ML23052A089

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Modification No. 016 to Task Order No. 31310019F0030 Under Contract No. 31310018D0002
ML23052A089
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/21/2023
From: Jennifer Dudek
Acquisition Management Division
To: Maldonado P
Southwest Research Institute
References
31310018D0002
Download: ML23052A089 (1)
v • d • e


Text

31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

SECTION C - Descriptions/Specifications/Statement of Work

TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK

1. PROJECT TITLE

Seismic Induced Liquefaction Model Development

2. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has identified the need to update existing regulatory guidance on the methods used to evaluate seismic soil liquefaction (Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.198, Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites) and associated guidance found in the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800). The work performed under this task order will provide the technical basis for updates to these documents. This work may also inform updates to RG 3.11, Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities, and RG 3.60, Design of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage).

R.G. 1.198 provides guidance to licensees on acceptable methods for evaluating seismic induced liquefaction that demonstrates compliance with 10 CFR Part 100.23 Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria.

Regulatory Guides that interface with RG 1.198 include RG 1.132 Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants, RG 1.138 Laboratory Investigations of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants, and RG 1.208 A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion.

NRC staff have developed a plan to establish the technical basis for updating RG 1.198. This plan includes:

1. Developing a community database of liquefaction case histories;
2. Performing supporting studies to extend the applicability of the case history database; and
3. Developing probabilistic models that can be used for risk informed evaluations of liquefaction triggering.

As part of the NRCs effort to establish the technical basis for updating RG 1.198, the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) has developed a publicly available case history database under task order NRC-HQ-60-16-T-0001, contract NRC-HQ-50-14-E-0001.

This database contains objective information needed to develop predictive, probabilistic models for evaluating liquefaction triggering and associated consequences. The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) also recognizes the need to develop new probabilistic models to evaluate liquefaction hazards and associated risk. The USBR and NRC are working on an inter-agency agreement to facilitate efficient use of government resources in developing predictive models that will be useful to both agencies.

3. SCOPE OF WORK

The task area that applies to this work is Seismic. The objective of this acquisition is to obtain expert technical assistance services to develop the technical basis for updating regulatory guidance on the evaluation of liquefaction hazards. Updating this guidance is required to improve clarity, coherency, and reliability in liquefaction triggering evaluations. Specifically, the contractor shall add case histories to the database developed under task order NRC-HQ-60-16-T-0001, contract NRC-HQ-50-14-E-0001, perform

1 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 studies that provide a basis to extend triggering models over a larger range of conditions than case histories alone allow, develop a probabilistic based liquefaction triggering model.

Because liquefaction models are subject to interpretation of available data, capturing the center, body, and range of new models should be considered in this project. The process of capturing the center, body, and range is described by the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process in NUREG/CR 6372 (Budnitz et al. 1997), NUREG-2117 (NRC 2012), and NUREG-2213 (NRC 2018).

4. SPECIFIC TASKS

Task 1: Kickoff Meeting (Base Year)

Attend a one-time kick-off meeting to discuss the scope of work, expectations, task order management, and performance requirements of the task order. The kick-off meeting shall be held within thirty (30) working days after award of the task order. Tele/video conferencing can be used to complete this task.

Deliverable:

Within three (3) working days after the meeting, the Contractor shall submit a written summary of the meeting that: (1) identifies meeting participants from the Contractor and NRC; (2) conveys minutes of the meeting that clearly describe the substance of the meeting, and (3) list and describe decisions about scheduling and actions.

Task 2: Liquefaction Case History Database (Base Year, Option Year 1, Option Year 2)

Under task order NRC-HQ-60-16-T-0001, contract NRC-HQ-50-14-E-0001, SwRI CNWRA developed a liquefaction case history database titled the Next Generation Liquefaction (NGL) Database. During database development, both legacy and new case histories were added to the database. Legacy case histories are defined as those case histories that were used to develop existing liquefaction triggering models (e.g. Cetin et al. 2004, Moss et al. 2006), and case histories obtained since then are considered new case histories. Under this task, additional case histories will be added to the database and review completed so that the database will be adequate for developing triggering models and updates and maintenance of the database will be performed based on database user input/feedback.

Task 2a: Add Case Histories to the NGL Database (Base Year)

The NGL database team shall add legacy and new case histories to the NGL database to support developing triggering models. A technical letter report shall be developed documenting the case histories that are in the database. The technical letter report shall include a table listing the case histories that are in the database and that have been reviewed for data quality and accuracy. The table shall differentiate case histories added to the database before and after award of this task order. In addition, the technical letter report shall provide a basis for why the database is sufficiently populated for model development.

