Attachment_J-1_Statement_of_Work.pdf

RFP #A15080 Attachment J -1 Statement of Work

Statement of Work

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVIEW

United States Department of Treasury

Office of Gulf Coast Restoration

1.0 OBJECTIVE

To provide assistance to Treasury’s Office of Gulf Coast Restoration (OGCR) in the review and assessment of whether RESTORE Act Direct Component applications for natural resource protection and restoration projects are reasonably based on best available science, and in the review and assessment of the reasonableness of technical information provided in applications for complex, large-scale projects.

2.0 BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the RESTORE Act into law, establishing a trust fund within Treasury containing 80 percent of the civil penalties collected under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To date, civil penalties and interest deposited into the trust fund exceed $800 million.

On August 15, 2014, Treasury published regulations concerning the investment and use of amounts deposited in the trust fund. Under these regulations, Treasury administers two grant programs, known as the Direct Component and the Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program. The Direct Component allows 4 Gulf Coast states, 23 Florida counties, and 20 Louisiana parishes to apply for grants to fund restoration projects and programs using 35 percent of the trust fund. The Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program makes grants available to 5 Gulf Coast states using 2.5 percent of the trust fund plus 25 percent of interest earnings on the trust fund. The centers of excellence will focus on science, technology, and monitoring. In addition to these programs, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, a federal entity composed of 5 Gulf Coast States and 6 federal agencies, will administer 60 percent of the trust fund and 50 percent of the interest earnings on the trust fund. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will administer the remaining 2.5 percent of the trust fund and 25 percent of the interest earnings on the trust fund.

In April 2015, Treasury posted its second round of funding announcements that invited eligible entities to apply for grants under the Direct Component and Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program. The funding announcements, RESTORE Act Direct Component Guidance and Application to Receive Federal Financial Assistance, RESTORE Act Direct Component Multiyear Plan templates, and more are available on Treasury’s RESTORE Act website, http://www.treasury.gov/services/restore-act/Pages/default.aspx.

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK

Treasury’s OGCR shall require the contractor to review and assess whether Direct Component applications for natural resource protection and restoration projects are reasonably based on best available science. The use of “best available science” for these types of projects is required by the RESTORE Act and is defined as:

“…science that—

(A) maximizes the quality, objectivity, and integrity of information, including statistical information;

(B) uses peer-reviewed and publicly available data; and http://www.treasury.gov/services/restore-act/Pages/default.aspx

(C) clearly documents and communicates risks and uncertainties in the scientific basis for such projects”

The assessment must adhere to this definition and reflect an understanding of the relevant science underpinning the proposed projects.

Proposed projects requiring best available science review may include, from eligible activities in the RESTORE Act, those involving:

• Restoration and protection of the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region.

• Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources.

• Implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan, including fisheries monitoring.

• Improvements to or on State parks located in coastal areas affected by the Deepwater

Horizon oil spill.

• Infrastructure projects benefitting the economy or ecological resources, including port infrastructure.

• Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure.

4.0 TASKS

Contractors shall support the following tasks related to the RESTORE Act but not limited to:

4.1 Program Management and Subject Matter Expert Review Planning (Firm Fixed

Price).

Coordinate with OGCR personnel to manage the best available science review process—providing a program orientation to reviewers, continuing to identify reviewers as needed, matching appropriate reviewers with applications received, and monitoring progress on assessments and timely production of best available science assessments.

There will be biweekly meetings with Treasury to identify action items and report on the status of action items—at least two of these meetings (kick-off and one other) will be in-person meetings at Treasury in Washington, DC and may require travel.

Monthly reports will also be expected. All contractors and reviewers will be expected to sign and abide by a conflict of interest policy. OGCR will furnish accepted multiyear plans, application excerpts, and best available science review forms electronically.

Based on the projects described in eligible applicants’ accepted Multiyear Implementation Plans (multiyear plans), coordinate with OGCR personnel to identify the potential timing and scope of subject matter expertise needed for the review of future project applications. This includes: developing a tracking system for potential subject matter experts’ availability and as a tool for matching needed expertise and experts with projects; reviewing eligible applicants’ accepted multiyear plans for informational purposes to determine which projects will require best available science and the specific subject area(s) that will need to be assessed for reasonable use of best available science (in FY 2016, we assume that 85% of eligible applicants will submit a multiyear plan, or approximately 40 plans); beginning to identify potential subject matter experts; and developing orientation materials on the RESTORE Act Direct Component program and materials, best available science, and the review system.

