Addendum No. 1 - DEP Solicitation No. 2023015.pdf

DEP Solicitation No. 2023015 Addendum No. 1 Page 1 of 9

ADDENDUM No. 1

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEP Procurement Section

3800 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS#93 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

July 24, 2023

Addendum To: DEP Solicitation No. 2023015, entitled

“Environmental Consulting Services for the Apalachicola Watershed & Adjacent Areas”

The Department hereby answers questions posed by prospective Vendors. This addendum does not need to be returned with the response.

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

1.

2.3.3.2 9

It appears that the majority of Section 2.3.3.2 of the RFP is missing. Page 9 of 28 includes only a portion of a sentence which presumably is the end of Section

2.3.3.2. Can this section please be provided in its

entirety?

The Solicitation has been formally amended below to capture Section 2.3.3.2, Past Performance in its entirety.

2. 3.4.2 15 Please clarify if there is a page limit for the Volume II, Technical Proposal?

No. There is no page limit for Volume II, Technical Response.

3. 4.3.a.1, 4.3.a.6, and 4.3.c.2

4.3.5 and 4.3.5.1

4.3.a.4, 4.3.a.5, 4.3.c.2, and4.3.c.7.3.a

4.3.a.7.c and 4.3.c.7.1.b

20, 21, 22 (for references to workplan)

22 (for references to Strategic Plan)

20, 21, 22, 23 (for references to the summary document)

21 and 23 (for references to Watershed

Coordination Plan)

Please clarify the difference in content between the “workplan”, the “Watershed Coordination Plan” and the “Strategic Plan”?

Please clarify the components of the Watershed Coordination Plan. Is this document comprised of the summary document, single project data set, and workplan? Note, the Watershed Coordination Plan is not mentioned in Form D.

The Summary Document would include the compilation of information under Task 1.

The Watershed Coordination Plan is a compilation of the summary document (subtask 1.4), the list of funding opportunities (subtask 2.1) and updated publication list (3.1).

Addendum No. 1 Page 2 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

The Workplan refers to a brief document generated from discussions between the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (ANERR) and the consultant as to what is feasible during each year of the contract. Specific subtasks and deliverables will be itemized, and this document will be used to create the Task Assignment. It is expected that this document will be created upon commencement of the Contract and updated each year.

Strategic (work) Plans (anticipating 3 total) refers to brief (<10 pages) documents guiding the future work of the topic-specific workgroups. A strategic plan may include charter/purpose, background, participants, organizational structure, frequency of meetings, priority issues/needs, and identified priority projects.

4. 4.3.a.

Task 1

Sections 7.a, 7.b, and 7.c;

4.3.a Task 2

Sections 3 and 4;

and 4.3.1.a Task 4 Sections 2 and 3

21 Please clarify or expound upon the terms “host” stakeholder meetings; “facilitate” meetings and “facilitate the implementation of” topic-specific working groups; and “organize and host” a session on the project at the Apalachicola Research Symposium and “organize” at least two (2) facilitated meetings…...

For example, would consultant be responsible for planning and executing these meetings cradle to grave (selecting facilities, sending invitations, preparing agenda, preparing meeting content, etc.) or does the FDEP envision the consultant being merely supporting these meetings. If the latter, please clarify the responsibilities you anticipate the consultant being responsible for each set of meetings.

Are all meetings anticipated to be held at ANEER facilities utilizing existing IT and virtual meeting platforms? Will there be a fee associated with the use of these facilities?

All meetings can be held at the ANERR facility, utilizing existing IT and virtual meeting platforms (Microsoft Teams). There is no cost for these resources. The consultant will be working closely with the Reserve to organize these workshops/meetings; however, it is expected that the consultant will correspond with participants ahead of the meeting (schedule and provide agenda), deliver updates/presentation on the project status, facilitate discussion amongst participants, record notes, and provide a meeting summary with next steps.

Addendum No. 1 Page 3 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

For consistency, assume that a comparable level of effort would be required for the topic-specific working group meetings/workshops. While a certain number of meetings/workshops are identified in the subtasks (estimated 3 groups with 2 meetings each), it would be helpful to have a per-event estimated cost.

