ADDENDUM_1_for_rfp.doc

STATE OF MINNESOTA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

ADDENDUM

Addendum No. 1 to Request for Proposal

FOR

Florida Creek Stream Restoration Event Due Date: March 19, 2023 Time: 2:00 P.M.

New Event Due Date: March 29, 2024

VENDORS: EVENT DUE DATE HAS CHANGED.

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

Questions and Answers:

Note: Any questions and/or answers that require drawings or links will be provided on Addendum 2.

Question 1. Is it possible to either see the existing survey data or get a description of existing data volume (i.e. number of cross sections, long pro) that allows us to use professional judgment on how much additional data are needed?

Answer 1. An AutoCAD Civil 3D drawing is available for download at the provided link. The drawing includes the majority of the survey data collected.

Question 2. Is it possible to extend deadline to March 22?

Answer 2. Yes. The end date has been extended to March 29, 2024.

Question 3. Can DNR share their HEC-RAS model? Is it 1D or 2D?

Answer 3. The HEC-RAS model is available for download at the provided link. It is a 1D model.

Question 4. Have existing road crossing sizes been surveyed and/or measured?

Answer 4. Road crossing structures that have been surveyed by DNR have elevations listed on the plan sheets.

Question 5. Can DNR share existing geomorphic data that has been collected?

Answer 5. – Geomorphic data is available for download at the provided link.

Question 6. What is the expectation for “collect additional data” for geomorphic survey?

Answer 6. DNR has collected limited geomorphic survey data. Consultant will be expected to collect any additional data that is needed.

Question 7. What are expectations for survey to support as-built drawings (contractor vs. consultant)?

Answer 7. As-built survey data should be collected by the consultant, or a survey firm hired by the consultant.

Question 8. Does the DNR have a preferred page count by proposal section?

Answer 8. No

Question 9. The Lac qui Parle CWMP identifies 3 miles of restoration in their implementation plan.

a. Does the MNDNR have a rough idea of what percentage of the river will require sediment dredging?

Answer 9a. No. The extent of necessary channel excavation is a significant unknown for the project.

b. Does the MNDNR have a rough idea of what percentage of the river will require in-channel and bank treatments?

Answer 9b. No

c. Does the MNDNR have a rough idea of what percentage of the culverts that may need to be replaced or modified?

Answer 9c. The culverts under CSAH 12 were modified in 2022 in consideration of this project. No additional changes are expected at CSAH 12. It is anticipated that some culvert modification in other areas of the project will be necessary. The DNR has not estimated a percentage.

Question 10. Entire budget appears to be $3,000,000. Does this include Design and Construction Engineering Services requested in the RFP or is it solely Construction costs?

Answer 10. The current project budget is not firm. Additional funding may be requested if necessary, based on the preliminary/final design.

Question 11. Are their specific CAD Standards from the MNDNR?

Answer 11. The consultant will be expected to use the DNR title page and title block. There are no other specific drafting standards that must be followed.

Question 12. For part 4, e.-wetland delineation of the project area. Do you have a project area for the delineation or a certain buffer from the yellow line on the maps? Preferably a polygon or GIS file?

Answer 12. DNR does not have a project area for the delineation identified. It is anticipated the entire construction area will be wetlands and wetland delineation will be required for all areas of construction disturbance.

Question 13. Is this a fixed price contract for the three items in the Cost detail or is it a time and materials type contract with a not to exceed amount? The attachment C request an hourly rate schedule and the sample contract mentions a not to exceed amount.

Answer 13. This would be a time and materials with a not to exceed amount.

Question 14. Can the flood plain analysis, survey data or CAD work be shared prior to the response deadline? If not are there more survey shots than what is shown on the Conceptual Plan?

Answer 14. See link.

Question 15. I assume we need to permission to access the private land for a site visit. Is that something we do through the DNR or work with individual landowners.

Answer 15. DNR will arrange permission and provide landowner contact information to the consultant.

Question 16. Was there a feasibility study completed?

Answer 16. No formal feasibility study has been completed. Conceptual work has been shared.

Question 17. Are the points shown on the concept plans the extent of the survey collected?

Answer 17. Yes

Question 18. In the concept provided, it is not clear if culvert notes are for existing survey or proposed. Are culvert replacements part of this project?

Answer 18. The culvert sized and elevations existing conditions. It is anticipated that some culvert replacements and/or removals will be needed.

Question 19. What is the calculation method for the hydrology used in the DNR's existing geomorphic assessment?

Answer 19. GPS grade survey equipment was used to survey a riffle cross section immediately upstream of the project location. A pebble count was completed within the surveyed cross section to determine roughness. The bankfull call was cross checked with a Minnesota River Basin Regional Curve developed by the DNR, and then a discharge estimate was developed using that data within RIVERMorph software. Furthermore, three cross sections were established within the project area using the same methods. These three cross sections (i.e., upstream, middle, and lower portions of the project area) were setup to have flow measurements taken by the Area Hydrologist to help determine bankfull discharge.

Question 20. What are the input sources and assumptions made in the existing DNR HEC-RAS model? Is it the FEMA model? Georeferenced? Survey or LiDAR based cross sections? Calibrated/Validated?

Answer 20. The DNR HEC-RAS model was created with a combination of existing LiDAR, survey from DNR staff, and channel data from the effective FEMA model. It is georeferenced, and the projection, datum, and LiDAR sources are listed in the Description box in the main RAS window.

The model is not calibrated since there was not data to calibrate to. The model includes two sets of flows. One set is the flows from the effective FEMA model, and the other is stream stats. I included both since there is a wide difference between the two data sets.

Question 21. Will legal descriptions of easements be needed?

Answer 21. It is not expected that the consultant will need to prepare legal descriptions of easements. DNR and our partners are currently working with landowners to secure parcel-based easements.

Question 22. Should design consultant assume they are setting control points the contractor to complete staking from?

Answer 22. Yes

Question 23. If a subconsultant with construction capabilities is included as part of the design team, would they be excluded from bidding on construction?

Answer 23. A subconsultant that participates in the design would not be allowed to bid on construction as a prime contractor or perform construction as a subcontractor.

Question 24. Did the DNR’s concept geomorphology indicate that the historic channel is appropriately sized?

Answer 24. The geomorphology surveys and walk through completed by the DNR showed that large portions of the historic channel are undersized to some varying degree. In the two areas nearest where the active channel diverged from the historic channel, the historic channel is nearly filled with sediment and will need quite a bit of excavation. The length of channel in these areas needing significant excavation are in the scale of a few hundred feet each. Large portions of the remaining historic channel are undersized, but to significantly less of a degree; some areas not that undersized at all. Amongst the work that needs to still be completed is determining how much of the historic channel in certain areas will need to be excavated further, versus allowing flow through less undersized areas of historic channel.

Question 25. Has the DNR’s concept already identified which crossings will be replaced as part of the project? If so, have sizes been calculated? Are new box culvert crossings anticipated?

Answer 25. No decisions have been made on crossing modifications, with the exception of the 2022 modifications on CSAH12. Changes are anticipated but will need to be identified and sized as part of the project design.

Question 26. Can you please provide a shapefile of the proposed alignment?

Answer 26. See link.

Question 27. Has OHWL been delineated, or will this delineation be performed by the DNR?

Answer 27. The DNR will provide the OHWL delineation. It has not been completed.

Question 28. There is an existing USGS gage within the project area. Will the consultant be expected to coordinate changes to the rating curve which may occur due to the proposed project?

Answer 28. No

Question 29. Is there going to be an on-site pre-bid meeting with potential construction contractors? The bidding services does not include attending a pre-bid meeting.

Answer 29. A pre-bid meeting is not currently anticipated.

Question. 30 For the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling-

a. Is the completed HEC-RAS modeling for the entire project area? Does it contain both the historic and existing channels?

Answer 30a. The HEC-RAS model has been provided for review.

b. Does the completed HEC-RAS modeling indicate that a no-rise certificate is feasible for a project of this type and scale?

Answer 30b. Yes Question 31. For the USACE permit applications, does the DNR expect that this project will require stream mitigation? Will SQT analysis be required, and will that be the responsibility of the DNR or the Consultant?

Answer 31. It is expected one or two representative areas will require SQT analysis, but not the entire project length. SQT analysis will be a consultant responsibility. Responders are encouraged to propose additional tasks, activities, or goods above and beyond the scope of what is requested in this solicitation if they will substantially improve the results of this procurement. Any costs associated with these additional tasks, activities, or goods should be clearly marked and separated from costs associated with the tasks, activities, or goods specifically requested under this solicitation.

Question 32. For the geomorphic survey

a. Has the DNR identified a reference reach for use in Natural Channel Design processes?

Answer 32a. A specific reference reach has not been identified.

b. Does the DNR expect a full longitudinal profile and stream cross sections for both the existing and historic channels, or will the survey data needed to complete the design be more targeted?

Answer 32b. Detailed longitudinal profiles and cross sections can be targeted to areas as needed for design. Less detailed (spot checks) can be done is other areas.

c. Can drone survey be used for pre-survey (assuming bankfull indicators are identified in the field) and post-project survey?

Answer 32c. A RTK survey completely by drone would be acceptable provided there is accuracy verification and other survey methods were used to collect data in areas where a drone survey is not effective.

Question 33. For the contractor selection, does the DNR expect there will be a consultant interview or will selection be made based solely on the submitted RFP?

Answer 33. The State will make its selection based on best value, as determined by the evaluation process outlined in the RFP but the State reserves the right to interview key personnel of the highest scoring vendor.

This addendum shall become part of the proposal.

This vendor shall acknowledge the addendum by submitting this form with their proposal.