4.2 Best Available Science Review and Other Technical Reviews (Labor Hour).

Coordinate with OGCR personnel to plan, prepare, conduct assessments and report on identified grant applications for natural resource protection and restoration projects and whether the projects are reasonably based on best available science per the RESTORE Act. As the applicant has discretion in selecting projects, the best available science review will be high level and will not result in recommendations for augmentations or alternative approaches to projects or different projects.

Each best available science review will involve three subject matter experts, working independently. Depending on the nature of the proposed project, the expertise may be from the same or similar scientific fields, or from different scientific fields. Reviews will entail going through relevant pieces of a project application, answering yes/no/need more information to approximately 7 assessment questions related to the definition of best available science in the statute, and providing OGCR with any additional comments.

Reviews by the three subject matter experts for a particular project will take place concurrently. All reviewers must be free of conflicts of interest. Approximately two to three weeks will be allotted for the best available science review of a particular application depending on the length and complexity of the application (in FY 2016, we assume that 85% of eligible applicants will submit a multiyear plan, or approximately 40 plans, and that 1-2 projects per plan, on average, will require best available science or other technical review).

Resumes of the three potential reviewers for a particular project review will be provided to Treasury at the outset of the review. Treasury will have 3 days to reject any of the three potential reviewers identified.

Coordinate with OGCR personnel to identify, plan for, and review reasonableness of technical aspects (e.g., civil engineering) of complex, large-scale projects as warranted.

As with the best available science review described above, this will be a high level review and OGCR will provide access electronically to the necessary materials.

Resumes of the three potential reviewers for a particular project review will be provided to Treasury at the outset of the review. Treasury will have 3 days to reject any of the three potential reviewers identified.

Contractor shall identify subject matter experts in the following areas, as needed, to review applications:

Biology (Fisheries, Avian, Sea Turtles, Marine Mammals) Ecology (Marine and Coastal, Wetlands, Restoration, Conservation) Engineering (Civil, Structural) Hydrology Environmental Chemistry (Water, Soil, Air) Environmental Management Ecosystem Services/Economic Physical or Geological Social Sciences Remote Sensing/Geographic Archaeology

5.0 DELIVERABLES

Deliverable Description Delivery Date Program orientation Develop program orientation for potential subject matter experts

Award date + 1 month

Biweekly Meetings Meetings with Office of Gulf Coast Restoration to discuss the status of any deliverables or action items.

Biweekly (by phone); 2 meetings in person (kick-off meeting + 1 more around mid-point of contract)

Monthly Performance Report Provide status of identifying potential subject matter experts, subject matter experts’ availability, matching needed expertise and experts with projects, and current best available science reviews and/or other technical reviews.

Monthly

Reviewer Resumes Identify potential reviewers for a particular project review and provide their resumes, if not previously provided, for review and right of refusal (3 days).

As needed; 3 days before start of project review

Best Available Science Review and Assessment Form

Completed Best Available Science Review and Assessment Forms (1 per reviewer, 3 reviewers per project)

As needed; within 2-3 weeks of start of project review

Other Technical Review and Assessment Form

Completed Other Technical Review and Assessment Forms (1 per reviewer, 3 reviewers per project)

As needed; within 2-3 weeks of start of project review

6.0 LABOR CATEGORIES AND LEVELS OF EXPERTISE

Labor Category Description Principal Bachelor of Science or higher degree in an environmental related field AND 15+ years of experience; responsible for contract negotiations and overseeing the contract, including performance of the program manager.

Program Manager Bachelor of Science of higher degree in an environmental related field AND 15+ years of experience; responsible for budgeting and carrying out scope of work for complex projects, complying with statutory and regulatory requirements, coordinating subject matter experts, managing in-house personnel and outside consultants, and final review of all documents.

Senior Environmental Engineer

Master of Science or higher degree in environmental engineering AND 7+ years of experience; responsible for specific engineering expertise such as structural engineering, reviewing projects for compliance with technical requirements, and documenting reviews and technical input.

Environmental Engineer Bachelor of Science or higher degree in environmental engineering AND 5+ years of experience; responsible for specific engineering expertise such as structural engineering, reviewing projects for compliance with technical requirements, and documenting reviews and technical input.

