202603043 - Coastal Bluff - Answer Vendor Question.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Coastal Bluff Mapping
- Solicitation number
- RFP - 01A - 202603043
- Issued by
- Maine
About this file
This document is a vendor question and answer log for RFP #202603043 Coastal Bluff Mapping, issued by the Maine Geological Survey (MGS). The project seeks qualified consultants to update and expand coastal bluff mapping across four regions of Maine's coastline over four consecutive years, with an extended completion date of August 31, 2029. The work involves desktop mapping analysis, field validation at approximately 40 sites (10 per region across four regions), and the production of geospatial datasets characterizing coastal bluff stability and sediment supply. The mapping effort will utilize publicly available LiDAR data from NOAA's Digital Coast, existing MGS-acquired digital elevation models, and oblique aerial imagery, supplemented by NEARMAP imagery available through 2028. Field sites will be selected based on public accessibility, known instability, spatial distribution, and adjacent habitat types, with prioritization given to areas with existing infrastructure such as roads and facilities in state, municipal, or national parks. The contractor is expected to complete one region fully and make significant progress on a second region during the initial contract period of 2026-2028. Monthly coordination with a Technical Advisory Committee via Microsoft Teams is required, along with quarterly webinars and outreach opportunities to be determined in conjunction with MGS.
The contract operates as a competitive bid process with no set budget disclosed; vendors must submit cost proposals using Appendix G based on the Scope of Work requirements. All spatial data must be referenced to NAD83 UTM Zone 19N in meters with elevation data in NAVD88 (feet or meters), and coastal bluff stability mapping should represent 100-150 foot segments of shoreline. The project is grant-funded, and field expenses including mileage, lodging, and per diem are reimbursable within the total proposal cost. Ground-truthing activities may include unmanned aerial systems (UAS) where operationally appropriate, though NOAA Environmental Compliance approval restricts drone use within the southwestern portion of Mount Desert Island and requires decreased-noise propellers as a best management practice. The contractor will not be required to conduct quality assurance/quality control on the 378 miles of shoreline already remapped by MGS internally, but must build upon developed protocols and develop further workflow efficiencies. The project prioritizes mapping areas with existing bluff identification and significant stability impacts on development, followed by unmapped coastal areas, with lower priority assigned to protected conservation lands without infrastructure. AI-enhanced GIS analysis tools may be considered but require additional vetting through Maine's Office of Information Technology architecture team.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP#202603043 Amendment 1 05-12-2026.docx.crdownload | CRDOWNLOAD file | |
| RFP#202603043 Coastal Bluff Mapping.pdf | ||
| RFP#202603043 Coastal Bluff Mapping.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
Question Answer
| Can you please provide the maps, reports, or other associated documents associated with the Phase 1 Region (Casco Bay) project. What entities/consultants were used to support this effort for the State? | Refer to Amendment #1. | |
| Please provide the available budget for this project? | As this is a competitive bid process the Agency cannot provide a set budget, and we ask that the vendor please fill out Appendix G and provide the cost for the work requested in the Scope of Work. | |
| For areas not previously mapped, what data will be provided to support mapping and analysis? or is it expected that data will be drawn from publicly available sources? | Refer to Amendment #1. | |
| If existing data (provided or public) is not available, or of required quality, for a stretch of coast, what is the expectation for mapping these areas? | Reasonable mapping efforts should be made to map coastal bluffs. For the pilot areas, the Agency created a "confidence" of mapping score based on the quality and quantity of available data. This or a similar technique is expected. | |
| Please confirm that LiDAR for the mapping and analysis may be acquired through both publicly and/or existing MGS acquired data. | NOAA Topobathy LIDAR is available from NOAA's Digital Coast. The Agency can also supply the bidder with internally created DEMs and hillshade models. Refer to Amendment #1. | |
| During the update to Casco Bay, how were field sites determined and prioritized? | Field sites were selected based on public accessibility, known and newly mapped instability to cover a range of expected stability, and presence of different adjacent habitat types. The Agency also strived for a good spatial distribution of the sites throughout the study area, if possible. | |
