Q&A_1.pdf

As of 10 August 2017, the Government would like to provide the following answers to questions asked about RFQ solicitation W9127N-17-Q-0060.

1. Is the focus of this project a detailed historic context limited to just the Army Corps of Engineers’ 24 upland dredging placement sites along the Lower Columbia River for Section 106 compliance that could lead to future National Register evaluations for historical and archaeological resources associated with these placement sites?

Yes, as stated in 1.2 Objectives: “…for cultural resource management in compliance with Section 106 of the

NHPA.”

2. Or, is the focus of this project to develop a detailed historic context on the Army Corps of Engineers’ channelization of the Lower Columbia River over time to improve navigation, starting in 1884 with the navigation improvements to the mouth of the Columbia River? This historic context could then be used for Section 106 compliance and for individual and multiple property National Register evaluations for historical and archaeological resources along the Lower Columbia River.

This project is not meant to detail the channelization of the river by the corps over time.

3. Can the Government provide an estimate of the number of historic images and maps that must be geo-rectified?

The Corps can provide digital copies of our maps and photos (they have never been geo-rectified). The maps and aerials should focus on the area around the identified upland placement sites. The Government can estimate maybe 200-250 give or take a few.

4. The Performance Work Statement mentions the GIS work will “determine change over time”. What exactly does this entail: is it a quantitative assessment?

One of the primary goals is to identify man-made sites and islands that have developed due to the placement of dredge material.

5. I didn’t see any submittal requirements- does that mean you are only looking for interested contractors to sign the form and fill in the costs for the tasks as a response?

See PART 5 – Specific Tasks beginning on page 11

5.1 Task 1: Work Plan and Quality Control Plan

5.2 Task 2: Kick off Meeting

5.3 Task 3: Literature Review, Background Research, Draft GIS & Draft Report

5.4 Task 4: Final GIS Data, Final Report, & DAHP/SHPO Acceptance

6. Section 1.3 of the PWS indicates that the POP is 365 days, but the synopsis says that it’s 245 days. Can you confirm which is right?

245 is correct. See task 5, 5.3.2 and 5.4.2. The Government will correct the PWS before the purchase order is offered to the apparent awardee.

7. Section 5.3.1 of the PWS requires a GIS of cultural data. A large amount of this will be in the GISes maintained by the Oregon and Washington SHPOs; however, neither currently allows for direct transfer of digital data to contractors. Should we assume that we will have to draw those points and polygons from downloads, or should we assume that the Corps will be able to get a direct data transfer from the SHPOs?

The Corps will provide the GIS data we have, which includes some data from both states, as well as data of the specific dredge placement sites. However, there are sites that we do not have GIS data for, which will need to be drawn by the contractor.

8. What percentage of the work is archeological versus historical?

There is no field survey required for this project. It is meant to be a very detailed literature review of existing conditions. Information will need to be gathered from both Washington DAHP and Oregon SHPO for archeological and historic resources. Since we do not know exactly how many archeological versus historic resources are out there, we cannot make a confident estimate. However, for the historic context itself, the writer will be weaving together a narrative of all resources (archeological and historic) and the history surrounding them.