APPENDIX B
Scope for the Peer Review Team, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee

SCOPE FOR THE PEER REVIEW TEAM
FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGIST
ARCHEOLOGY PROGRAM, NPS
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
August 28, 2003

Purpose

The objective of this review is to assess, at the request of Fort Campbell, the overall quality and effectiveness of archaeological surveys performed at Fort Campbell as technical assistance delivered through the National Park Service Southeastern Archaeological Center (SEAC). In order to make this assessment, the review is expected to consider the purposes that the archaeological surveys were intended to serve, and any other aspects of the projects and the circumstances in which they were performed that are found to have a bearing on the strengths and weaknesses of these projects as they were conceived, organized, and actually implemented. Several aspects of these projects are disputed between Fort Campbell and SEAC.

Other contemporaneous contracts for archaeological services at Fort Campbell, including others administered through SEAC and some administered through other agencies, have not produced similar disputes. The review team should consider comparing the other contracts and their results in order to make comments or recommendations of more general interest regarding the strengths and weaknesses that may be inherent in the general method of IDIQ contracting in addition to comments or recommendations specifically applicable to the contract and projects from which the disputes have arisen.

In order to make this assessment, the review is expected to examine the intended purposes of the contracted projects, the implementation, monitoring, final products, and any other aspects of contract performance and oversight that are found to have a bearing on the quality and adequacy of the resulting studies. The team must independently assess whether or not contracted projects met the goals established by the contracts and how the investigations conducted through contracts contributed to the overall cultural resource management program of the fort.

The scope of the review extends to assessment of the general appropriateness and design of the agreements and contracts used by SEAC at Fort Campbell, the effectiveness of the contracting vehicles and organization, and how future contracts and technical assistance relationships can be structured to be most effective and less likely to produce further disputes.

Duties of the Peer Review Team

The Peer Review Team shall review documents and other materials relevant to the administration, method, strategy, techniques and results of projects carried out through the Fort Campbell-SEAC contract and others at Fort Campbell as needed for comparison. The peer review team also may request other documents that it deems pertinent to its review. Review will include:

• Memorandum of Understanding between Fort Campbell and SEAC;
• Contracts;
• Statements of work for specific projects;
• Delivery orders and correspondence related to delivery orders;
• Other relevant correspondence;
• Draft and final archeological survey reports;
• Curation materials including maps, field forms, photographs and associated records;
• Field locations as necessary.

The Peer Review Team shall also meet and interview individuals from Fort Campbell, SEAC, related NPS offices such as the contracting office, Panamerican Consultants Incorporated (PCI, the consulting firm that conducted the investigations under the SEAC arrangement), and other agencies or individuals who are relevant and necessary in the opinion of the review team. If meeting in person is not feasible, interviews may be conducted by telephone conference calls or by e-mail at the discretion of the review team.

The Peer Review Team shall compile and present a written report that describes in detail the observations and recommendations of the team (see suggested outline below).

Suggested Topics

Fort Campbell Management of Archeological Resources As Related to These Projects

• What is the structure and organization of Fort Campbell's cultural resources management program?
• Have some aspects of the organization and structure of the program particularly affected any of the strengths or weaknesses identified in the projects under review?
• Did the structure and organization of the CRM program help, detract from, or not affect the outcomes of these projects?
• What communications within and from Fort Campbell were necessary for proper description and conduct of these projects, and were these communications effective?

Contract Organization and Structure

• Do the contracts adequately or clearly address specific Section 106 and Section 110 compliance and coordination efforts?
• How are scopes of work written for individual projects undertaken within the contracts?
• Would other forms of contracts have provided better organization and oversight of the technical assistance delivered to Fort Campbell?
• Were the proposed methods for fieldwork, laboratory analysis, curation and reporting adequate and effective?

Contract Oversight and Administration

• Are there adequate internal checks and balances?
• Is fiscal accountability maintained?
• How is communication handled among the participants: Fort Campbell, SEAC and related NPS offices such as the contracting office, PCI, and the COE?
• How were proposed contract modifications handled?
• Were the statements of concern from Fort Campbell plausible and reasonable, and did SEAC response adequately and effectively address the concerns based on the information available to SEAC?

Assessment Topics

• Is data management being handled effectively and efficiently?
• Are appropriate and sufficient reports and maps being produced adequately?
• Is the approach to consultation with affected parties, including Indian tribes, appropriate and sufficient?
• Is the approach to public education and outreach appropriate and sufficient?
• Are the contributions of the program to the advancement of local, regional, and national archeological research and interpretation appropriate and sufficient?
• What future program requirements should be considered?
• Has peer review been utilized appropriately in the program?
• What procedures were used to verify that results as reported were actually accomplished?

Suggested Report Outline

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• INTRODUCTION
• INTERVIEWS AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE PEER REVIEW
• EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
  • Fort Campbell Cultural Management of Archeological Resources
    • Structure and organization
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Communication and internal support
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
  • Contract Organization and Structure
    • Section 106 and Section 110 compliance and coordination
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Scopes of Work
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
  • Contract Oversight and Administration
    • Internal checks and balances
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Fiscal accountability
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Communication
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Response to concerns
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
  • Assessment
    • Fieldwork
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Laboratory analysis
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Curation
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Data management
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Reports and maps
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Project Monitoring
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Contributions of the program to archeological research and interpretation
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
• OTHER ISSUES
  • • Consultation with affected parties and Indian tribes
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Public education and outreach
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Future program initiatives
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
    • Use of peer review in contract projects
      • Discussion
      • Recommendations
• References
  Appendix 1: Memorandum Requesting Peer Review
  Appendix 2: Brief Biographies of the Peer Review Team

• Introduction
• Purpose and Goals
• Peer Review Topics
• Conducting Peer Reviews
• Conclusion
• DCA Peer Review Reports
• References
• Appendix A: Memorandum to DCA
• Appendix B: Scope of Work for Fort Campbell
• Appendix C: scope of work for birds point-new madrid floodway
• Appendix D: documents for birds point-new madrid floodway
• Appendix E: Agenda and Schedule for Peer Review Team Field Visit
• print version  
• technical briefs index