| The RFP calls out 10 field reports per study region (40 total). Are these 40 sites the only expected field visits? Or if there is not enough data available during desktop mapping would additional field visits be expected? | The Agency suggested a total of 10 field sites per region for ground-truthing of mapping, so yes, for groundtruthing efforts 40 site visits are expected. However, the proposal could provide a reasonable effort for mapping areas with poor image coverage using privately acquired imagery, for example. | |
| Would field reports only occur on state owned land or will there be coordination with other landowners if needed? | The Agency expects groundtruthing activities to be focused on publicly accessible lands (e.g., state, municipal, NGO, etc.), and does not expect to be coordinating with multiple private landowners as part of this effort. | |
| Would the selected consultant be responsible for field data collection with a drone or does Maine Geological Survey expect to continue contracting this work to firm that did the central and eastern Maine oblique imagery? | It is not expected, but UAS or other remote sensing techniques may make ground-truthing efforts more efficient and provide better spatial imagery of sections of the coastline. The Agency hopes to supplement the current oblique aerial imagery with another flight this fall. The Agency will also have NEARMAP oblique imagery available from 2026-2028 to support mapping efforts. | |
| If the selected consultant is expected to collect drone imagery, has Maine Geological Survey gone through Environmental Compliance review with NOAA for this work already, and have you received approval to use drones as part of this project? If so, di | NOAA EC was completed and ground-truthing activities, including the use of drones, is permitted for the project except for within the southwestern portion of Mount Desert Island. Decreased noise propellers and drone BMPs are expected. The Agency received a NOAA guidance document on the use of drones. It is not expected, but UAS or other remote sensing techniques may make ground-truthing efforts more efficient and provide better spatial imagery of sections of the coastline. The Agency hopes to supplement the current oblique aerial imagery with another flight this fall. The Agency will also have NEARMAP oblique imagery available from 2026-2028 to support mapping efforts. Unfortunately the rest of this question was cut off and we cannot respond. | |
| Are there specific data formats, coordinate systems, or accuracy standards required for deliverables to ensure compatibility with existing Maine Geological Survey datasets and municipal GIS systems | Spatial data is generally referenced to NAD83 UTM Zone 19N, meters, and elevation data referenced to NAVD88, feet or meters. The coastal bluff stability mapping is expected to be representative of 100-150 foot segments of shoreline. | |
| What are the State's expectations for long-term data maintenance, updates, and public accessibility? Should proposers include recommendations for ongoing monitoring or periodic updates to the mapping products? | The Agency expects that mapping will significantly update, supersede, and expand previous mapping efforts. Future large mapping updates are not expected. The Agency expects to use a public portal (the MGS-developed Coastal Bluff Survey Tool (CBST)) and reviews for either permits or bluff reclassifications to undertake quarterly updates. However, the Agency welcomes recommendations for any methods for future large-scale updates as part of the RFP process. | |
| Considering this work is grant funded, can you provide any additional information about the expected cost range? | As this is a competitive bid process the Agency cannot provide a set budget, and we ask that the vendor please fill out Appendix G and provide the cost for the work requested in the Scope of Work | |
| Can you provide more information about how frequently the selected consultant will meet and coordinate with the TAC and what the expected format for these meetings will be? | Monthly check-ins with the TAC via Microsoft Teams or similar platform is expected. | |
| Have the specific individual members of the TAC been identified yet? | TAC members will include representatives from The Agency and Maine Sea Grant. | |
| If Maine Geological Survey does have approval from NOAA to use drones, did that approval come with any restrictions about the specific drone equipment that can be used, re the American Security Drone Act? | NOAA EC was completed and ground-truthing activities, including the use of drones, is permitted for the project except for within the southwestern portion of Mount Desert Island. UAS general guidance documents from NOAA have been received and NOAA requested the use of decreased noise propellers. The State of Maine drone policy does not apply to bidders, nor the data generated. | |
| Is there an anticipated frequency for engagement with the Technical Advisory Committee, and should this be reflected explicitly in the work plan? | Monthly check-ins with the TAC via Microsoft Teams or similar platform is expected. | |
| Will the 2,076 miles of shoreline classified as "Not a Bluff" need to be revisited or re-mapped to confirm its classification? | Areas that are currently mapped as "bluff" or designated as "not mapped" should be prioritized. Areas currently mapped as "not a bluff" are lower priority, but should be quickly checked for readily visibile bluffs based on available and easy to interpret data (e.g., oblique imagery and LIDAR). | |
| Will adjacent habitat types be characterized for areas classified as "Not a Bluff"? | No. | |
| Are there areas that are protected from future development included or excluded in the shoreline assessment? | The preference is for mapping those areas where bluffs have already been identified and stability may have a significant impact on existing or future development. This should include areas of state, municipal or national parks or conserved lands that have critical infrastructure, for example, roads, facilities, etc.. Second priority would be for areas of the coast that have not been mapped. Third priority would be assessing some areas mapped "Not a bluff" if inititial new terrain data/imagery show bluffs may be present. Much less priority should be placed on undeveloped areas that are in permanent conservation or protection that have no infrastructure (e.g., National Park or National Wildlife Refuge, etc.) with the exception noted above. The Maine Conserved Lands Layer is a good guide to help determine areas of lower priority, if undeveloped. https://www.maine.gov/dacf/parks/publications_maps/conservation_lands_maine.html This may reduce the scope of mapping services. Also, NOAA EC review indicated that the entire southwestern portion of Mount Desert Island should not be included in any field efforts. See Amendment #1. | |
| Will the department be holding webinars and outreach opportunities once per quarter or will there be multiple activities per quarter? | This will be determined in conjunction with the Agency and the bidder, but quarterly could be expected. | |
| Will the field data collection application be developed by the awarded bidder or does the TAC have a data collection app that supports the existing bluff mapping protocol? | The Agency does have a field site bluff assessment app in development, the Coastal Bluff Survey Tool (CBST) which could be used. No app is expected to be developed by the bidder. This could be used for the 10 (per region) ground assessments, if applicable, though other techniques may be more appropriate, such as drone flights. | |
| For the 378 bluff miles that have already been remapped - is the awarded bidder going to resume an existing workflow/project, work in partnership with the entity that conducted that effort, or work independently of that effort? | The Agency internally completed mapping of this region. Notes, workflows and protocols will be made available to the bidder. The TAC will continue to work with the selected bidder as technical advisors. The Agency expects the bidder to build off of developed protocols and to develop further efficiencies, workflows, etc., as possible. | |
| Will the awarded bidder be required to QA/QC the 378 miles of remapped shoreline or is that portion considered to be in a final draft format? | No. QA/QC is not needed on the 378 miles of remapped shoreline. | |
| Who will coordinate with property owners for access to the bluffs if they are accessed by land? | The Agency expects groundtruthing activities to be focused on publicly accessible lands (e.g., state, municipal, NGO, etc.), and does not expect to be coordinating with multiple private landowners as part of this effort. | |
| In the exploratory mapping deliverable, will the approved bidder develop or provide the automated approaches or are those being developed elsewhere and supplied to the awarded bidder for testing? | If applicable and increases efficiency of bluff mapping, the bidder could develop potential automated approaches for analyzing bluff stability in the study areas. The Agency does have a methodology and previously developed workflows for defining bluff terrain statitstics and stability/sediment scoring that will be shared with the winning bidder. | |
| Will the costs of smaller exploratory mapping tasks be included in the total fixed costs of the proposal or will they be scoped separately with existing project funds? | If applicable and increases efficiency of bluff mapping, the bidder could develop potential automated approaches for analyzing bluff stability in the study areas. The Agency does have a methodology and previously developed workflows for defining bluff terrain statitstics and stability/sediment scoring that will be shared with the contractor. The Agency expects these approaches to be included in total project costs. | |
