LMDA_RFP_W912P618R0002_RTA.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W912P618R0002 12-Mar-2018

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER 8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

04:00 PM 13 Apr 2018

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912P69. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

W81G6673120068

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED ORX

SMALL BUSINESS

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

231 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1500

CHICAGO IL 60604-1437

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

X SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FAX:

TEL: 312.846.5371 SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$15,000,000

NAICS:

541690

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f. TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINAL PARTIAL COMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT 41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

W912P618R0002

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

PROCUREMENT INFORMATION

This acquisition is being solicited pursuant to the provisions set forth by Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, “Commercial Items.”

PROJECT TITLE: EIGHTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REVIEW OF DIVERSION FLOW

MEASUREMENTS AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES.

MULTIPLE AWARDS MAY RESULT FROM THIS

PROCUREMENT

A. INTRODUCTION OF REQUIREMENT: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District Office, located at 231 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is seeking a technical and price proposal from qualified firms to perform the work described herein.

---Acquisition Description: By this procurement, the government seeks to acquire a 3-member technical committee to perform professional technical services in support of the “Eighth Technical Review of the Lake Michigan Diversion Accounting System.” It is necessary to procure these services using one solicitation with the potential of making multiple awards as technical expertise is required , which may or may not be available from the same organization/business firm; additionally, the work is required to be performed concurrently by the 3 member committee. This method of procurement has been utilized for several years and has proven to be the best and seamless method for obtaining the services. The Statement of Work (SOW) encompasses three distinct positions wherein each individual will be responsible for carrying out technical services using their expertise in the fields of specialties described therein the SOW. Positions occupied will comprise of one Flow Measurement Expert;

one Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Expert, and one Chairperson to preside over the committee. The committee will be required to review data provided by the Chicago District, which include reviews of the previous committee's reports and a comprehensive review of the current diversion accounting procedures. Additionally, the committee will be required to evaluate the data, and make recommendations on the procedures used in measuring and accounting for the diversion of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago by the State of Illinois. A report evaluating the accounting and operational procedures will be accomplished via the culmination of the 8th Technical Committee’s Review. The period of performance is 12 months.

B. COMPETITION: Competition for this acquisition is UNRESTRICTED to Business Size. The applicable Size Standard is North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541690, with a Small Business size standard in dollars of $15.0 million.

C. SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS: Contractors shall refer to Sections L and M of this document, wherein contains proposal instructions and award criteria, respectively.

D. MULTIPLE AWARDS: The work cannot be segregated; therefore, the technical team must be established at one time to meet the requirements of the Statement of Work. In instances where one firm cannot propose on all 3 contract line items (all technical positions); the firm will have the option to only propose for the positions that it can supply. In the case wherein one contractor is able to price all three line items, but its pricing is not the lowest on every line item, it may be in the position to receive an award(s) based upon the line item(s) that are the lowest of all proposals received; hence, the basis for multiple awards. Accordingly, the basis for award, evaluation criteria, and submittal requirements align with and are conducive to the contracting method selected for this particular acquisition. More importantly to note, this type of procurement method is permissible per FAR Clause 52.215-1, which is included at Section I of the RFP document, wherein stated in pertinent part:

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2017)

(f) Contract award.

(5) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal.

(6) The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government's best interest to do so.

IMPORTANT NOTE: In the instance whereby one firm has proposed on all three line items (all technical positions) and has provided the lowest price for each and every line item, it will win one contract award;

multiple awards will not apply under this scenario.

E. BASIS FOR AWARD: The manners of how the award(s) will be executed is described at Section M of this Solicitation and are as follows (Important Note: Contractor’s shall strictly follow the submittal format delineated at Section L, which correlate with the manners for the basis for award):

(1) The intent is to evaluate proposals and award one, two, or three contract(s) without discussions (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

(2) The responsive, responsible Contractor submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal for Line Item 0001 will win the award for Line Item 0001. However, the winning contractor cannot provide the same person to execute on more than one Line Item. The three positions advertised under this solicitation must be occupied by three separate individuals. Any contractor providing the same individual to execute on more than one line item, its proposal will be rejected and ineligible for award.

(3) The responsive, responsible Contractor submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal for Line Item 0002 will win the award for Line Item 0002. However, the winning contractor cannot provide the same person to execute on more than one Line Item. The three positions advertised under this solicitation must be occupied by three separate individuals. . Any contractor providing the same individual to execute on more than one line item, its proposal will be rejected and ineligible for award.

