42459RFP26 SOL.pdf

It is the responsibility of Respondents who receive this solicitation from sources other than the portals identified above or

St. Johns River Water Management District to contact the District’s Procurement staff prior to the due date to ensure any updates/addenda are received in order to submit a responsible and responsive offer. If you fail to submit a complete and accurate document, the District may deem the offer non-responsive and reject your submittal.

ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Prior to submitting my offer, I have verified that all addenda issued to date are considered as part of my offer:

Addendum No. Date Addendum No. Date Addendum No. Date

RESPONDENT NAME:

STREET ADDRESS:

MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT):

PRIMARY E-MAIL ADDRESS (required)

SECONDARY E-MAIL ADDRESS (required)

TELEPHONE: ( ) YEAR COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED

NAME/TITLE OF PERSON SUBMITTING PROPOSAL:

SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING PROPOSAL:

This document must be completed and returned with your submittal

THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

42459RFP26 RESTORATION STRATEGIES STUDY - LAKES APOPKA AND JESUP

The St. Johns River Water Management District (the “District”) is seeking submittals from qualified consultants to perform lake-specific restoration studies for Lakes Apopka and Jesup (the “Work”). The studies must include, but are not limited to, options to remove or mitigate nutrients and invasive species and explore the impacts of raising the average lake level and/or increasing the depth in some or all areas of the lakes. The estimated budget for the Work is $5,000,000. All Work must be completed no later than February 26, 2027.

Interested and qualified Respondents are invited to submit a complete submittal package in accordance with the requirements and specifications detailed in this solicitation. Submittals must address all elements of the Scope of Work and comply with the terms and conditions set forth herein.

Further information is available through DemandStar at demandstar.com, Central Bidding at centralbidding.com, the state of

Florida’s MyFloridaMarketPlace at myfloridamarketplace.com or the District’s website at sjrwmd.com. Solicitation packages may be obtained from the above portals. Respondents may also request the solicitation package directly from the District.

For all requests or questions relating to this solicitation, please contact:

Shari Chinevere, Procurement Manager

Phone: 386-643-1172 or E-Mail: slchinev@sjrwmd.com

PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING – No Pre-Submittal Meeting is Scheduled

LAST DAY FOR QUESTIONS – July 8, 2026; 5:00PM

SUBMITTAL DUE DATE

2:00PM Friday, July 17, 2026

PLEASE NOTE! Submittal must include all required documents and forms requested in this solicitation or the submittal may be rejected and deemed non-responsive.

42459RFP26 | Page 1 of 51

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

42459RFP26 RESTORATION STRATEGIES STUDY - LAKES APOPKA AND JESUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Sheet Page 1

Table of Contents Page 2

PART 1 – Scope of Work Pages 3-7

Cost Proposal Form………………………………………………………………………….. Page 8

PART 2 – Submittal Requirements & General Information Pages 9-19

PART 3 – Forms Pages 20-29

(NOTE! Additional documents not included in this section may be required)

PART 4 – Draft Agreement Pages 30-51

42459RFP26 | Page 2 of 51

PART 1 - SCOPE OF WORK

I. Introduction and Background

The 2026 Florida Legislature included Specific Appropriation 1733 in the State Budget (HB 5001E) for the St. Johns River

Water Management District (District) to study and report restoration strategies for Lakes Apopka and Jesup, both in Central

Florida. The appropriation reads:

From the funds in Specific Appropriation 1733, $5,000,000 in nonrecurring funds from the General Revenue Fund is provided to the St. Johns River Water Management District to study restoration strategies for Lake Jesup and Lake

Apopka. The study must include, but is not limited to, options to remove or mitigate nutrients and invasive species and explore the impacts of raising the average lake level and/or increasing the depth in some or all areas of the lakes.

For each lake, the study must also include: (1) Potential environmental impacts to water quality, water supply, and to native wildlife and aquatic plants; (2) Potential economic impacts to property value for surrounding properties and to surrounding businesses; (3) Any potential effects to opportunities for recreational activities, which shall include fishing and hunting; and (4) The estimated cost of constructing each option studied with a target completion date of

June 30, 2037. By March 1, 2027, the St. Johns River Water Management District shall submit a report containing the results of the study and any recommendations, to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of

Representatives.

Lake Apopka, the fourth largest lake in the state (30,800 acres) is the headwaters for the Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes and the

Ocklawaha River basin. Lake Apopka has a direct impact on the water quality of Lakes Beauclair and Dora, and a partial impact on the water quality of Lakes Eustis and Griffin, all part of the Upper Ocklawaha Basin Management Action Plan

(BMAP). Prior to excessive nutrient inputs into Lake Apopka from agriculture and other point sources, the Lake was described as a clear lake, with game fish that relied upon the abundant desirable native aquatic vegetation. The first algae blooms occurred in the late 1940s. The lake lost all submerged vegetation within subsequent years, and the game fish were eventually replaced by dense populations of gizzard shad, a native rough fish that thrives in hypereutrophic conditions.

