2223-025 Questions and Answers STARKE BYPASS.pdf

SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

NO. 22/23-025

STARKE BYPASS MITIGATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MONITORING

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Regarding the invasive/exotic plant treatments, is the contractor only responsible for FLEPPC (now FISC) and Noxious listed species provided with the solicitation documents, or are other invasive/exotic species to be treated as well (i.e., ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium))?

Based on the language in the Adaptive Management Plan (page 3), “the site will be inspected for the occurrence of invasive/exotic (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council I and II species) and nuisance (species listed in Rule 5B 57.007, Florida Administrative Code) vegetation”. “Coverage of non-native species not included on the aforementioned invasive/exotic and nuisance species lists will not be classified as “invasive/exotic” or “nuisance” species”.

2. Can you please provide further detail as to how the price breakdown works in regard to the rate per acre vs. rate per hour bid line items, including examples of when each would be used for this contract?

SRWMD expects firms to use acre/rates as the primary rates for payment and invoicing for all listed tasks other than administrative work and monitoring. In the event where un-planned, small scale, touch-up work must be completed, over and above the scope of a stated monthly work plan, firms will have the ability to use hourly rates for payment and invoicing. However, the expectation is that if events like this occur, the firm will be working closely with SRWMD project managers to explain this work and justify the use of the hourly rates. Hourly rates will also be the primary rates used for administrative work and monitoring.

3. Is the per hour rate for a man or crew? If Crew, what constitutes (how many men) as a crew?

The hourly rate is based on the level of manpower (single or combined) firms think it will take to complete the work.

4. Regarding the tree planting, since the site has not been monitored in over a year, what happens in the event of trying to meet tree density success criteria the quantity of trees to be planted is higher than what was provided?

It’s not expected that when the third-party monitoring is completed again in October 2023, tree stocking numbers will have significantly fallen from the original estimate as the trees on the site which were counted during the March 2022 monitoring have been established for some time, as they were only counted if they were at or above the shrub layer during the time of the assessment. Recruitment of trees is occurring in portions of the site and it’s just as likely that tree per acre numbers may be slightly higher than the estimates based on the March 2022 data collection. In either of these events, firms should consider the following:

A. The “Approximate # of Trees Proposed for Planting/Acre” provided in the Supplemental Planting Polygons guidance is based on data collected in March 2022 using transects within the specific community type polygon, that was then summarized into the supplemental planting zones and #’s proposed for planting provided. These numbers were intended to be an estimate of the minimum number of trees, not accounting for mortality, that need to be planted to reach the lower end of the success criteria (100 trees per acre above the shrub layer). Considering that the Success Criteria ranges from 100 – 400 trees per acre, SRWMD feels that firms should not try to develop the tree stock rate/acre based on survival numbers that fall within the lower end of this Success Criteria range. The expectation is that firms develop a work plan that will meet the stated Success Criteria but will not be jeopardy of failure after several years of post-planting monitoring.

B. Given that the "Approximate # of Trees Proposed for Planting/Acre” are based on transect data collection, field adjustments will need to be made to make sure that areas are being planted in a manner that is not too dense, or too sparse given the nature of where trees have survived from the previous plantings, and that equal attention is being provided to areas around the existing transects, and outside of the transects.

5. Regarding to planting success criteria, is the final determination based on tree density success of planted tree survivorship success? For example, if one (1) polygon has 50 trees per acre proposed but the contractor chose to over plant by an additional 50 trees per acre, do you still need 90% survivorship of all trees or just to mee the tree density requirements?

The Success Criteria for tree density is stated in the Adaptive Management Plan as “100-400 trees/acre present above the shrub layer.” The expectation is that firms develop a work plan that will meet the stated Success Criteria but will not be in jeopardy of failure after several years of post-planting monitoring. Firms will have to develop a tree stock rate/acre that is based in part on the number of 3-gallon trees they feel will be needed to meet the Success Criteria. The third-party consultant will be conducting the monitoring to ensure these criteria are met.

The methodology used to determine the success of planting for invoicing and payment purposes is clearly discussed on page 11 of the Proposal under the Supplemental Planting Compliance Requirements section. Based on a hypothetical work plan, if you are planting 4.5 acres and within that acreage you have planted 565 3-gallon trees, the following will occur:

A. Based on submitted rates in the Project Fee Schedule (Attachment C), you will be invoicing SRWMD for 4.5 acres at your tree stock planting rate/acre and 4.5 acres at your tree stock acre/rate. If all the initial guidelines for compliance have been met, you can invoice SRWMD for 50% of these costs.

B. Your project manager will be evaluating the survival of the 565 trees at both the 6-month and 1-year terms based on the planting compliance guidelines. As stated, if >= 95% (of the 565) are alive at the 6-month term, you can invoice SRWMD for an additional 25% of the cost. If >= 90% (of the 565) are alive at the 1-year term, you can invoice SRWMD for the final 25% of the cost.

Because the tree stock acre/rate is developed from the number of 3-gallon seedlings firms have determined are needed to meet the Success Criteria, SRWMD wants to be sure this 3-gallon planting stock survives before making final payments.

6. Provide an example where rate/hour and rate/acre for invasive/exotic plant treatment would be applied for this project? Typically this type of work is bid as either or, not both rate types.

A. You submit a FY 2025 work plan to SRWMD that states you will be conducting invasive/exotic treatment work on 150 acres. The scope of this work may be based in part on survey data provided by the third-party consultant. You conduct this work, compliance checks are completed and approved, you invoice SRWMD for this work at your rate/acre.

B. Outside the stated FY 2025 work plan, a SRWMD Project Manager is wandering through a cypress swamp and notices two large tallow trees that have not been treated OR the third-party consultant finds a small patch of cogon grass that has not been treated; in either of these examples, the firm can send someone out to treat these small areas and invoice SRWMD using the hourly/rate for invasive treatments. This scenario will only apply in instances where the location is not part of an area already treated/invoiced (within the current fiscal year) or an area that is targeted for treatment during the current fiscal year.

7. How will payments be made for tree stock/planting? At the site visit it was mentioned that contractor would be responsible for replacing any dead trees following planting at no additional cost to District, but if contractor elects to plant an initial stocking density at a high rate to account for mortality will contractor be required to re-plant even if the permit criteria are met with surviving trees?

• Example: Current tree density = 28 tpa, Permit success criteria = 100 tpa , contractor proposes to plant 100 tpa, follow-up evaluation shows 15% mortality of trees planted but total density after planting = 113 tpa – success criteria is met.

Will contractor be responsible for re-planting 15% mortality if permit success criteria are met?

A. Please see the answer to Question 5 for a partial explanation to your question.

B. You will be required to replant if after the first 6-month and 1-year terms you did not meet the 95% or 90% survival requirement for invoicing and payment as described in the Supplemental Planting Compliance Requirements section. This is a requirement because SRWMD has paid for these trees regardless of whether or not you are within the Success Criteria range.

C. Any scenario where SRWMD agrees to pay for the additional cost of planting/tree stock to fill gaps caused by mortality, will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. This option would only be considered if the firm has demonstrated all aspects of the planting (tree stock quality and handling, site preparation, tree planting, planting time, etc.) were favorable to the long-term survival of the trees. Consideration may also be given to any unforeseen weather issues that were beyond the ability of the firm to forecast or provide contingency measures.

8. Please provide most recent monitoring event data.

There will be no additional monitoring data gathered before the Proposal due date.

Current monitoring information is included in the Adaptive Management Plan and in the Site Assessment Report that is included as Attachment G in the Proposal package.

9. Have soil residual herbicides been used on this site for recent herbicide treatments?

0.5% Arsenal (Imazapyr) was used in a tank mix but was only applied on small patches of cogon grass scattered throughout the project area. These patches were approximately 10-20 foot diameter at the very most. Total number of patches treated were approximately 15-20 throughout the project area. The rest of the treatments were done with Glyphosate or Tryclopyr.

10. During the site visit it was mentioned that contractor’s price component would be evaluated by plugging provided rates into a specific “scenario” and lowest cost would get the highest score. Different contractors will likely have a different approach included in their proposal which will ultimately result in rates being applied to the “scenario” differently for each contractor, especially if rate/acre and/or rate/hr could be applied .

Please clarify how this would be a “fair” evaluation.

• If this component remains please provide the specific “scenario” District evaluators will utilize for scoring.

A. As discussed in the answer to Question 2, the rate/acre will be the primary price SRWMD will be asking firms to use.

B. Because of this, rates that will be applied to the example project area include all the submitted rates/acre (for all tasks) and all the personnel rates (which are by default hourly).

