Charleston Peninsula IEPR_PWS (RFI-RFP).DOCX

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 procedures described in the Department of the Army, USACE peer review policy, Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-217, Review Policy for Civil Works Review, dated February 20, 2018, and the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review released December 16, 2004.

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.

• USACE EC1165-2-217, Review Policy for Civil Works, dated February 20, 2018.

• USACE ER 1110-1-8159, Engineering and Design, DrChecks, May 10, 2001.

• Office of Management and Budget’s guidelines, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, issued December 16, 2004 memorandum M-05-03.

The EC and ER documents are available at:

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerCirculars/EC_1165-2-217.pdf?ver=2018-05-01-105219-217 and http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerRegulations.aspx respectively.

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]

Total

[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, 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. 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:

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 is intended to provide final documentation of the peer review process.

The report will also 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.

h.

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

Teleconference ( if necessary)

USACE Provide comments on Draft Work Plan

USACE Provides comments on COI

USACE provides comments on selected Panel members

Complete subcontracts for Panel members

Kickoff meeting with USACE and IEPR Panel

IEPR mid-point teleconference

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

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 image1.png image2.jpeg