The District was designated the task of restoring Lake Apopka in the Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1985. Lake Apopka was named, at that time, the most polluted large lake in the state. Further legislation followed with passage of the Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act in 1987, and the Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1996. District staff have initiated, completed, and are currently managing projects which reduce the phosphorus loading to the lake (diet) and reduce the current phosphorus availability within the lake (exercise). After several years of studies and over 35 years of restoration activities including the acquisition of the North Shore farms and cessation of muck farm discharges, operation of the Marsh

Flow-Way filtration marsh, annual gizzard shad rough fish harvest, and replanting of native vegetation, the water quality in the lake has seen significant improvement. The Total Phosphorus (TP) concentration in Lake Apopka has declined from over

250 µg/L in the mid-1980s to near the goal of 55 µg/L in recent years.

Lake Jesup, which shifts from 8,000 to 16,000 acres depending upon the wide-ranging water elevations, has experienced alterations dating back to the 1800s. Over time, modifications to the lake’s natural connection have occurred. These modifications limit the river’s capacity to circulate water and flush nutrients. Urbanized development of Central Florida has also played a role in the decline of the lake’s water quality. Decades of wastewater discharges to the lake’s tributaries have increased nutrient inputs, leading to chronic algal blooms and the buildup of a thick layer of organic muck on the lake bottom.

However, amidst these challenges, concerted efforts have been put in place aiming to restore and rejuvenate this iconic body of water. In 1994, the Florida Legislature passed the Lake Jesup Act, prompting the District to launch diagnostic studies into the lake’s water quality issues. District scientists expanded water quality sampling and hydrologic modeling of Lake Jesup and worked with partners on initiatives aimed at revitalizing the lake. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) spearheaded the removal of wastewater treatment plant discharges from the lake’s tributaries and subsequently formulated a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and BMAP. Through the BMAP process, local governments within the lake’s watershed have implemented projects that decrease the amount of nutrient loading into the lake but legacy nutrients remaining in the muck layer continue to contribute to ongoing algal growth, perpetuating the cycle of water degradation. With the lake’s depth only reaching 6 to 10 feet at its deepest, even moderate wind can disturb sediment at the lake’s bottom, 42459RFP26 | Page 3 of 51 resuspending these legacy nutrients into the water. To help address this issue, the lake’s BMAP was updated in 2019 to include internal nutrient sources.

II. Objective

The District aims to complete lake-specific restoration studies for Lakes Apopka and Jesup by February 26, 2027, to provide comprehensive information to the Legislature for potential future funding. The outcome of this study will provide essential guidance to the Legislature and District for future restoration actions.

The objective of the studies is to identify cost-effective options in the form of potential projects to reduce nutrient availability and impairment that further the goal of meeting TMDLs and BMAPs, while maintaining or enhancing water supply, native ecology, and recreational opportunities. The potential projects shall minimize negative economic impacts to surrounding homeowners and businesses. These project concepts may include watershed nutrient-load reductions or measures to reduce the recycling of legacy nutrient loads from within waterbodies.

III. Work Description

Consultant shall identify potential projects that provide benefits to each lake. Consultant shall provide two final reports (one for each lake) with a list of potential projects that meet the above objectives and satisfy all requirements set forth in Specific

Appropriation 1733. Each report shall include detailed project plans, implementation schedules, planning-level cost estimates

(including design, permitting, construction, mitigation, and annual operation and maintenance costs) for each option and an overall recommendation regarding implementation of the most effective restoration strategy or combination of strategies.

IV. Task Identification

Consultant shall perform the following tasks to accomplish this Work.

A. Kickoff and Progress Meetings

A kickoff meeting, including the Consultant and District project team, will be held in person at District headquarters to review and finalize project goals and objectives and establish communication protocols. The Consultant and the

District project team will hold up to twelve progress meetings to review progress, identify potential impacts to the task schedule, and develop solutions to keep the study on track. The Consultant shall schedule the kickoff meeting and progress meetings in coordination with the District project team. Meetings will typically precede task deliverables. The Consultant team for the progress meetings will consist of the Project Manager and appropriate staff.

Progress meetings will be held virtually unless otherwise identified.

Deliverables: Agendas and minutes for each meeting in Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Word format, and any

PowerPoint presentations used during meetings.

B. Existing Information Collection and Review

This task focuses on collection and review of all existing environmental data, future restoration efforts, previous ecological studies and findings, lake or basin feasibility studies, and an evaluation of any other existing information that could be used for this study. This task may include meetings or correspondence with local governments, the

District, and other entities to collect the necessary information. This task does not include the collection of any new environmental data.

Existing Information includes, but is not limited to:

1. District’s water quality and hydrologic data

2. District’s Surface Water Improvement Plans

3. Reports and data from limnological studies (District and local sources)

4. Reports related to development of water quality improvement projects from the last 30 years

5. Internal presentations, reports, and memoranda

6. DEP’s TMDL and BMAP reports

7. Watershed Modeling Reports

8. 2025 Central Florida Water Initiative Regional Water Supply Plan

9. District Minimum Flows and Levels and associated Prevention and Recovery Strategy reports and draft reports

10. Seminole County Lake Jesup Drainage Basin Study

11. Local government data including reports, models, management or basin studies, etc.

12. Final reports for the Middle St. Johns River and Ocklawaha River Basin feasibility studies

42459RFP26 | Page 4 of 51

Deliverables: Draft Technical Memorandum; revised Final Technical Memorandum addressing one set of consolidated District comments.