| Will direct expenses for field crews be reimbursable under the contract, such as mileage, lodging, and per diem? | These expenses should be included in the total proposal and are reimbursable. | |
| Would the State of Maine consider accepting personnel resumes in lieu of those educational documents, or consider waiving this requirement? Obtaining the educational documents for all key personnel could extend beyond the timeframe allotted for this | Please provide the required documentation listed in Part IV Section I 3 a, and b as requested in the RFP. | |
| There is very limited space in App. C to provide adequate qual info- would a PDF of a Summary of Qualifications or project description sheets that included the information required in App. C be acceptable? | Bidders are required to fill out Appendix C. However, the bidder can provide additional documentation if needed to demonstrate qualifications, project descriptions and other requirements. | |
| Are all four regions expected to be completed concurrently, or phased sequentially? | The Agency expects phasing of map areas, though the bidder may choose to map more than one region at a time if applicable. Phasing may also vary from the preliminary phasing suggested in the RFP based on data accessibility or other factors, as determined in conjuction with the contractor. | |
| Is there an expectation to use UAS or other remote sensing methods for field validation? | It is not expected, but UAS or other remote sensing techniques may make ground-truthing efforts more efficient and provide better spatial imagery of sections of the coastline. | |
| Will the TAC provide boats for access to the bluffs or is it up to the approved bidder to arrange water-based transportation? | The Agency recommends prioritizing publicly and easily accessible sites for ground-truthing. Water-based access is not expected. | |
| What percentage of field visits should we assume will have relatively open terrestrial access as compared with sites that are only accessible by boat? | The Agency recommends prioritizing publicly and easily accessible sites for ground-truthing. Water-based access is not expected. | |
| RE: fieldwork -- the geographic distance between the ten and accessibility to them can vary greatly in the cost and expense associated with providing the work. Can more clarification be provided as to what we should budget for? | The Agency recommends prioritizing publicly and easily accessible sites for ground-truthing. A good spatial distribution of ground-truth sites is expected, as practicable. | |
| art 1 Introduction Part A (page 6) refers to seeking qualified consultants to update and expand 4 regions over 4 consecutive years but the contract term seems to be less than 4 consecutive years. Section D Contract Term (page 9) Please clarify | The project start date was delayed. As such, the Agency has extended the completion date of mapping to August 31, 2029. Refer to Amendment #1. | |
| How many regions (phases) is the contractor expected to complete in the initial contract period 2026-28. | The project start date was delayed. There is some flexibility in project performance period reporting, per the RFP. The Agency expects one region to be completed and having made significant progress on the second, as practicable. | |
| Balance sheets are required. | ||
| Can these be marked confidential as per #8 in General Provisions? | The Agency cannot guarantee the information will remain confidential, please be sure to mark any information deemed confidential as such and provide the necessary information to support their claim. | |
| Sediment supply classification by visual inspection seems tricky and potentially subjective. Can or will MGS provide protocols for classification; Might GIS analysis tools being considered ?.. Can the methodology evolve during the project? | The Agency does have a methodology and previously developed workflows for defining bluff terrain statistics and stability/sediment scoring that will be shared with the bidder. Methodology most certainly can be further developed, updated, and automated, if possible, using GIS. The use of AI tools may trigger AI review from Maine OIT architecture team, which may require additional vetting. | |
| Are the inputs for the mapping expected to use standard GIS analysis tools or will AI-enhanced tools be considered? | The bidder may consider the use of both standard GIS analysis and AI-enhanced tools. The use use of AI tools may trigger AI review from Maine OIT architecture team, which may require additional vetting. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .