3). Within 14 calendar days following this submittal, the NIST COR will provide review comments. Within 14 calendar days following NIST COR review of the draft appendices and receipt of NIST review comments, the Contractor shall submit the final list of buildings.

4. The Contractor shall submit a written draft project report (Task 4.8) in Microsoft

Word (docx) format no later than 18 months from task order award. Following this submittal, the NIST COR will provide review comments within 14 calendar days of receipt of the draft. Within 14 calendar days following receipt of NIST COR review comments, the Contractor shall submit the final draft report. This report shall be the basis for the review meeting to be held no later than 20 months from task order award (Task 4.11).

5. The Contractor shall submit the draft final report of the work performed in this task order no later than 22 months from task order award (Task 4.10). Following this submittal, the NIST COR will provide review comments within 14 calendar days of receipt of the draft report. Within 14 calendar days of receipt of NIST COR comments, the Contractor shall provide the final project report. The Contractor shall provide electronic files of the final report in both Microsoft Word (docx) and Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) formats, and the Contractor shall provide 250 printed and bound copies of the final report. The Contractor shall provide 50 of the printed copies to NIST and may retain the remaining 200 copies for direct distribution to public requests.

E. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for this requirement shall be two years (24 months) from date of award. All work and deliverables supporting this task order shall be completed and submitted to the NIST COR within 24 months of task order award.

Work shall be performed at the Contractor’s facility.

F. GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY, DATA, AND/OR INFORMATION

No Government-furnished property, data, or other information is involved.

G. TRAVEL COSTS

The PTC or PRP members may have to travel to attend the Progress Review Meetings.

Contractor travel will therefore be required for these meetings. The Contractor shall be reimbursed for approved travel in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation. Travel expenses for Government employees to attend project-related meetings will not be the responsibility of the Contractor.

H. RISK ASSESSMENT:

The HSPD-12 Security Risk Level assigned to this contract is no risk.

I. KEY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS:

• One (1) Project Director (PD) is required as key personnel for this requirement.

The PD shall be a structural engineering researcher or practitioner with a minimum of five (5) years of experience in nonlinear behavior and analysis of structures subjected to earthquake ground motions, as well as the application of ASCE/SEI 41. Experience with other performance-based seismic engineering standards such as the Eurocode 8, ATC 78, the LA Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Alternate Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design (Reference 4.N.11), or the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (Reference 4.N.12) is preferred but not required.

J. PTC and PRP REQUIREMENTS (NON-KEY PERSONNEL)

• At least three (3) structural engineering researchers and practitioners are required for the Project Technical Committee (PTC).

The PTC members shall have a minimum of three (3) years of experience in performance-based seismic design including nonlinear seismic analysis, structural modeling, and computer simulation as applied to new and existing buildings utilizing the ASCE 7, ASCE 41, LA Tall Buildings Procedure and PEER Tall Buildings Initiative standard. The PTC shall include members with expertise in both reinforced concrete moment frames and shear wall buildings. PTC membership shall include one or more members with experience applying the Eurocode 8 and ATC 78 procedures as well.

A minimum of two academic researchers shall be on the PTC. Contributions from the academic researchers shall be supplemented by at least two doctoral graduate students.

• At least three (3) structural engineering researchers and practitioners are required for the Project Review Panel (PRP).

The PRP members shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in performance-based seismic design including nonlinear seismic analysis, structural modeling, and computer simulation as applied to new and existing buildings utilizing the design standards identified above. The PRP shall include members with expertise in both reinforced concrete moment frames and shear wall buildings. In selecting PRP members, the Contractor shall consider experience; expertise; and geographic, gender, and ethnic diversity among all qualified people with the experience and expertise requirements identified in this task order. The PRP selections shall be made in coordination with the NIST

COR.

K. DELIVERABLES AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The Contractor shall include a proposed payment schedule based on receipt of deliverables by NIST as part of the project proposal.

L. GENERAL INFORMATION

Confidential or Proprietary Data: This work does not involve confidential or proprietary data.

Media Inquiries: The Contractor or its employees shall not respond to any media inquiries related to this requirement. Any inquiries from the media shall be immediately relayed to the COR and/or CO. There shall be no interviews, comments, or any other response without the knowledge and advanced written approval of the NIST Public Affairs Office.

M. MEETING REQUIREMENTS

When semiannual and annual progress meetings (Task 4.9) are conducted, the NIST COR reserves the latitude to invite other participants to attend them. Such participants would not travel at the expense of the Contractor. Videoconferencing may be employed instead of face-to-face meetings at the discretion of the COR.

(1) The Contractor shall host and conduct a kickoff meeting within two weeks after award.

(2) The Contractor shall host and conduct an intermediate review meeting when the Assessment and Evaluation (Task 4.4) is completed. This meeting shall include the PTC, PRP, NIST COR and other project personnel from NIST.

(3) The Contractor shall host and conduct a review meeting at the time that the draft project report (Task 4.8) is submitted to the NIST COR.

(4) The NIST COR reserves the right to schedule any interim progress review meetings (via conference call, videoconference or in person) that the COR deems to be appropriate.

N. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Task 4.1 –PTC and PRP Recruitment

Minimum qualifications met.

100% The NIST COR will review all resumes for proposed PTC and PRP members.

Task 4.2 – PWP Submitted timely.

100% The NIST COR will review the draft PWP.

Task 4.3 – Identification of Buildings for Study

Submitted timely and final version is free of errors.

97% The NIST COR will review the proposed study buildings and the selection documentation.

Task 4.4 – Assessment and Evaluation

Assessment and Evaluation of Buildings completed and submitted timely and summary report is free of errors.

100% The NIST COR will review the draft and final summary report.

Task 4.8 – Draft Report summarizing task order work and results

Submitted timely and final version is free of errors.

97% The NIST COR will review the draft report.

Task 4.10 – Draft Final Report Completed

Submitted timely and final version is free of errors.

97% The NIST COR will review the draft final report.

Project Progress Review Meetings

Minimum videoconference requirements met, when applicable, and held timely when requested or when required by

100% The NIST COR shall be invited by the Contractor to participate in a videoconference prior to a scheduled meeting to test the quality and capability of the videoconference equipment for compliance.

SoW.

N. REFERENCES

(1) Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design – NIST GCR 09-917-2, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2009.

(2) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings – ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2013.

(3) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors – FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009.

(4) Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings Volume 1: Special Moment Frames. Harris JL, Speicher MS.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology; Gaithersburg, MD 2015.

(5) Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings Volume 2: Special Concentrically Braced Frames. Harris JL, Speicher MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-2. National Institute of Standards and Technology; Gaithersburg, MD 2015.

(6) Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings Volume 3: Eccentrically Braced Frames. Harris JL, Speicher MS.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-3. National Institute of Standards and Technology; Gaithersburg, MD 2015.

(7) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10.

American Society of Civil Engineers; Reston, VA 2010.

(8) Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. European Committee for Standardization. CEN/TC 250 EN1998-3:2005/AC:2013 Brussels.

(9) Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete Frame Buildings for Collapse Potential, ATC 78-3, Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, CA, 2015

(10) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings FEMA P58. Federal Emergency Management Agency; Washington, D.C. 2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-3

(11) An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council; 2015

(12) Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center/Applied Technology Council, ATC 72-1, 2010. (http://peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/PEER-ATC-72-1_report.pdf) http://peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/PEER-ATC-72-1_report.pdf