42459RFP26 Addendum 2 .pdf

ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2026

TO: Interested Firms

FROM: Shari Chinevere, Procurement Manager

SUBJECT: Addendum 2 to 42459RFP26 Restoration Strategies Study - Lakes Apopka and Jesup

As a result of questions received from potential respondents, please be advised of the following changes to the subject RFP:

Questions/Answers

1) Given the 4th of July holiday and the level of effort needed to form our teaming agreements, can the

District push the proposal due date back three weeks? ANSWER: No, the due date will remain as

Friday, July 17, 2026; 2:00PM. Time is of the essence due to the legislatively mandated deadline of

March 1, 2027.

2) Would the District consider holding a pre-proposal meeting to help applicants better understand the project goals and objectives, availability of existing data, and timelines for project implementation?

ANSWER: No, time is of the essence due to the legislatively mandated deadline of March 1, 2027.

3) Can the District provide the study results from Lake Jesup and the pilot project at the District’s Ocklawaha Prairie Restoration Area that demonstrated Lanthanum Modified Bentonite (LMB) is effective at binding and inactivating sediment BAP? ANSWER: Yes, the District will provide the results to the selected consultant for their review.

4) Does the District expect the INACTIVATION OF BIO-AVAILABLE SEDIMENT PHOSPHORUS IN LAKE JESUP project will be completed prior to the start of this project? And if so, will the District provide the preliminary results to the team selected for this RFP? ANSWER: No, the District has not entered into a contract for this project, and it will not be completed by March 1, 2027. The District will provide any data generated from the project to the selected consultant for their review.

5) In addition to the Upper Ocklawaha BMAP (June 2025) and TMDL recommendations, does the District have specific projects they would like to incorporate into the Plan? ANSWER: No, the selected consultant will be responsible for investigating and developing the project concepts.

6) The RFP establishes an estimated budget of $5,000,000 while simultaneously stating that the task "does not include the collection of any new environmental data" or the "development of a new modeling application." Given these strict limitations, can the District clarify the expected level of engineering design (e.g., conceptual, 30%, 60% design level) and the anticipated scale of the economic impact assessments required to justify this budget allocation within a 6-month timeframe? ANSWER:

The legislatively mandated deadline of March 1, 2027 does not allow time for the collection of new data or development of new modeling applications. The District expects the consultant to conduct a careful review of existing data and reports and provide estimated capital and O&M expenses for projects along with an anticipated timeline to construct projects once funded. These cost estimates should include permitting and any mitigation expenses. As mentioned in the SOW, the projects are “potential.” Therefore, the level of “engineering design” is conceptual in nature and formal design

42459RFP26 Addendum 1

(e.g., 30%, 60% design level) is not anticipated or required. Furthermore, the scale of economic impact is also “potential”.

7) Given the $5,000,000 budget, does the District anticipate the need for public outreach, stakeholder engagement, and/or third-party economic surveys as part of this effort (additional data gathering), or is the effort strictly dedicated to desktop engineering, cost-benefit/economic analysis, and report generation? ANSWER: No public outreach or stakeholder engagement is anticipated or required for this contract.

8) The schedule outlines an approximate six-month window from the anticipated start date of August 24, 2026, to the final report deadline of February 26, 2027. Given the magnitude of generating detailed project plans, fee schedules, and economic impact analyses for two major lakes, will the District accept conceptual-level plans for this phase, or is a highly detailed implementation schedule strictly mandated for the final report? ANSWER: The consultant should provide conceptual project designs that include best professional cost estimates and timeline to implement.

9) Are the deliverable deadlines (February 1, 2027, for the Draft and February 26, 2027, for the Final) flexible based on the volume of existing data to be reviewed? ANSWER: No, they are not flexible.

These are firm dates based upon the legislatively mandated deadline of March 1, 2027.

10) What is driving the February project completion deadline? Is it related to BMAP/TMDL schedule requirements? ANSWER: No, the schedule is based upon the legislatively mandated deadline of

March 1, 2027.

11) The RFP requires the consultant to evaluate the impacts of raising or increasing lake depths. When evaluating these options, what is the District’s primary optimization target? Should the methodology prioritize achieving TMDL/BMAP nutrient reduction goals, maximizing alternative water supply, or ensuring no decreased level of service for flood protection? Will the District provide a specific weighting matrix for these potentially competing criteria to the selected team? ANSWER: No, the

District will not provide a specific weighting matrix. The consultant is tasked with making a recommendation of how to balance multiple and potentially competing goals.

12) Task F requires the consultant to "Prioritize (i.e., rank) all potential projects" based on ecological benefits, cost-benefit ratio, and economic impacts. Will the District provide the specific acceptable methodology or metrics for this cost-benefit analysis, OR is the consultant expected to develop and propose the criteria for District approval during the kickoff phase? ANSWER: The consultant is tasked with developing the criteria.

13) The RFP explicitly states that the effort "does not include the development of a new modeling application". However, evaluating the impacts of raised lake levels on flood protection and water quality inherently requires predictive analysis. Can the District confirm if consultants are expected to rely solely on evaluating outputs and reports from existing District models, or if running/modifying existing models (with new parameters like altered depths) is permissible under this scope? ANSWER:

This SOW is based upon existing models and work. As stated in the SOW, “This effort does not include the development of a new modeling application such as surface or groundwater modeling.

If model development is needed, it should be outlined in the details of the individual project plan.”

Based on this, the consultant is expected to comment on the adequacy of existing information and be prepared to recommend and outline what additional work is needed to address uncertainty including estimating the cost of that additional work and estimating a timeframe to complete that work.

14) The RFP references a legislative requirement to provide the estimated cost of constructing each option with a "target completion date of June 30, 2037". Does this mean the proposed projects must be physically scaled, phased, and permitted so that construction is entirely completed, OR is this date intended strictly as a baseline for calculating future costs, inflation, and lifecycle operation and maintenance? ANSWER: The legislative direction states a project completion date of June 30, 2037, so the consultant should estimate the funding needs required to implement the recommended projects on this schedule.

15) Given the sediment sequestration efforts currently underway at Lake Jesup, how does the District intend for that work to factor into the feasibility analysis required under this RFP? Specifically, we would like additional information to understand whether the Consultant is expected to build upon, incorporate, or independently evaluate those ongoing efforts within the nutrient-mitigation and lake-level analyses. ANSWER: The District expects the consultant to examine the issues from an independent perspective given each lake’s current condition.

16) The Scope of Work references detailed project plans for each potential project. Given the District’s position that professional engineer seals are not warranted on the plans, we request clarification on the level of detail contemplated. Are the final plans intended to be schematic or planning-level concepts consistent with the study’s legislative and budgetary purpose, rather than design-level drawings? ANSWER: The level of detail for the project plans should be conceptual in nature. For example, provide a general schedule for (including but not limited to, or as applicable) any pilot studies or bench tests, data acquisition, modeling, design milestones (e.g., 30%, 60%), permitting, and construction. Cost estimates for scheduled tasks should be qualified as to the level of confidence. Final plans including drawings and/or exhibits should be planning-level concepts.

17) Will the District consider alternative products to lanthanum-based bentonite for sequestering sediment TP loads? ANSWER: Yes, the District is open to all methods of sequestering sediment phosphorus.

18) Will the District only consider products made in the USA, shown to be equally effective and cost competitive for applications to remove nutrients? ANSWER: Where a product is made is not a consideration for this effort.

19) Is the District including innovative nature-based technology projects for addressing nutrient removal in the lakes? ANSWER: Yes, the District is open to innovative, nature-based technologies.

20) Should projects be ranked by cost, such as $/lb of TP and/or TN removed? ANSWER: The selected consultant will be tasked with developing project rankings. That said, cost-effectiveness should be a consideration for projects as stated in the SOW, but not necessarily determinative.

21) Please confirm whether a firm’s participation in this project phase would preclude it from pursuing future design or construction opportunities. ANSWER: No, a firm’s participation in this project would not preclude them from pursuing future design or construction opportunities.

22) Would you be open to accepting infographics and organization charts in 11x17 format? ANSWER:

Yes.

23) If more than the three minimum project examples are submitted, will the District allow more than one District project as long as at least two non-District projects are included? ANSWER: No, only one

District project is allowed as a similar project.

24) Should permitting complexity, funding affordability, stakeholder acceptability, and regulatory risk be treated as a significant factor in the prioritization and ranking of restoration alternatives? ANSWER:

The selected consultant will be tasked with developing project rankings that may include permitting complexity, funding affordability, stakeholder acceptability, and regulatory risk.

25) Are there existing regulatory constraints, agency positions, or prior permitting efforts for Lakes

Apopka or Jesup that should be considered when evaluating restoration alternatives? ANSWER: The

District expects the consultant to examine the issues from their perspective given each lake’s current condition. Furthermore, the District cannot provide clarification on other regulatory agency constraints or positions.

26) The Commercial General Liability section on Page 47 of the RFP indicates that a project aggregate of

$2,000,000 is required. Instead of providing a project aggregate, is it acceptable if we provide a higher policy aggregate ($3,500,000 for each occurrence and $7,000,000 general aggregate) than what is required for Commercial General Liability insurance? ANSWER: Yes, the higher policy stated above is acceptable.

27) Does the District anticipate a single award for this work, or could the solicitation result in multiple awards across the Scope of Work? ANSWER: The District anticipates a single award for this work.

End Addendum 2