Solicitation W912HQ-20-R-0002(Final).PDF

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until local time

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F 29

30 - 37 X H 38 - 40

David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 40

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS

SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

W912HQ 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

DAVID A KAPLAN 703-428-8487

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

2 - 4

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

5 - 20 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 23 - 24 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 25 - 26 X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

USACE HUMPHREYS ENGR CTR SPT ACTIVITY

ATTN: CEHEC-CT,

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3860

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.

W26HM493167756

5. DATE ISSUED

10 Dec 2019

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

W912HQ20R0002

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Project IEPR Charleston Peninsula Base Tasks

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete the Base Tasks (Tasks 1-6) in accordance with the attached PWS entitled "Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina".

MILSTRIP: W26HM493167756

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: W26HM493167756

NET AMT

0002 1 Project OPTION IEPR Charleston Peninsula Option Task 1

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 1 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled "Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina".

0003 1 Project OPTION IEPR Charleston Peninsula Option Task 2

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 2 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled "Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management

0004 1 Project OPTION IEPR Charleston Peninsula Option Task 3

FFP

Contractor shall provide all labor, personnel and supervision necessary to complete Option Task 3 in accordance with the attached PWS entitled "Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management

LABOR RATES - PRICE SCHEDULE

Offerors shall submit their price for this requirement and clearly show pricing for the base task and pricing for each option task in a format substantially similar to the table below (include subtotals for total labor per each base task and each option task; note options may have more than a quantity of 1; provide a subtotal for each option unit, and a grand total for each option):

Labor Category Hours

Base Task 1

Hours Base Task 2

Hours Option Task 1

Hours Option Task 2

Total Hours

Rate Sub- Totals

Plan Formulator/Economist Environmental Law Compliance Specialist Hydrology and Hydraulic/Coastal Engineer Civil/Structural Engineer Total Peer Review OEO Principal Investigator OEO Project Manager

OEO Research Assistant OEO Writer/Editor OEO Administrative/Clerical Total OEO Total Labor Hours Grand Totals

*** This table represents an example of total pricing; please ensure pricing adequately details each and all of the base tasks; and each and all of the option tasks.

**** Please indicate what level of Peer Reviewer Expertise is being used for each peer reviewer labor category. Descriptions can be found below:

Expert Peer Reviewer (EPR) - The EPR is considered to be a national leader in their discipline.

Indications of this level of expertise include over 20 years of experience, advanced degrees, membership and certification by professional organizations and societies and publication in industry and scientific journals and proceedings. Use of the EPR should be considered when the level of complexity and/or controversy in the project study undergoing review meets the revised requirements of WRRDA 2014 and current USACE guidance.

Senior Peer Reviewer (SPR) – The SPR is a highly qualified, nationally recognized expert in their respective field(s). Use of the SPR should be considered when the study or project undergoing review has some highly technical component, and or, is a highly controversial project.

Peer Reviewer (PR) – The PR meets the minimum qualifications of the requirement and is a recognized technical expert in the areas of expertise that they will be tasked to review.

Principal Investigator (PI) - Responsible for advising, assisting, performing technical work, and guiding lower level employees in a broad set of tasks within a technology area. He/She shall provide support as requested to any Program Manager and/or the customer.

Project Manager (PM) - Serves as single individual responsible for formulating and enforcing work standards, assigning contract staff & schedules, maintaining regular contact with Government's Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Supervises all project personnel and communicates policies, procedures, and goals of the firm to these employees. The PM is responsible for the overall project plan, project performance, and client satisfaction on multiple project tasks.

Research Assistant (RA) - Creates new techniques, procedures, and designs for particular applications or systems within their area of specialization. They work on limited segments, components, or parts of development projects and interact with senior staff and clients in discussion of current and future activities.

Writer/Editor (W/E) – The W/E position edits materials for reports, manuals, briefings, and related scientific, technical, and functional publications and is ultimately responsible for delivering a finished product to the Corps. The W/E works closely with Technical Writers and Publications Managers to enhance production capabilities, improve quality and technical assurance, and presentation ready materials to the client.

Administrative/Clerical (A/C) - Assists Program Manager and Task Leader by producing financial, administrative, and management reports for resource planning, meetings, and client briefings. A/C staff must be knowledgeable in Microsoft Office products such as Scheduler, Word, and Excel.

