10390_BankStabilizationTechniques_Scope_of_Services_3.14.25.docx

SCOPE OF SERVICES

To enable the State to determine the capabilities of an Offeror to perform the services specified in the RFP, the Offeror shall respond to the following regarding its ability to meet the State's requirements.

NOTE: Each item must be thoroughly addressed. Offerors taking exception to any requirements listed in this section may be found nonresponsive or be subject to point deductions.

Mandatory Requirements

To be eligible for consideration, an Offeror shall meet all mandatory requirements noted herein. The State will determine whether an Offeror's proposal complies with the requirements. Proposals that fail to meet any mandatory requirements listed in this RFP will be deemed nonresponsive.

1. PROPOSALS

1.1 Offerors must submit a proposal based on the information provided in this RFP.

1.2 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

1.2.1 An Offeror making the statement, such as “Refer to our literature…” or “Please see www…com” may be deemed non-responsive or receive point deductions.

1.2.2 If making reference to materials located in another section of the Proposal, specific page numbers and sections must be noted.

1.2.3 The Evaluation Committee is not required to search through external literature or another section of the Proposal to find a response.

1.3 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INSTRUCTIONS

1.3.1 An Offeror failing to comply with instructions may be subject to point deductions.

1.3.2 The State may choose not to evaluate, may deem non-responsive, and/or may disqualify from further consideration any Proposal that does not follow this RFP format, is difficult to understand, is difficult to read, or is missing any requested information, including completed reference questionnaires.

1.4 MULTIPLE PROPOSALS

An Offeror, at Offeror’s option, may submit multiple Proposals, in which case each Proposal shall be evaluated as a separate Proposal.

1.5 Offer in Effect for 120 Days

1.5.1 A Proposal may not be modified, withdrawn, or canceled by the Offeror for a 120-day period following the later of the deadline for Proposal submission as defined in the Schedule of Events, or receipt of a best and final offer, if required.

1.5.2 Any inability to enter into a contract shall be communicated by the Offeror in writing to the State Procurement Officer as soon as reasonably practicable.

1.6 FAILURE TO HONOR PROPOSALS

If an Offeror to whom a contract is awarded refuses to accept the award, the State may, in its sole discretion, take action to recover its damages and/or suspend that Offeror for a period of time from entering into any contracts with the State.

1.7 AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT

Proof of each signatory’s authority to bind a business entity to the Contract shall be provided with the Proposal. Sample forms are located in the Prerequisites.

2. BACKGROUND, PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND OBJECTIVES

Bank erosion is a common threat to roads and transportation infrastructure and often requires intervention from MDT to prevent road closures. A variety of techniques can be utilized to reduce erosion and protect embankments during floods, ranging from riprap to more nature-based or a hybrid of the two. Increasingly, MDT is under pressure from resource agencies to incorporate more vegetation and other natural materials into bank stabilization designs. Moving forward, bank stabilization designs need to balance effectiveness with resource value.

While MDT has completed numerous bank stabilization designs throughout the years, minimal follow-up on these designs has been completed. Revisiting stabilized bank sites several years after a project’s completion is essential to determine if the application is preventing further erosion and performing as intended. Project follow-up is especially important since previous designs often form the basis for future designs. This research project aims to complete an inventory of implemented bank stabilization designs and use conclusions from that inventory to make recommendations for designs with nature-based components that meet MDT’s goals of protecting infrastructure.

This research will inventory and characterize completed bank stabilization projects and their performance and will provide recommendations for future design applications based on the observations. Both MDT and non-MDT projects that include a wide array of design features will be inventoried. A variety of project categories will be assessed including, but not limited to, emergency repairs and eroding banks adjacent to roadways. The sites will be assessed for:

· Success in preventing an undesirable amount of erosion and stabilizing the bank.

· Resiliency.

· Connectivity (integrates well with the surrounding riparian vegetation and features are set at appropriate elevations relative to the water surface).

· Establishment of vegetation.

· Available habitat to aquatic organisms.

· How well the design resembles the natural fluvial geomorphology.

· Improvements or possible design alterations that would increase the design’s success - construction timing, time of year built, and methodology should be addressed as well as the final design configuration.

· How flows since construction have affected the projects. Flows since the projects were installed should be acquired on gaged rivers, and the as-built or as-designed stream banks should be used for the baseline.

The site inventory and accompanying analysis will be used to develop design recommendations. The analysis of sites will support a recommendation report to guide future designs. The report will at a minimum:

· Recommend riprap, nature-based designs, and hybrid solutions as they relate to protecting transportation infrastructure.

· Identify key site characteristics (such as bank geometry, soil types, flow velocities, riparian vegetation, etc.) to be considered for specific design components.

· Provide specific recommendations for riprap (e.g., revegetation methods, filter).

· Describe techniques for tying-in bank treatments at project ends.

· Provide methods for incorporating woody materials.

· Give guidance on determining the appropriate project extents.

· Describe revegetation methods.

· Suggest emergency bank stabilization methods that can be installed quickly with readily available materials.

· Provide example bank details and specifications.

The Offerors research team should be comprised of a member(s) with extensive expertise and experience with bank stabilization design in Montana streams. This experience should include designing and constructing a range of stabilization methodologies including designs with and without riprap components. Additionally, the team should include a member(s) with expertise in engineering and a member(s) with expertise in biological stream components and habitat.

In Offeror’s own words, concisely express Offeror’s understanding of the background and insight into the problem, scope and objectives of the research project. The importance of this part of the Proposal should not be underestimated.

This should include the following:

2.1 A summary of the findings of a preliminary literature search and state the relationship of the proposed study to prior and current research. At a minimum, TRB’s Transportation Research International Documentation (TRID, http://trid.trb.org/) and Research in Progress (RIP, http://rip.trb.org/) databases should be searched as a part of this preliminary literature search.

2.2 A comprehensive summary ensures all aspects of the research topic have been adequately considered so new research can build upon prior work rather than duplicate it.

3. BENEFITS/BUSINESS CASE

Given MDT’s commitment to resilient and environmentally conscious design, a better understanding of bank stabilization performance is essential to provide effective fixes for eroding banks. Additionally, incorporating more nature-based solutions into bank stabilization designs maintains naturally occurring habitats and geographic features, improves MDT’s relationships with resource agencies, and streamlines the permitting process. This research will provide insight into effective design methodologies and help guide future design decisions.

4. TASKS

4.1 Tasks to meet the project objectives are expected to include, but may not be limited to, the activities listed below. Alternate tasks may be proposed to achieve the same result.

4.1.1 Identify a list of bank stabilization sites for evaluation which include MDT and non-MDT constructed sites. Establish a minimum of 35 bank stabilization sites, including a minimum of 20 MDT sites, for assessment. The sites should include a variety of bank stabilization methods and include riprap only designs, hybrid designs, and nature-based only designs from a variety of project types (emergency repairs, general bank stabilization repairs, etc.). The sites will also be geographically diverse with several sites from each MDT financial district. The remaining bank stabilization sites should include designs previously completed by the Offeror and projects completed by other agencies.

4.1.2 Complete and submit for approval a task report detailing sites for analysis, the evaluation criteria, and data collection approach.

4.1.3 Obtain as-built or construction plans for each site.

4.1.4 Determine site access issues and obtain entry permissions as necessary. The Offeror is responsible for arranging and providing any access support including traffic control.

4.1.5 Complete a field visit for each of the sites collecting data including: photos, drone imagery, and necessary measurements to appropriately assess each site for the project’s objectives.

4.1.6 Evaluate each site for the project’s objectives.

4.1.7 Complete and submit Part 1 of a final report summarizing the field visits and findings.

4.1.8 Complete and submit Part 2 of a final report that provides design recommendations for MDT bank stabilization designs.

The Offeror will provide all necessary equipment to complete the site visits and collect necessary site data.

5. DATA

5.1 All data required to successfully complete this Project and the source for this data must be delineated in the proposal. In addition, the Offeror must determine if the required data is available as set forth in the Required Review, Form of Questions Section.

5.1.1 The Offeror should provide data as described in the research tasks above and include a summary report of observations with each delivery.

5.1.2 MDT will provide as-builts and/or construction plans for MDT bank stabilization projects. MDT will also provide a preliminary list of potential sites for assessment.

5.2 A draft Data Management Plan must be prepared and submitted with the Offeror’s Proposal following the guidance and template included at: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/Research-Data-Management-Plan-Template.docx.

2. The final Data Management Plan is due at the same time as the Final Report.

6. IT

6.1 Cameras and other electronic field equipment, such as tablets or drones, as determined by the Offeror to adequately collect data at the sites. Include the purchase of the equipment, analytics, and all components in the proposal. Ensure all analytics, components, and apparatuses meet “Buy America” requirements (23 CFR 635.410).

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

7.1 The Offeror should describe any potential intellectual property issues with the project. Ensure any telecommunications or video surveillance equipment, services, or systems used or installed comply with 2 CFR 200.216.

8. STATE INVOLVEMENT

8.1 Unless explicitly stated below, the Offeror is required to provide all means and methods to complete the research. The Offeror should identify any additional MDT involvement needed to conduct the research, specifying the nature and extent of this participation. Detail any and all assistance the Offeror will require from the State and the timeframe(s) in which this assistance is required.

9. DELIVERABLES AND MEETINGS

Offerors must include all deliverables and meetings in their proposal.

9.1 Deliverables

9.1.1 FORMAT

9.1.1.1 All Deliverables must submitted first in draft format. Draft Deliverables are the Consultant’s vision of the complete and final Deliverables.

9.1.1.2 Second draft Deliverables will be submitted within two weeks following receipt of the State’s comments on the first draft Deliverables.

9.1.1.3 All future revisions will be submitted no later than one week following receipt of the State’s comments.

9.1.1.4 For each Deliverable, a line item response to each comment is required.

9.1.1.5 Deliverables are considered drafts until Notice of Acceptance by the State.

9.1.1.6 Offerors should plan for three review and revision cycles for all deliverables, with each MDT review being allotted one month.

9.1.1.7 Consultant shall submit all Deliverables, in their entireties, in both Microsoft® and PDF-compatible electronic format.

9.1.1.8 Deliverables are expected to be of exceptional quality and prepared in conformance with the Montana Department of Transportation's Report Writing Requirements, which can be found at http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/report_guidelines.pdf.

9.1.1.9 All Deliverables and draft Deliverables must be reviewed by a person in addition to being spell-checked.

9.1.1.10 All data should be expressed in English units.

9.1.1.11 All marketing/information Deliverables, which will be used as official MDT publications (i.e., flyer, brochure, manual, poster) and distributed to the public, must be prepared in conformance with MDT Communication Guidelines found at https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=013380590290877010950:rrywygcwysq&q=https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/manuals/brandguide.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjqgNbrub2EAxXeLTQIHTAaBz4QFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Qt_VN0bIwzt3nGCzdvWZz; and include Public Disclosure of Costs (MCA § 18-7-306); and Power to Contract for Printing- - Exception (MCA § 18-7-101).

9.1.1.12 Any instrument such as survey, interview questions, etc. and the specific contact list must be reviewed and approved in advance by MDT.

9.1.2 REQUIRED REPORTS

9.1.2.1 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS will be submitted on or before the 15th of each month following the reporting period using MDT’s Monthly Research Project Progress Report form at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/forms/MDT-RES-003.pdf. The form requires reporting of project expense statistics, project schedule status, progress and accomplishments during the reported month, results and lessons learned, potential implementation, and risk and circumstances affecting the project budget, scop, and or time .

9.1.2.2 TASK REPORTS will be submitted by the end of the month following completion of each task and will be prepared with sufficient detail as to be compiled into the final report.

9.1.2.3 FINAL REPORT

9.1.2.3.1 FORMAT. The Final Report shall include:

9.1.2.3.1.1 title page, containing the following credit reference:

Prepared for the

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

in cooperation with the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

9.1 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.1.2.1 9.1.2.2 9.1.2.3 9.1.2.4 9.1.2.4.1

9.1.2.4.2 Technical Report Documentation Page, found at page 5 of http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/report_guidelines.pdf;

9.1.2.4.3 disclaimer found at page 5 of http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/report_guidelines.pdf;

9.1.2.4.4 ADA alternative format statement found at page 5 of ;

9.1.2.4.5 table of contents and lists of tables and figures;

9.1.2.4.6 summary or abstract, including a brief description of the work and conclusions;

9.1.2.4.7 introduction, including the problem, its background, and a concise history of research;

9.1.2.4.8 work plan, including the methods, data collection, description of sites and activities, and an analysis of the data;

9.1.2.4.9 findings and conclusions;

9.1.2.4.10 implementation recommendations; and

9.1.2.4.11 literature cited or references.

9.1.2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN

9.1.2.5.1 A final Data Management Plan must be prepared and submitted with the Final Report and following the guidance and template found at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/Research-Data-Management-Plan-Template.docx.

9.1.2.6 RESEARCH PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT

9.1.2.6.1 FORMAT. The text will include the following sections: introduction, what we did, what we found, and what the researchers recommend. Only text and graphics should be submitted.

9.1.2.6.2 A sample report can be viewed at: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/DMV-SAFETY-VIDEOS/Project-Summary-Report.pdf.

9.1.2.7 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

9.1.2.7.1 FORMAT. The text will include the following sections: introduction and purpose, implementation summary, and implementation recommendations. Only text and graphics should be submitted.

9.1.2.7.2 A sample implementation report can be found at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/DMV-SAFETY-VIDEOS/Implementation-Report.pdf.

9.1.2.7.3 The report findings and recommendations will be implemented in future streambank stabilization designs at MDT.

9.1.2.8 PROJECT POSTER

9.1.2.8.1 FORMAT. The Poster must follow the format provided in MDT’s Research Poster Instructions provided at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/Poster-Instructions.pdf

9.1.2.9 PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT

9.1.2.9.1 The research to be conducted should include both qualitative and quantitative performance measures.

9.1.2.9.2 A sample performance measures report can be found at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/DMV-SAFETY-VIDEOS/Performance-Measures-Report.pdf.

9.1.3 FINAL ORAL PRESENTATION. The purpose of this presentation is to formally present research project and results to MDT Staff and other interested parties. This deliverable must be itemized as a direct cost in the Proposal and shall be deducted from the total Project budget if, at the sole discretion of MDT, this event does not occur.

9.1.4 PROJECT WEBINAR

9.1.4.1 The webinar presentation can be combined with the Final Oral Presentation.

9.1.4.2 Offeror must provide dates and times to the MDT Project manager. MDT project manager will establish the final date and time and provide the virtual meeting information. This deliverable must be itemized as a direct cost in the Proposal and shall be deducted from the total Project budget if, at the sole discretion of MDT, this event does not occur.

9.1.4.3 Based on the scope, approach, and results, a communication/technology transfer plan may be required. Offerors may propose this plan, as appropriate.

9.1.4.4 Based on the Project scope, approach, and results, a TR News (http://www.trb.org/Publications/PubsTRNewsMagazine.aspx) Research Pays Off article may be required. Offerors may propose these products, as appropriate.

9.1.5 TEST METHODS

9.1.5.1 Any test methods to be developed and proposed as national standards must be submitted, in cooperation with the State, first to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

9.1.5.2 If test methods are not adopted through AASHTO, they may be submitted through American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other national standard organizations.

9.1.5.3 See document on How to Turn Materials Related Research into a Formal AASHTO Materials Standard Specification at: https://materials.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/04/How_to_AASHTO_Materials_Standards.pdf

9.2 Meetings

9.2.1 All meetings must be attended by the Consultant’s Principal Investigator and any others deemed necessary by the Consultant or State, unless otherwise specified in the Proposal. Meetings can be held virtually.

9.2.2 KICK-OFF MEETING will be held to discuss contractual requirements, the scope of work, timelines, data, etc.

9.2.3 Based on the complexity of the Project, Offerors may choose to propose interim meetings.

9.2.3.1 Offerors will add interim meetings to Offeror’s Proposal, as appropriate, based on the research approach and complexity of the Project.

9.2.3.2 For all Projects scheduled for two years or more duration, annual meetings must be included in the Proposal. A task meeting would suffice for the annual meeting.

9.2.4 Two weeks prior to each of the above Meetings, and after seeking input from the State’s Research Project Manager, the Consultant will prepare and submit the meeting agenda and materials.

9.2.5 Within two weeks after each of the above Meetings, the Consultant shall prepare and submit to the State for approval, minutes from the meeting.

9.2.6 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING

9.2.6.1 Purpose: Review Consultant’s implementation recommendations, determine which of those or parts thereof will be implemented, additional items to be implemented, and any unmet research needs.

9.2.6.2 This meeting may be held in conjunction with the Final Oral Presentation.

9.2.6.3 An implementation report, as detailed in the Required Reports Section, will be delivered to the State within two weeks of the implementation meeting. A sample implementation report can be found at https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/DMV-SAFETY-VIDEOS/Implementation-Report.pdf

9.2.6.4 This deliverable must be itemized as a direct cost in the Proposal and shall be deducted from the total Project budget if, at the sole discretion of MDT, this event does not occur.

10 SCHEDULE

Provide a detailed schedule for the work proposed. The schedule must contain realistic timeframes for completing each task and deliverable and completing the Project.

The State of Montana can contract for a maximum of seven years. If the proposed work will take longer, it may need to be accomplished via two phases with two separate contracts.

11 STAFFING

11.1 Key Project Personnel must be identified in the Proposal along with their specific roles and responsibilities associated with the Project.

11.2 For each Key Project Personnel, list the amount of hours for each task.

11.3 For each Key Project Personnel, list the percent of time per person allocated to the entire Project.

11.4 Offeror must prove that sufficient resources are available to complete the Project. This should be done by describing for all Key Project Personnel the present and predicted workload in percent of time for all activities, including this Project, through the duration of the Project.

11.5 If a contract is awarded, the highest-scoring Offeror will be the prime Consultant, who shall be responsible for all work of any subconsultant.

11.6 All subconsultants, if any, must be listed in the Proposal.

11.7 The Proposal must include a letter of intent from each subconsultant that said subconsultant intends to provide the work as described in the Proposal should the Offeror become the prime Consultant.

11.8 The State reserves the right to approve all subconsultants.

12 COMMUNICATION AND QC/QA

12.1 The Scope of Services must address Deliverable quality and how quality will be guaranteed (i.e., use of editing staff and/or peer reviewer).

12.2 Ongoing communication between the Consultant and Research Project Manager and Project QA/QC are critical to the success of the Project. The Scope of Services must include a description of the steps the Consultant will take to ensure that QA/QC and regular communication occurs with the State’s Research Project Manager.

13 BEST AND FINAL OFFER

13.1 If additional information is required to make a final decision, the State, in its sole discretion, may request a “best and final offer” from one or more Offerors.

13.2 Offerors may be asked to submit a “best and final offer,” which must include any and all discussed and/or negotiated changes.

14 PROPOSAL REVISION

If the Proposal is revised during negotiations, within one (1) business day of request by the State, the Offeror must submit, a revised Proposal, electronically in PDF format. All revisions to the Proposal must be itemized and explained in an accompanying letter.

15 STATE’S RIGHTS RESERVED

15.1 While the State has every intention to award a contract as a result of this RFP, issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the State to award and execute a contract.

15.2 Upon a determination that such action would be in its best interest, the State, in its sole discretion, may:

15.2.1 cancel or terminate this RFP (18-4-307, MCA);

15.2.2 reject any Proposal (ARM 2.5.602);

15.2.3 waive any undesirable, inconsequential, or inconsistent provisions of this RFP (ARM 2.5.505); and/or

15.2.4 not award a contract (ARM 2.5.602)

15.2.5 If awarded, terminate any contract if the State determines adequate funds are not available (18-4-313, MCA).

16 PHASED PROJECTS

If this Project results in a phased effort, the State may elect either to continue with a recommended next phase, discontinue the Project, or choose to solicit another Offeror for this work.

Revised 2/11

MDT# MDT-315530-NO, Bank Stabilization Techniques