C. Evaluate Potential Projects to Remove or Mitigate Nutrients

Consultant shall identify and evaluate, separately for Lake Apopka and Lake Jesup, potential projects to remove or mitigate nutrients for each lake. At a minimum, Consultant shall evaluate dredging of lake sediments, lake sediment phosphorus inactivation, and potential projects that remove existing phosphorus from each lake’s water column.

For each potential project, Consultant must include:

1. Potential environmental impacts to water quality (e.g., estimated nutrient load reductions or mass removal from the lake), water supply (e.g., alternative water supply made available), and to native wildlife and aquatic vegetation;

2. Potential economic impacts to property value for surrounding properties and to surrounding businesses;

3. Any potential effects to opportunities for recreational activities, which shall include fishing and hunting;

4. Detailed project plans and fee schedules for each potential project; and

5. For each potential project studied, the estimated construction cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, with a target completion date of June 30, 2037.

Evaluation of each potential project shall include at a minimum:

1. Cost-benefit analysis conducted in accordance with a methodology submitted to and approved by the District before the analysis is performed;

2. Preliminary planning-level opinions of probable costs including design, permitting and mitigation;

3. Estimates of long-term operation and maintenance costs;

4. Implementation schedule (i.e. “project readiness”), including design, permitting and mitigation;

5. Ecological benefits, including reduction in nutrient availability and habitat restoration/enhancement;

6. Ability to demonstrate no decreased level of service for flood protection;

7. Potential for mitigation costs associated with the potential project;

8. Potential to optimize regulation schedule(s) to maximize water supply; and

9. Potential alternative water supply benefits.

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.

D. Evaluate Removal or Mitigation of Invasive and Nuisance Species

Consultant shall identify and evaluate, separately for Lake Apopka and Lake Jesup, potential projects to remove or mitigate invasive and nuisance species where relevant. At a minimum, Consultant shall evaluate invasive or nuisance vegetation control and rough fish harvesting.

Consultant must include for each potential project:

1. Potential environmental impacts to water quality (e.g., estimated nutrient load reductions or removal), water supply (e.g., alternative water supply made available), and to native vegetation and wildlife;

2. Potential economic impacts to property value for surrounding properties and to surrounding businesses;

3. Any potential effects to opportunities for recreational activities, which shall include fishing and hunting;

4. Detailed planning level project task, costs, and schedules for each potential project; and

5. For each potential project studied, the estimated construction cost for each option studied with a target completion date of June 30, 2037, and annual operation and maintenance costs.

Evaluation of each potential project shall include at a minimum:

1. Cost-benefit analysis:

2. Preliminary planning-level opinions of probable costs including design, permitting and mitigation;

42459RFP26 | Page 5 of 51

3. Estimates of long-term operation and maintenance costs.

4. Implementation schedule (i.e. “project readiness”), including design, permitting and mitigation;

5. Ecological benefits, including reduction in nutrient availability and habitat restoration/enhancement;

6. Ability to demonstrate no decreased level of service for flood protection;

7. Optimize regulation schedule(s) to maximize water supply; and

8. Potential alternative water supply benefits.

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.

E. Evaluate Impacts of Raising Average Lake Levels and/or Increasing Lake Depths

Consultant shall identify and evaluate, separately for Lake Apopka and Lake Jesup, the impacts of raising the average lake level and/or increasing the depth in some or all areas of each lake. At a minimum, Consultant shall evaluate the physical ability to modify lake water elevations through the use of water control structures and the physical ability to change water depths by sediment removal (e.g., dredging).

Consultant must include for each potential project:

1. Potential environmental impacts to existing flood protection provided by current structural and non-structural components, water quality (e.g., estimated nutrient load reductions), water supply (e.g., alternative water supply made available), and to native wildlife and aquatic plants;

2. Potential economic impacts to property value for surrounding and downstream properties and to surrounding businesses;

3. Any potential effects to opportunities for recreational activities, which shall include fishing and hunting;

4. Detailed project plans and fee schedules for each potential project; and

5. For each potential project studied, the estimated construction cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and whether the potential project can reasonably be completed by the target completion date of June 30, 2037.

Evaluation of each potential project shall include at a minimum:

1. Cost-benefit analysis;

2. Preliminary planning-level opinions of probable costs including design, permitting and mitigation;

3. Estimates of long-term operation and maintenance costs;

4. Implementation schedule (i.e. “project readiness”), including design, permitting and mitigation;

5. Ecological benefits, including reduction in nutrient availability and habitat restoration/enhancement;

6. Ability to demonstrate no decreased level of service for flood protection;

7. Optimize regulation schedule(s) to maximize water supply; and

8. Potential alternative water supply benefits.

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.

Deliverables: Draft Technical Memorandum; revised Final Technical Memorandum addressing one set of consolidated District comments.

F. Reports

Consultant shall develop two final reports, one for Lake Apopka and one for Lake Jesup, compiling all Work completed in previous tasks and clearly presenting the results of the study and any recommendations required for submittal to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition, Consultant shall:

1. Discuss strengths, limitations, and key considerations for each potential project;

2. Prioritize (i.e., rank) all potential projects evaluated in Tasks C-E;

42459RFP26 | Page 6 of 51

3. Provide detailed project plans and fee schedules for each potential project; and

4. Recommend an overall most effective potential project (or suite of potential projects in combination) to address legislative direction.

Potential factors to consider for prioritization and final recommendation may include ecological benefits, cost-benefit ratio, resiliency aspects, economic impacts to landowners and businesses, and ease of implementation. Consultant shall discuss the prioritization methodology for potential projects with the District prior to finalization.

The reports will be of sufficient detail for planning and budgetary purposes and include a table listing all potential projects studied with a summary of each potential project’s estimated construction cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, target completion assessment through June 30, 2037, key benefits, potential environmental, economic, and recreational impacts, and Consultant’s prioritization to facilitate comparisons.

Consultant shall submit the draft final reports to the District for review and comment. The District shall provide consolidated comments within two weeks of receiving the draft final reports. Consultant shall address the District comments and submit Final Reports in time for the District to transmit the required report by March 1, 2027, to the

Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Deliverables: (1) Draft Final Reports to the District by February 1, 2027; (2) revised Final Reports addressing one set of consolidated District comments by February 26, 2027, for District transmittal.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the body of the Agreement, Contractor may not invoice for this task until after District approval of the Final Reports.

The Agreement that will be awarded through this solicitation is funded through a revenue agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FDEP revenue agreement is still under negotiation at the time of this solicitation posting. Once finalized, it will be included in the District’s Agreement with the successful Consultant as an attachment.

Consultant’s deliverables must conform to the requirements of the FDEP revenue agreement.

42459RFP26 | Page 7 of 51

COST PROPOSAL

This document must be completed and returned with your submittal under Tab 5 of the Proposal

In accordance with the advertisement requesting Proposals for 42459RFP26 Restoration Strategies Study - Lakes Apopka and

Jesup, subject to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the undersigned agrees to perform the Work for the price contained in this Cost Proposal form (fill in the blanks).

Tasks Fixed Price by Task

A. Kickoff and Progress Meetings

B. Existing Information Collection and Review

C.

Evaluate Potential Projects to Remove or Mitigate

Nutrients

D.

Evaluate Removal or Mitigation of Invasive and Nuisance

Species

E.

Evaluate Impacts of Raising Lake Levels and/or

Increasing Depths

F.

Reports

F.1. Draft Final Reports

F.2 Final Reports

Total

If said Proposal exceeds the estimated amount set forth in the District’s solicitation, the District expressly reserves the right to increase, decrease, or delete any class, item, or part of the Work, as may be determined by the District.

Respondents are reminded to refer to section titled SUBMITTAL LAYOUT/ORDER OF DOCUMENTS in this solicitation for information to be included with the proposal package.

Pursuant to §287.084(2) Fla. Stat., a vendor whose principal place of business is outside the state of Florida must accompany any written bid, proposal, or reply documents with a written opinion of an attorney at law licensed to practice law in that foreign state, as to the preferences, if any or none, granted by the law of that state to its own business entities whose principal places of business are in that foreign state in the letting of any or all public contracts.

I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND CERTIFY, as Respondent’s authorized representative, that I have fully read and understand all terms and conditions as set forth in this proposal and upon award of such proposal, shall fully comply with such terms and conditions.

Respondent (firm name)

Address

E-mail address

Signature Telephone number

Typed name and title Date

This document must be completed and returned with your submittal

42459RFP26 | Page 8 of 51

PART 2 – GENERAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS

Thank you for your interest in working with the St. Johns River Water Management District. Please direct questions regarding the submittal documents and specifications to the District’s procurement staff member identified on the first page of this solicitation, in writing. We look forward to working with you. Pertinent information and required documents regarding this solicitation as part of a responsive submittal are listed below.

The District shall publish notice of specifications and criteria, including addenda, intended agency decisions, or other matters pertinent to this solicitation on portals identified on the first page of this document.

2.1 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Respondent must satisfy the following minimum qualifications. Instructions for providing this documentation are provided herein. Failure to provide required documentation as instructed may result in a submittal being rejected as non-responsive.

(a) Experience: Respondent (or a combination of the firm, individual, or project manager assigned to the work) or Respondent’s subconsultant must have no less than five years of experience and expertise in each of the following:

(1) Water Quality, such as the role of hydrology in influencing eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, external nutrient load reduction projects, projects to reduce internal recycling of nutrients (sediment nutrient inactivation, dredging, rough fish harvest), etc.

(2) Hydrology, including specific understanding of the relative contributions of structural and non-structural flood protection, design, construction and operation of water control structures. Hydrology experience related to Lakes Jesup and Apopka is preferred but not required.

(3) Invasive or nuisance species management related to lake restoration and nutrient reduction.

(4) Economic and recreational impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and planning-level cost estimating.

(b) Similar projects: Respondent (or a combination of the firm, individual, or project manager assigned to the work) or Respondent’s subconsultant must have successfully completed at least three projects of a similar nature as set forth on the SIMILAR PROJECTS FORM within the past 20 years immediately preceding the deadline for receipt of Submittals for this solicitation. Preference will be given to more recent projects. The

District reserves the right to determine whether a project shall be considered “similar.” Any similar project submitted by Respondent must have been performed for a project owner/administrator that is independent of Respondent. For purposes of this solicitation, “independent” means a project owner/administrator that is not: (i) the Respondent; (ii) a relative of Respondent; (iii) an employee, officer, director, agent, or representative of Respondent; or (iv) a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, commonly owned entity, joint venture partner, or other entity under common control with the Respondent.

(c) Respondent shall provide resumes for all personnel it will assign to this Project, including the names and functions of personnel assigned, special expertise, and any certifications relevant to the work.

Irrespective of the minimum qualifications stated above, the District may make such investigations as it deems necessary to determine the ability of the Respondent to perform the Work. The District reserves the right to reject any submittal if the evidence submitted by such Respondent and/or the District’s independent investigation of such Respondent fails to satisfy the District that such Respondent is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the Agreement and complete the Work in a manner acceptable to the District within the time period specified.

2.2 BUDGET ESTIMATE

The estimated budget is an estimate only and does not limit the District in awarding the Agreement.

Respondents are cautioned to not make any assumptions from the District Project Manager’s construction estimate about the total funds available for the Work. The District retains the right to adjust the estimate in awarding the Agreement.

The District also reserves the right to reject all Proposals if subsequent negotiations with qualified Respondents result in costs over the engineer's construction estimate. In addition, the District reserves the right to increase, decrease, or delete

42459RFP26 | Page 9 of 51 any class, item, or part of the Work in order to reduce costs for any reason. The District may discuss alternatives for reducing the cost of the Work with Respondents and make such modifications as it determines to be in its best interest.

2.3 SUBMITTAL LAYOUT/ORDER OF DOCUMENTS

Respondent’s submittal shall be organized in the following manner:

Tab 1 – Introduction and Respondent Information- Administrative/Responsiveness (Not Scored)

(a) Cover letter.

(b) Completed solicitation page 1 / addenda acknowledgement (form).

(c) Completed Submittal Acknowledgement Form (form).

(d) Completed affidavit of Non-Collusion and Certification of Material Conformance with Specifications

(form).

(e) Proof of insurability issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of Florida and with an

A.M. Best Company rating of at least A- or greater for the required insurance(s) as set forth in the

Agreement. Successful Respondent will be required to obtain and provide a Certificate of Insurance that meets all requirements as stated, references the Agreement number and shows St. Johns River Water

Management District named as additional insured.

(f) Completed Certificate of Authority to Do Business in Florida (form).

(g) Proof of Respondent’s active registration on www.sunbiz.org.

(h) Proof of Respondent’s active registration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system.

(i) Completed Drug-Free Workplace Form (form) (will be used only if a tie occurs).

Tab 2 – Respondent / Subconsultant Organization, Background, and Expertise- 40 points

(a) General Information (form).

(b) Completed Proposed Subconsultants (form).

(c) Completed Similar Projects Form.

(d) Provide a written description of the Respondent and services provided.

(e) Provide an organizational chart for Respondent.

(f) Provide a written description of Respondent’s (and proposed subconsultants’) experience and expertise in the following (include number of years of experience in each):

(1) Water Quality, such as the role of hydrology in influencing eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, external nutrient load reduction projects, projects to reduce internal recycling of nutrients (sediment nutrient inactivation, dredging, rough fish harvest), etc.

(2) Hydrology, including specific understanding of the relative contributions of structural and non-structural flood protection, design, construction and operation of water control structures.

Hydrology experience related to Lakes Jesup and Apopka is preferred but not required.

(3) Invasive or nuisance species management related to lake restoration and nutrient reduction.

(4) Economic and recreational impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and planning-level cost estimating.

(g) List any current or past clients, projects, or engagements that may present a potential conflict of interest if Respondent firm is selected to provide services under this solicitation for the District. Include a brief description of the nature of the potential conflict. If no such conflicts exist, please state so explicitly.

42459RFP26 | Page 10 of 51 http://www.sunbiz.org/

Tab 3 – Qualifications, Abilities, and Expertise of Key and Professional Personnel, including Willingness, Ability, and Capacity to Dedicate Qualified Staff to the Project- 30 points

(a) Provide a list of all proposed key and professional staff proposed for the project. The list must identify a project manager. In the list, include:

(1) Names.

(2) Job titles / functions assigned.

