Question - Responses 8-29-2023.pdf

8/29/2023 Ques ons & Responses

1. Can the previously prepared Preliminary Draft Plan‐EA (partially completed) be provided for review?

The previously prepared, but incomplete, Preliminary Draft‐EA will be provided to the awarded contractor.

2. Why was the previous project terminated in 2020?

The project was terminated for convenience to the government in response to circumstances beyond the government control.

3. Can you provide any of the supporting information that may have been collected/prepared in support the previous project before it was terminated in 2020 (e.g., geotechnical investigation, wetlands survey, topographic and/or bathymetric surveys)?

All supporting material will be provided to the awarded contractor. The contractor should assume for scoping/pricing that the complete Plan‐EA process will be conducted.

4. To what extent does NRCS expect that the previously developed scoping, data collection, analyses, and incomplete Preliminary Draft Plan‐EA be used by the selected contractor?

The Preliminary Draft Plan‐EA can be used as background information. The contractor should assume for scoping/pricing that the complete Plan‐EA process will be conducted.

5. Will additional cultural resources investigation be required or is the work previously performed by the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Rocky Mountain Region Bureau of Indian Affairs‐ Archeologist, and the NRCS Archeologist sufficient to meet the NHPA and NRCS requirements? If additional work is needed, can NRCS please provide the APE since that will be required to properly scope/price this work?

Because the Contractor will be developing a preferred alternative and APE for NHPA evaluations, it is unknown if NHPA requirements can be satisfied with the existing work. As a result, the contractor should assume for scoping/pricing that additional cultural resources investigation will be required.

6. We respectfully ask that NRCS consider a one week extension for submission of the proposal to provide adequate time to prepare the qualifications and price proposal.

I support a one‐week extension if it provides higher quality proposals.

7. The solicita on (I. Introduc on, Item 1., page 29 of 46 of the pdf) includes the following statement under minimum capabili es: “Knowledge of, and ability to successfully implement current planning procedures and policies of the NRCS Na onal Watershed Planning Program resul ng in the development of at least 1 NRCS Authorized Watershed Plan‐EA/EISs for the purpose of agricultural water management”, while Factor 1 – Corporate Experience, Item 1.

(page 5 of 46 of the pdf) indicates that we’re required to show experience “Performing watershed planning services for the purpose of preven on or reduc on of flood damages”. Is it a requirement that at least one of the three NRCS Plan‐EA/EIS projects/contracts presented under Factor 3 – Past Performance have a purpose of “agricultural water management” or is a purpose of flood preven on or reduc on acceptable? No. NRCS is looking for experience in comple ng a Plan‐EA/EIS for one of the eight WFPO authorized purposes.