070-25 Addendum 1.pdf
PDF 5 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-63500-00014352
- Issued by
- Jackson County, Oregon
About this file
This is Addendum #1 for a Request for Proposals (RFP #ODFW-070-25) issued by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) for Engineering and Related Services for Fish Passage Alternatives at Keno Dam. The addendum, dated August 13, 2025, modifies the original RFP document with several key changes, including clarification that Attachment F (Reference Questionnaire) is not required with proposal submission. The RFP closing date is extended to August 21, 2025, at 2:00 PM PT, and proposers must acknowledge this addendum in their cover letter.
The addendum provides critical guidance for proposers, particularly around reference requirements and design expectations. Specifically, proposers should submit new reference forms specific to this solicitation, focusing on alternatives analysis, experience with multiple working groups, and unique qualifications. The proposal should include written descriptions of prior work experience, design strategies, process details, cost estimates, and intake screening concepts within a fish ladder. The project does not require proposers to be involved in environmental review or permitting, as these components will be completed by state and federal agencies using the bidder's 30% design level calculations and specifications.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDENDUM #1 –RFP #ODFW-070-25
ADDENDUM #1
RFP #ODFW-070-25
Engineering and Related Services for the Fish Passage Alternatives at Keno Dam
DATE: August 13, 2025
This addendum modifies the Request for Proposals (RFP) document(s) for work only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not specifically mentioned or affected by this addendum shall remain in full force. This addendum shall be added as a part of the original RFP document(s) and shall become part of the work required.
Deleted language is shown within [brackets and strikethrough]
New language is show in Bold and Underlined.
ADDENDUM
1. Changes to the Request for Proposals document (s).
a. Clarification on Attachment F Proposal Reference Questionnaire – Attachment F is not required with proposal submission.
b. In Section 5.04.2 Proposer should send the Reference Questionnaire (Attachment F)to three references from prior projects that Proposer provided services for that were similar in nature and complexity to the Services sought in this RFP. A separate form must be completed by each reference, returned to the Proposer and submitted with the Proposal.
c. If the Evaluation Panel determines it needs further review of previous work.
ODFW will reach out to the Owner(s) of previous projects performed by the Proposer and use questions in Attachment F.
d. Attachment F has been added to Addendum 1 for informational purposes only.
e. In Section 5.04.3 The Proposer should prepare a conceptual implementation of the design of a mock intake dam, screen, and fishway that utilizes the concepts outlined in this RFP. Replace with the Proposer should describe in writing the work experience in designing and communicating to multiple user groups the details of the work, process, and strategies for developing an alternative analysis, basis of design report, cost estimates, design for intake screening within a fish ladder or similar fishway concepts as outlined in this RFP.
2. Additional Information
a. See attached “Klamath River Diversions and property lines”
Closing Date and Time:
All references to the Closing Date and Time are modified to read:
RFP CLOSING DATE: August 21, 2025 CLOSING TIME: 2:00 PM PT
This addendum constitutes a MATERIAL CHANGE to the RFP. The Proposers must acknowledge this addendum 1 with reference in their Cover Letter.
Addendum prepared by:
Jake Howard OPBC
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Procurement & Contract Specialist III jake.e.howard@odfw.oregon.gov
END OF ADDENDUM No. 1 mailto:jake.e.howard@odfw.oregon.gov
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
1. Are we (Proposers) allowed to submit client Reference Questionnaire forms used in an earlier ODFW submission this year for a relevant project, or does the agency prefer that our clients complete new reference forms specific to this solicitation?
Answer: Submit new reference forms specific to this solicitation because this work is unique to alternatives analysis, experience with multiple working group entities, and unique qualifications for the SOW that need to be assessed independent of previous ODFW requests.
2. RFP Section 5.04.3 requests an "example design" and a "conceptual implementation of the design of a mock intake dam, screen, and fishway utilizing the concepts outlined in this RFP." However, no such concepts appear to be outlined, and this is not an intake screen project. Could you please confirm whether a mock design is relevant and required for this RFP?
Answer: Example design drawings are not required, but descriptions and details of the work, process, strategies for design experience related to alternatives analysis, basis of design reports, cost estimates, design for intake screening within a fishladder, or similar fishway concepts where multiple uses are incorporated into the mock design are required.
3. Could you please provide any readily available data or mapping for the locations of the irrigation intakes, as well as any details regarding irrigation water usage?
Answer: See attached map of the irrigation intakes for the Keno Dam Reach.
4. Will this project require any environmental review or permitting? If so, could you please outline the anticipated requirements?
Answer: Bidder will not be involved in the environmental review or permitting and no need to include a budget request for this task. This component will be completed by State and Federal agencies, however the volumes of fill and removal calculations made by the bidder, construction designs, and specifications completed at the 30% design level will be used by the State and Federal agencies to submit all necessary environmental compliance documents.