Task 2b: Address Feedback from Modeling Teams (Option Year 1)

As part of Task 4, modelling teams will begin using the NGL database to develop a triggering model.

The modeling team will provide feedback identifying problems or challenges experienced when using the database, missing data, or case histories that need to be added for model development. The NGL database team will develop and implement a plan for addressing feedback from the modeling team. A technical letter report shall be provided documenting the feedback from the modeling team and how the feedback was addressed.

Task 2c: Maintenance of the NGL Database (Option Year 2)

Acquisition of and documentation of data requires sufficient time and resources following a seismic event. Recent events such as the 2018 Anchorage Alaska earthquake or the 2018 Hokkaido, Japan earthquake may produce data in the coming months that can be added to the NGL database. In

2 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 addition, earthquakes that may occur after this task order initiates may produce valuable data that can be added to the database. This task provides the means of adding additional valuable data that becomes available after the task order is initiated. This new data must be added to the database early enough that the modeling team has sufficient time to include the new data in their model. A technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC listing any new case histories that are added to the NGL database as part of Task 2c.

Deliverables:

  • Within nine (9) months after award of the task order, a technical letter report on the database shall be submitted to the NRC as described in Task 2a.
  • Within twelve (12) months of the option year 1 being exercised, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC as described in Task 2b.
  • Within six (6) months of the option year 2 being exercised, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC as described in Task 2c if new case histories are added to the database.

Task 3: Establish Modeling Teams (Base Year)

A liquefaction triggering model will be developed under this task order. This task consists of developing a team which will evaluate and interpret case history data and develop a semi-empirical triggering model.

Key members of the modeling team must have demonstrated experience in performing geotechnical post-earthquake reconnaissance, prior experience developing triggering or other semi-empirical liquefaction models using case histories, and demonstrated experience with the application of statistics and probability in developing predictive models from data.

Deliverable:

Within six (6) months after award of the task order, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC that identifies the key members of each modeling team. The report shall document the qualifications of the key members and contain a statement of commitment from each key member to participate in model development.

Task 4: Develop Preliminary Model using NGL Database (Option Year 1)

A modeling team will use the NGL database to develop a triggering model. This model shall be a probabilistic model capable of being used in combination with a seismic hazard analysis to obtain the annual frequency of liquefaction triggering. The ground motion parameter used in the model for characterizing earthquake loading (e.g. cyclic stress ratio) must be a parameter that can be obtained from a typical seismic hazard analysis using established models for the western and eastern United States, such as peak ground acceleration or peak ground velocity.

The preliminary model shall be used in a set of analyses to evaluate model sensitivity to a typical range of parameters encountered in liquefaction evaluations for dam and nuclear power plant projects. The sensitivity analyses shall include developing seismic hazard curves (such as pga, deaggregated pga, peak ground velocity, etc) that are needed to perform a liquefaction hazard analysis for low, moderate and high seismicity sites in the eastern and western United States. The newly developed probabilistic model will be used to develop liquefaction triggering hazard curves. The purpose of the analyses with the preliminary model is to identify model parameters that contribute significantly to uncertainties in the liquefaction hazard assessment.

The modeling team will provide feedback to the NGL database development team identifying problems or challenges with using the database, data missing from the database, or the need to add specific case histories that are not already included in the database or have not been reviewed by the NGL database team. Feedback from the modeling team shall be documented in monthly letter status reports.

3 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 A technical letter report documenting development of the preliminary model, development of seismic hazard curves, and results of the sensitivity study shall be submitted to the NRC.

Deliverables:

  • Feedback from modeling team on the NGL database will be documented in monthly letter status reports, as described in Task 4.
  • Within twelve (12) months of the option year being exercised, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC that provides an overview of the preliminary model, documents the development of the seismic hazard curves used for the sensitivity analyses, and documents the sensitivity analyses which have been performed, as described in Task 4.

Task 5: Evaluate the Effects of Confining Stress and Initial Shear Stress on Liquefaction Triggering (Option Year 1 and Option Year 2)

Liquefaction surface manifestations such as a sand boil, surface cracking typical of lateral spreading, or significant soil settlement around a building are generally required before subsurface investigations are performed which qualify a site as a case history in liquefaction databases. As a result, the depth of liquefied soil layers documented in the database is typically limited to the upper 10 to 12 m below the ground surface (see Boulanger et al. 2012).

In engineering practice, liquefaction triggering potential must be evaluated at depths greater than 10 to 12

m. Liquefaction models account for this condition by implementing a correction factor when effective overburden stresses exceed 100 kPa. Boulanger (2003) and Vaid et al. (2001) have studied the impacts of confining stress on liquefaction triggering. Vaid et al. (2001) demonstrated that the correction for confining stress is a function of the soil state (e.g. relative density and effective confining stress). Boulanger (2003a) also recognized the impact of soil state on liquefaction resistance and implemented a relative state parameter correction to account for the impact of increased confining stress in liquefaction evaluations.

Probabilistic models developed by Cetin et al. (2004), Moss et al. (2006), Boulanger and Idriss (2012) are constrained by the case history database and may be biased at high confining stresses as well as have increased uncertainty.

In sloping ground sites, sites with embankments and at level ground sites with structural loads imposed, an initial shear stress on a horizontal plane is typically present. This initial horizontal shear stress can affect the rate of pore pressure dissipation. Studies by Boulanger (2003b) and others have shown that pore pressures can be generated more quickly in very loose soils having an initial horizontal shear stress in comparison to soils with no initial horizontal shear stress present.

A focused study on the effects of confining stress and initial shear stress on liquefaction triggering is needed to assist model developers in the development of triggering models at high confining stresses (stresses up to 10 atm) and with initial shear stresses. This focused study will consist of reviewing and synthesizing previous published research and may include limited physical testing/modeling and numerical modeling.

Prior to performing any laboratory tests, physical modeling, or numerical modeling, a test/analysis plan shall be submitted to the NRC for review. Comments and technical direction on the plan will be provided by the NRC to the contractor within one month after receiving the test/modeling plan.

Deliverables:

  • Within two months of the option being exercised, a test/analysis plan shall be submitted to the NRC for review prior to performing tests and analyses.
  • Within twelve (12) months of the option year being exercised, a draft technical letter report shall be submitted synthesizing available publications and documenting results from any testing or modeling.

4 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

  • Within two (2) months of receiving NRC comments on the draft report and after exercising option year 2, a final draft technical letter report shall be submitted.

Task 6: Preliminary Model Peer Review (Option Year 1)

External peer review shall be performed on the preliminary model to obtain feedback that can assist with final model development. If the NGL project has a concurrent modeling effort in progress, the contractor is encouraged to participate in collaborative meetings through NGL. Obtaining feedback on the preliminary model from the larger technical community through the NGL project is an acceptable method of peer review. Technical information exchange and feedback on the preliminary model through participating in NGL meetings shall be documented in a technical letter report. An alternative to participating in NGL meetings is to obtain peer review from a recognized external liquefaction expert. External peer review comments shall be reported to the NRC through a technical letter report. NRC staff shall be invited to participate in peer review meetings.

Deliverables:

  • Two (2) months before the end of option year 1, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC which summarizes the peer review. The report shall also include a plan for how the contractor plans to address peer review comments in final model development.

Task 7: Develop Final Triggering Model (Option Year 2 and Option Year 3)

The modeling team will refine their preliminary probabilistic model for liquefaction triggering with consideration of peer review comments and results from the focused study described in Task 5. Similar to the preliminary model, the final model must use a loading parameter that is obtained from a typical seismic hazard analysis (such as peak ground acceleration or peak ground velocity). The sensitivity analyses performed under Task 4 shall be performed again using the final model.

In the process of developing the final model, the team should utilize information available in the literature and supplemental analyses to inform and/or constrain their models. Innovation in model development is encouraged.

Task 7a (Option Year 2):

Model development will be initiated early in Option Year 2. A technical letter report shall be developed to document the progress made on model development.

Task 7b (Option Year 3)

Model development will continue after exercising Option Year 3. A final report will document development of the models. The report shall include a description of assumptions made in developing the models, a description of supplemental models that are incorporated into the triggering model, and results from the sensitivity study.

Deliverables:

  • A technical letter report as described under Task 7a shall be provided eleven (11) months after exercising Option Year 2 of the task order.
  • A draft technical letter report that documents development of the final models as described under Task 7b shall be provided within nine (9) months of exercising Option Year 3 of the task order. The NRC shall provide comments on the report within one (1) month following receipt of the report and the contractor shall provide a revised report within two (2) months of receiving comments from the NRC.

Task 8: Peer Review (Option Year 3)

Similar to task 6, the contractor shall obtain external peer review on the final triggering model. The peer review shall be performed at a stage that will allow for addressing peer review comments prior to model 5

31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 finalization. Peer review can include obtaining feedback from participation in the NGL project or through an external liquefaction expert.

Deliverable:

  • Within six (6) months of exercising Option Year 3, a technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC which summarizing the peer review. The report shall also include a plan for how the contractor plans to address peer review comments in final model development.

Task 9: Develop a Triggering Model Using Standard Penetration Test Data The preliminary model developed under Task 4 uses cone penetration test tip resistance as the primary variable to determine the cyclic resistance of soil against liquefaction triggering and manifestation. The cone penetration test is a reliable test; however, standard penetration testing may be the primary in-situ test to characterize the soil cyclic resistance against liquefaction triggering in some geologic conditions. In addition, existing facilities may only have standard penetration test data available for characterizing cyclic resistance against liquefaction. Therefore, the contractor shall develop a liquefaction triggering model that uses the standard penetration test blow count as the primary variable to characterize cyclic resistance against liquefaction triggering and manifestation.

Deliverable:

  • At least three (3) months before the end of the task orders period of performance, a draft technical letter report shall be submitted to the NRC for review. The NRC shall provide comments on the report within one (1) month following receipt of the report, and the contractor shall provide a revised report within two (2) months of receiving comments from the NRC.
5. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS

The following regulations and guidance are applicable to this task order and can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections. If necessary, any references that are not available at this website will be provided to the contractor by the COR.

1. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.198, Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites, issued November 2003.
2. Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.11, Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities, issued November 2013.
3. Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.60, Design of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage),

issued May 2014.

4. NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Revision 5, issued July 2014
5. NUREG-2117, Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies, Revision 1, issued April 2012.
6. NUREG/CR-6372, Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts, issued April 1997.
7. NUREG-2213, Updated Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Hazard Studies, issued October 2018.
8. Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., Kayen, R.E. and Moss, R.E.S.

(2004). Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvirontmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1314-1340.

9. Moss, R.E.S, Seed, R.B., Kayen, R.E., Stewart, J.P., Der Kiureghian, A., Cetin, K.O. (2006). CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No.8, 1032-1051.

6 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

10. Boulanger, R.W. (2003a). High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 10, 1071-1082.

11.Boulanger, R.W. (2003b). Relating K to a relative state parameter index. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 10, 770-773.

12.Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2012). Probabilistic Standard Penetration Test-Based Liquefaction-Triggering Procedure, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 10, 1185-1195.

13.Boulanger, R.W., Wilson, D.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2012). Examination and Reevaluation of SPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Case Histories, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmenal Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 8, 898-909.

14.NUREG-0650, Preparing NUREG-series Publications, Revision 2 15.NUREG-1379, NRC Editorial Style Guide, Revision 2 16.NUREG-0544, NRC Collection of Abbreviations, Revision 4 17.The latest edition of the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008.pdf 18.The NRCs plain language guidelines http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/plain-writing/nrc-philosophy.html 19.Management Directive 3.7, NUREG Series Publications

6. DELIVERABLES AND DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Project deliverables are listed in the table below. All deliverables shall be submitted to the COR.

Deliverable Schedule

Deliverable Description and Acceptance Criteria Quantity/Media Date Completed No. (AC)

1 Kick-off Meeting Summary Electronic copy 3 working days after AC: Meeting Minutes are complete and generated in MS completion of kick-off contain required content Word meeting

2 Liquefaction Case History Database Electronic copy in a 11 months after task Technical Letter Report (Task 2a) pdf format order award AC: Report contains required content

3 Database Feedback Technical Letter Electronic copy in a 6 months after Report (Task 2b) pdf format exercising option year 1 AC: Report contains required content

4 Liquefaction Case History Database Electronic copy in a 6 months after Maintenance Technical Letter Report pdf format exercising option year 2 (Task 2c)

AC: Report contains required content

5 Technical letter report on modeling teams Electronic copy 6 months after task (Task 3). generated in MS order award AC: Report contains the required content Word and follows the required format

6 Technical letter report documenting Electronic copy 12 months after preliminary liquefaction triggering model generated in MS exercising Option Year and sensitivity study (Task 4) Word 1 AC: Report contains the required content and follows the required format

7 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 7 Test/analysis plan on evaluating the effect Electronic copy 2 months after of confining stress on liquefaction generated in MS exercising Option Year triggering (Task 5) Word 1 AC: Plan documents all proposed tests and analyses

8 Draft report on the effect of confining Electronic copy 12 months after stress on liquefaction triggering (Task 5a)generated in MS exercising Option Year AC: Report contains the required content Word 1 and follows the required format

9 Final report on the effect of confining Electronic copy 2 months after receiving stress on liquefaction triggering (Task 5b)generated in MS COR comments on AC: All comments from the COR are Word draft addressed

10 Technical letter report documenting peer Electronic copy 12 months after review of preliminary triggering model generated in MS exercising Option Year AC: Agenda contains required content Word 1

11 Technical Letter Report on Final Model Electronic copy 12 months after Development Progress (Task 7a) generated in MS exercising Option Year AC: Report contains the required content Word 2.

and follows the required format.

12 Draft final report on documenting final Electronic copy 9 months after models and sensitivity study (Task 8b) generated in MS exercising Option Year AC: Report contains the required content Word 3.

and follows the required format.

13 Final report on documenting final models Electronic copy 2 months after receiving and sensitivity study (Task 8b) generated in MS COR comments on AC: All comments from the COR are Word draft addressed.

14 Technical Letter Report documenting peer Electronic copy 2 months after review of final liquefaction triggering generated in MS Workshop model (Task 8) Word AC: Report contains the required content and follows the required format.

15 Monthly Letter Status Report (MLSR) per Electronic copy in 20th day of the following Section F.2 of the Base Contract MS Word month AC: MLSR Is complete and contains all required information

16 Draft Technical Letter Report Electronic copy 3 months before end of documenting development of the generated in MS the project period of triggering model (Task 9) Word performance AC: Report contains the required content and follows the required format.

17 Final technical Letter Report documenting Electronic copy End of project period of development of the triggering model generated in MS performance (Task 9) Word AC: All comments from COR are addressed.

7. REQUIRED LABOR CATEGORIES (Except for Information Technology Services) 8 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 The Contractor shall provide individuals who have the required educational background and work experience to meet the objectives of the work specified in this task order. Specific qualifications for this work include the following:

Project Management: B.S. in science or engineering with at least 6 years of project management experience or M.S. in science or engineering with at least 4 years of project management experience.

Experience with managing SSHAC or similar studies.

Senior Level Engineer/Scientist: Ph.D. in engineering or related discipline with at least 8 years of experience in performing SSHAC studies.

Senior Level Engineer: Ph.D. in civil engineering or related discipline with at least 10 years of geotechnical earthquake engineering experience which includes post-earthquake geotechnical reconnaissance and demonstrated expertise in liquefaction hazard and consequence evaluations.

Demonstration of expertise in these areas shall include a record of peer reviewed publications. This expertise will likely be required from academic/university personnel.

Project Level Engineer: M.S. in civil engineering or related discipline with at least 2 years of geotechnical earthquake engineering experience (post graduate work toward a Ph.D. degree focusing on geotechnical earthquake engineering and other relevant seismic topics is acceptable experience), or a Ph.D. in civil engineering or related discipline with demonstrated experience in interpreting geotechnical field data for engineering analyses and using statistical methods to develop semi-empirical engineering models.

Administrative Support Staff: Experience in providing office support, such as word processing to generate technical reports.

8. GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY

The COR will provide the contractor a template for preparing NUREG/CR required under this task order.

9. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The work to be performed under this task order shall be performed at the Contractors facility except for the travel described in Section 10 of this statement of work.

10.SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

TRAVEL

The contractor shall be authorized travel expenses consistent with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the limitation of funds for this the task order. All travel requires prior written approval from the COR.

The contractor is expected to travel to workshop meetings as part of the project work. In addition travel to other meetings may be required to facilitate project progress. Expected travel is listed as follows:

Base Year:

  • Two 2-day project meetings at a location selected by the contractor (Travel for 3-persons)

Option Year 1:

  • Four 2-day meetings, at location selected by contractor and approved by the COR for SwRI staff to collaborate with external expert on model development. (Travel for 1-person).

9 31310018D0002 31310019F0030 P00016 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

  • Two 2-day project meetings at a location selected by the contractor (Travel for 2-persons)
  • Two 2-day meetings for external peer review (Travel for 2-persons)

Option Year 2:

  • Three 2-day project meetings at a location selected by the contractor and approved by the COR for SwRI staff to collaborate with external expert on model development. (Travel for 1-persons)
  • One 2-day project meetings at a location selected by the contractor (Travel for 2-persons)

Option Year 3:

  • Two 2-day project meetings at a location selected by the contractor and approved by the COR for SwRI staff to collaborate with external expert on model development. (Travel for 1-persons)
  • One 2-day project meeting at a location selected by the contractor (Travel for 2-persons)
  • Two 2-day meetings for external peer review (Travel for 2-persons)

At the discretion of the COR, meetings may be conducted at the contractor site, or via telephone or video conference.

SECURITY

This work will be UNCLASSIFIED. This task order does not involve the contractor to access, possess, store or generate Sensitive Unclassified Information (SUNSI).

KEY PERSONNEL

Refer to Section H.2 2052.215-70 KEY PERSONNEL (JAN 1993)

10

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23052A089&oldid=3711718"