For the Research Symposium, it is expected that the consultant would develop and deliver a 15-20 min overview of the project and outcomes to-date. The presentation would be followed by a question and answer session. The Symposium would be organized and facilitated by the Reserve, however, it is an opportunity for the consultant to “facilitate” discussion that may provide additional data sources and information to improve the project.

5. 4.3.c.6 22 This section states that a website “may” be developed to host the online repository. However, the website is not mentioned as a deliverable with a corresponding deliverable timeframe in Section 4.3.a. Please clarify which Task and deliverable timeframe FDEP desires for website development.

The project will be hosted on an existing website, so a website will not be developed per se. The product we are looking for is the content for the website, which at a minimum would include an interactive webtool map or StoryMap, summary of project participants/entities, the Comprehensive Watershed Plan (aka Watershed Coordination Plan), and a link to the publication database (either through the StoryMap or standalone).The expected completion date would be September 2026.

6. 4.3.c.7.5 23 Coastal Training Program Workshops are mentioned in this section. These are not included in the Tasks 1-5 above; please clarify the number of workshops and year within the task framework outline in the RFP.

This subtask involves the public presentation of the Interactive webtool/StoryMap at either the Reserve’s Research Symposium or separate Coastal Training Program (CTP) workshop. The expectation would be a 15-20 minute presentation introducing the project, project outcomes, and online resources to find more information. The presentation would be followed by the opportunity for questions/answers with participants.

Addendum No. 1 Page 4 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

7. 1 4 Is this a new contract? If this is an existing contract, who is the incumbent?

Yes. This will be a new contract.

8. 1 4 If there is an incumbent providing these services, would the Department provide the current pricing (Price Sheet Form D)?

See answer to question number 8.

9. 1 4 Are similar efforts being conducted for other watersheds? If so, are their incumbent contractors providing these services for those watersheds?

No. Not through this effort.

10. 1 4 If there are incumbents providing these services for other watersheds, would the Department provide the current pricing (Price Sheet Form D)?

See answer to question number 8.

11. 1 4 Were the Conservation and Resource Management Plans for the Basin that originated in the Department the work of the Department or a contracted third party?

Conservation and Resource Management Plans within the basin have been developed through a variety of means. Plans specific to the management of the State Lands held within the four-county area are typically generated by the managing agency (Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS)).

12. 1.2 4 This section indicates the coordination effort will take place over a 5-year period, but the Contract Timeline as shown on Form D, is a 3-year timeline. Please clarify the expected project timeline.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for work to be performed over an approximate three-year period, however it is anticipated that additional funding will be available to support additional work. This additional funding could allow for additional tasks to be performed under a two-year renewal option under this Contract.

13. 2.3.3.2 8-9 Portions of this section of the RFP appear to be missing.

See answer to question number 1.

Addendum No. 1 Page 5 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

14. 3.4.1.2 15 Does “the Department” refer to all divisions of FDEP, including the water management districts, with respect to references?

Water Management Districts are considered a separate entity and not included as part of the Department regarding Client References.

15. 4.3 / Form D 20 / Form D Are the cost units here intended to be lump sum price for the entire subtask, as described on Form D?

Yes.

16. 4.3 / Form D 20 / Form D page 1 Payment schedule clarification: Will subtasks be invoiced as they are completed, or must all elements of a task be completed prior to invoicing? For example, if Subtask 1.2 is completed, but subtask 1.1, 1.3 through

1.7 are ongoing, can Subtask 1.2 be invoiced?

Tasks were written to be largely sequential, however it is recognized that some subtasks could be completed simultaneously and/or ahead of the proposed schedule.

At the initiation of the contract, both parties will meet to finalize the expectations of the first Task Assignment (TA). Specific milestones under each subtask will be identified in the TA, so that payment can be made as those milestones are reached.

17. 4.3 / Form D 20 / Form D page 1 What is the expected duration of Subtask item 1.1? Is this intended to be the cost of biweekly meetings for the duration of the 3-year contract?

Since this item appears to be requesting a lump sum cost for all meetings, how will invoicing for this item be structured? Per meeting? One invoice at the end of the 3-year period?

We are looking for an hourly rate to participate in coordination meetings of the project team. Initially, we are looking for approximately 1 hour every other week, but the meetings may become less frequent as the contract continues. A reasonable estimate would be for 26 hour-long virtual meetings per year. The contractor may invoice monthly or quarterly based on their preferred frequency.

The Solicitation has been formally amended as described below to capture this information.

Addendum No. 1 Page 6 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

18. 4.3 / Form D 20 / Form D page 1 Payment schedule clarification: Will interim subtask invoicing occur (ie, partial invoicing of each subtask) or must each subtask element be complete prior to a lump sum total invoice for that entire Task?

See answer to question number 16.

19. 4.3 / Form D 20 / Form D page 2 Please clarify what the Renewal Contract would cover.

The renewal contract appears to be a copy of the scope items for the initial Contract period, many of which should be completed before the Renewal Contract term is initiated based on the timeline provided in Form D. Is the intent of the Renewal Contract Term to provide relief if the event of a schedule overrun?

Yes. The option for renewal is primarily to accommodate schedule overrun. However, additional funding may be available to support additional tasks not supported through this initial funding opportunity.

20. Attachment 1 Page 1, item b All work will be assigned via Task Assignment. Will the Task Assignments be structured per Task (ie, 5 task assignments over the course of the Contract) or per subtask (subtasks as defined on Form D)?

See answer to question number 16.

21. Attachment 1 Page 1, item d Based on this paragraph, any additional services not specifically identified by name in the Scope of Work cannot be negotiated by Task Assignment, since this contract does not have established pricing for any items not specifically named in the scope of work. Is that interpretation correct?

Yes. That interpretation is correct.

22. 1. Introduction 4 of 28 (first time mentioned but mentioned throughout the

RFP).

The RFP mentions the Apalachicola River Watershed and Adjacent Areas.

Question: Can the Department provide a definition of “Adjacent Areas” or provide a specific study area?

The intent of the RFP was to include, at a minimum, public lands within and/or immediately adjacent to the Watershed of the Apalachicola. This would include public lands within Franklin, Gulf, Liberty, and Calhoun counties. “Adjacent areas” was added to allow for the inclusion of transboundary management structures, such as the Northwest Florida Sentinel Landscape.

Also see answer to question number 23.

Addendum No. 1 Page 7 of 9

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

23. 1. Introduction 4 of 28 (first time mentioned but mentioned throughout the

RFP).

The RFP mentions the Apalachicola River Watershed and Adjacent Areas.

Question: Can the Department provide a map or shapefile of the study area?

A map of the lower floodplain is attached below. Note, that it does not include the upper floodplain area as described in answer number 22.

Also, see answer to question number 22.

24. 1. Introduction 4 of 28 (first time mentioned but mentioned throughout the

RFP).

It is mentioned that FDEP (the Department) is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) to contract for Environmental Consulting Services for the Apalachicola River Watershed and Adjacent Areas.

Question: Is there a specific Bureau or Division that will be leading this RFP within the Department?

Yes. The Office of Coastal Protection/Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve.

25. 3.4.1.1 Tab A Executive Summary

14 of 28 RFP states…If the Respondent is a current or former Contractor to the Department, the Respondent will notify the Department of the contract number and the Department’s contract manager in its Executive Summary.

Question: We are proposing some key consultants to be part of our team. Do we need to list their FDEP contracts in the executive summary?

No. Only the current or former Contractor working for the Department should be listed.

– Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank –

Addendum No. 1 Page 8 of 9

Map of the Lower Floodplain

Addendum No. 1 Page 9 of 9

In accordance with Section 2.6, Addenda/Amendments to the RFP, the Department hereby formally amends the Solicitation. The amendments are indicated in blue with strikethrough for deletions and underlines for additions.

The amendments are as follows:

2.3.3.2 Past Performance

The Respondent’s references will be contacted by the Department by telephone during normal working hours (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM) as indicated in the Timeline. The Department will make up to two (2) attempts to call before making one attempt to contact the references by email. If the contact person cannot be reached following the three (3) attempts, or if the Respondent fails to provide a reference, the Respondent will receive a score of zero

(0) for that reference.

Form D Price Sheet

The Price Sheet is hereby replaced in its entirety and attached separately within the Vendor Information Portal, entitled, Addendum No. 1 - Revised Form D Price Sheet.