Senior Environmental Scientist

Master of Science or higher degree in environmental sciences AND 5+ years of experience; responsible for specific technical expertise such as conservation ecology, reviewing projects for compliance with technical requirements, and documenting reviews and technical input.

Environmental Scientist Bachelor of Science or higher degree in environmental sciences AND 5+ years of experience; responsible for specific technical expertise such as conservation ecology, reviewing projects for compliance with technical requirements, and documenting reviews and technical input.

Coastal Ecologist Bachelor of Science or higher degree in environmental sciences AND 5+ years of experience; responsible for specific technical expertise in the area of coastal ecology, reviewing projects for compliance with technical requirements, and documenting reviews and technical input.

Senior Analyst Master of Science or higher degree in an environmental related field AND 7+ years of experience; responsible for planning and analysis related to environmental projects, preparing program materials, and reviewing documents.

Analyst Bachelor of Science or higher degree in an environmental related field AND 5+ years of experience; responsible for planning and analysis related to environmental projects, preparing program materials, and reviewing documents.

Program Assistant Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science or higher degree;

responsible for project tracking, preparing program materials, and reviewing documents.

Additional within-scope Subject Matter Experts as needed.

7.0 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

In addition to compliance with and disclosure as discussed in Attachment J- 3 Conflict of Interests

- Vendor and Attachment J-2 Conflicts of Interest - Reviewer, the Vendor shall disclose any new or potential conflicts of interest during the contract period of performance including all option periods. This shall include statements of conflict of interest, including plans to mitigate, should subcontractors and consultants be engaged. Treasury reserves the right to reject proposed subcontractors or consultants if their conflicts are not mitigated to the satisfaction of the Government.

8.0 PERFORMANCE

Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Matrix applicable to this requirement is attached as Table 1. The PRS Matrix states, the minimum acceptable quality levels (AQLs) for Detailed Project Plans and Budgets, Performance Summary, Weekly Work Order Status Update, Monthly Contract Status Reports, and other work products as identified in the deliverables section of the

SOW.

STATEMENT OF WORK ATTACHMENT 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW). This performance-based plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the Contractor.

1.1 PURPOSE

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to measure performance and to identify the reports required and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the SOW.

1.1.2 This QASP is designed to define roles and responsibilities, identify the performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describe quality assurance reporting, and describe the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Contractor’s performance.

2.2 The CO will designate a COR as the Government authority for performance management.

2.3 The COR is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the Contractor.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED

The Contractor shall provide Program Compliance support in accordance with the SOW. The performance standards are established in the PRS section of the SOW for this task. The acceptable level of performance is set in the acceptable quality level related to that section.

4.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 In an effort to minimize the contract administration burden, simplified methods of surveillance techniques shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance. The primary methods of surveillance are reports and customer input/feedback. The Government will use appointed representatives, as well as reports and input from users/customers as sources of comments on the Contractor’s performance.

4.2 The C o n t r a c to r i s ex pe c t ed to es t ab l i sh a nd main t a in p ro fes s iona l c o mmu ni c a t io n between its employees and customers. The primary objective of professional communication between employees and customers is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints. Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially addressing user/customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems.

NOTE: The user/customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR as opposed to the Contractor. The COR will accept the customer complaints and will investigate.

4.3 The acceptable quality levels (AQL), located in the PRS Matrix (Table 1) of this SOW for Contractor performance, are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed.

Tasks subject to surveillance are identified in the PRS Matrix.

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING

Performance standards and measurements are outlined in the SOW. The COR will monitor and document the Contractor’s performance and will retain records for the contract file.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING RESULTS

6.1 At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance monitoring of the Contractor’s performance.

This written report consists of the Contractor’s submitted monthly progress report and COR’s performance evaluations/records, and will become part of the Quality Assurance (QA) documentation.

6.2 The CO may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, however if the need arises, the Contractor will meet with the CO as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may discuss, among other things, the following:

• Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends;

• Issues and concerns of both parties;

• Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trend;

• Recommendations made by the COR based on contractor information; and

• Issues arising from independent reviews and inspections.

