140R4020Q0083 Questions and Answers - 2_0002.pdf

Middle Provo Riverbank Stabilization Solicitation 140R4020Q0083 Questions and Answers – Round 2

1. Our assumption is that the 1% (100yr) design flow will be used for the bank protection design.

Does the Bureau have any different guidance for the design flow?

The design capacity for the middle Provo River is 4,000 cfs. All the flow does not need to be held within the main channel, just within the fee or flood easement area.

2. Was a No-Rise or a CLOMR/LOMR floodplain permit used for the previous restoration efforts along the Provo?

No. The Government’s understanding is the US had and has the right to flood within the former/current easement areas and the fee boundaries. This work would not result in a floodplain map revision, as it would not affect any flooding potential outside the fee and easement lands. FEMA published a map for the corridor in 2012. A clip of it showing the area near Midway Lane as being in Flood Zone A, which is defined as the 1% probability flood zone. This document can be requested by emailing Brandi Clark, Contract Specialist, at brandiclark@usbr.gov .

3. Does the Bureau have any desire to place fill along the migrating bank to realign the channel further from the threatened properties? If so, can some material be excavated to ensure the design meets No-Rise requirements?

The Government has a desire to stabilize the streambank using whatever methods are most effective. If placing fill material proves to be an effective stabilization method, we would be open to it. It is our understanding that we do not NEED to realign the channel to move it further from the threatened properties, but if realignment is required to achieve stable conditions, then we would do it. The concern is that if by removing more material, the slope there would be further destabilized. Material for the Reclamation crew or separate contractor performing the stabilization could come from the nearby area or by importing riprap as the US owns a flood easement on the area that allows us to remove material.

It is our understanding that there is not a ‘no rise’ requirement, but it would be an acceptable goal for the design.

4. For the fee proposal, our preference would be a Firm-Fixed price based on fully loaded rates for our team. Will this be acceptable for this proposal, or does the Bureau have other requirements for the type of fee bid.

Correct, this effort is utilizing a Firm-Fixed-Price contract type.

mailto:brandiclark@usbr.gov