C. The example project area will be developed by simply picking a hypothetical work acreage and plugging in all the submitted rates/acre; also, hypothetical hourly work will be designated and the submitted personnel charges will be plugged in. All of these charges will then be added together for each individual proposal to identify the total cost for each individual proposal based on the example project area. This total cost will then be compared between proposals to identify the firm that is lowest, second lowest, etc.

D. Also, the hypothetical acreages (for acre rates) and hours (for personnel charges) will not be weighted to give any one task or personnel charge an advantage. For example, if we choose 25 acres of invasive/exotic treatments, there will also be 25 acres of site-prep work, 25 acres of planting, etc.

11. Will there be a herbicide treatment event between now and when this contract goes into effect? If so, will the current treatment contractor be held to the same permit criteria standards to ensure current invasive/exotic plant density levels will be lower by the time this contract goes into effect?

There will be no additional herbicide treatments conducted between now and the time the contract goes into effect.

12. If quality control is part of the invasive/exotic, Mechanical vegetation and tree stock planting and a 3rd party will conduct formal quality control monitoring, please provide a scenario where personnel rates would be applied to this contract.

A. The third-party consultant will be in charge of annually conducting formal monitoring/reporting work for compliance needs of the USACE permit that this mitigation site is associated with and to determine if all the Success Criteria stated in the Adaptive Management Plan are being met.

B. The selected firm’s project manager will be responsible for conducting any monitoring work needed to check and document compliance requirements (identified in the Proposal) related to invoicing and payment for completed tasks. Monitoring work may also be essential if compliance data needs to be provided for monthly status narratives as discussed in the Reporting/Invoicing section on page 12 of the Proposal. This work would be billed out to the corresponding personnel rate of the person conducting the work.

13. When is this contract expected to go into effect?

December 2023

14. Refer to Attachment C, Project Fee Schedule. It is unclear which unit rate for the fee schedule (Rate/Acre or Rate/Hour) is to be used during the execution of the Work for items: Invasive/Exotic Plant Treatment, Chemical Vegetation Control, Mechanical Vegetation Control, and Tree Stock Planting. A rate of $/acre would be appropriate for these activities. Can this table be modified to provide only one Unit for each line item?

Please see the answers to Questions #2 and #10 for guidance.

15. The Adaptive Management Plan has a Performance Standard range of 100-400 trees per acre indicated. The Supplemental Planting Polygons provided in the Adaptive Management Plan indicate planting the minimum number of trees possible to achieve 100 trees per acre, based upon existing tree density. Is the awarded vendor responsible for achieving the Performance Standard of 100-400 trees per acre, or for planting the number of trees provided on the Supplemental Planting Polygons?

Please see the answers to Questions #4 and #5 for guidance.

16. Following up on Question 2 above, If a performance standard of 100-400 must be met, site preparation may be required. If site preparation is required by contractor to ensure planting performance, will the District amend the RFP to provide for an add option for a pre-negotiated site-prep unit cost/acre that can be bilaterally exercised should site preparation be necessary in some areas?

The site-prep rates you submit in the Project Fee Schedule (Attachment C, both acre and hourly) for either chemical or mechanical work will be the only rates that can be billed/invoiced for any site-prep work conducted.

17. Following up on Question 2 above, is the awarded vendor responsible for the accuracy of the existing tree count provided?

Please see the answer to Question #4 for guidance.

18. Currently, the number of tree species identified in the Mixed Forested areas and proposed planting is limited to three. Will the District allow substitutions on tree species in the provided supplemental planting polygons to increase diversity of the planted community?

The number of tree species to be planted in the mixed forested can be increased to include others which are identified in the adjacent mature wetland forested mixed.

However, the species listed were chosen due to their ability to survive in a range of conditions once established. Per the Adaptive Management Plan, "prior to the material installation, the plant list will be provided to USACE and SRWMD for review and approval."

19. We understand from the Adaptive management Plan that the original tree plantings were bare-root stock. Is there any additional information available regarding site preparation and vegetation management after planting in these areas?

Both the Adaptive Management Plan and this proposal will be the best documents to use for project planning purposes because of their focus on current site conditions, compliance requirements and listed Success Criteria.

20. Can the District provide the Chemical Vegetation Management Forms and GPS trackers from the execution of work awarded by RFP 21/22-018 Starke Bypass Mitigation Area?

This information can be provided to the firm chosen to conduct this mitigation work.