Section C - Descriptions and Specifications

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

CHARLESTON PENINSULA

COASTAL FLOOD RISK

MANAGEMENT STUDY

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DISTRICT

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

1. TITLE

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina.

2. GENERAL

The Charleston Peninsula is approximately 8 square miles, located between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. The two rivers join off the Battery in Charleston to form Charleston Harbor. The Charleston Harbor is a natural tidal estuary sheltered from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier islands. The Charleston Peninsula is the historic core and urban center of the City of Charleston and is home to 38,000 people. The shoreline of the peninsula has undergone dramatic changes, predominantly by landfilling of the intertidal zone. Early maps show that over one-third of the present-day peninsula has been “reclaimed.”

The Charleston Peninsula experiences coastal storm surge inundation that adversely affects the economic sustainability of Charleston, places populations at risk, and limits or completely restricts access to critical facilities, emergency services, and evacuation routes. Relative sea level rise is expected to exacerbate the impacts of coastal storm surge flooding over time.

The problems identified for the study include effects resulting from coastal storm surge inundation, posing a damage risk to structures and contents and a risk to human health and safety. Based on historical storm events, there is a minimal risk to loss of life.

Identified study risks include the use of existing information, assumptions regarding subsurface conditions, locations of underground utilities, and future improvements to the Port of Charleston. All study risks are considered low risk and typical of feasibility studies at the beginning of the study.

Figure 1: Charleston Peninsula, Charleston, South Carolina Study Area

IEPR Process:

The Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina has been developed to reflect USACE modernized planning initiatives, in which project studies use a risk-informed assessment, generally with only enough detail developed for each alternative to allow relative comparison, to determine the appropriate information to identify a Tentative Selected Plan (TSP). Although this new process has altered the milestones and evaluation procedures in a feasibility study, the manner in which alternatives are developed from problems, opportunities, measures, and constraints remains the same.

Under the SMART Planning paradigm, IEPR occurs during concurrent review of the Decision Document, between the TSP Milestone meeting and the Agency Decision Milestone (ADM) meeting (refer to the SMART Feasibility Study diagram). To help explain the results of the risk-informed assessment and alternative evaluation, a risk register and other risk management documentation will accompany the feasibility study decision documents. A primary objective of IEPR is to evaluate whether adequate information was available and appropriate technical analyses were completed to support selection of a TSP within the context of the risk-informed decision-making process.

3. OBJECTIVES:

The objective for this performance work statement (PWS) is to conduct an IEPR of the Draft Decision Document in accordance with the applicable directives listed below.

IEPR is one of the important procedures used to ensure the quality of published information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. Peer review typically evaluates clarity of hypotheses, validity of the research design, quality of data collection procedures, robustness of the methods employed, appropriateness of the methods for the hypotheses being tested, extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and strengths and limitations of the overall product.

The purpose of the IEPR is to assess the adequacy and acceptability of economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina. The IEPR will be limited to technical review and will not involve policy review. The IEPR will be conducted by subject matter experts (i.e., IEPR Panel members) with extensive experience in USACE planning, engineering, economics, and environmental issues relevant to the project. They should also have experience applying their subject matter expertise to Coastal Storm Risk Management.

The Review Panel members will be “charged” with responding to specific technical questions as well as providing a broad technical evaluation of the overall project. Per EC 1165-2-217, Paragraph 11 , reviewers should identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as well as evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods. The Review Panel should be able evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are reasonable. Reviews should focus on assumptions, data, methods and models. The Review Panel may offer their opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to base the recommended plan.

All review, documents, and information sharing will be handled electronically via electronic mail, electronic file transfer which may utilize a File Transfer Protocol web site.

The following references to USACE regulations shall be followed in conducting the IEPR.

Applicable Directives The following guidance shall be followed in conducting the IEPR.Unless otherwise specified, copies of these directives are available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil.

• The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007, Sections 2034 and 7009;

as amended by Section 1044 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 and Section 1141 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin M-05-03, “Final Information Quality Bulleting for Peer Review,” (2004); available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/bulletins/.

• National Academy of Science’s (NAS) “Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest” (2003); available at http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/ na_069688.pdf

• EC 1165-2-217, “Review Policy for Civil Works,” 2018.