(4) The responsive, responsible Contractor submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal for Line Item 0003 will win the award for Line Item 0003. However, the winning contractor cannot provide the same person to execute on more than one Line Item. The three positions advertised under this solicitation must be occupied by three separate individuals. Any contractor providing the same individual to execute on more than one line item, its proposal will be rejected and ineligible for award.

(5) Each position will be evaluated separately. In that regard, multiple awards are anticipated from this solicitation. The three positions advertised under this solicitation must be occupied by three separate individuals. Therefore, only one separate individual may submit for one position. Individuals may not be submitted for more than one position. A technically acceptable offer is one in which the offeror satisfies all evaluation factors and complies with the instructions contained in the Solicitation document, does not take exception, nor object, to any of the term therein. To reiterate, in order for a proposal to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non‐price factor/subfactor.

F. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT: Your firm must be registered in the System for Award Management to be awarded the resultant contract. Firms furnishing proposals as “Joint Venture” must be registered in the System for Award Management in same manner. Registration can be completed at the System of Award Management, https://www.sam.gov.

G. APPLICABLE LABOR ACT: The Service Contract Act applies to this Acquisition. The applicable wage rates are: Wage Determination Number: 15-4935 01/10/2018 Illinois County of Lake, 15-5017 01/10/2018 Illinois Counties of Cook, Du Page, McHenry, and 15-4783 01/10/2018 Indiana Counties of Jasper, Lake, Newton, Porter.

H. INQUIRIES: Any inquiries may be provided to Ericka Hillard at ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil.

I. CONTRACTING POINT OF CONTACT:

Ericka Hillard, Contract Specialist U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 231 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 846-5378 Email: ericka.d.hillard@usace.army.mil

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

LMDA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON

FFP

The Technical Committee Chairperson will be responsible for executing the duties delineated in the Scope of Work, contained in Section C of this document.

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: W81G6673120068

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

LMDA FLOW MEASUREMENT EXPERT

FFP

The Flow Measurement Expert will be responsible for executing the duties delineated in the Scope of Work, contained in Section C of this document.

0003 1 Job

LMDA HYDRAULIC MODELING EXPERT

FFP

The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Expert will be responsible for executing the duties delineated in the Scope of Work, contained in Section C of this document.

Section C - Descriptions and Specifications

STATEMENT OF WORK

STATEMENT OF WORK

EIGHTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REVIEW OF

DIVERSION FLOW MEASUREMENTS

AND

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES

1. Background: Lake Michigan Diversion

The diversion of water from the Lake Michigan watershed (see figure on next page) is of a major importance to the Great Lake states and to the Canadian province of Ontario. The states and province that border the lakes have concerns with both diversions during periods of low lake levels as well as the long-term impacts of diversion. To insure that the concerns of these inter-ested parties are considered the Chicago District has been given the responsibility for the accounting of flow that is diverted from the Lake Michigan watershed.

Water has been diverted from Lake Michigan at Chicago into the Mississippi River Basin since the completion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal in 1848. At that time, diversion averaged about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The canal provided a connecting watercourse between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system.

With the development of the Chicago metropolitan area, drainage and drainage improvements led to severe sanitation problems in the mid to late 1800's. The newly constructed sewers moved water and wastes into the Chicago River, which until 1900 principally drained to Lake Michigan. The water quality of Lake Michigan deteriorated and as such contaminated the city's primary water supply.

A second problem that occurred during this time period was an increase in the overbank flooding within the city. As more roads were built and buildings constructed the sewer system was correspondingly expanded. This increased the rate and volume of runoff and resulted in increased flooding.

As a solution to the sanitation and flooding problems construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Chicago River Controlling Works (CRCW) was undertaken.

This construction allowed the flow direction of the Chicago River to be reversed. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) completed construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in 1900. The CRCW was constructed at the mouth of the Chicago River. The CRCW is composed of a lock and dam with sluice gates that regulates the amount of Lake Michigan water allowed to pass into the river and restricts river flooding from entering Lake Michigan.

Between 1907 and 1910 the MWRDGC constructed a second sanitary canal called the North Shore Channel. It extended from Lake Michigan at Wilmette in a southerly direction 6.14 miles to the North Branch of the Chicago River. The Wilmette Controlling Works regulate the amount of Lake Michigan flow allowed down the channel. There is no lock at the Wilmette Controlling Works.

Construction of a third canal, the Calumet Sag Channel, was completed in 1922. The canal connects Lake Michigan through the Calumet River and Grand Calumet River, to the Sanitary and Ship Canal. This canal was constructed to carry sewage from South Chicago, Illinois and East Chicago, Indiana. The O'Brien Lock and Dam located on the Calumet River regulates the flow of Lake Michigan waters down the canal.

In 1908 and again in 1913, the United States brought actions to enjoin MWRDGC from diverting more than the 4,167 cfs previously authorized in 1901. The two actions were consolidated and the Supreme Court entered a decree on 5 January 1925 allowing the Secretary of War to issue diversion permits. In March 1925, a permit was issued to divert 8,500 cfs, which was about the average then being used.

In 1922, 1925, and 1926, several Great Lakes States filed similar original actions in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to restrict diversion at Chicago. A Special Master, appointed by the Court to hear the combined three suits, found the 1925 permit to be valid and recommended dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court, however, reversed his finding. Subsequently, the Court instructed the Special Master to determine the steps necessary for Illinois and MWRDGC to reduce diversion. Consequently a 1930 decree reduced the allowable diversion (in addition to domestic pumpage) in three steps: 6,500 cfs after 1 July 1930; 5,000 cfs after 30 December 1935;

and 1,500 cfs after 31 December 1938.

In 1967, the Supreme Court issued another decree limiting the diversion, including domestic pumpage, of Lake Michigan water into the Illinois Waterway by the State of Illinois and its municipalities, to an average of 3,200 cfs over a five-year period effective 1 March 1970.

The 1967 Supreme Court decree gave full responsibility to the State of Illinois for diversion measurements and computations. The role of the Corps of Engineers, as specified in the decree, was to be one of "general supervision and direction."

In 1980, the 1967 decree was modified when the Court increased the period for determining compliance with the 3,200 cfs limit from a five-year running average to a forty-year running average. Additionally, the beginning of the diversion accounting year was changed from 1 March to 1 October. A limit was placed on the average diversion in any accounting year (3,680 cfs) except for an average diversion of 3,840 cfs to be allowed in any two accounting years within a forty-year period. A limit was placed on the cumulative algebraic sum of the average annual diversion credits and deficits (amount above or below 3200 cfs for a given year) during the first 39 years. This limit is 2,000 cfs-years. These changes reduce the State of Illinois' dependency on the vagaries of nature when establishing domestic pumpage rates.

The 1 December 1980 modification also directed the Chief of Engineers to appoint a three-member committee to evaluate the method used for measuring and computing the amount of diverted flow. In accordance with the decree all measurements and computations used in determining the diversion shall be made using the best current engineering practice and scientific knowledge. The Corps was directed to reconvene such a committee at least once every five years to report on the method of accounting and operation of the accounting procedures. The modified decree stated that: "The members shall be selected on the basis of recognized experience and technical expertise in flow measurements or hydrology. None of the committee members shall be employees of the Corps of Engineers or employees or paid consultants of any of the parties to these proceedings other than the United States." The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh technical committees were convened in September 1998, January 2003, January 2008, and May 2013, respectively. Although not explicitly stated in the decree, it is the intent of the parties that the Corps bears all costs associated with this three-member committee.

Finally, the modified decree directed the Corps to prepare an annual report summarizing activities relating to the diversion program and certifying diversion flows.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 gave the Corps of Engineers the responsibility for performing diversion accounting. The Chicago District new mission became effective on 1 October 1987. During its execution of the mission the Corps of Engineers has completed a number of major actions, including:

a. Adopting a computerized diversion accounting model used by the State of Illinois. The Corps of Engineers updated the model to more fully work in a PC environment, and also to correct errors (noted by the second technical committee) in the input parameters.

b. The Corps of Engineers also had the United States Geological Survey (USGS) install a new Acoustic Velocity Meter (AVM) at Lemont, upstream of Lockport, Illinois (the measurement point for diversion accounting). The Corps of Engineers also provided additional back-up measures for this instrument.

c. The Corps of Engineers had the State of Illinois Water Survey (ISWS) install a new network of rain gages for the watersheds involved in the accounting of the Lake Michigan diversion. The Corps of Engineers had the ISWS install digital data loggers and cellular data modem at each of the 25 rain gage sites to enhance the reliability of network operation.

