2024-21PC Addendum 1 072424.pdf

RFP #2024-21PC

Portage County

Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring

ADDENDUM #1

Date=07/24/24 The following changes are hereby added to and made part of Bid #2024-21PC

Clarifications and Revisions:

In section 6.2 there is a typo: Use Attachment F Cost Proposal. Submit one marked original….. This should read “Use Attachment E Cost Proposal. Submit one marked original…..”

Questions & Answers

1. We understand the importance of your data security and are committed to providing the highest level of protection for your information. We ask that you consider allowing us to email our proposal in lieu of providing a flash drive/CD and/or allowing us to post the final proposal to a secure site where Portage County can retrieve it. Please let us know if this would be acceptable.

A. Portage County will allow vendors to email their proposal after we have received the required amount of Hard Copies of your proposal on time as indicated in Section 2.3 of the RFP. In no way will an emailed copy be considered timely submission for the RFP. The County will reach out to any proposer who does not submit an electronic copy after the RFP deadline for an electronic copy of their document. You may respond to that email with your PDF of your proposal.

2. Section 4.1.1 on p. 14 states that project experience should be “3 similar projects within the past 5 years”. Section 5.2 on p. 15 states “two similar projects/contracts within the past 3 years. Can you confirm which is correct?

A. Both are correct. The county wants you to have experience working on these types of projects so we want to confirm you have worked on 3 in the last 5 years and we want you to comment on the 2 most recent ones you have done in the last 3 years as part of your proposal response in section 5.2.

3. Section 6.2 on p. 21 states “Use Attachment F Cost Proposal”. We assume this is a typo and should be corrected to Attachment E. Can you confirm?

A. This is a typo. See correction above. It should read “Use Attachment E…..”

4. Is the following numbering of project years correct?

o Year 0 – 2024 Year 1 – 2025 Year 2 – 2026 o Year 3 – 2027 Year 4 – 2028 Year 5 – 2029

A. Yes

5. Does the County already own the HOBO dataloggers? If not, should we include a price to purchase them in our Cost Proposal?

A. No. The County does not own HOBO dataloggers. The proposer shall supply the dataloggers.

Alternate monitoring and data logging methods may also be utilized per 1.3.2.1.1.2.

6. Project 2-Section 1.3.2.1.2 Vegetation Monitoring includes the verbiage “during the months of June through September” and “two days for two staff; annually”. Please confirm whether this indicates the survey should be conducted once per year (occurring in either June, July, August, or September) and that single survey should take two staff two days to complete.

A. We expect one survey per year between June and September. The estimated time is two staff for two days but if the proposer believes it will be less or more, please that in your response and costs.

7. Project 3-Does the wetland delineation project require WDNR review and approval of wetland boundaries? If so, should we include WDNR review fees in our Proposal?

A. WDNR will review the delineation. Any review fees will be paid for by the County and do not need to be included in the proposal.

8. RFP Sections 1.3.1.1.4.4 through 1.3.1.1.4.6 appear to contain redundant tasks, please clarify.

A. The RFP formatting is incorrect. The prescribed burn tasks described in 1.3.1.1.4.4 through

1.3.1.1.4.6 should all be covered in 1.3.1.1.4.4.

9. RFP Sections 1.3.1.1.4 and 1.3.1.1.5 describe Year 3 and Year 5 tasks. Please clarify if Year 4 tasks were omitted, if so, can we assume Year 4 will be required and similar to Year 5 tasks.

A. yes, for the purpose of this proposal, assume the same amount of year 4 as year 5 tasks.

10. Are staff gauge readings required in the CSP to monitor surface water levels within the restored channel? See RFP Section 1.3.2.1.1.4 reference to Surface Water Level Data.

A. The approved CSP has been provided as an attachment and can be found in the Attachment F link.

Please refer to the monitoring section for full details.

11. RFP Section 1.3.4.1.1 language does not correlate with Table 1. Stream Monitoring Schedule, please clarify if Table 1 is consistent with the final CSP requirements.

A. For the full detail of the monitoring schedule and requirements, please refer to the approved CSP which has been provided as an attachment and found in the Attachment F link. Specifically, Appendix F of the CSP will provide the full detailed monitoring schedule.

12. Will final CSP and final MBI documents be provided to compare the proposed Scope of Services with the actual IRT approved documents.

A. The approved CSP has been provided as an attachment and can be found in the Attachment F link.

The Final MBI documents will be provided to the selected consultant upon award to verify the scope of services.

13. Will design files and shape files from the CSP be provided to the selected consultant.

A. Yes

14. The RFP indicates the Highway Department will supply the seed for the Forbs and Shrubs. Are the shrubs actually seeds, or are they plants that would need to be planted? What if there are areas that do not come up or plants that don't survive, will the Highway Department supply the extra seed/shrubs needed for supplemental planting?

A. The proposer will be responsible for seeding per 1.3.1.1.1 which will be supplied by the County. Any other plantings are not part of this proposal. If additional seeding is needed, it would be supplied by the County.

15. Every wetland bank presents its own challenges. At the start of these projects, these are all disturbed sites and can be very challenging getting them pointed in the right direction, specifically with the vegetation. This plan outlines a pretty detailed schedule of activity throughout the first 5 years but realistically, these projects can extend beyond that or not hit the anticipated milestones in the anticipated year. How will this be handled? Do you anticipate potential change order if this extends beyond 5 years to years 6, 7, etc.?

A. The scope of work for this proposal shall focus on years 0 to 5. If additional work is needed beyond that time period, the County will decide what is most advantageous to the County which may be self-performing the work, adding work through a change order, or utilizing a different consultant depending on the specific need.

16. What is the liability from the consultants as far as success of the bank? Again, these types of projects are challenging and even with good management, it is possible the site will not take. This could be due to weather conditions (drought, excessive rain, etc., resurgence of invasive) where a portion of the entire site needs to be wiped out and reseeded. Animals could damage the shrubs where replanting is needed. Will the County be responsive to extra costs incurred?

A. The consultant is expected to follow best management practices. If additional work is needed due to natural disasters, extreme weather events, or animal damage, it would be the responsibility of the County.

17. Section specific questions 1.3.2.1.1.1

• Does installation require a filter pack and surface seal or can wells be directly driven/hand augured and backfilled with native soil?

A. The wells will need to meet any WDNR requirements. The previous monitoring wells were installed per installed per the Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites which is detailed in the CSP which was provided as an attachment. The County would expect the proposers with prior experience to understand these requirements.

• Are there specific regarding protective covers accessible/required for these wells?

o Can you provide more defined installation requirements.

A. The wells will need to meet any WDNR requirements.

• Can equipment to be removed during Year 3 (1.3.1.1.4.4) prescribed burn to limit potential damage to units.

A. This is up to the decision of the proposer.

18. Section specific questions 1.3.2.1.1.2

• Specifications for data loggers, accuracy, resolution, response time, vented/non-vented o If utilizing vented data loggers will barro logger be required?

A. Per that section, alternate monitoring and data logging methods may be utilized to capture the necessary data.

19. Section specific questions 1.3.2.1.1.3

• Distance from monitoring location to weather station & weather station ID.

• Does Portage County Highway Department have a weather station that can be used as their facility is close to the project site?

A. No.

• Does the County have a specific nearby weather station they have identified and want to be used for this?

A. No. That is for the proposer to determine but there is a local weather station in Plover nearby:

https://www.ploverweather.com/wxabout.php.

20. Section specific questions 1.3.2.1.1.4

• How is surface water elevation data to be collected/obtained?

o Will there be an existing total station or will one need to be installed.

A. The means and methods to collect this data is up to the proposer. There is not an existing total station and one is not planned to be installed by the County.

21. Section specific questions 1.3.4.1.1

• Can you provide additional specifications of temperature logger for accuracy, resolution, response time.

A. The approved CSP has been provided as an attachment and can be found in the Attachment

F link. Per 10.3 of the CSP, “Stream temperature will be measured annually at two locations following the Procedure for Temperature Logger Deployment at Stream Monitoring Sites (MPCA 2015). Two monitoring sensors will be deployed to monitor this parameter.”

• Will there also be a requirement to measure water elevation in Little Plover River.

A. No. That is not included in this scope of work.

22. This is an aggressive schedule for the submittal of responses to this RFP during a very busy summer season. The calendar of events does not indicate when answers to questions will be posted. As this will be important in the preparation of a response to this RFP, will the County consider providing additional time for completion of a response to this RFP?

A. The RFP includes a calendar of events which includes the date of 7/25/24 as the date an addenda will be posted to answer any questions. The RFP due date will remain as 8/1.

23. There is an error in the Scope for Project 1 regarding calendar years and management years. There is a year of management missing (only 4 of 5 years are presented) and there are some errors between calendar year vs management year. For example, 2027 should be Year 3, 2028 should be Year 4 and there is no 2029 (Year 5). Please update the necessary mgmt years and required scope within an addendum.

A. The following years are correct with additional questions answered below.

Year 0=2024; Year 1=2025; Year 2=2026; Year 3=2027; Year 4=2028; Year 5=2029

24. Is stabilization of the new stream channel (e.g., erosion control blanket, seeding) being conducted by the earthwork contractor? Please clarify if seeding the newly restored channel or any other slope stabilization measures are part of the Scope for Project 1 .

A. The seeding and stabilization of the new stream channel will be completed by the County as part of the construction of the project and is not included in the Scope for Project 1.

25. Can we assume that the as-built submittal for earthwork is not included in the scope of this project?

A. The as-built submittal for the earthwork will be completed by the County and is not included in the scope of this project.

https://www.ploverweather.com/wxabout.php

26. There are noxious and invasive weeds currently present on the site including Canada thistle, cattails, and reed canary grass. What site preparation is being done to prepare the site for native seed installation at the end of the 2024 growing season? Have woody and herbaceous invasive species removals been conducted in the woodlands or will be conducted prior to the start of the contract?

A. The County will conduct invasive species control and removal as part of the construction of the project starting in August.

27. Is the County responsible for conducting the shrub plantings?

A. Yes.

28. Should cost for completion of a Wetland Rapid Assessment Methodology (WRAM) at the end of the monitoring period be included with Project 2 or Project 3 as described in the CSP?

A. Include the WRAM cost in project 3.

29. RFP notes that the County will be responsible for management mowing at the consultant’s direction. Please confirm that this includes selective mowing both with mowing equipment and weed whipping.

A. Yes, this is confirmed.

30. Since Stantec designed this project are they eligible to submit a bid for the maintenance and monitoring portion of the project?

A. Yes, they are eligible to submit a proposal.

31. Will the County mow in the breaks for the prescribed fire?

A. The County has the ability to mow in the breaks but the proposal should note any additional work required by the County.

32. 1.3.1.1.3 says it is 2026 (Year 2) and 1.3.1.1.4 says it is 2026 (Year 4). Please clarify.

A. There is typo in the RFP. Section 1.3.1.1.4 should say 2027(Year 3).The correct timeline is below

Year 0=2024; Year 1=2025; Year 2=2026; Year 3=2027; Year 4=2028; Year 5=2029

33. 2028 is listed as Year 5 for 1.2.1.1.5. Please clarify is 2028 is year 4 or year 5?

A. There is typo in the RFP. Section 1.3.1.1.4 should say 2029(Year 5).

34. 2029 is not listed under 1.3.1.1. Please clarify if vegetation management activities will occur in 2029 and if so, what activities will occur?

A. Also see number 9. There was an omission in the RFP and proposers should include costs for vegetation management for 5 total years.

35. Clarify the management years that require vegetation management by providing calendar years that correlate to project year (i.e. 2024=Year 0, 2025=Year 1, 2026=Year 2, 2027=Year 3, 2028=Year 4, 2029=Year 5

a. “This project will include vegetation management events for 6 years (Year 0 to Year 5) to control persistent invasive plant species”

A. See number 32. The vegetation management tasks will run for the following years.

Year 0=2024; Year 1=2025; Year 2=2026; Year 3=2027; Year 4=2028; Year 5=2029

Note that the scope for Year 0 of the vegetation management is limited to the installation of the native seed and cover crop.

36. Will County purchase the required 11 HOBO data loggers or should consultant include cost to purchase for project or rent to project?

A. See number 5. The proposer shall supply the dataloggers. Alternate monitoring and data logging methods may also be utilized per 1.3.2.1.1.2.

37. Will County purchase the required 10 shallow monitoring wells and associated supplies (filter sand, bentonite, etc.) or should consultants include cost to purchase for project?

A. The consultant should include the cost as part of their proposal.

38. Please define “accepted prices” from 6.3 (Page 16). Will contracts be issued annually and costs negotiated annually or are consultants expected to hold proposal prices as the “accepted prices”?

a. 6.3. Fixed Price Period

i. The awarded contractor must hold the accepted prices and/or costs for the entire contract period. Any adjustment to prices and/or costs at the beginning of a contract renewal period will be negotiated between the County and the Contractor.

A. Accepted prices are the prices agreed to at the time of contracting based on what is listed in your cost proposal. Costs will be fixed for the length of contract. (IE whatever long contract length is agreed too). If the contract is extended in any way or scope of work changes during the contract, adjustments in pricing can be made by mutual agreement between vendor and the county.

39. Is 1.3.1.1.4.6 inserted by mistake or is there a paragraph of text missing? Every other heading is associated with a paragraph but this heading does not seem to be associated with a distinct paragraph

A. See number 8. The RFP formatting is incorrect. The prescribed burn tasks described in 1.3.1.1.4.4 through 1.3.1.1.4.6 should all be covered in 1.3.1.1.4.4.

40. Describe level of detail and associated documents (i.e. GIS Figures, Tables, Treatment Tracklogs) the County expects within the “annual report” referenced in 1.3.1.1.2.5 and subsequent sections.

A. Please refer to the approved CSP which has been provided as an attachment and can be found in the Attachment F link for the information needed to be provided as part of the annual report.

41. 1.3.2.1.1.1 – This section lists “Year 1”. Please confirm that Year 1=calendar year 2025, Year 2=2026, Year 3=2027, Year 4=2028, and year 5=2029.

A. The calendar years are as follows:

Year 0=2024; Year 1=2025; Year 2=2026; Year 3=2027; Year 4=2028; Year 5=2029

42. Per the CSP Section 7.3.1, “Seed bed preparation will include initial INN species treatments prior to hydrology restoration and grading. INN species treatments will be ongoing through the monitoring and management period. Aquatic approved herbicides (e.g., trade name Aquaneat or Rodeo) will be applied in areas where standing water is present, and an Aquatic Plant Management Permit will be needed in areas where standing water is present.”

a. Was any invasive species control completed prior to site construction. If yes, please provide summary of treatments (target invasive species, treatment method, treatment date, other detailed information such as treatment area, type and percent active ingredient of chemical(s) used.

A. Construction is scheduled to commence in mid-August and the County will complete a first round of invasive species control. The details requested will be provided once the work has been completed.

*******End of Addendum 1*******