SOW_CSS 1333ND20QNB730495_Final.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGN OF LIFELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

SYSTEMS FOR FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY

A. BACKGROUND

In recent decades, increasing attention has been paid to the seismic vulnerabilities of lifeline infrastructure systems providing key services such as water and power. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Grant/Contract Report GCR 14-91733, Earthquake-Resilient Lifelines: NEHRP Research, Development and Implementation Roadmap, develops several areas of infrastructure system research and implementation priorities needed to strengthen the nation’s resilience to seismic events. Key actions needed for further development include:

(1) establish national lifeline system performance and restoration goals;

(2) develop lifeline system specific performance manuals, guidelines, standards, and codes;

(3) conduct problem focused research for various lifeline systems; and

(4) enable the adoption and implementation of lifeline system performance goals and standards.

(NIST 2014)

NIST was also tasked in Public Law 115-307 (the most recent reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the development of a report to Congress that will outline options for improving recovery of function timelines after seismic events. The mandate states:

SEC. 8. SEISMIC STANDARDS.

(a) ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than December 1, 2019, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall jointly convene a committee of experts from Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, disaster management professional associations, engineering professional associations, and professional construction and homebuilding industry associations, to assess and recommend options for improving the built environment and critical infrastructure to reflect performance goals stated in terms of post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than June 30, 2020, the committee convened under paragraph (1) shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on recommended options for improving the built environment and critical infrastructure to reflect performance goals stated in terms of post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time.

In this report: “Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time”, functional recovery is defined as:

“Functional recovery is a post-earthquake performance state in which a building or lifeline infrastructure system is maintained, or restored, to safely and adequately support the basic intended functions associated with the pre-earthquake use or occupancy of a building, or the pre-earthquake service level of a lifeline infrastructure system.” (NIST/FEMA 2020)

To fulfill the Congressional mandate, NIST and FEMA convened the committee of experts to develop the report on options for improving functional recovery and reoccupancy of the built environment and critical infrastructure systems. The report is recently completed and is currently under agency review for submission to Congress. One section of this report outlines needs for improving the functional recovery of lifeline infrastructure systems, in particular the need for a national framework for supporting functional recovery of critical infrastructure systems. The report echoes the findings of NIST GCR 14-91733 in which several areas for improvements to the performance and coordination across infrastructure systems. The report to Congress points to several problematic areas of lifeline infrastructure operation and governance relating to the fact that these systems often lack seismic design, and are spatially distributed, aging, and typically manged at different scales from the local to federal level. The report calls for long-term commitment across multiple sectors to ameliorate these problems and work towards seismically strengthened infrastructure systems.

NIST has expertise in the area of performance based seismic design and maintains relationships with professionals involved in research, practice, and the development of codes and standards across the structural engineering field. During the last decade, NIST has led multiple research projects concerning improving the seismic resilience of buildings and infrastructure systems.

This includes research on immediate occupancy of buildings, functional recovery of the built environment; performance of retrofitted structures; earthquake-resilient lifelines, etc. NIST is also the lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) and has an obligation to facilitate interaction amongst the NEHRP agencies (FEMA, NIST, NSF, and USGS) as well as to develop relationships with other federal agencies and partners at other levels whose efforts impact seismic risk mitigation. In addition, NIST has significant involvement with the development of tools and processes to help communities assess and plan for increased community resilience to hazard events, including community resilience planning guides and economic decision-making tools (NIST 2019).

Many of the nation’s current lifeline infrastructure systems were not designed to achieve seismic resilience, and the interconnections and dependencies amongst these components creates a situation in which damages and downtime of critical services resulting from a moderate earthquake event may take months to years to recover (Huizi 2019). To avoid these catastrophic recovery timelines, this statement of work focuses on areas of research and development that can decrease current gaps in knowledge and practice. The ultimate goal of this effort is to develop a preliminary framework for design and retrofit of lifeline infrastructure systems to meet recovery-based objectives; the recovery-based objectives are expressed in terms of acceptable time to recover the basic service of the lifeline systems after an earthquake. Strategic improvements to infrastructure will enable more positive outcomes and support the recovery of function needed to lessen deaths, damage, and downtime after earthquake events.

B. SCOPE OF WORK

For this effort, the Contractor shall limit “lifeline infrastructure systems” to the following three system types: (a) water, (b) wastewater, and (c) electric power. NIST recognizes that these, as well as other, infrastructure system types must provide some level of service in order to provide for the health, safety and wellbeing of the American public.

The purpose of the project is to develop a preliminary framework for functional recovery of lifeline infrastructure systems. This framework shall enable collaborative and consensus-based decision making on needs for lifeline infrastructure systems to return to function after earthquake events. This work requires coordination across jurisdictions and lifelines infrastructure systems in order to determine appropriate timelines for recovery, the design criteria needing further development to achieve these objectives, and also the establishment of criteria for hazard level design. The resultant framework will be published as a NIST report and will outline the tasks, goals, and benchmarks needed to achieve the foundational stages of acceptable recovery time.

The Contractor, in coordination with appropriate stakeholders, shall identify the following key components necessary for development of a preliminary lifelines infrastructure functional recovery framework:

1. The basic intended functions of each infrastructure type for an earthquake scenario. For each infrastructure type, the common and fundamental needs from that infrastructure system after an earthquake event shall be determined (i.e., what products are needed, and by whom).

For example, fresh and wastewater services are needed by staff and patients for life-saving and emergency procedures.

2. With the established basic intended functions for infrastructure type, produce recommended timelines for provisioning of basic intended functions. These timelines shall provide parameters for lifeline infrastructure system service goals in the immediate and short-term recovery phases (i.e., what services to achieve, and when). For example, emergency rooms may have a few hours of backup water availability but need the return of fresh and wastewater systems within 8 hours to remain open. Thus, the function of the building is important to consider for the establishment of recovery timelines for lifeline systems.

3. Based on the recommended timelines for the provisioning of basic intended functions, evaluate the suitability of and offer recommendations for creating “recovery categories” for various components of the three lifeline systems discussed above. A recovery category functions as the mechanism by which the basic intended function of a lifeline is linked to a design objective for achieving recovery at the asset level via codes and standards (i.e., how performance goals are applied to system components).

Clearly delineating the a) basic intended function, b) appropriate timeline, and c) associated performance target for assets through the development of recovery categories is important to ensure that efforts towards functional recovery of infrastructure systems are systematically and methodically achieved across infrastructure systems.

The Contractor, coordinating with appropriate stakeholders in its work to complete these three project components and the development of a framework, also shall consider the following:

• Shared thinking: Compile information needed to promote shared thinking and goal setting across infrastructure systems. This include recommendations for shared vocabulary and the development of new organizational and cross-sector linkages.

• Interdependencies: There are a number of interdependencies across systems. For example, in order to provide emergency and life-saving services, cities require unimpeded and undamaged emergency transportation routes prior to the repair of all transportation routes. These kinds of interdependencies between the basic intended functions of infrastructure systems must also be taken into account in the development of recommended timelines for service recovery.

C. SPECIFIC TASKS

The Contractor shall provide the professional, technical, and support personnel, services, materials, equipment and facilities necessary to meet the above stated Scope of Work and conduct the work, as required, through the tasks described below.

Task 1 - Project Team Development:

The Contractor shall assemble a Project Technical Committee (PTC) composed of a Project Director (PD) as chair and eight additional eminently qualified individuals including academic researchers (2), practicing engineers (2), infrastructure system operators (2), and emergency managers (2), with significant expertise in seismic risk, design, analysis, operations, and planning. Membership of the PTC shall include representation across all three infrastructure system types identified in this Scope of Work. The PTC shall be responsible for the technical quality and practical execution of the project. Members of the PTC may be supported by graduate students or other staff as necessary to accomplish their work. The PD shall be contractor key personnel for this requirement, other PTC members shall not be key personnel.

The Contractor shall assemble a Project Review Panel (PRP) which shall be composed of at least four additional qualified researchers, practitioners, planners, and municipal representatives with post-disaster experience related to the provisioning of infrastructure services. The PRP shall be responsible for an independent review of the project progress, its deliverables and the overall technical quality of the project. The PRP shall also be responsible for providing advice and consultation throughout the project and serving as a liaison to outside organizations. PRP members shall not be key personnel.

The PTC and PRP selections shall be made in consultation with the NIST COR. The Contractor shall consider experience; expertise; and geographic, gender, and ethnic diversity in selecting the PTC and PRP members from among all qualified people with the experience and expertise requirements identified in this contract.

The PTC and PRP members shall not be associated with any specific software developer or be in the employment of any industry associations or interests. This shall not be interpreted to mean that researchers who have been occasionally funded by such interests are exempted from participation. The PTC and PRP shall be available for immediate consultation, if required. All project documents shall be approved by the PRP and the NIST COR in writing prior to distribution outside of NIST.

The proposed list of PTC and PRP members shall be submitted to the NIST COR within two months of contract award, and the final proposed list of PTC and PRP members shall be submitted to the NIST COR within 1 week of NIST feedback on the original submitted list.

Task 2 - Project Work Plan:

Following contract award, the Contractor shall schedule and participate in a kick-off meeting with the NIST Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and NIST Project Manager (PM) to develop an outline for the investigation of necessary information based on Statement of Work requirements. The kick-off meeting shall take place within two weeks after contract award via a virtual web service. All such meetings, hereafter referred to as “virtual meeting(s)” shall be conducted via Webex, Bluejeans, or another NIST approved alternative that provides video and audio communication as well as screen-sharing capabilities. Given the current situation with COVID 19, it is unlikely that in-person meetings may be possible and therefore meetings shall be held virtually until such time that NIST determines that it is safe to reinitiate in-person meetings.

Following the kick-off meeting, the Contractor shall develop a draft Project Work Plan (PWP) that outlines the overall project performance strategy, project team engagement methods, estimates Contractor resource requirements for task completion, and provides details of all milestones identified for project completion. The project work plan shall explicitly include and address all components of the project’s Scope of Work outlined above in Section B. In addition, the PWP shall outline a planned strategy for interaction with appropriate organizations to ensure that the recommended findings are prepared consistent with the needs of those practitioners who will be implementing or facilitating changes to infrastructure systems. The Contractor shall submit a draft PWP to the NIST COR and NIST PM for review and approval within 2 weeks after Contract kick-off meeting.

A final PWP is due within 2 weeks after receipt of NIST comments on the draft PWP.

Task 3 –Assessment of Current Methodologies, Standards, and Experience:

The Contractor shall perform a detailed investigation of existing literature, practices, and methodologies for the provision of seismic resilience to the three infrastructure systems identified above. A synthesis document shall be developed of the available methods including their overall strengths and weaknesses in providing post-event recovery of basic intended functions across the infrastructure system (to the extent this can be evaluated), together with more detailed technical information such as analysis methods, and relevant component level vulnerabilities or strengths. The intent is for the Contractor to develop a current state-of-the-art report concerning seismic resilience of infrastructure systems and estimates on the ability of these systems to facilitate functional recovery after strong shaking.

This document shall contain case study examples of each of the three infrastructure system types. These case studies shall provide a description of the system, detail impacts from a natural hazard event, and outline problems and issues with service provisioning or recovery.

This synthesis document shall be produced in MS Word in a format that is approved by the COR and PM and shall be shared with the PTC, and PRP. A draft of the document is due 6 months after award of contract, and a final version is due within 2 weeks after receipt of comments from NIST. A virtual meeting to share the completed product with the PTC, PRP, NIST COR and other project personnel from NIST is due within 2 weeks of the completion of the final version. This task is integral background information to the work outlined in Task 4 and it is important that all PTC and PRP members are provided with access to this information.