6.3 In addition to QA monitoring, the COR will use the information contained in the Contractor’s monthly report to assess the Contractor’s level of performance for each objective measured in this QASP. The COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance. The Contractor will discuss with the CO/COR satisfaction ratings receiving a “less than acceptable” rating. Note, “less than acceptable” ratings will result when the Contractor fails to meet the AQLs for each performance objective as set forth in the PRS Matrix section of the SOW. For such cases, the Contractor should highlight its perspective on factors driving customer satisfaction and present plans to adjust service levels accordingly to bring the satisfaction rating up to an acceptable level.

6.4 The CO/COR and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long–term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented.

Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the CO.

7.0 FAILURE TO PERFORM

7.1 In cases where the Contractor fails to meet an AQL, the Contractor shall perform the applicable remedy set forth in the Performance Requirements Summary section of the SOW.

7.2 The Contractor may be terminated based on failure to perform. The following criteria apply for determining appropriate action:

• Notifications. Consistent with FAR Part 49, the CO shall notify the service provider of failure to meet standards through QA monitoring records, cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the service provider project manager or designated alternate of such notices.

• Termination. If the CO determines that the Contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the CO shall issue a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 49.

TABLE 1

Performance Objective

Standard Performance

Acceptable Quality Levels

Government Surveillance

Remedy

Detailed Project Plan

Contractor shall submit the plan prior to the execution of the contract. Project Plan shall identify the budget, specific tasks, due dates, responsible individuals, and critical deliverables.

Completeness – no more than 5% of major tasks omitted from the final Project Plan.

100% review

Government will provide comments and questions to the Contractor, Contractor will address comments and questions until deliverable is acceptable to include producing additional draft deliverables at no additional cost to the Government.

Monthly Work Order Performance Summary

Contractor shall submit a performance plan identifying the overall progress against the Project Plans. This is to be delivered no later than the close of business of the tenth business day of the following month.

Accuracy – No more than 5% of the proposed level of effort for the tasks in the final Project Plans are exceeded.

Timeliness – No more than 2% of the tasks identified in the Project Plans are delivered and/or performed after the due date.

100% review Government will provide comments and questions to the Contractor, Contractor will address comments and questions until deliverable is acceptable to include producing additional draft deliverables at no additional cost to the Government.

Biweekly Status Report

Contractor shall submit a Biweekly Status Report. This report will be discussed at a biweekly status meeting and delivered to the COR at a TBD time after the award.

Accuracy – No more than 5% of the proposed level of effort for the tasks identified in the final Project Plans are exceeded.

Completeness – No more than 5% omission rate.

more than 2% are delivered after the due date.

100% review Government will provide comments and Contractor will reconcile or incorporate all comments until deliverable is acceptable to include producing additional draft deliverables at no additional cost to the Government.

Project Deliverables

Contractor shall submit deliverables by the due date included in the detailed project plan.

Accuracy – No more than 5% of submitted deliverables require re-submission following Government review.

delivered after the due date.

100% review Government will provide comments and Contractor will reconcile or incorporate all comments until deliverable is acceptable to include producing additional draft deliverables at no

Additional project management related reports

Contractor shall submit other project management related reports as defined by the COR.

Accuracy – No more than 5% of the proposed level of effort for the tasks identified in the Project Plans are exceeded.

delivered after the due date.

100% review Government will provide comments and questions to the Contractor, Contractor will address comments and questions until deliverable is acceptable to include producing additional draft deliverables at no

STATEMENT OF WORK ATTACHMENTT 2ENT 2

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT

Date: Enter Date Reporting Period: Enter Date

Contract Information Contractor Name:

Description of requirement:

COTR (Government POC):

Contract Number

Period of Performance Enter Date from -to

Reporting Period Update

Current Obligations: Enter value Costs incurred through current reporting period: Enter value Projected cost – next reporting period: Enter value Remaining funds on contract: Enter value Projected Cost at Completion: Enter value Are there any issues completing the contract within the schedule with available funds?

YES/NO

If YES, discuss issues:

Performance & Deliverables Describe key transaction during this reporting period.

Enter text List deliverables produced during this reporting period.

Enter text Describe significant accomplishments during this reporting period.

Enter text Describe significant challenges during this reporting period.

Enter text Subcontracts List subcontractors performing during this period & incurred costs Subcontractor Name Socioeconomic Category Incurred Costs Subcontract Value

Include the following Attachments Attachment A: List all contractor personnel that worked on this IDIQ during the reporting period.