Addendum No. 1 - DEP Solicitation No. 2024013.pdf

DEP Solicitation No. 2024013 Addendum No. 1 Page 1 of 8

ADDENDUM No. 1

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEP Procurement Section

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

December 4, 2023

Addendum To: DEP Solicitation No. 2024013, entitled “Water Quality Treatment Services to Combat Harmful Algal Blooms within Lake Okeechobee”

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.

What is the current nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee on a daily basis?

According to the 2023 South Florida Environmental Report (SFER), the total phosphorous loading for water year 2022 was 285 metric tons. In lake concentrations of total nitrogen was 1.24 milligrams per liter.

2.

What is the removal goal of nitrogen and phosphorus (in metric tons) yearly for this RFP?

A minimum removal has not been established. The RFP seeks the prospective vendor(s) whose project can achieve the greatest removal of nitrogen and phosphorous.

3.

SOW 19

Will the DEP require process effluent discharge comply with the DEP’s TMDL concentration Lake Okeechobee influent target of 40 PPB total phosphorus? If not, will proposals which achieve this target be preferred?

The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) (established at 140 metric tons of total phosphorus per year) is a measure of input into the lake. For this RFP, the goal is to achieve the greatest removal of nitrogen and phosphorous. Effluent discharges will be expected to comply with ambient water quality criteria and will be established through the permitting process.

Addendum No. 1 Page 2 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

4.

If the ambient water quality criteria is other than the TMDL concentration, at what point in the water column will compliance with ambient water quality criteria be measured and established for purposes of determining processed water effluent compliance?

Determination of meeting the ambient water quality criteria is typically measured at the point of discharge prior to entering the waterbody. This will be determined during the permitting process.

5.

What is the definition of “Water Column” for the purposes of this project?

The Water Column is the span of water from immediately below the surface to immediately above the lake bottom.

6.

Is it correct to conclude that ambient water quality criteria includes the full spectrum of Class III water criteria identified in FAC 62-302 or Is there a more limited subset of these requirements focused on specific criteria of interest in addition to nutrients, for example chemical elements such as iron or other specific elements?

Yes.

7.

Are there any specific limitations of the time of day for operations of this project? If so, what will those limitations include?

The Department has not established limitations on the hours of operations.

8.

Section: 4.1 RFP Page # 20 of 33

Are there predetermined land access locations around the lake that would be available for the contractor to utilize?

No.

9.

Section: 3.4.3 RFP Page # 17 of 33

Is there an engineer’s estimate as to the anticipated cost for the project?

No.

10.

Section 4.3 RFP Page # 25 of 33

Where can we obtain a copy of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lake Okeechobee Sediment Quality Mapping Project 2020 Final Report?

The Lake Okeechobee Sediment Quality Mapping Project 2020 Final Report is attached separately.

Addendum No. 1 Page 3 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

11.

Section 25 Draft Contract Page # 8

Is this contract subject to Build America, Buy America

(BABA)?

No.

12.

Will FDEP consider contracting and funding the requested scope of services for this RFP into the following two separate phases:

• Phase 1 would include planning, engineering, design, lab/bench top research and a construction cost estimate for a pilot program. The pilot program will demonstrate the viability of an innovative treatment methodology or technology which could be effective at reducing legacy nutrient levels in the lake.

• Phase 2 would include regulatory coordination and permitting of the pilot program.

Future Phases and funding could follow under a separate procurement for construction of the pilot program which would include commissioning, operation, maintenance, monitoring and decommissioning of the pilot treatment system.

Responses to the RFP should include all costs associated with full implementation of the project, including operations, de-mobilization, and submittal of a Department approved final report.

13.

Form D – Price Sheet

Form D – Price Sheet

Will FDEP consider revising Rate Schedule Form D to Time & Materials, not to exceed for the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 services presented above (Feasibility, Planning and Design and Permitting)?

No.

14.

Form D – Price Sheet

Form D – Price Sheet

Can the respondent provide costing information in phases.

Phase 1 - Engineering Phase 2 – Regulatory Coordination & Permitting

See answer to question number 12.

Addendum No. 1 Page 4 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

15.

3.4.2.3 Response

Instructions 16

Can the respondent provide examples of alternate treatment technologies for evidence of prior experience?

Yes, if the alternate technology is being put forward as the work for this RFP.

16.

3.4.2.4 Response

Instructions 17

If respondent is proposing a new and unproven technology for treatment, can the requirement for proof of concept and cost per pound of nutrient removal be waived?

No. Unproven technologies will not be accepted as responses to this RFP. Technologies proposed must have some level of verification of effectiveness and safety.

17.

3.4.2.4 (a through e) Response

Instructions

How does a respondent provide a price per pound when it is also required to provide a status on proof of concept? If the technology is in the proof-of-concept phase, how can there be Scientific or Engineering validation?

See answer to question number 16. The Respondent is familiar with their technology and will need to determine a fair price.

18.

3.4.3 Response

Instructions 17

If respondent is allowed to propose an alternate scope of work, can Form D be modified to reflect pricing for the alternate scope of work?

No.

19.

4 Scope of Work 19

Can the respondent propose an alternate scope of work which addresses a phased approach to the design and construction of a pilot program to demonstrate the proof of concept for an innovative treatment technology?

No. Respondent should not propose an alternative scope of work.

20.

4 Scope of Work 19

If the respondent’s intent is to create permanent ecological systems is disposal of the system still required?

Disposal of the system will be determined through the permitting process.

21.

4 Scope of Work 21

Can the respondent revise the deliverables to reflect an alternate scope of work?

No. See answer to question number 19.

Addendum No. 1 Page 5 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

22.

4 Scope of Work 22

Does the state have a minimum number of public meetings that are required?

No.

23.

4 Scope of Work 22

Who will serve as the State's designated community outreach person?

There is no State designated community outreach person.

Outreach is the vendor’s responsibility.

24.

Can the Prime firm use subconsultant qualifications in addition to their own in the response?

No.

25. 3.4.2.4 Tab D:

Approach to

Nutrient Extraction Plan

17 Would FDEP consider revising the metric to price per pound of only the “bioavailable TP and TN removed” to consider only the fraction of nutrients that could affect water quality and/or harmful algal blooms?

No.

26. 3.4.2.4 Tab D:

Approach to

Nutrient Extraction Plan

17 Will credit be given for improvements in water quality, a reduction in HABs, or TP/TN removal if these can be attributed, using an observational or modeling approach, to the implemented treatment?

No. The Department requires that all nutrient removal be verified with monitoring data.

27. 3.4.2.4 Tab D:

Approach to

Nutrient Extraction Plan

17 Is there a maximum dredge depth that will be allowed?

That will be determined through the permitting process.

28. 3.4.2.4 Tab D:

Approach to

Nutrient Extraction Plan

17 Will sediment removed for the creation of a sediment trap (containing nutrients that are sequestered and do not mobilize to the overlying water) be given the same credit as the removal of surface sediment (active layer containing nutrients that can be mobilized to the overlying water)?

The Respondent must demonstrate the nutrients have been removed from Lake Okeechobee by using monitoring data.

Addendum No. 1 Page 6 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

29. 3.4.2.4 Tab D:

Approach to

Nutrient Extraction Plan

17 Can a cofferdam be used within Lake Okeechobee to store the dredge sediments? If so, will FDEP allow the dredge effluent to be returned to the lake or will treatment be required?

A cofferdam may be allowed as part of the project but would need to be approved on a case-by-case basis during the permitting process. Dredge effluent would need to meet the turbidity standard for Class III waters (29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) above background levels).

30. 4.1 Scope of Work 19 Will Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing be required for any treatment process water discharged to Lake Okeechobee?

Whole Effluent Toxicity testing is a requirement of Industrial Wastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which would likely be required for any project that proposes to discharge treated process water to Lake Okeechobee.

31. 4.1 Scope of Work 19 What sampling frequency or number of samples are required to monitor and calculate the weight of total nutrients removed from Lake Okeechobee.

This will be a project specific determination approved by the Department. In all cases, the selected vendor(s) will be required to provide verification of nutrient removal through monitoring data.

32. 4.2 Definitions 20 2023-26 Nutrient Extraction Plan (NEP): is the written comprehensive description of the Contractor’s action plan describing their treatment to remove nutrients from Lake Okeechobee. (See Exhibit G). There is no Exhibit G in the RFP, please provide.

Exhibit G is in Attachment 1, Draft Contract document.

Addendum No. 1 Page 7 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

33. 4.3 Contractor Responsibilities

21 How will FDEP determine a “rationale” monitoring program? While monitoring is critical, there may be large deviations in perceptions of an acceptable level of monitoring, especially for those projects that may risk some level of unintended environmental detriment. Monitoring is a cost that will be detract from price per pound of nutrient removal, and thus the grantee is incentivized to propose only the minimum level of acceptable monitoring. Would FDEP consider excluding these costs from price-per-pound calculations?

The Department requires that the total cost of the project will be provided within the Respondent’s response, including all verification monitoring requirements.

34. 4.3 Contractor Responsibilities

25 For Task 5 Task Description, FDEP requires that the South Florida Water Management District’s Lake Okeechobee Sediment Quality Mapping Project 2020 Final Report be used. Can FDEP provide the report.

See answer to question number 10.

35. 5.5 Compilation of Evaluation Scores

31 How will the Total Price Score be standardized to account for the variation in different methods. Sediment dredging will take out nutrients from the active sediment layer (nutrients that can be mobilized to the overlying water) and inactive sediment layers (nutrients that are sequestered and do not mobilize to the overlying water). By contrast, soil inactivation only treats the active sediment layer. If both methods reduce phosphorus and nitrogen flux by the same amount, how will the Total Price Score be adjusted to account for the nutrients removed from the inactive sediment layer since this layer does not impact lake water quality?

Responses must demonstrate the quantity of nutrients that have been removed from the lake.

The Annual Total provided by the Respondent in Form D, Rate Schedule will be combined per term (initial and renewal) and evaluated in accordance with RFP section 5.3, Evaluation of Volume III, Price Sheet.

Addendum No. 1 Page 8 of 8

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer

36. What’s the budget for this project?

While an exact budget is unknown at this time, the 2023-24 General Appropriations Act (GAA) - Line 1666 provided $20 million in support of efforts to “competitively procure water quality treatment technologies to combat harmful algal blooms in Lake Okeechobee . . .”

37. Form D What line items in the price sheet will be used to evaluate the total price for base contract period (i.e., year 1 or years 1 to 3)?

See answer to question number 35.

38. Who are the selection committee members?

The selection committee has not been determined at this time.

– Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank –