QandA 140R2020Q0033 Atch 1_0001.pdf

140R2020Q0033

Attachment 1

Q1: As these projects are funded by the BOR, will the bureau initiate a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service to obtain coverage for the activities specified in the RFQ? (We currently hold the relevant permits to implement nearly all aspects of the RFQs, but anticipate that additional permits will have to be acquired. In the past, we have gotten pushback from the resource agencies when we attempted to obtain permits for federally funded.

A: The Bureau has held several discussions with NMFS and CDFW about this project and informally initiated a consultation on permitting needs. Both state and federal agencies acknowledge this is an important project and that permits will be required to complete the work.

Q2: The RFQ concerning adult monitoring (140R2020Q0034), under Option Years 1&2; Task 1, states that Monitoring will cover the entire steelhead migratory period. Has this period been defined by the Bureau, or will it be determined during the Base Year (Task 1, Feasibility Study).

A: The NMFS Biological Opinion, signed October 2019, identifies the migratory period for CCV steelhead as August-May, with peak migration occurring in September and May (see NMFS BiOp, Table 12). We assume the feasibility study will include an assessment of monitoring feasibility during this time period.

Q3: The RFQ (juveniles; 140R2020Q0033) refers to a Steelhead Monitoring Plan for the San Joaquin Basin. In contrast, the RFQ concerning adult monitoring (140R2020Q0034) specifies a monitoring plan for the Stanislaus River only. Is this correct?

A: Focus the juvenile monitoring plan for the San Joaquin Basin and the adult monitoring plan on the Stanislaus River.

Q4: As you may know, steelhead are a difficult organism to track and long-term monitoring in the Central Valley demonstrates the limited information acquired so far for a relatively extensive effort put forth. It is quite clear that one method may not provide the best or most complete data set for the requested tasks. However, providing an estimate for several methods can make the budget balloon quickly. What would be the best way to provide a budget then? At present, we were thinking that we would make an estimate using the technique we think can offer the best chance of providing the most satisfactory data that BOR is looking for and then an appendix with other methods we are very capable of implementing if the first method does not pan out. Our assumption is that we would not provide estimates for each of these other techniques because it would confuse the budget (i.e. three possible techniques together appear much more expensive than offering 3 potential techniques and offering to only implement others if the preferred technique did not pan out).

A: Provision 52.212-1 allows offerors to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions. Please refer to this provision for additional information.