(3) Special expertise. Identify any expertise in the following disciplines:

(i) Limnology, lake ecology, or aquatic ecology;

(ii) Water quality analysis and nutrient reduction strategies;

(iii) Hydrology and hydraulics or water resource engineering;

(iv) Sediment management, dredging, or in-lake restoration techniques;

(v) Invasive or nuisance species or aquatic vegetation management;

(vi) Environmental economics, property-value / economic impact assessment, or comparable economic analysis; and

(vii) Planning-level cost estimating and implementation scheduling.

(4) Status as employee or subconsultant.

(5) Amount of time available to dedicate to the Project.

(b) Provide brief resumes for all proposed key and professional staff proposed for the Project. Resumes should address:

(1) Education;

(2) Experience; and

(3) Professional certifications / licenses.

Tab 4 – Technical Merit of Proposal- 20 points

(a) Provide a proposal for completing the Project as described in Part 1, Scope of Work. The proposal should address:

(1) Proposed project schedule, including key milestones, completion dates and deliverables below;

Tasks Expected Completion

Dates1 Deliverable

A. Kickoff and Progress Meetings Meeting agendas and minutes

B.

Existing Information Collection and

Review Technical memorandum

C.

Evaluate Potential Projects to

Remove or Mitigate Nutrients

Technical memorandum

D.

Evaluate Removal or Mitigation of

Invasive and Nuisance Species

E.

Evaluate Impacts of Raising Lake

Levels and/or Increasing Depths

F.

Reports

F.1. Draft Final Reports February 1, 20272 Draft final reports

F.2. Final Reports February 26, 20272 Final Reports 1 – Expected completion dates are based on an assumed start date of August 24, 2026.

2 – Task F completion dates are firm.

42459RFP26 | Page 11 of 51

(2) Strategies to address the timely completion of the Work;

(3) Project team’s applicable resources and capabilities; and

(4) Respondent’s methodology and approach to the Project and understanding of the requested services.

Tab 5 – Cost Proposal- 10 points

(a) Provide a completed Cost Proposal (form).

2.4 PROPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS, ASSEMBLY, AND SUBMITTAL

(a) Proposal requirements:

(1) One (1) Original Document – uploaded into DemandStar or Central Bidding as a single .pdf file.

(2) Page Limit – none, if not otherwise specified herein this document.

(3) Page Size – 8 ½ x 11; oversized pages must be scanned to print out to appropriate page sizes, if necessary.

(b) Assembly requirements:

Submitted in order of submittal layout as listed above – documents should be scanned as PDF or similar format as one complete package.

(c) Submittal requirements:

Complete submittal package – Complete package shall consist of all required information and documents as listed in the Section titled SUBMITTAL LAYOUT/ORDER OF DOCUMENTS. A submittal returned without these documents may be deemed non-responsive. The District reserves the right to request additional information from any Respondent prior to award.

2.5 SCORING GUIDELINES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

All submittals received in accordance with this solicitation will be evaluated using the following scoring guidelines

(multiplied by weights when applicable) unless other scoring is specifically identified in the category. See section above titled SUBMITTAL LAYOUT/ORDER OF DOCUMENTS for more information.

More than adequate ………….8 – 10 Less than adequate …………1 – 4

Adequate …………………….5 – 7 Not covered in submittal …...0

Failure by Respondent to include the required information may result in the submittal being considered non-responsive or may receive a correspondingly low score pursuant to the evaluation rating scale.

CRITERIA WEIGHT SCORE TOTAL

A. RESPONDENT / SUBCONSULTANT ORGANIZATION, BACKGROUND,

AND EXPERTISE

B. QUALIFICATIONS, ABILITIES, AND EXPERTISE OF KEY AND

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL, INCLUDING WILLINGNESS, ABILITY,

AND CAPACITY TO DEDICATE QUALIFIED STAFF TO THE PROJECT

C. TECHNICAL MERIT OF PROPOSAL 20

D. COST PROPOSAL

The responsive and responsible Respondent who submits the lowest proposed overall cost will receive a raw score of “10.” All other responsive and responsible proposed costs will be scored proportionately.

TOTAL 100

*Scores are per Committee member; to gain maximum points, verify that each item above is supported by all necessary and required documentation listed in the tabs below.

42459RFP26 | Page 12 of 51

2.6 HOW TO SUBMIT A RESPONSE TO THIS SOLICITATION

(a) Respondent’s submittal must be submitted in electronic format (no paper copies) either by uploading to

DemandStar directly at www.demandstar.com OR to Central Bidding directly at www.centralbidding.com

(NOT BOTH); OR by delivering all files on a single pin/thumb/jump drive either by mail or hand delivery in a sealed envelope.

Label all sealed envelopes as follows:

SEALED SUBMITTAL – DO NOT OPEN

Respondent’s Name: ___________________________________________

Request for Proposals: 42459RFP26, Restoration Strategies Study - Lakes Apopka and Jesup

Opening Time: 2:00PM

Opening Date: July 17, 2026

Shari Chinevere, Procurement Manager

St. Johns River Water Management District

District Headquarters

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, FL 32177

**Please note that the U.S. Postal Service does not deliver regular mail or express mail to the above address.

The District’s experience is that Federal Express and United Parcel Service will. The District is not responsible for and will not accept or consider late submittals due to delays caused by any mail, package or courier service, including the U.S. mail, or caused by any other occurrence.

DO NOT SUBMIT VIA EMAIL — THIS WILL RESULT IN THE SUBMITTAL BEING REJECTED AS NON-

RESPONSIVE.

(b) All blank spaces on the solicitation documents must be typewritten or legibly printed in ink. In the event you decline to submit a response, the District would appreciate submittal of the “No Response Form” provided in this solicitation to describe the reason for not submitting a response.

(c) Please do not password protect files saved to a pin/thumb/jump drive. The District recommends that

Respondents confirm their submittal documents will open correctly on a non-Respondent-owned computer.

Any electronic submittal received by the District that does not open on a District-owned computer is subject to rejection as a defective response. The file naming conventions for the solicitation must clearly identify specific information such as the solicitation number and Respondent’s name (Example: 12345RFP78, ABC

Company).

NOTE! A Respondent’s submittal may be rejected as non-responsive for:

(1) Failing to complete all forms.

(2) Failure to provide all required materials; or

(3) Otherwise failing to comply with instructions for preparation and organization of submittal.

2.7 SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

If an individual submits a response to this solicitation, the individual must sign his/her name therein and state his/her address and the name and address of every other person interested in this solicitation as principal.

If a partnership submits a response to this solicitation, state the name and address of each member of the partnership.

If a corporation or limited liability company submits a response to this solicitation, an authorized agent or officer/member must sign the submittal, subscribing the name of the entity with the individual’s own name and affixing the corporate seal (if applicable). Such agent or officer/member must also provide the name of the state under which the entity is chartered/formed, and the names and business addresses of the officers/members.

All Respondents must submit evidence of registration with the Florida Secretary of State for doing business in the state of Florida.

All Respondents must certify that all persons or entities having an interest as principal in this solicitation or in substantial performance of the Work have been identified in the submittal forms.

42459RFP26 | Page 13 of 51 http://www.demandstar.com/ http://www.centralbidding.com/

2.8 PROHIBITED COMMUNICATION

To ensure a fair and impartial evaluation process, the District strictly prohibits any communication related to this solicitation with any District office, department, bureau, or employee during the submission and evaluation period, except as expressly authorized in this solicitation. Respondents are specifically prohibited from initiating any contact or communication with any District official or employee involved in the evaluation or consideration of submittals, including but not limited to the Executive Director and members of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management

District, prior to the issuance of an award decision. All communication regarding this solicitation shall be initiated by the District’s Procurement staff, and solely for the purpose of obtaining information or clarification necessary for the proper evaluation of submittals. Any attempt by a Respondent to engage in unauthorized communication may result in disqualification from consideration for award under this solicitation and may further result in exclusion from future procurement opportunities with the District.

2.9 PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETINGS, INQUIRIES AND ADDENDA

If scheduled, the pre-submittal meeting information will appear on the first page of this solicitation. If the pre-submittal meeting is not designated as mandatory, then attendance at the pre-submittal meeting is strongly recommended. If the pre-submittal meeting is designated as MANDATORY, each Respondent must attend or its submittal will not be accepted.

During this meeting, the project scope, procedures, and specifications will be discussed. It is also the only opportunity during the open solicitation period for attendees to ask questions directly to the end user.

District staff are not authorized to provide oral interpretations or clarifications of the solicitation documents, including specifications or other agreement terms. All binding interpretations or corrections must be provided in writing, come only from Procurement staff, and be issued as part of an official addendum to this solicitation. The assigned Procurement

Specialist may provide general guidance on District procedures and assist in referencing applicable sections of the solicitation documents; however, Respondents remain fully responsible for understanding and following all written requirements and submitting accordingly.

In order to be considered, all requests for a written interpretation or correction must be submitted via e-mail before the deadline for questions as stated in this solicitation. All official responses, including clarifications, corrections, or supplemental instructions, will be issued in writing via addenda and posted on the solicitation portals listed on Page 1 of this document, prior to the submittal due date.

By submitting on this solicitation, Respondent is bound by and must acknowledge receipt of all issued addenda.

Submittals will be interpreted as if all addenda were received, whether or not Respondent actually reviewed the addenda.

Failure to receive or review an addendum does not relieve Respondent of any obligations under the solicitation or resulting Agreement. All addenda become an official part of the Contract Documents (defined in the Agreement).

2.10 OPENING OF SUBMITTALS

Submittals will be opened on or as reasonably feasible after the due date, after which time a Respondents List will be identified and uploaded to DemandStar, Central Bidding, and MyFloridaMarketPlace; pricing (if applicable) is not part of this detail. The Florida Public Records Act, §119.071(1)(b), Fla. Stat., exempts sealed submittals from inspection and copying until such time as the District provides notice of an intended decision pursuant to §120.57(3)(a), Fla. Stat., or until 30 days after opening of submittals or final replies, whichever is earlier. This exemption is not waived by the public opening of the submittals.

Unless otherwise exempt, Respondent’s submittal is a public record subject to disclosure upon expiration of the above exemption period. If any information included in the submittal is a trade secret as defined in §812.081, Fla. Stat., and exempt from disclosure pursuant to §815.04, Fla. Stat., Respondent must clearly identify any such material as

“CONFIDENTIAL TRADE SECRET” in its submittal and explain the basis for such exemption. The District reserves the right, in its sole judgment and discretion, to reject a submittal for excessive or unwarranted assertion of trade secret confidentiality and return the submittal to Respondent.

2.11 DISQUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

Any of the following causes will be considered as sufficient grounds for disqualification of a Respondent and rejection of the submittal:

(a) Contacting a District employee or officer other than the procurement employee named in this solicitation about any aspect of this solicitation before the notice of intended decision is posted.

42459RFP26 | Page 14 of 51

(b) Submission of more than one submittal for the same subject matter by an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation under the same or different names.

(c) Evidence of collusion among Respondents.

(d) Submission of materially false information.

(e) Information gained through checking references or other sources which indicates that Respondent may not successfully perform the Work.

(f) Respondent is failing to adequately perform on any existing agreement with the District.

(g) Respondent has defaulted on a previous agreement with the District.

(h) The evidence submitted by Respondent, or the District’s investigation of Respondent, fails to satisfy the

District that Respondent is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the Agreement in a manner acceptable to the District and within the time period specified.

(i) Any documented unsatisfactory past performance by Respondent on work performed on a District project.

(j) Any other cause that is sufficient to raise doubt regarding the ability of a Respondent to perform the Work in a manner that meets the District’s objectives for the Work.

2.12 REJECTION OF SUBMITTAL

Submittals must be delivered to the specified location and received before the designated due date and time in order to be considered. Untimely submittals will be returned to Respondent unopened. Submittals will be considered irregular and may be rejected if they show material omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditions, limitations, or other material irregularities. The District may consider incomplete any submittal not prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions specified herein and the District reserves the right to waive any minor deviations or irregularities in an otherwise valid submittal.

The District reserves the right to reject any and all submittals and cancel this solicitation when it determines, in its sole judgment and discretion, that it is not in its best interest to award the Agreement.

2.13 WITHDRAWAL OF SUBMITTALS

Respondent may withdraw its submittal if it submits such a written request to the District prior to the designated date and hour of opening. Respondent may be permitted to withdraw its submittal no later than 72 hours after the submittal opening for good cause, as determined by the District in its sole judgment and discretion.

2.14 EVALUATION OF SUBMITTALS AND AWARD PROCEDURES

Submittals will be reviewed and evaluated by a staff Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) based on the criteria and weighting outlined in the Section titled SCORING GUIDELINES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA, herein.

A Committee meeting will be scheduled, and notice of the meeting, including the date, time, and location, will be posted at least five (5) days in advance on DemandStar, Central Bidding, MyFloridaMarketPlace and Florida Administrative

Register. The Committee will meet at District headquarters or another suitable location to discuss and score the submittals. Each Committee member will complete an evaluation form during the meeting, and the compiled results will be used to determine the overall ranking.

(a) Evaluation Process

(1) The Committee will evaluate and rank the submittals, based upon the established evaluation criteria. If the Committee determines that oral presentations will assist in the evaluation, presentations may be conducted at District headquarters, at another designated location, or remotely, as deemed appropriate by the District.

(2) If the Committee determines that not all Respondents will be asked to make an oral presentation, the

Committee will complete an initial evaluation to develop a preliminary ranked list. This list will be used to determine which Respondents will be asked to make an oral presentation.

42459RFP26 | Page 15 of 51

(3) After oral presentations are completed, the Committee members will conduct a final evaluation and ranking using the same criteria. Scores from the initial evaluation will not be carried over. All

Respondents will be notified in writing of the Committee’s final ranking results.

(b) Confidentiality of Evaluation Meetings

Under §286.0113, Fla. Stat., certain portions of meetings related to the solicitation process are exempt from public attendance. These include any part of a meeting where (1) a negotiation with a Respondent is conducted pursuant to a competitive solicitation; (2) a Respondent makes an oral presentation as part of a competitive solicitation; (3) a Respondent answers questions as part of a competitive solicitation; or

(4) negotiation strategies are discussed. Recordings and materials from exempt meetings are confidential and exempt from public disclosure under §119.07(1), Fla. Stat., and §24(a), Article I of the Florida

Constitution until the District issues a notice of intended decision or until thirty (30) days after the submittal opening, whichever comes first. All exempt portions of meetings must be fully recorded. No portion of the exempt meeting may be held off the record.

(c) Rejection and Reissuance

Pursuant to §286.0113, Fla. Stat., if the District rejects all submittals and concurrently provides notice of its intent to reissue the competitive solicitation, the recording and any records presented at any exempt meeting shall remain exempt from §119.07(1) Fla. Stat., and §24(a), Art.