Task 4 –Evaluation of Key Project Components:

The Contractor shall devise a series of virtual (or when possible, in-person) meetings, working groups, or other collaborative mechanisms to facilitate the development of the preliminary framework for lifeline infrastructure functional recovery, in particular related to the three key components identified above, and explained more fully below. The Contractor shall delineate the appropriate objectives, benchmarks, outcomes, and products from these interactions. In all activities, a mix of individuals from multiple sectors shall be employed to accomplish this work as appropriate. Consideration shall be given to the identification of common and recommended needs for recovery of function, above which particular communities could elect to exceed minimum requirements should they so desire. This task includes three primary activities which the Contractor shall perform in sequence as explained as below:

Develop “basic intended functions”: The Contractor shall provide an evaluation of what systems provide on a day-to-day basis, as well as an assessment of critical needs for infrastructure systems unique to an earthquake event. Identification of basic intended functions shall not be limited by the physical, economic, or organizational constraints of current and particular examples infrastructure systems. Rather, emphasis shall be placed on identifying high level key functions applicable to infrastructure systems across the nation.

Deviations or constraints thereof may be noted. The determination of basic intended functions is complex, and will require input from owner/operators, engineers, planners, emergency managers, and representatives from the informed public. These basic intended functions, when coupled with recommended timelines for resumption of services, can be used to develop performance objectives for the system which can be implemented in engineering design. In developing basic intended functions, the contractor shall consider the interdependencies across various lifeline infrastructure systems.

Develop “recommended recovery timelines”: Some key components of society’s operation (such as hospital operation and access) should be prioritized over other items (such as lighting for tennis courts), and recommendations for the provisioning of services shall emphasize shared and minimum recommended timelines that can be widely applicable across the nation. For example, hospitals that require water and power to provide life-saving services and may only have temporary sources of these items, so, quicker restoration of services for life-saving services may be recommended. Limitation of focus on timeframes for providing basic intended functions is an explicit goal of this effort. Additional information regarding interim and long-term recovery timeframes for other-than-basic intended functions may be incorporated and explored where necessary, but this is not the goal of this effort. As such, it will be important to consider whether the recovery timelines proposed are required at the system or component level, or both. Determination of recommended recovery timelines will also require input from diverse community stakeholders. In developing the recovery timelines, the contractor shall consider the interdependencies across various lifeline infrastructure systems.

Develop “recovery categories”: Group various components of the built environment and assign a target recovery time to each, such that the whole system can meet the desired recovery time. Recommended recovery categories could be based on the service that is provided, or the lifeline type and scale, or a mixture of these approaches. Emphasis shall be placed on producing seismic resilience that can support recovery of basic intended services within the recommended timeframes. Areas not currently under the purview of existing codes and standards shall not be outside of the scope of consideration, though particular attention shall be given to recommended actions for achieving goals in these areas. Any interdependencies amongst systems that may cause problems with the provision of basic intended services shall be noted. In addition, the Contractor shall consider whether recovery categories can be improved by incorporating knowledge of planned post-earthquake uses of an asset rather than only its pre-earthquake use (for example, a civic center that becomes an emergency shelter). In developing the recovery categories, the contractor shall consider the interdependencies across various lifeline infrastructure systems.

The series of virtual meetings planned to support this task shall be clearly described in the PWP (Task 2). The NIST PM and appropriate personnel shall be invited to these meetings.

Updates and outcomes from each of these meetings shall be described in quarterly progress reporting and semi-annual progress review meetings (Task 6). The preliminary framework for functional recovery of lifeline infrastructure systems shall be driven primarily from these three key project components which require sequential, rather than simultaneous, development. The resulting report shall clearly state the rationalization for recovery categories based on information related to recommended timelines for providing basic intended services.

Task 5 – Project Report Development and Review Meeting:

The Contractor shall produce a written project report that includes results from the work outlined above in Task 4 and informed by the product developed in Task 3. In this report, the Contractor shall outline any critical issues and research needs based on this work. The Project Report shall be the result of input from the PTC and PRP and shall be formatted and published as a NIST Special Publication (see more information on this in Task 7, below).

The arrangements for authorship attribution of this report shall be considered early in the draft project report development phase. NIST personnel shall participate on the report authorship team at no cost to the Contractor. NIST will be publishing the report. The Contractor shall submit the draft of this document to the COR and PM for review. The NIST COR shall be invited by the Contractor to participate in a virtual meeting to discuss the review and identify any necessary revisions. The final report shall be the basis for the review meeting.

A virtual meeting, the “Review Meeting”, shall be held by the Contractor and PD to unveil preliminary results of the study, including content from the final report draft. All members of the Project Team (NIST, PTC, and PRP) are to be invited, in addition to select outside participants requested by Project Team members. The Contractor shall document feedback from the meeting participants and provide any recommendations for amendments to the final project report draft to the COR and PM for review.

Task 6 – Quarterly Progress Reporting and Semi-Annual Progress Review Meetings:

The Contractor shall provide NIST with written quarterly progress reports which detail:

activities accomplished, findings established, deliverables completed, outstanding deliverables, plans for the upcoming quarter, any delays, reasons for delays and proposed resolutions, and recommendations.

The Contractor shall organize twice yearly virtual meetings for the purpose of Progress Review. The Contractor shall coordinate the dates and times for these virtual meetings with the NIST COR. These meetings shall coincide with the release of a recent quarterly progress report. At each meeting, a summary of progress from the two previous quarterly progress reports shall be presented verbally, as well as a to-date assessment of progress toward the full contract. The NIST COR reserves the latitude to invite other participants to them.

In addition, the NIST COR reserves the right to schedule any interim progress review meetings that the COR deems to be appropriate.

Task 7 - Final Report Publication:

The Contractor shall prepare a written draft and final report of the work performed in this contract at the close of the project to be published as a NIST Special Publication. The Contractor shall address review comments from the NIST COR before NIST publishes the report. NIST will print and bind 250 copies of the final approved report. 200 copies shall be distributed by the Contractor to relevant stakeholders within 36 months of contract award.

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 under this contract. All deliverables shall be submitted to the NIST COR in accordance with the review process identified in Task 1.

Required Deliverables

Task Description Format Quantity Required Completion Date

2 Contract Kick-Off Meeting Virtual Meeting 1 Within 2 weeks after contract award

2 Draft Project Work Plan MS Word or MS Project

1 Within 2 weeks after Contract Kick- Off Meeting

2 Final Project Work Plan MS Word or MS

Project 1 Within 2 weeks after receipt of NIST

Comments

1 List of Proposed PTC and PRP Members

MS Word or Adobe

PDF

1 Within 2 months after contract award

Final List of Proposed PTC and PRP Members MS Word or Adobe

PDF 1

Within 1 week after receipt of NIST

Feedback

Draft Assessment of

Current Methodologies, Standards and Experience

MS Word 1 6 Months from Date of Award

Final Assessment of

Current Methodologies, Standards and Experience

MS Word and Adobe PDF 1

Within 2 weeks after receipt of NIST Comments

Sharing of Final

Assessment Virtual Meeting 1 Within 2 weeks after final version of

Assessment

Data Gathered for

Evaluation of Key Project Components

Report on Data (written or oral)

As necessary

Progress to be reported after each meeting/effort held as appropriate in

Task 6 activities

5 Draft Project Report for Review Meeting

MS Word 1 30 Months from Date of Award

Final Project Report for

Review Meeting MS Word 1

Within 2 weeks after receipt of NIST Comments

5 Review Meeting Virtual Meeting, or in person if possible 1 31 Months from Date of Award

6 Quarterly Progress Report MS Word 16 Within 2 weeks following the end of each contract quarter

6 Semi-Annual Review Report

Verbal Presentation via Virtual Meeting

Specific dates to be idetntified at least one month in advance by COR and

PM

7 Draft Final Findings Report MS Word 1 34 Months from Date of Award

7 Final Report MS Word / Adobe

PDF

1/ 1 Within 2 weeks after receipt of NIST Comments or Within 36 Months from

Date of Award, whichever is later

E. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF DELIVERABLES

As tasks and deliverables are completed, the Contractor shall submit the deliverables for review by the COR and TPOC. The COR or TPOC will provide comments on any given deliverable within two weeks after the receipt of deliverables. The Contractor shall revise and resubmit the deliverable(s) in accordance with the COR or TPOC’s comments and resubmit within one week, or otherwise mutually agreed upone time, for further COR and TPOC review and comment. All revisions shall be made at no additional cost to the Government.

The COR will provide written notice when deliverables are accepted.

F. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance shall be three years from date of award.

G. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Work shall be performed at the Contractor’s facility

H. KEY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

Key personnel shall be assigned to this requirement in accordance with the following:

One Project Director (PD) The PD shall be a highly qualified (verified with a portfolio of their professional achievements) engineering researcher or practitioner who is an expert in the design and operation of infrastructure systems and experience with these systems in their recovery from strong earthquake ground motions. The Project Director shall meet the following minimum qualifications:

• BS in Civil or Mechanical Engineering; Masters degree in an Engineering field such as Civil, Mechanical or Structural Engineering

• 10+ Years of experience in one of the following fields: structural or civil engineering with current registration as a Professional Engineer in at least one US state.

• Experience facilitating at least 3 meetings of 20+ people .

• Experience with design projects focused on critical lifelines infrastructure in the areas of water, wastewater, or power; preferably in areas of moderate to high seismicity

• Active current engagement with appropriate codes and standards organizations involved with one of these three critical lifeline systems.

• Additionally, preferably but not required:

o Experience in inspection of operational systems to assess function o Experience in retrofit or in post-event repair of critical lifeline systems.

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

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

J. TRAVEL AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS

All travel engagements and other direct costs shall be approved in advance in writing by the COR. Approved travel will be reimbursed in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation and the Department of Commerce Travel Handbook up to a negotiated not-to-exceed limit. The Government will provide at least two weeks of advance notification of upcoming travel. The notification shall include dates of travel and location. Invoices for travel shall include an itemized breakout of costs per traveler as well as supporting documentation (receipts, etc.).

Invoices for other direct costs shall also include supporting documentation (receipts, etc.).

K. RISK ASSESSMENT

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

L. DELIVERABLES AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The Contractor may invoice the Government upon notice from the COR that a given deliverable is of acceptable quality and that all other assigned tasks are up to date. The Contractor shall include a proposed payment schedule based on receipt of deliverables by NIST as part of the project proposal.

M. GENERAL INFORMATION

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

The certification and accreditation requirements of Clause 1352.239-73 do not apply, and a security accreditation package is not required.

Media Inquiries: The Contractor and its employees shall not respond to any media inquiries.

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 approval of the NIST Public Affairs Office.

N. EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS

There are no attachments or exhibits.

O. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Level

Methods of

Surveillance

Task 1 – Project Team Development

The PTC and PRP are assembled on time and in accordance with the requirements indentified in this Statement of Work

100% The NIST COR will review submitted PTC and PRP roster and supporting information.

Task 2 – Project Work

Submitted on time and in accordance with Statement of

100% The NIST COR will review the draft PWP.

Plan Work requirements

Task 3 – Assessment of Current Methodologies, Standards, and Experience

Assessment and Evaluation summary report submitted on time and free of errors. The report addresses the elements identified in this Statement of Work

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

Task 4 – Evaluation of Key Project Components

Draft Framework addresses SoW requirements

100% The NIST COR will review the draft report content in advance of the Project Report Review Meeting.

Task 5 – Project Report Development and Review Meeting

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

100% The NIST COR shall be invited by the Contractor to participate and evaluate the meeting.

Task 6 – Progress Review Meetings

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

100% The NIST COR shall be invited by the Contractor to participate and evaluate the meeting.

Task 7 – Final Report Publication

Submitted timely and final version is free of errors. The final report addresses Statement of Work requirements and NIST feedback from review of the draft report

100% The NIST COR will review the draft report.

P. REFERENCES

(Huizi 2019) “Feature: New Zealand's Christchurch recovering from devastating earthquake.”

Author: Li Huizi. Online news article: Xinhua News. Published February 21, 2019. Accessed May 6, 2020: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/21/c_137839435.htm.

(NIST 2014) “Earthquake-Resilient Lifelines: NEHRP Research, Development and Implementation Roadmap.” NIST publication. Published October 2014. Accessed May 5, 2020:

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=917658.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/21/c_137839435.htm https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=917658

(NIST 2019) “Community Resilience Planning Guide.” NIST website. Last updated November 2019. Accessed May 6, 2020: https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience/planning-guide.

(NIST/FEMA 2020) Functional Recovery Report (report development in process) https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience/planning-guide