d. The Corps of Engineers had the USGS install a streamgage on the Grand Calumet

River near the IL/IN state boundary, and later relocated to the downstream end of Hohman Avenue culverts to get better discharge rating.

e. The Corps of Engineers had the MWRDGC install a flow meter in an interceptor at the

Upper Des Plaines Pumping Station that collects data useful to validate simulated runoff of the Upper Des Plaines River watershed.

f. The Corps of Engineers completed the diversion accounting reports and certified the diversion flows for WY 1986 through WY 2013.

g. The Corps of Engineers had the USGS and the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign develop a 3-D hydraulic model for the canal near Lemont gaging station to explore possible flow distributions that may affect the index velocity rating at Lemont.

h. The Corps of Engineers had the USGS compare the index velocity measurements made with a horizontal acoustic doppler velocity meter (H-ADVM) versus a 3-path AVM on the CSSC near Lemont.

i. The Corps of Engineers developed hydrologic and hydraulic models for the lower Des

Plaines River for evaluating the bypass surface runoff from the Des Plaines River to the CSSC during extremely large rain events.

2. Measurement Points and Components

The measurement point and diversion components are discussed in the following:

2.1. Lockport Diversion Accounting

The measurement location, as specified in the Supreme Court decree of 1967 as modified in 1980, is at Lockport, Illinois. Flow at this point contains both diversion and non-diversion flows. The Corps of Engineers's primary goal is to determine the various components of this flow in order to obtain the total diversion flow. An AVM has been installed at Lemont for direct measurement of Lockport flows. The area of the Lake Michigan diverted watershed is 673 square miles.

The primary components of the Lake Michigan diversion are as follows:

a. Water supply pumped directly from Lake Michigan and discharged into the river and canal system in the greater Chicago area as treated sewage.

b. Storm runoff discharged from the diverted watershed area of Lake Michigan, draining to the river and canal system in the greater Chicago area.

c. Water entering directly from Lake Michigan into the river and canal system in the Greater Chicago area.

Water supply that is pumped from the lake enters intake cribs off the Chicago Shoreline.

Water from these cribs is pumped through tunnels to provide water to Chicago and many suburbs.

Most of this water enters sewer systems and eventually travels to one of three water reclamation plants in the Chicagoland area. These are Northside Water Reclamation Plant, Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, and Calumet Water Reclamation Plant. A small portion of the water supply effluent discharges to various wastewater treatment plants in the Chicago suburban area.

The runoff from the original Lake Michigan basin enters the combined sewer systems and watercourses. The combined sewers mix sanitary flows with runoff. This water normally goes to the treatment plants or, during major flood events, is overflowed into the watercourses. In some areas runoff is discharged directly to the watercourses via overland flow or storm sewers.

Direct diversion locations are at Chicago River Controlling Works (CRCW), O'Brien Lock and Dam, and Wilmette Pumping Station. The flows at CRCW and O'Brien include the following categories: (a) lockages, (b) leakages, (c) discretionary flows, and (d) navigation makeup. The breakdown is the same at Wilmette, with the exception that there is no lockages or navigation makeup.

The non-diversion flows that discharge past Lemont are termed deductibles and are subtracted from the total Lockport flows to obtain diversion flows. Deductible flows consist of the following categories:

a. Groundwater pumpage from the Lake Michigan watershed. The magnitude of this deduction is obtained directly from pumping records.

b. Groundwater pumpage from the Des Plaines Watershed. The magnitude of this deduction is also obtained directly from pumping records.

c. Water supply pumpage from Indiana that enters the canal system. The magnitude of this deduction is computed from streamgage records and a calculation that determines the portion of the water supply draining west to the Calumet-Sag Channel.

d. Runoff from the Des Plaines Watershed (the Upper Des Plaines area, Summit Conduit drainage area and the Lower Des Plaines area) that is discharged to the canal system either directly or via combined and sanitary sewers.

e. Water supply pumpage by federal facilities whose effluent is discharged to the canal.

Stormwater runoff and infiltration from an area of 217 square miles of the original Des Plaines River Watershed is discharged into the Sanitary and Ship Canal. Because these flows are either not gaged or not gaged effectively they are computed through a simulation model (see below). The runoff and infiltration components are as follows:

a. Infiltration - flow from a 140 square mile area of the Upper Des Plaines Watershed north of the canal that reaches the canal system by infiltration and inflow to the sewer system.

b. Summit Conduit - surface runoff from a 5.4 square mile area in the Des Plaines River

Watershed that passes through the Summit Conduit beneath the Des Plaines River directly into the Sanitary and Ship Canal.

c. Des Plaines River Watershed south of the Main Channel - runoff from a 67.0 square mile area of the Des Plaines River Watershed that is south of the Sanitary and Ship Canal and is cutoff from the Des Plaines River by the canal.

d. Sewer System 13A - intercepts and provides storage for a 4 square mile area of the Des

Plaines watershed north of the canal.

The State of Illinois developed a computerized diversion accounting system. The system has been used for the 1983, 1984 and 1985 diversion accounting year analyses. The new accounting system uses state-of-the-art technology along with computerized hydrologic simulation techniques for those components of diversion that cannot be directly measured. The modeling techniques and parameters used are continually updated and revised to reflect any modifications in the diversion accounting system. The State's agent in the development of the system was the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), previously known as the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). The system accounts for diversion flows by utilizing a series of water budgets to account for the different categories of flow. The actual accounting process is done on an annual basis.

Additional flow that is added back into the total diverted amount consist of the pumpages, and sewer overflows. These flows are measured, with the exception of the overflows that are simulated using the computer model. Specifically these flows consist of:

a. Lake Michigan domestic pumpage that enters the Des Plaines River (sewage effluent by-passing Lemont), and

b. combined sewer overflows in the areas serviced by the plants that discharge to the canal.

Diversion flow comprises the major portion of the flow at Lemont. Normally, diversion flow makes up 88-92% of the flow at Lemont, with the percentage slightly higher during the summer months (greater seasonal demand). It is also estimated that 10% of water supply is lost to consumptive use (not returned to canal as sewage effluent).

The measuring point at Lockport has long been of concern in the computation of Lake Michigan Diversion. Originally, flow at Lockport was determined from rating curves for various components of the Lockport Powerhouse and Controlling Works. However, because of errors in the rating curves an Acoustical Velocity Meter (AVM) was used to replace the Lockport rating curves as a primary means of measuring flow in the Sanitary and Ship Canal. The installation of the first AVM was completed in March 1984. The meter was located on the Sanitary and Ship Canal upstream from Lockport at the Romeoville Road Bridge. Due to problems in the operation and maintenance of the first AVM, the Chicago District, in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), contracted with Accusonic Division, Ferranti O.R.E., Inc. for installation of a new AVM for measurement of flow at Lockport. The new AVM system was installed in November/December 1989, at the site of the original AVM. The AVM gage at Romeoville was relocated to Lemont due to a concern of operational interference from the electric fish barrier installed on the canal immediately upstream from the Romeoville Road bridge. To reduce the probability of data loss due to equipment failure, a co-located H-ADVM was installed to collect concurrent data. The data from the Lemont gaging station have been used for diversion accounting since WY 2006.

Finally, The Corps of Engineers has prepared a comprehensive manual on the procedures for performing diversion accounting.

3. General Services

The services to be rendered by the committee members under this contract shall include reviews of the previous committee's reports and a comprehensive review of the current diversion accounting procedures. More specifically, the work shall include, but not be limited to, the review of the automated accounting system as well as the review of current diversion related measurement techniques at the AVM site, the Lockport control structures, the precipitation gages and other pertinent locations. The determinations of the adequacy of the accounting procedures should be made in accordance with the stipulations of the 1967 Supreme Court decree with the 1980 modifications. The work will include: (1) analysis of current diversion-related measurement techniques and accounting procedures, (2) evaluation of these techniques and procedures as to whether they are using the best current engineering practice and scientific knowledge, (3) recommendation of appropriate revisions within the legal constraints of the decree, and (4) preparation of draft and final reports. The Government will schedule and monitor appropriate activities to provide the committee members with available information.

4. Committee Structures

The committee shall consist of three members. All committee members will be responsible for analyzing and evaluating the pertinent information. One member shall be designated as the chair and will have responsibility to provide administrative leadership and coordination regarding the activities of all three members. A second member will have the technical responsibility for reviewing the hydrologic, hydraulic and computer modeling of the diverted watershed. And the third member will have the technical responsibility for reviewing the flow measurements, including the statistical analyses. Each member will exercise independent judgment and any differences in opinion between the members of the committee shall be documented in the final report.

a. The duties of all three committee members include:

(1) Providing their findings to the chair for consolidation into a draft report.

(2) Responding to The Corps of Engineers' comments associated with the draft report in preparing the final report.

(3) Presenting the committee's Final Report.

(4) Responding to the comments on the report obtained from all parties of the litigation as well as from the Corps of Engineers, the United States Geological Survey and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

(5) Presenting the committee's response to the comments.

b. In addition to the above duties, the chairperson will:

(1) Act as administrative liaison between the committee members.

(2) Coordinate the activities associated with the preparation of each draft report and the final report of the committee members.

(3) Consolidate the draft reports of the committee members into the committee draft report.

(4) Incorporate the appropriate District comments on the Draft Report in preparing the committee final report.

c. In addition to the duties listed in (a) above, the modeling expert will:

(1) Review in detail the technical basis and application of the computerized diversion accounting models.

(2) Review the input data used, and the results from the model in determining the flows for each diversion category.

(3) Make recommendations on upgrading the model, or altering the application of the model to correspond to physical changes to the diverted watershed.

(4) Prepare the modeling portions of the committee report.

d. In addition to the duties listed in (a) above, the flow measurement expert will:

(1) Review the measurement of flow at each site that is relevant to diversion accounting.

(2) Review the statistical analyses of the flow data.

(3) Make recommendations on upgrading the flow measurement techniques or statistical analyses.

(4) Prepare the flow measurement portions of the committee report.

5. Information and Services to be Furnished by the Government

The Contracting Officer or his/her representative will be responsible for providing available information and material to the committee members. The Government will furnish the members with a briefing packet. The briefing packet will include pertinent materials relating to work responsibilities of the committee. It will contain a summary of information relating to the computation of Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago in addition to relevant drawings and reports.

Attachment 1 to include Volume 1 thru 5. The Government, in addition, will arrange several workshops to provide the opportunity for an exchange of information between the committee members and the Government. Additionally, the workshops will insure that progress on the scheduled activities is being maintained.

The Government will conduct all field trip arrangements and provide for local transportation needs. The Government will provide technical assistance to the committee.

Technical assistance shall include assistance in locating available reports, publications and photographs relating to Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago. In addition, the Contracting Officer or his/her representative will assist by providing appropriate explanations on various topics pertaining to Lake Michigan Diversion. These explanations will insure that the committee members have an accurate perspective for their analysis of diversion components. All possible avenues of communication will be made available to the committee members for the procurement of information related to their study. The Corps of Engineers will fully support the committee members by both answering questions and by providing any additional materials the committee may require.

All contractor and all associated sub-contractors employees shall comply with applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative). The contractor shall also provide all information required for background checks to meet installation/facility access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements (FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel) as directed by DOD, HQDA and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any installation or facility change, the Government may require changes in contractor security matters or processes.

6. Specific Duties of the Committee

The following is a general description of the activities to be participated in and the duties to be performed by the technical committee members:

a. Engineering Data Review:

Prior to the field inspections, the committee members shall, with Government personnel, review available engineering data relating to the computation of Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago. This review will include perusal of pertinent reports, drawings and specifications which are involved in the regulation and accounting of the diversion.

b. Field Inspections:

The committee members shall perform field inspections for information purposes.

Government personnel may accompany them to provide direction and guidance. The field inspections shall include the AVM site, Lockport Powerhouse, and Lockport Controlling Works. Visits may also be made to MWRDGC works (water reclamation plants, pump stations, and deep tunnel facilities), ISWS precipitation gage sites, and other pertinent surface and groundwater flow source sites. All sites are within the local commuting area.

c. Technical Workshop:

The committee members shall attend the workshops planned during the time that the committee is convened. These workshops will provide opportunities for the exchange of information between the committee and the Government. Portions of each workshop will be open to the parties to the Supreme Court decree. Workshop I will be held during the first week of committee work. The agenda for the workshop will be determined by the Government and will be on a relatively fixed schedule. The purpose of this initial work-shop will be to acquaint the committee members with the area in which they will be working. This will be accomplished through field trips to areas and entities associated with the measuring of diversion. The Government will take full responsibility for coordination of these trips. Workshops II and III will each be of a three-day duration. The agendas for these workshops will be fixed and determined by mutual agreement of the committee with approval from the Government. In addition, the committee members will be required to attend a two-day meeting to present the final report.

d. Engineering Analysis:

The committee members shall review information provided by the Government and obtained through other sources. The current method of computing diversion will be examined. The evaluation of the existing procedure may include the loading and running of the models and associated programs (all models and data will be provided by the Government in micro-computer format). Pertinent factors that have an effect on diversion computations shall be evaluated. Alternative methods of computing diversion using state-of-the-art hydrologic and hydraulic methods will be considered as well as improvements to the existing procedures. Evaluations will also be made of the measurement techniques used in obtaining all pertinent diversion accounting data. Based on this information, the committee will include in the final report a summary of the existing and proposed accounting procedures for Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago. The committee shall estimate to what degree the accuracy of the diversion computation will be improved under the recommended method and the approximate costs of implementing the recommended plan. Under the decree, the Government shall then determine the best current engineering practice and scientific knowledge for computing diversion, based upon the recommendation of the committee members.

e. Preparation of Report:

The committee's draft and final reports will be submitted to The Corps of Engineers on 8 1/2" x 11" paper and electronically as a PDF. The committee should submit twenty-five copies of the final report; the draft report will only be submitted electronically. The committee shall be responsible for furnishing a complete report. The Government will provide pertinent photographs and the correct format for plates and covers. All Government furnished materials and originals shall be returned.

7. Period of Performance

The length of the contract shall be 12 months. The tasks associated with this Statement of Work and corresponding schedules are listed in Attachment 2.

8. Veterans Employment Emphasis for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contracts

In addition to complying with the requirements outlined in FAR Part 22.13, FAR Provision 52.222-38, FAR Clause 52.222-35, FAR Clause 52.222-37, DFARS 222.13 and Department of Labor regulations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) contractors and subcontractors at all tiers are encouraged to promote the training and employment of U.S.

veterans while performing under a USACE contract. While no set-aside, evaluation preference, or incentive applies to the solicitation or performance under the resultant contract, USACE contractors are encouraged to seek out highly qualified veterans to perform services under this contract. The following resources are available to assist USACE contractors in their outreach efforts:

U.S. Department of Labor Veterans employment: www.vets.gov/ Federal veteran employment information: www.fedshirevets.gov/index.aspx Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS): http://www.dol.gov/vets/ Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Program:

http://benefits.va.gov/vow/ U.S. Army Warrior Transition Command Employment Index:

wtc.army.mil/modules/employers/index.html Hiring Our Heroes initiative: www.uschamberfoundation.org/hiring-our-heroes Guide to Hiring Veterans:

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/white_house_business_counc il_- _guide_to_hiring_veterans_0.pdf

EIGHTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF

DIVERSION FLOW MEASUREMENTS AND

VOLUME 1

General Background Information

Section Number Title

A Water Resources Development Act of 1986

B General Information on Lake Michigan Diversion dated 1 March 1981

C Report of Albert B. Maris, Special Master dated 11 August 1980

D "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER Term, 1966.

WISCONSIN ET AL. v. ILLINOIS ET AL.; MICHIGAN v. ILLINOIS ET AL.; AND ILLINOIS v. MICHIGAN ET AL. ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DECREE.

Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 Originals. JUNE 13 1967"

Attachment 1

VOLUME 2

Reports of Previous Technical Committees

Section Number Title

A Final Report and Recommendations of First Committee

B Addendum to Final Report of First Committee

C Final Report and Recommendations of Second Committee

D Final Report and Recommendations of Third Committee

E Final Report and Recommendations of Fourth Committee

F Final Report and Recommendations of Fifth Committee

G Final Report and Recommendations of Sixth Committee

H Final Report and Recommendations of Seventh Committee

VOLUME 3

State of Illinois Water Allocation Program

Section Number Title

A Revised Water Allocation Announcement (dated June 23, 1998??)

B Illinois Compliance Plan

VOLUME 4

Measurement Locations for Diversion Accounting

Section Number Title

A Acoustic Velocity Meter at Lemont

B Upper Des Plaines Pumping Station

C Little Calumet River at South Holland

D Little Calumet River at Munster

E Grand Calumet River at Hohman Avenue in Hammond

F North Branch Chicago River at Niles

G Precipitation Gages

VOLUME 5

Accounting Procedure Manuals

Section Number Title

A Lake Michigan Diversion Accounting Users Manual of Procedures

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Task Completion Time After No. Contract Award in Weeks

1. Workshop No. 1 (3 work days) 4*

2. Workshop No. 2 (3 work days) 8

3. Workshop No. 3 (3 work days) 12

4. Committee members submit their findings to chairperson for consolidation into Draft Report. 20

5. Committee members review Draft Report 22

6. Chairperson submits Draft Report to the Corps of Engineers and committee members for review. 24

7. Received comments on Draft Report from the Corps of Engineers 27

8. Meeting No. 1. (2 work days) Committee presents Final Report to District and other parties with appropriate presentation by committee members. 29

9. Chairperson submits to the Corps of Engineers committee responses for comments from all parties 32

10. Chairperson submits the Final Finding Report 35

*The 4-week lead time is needed for sending invitation letters to all parties of interest.

Attachment 2

Section F - Deliveries or Performance

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.211-8 TIME OF DELIVERY (JUN 1997)

(a) The Government requires delivery to be made according to the following schedule:

REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

The performance schedule for the tasks required for this project is located at Section C of this Solicitation document.

The completion time is 35 weeks from the date of contract award.

The Government will evaluate equally, as regards time of delivery, offers that propose delivery of each quantity within the applicable delivery period specified above. Offers that propose delivery that will not clearly fall within the applicable required delivery period specified above, will be considered nonresponsive and rejected. The Government reserves the right to award under either the required delivery schedule or the proposed delivery schedule, when an offeror offers an earlier delivery schedule than required above. If the offeror proposes no other delivery schedule, the required delivery schedule above will apply.

OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Within Days

After Date

Item No. Quantity of Contract

(b) Attention is directed to the Contract Award provision of the solicitation that provides that a written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror, results in a binding contract. The Government will mail or otherwise furnish to the offeror an award or notice of award not later than the day award is dated. Therefore, the offeror should compute the time available for performance beginning with the actual date of award, rather than the date the written notice of award is received from the Contracting Officer through the ordinary mails. However, the Government will evaluate an offer that proposes delivery based on the Contractor's date of receipt of the contract or notice of award by adding (1) five calendar days for delivery of the award through the ordinary mails, or (2) one working day if the solicitation states that the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically. (The term "working day" excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If, as so computed, the offered delivery date is later than the required delivery date, the offer will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.

(End of clause)

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER (AUG 1989)

(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by written order to the Contractor, require the Contractor to stop all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days after the order is delivered to the Contractor, and for any further period to which the parties may agree. The order shall be specifically identified as a stop-work order issued under this clause. Upon receipt of the order, the Contractor shall immediately comply with its terms and take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage. Within a period of 90 days after a stop-work is delivered to the Contractor, or within any extension of that period to which the parties shall have agreed, the Contracting Officer shall either--

(1) Cancel the stop-work order; or

(2) Terminate the work covered by the order as provided in the Default, or the Termination for Convenience of the Government, clause of this contract.

(b) If a stop-work order issued under this clause is canceled or the period of the order or any extension thereof expires, the Contractor shall resume work. The Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the delivery schedule or contract price, or both, and the contract shall be modified, in writing, accordingly, if--

(1) The stop-work order results in an increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor's cost properly allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract; and

(2) The Contractor asserts its right to the adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of work stoppage;

provided, that, if the Contracting Officer decides the facts justify the action, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon the claim submitted at any time before final payment under this contract.

(c) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the Contracting Officer shall allow reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order in arriving at the termination settlement.

(d) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for default, the Contracting Officer shall allow, by equitable adjustment or otherwise, reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order.

Section I - Contract Clauses

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.223-6 Drug-Free Workplace MAY 2001 52.227-1 Authorization and Consent DEC 2007 52.227-2 Notice And Assistance Regarding Patent And Copyright

Infringement

DEC 2007

52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors

DEC 2013

52.242-13 Bankruptcy JUL 1995 52.253-1 Computer Generated Forms JAN 1991 252.201-7000 Contracting Officer's Representative DEC 1991 252.203-7002 Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights SEP 2013 252.203-7005 Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD

Officials

NOV 2011

252.204-7004 Alt A System for Award Management Alternate A FEB 2014 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber

Incident Reporting

OCT 2016

252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support

MAY 2016

252.209-7004 Subcontracting With Firms That Are Owned or Controlled By The Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism

OCT 2015

252.225-7048 Export-Controlled Items JUN 2013…