• USACE National Planning Centers of Expertise Type 1 IEPR Process Standard Operating Procedure

Government-Furnished Information

USACE will provide a minimum of the following documents for review to the IEPR Panel:

Documents for Review

Report Title for IEPR Panel Review

Anticipated Date of Report/Data

Approximate Number of Pages

[1]

Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina: A Coastal Flood Risk Management Study

9 March, 2020

Appendix A: Plan Formulation 9 March, 2020 88

Appendix B: Engineering 9 March, 2020 1288

Appendix C: Economics 9 March, 2020 125

Appendix D: Environmental 9 March, 2020 622

Appendix E: Real Estate Plan 9 March, 2020 37

Public Comments [2] [3] 9 March-9 April 2020

Total 2866

[1] The actual number of pages provided to the panel for review may differ from this estimate by plus or minus 20%.

[2] For Reference Only. These documents are provided for context only and Panel members are not asked or expected to directly comment on these documents. However, it is possible that a reading of public comments or the Risk Register could identify an issue the Panel was not previously aware of which could trigger new review comments to be made.

[3] USACE will submit to the Contractor the public comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix A). The Contractor will in turn submit comments to the IEPR Panel. The anticipated date that public comments would be provided by USACE is identified in Appendix A. USACE will submit to the Contractor all comments as they were received up to approximately 200 pages. If USACE receives more than approximately 200 pages of public comments, then USACE will submit to the Contractor a collated list of public comments according to the comments’ subject or topic. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional supporting documentation provided to the Panel.

Option 1: 300-page increase in the public comments

This option will be exercised if the public comments received after the close of public review exceed the estimated 200 pages as listed in Table 1. This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to 300 pages of additional public comments.

Option 1 has a quantity of 4 units containing 300 pages of additional public comments per each unit for a total possible increase of up to 1,200 additional pages. Pricing for Option 1 should be shown per unit and shown in the grand total as if the total quantity of all options are exercised.

Option 2: 300-page increase in the review documents

This option will be exercised if the estimated number of pages of review documents provided after the notice to proceed has been issued exceeds the number of pages estimated in Table 1 including a 20% contingency. This option will cover additional effort required for all panel members to review up to an additional 300 pages of review documents beyond the 20% threshold.

Option 2 has a quantity of 4 units containing 300 pages of additional review documents per each unit for a total possible increase of up to 1,200 additional pages. Pricing for Option 1 should be shown per unit and shown in the grand total as if the total quantity of all options are exercised.

4. SPECIFIC TASKS

There are some instances when concurrence or approval by USACE is necessary to assure policy compliance with EC 1165-2-217. However, the following tasks shall be performed independent of government supervision, direction, or control of the technical considerations of this review:

Task 1: Work Plan to Conduct IEPR

The Contractor shall prepare a draft and final work plan that describes the process for conducting the IEPR. The work plan will include screening criteria for Panel members, terms of non-disclouse agreements for panel members (as needed), working schedule, selection of Panel members, Review Charge to Panel members (provided by USACE to include in final work plan), communication and meetings with USACE project team, quality control, and compilation/dissemination of Review Panel members’ comments. The Contractor shall conduct the IEPR in accordance with the work plan to ensure that all services are performed, reviewed, and provided in a manner that meets professional engineering quality standards. Also included in this task will be one conference call to discuss the USACE comments on the draft work plan. If needed, the Contractor can coordinate with the study Project Manager and Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) IEPR Lead, via conference call, to ask questions about key events in the timeline leading up to the completion of the decision document and supporting documentation. The Work Plan will not include a site visit for the Review Panel at any time during the IEPR process. Both the draft and final work plan must be thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate contracting staff and submitted free of grammatical errors, references to other projects, font inconsistencies, and misspelling of words.

The process to prepare Corps decision documents is complex and the coordination with the IEPR schedule involves many factors, some of which are outside of the control of the District Project Delivery Team and the Review Management Organization.

The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on the dates in the working schedule. The Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate Government-caused delays of up to three (3) months in delivering materials and information. After USACE and the Contractor agree on the schedule for a meeting date, the Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate up to two (2) schedule changes requested by the USACE for each meeting.

Task 2: IEPR Panel

The Contractor shall identify Review Panel members based on the descriptions below.

As needed the Contractor will ensure that selected Review Panel members execute non-disclosure agreements with terms and conditions coordinated with USACE through the development of the final work plan. The final selection of the Panel will be based on screening criteria included in the work plan (Task 1). Each panel member should be a professional from academia, a public agency, consulting firm, or similar vocation with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in their area of expertise. Panel members should be familiar with large, complex water resources projects with high public and interagency interests. At least one panel member will have experience in the USACE Coastal Storm Risk Management feasibility studies. The Contractor will provide USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The disciplines that should be included are:

Planning Formulator/Economist: The Review Panel member must be from academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm with a minimum of 15 years demonstrated experience in academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architect-Engineer or Consulting Firm with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated experience in public works, with a minimum MS degree or higher in economics. Familiarity with G2CRM is desired. Two years’ experience in reviewing federal water resource economic documents is required. In addition, the panel member should have experience in the analysis of regional economic development associated with a project; discussion of other social effects (OSE) associated with flood risk, as well as OSE benefits from reduction in flood risk; and economic justification of projects in accordance with current USACE policy for urban flood damages. The panel member shall have a minimum of five years’ experience directly dealing with the USACE six-step planning process, which is governed by ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook.

The panel member must be very familiar with USACE plan formulation process, procedures, and standards as it relates to hurricane and coastal storm risk management projects.

Environmental Law Compliance Specialist: The Review Panel member must be a scientist from academia, a public agency, a non-governmental entity, or an Architectural- Engineering or Consulting Firm. The Review Panel member must have at least 15 years’ experience directly related to water resources environmental evaluation or review and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and analysis, and have a biological or environmental background that is familiar with the project area and environmental impact analysis and mitigation. The Review Panel member should have particular knowledge of impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology of coastal regions of the south-Atlantic coast of North America.

Hydrology and Hydraulic/Coastal Engineer [4]: The panel member should be a registered professional engineer with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in coastal and hydraulic engineering, or a professor from academia with extensive background in coastal processes and hydraulic theory and practice, with a minimum Master’s Degree or higher in engineering. The panel member should be familiar with USACE application of risk and uncertainty analyses in hurricane and coastal storm risk management projects. The panel member should also be an expert in the field of coastal storm surge and storm wave modeling, specifically with the use of coupled ADCIRC, STWAVE, and SWAN numerical models.

Civil/Structural Engineer: The Review Panel member should be a registered professional engineer or a professor from academia with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in civil engineering and specifically the design of coastal storm risk management structures. The Review Panel member should be familiar with USACE engineering manuals, circulars, technical letters, and regulations on design, analysis, and implementation of coastal storm risk management projects. The panel member should have experience with floodwall and levee design.

The Contractor will provide the USACE with the final list of IEPR Panel members, including their credentials. The final selection will be based on availability, technical credentials, and absence of perceived or actual conflict of interest. The IEPR Panel members shall not have any financial or litigation association with the USACE; the State;

the design A-E, or their engineering teams, subcontractors, or construction contractors.

The Review Panel members shall fully disclose any known or potential conflict of interest that may arise from the performance of the work. Areas of conflict may include current employment by Federal or State governments, participation in developing the subject project, a publicly documented statement advocating for or against the subject project, current or future interests in subject project or future benefits from the project, and paid or unpaid participation in litigation against the USACE. The Contractor will prepare a scope of work for each of the Review Panel member. A request for quotation, including the scope of work and conflict of interest inquiry will be prepared and sent to each reviewer.

Upon receipt of the potential reviewers’ written quotations indicating willingness to participate and the absence of a conflict of interest, the Contractor will establish contracts with the peer reviewers at agreed upon rates and hours to ensure/secure participation.

Task 3: Meetings

A kick-off teleconference between USACE personnel and Contractor personnel will be conducted after the notice to proceed (NTP) is issued. The intent of this meeting is to define the IEPR roles for USACE and the Contractor.

An additional kick-off teleconference meeting will be held after final selection of the Review Panel members. This meeting will be between USACE personnel, Contractor personnel, and the IEPR Panel members. The purpose of this first meeting is for USACE to familiarize the Review Panel members with the project and to discuss the specific objectives of the review. All of the Review Panel members will participate.

Contractor staff and all IEPR Panel members will participate in a teleconference at the approximate midpoint of the review process. The purpose of this meeting is to allow panelists to ask clarifying questions of USACE in order to assist in the development of comments and to potentially eliminate the total number of final Panel comments.

Agency Decision Milestone Meeting:

The Corps ADM meeting occurs after the public review of the draft decision document has ended and IEPR Task 5 of the PWS has been completed. The ADM meeting is generally a teleconference and webmeeting. One Contractor staff and the lead Review Panel member will attend the meeting via teleconference. The Contractor should be prepared to provide comments on IEPR findings as well as discuss any significant comments identified for the study.

Other teleconference meetings will be held as described below under Tasks 4 and 6. If the need arises for other meetings it is expected that they will be held as teleconferences.

If required, the ADM meeting will be arranged and hosted by USACE.

Task 4: Conduct IEPR

The Contractor will provide the Review Panel members with copies of the technical documents for review listed above in Section 3. USACE will provide these documents to the Contractor for distribution to the Review Panel members.

The Contractor will prepare and deliver a letter to instruct the Review Panel members to undertake the reviews including a template format for responding to Review Charge questions. The letter also will outline the steps and deadlines which will include a list of the documents for review listed in Section 3. Working with USACE, the Contractor will respond to any Review Panel member questions or information requests during the review process.

The Contractor will document all communications between USACE and the Review Panel members. The Review Panel members will complete their review and provide comments to the Contractor. When the individual Review Panel member comments have been received from the Review Panel members, the Contractor will collate the individual Review Panel member comments and ensure that they are complete and responsive to the Review Charge.

The Contractor will identify the overall issues and themes that were either identified by multiple Review Panel members or repeatedly by one Review Panel member, comments that indicated conflicting Review Panel member opinions, and other noteworthy comments.

Then, the Contractor will convene one or more group Review Panel comment review meetings via teleconference with the IEPR Panel members to discuss the Review Panel’s comments. The goal of the meeting is to provide a forum for Panel members to discuss the comments and agree (or agree to disagree) on the comments of highest priority, identify which issues should be carried forward as “Final Panel Comments,” decide who will lead the development of those final comments, and to address any contradictory comments. This meeting will ensure the exchange of technical information among the Review Panel members, many of whom will be from diverse scientific backgrounds. This information exchange provides additional context to Review Panel members and is considered crucial in the development of a comprehensive IEPR Final Report.

Final public review comments will be provided by USACE to the Contractor approximately one week after the close of the concurrent review period. The Contractor should provide these public review comments to the Review Panel for their consideration and at that time work with the Review Panel to determine if any additional Final Panel Comments will be developed or if any revisions to already prepared Final Panel Comments are required.

Once this review and determination have occurred on final public review comments the IEPR Final Report can be prepared as discussed in Task 5.

Task 5: Prepare IEPR Final Report

The Contractor shall consolidate the comments (see Task 4) to eliminate redundant or overlapping comments and to identify dissenting or diverging comments. Each comment will be formatted into a 4-part comment including the following:

1) a clear statement of the concern;

2) the basis for the concern;

3) the significance of the concern (the importance of the concern with regard to project implement ability);

4) a description of additional research that would appreciably influence the conclusions and, when appropriate, the actions necessary to resolve the concern.

The Contractor shall prepare a final report of the Review Panel findings. The report shall have an executive summary describing the recommendations and resolutions. Following the executive summary the report shall list in detail all the referenced criteria, computations, comments made, and all other pertinent information along with IEPR Panel recommendations and final resolution. The report format and presentation must conform to examples of recently completed reports available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Completed-Peer- Review-Reports/ The report is intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process.

The report must include a summary of the Review Panel members’ qualifications and a brief discussion of the methodology used to conduct the IEPR. The Contractor will submit the IEPR Final Report to the PCX IEPR Lead for review and acceptance of the product.

Once the PCX IEPR Lead accepts the product, he/she will forward the product to the USACE for review.

The Final IEPR Report must be submitted no later than 45 days following the close of the public comment period (unless an addendum is required then the options would be exercised and schedule revised to accommodate the ADM date). The final report outline previously approved by the Government will be used for all reports with any agreed-to modifications required. Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and quality assurance of the Final IEPR report to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

Option 3: Addendum to the Final IEPR Report (300 additional pages)

This option will be exercised in the case where the close of public comment period is delayed and/or the District does not have sufficient time after the close of public comment period to collate comments into themes/topics for panel’s review allowing sufficient time to consolidate and produce a Final IEPR Report at least 2 weeks in advance of the scheduled ADM. This option assumes that the panel had reviewed all other documents provided but the public comments. This option will cover additional effort for the panel to review up to 300 pages of additional public comments (beyond the 200 pages estimated in the base contract in Table 1). This option will also cover any necessary meetings, back and forth with the Panel regarding their findings, Final Panel Comment language and time to enter the additional Final Panel Comments and Backchecks into DrChecks.

Additionally, this option will account for all OEO effort necessary to execute this option and produce an Addendum to the Final IEPR Report.

Task 6: Comment/Response

The Contractor shall provide the IEPR Final Panel Comments to USACE in Microsoft Word format via email. The IEPR Final Panel Comments provided in Microsoft Word format should include the corresponding sections and page numbers in the report documentation, as appropriate, in order to assist the USACE project delivery team to develop responses to Final Panel Comments. In addition, the Contractor will enter the IEPR Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. USACE will submit clarifying questions to the Contractor to coordinate with the IEPR Review Panel, if necessary. The Contractor and USACE will participate in a teleconference call to discuss the comment/response process.

USACE will provide draft evaluator responses to the Contractor in Microsoft Word format via email. In response to the 4-part comment submitted by the IEPR Review Panel, USACE should submit a “concur” or “non-concur” evaluation to each Final Panel Comment and include a concise, standalone statement as to why the response was “concur” or “non-concur.”

In addition, in response to each IEPR Final Panel Comment Recommendation for Resolution, USACE shall include a statement to “adopt” or “not adopt”, along with a response describing how and where the report documentation would/would not be expanded, revised, or changed. If recommendations are not accepted, the reported reason for the rejection shall be documented in the draft evaluator responses.

The Contractor shall coordinate a teleconference call with USACE and the IEPR Panel to discuss USACE’s draft evaluator responses to the IEPR Final Panel Comments.

Following the teleconference call, USACE will submit final responses to the IEPR Final Panel Comments. In addition, USACE will enter final responses to Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. The Contractor shall receive backcheck responses to draft evaluator responses from the IEPR Review Panel.

All responses provided by the USACE and IEPR Panel members will be labeled as “concur” or “non-concur” to indicate agreement or non-agreement, respectively. The Contractor shall enter the IEPR Panel backcheck responses to the USACE final responses to Final Panel Comments into DrChecks. The Contractor will provide USACE with a .pdf printout of the DrChecks project file once all IEPR comments are closed following backcheck responses. In addition, the Contractor will provide the Microsoft Word file containing the final iteration of the IEPR Final Panel Comments, the USACE final evaluator responses to IEPR Final Panel Comments, and the IEPR Panel backcheck responses to the USACE final evaluator responses.

5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall provide all document reproduction. Electronic submittals shall contain all electronic files in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats.

The briefings for the teleconferences will be furnished in Microsoft PowerPoint or Adobe PDF format. Reports generated by the peer review Contractor or their subcontractors shall not be released for publication or dissemination without the Contracting Officer’s written approval following coordination with the Contracting Officer’s representative. The USACE will determine which documents to publish in the public domain. The Contractor shall provide monthly status updates to USACE. Status updates will include the status of efforts associated with this PWS as well as any changes to scope and schedule. These updates will be informal and normally conducted through electronic mail messages.

All of the electronic submittals (whether draft or final) must undergo thorough quality review prior to submittal to USACE and/or the PCX. The Contractor is expected to provide internal quality control and quality assurance for all deliverables to ensure they are complete, free from obvious errors, grammatically correct, and of high and professional quality.

6. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall have the following qualifications:

a. Experience establishing and administering Review Panels;

b. Be qualified as an Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) organization and be exempted from Federal tax under Section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

c. Shall be a scientific or professional society, a firm specializing in peer review, or a non-profit organization with experience in peer review;

d. Is an independent science and technology organization;

Shall be free from conflicts of interest with the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina.

e. Does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources projects;

and

f. Independent science and technology organization; and

g. Proven ability to deliver under significant time constraints.

7. PLACE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, AND TRAVEL

a. Place of Performance. A majority of the work will be conducted at the Contractor’s facilities.

b. Period of Performance. The performance period shall be from the date of the NTP through 19 January 2021.

c. Travel: Travel is not required.

8. RESTRICTIONS

There are no known conflicts of interest with the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina; and IEPR Panel members that are assembled.

9. AUTHORITIES STATEMENT

No person other than the Government Contracting Officer has the authority to make changes to this contract action that impact cost or schedule. Authority from the Contracting Officer to the contractor to make changes that impact cost or schedule will be in the form of an official, signed modification.

10. RELEVANCE

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a division of the U.S. Army. USACE has been directed by Congress to develop the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study, Charleston, South Carolina.

11. CAPABILITY STATEMENT

By public law WRDA 2007 (Public Law 110-114), Section 2034, the peer review must be completed by reviewers external to the Government, thus the requesting agency does not have the necessary in-house capability to perform the tasks specified in this PWS.

12. POINTS OF CONTACT (TO BE PROVIDED AT TIME OF AWARD)

APPENDIX A

CHARLESTON PENINSULA

COASTAL FLOOD RISK

MANAGEMENT STUDY

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DISTRICT

Independent External Peer Review

Draft Schedule1

TASK ACTION # of DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTION

Notice to Proceed (NTP) Anticipated: 19 Jan 2020

Review documents available 9 March 2020

Public Review Anticipated: 9 March-9 April 2020

*Submit Draft Work Plan

Teleconference ( if necessary)

USACE Provide comments on Draft Work Plan

*Submit Final Work Plan Within 15 working days of NTP

CONTRACTOR requests input from USACE on the conflict of interest (COI) questionnaire

USACE Provides comments on COI

*Submit list of selected Panel members Within 15 days of NTP

USACE provides comments on selected Panel members

Complete subcontracts for Panel members

CONTRACTOR Kickoff meeting with

USACE

Kickoff meeting with USACE and IEPR Panel

IEPR mid-point teleconference

Agency Decision Milestone Meeting October 2020

Furnish Combined Public Comments to Panel

Within 2-5 working days of concurrent review period completion

IEPR Panel members provide response to charge in Final Panel Comments

Within 10 working days of delivery of public review comments

TASK ACTION # of DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTION

*Submit IEPR Final Report

IEPR Final Report will be prepared and delivered no later than 45 days from the close of the concurrent review period (unless an addendum is required then the options would be exercised and schedule revised to accommodate the ADM date)/or 2 weeks prior to the scheduled ADM.

*Provide IEPR Final Panel Comments to USACE via email and DrChecks

Within 10 days after submitting IEPR Final Report

USACE Project Delivery Team provides draft Evaluator responses and clarifying questions to CONTRACTOR (this task includes time for RMO review of draft Evaluator responses)

Within 20 working days of receipt of IEPR Final Panel Comments

Final Panel Comments Teleconference between USACE, contractor, and IEPR Panel members to discuss Final Panel comments and USACE draft Evaluator responses

USACE submits final Evaluator responses via DrChecks

Within 5 working days of Final Panel Teleconference

IEPR Panel completes comment backcheck and enters backcheck responses into DrChecks

Within 5 working days of receipt of USACE final Evaluator responses

*Contractor submits .pdf printout of comment/response dialog and closes out comments in DrChecks as appropriate

Within 1 working day of entering of IEPR Panel backcheck responses into DrChecks

Project Closeout Final invoice submitted within 60 working days of completion of all tasks

1 The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on dates indicated by this draft schedule. See description of work in Task 1 for more discussion of potential schedule delays.

*- Deliverable

Section E - Inspection and Acceptance

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government 0002 Destination Government Destination Government 0003 Destination Government Destination Government 0004 Destination Government Destination Government

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.246-4 Inspection Of Services--Fixed Price AUG 1996

Section F - Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 19-JAN-2021 1 DECISION METHODOLOGIES DIV

DARRELL NOLTON

INST FOR WATER RESOURCES 7701

TELEGRAPH ROAD

DING

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3868

703-428-9084

FOB: N/A

W26HM4

0002 19-JAN-2021 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

0003 19-JAN-2021 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

0004 19-JAN-2021 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

52.242-15 Stop-Work Order AUG 1989

Section G - Contract Administration Data

252.201-7000 Contracting Officer's Representative DEC 1991 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving

Reports

DEC 2018

G1

CONTRACTING OFFICER/AUTHORITY

a. All contractual administration will be carried out by a warranted Contracting Officer acting within their delegated limits. Communications pertaining to contract administration matters shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer shown on the front page of the contract award. No changes in or deviation from the Performance Work Statement shall be effected without a contract modification executed by the Contracting Officer authorizing such changes.

b. The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to issue changes or otherwise change the terms and conditions of contractual actions. In the event the Contractor effects any such change at the direction of any person other than the Contracting Officer, the Contractor is at risk that no adjustment will be made in the contract action’s price to cover any increase(s) in costs incurred as a result thereof.

G2 CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVES (COR’s)

a. The Contracting Officer may appoint one or more Government employees as Contracting Officer Representatives (COR’s) for technical purposes applicable to this contract. This individual will represent the Contracting Officer in the technical phases of work, but will not be authorized to change any of the terms and conditions of the contract or direct work that will require an amendment to the contract.

b. Only a warranted Contracting Officer (either a Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), or an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), acting within their delegated limits, has the authority to issue modifications or otherwise change the terms and conditions of this contract. If an individual other than the Contracting Officer attempts to make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract you shall not proceed with the change and shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer.

c. COR appointment(s) shall be in writing, signed by the Contracting Officer, and shall set forth the authority granted to and the limitations of the COR. The appointment letter shall be provided to the contractor who shall acknowledge receipt of the appointment letters in writing without delay. Such signing shall represent the contractor’s acknowledgement of the limited authority of the COR.

d. COR appointments may be changed or revoked by the Contracting Officer in writing.

G3 All correspondence and data submitted by the contractor under this contract shall reference the contract number.

G4

POST-AWARD ORIENTATION CONFERENCE

Within 30 days after contract award an orientation conference (kick-off meeting) will be convened by the Contracting Officer and the requiring activity. The conference shall be in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.5.

See Task 3 of the Performance Work Statement for additional information.

G5

CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE ORDERS

No order, statement or conduct of the Contracting Officer, the authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, whether or not acting within the limits of his authority, or any other representative of the Government, shall constitute a change under the "Changes" clause of this contract or entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment of the contract price or delivery schedule under that or any other clause, unless such change is issued in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer. No representative of the Contracting Officer (either PCO or ACO) shall be authorized to issue a written change order under the "Changes" clause of this contract. The Contractor shall be under no obligation to comply with any orders or directions not issued in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer.

G6

PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND INVOICE SUBMISSION (FFP NON-COMMERICIAL)

a. General. The Government shall pay the Contractor as full compensation for all work required, performed and accepted under this contract, inclusive of all costs and expenses, the firm fixed-price in the contract.

b. Invoice Submission. Invoices shall be submitted to the addressee specified in Block 12 of the SF 26, Block 23 of the SF 33, Block 15 of the DD 1155, or may be e-mailed to CEFC-Q0invoices@ usace.army.mil . Electronic copies of invoices shall also be sent to DLL‐CEIWRCONTRACT@usace.army.mil as well as the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contract Specialist. The subject line will include the contract number, task order number, and invoice number. To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice shall be submitted in accordance with FAR 32.905 – Payment Documentation and Process and include a narrative description of work performed in the invoice period. Acceptable narrative descriptions include a bullet list of activities and progress, a brief narrative of activities and progress or a copy of a status report that includes a quantitative estimate of progress such as percent technical completion or earned value. The contractor’s final invoice should be marked as such.

c. Questions Regarding Payment. Questions regarding status of payment should be directed to the USACE

Finance Center at CEFC-Payments@usace.army.mil (if more than 30 days have passed since the invoice was submitted) with a copy of the payments question sent to the Contract Specialist.

Section H - Special Contract Requirements

H1

NOTICE OF INCORPORATION OF SECTION K

The following section of the solicitation will not be distributed with the contract; however, they are incorporated in and form a part of the resultant contract as though furnished in full text therewith:

SECTION TITLE

K Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors or Quoters (Bidders)

H2

PERFORMANCE MEETING

The Contracting Officer or duly authorized representative may call a conference…