5. RFP Section 5.04.2 requests we send the Reference Questionnaire (Attachment F) to three references from prior projects and each reference must complete a separate form and return it to us to be submitted with our Proposal. As of today, we are well past the halfway point in time available to respond to this solicitation period and we only just now received the questionnaire to share with our references. One of our project references left for vacation on Friday 7/31 but we didn’t have the questionnaire available to send them until today. In order to help our references meet the timeline of this solicitation, is ODFW willing to extend the deadline for receiving these questionnaires? We are not requesting that ODWF extend the deadline for receiving the Proposals themselves; only to provide our references with sufficient time to provide a reasonable and complete response.
Answer: This Addendum clarifies Attachment F. IF needed ODFW will contact previous references if deemed necessary.
6. RFP Section 5.04.3 states that “Proposer should prepare an example design concept for evaluation. The Proposer should prepare a conceptual implementation of the design of a mock intake dam, screen, and fishway that utilizes the concepts outlined in this RFP.”
a. We understand the first sentence to be a request to generate an example design concept and are preparing one, and we assume that we should make this an example that utilizes concepts outlined in this RFP; please can you confirm our understanding and/or clarify?
Answer: Proposal does not need to include and example mock design drawings and are not required, However, the proposal should include a written descriptions and details of prior work, process, strategies for design experience related to alternatives analysis, basis of design reports, cost estimates, design for intake screening within a fishladder, or similar fishway concepts where multiple uses are incorporated into the mock design are required.
b. The request of the second sentence is not clear: What is “a conceptual implementation of the design”? Is this different from what is requested in the first sentence? Please can you clarify or otherwise re-phrase this sentence to help us understand the request?
Answer: Please see the clarification in Addendum.
7. We assume that similar to the Resumes, the three Reference Questionnaires and the example design concept for evaluation (including anything related to “implementation” as referenced in question 2b, above) are not included in the page count; please can you confirm?
Answer: Correct these page will not be included in the page count.
GREEN DIAMOND
RESOURCE
COMPANY
GREEN DIAMOND
RESOURCE
COMPANY
GREEN DIAMOND
RESOURCE
COMPANY
GREEN DIAMOND
RESOURCE
COMPANY
JWTR LLC
JWTR LLC
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT COPACIFIC POWER
& LIGHT CO
JWTR LLC
UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER
& LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC POWER
& LIGHT CO
PACIFIC POWER
& LIGHT CO
COLLINS
TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
COLLINS TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
DOBSON
SAMMUEL R
E.G. KERNS
RANCHES LLC
MAGIC DUCK
CLUB
LLC
E.G. KERNS
RANCHES LLC
E.G. KERNS
RANCHES LLC
DIVINE
VICTOR R
& MARJORIE
GRIFFITH
GARY E &
KAREN
BIG BERTHA
PROPERTIES LLC
COLUMBIA
PLYWOOD
CORP &
COLLINS TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
GRIFFITH
GARY E
& KAREN
GRIFFITH
DAVID M
& NORA
GERHART
RICHARD
& LINDA
COLLINS TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
COLUMBIA
PLYWOOD
CORP &
COLLINS
TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
COLLINS
TIMBER
COMPANY LLC
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE
OF OREGON &STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
TULE
SMOKE INC
SCHMID
JOSEPH H &
SONDRA D
KERNS E
MARTIN
TRUSTEE &
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE
MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
LOWLAND
FARMS INC
KITE
RANCHES
INC
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE
INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
LOWLAND
FARMS INC
LILLY JOHN
K TRUSTEE &
HARTMAN PHILIP
WILLIAM &
DANETTE DIANE
KITE
RANCHES
INC
STONEY RIDGE
RANCH LLC
KITE
RANCHES
INC
BERG RICHARD
W & JO ANNE
RAMBO
RICHARD B
& SUSAN
LOWLAND
FARMS INC
KITE
RANCHES
INC
HARRISON
RICHARD
WAYDE III
TULE
SMOKE
INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE
MARTIN
RANCHES LP
STATE OF
OREGON &
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
TULE
SMOKE INC
STATE OF
OREGON &
STATE OF
OREGON &
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
KITE
RANCHES
INC
CALMES BARNEY
FERRIS &
DAISY ANNA
DUANE MARTIN
RANCHES LP
DUANE
MARTIN
RANCHES LP
STATE OF
OREGON &
FLOWERS
BROS INC
TUCKER
SANDRAL L
& KAREN G
FURBER LEWIS E
& MARGARET E
ANDERSON
FRANK ANDREW
TRUSTEE &
TUCKER SANDRAL
L & KAREN G
FLOWERS
BROS INC
FLOWERS
BROS INC
FLOWERS
BROS INC &
FLOWERS
BROS
INC &
FLOWERS
BROS
INC &
TUCKER
SANDRAL L &
KAREN G
Keno Dam
Klamath ID
Klamath Drainage Dist
Ady Dist Improv Co
Federal-Owned Project Diversions
Privately-Owned Project Diversions
Privately-Owned Non-Project Diversions
0 1 2 Miles
J. Roberts | Klamath Basin Area Office | March 2018
Klamath River Diversions
Plevna Dist Improv Co
Pioneer Dist Improv Co
Plevna Diversion
Lost River Diversion Channel
Pioneer Diversion
North Canal
Ady Canal
Klamath Straits Drain Siphons
Midland Dist Improv Co
UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER
& LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER
& LIGHT CO
BLOK JOHAN
& REGINA
PUCKETT TYANN
NYGREN DANIEL
T & DOROTHY J
DAVIS SCOTT R
VERNA
ROBERT D &
LARKINS
NEIL FLOYD &
JENIFER ROSE &
FREEMAN
LARRY V
& MARTHA M
LUKENS RICKY
L & JUDY L
6 GLD TRUST &
6 GLD TRUST &
WALKER
RUDOLPH SOYKA
TRUSTEE &
QUINN
MICHAEL
TRUSTEE &
MC'BAIN
QUINTIN &
PAULA
MENEFEE
MICHAEL &
BONG
GAT-WONG
TRUSTEE &
FURLONG
DAVID E
TRUSTEE &
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER
& LIGHT CO
PACIFIC
POWER &
LIGHT CO
HRNIC NASIHA
WHITLOCK
GEORGE &
HAZEL TRUST &
BENSON
JERRY L
BENSON
JERRY L
KLAMATH
RIVER
PROPERTY LLC
ANDREWS
DENNIS E
ANDREWS
DENNIS E
BUCKINGHAM
MARY J
BUCKINGHAM
MARY J
WILLIAMS
TEDDY
BRYAN
WILLIAMS
TEDDY BRYAN
FEDERHART
MARGARET
S &
SANDERS
EDDIE
LONGLEY
SAMANTHA
WHITE
RUBY J
QUACKENBUSH
ROBERT E
QUACKENBUSH
ROBERT E
THOMPSON
KEVIN P
POHLMAN
MELVIN
DOUGLAS
KLAMATH
RIVER ACRES
HOMEOWNERS
STRAIN
JASON G
DAVIS
DAVID V &
KIMBERLY A
HARTMAN PHILIP
WILLIAM &
DANETTE DIANE
HARTMAN PHILIP
WILLIAM &
DANETTE DIANE
PUCKETT TYANN
BERG RICHARD
W & JO ANNE
RAMBO RICHARD
B & SUSAN
HALL KENNETH
A & CAROL A &
NUNES TONY M &
REBECCA LYNN
DREWKE
ELIZABETH &
BOURGET
AIME &
PATRICIA
BOURGET AIME
& PATRICIA
NACCARATI TED
R TRUSTEE &
LOPEZ
GREGORIO &
LAURA
HOLCOMB JAMES
& VICTORIA
HOLCOMB JAMES
& VICTORIA
GREEN
ANDREW J
HOSKINS
ANDREW P &
TREVA M MARQUEZ
CARLOS V &
DELFINA M
ZIMMER DANIEL
W & MARIANN
ZIMMER
DANIEL W &
MEYER EDWIN J
& MARGARET A
TRIBBLE DEAN
L TRUSTEE &
FEDERAL HOME
LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
NEESER
ROBERT E
& NANCY A
TIERNEY
BERNARD P &
JANIE ROBINSON
VAUGHN
BETTY J
ZHANG
GUOLIANG &
VAUGHAN TENA
E TRUSTEE &
COONEY MARIA
TRUSTEE &
JONES ERIKA
REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST
KING CYNTHIA
S & DURELL E
GRANDAD CLYDES
LOG CABIN
FAMILY TRUST &
CUNNINGHAM
JUSTIN T &
CUNNINGHAM
JUSTIN T &
LILLY JOHN
K CO-TRUSTEE &
GRAY
BERT J &
ROSEMARY L
WAMPLER
SCOTT M
& SANDRA K
KENO
WATER
COMPANY
NOVAK
JERALD &
SEE INSET RIGHT
ATTACHMENT F –REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
RFP# S-63500-00014352, Fish Passage Alternatives at Keno Dam A&E Reference requested for:
As part this Request for Proposal Solicitation ODFW may inquire to past clients referenced in
5.04.2 who Proposer provided Hydro, Geological and Environmental Engineering. ODFW may ask all or some of the questions listed below.
• For what type of services did you engage Proposer?
• With which aspect(s) of Proposer’s services are you the most satisfied?
• Which aspect(s) of Proposer’s services are you the least satisfied?
• How well did Proposer coordinate/communicate with its staff, subcontractors, client staff, and other stakeholders?
• How would you rate the quality of the Proposer’s draft and/or final deliverables?
• How well did Proposer perform on meeting schedule requirements?
• How would you rate your overall experience with the Proposer?
Any further comments that pertain to the services referenced above were performed by consultant?
Reference provided by: ________________________________________________________
Representing:
Email address: Phone:
| Reference provided by: |
| Representing: |
| Email address: |
| Phone: |
| Proposer’s Company Name: Proposer’s Company Name |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .