SOLICITATION NOTICE
B -- Peer Review
- Notice Date
- 11/19/2010
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- Contracting Office
- Division of Contracting and General Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Ave Portland OR 97232
- ZIP Code
- 97232
- Solicitation Number
- F11PS00145
- Response Due
- 12/4/2010
- Archive Date
- 11/19/2011
- Point of Contact
- Penny Russell Contracting Officer 5032316146 penny_russell@fws.gov;
- E-Mail Address
-
Point of Contact above, or if none listed, contact the IDEAS EC HELP DESK for assistance
(EC_helpdesk@NBC.GOV)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATIONFORPEER REVIEW This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The solicitation number (F11PS00145) is issued as a request for quotation (RFQ). This notice and the incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through the Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-46 October 29, 2010. This is a total small business set-aside under NAICS 813920. The Government intends to make a single award, Firm Fixed Price Purchase Order, under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) using FAR Part 13, to responsible offeror whose offer is the most advantageous to the Government that is the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. A technical evaluation will be completed. If the contractor is not found to be acceptable technically, the offer will not be evaluated any further and will not be considered for award. CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER: 0001ITEMS: Independent Scientific Peer Review of avian collision risk modelQUANTITIES: 1UNIT OF MEASURE: JobOPTIONS AVAILABLE: No UNIT PRICE: ___________________ TOTAL PRICE: __________________ DELIVERY DATE: December 30, 2010PLACE OF DELIVERY: UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE- LACEY, WAPLACE OF ACCEPTANCE: UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE- LACEY, WAFOB POINT: UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE- LACEY, WA Description of Requirements:The contractor will identify and engage five independent, well-qualified, experts to review the Marbled Murrelet Wind Turbine Collision Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area (collision risk model) developed by West Inc. Five people are needed due to the specific and differing disciplines which will be needed to conduct a thorough review. The purpose of this independent scientific peer review is to obtain an unbiased review of the Collision Risk Model and related assumptions. The review shall also determine whether reported avian collision risk model results are indicative of potential take of murrelets that is reasonably certain to occur as a result of construction and operation of the Radar Ridge Wind Energy Project. In addition, the reviewers will review the observation data collected of murrelets at the proposed site (and used in the avian collision risk model) in the document entitled "Use of Radar to Determine Rates and Height Distributions of Marbled Murrelets at the Proposed Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area, Pacific County, Washington". Murrelet radar data has been collected by Hamer Environmental. West Inc. and Hamer Environmental are contractors who gathered the data and constructed the model that is being reviewed. The collision risk model, with its corresponding appendices, equations and code will be provided to the contractor. (see attached Appendix A, Statement of Work) Instructions: Offers are to be emailed due by Saturday, December 4, 2010 4:00 pm Pacific Time. Place the RFQ (F11PS00145) number in the subject line. All questions/inquiries must be submitted to Penny Russell, USFWS Contract Officer by e-mail at penny_russell@fws.gov no later than 12:00 pm Pacific Time on Tuesday, November 30, 2010. 1) Quotes can be completed by submitting this solicitation, submitting quote on company letterhead, or on a company generated RFQ form. 2) Technical proposals shall include curricular vitae/resumes for all proposed reviewers. 3) Include a completed copy of FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items with your proposal or a copy of your online ORCA cover page. 4) Alll quotations shall include the following information: contractor's complete mailing and remittance address, discounts for prompt payment, if any (e.go. 1% 10 days), Duns & Bradstreet number, Taxpayer ID number, and expiration of quote. Quotes must be valid for a period no less than 90 days. Applicable Provisions and Clauses:For exact text and wording of clauses and provisions see http://farsite.hill.af.mil and/or attached applicable FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors - Commercial and FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items apply to this procurement. FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required Implement Statues or Executive Orders - Commercial Items The following provisions and clauses are hereby incorporated by reference: 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (FEB 2009)52.233-3, Protest after Award (AUG 1996)52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004)52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (JUL 2010)52.219-6, Notice of Total SB Set-Aside (JUN 2003)52.219-28, Post Award SB Program Representation (APR 2009)52.222-3, Convict Labor (JUN 2003)52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (FEB 1999)52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (MAR 2007)52.222-36, Affirmative Action (JUN 1998)52.223-15, Energy Efficiency (DEC 2007)52.223-16, IEEE 1680 Standard for... Personal Computer Products (DEC 2007)52.225-1, Buy American Act - Supplies (FEB 2009)52.232-29, Terms for Financing Commercial Items (FEB 2002)52.232-33, Payment by EFT - CCR (OCT 2003) 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party (FEB 2010)52.239-1, Privacy or Security Safeguards (AUG 1996)52.222-41, Service Contract Act (NOV 2007)52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 1989) APPENDIX AF11PS00145Statement of Work Peer Review of the Simulation Model Entitled: Marbled Murrelet - Wind Turbine Collision Risk Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area, March 16, 2010 Energy Northwest (EN) is applying to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for an incidental take permit for a wind energy project to take marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (murrelets), a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As part of the Radar Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan, a collision risk model developed by West Inc. is used to predict potential collisions of murrelets with the wind turbines, and ultimately, estimate potential incidental take. Inputs to the avian collision risk model rely on data and reports from marine radar surveys conducted at Radar Ridge by Hamer Environmental. EN, FWS, and the Bonneville Power Administration have agreed through a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct an independent peer review of the collision risk model. The purpose of this independent scientific peer review is to obtain an unbiased review of the Collision Risk Model and related assumptions. It should also help determine whether reported avian collision risk model results are indicative of potential take of murrelets that is reasonably certain to occur as a result of construction and operation of the Radar Ridge Wind Energy Project. Statement of Work The contractor will identify and engage five independent, well-qualified, experts to review the Marbled Murrelet Wind Turbine Collision Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area, 16 March 2010 (collision risk model) developed by West Inc. The peer reviewers will also review the observation data collected of murrelets at the proposed site (and used in the avian collision risk model) in the document entitled Use of Radar to Determine Rates and Height Distributions of Marbled Murrelets at the Proposed Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area, Pacific County, Washington (murrelet radar data) collected by Hamer Environmental. The collision risk model with its corresponding appendices listed below, equations and code will be provided to the reviewers, along with a copy of this Statement of Work (SOW). The contractor will use the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest available at http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html to identify potential conflicts and biases on the part of potential reviewers to ensure an independent and unbiased review. The reviewers shall not be members of the FWS, state fish and wildlife agencies, and organizations expressing advocacy positions related to wind energy projects, murrelets and their management under the Endangered Species Act. Nor shall they have any financial interest in the outcome of their review, including any ongoing or pending contracts with EN (West Inc., Hamer Environmental and ABR), any of the public utilities involved, or expected major consumers of the electrical output of the project. Reviewers may contact the FWS representative if necessary, for clarification of, but not limited to, comments, process, assumptions, or calculations relative to the documents associated with this SOW. At the discretion of the FWS representative, he may approve the reviewers contacting the EN contractors for further questions and clarifications. At the discretion of the FWS representative, he may participate in the discussions between the EN contactors and the reviewers. When the contactor has completed the review, it will be provided to the FWS representative. The FWS representative will provide the review to EN, Bonneville Power Administration, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, collectively, the stakeholders. From the date of signing the contract with the FWS, the contractor will have 60 days to provide the review responses to the FWS representative. The reviewers will not be anomymous. The contractor shall determine that the reviewers will have the appropriate technical expertise such as simulation modeling, collision risk modeling, statistics, mathematics, radar physics, murrelet ecology, and other necessary expertise. Reviewers will also attend and present their analyses to an interactive panel consisting of the stakeholders. The following questions and tasks were developed by the FWS, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Appendix 8 of this Statement of Work contains West Inc.'s and Hamer Environmental's responses to these agency questions and explains revisions made to the collision risk model. While appendix 8 and the other appendices are relevant for the review, it is expected that reviewers will independently conduct their own analyses and responses for the following questions and tasks. 1)Run sensitivity analysis to determine the suite of parameters that drive model output and perform an uncertainty analysis consisting of additional model simulations aimed at quantifying prediction intervals given uncertainties in key model inputs and internal parameter values. 2)Is the collision-risk model (including sub-components such as the Tucker Model) the most-appropriate model to assess risk of collision of murrelets with wind turbines? Are there better approaches to evaluate potential collision risks? 3)How can the existing model (in whole or in part) be improved to maximize its utility in predicting collision risk frequency of murrelets with wind turbines at the proposed site? 4)Are the survey data spatially and temporally adequate to represent the full spectrum of murrelet behavior in the project area throughout a calendar year? Are the survey sample sizes adequate? If not, what would you recommend to improve the utility of information available for representing murrelet behavior in the proposed project area? Do the modelers extrapolate the survey data correctly to compensate for under-sampled and non-sampled times and places and weather conditions? What are the statistical biases introduced to the simulation output given these extrapolations? How can these biases be incorporated into the interpretation of the model predictions and to inform decision makers regarding predicted collision frequency? 5)What are the potential consequences on model output of using the existing data?"Relationships between flight height and weather conditions were not established because reliable radar data cannot be collected when rain is falling "Inbound/outbound flights by murrelets "Seasonal occurrence of murrelets "Time of day when murrelets are detected 6)What are the major assumptions of the collision-risk model? What are the consequences on model output of using the existing assumptions? Overall, are the assumptions in the model report reasonable and probable? Specific assumptions in need of further evaluation with regard to effects on model output include the following:"Uniform passage rates throughout project area"Single radar point representing 1.4 birds (Is radar precise enough for this modeling application to determine flight heights and flock size of murrelets?)"Avoidance percentage rates are modeled for stationary objects and active rotors. Are the avoidance probabilities reasonable and based on observation or supposition? How do outputs change with different avoidance assumption percentages? If possible, please express responses to this question in the form of model output prediction intervals, analogous to statistical confidence intervals. 7)Verify computer program performance (i.e., model verification). Check that program outputs are correct given a set of program inputs. 8)How can we use this model to estimate incidental take into the future, given dynamic ecosystem changes that may influence murrelet distribution and abundance and, therefore, passage rates? How would model predictions (i.e., number of collisions) change given uncertainty regarding future murrelet abundance and behavior that influence passage rates at the proposed site? 9)Given the sensitivity analysis results and responses to questions (5) and (6), how can we use this model to aid in the design of a monitoring plan and adaptive management plan? 10)Verify the accuracy of the assumptions and calculations regarding curtailment and the resulting murrelet collision rate. In addition to the 10 specific questions and tasks above, the reviews shall respond to the following questions, explaining in as much detail as possible: "Are the authors' conclusions well supported by the best available scientific data? "Do the conclusions follow logically from the scientific data and analyses? ?"Did the authors appropriately utilize assumptions drawn from the best available scientific data in conducting their analyses and forming their conclusions? "Did the authors fail to consider or discuss any important and applicable scientific information? "Did the authors misinterpret important scientific data or draw errant conclusions from it? "Are the results reached by the avian collision risk model reasonable in view of the best available scientific information? The successful bidder must demonstrate the ability to perform in three areas: 1)Ability to identify and have access to well-qualified reviewers who are willing to perform a high quality, independent and unbiased scientific peer review. 2)Ability to manage a high quality scientific peer review including the necessary contracting mechanisms to provide honoraria or financial compensation to reviewers. 3)Ability to meet the deadline for completion of the scientific peer review and to deliver high quality scientific peer reviews. Deliverables Task 1:Review the collision risk model, its appendices, and the questions identified in this SOW, and determine specific types of expertise needed for the peer review. Timeline:7 days from date of signed contract Task 2:Identify, contact, and engage the 5 reviewers needed. Timeline:10 days from the date of signed contract Task 3:Provide avian collision risk model, its appendices, and questions identified in this SOW to the reviewers selected.Timeline:10 days from the date of the signed contract Task 4:Contractor will attend an introductory kick-off meeting with FWS and stakeholders in Lacey, WA.Timeline:15 days from the date of signed contract Task 5: Reviewers conduct peer review and prepare responses for contractor. Timeline:55 days from the date of the signed contract Task 6:Contractor provides results of the peer review to the COTR. Timeline:60 days from the date of the signed contract Task 7:Reviewers attend interactive panel with stakeholders. Timeline:75 days from the date of the signed contract ?Appendices to Avian Collision Risk Model Provided to Reviewers: Appendix 1. Letter from Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and FWS to Energy Northwest identifying questions concerning avian collision risk model (December 15, 2009). Appendix 2. Summary of bird avoidance studies at wind projects completed by Sharp, L., B. Cooper, W. Erickson and K. Livezey (December 2009). Appendix 3. Review of marbled murrelet studies conducted for the Radar Ridge Wind Energy Project completed by Brian Cooper, ABR Inc. (December 2009). Appendix 4. Report and supporting data used for collision risk model input completed by Hamer Environmental Inc. (December 2009). Appendix 5. Review of collision risk model results and conclusions completed by Dr. Raoul LePage, Michigan State University (December 2009). Appendix 6. Description of the results of Dr. Raoul LePage's review from the December 18, 2009, Technical Advisory Committee meeting (December 2009). Appendix 7. Response to ABR Inc.'s review of modeling assumptions prepared by West Inc. and Hamer Environmental, Inc. (March 2010). Appendix 8. West Inc. and Hamer Environmental responses to December 15, 2009, technical questions concerning collision risk model (March 2010). Appendix 9. Response to Dr. LePage's review by West Inc. and Hamer Environmental, Inc. (March 2010). Appendix 10. Collision Risk Model Appendix 11. Model Code
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/FWS/CGSWO/F11PS00145/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: WWFO - Lacey, WA
- Zip Code: 985031273
- Zip Code: 985031273
- Record
- SN02330497-W 20101121/101119233840-8c2c9e2f85e199258821bce1e713e47b (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |