Addendum No. 2 Questions & Answers - DEP Solicitation No. 2022020_05.17.22.pdf

DEP Solicitation No. 2022020 Addendum No. 2 Page 1 of 18

ADDENDUM No. 2

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEP Procurement Section

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

May 17, 2022

Addendum To: DEP Solicitation No. 2022020, entitled “Florida Seafloor Mapping Initiative”

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. - -

I wasn’t able to download shapefiles from the ESRI webservice, is there a way to get shapefiles either provided to me or downloaded off the provided ESRI website?

Shapefiles have been uploaded in the link below and added in the amended RFP as well (section 4.3). Download Link: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/water/FSMI

2. - -

If I am a prime and will focus on topo-bathymetric collection, and I bring a sub to my team to perform MBES work. How should subs qualifications be submitted?

Please see answer to Questions #45 and #65 from Addendum No. 1.

3. - - Can a vendor be subcontractor on multiple prime proposals?

No. Please see answer to Question #26 from Addendum No. 1.

4.

RFP Section

1.2 RFP page 5

Will FDEP appoint the Licensed Florida Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) to oversee mapping activities for any submitter after the fact? If so, can you confirm a submitter may forego that element within their individual bid? Or must a licensed surveyor be identified at the time of bid submission and be included in the bid? Or is the identification and selection of the PLS a separate process?

The Department holds existing general services contracts for PLS services, which will be used for PLS oversight of the FSMI. The revised RFP is for data collection efforts only.

5.

RFP

Addendum

Question Answers, Q26

In Question 26, you state:

26. Can a vendor be prime on one proposal and a sub on another proposal? Each vendor can only be a prime or a subcontractor.

This is contrary to page 14 of the revised FRP: “The Office of Supplier Diversity (OSD) has been established within the Florida Department of Management Services (DMS) to certify qualifying minority-owned, veteran-owned, and woman-owned business enterprises (CBEs). CBEs are encouraged to participate in the State’s procurement process as both prime Respondents and subcontractors.”

"Given that there are a limited number of entities with the expertise to perform many of the required mapping tasks, may an entity serve as a subcontractor on http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/water/FSMI

Addendum No. 2 Page 2 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer more than one bid? (We understand that a Prime Respondent may not serve as a subcontractor on another contract.)

On page 14 of the RFP, the word “both” is used to indicate that we encourage CBEs to apply. CBEs will still be required to adhere to the rules of non-CBE vendors regarding submittals as Prime or Sub. The language in the RFP has been modified.

Please also see answer to Question #3.

6.

RFP

Addendum

Question Answers, Q26

In Question 26, you state:

26. Can a vendor be prime on one proposal and a sub on another proposal?

Each vendor can only be a prime or a subcontractor.

Can the same vendor be the prime on two bids, but with different principle investigators?

If a vendor is listed as a prime or subcontractor on two bids, then both bids will be rejected.

7.

RFP

Addendum

Question Answers, Q26

If an entity would appear as a subcontractor on more than one bid, will only the first bid received containing that entity be accepted and any subsequent bids be rejected?

Please see answer to Question #6.

8.

RFP

Addendum

Question Answers, Q26

Would FDEP allow an entity to appear in multiple submitted bids but then only be allowed to work on one awarded contract (if more than one of those bids were accepted)?

Please see answer to Question #6.

9.

RFP Section

4.7.3.2

Can you confirm the Grid resolution for the Depth range 100-200m? “Bathymetric grid resolution shall be up to 1 square meter, but no less than 3 square meters.”

This seems contradictory.

RFP has been amended. Grid resolution for sonar collection shall follow NOAAS's recommended resolution for Complete Coverage Multibeam (Section 5.2.2.3 of NOAA's HSSD 2021), for Variable Resolution Surfaces. For more details, please see Section 4.7 of the revised RFP.

10.

Addendum

Clarification Response from FDEP

Pg. 5 Question

If a vendor to FDEP is bidding as a Prime Contractor to support ONLY a specific survey discipline in specific areas and is also included as a Subcontractor on a larger team that is supporting all disciplines, would this be allowed or does this disqualify the team from bidding as a Prime Contractor?

No. Please see answer to Question #26 in Addendum #1.

11. - -

Can a subcontractor be listed as subcontractor on two or more prime applications?

Please see answer to Question #6.

12. - -

Is there a maximum time period a prime applicant can use for references/project?

References provided should be the most relevant and recent, however no maximum time period is required.

13. - - Can a prime applicant use a project/reference from a previous employer if the prime applicant was the principle/party chief for the project?

Addendum No. 2 Page 3 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Yes.

14. - -

Can a vendor apply as both a prime and subcontractor on another prime proposal and if awarded as a prime choose only to be a prime and not a subcontractor thus fulfilling the requirement mentioned in the last round of questions? (26. Can a vendor be prime on one proposal and a sub on another proposal? Each vendor can only be a prime or a subcontractor.) or is the requirement that you can only apply as prime or subcontractor explicitly?

The last phrase is correct, as stated in answer to Question #26 from Addendum No. 1.

15. 1.2 5

It states that “all data collection efforts, which include LiDAR and sonar data; and/or any other surveys or data collected as defined under Rule 5J-

17.050 FAC will be completed under the direction of a Licensed Florida Professional Land Surveyor (PLS), in accordance with Chapter 472, F.S., which will be selected under a separate existing contract of the Department.” Chapter 472, F.S., also requires that the PLS be “in responsible charge” for all data collection activities that will produce survey data. As a result, when the Prime for the data collection team proposed for this project is currently a firm holding a FDEP survey contract, will that firm be the default PLS?

No.

16. 1.2 5

In a follow-up to the above, IF the PLS assigned to the data provider firm is not an employee of the Prime firm responsible for data collection, how will the PLS be in responsible charge of all data collection activities? Will the firm providing data collection be responsible for any data QC or will that responsibility go to the assigned PLS firm?

The PLS oversight role and obligations for both PLS and the data collection firm will be fully outlined in the Task Assignment process prior to bidding. The PLS oversight role will include data collection planning efforts, ground controls, QA/QC points throughout the process, data review and reporting, to ensure consistency with rule and statute.

17. 1.2 5

Regarding, “will be selected under a separate existing contract of the Department.” Can the firm selected for PLS coordination also be selected to collect data for this RFP? (Also referenced in 4.1, Page 5/6)

Firms holding an existing General Services contract with the Department for PLS services may also submit proposals for this RFP.

18. N/A N/A Can subcontractors be on multiple teams?

Please see answer to Question #6.

19. N/A N/A

Can a non-US firm (offshore/overseas) provide subcontractor services for data processing or does all data processing need to be performed within the US?

All data processing must be completed within the US.

Addendum No. 2 Page 4 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

20.

4.7.1.1.3 and

4.7.2.1.3

Please elaborate on what is meant by 100% coverage? Does it mean that data collection activities require collection of data over 100% of the area, or does it mean that 100% of the area requires bathymetry data irrespective of turbidity, and other factors that could preclude data collection? If the latter, this statement contradicts the statement in Section 4.10.9, page 29, related to the discussion of data voids. Please clarify.

Section 4.10.9 of the revised RFP refers to data gaps for LiDAR collection. Gaps are allowed for the LiDAR data collection per Section 4.10.9 provisions and approval from the Department. The 100% coverage refers to the Sonar bathymetric coverage as required by NOAA's HSSD 2021 Section 5.2.2.3 for Complete Coverage Multibeam, and gaps allowance shall be based on the data “holiday” as defined in the same section. Data gaps greater than the defined holiday for a specific depth are not acceptable, except when environmental conditions have deemed the area unsuitable for sonar collection. For more details, please see Section 4.10.14 of the revised RFP.

21. 4.7.3.2.3 27

MBES data collected in the 100-200m depth range requires coverage to be <= 100%. Can you please clarify what this means and how that relates to the IHO Order 2 specifications for horizontal resolution? Is the expectation that data collection does not need to cover all depths in that range? If yes, what is the minimum acceptable percentage of coverage?

Please see answer to Question #20. The RFP has been revised. MBES coverage for the 100-200 m depth range shall be 100% as well. IHO Order 2 specifications are applied only to the vertical accuracy. For horizontal specifications, the same accuracy is required as the NOAA's HSSD 2021 (which is the equivalent of IHO Order 1). For more details, please see Section 4.7 of the revised RFP.

22.

4.8.1 and

4.8.2

The RFP requires accuracy reporting and the collection of checkpoints, which according to Chapter 472., F.S., requires to be completed under the responsible charge of a Florida PLS (or PSM). Will the assigned PLS be required to provide the location of the checkpoints for accuracy reporting and those points collected by the data provider? Or will the assigned PLS and their representative firm be collecting the checkpoints that will be used for validation?

Please see answer to Question #16.

23. 4.10.9 29

The discussion of data voids appears to contradict the requirement for 100% coverage in section 4.7.1.1.3. Does this mean that a void of >=9m2 is acceptable in turbid water? Is there an expectation for voids greater than 9m2 to be “filled-in” with MBES data?

Please see answer to Question #20, regarding data gaps. Yes, it is anticipated for some of these gaps to be filled with MBES, especially if the gaps are within a priority area.

24. 4.10.11 29

The selected firm is responsible for “quality control and data processing, as applicable for the support of the hydrographic survey”. Please confirm if this activity is to be defined as a hydrographic survey or a data collection activity, and please clarify if the PLS is responsible for quality control, or is it the responsibility of the data provider?

Addendum No. 2 Page 5 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Please see answer to Question #16.

25. 4.11.1.1 30

Please clarify or elaborate on the “proper use” of the LAS withheld and overlap bits.

The "Withheld" and "Overlap" bits are classification flags from the Point Data Record Formats 6-10 (required formats for the FSMI) of the ASPRS LAS format.

These flags are typically used to supplement the traditional classifications. These flags shall be used during the classification of the point cloud data, as applicable.

For more details, please refer to the LAS Specifications Section 2.6.7 Point Data Record Format 6.

26. 4.11.4 30

Is this report to be signed and sealed by the data provider or the assigned PLS?

How is the assigned PLS expected to be in responsible charge of the work being done if they are not directly involved (as an active member of the Prime Contractor) in the data collection activities or the creation of final products, including the calibration, validation, and QA/QC of those final products?

Please see answer to Question #16.

27. 4.12.1 32

FDEP has committed to covering INGRESS costs for data transfer between source and target Azure accounts. Can we assume that includes the EGRESS costs from the vendor’s source account?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP. The MS Azure Cloud storage will be hosted by DEP with access provided by the Department. Data Transfer costs will be the responsibility of the Department.

28. 4.12.3 32

Does FDEP require any specific software or tooling to review data uploaded to Azure storage? Or is the intent only to review the reports and web services/geodatabases/shapefiles?

No. The intent is to leverage cloud resources to avoid delivery and transfer of data on traditional physical external hard drives, in reference to the large storage size of the deliverables.

29.

Round 1

Question/ Answer #42

7 of Addendum

#1 Q/A

DEP's answer to question #42 was that "Prior to the Work Assignment process the Department will identify existing datasets that meet the quality level and specifications required to compliment this initiative. Those areas will be removed from the data collection effort within that region prior to Task Assignment the pre-quote meeting and award." Our question: Can FDEP provide shapefiles for existing datasets that are acceptable, by region, to aid in the per unit price estimation for each region?

The Department is working with federal, state and local partners to determine existing datasets to retain for inclusion in derived products associated with this initiative. The list of retained datasets will be finalized prior to the Task Assignment process. When final datasets are determined, they will be shared on the FSMI website. Datasets being considered for retention are included in the FGIO webpage for this Initiative.

30. 3.4.2 17 For Volume II, Technical Response, Tab #- Example Data Collection Report - If we are proposing on both collection methods (lidar and sonar), should we submit two sample reports, one sample report per collection method?

https://www.floridagio.gov/pages/fsmi

Addendum No. 2 Page 6 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Yes.

31. 3.4.1.2 16-17

Regarding "Respondents must complete Form C, Client Reference Form, for three

(3) Clients to whom Respondent has provided commodities and/or contractual services of similar scope and size as those identified in the RFP", does the FDEP require 3 references per collection method, or 3 total regardless of collection method?

Respondents must complete Form C, Client Reference Form, for three (3) Clients to whom Respondent has provided commodities and/or contractual services (regardless of collection method) of similar scope and size as those identified in the revised RFP.

32. 5.4 36

For question 64 of Addendum, FDEP's answer is "Up to five (5) awards may be made per region per data collection method. It is anticipated that multiple awards can be made per vendor in different data collection methods and different regions. All awards for an individual vendor will be combined into one contract for management." Our Question: The structure of the Technical response (equipment, capacity) is not requested to be organized by region, so how is FDEP intending to score/evaluate Technical Tab C (80 points) and Tab F (20 points) and then make awards for each region?

Please reference Section 5.5, Compilation of Evaluation Scores in the revised RFP for a breakdown of how the Department will arrive at the Respondent’s Final Evaluation Score.

The “average Technical Score from all evaluators” will be the same and apply to each Region a Respondent submits for consideration. The “Total Price Score” is per Region as the price(s) contained within may vary. Timelines for data collection will be assigned during the task assignment process.

33.

Section 4.10.10

It is assumed that backscatter is of secondary importance to multibeam bathymetry and therefore although efforts will be made to standardize settings, multibeam setting changes will be made to ensure the quality of the bathymetry data at the possible detriment of backscatter. Can FL-DEP confirm the quality of the bathymetric data has priority over the backscatter data?

Correct. Multibeam acoustic backscatter is of secondary priority. Priority shall be given to the MBES data collection.

34.

Addendum

No. 1- Revised RFP

Addendum No. 1- Revised RFP, 2/22/22 states: All data collection efforts, which include LiDAR and sonar data; and/or any other surveys or data collection as defined in Rule 5J-17.050, F.A.C., will be completed under the direction of a Licensed Florida Professional Land Surveyor (PLS), in accordance with Chapter 472, F.S., which will be selected under a separate existing contract of the Department.

Does this mean that the PLS will be selected under a separate contract or that the data collection efforts are being selected under a separate, existing contract?

Please see answer to Question #4.

35. 4.8.7 28 Please confirm if this clause will be deleted given the side scan requirement deleted.

Addendum No. 2 Page 7 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Correct.

36. 2.20 14

“Non-CBE Respondents are encouraged to partner with CBE’s for Contract performance”. Can FDEP confirm a Non-CBE respondent can be both Prime and subcontractor, when partnering with CBE’s for Contract Performance?

Please see answer to Question #5.

37. 1.2 5

Will an amended form of contract be forthcoming that addresses the role, authority, and responsibility of the PLS?

The role, authority and responsibility of the PLS will be addressed in the task assignment process with the PLS vendor.

38. 1.2 5

In the event the contractor receives conflicting or inconsistent direction from the Department and the PLS, whose instructions will the contractor be required to follow?

The contract manager/FDEP is the instructor of the task. If there is a conflict, then the manager will coordinate with the PLS to ensure that the task is completed correctly.

39. 1.2 5

In the event of a disagreement between the Department and the PLS regarding whether certain work constitutes “surveys and data collection as defined in Rule 5J-17.050, F.A.C.,” whose position governs?

Please see answer to Question #38.

40. 1.2 5

Will the PLS be in “responsible charge” of the contractor’s “data collection efforts which include LiDAR and sonar data[,]” as that phrase is defined by Fla. Stat. § 472.005?

Please see answer to Question #16.

41. 1.2 5

Has the PLS already been selected via a procurement conducted pursuant to Fla.

Stat. Section 287.055 known as the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (the

“CCNA”)?

If already selected, who is the firm providing the PLS?

If not already selected, will the PLS be selected via a procurement conducted pursuant to the CCNA?

After this data collection solicitation process is complete, the Department will select a PLS firm from its existing General Services contracts to provide oversight.

These general services contracts were procured according to the CCNA.

42. 1.2 5

Can a qualified respondent on this project also submit a proposal to serve as the

PLS?

Please see answers to Questions #4 and #41.

43.

Addendum No. 1

Revised Form D

Price Sheet -

DEP

Lidar

Will contractors be paid for the number of units tasked? Or units delivered after QA/QC of processing? Section 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 suggests all units tasked if “best reasonable effort” is made; “the contractor shall not be held responsible for any gaps in coverage caused by such factors after the best reasonable effort has been attempted to fill those data gaps”

Addendum No. 2 Page 8 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Solicitation No.

2022020_04 .26.22

Also, Section 4.10.9 outlines some areas may have data voids that will not be confirmed until post collection. This is especially true for bathymetric lidar where large areas can have separate conditions from the rest of an area.

Can FDEP confirm how the following example would be handled; if a contractor is tasked for 10,000 square km of data collection, collects 10,000 square km of data, but after collection (incl three attempts), processing and QC only 5,000 sqkm is deliverable units (due to 4.12.4, 4.12.5 and 4.10.9); is contractor paid for the full task order of 10,000 square km collected, or 5,000 sqkm delivered?

If the vendor attempts to collect data in a manner that is consistent with the contract, the Task Assignment and the guidance provided by the PLS prior to initiating data collection, then compensation will be provided for the entire area identified for that specific data collection effort.

44. 4.7.2.2 26

The Grid Resolution shall be 1 square meter in water depths between 20 – 100m contradicts what is stated in the NOAA HSSD 2021, see below. Can FDEP clarify this grid requirement for water depths between 20 – 100m?

Please see answer to Question #9.

45. 4.7.3.2 27

The Grid Resolution shall be up to 1 square meter, but no less than 3 square meters in water depths between 100 – 200m contradicts what is stated in the NOAA HSSD 2021, see below. Can FDEP clarify this grid requirement for water depths between 100 – 200m?

46. 4.8.2 27

Will check points only apply to topographic areas? Question #71 in round 1 of questions confirmed the total number is determined by land area but didn’t confirm points are only apply to land. Text suggests they are distributed across the entire project, which is mostly water in this case? Whereas Bathymetric Lidar and sonar checks are covered via section 4.8.3 and 4.8.4?

Addendum No. 2 Page 9 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Correct. Adequate number and distribution of checkpoints will be coordinated with PLS, and shall follow best practices and recommendations of the ASPRS Standards referenced in the SOW.

47. 4.11.7 31

Per the NOAA HSSD 2021 regarding backscatter deliverables, it states:

8.3.4 Backscatter Deliverables

The hydrographer shall submit raw multibeam backscatter data in a format readable by QPS Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox. The raw multibeam backscatter data shall be delivered in the Raw MBES folder (Appendix I).

Per the NOAA HSSD 2021, processed backscatter is not a required deliverable, its only requirement is to be collected in the raw file. Can FDEP confirm if sonar backscatter will be required to be processed?

Correct. RFP has been revised and processed acoustic backscatter products are not required.

48. 4.12.1 32

Delivery Method – Rev-2 Revised Text ”Ingress costs will be at the expense of the Department” As upload/download forms the largest part of a data hosting service, please confirm: Once a Contractor has uploaded the data to Azure, we understand migration within same tier of storage is without cost. Thereafter, retrieval by FDEP (Egress/Ingress actions necessary) will be rebillable as consumed, or otherwise direct billed to FDEP?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

49.

4.10.1 4.10.4 4.12.5

Q&A Round-

Q-66

“Contractor shall also be responsible for determining suitable times for the data collection”

“Data acquisition missions shall be initiated in generally favorable weather”

“Best reasonable effort” is defined as the attempt to collect data in a specific area while following all the requirements listed in Section 4.10 4.9, Data Collection, for weather, tide, and water conditions. Data collection efforts will be coordinated and approved by the Department’s PLS prior to event.” “Data collection vendors will be required to coordinate with the Department’s contracted PLS during the planning phases of all data collection efforts.”

Where contractor and FDEP-PLS agree timing for a phase of work – then those days suffer downtime for poor weather or other data-quality or personnel-safety impediments.

-- How/When will FDEP-PLS agree “3x Attempts” have occurred?

-- Will the contractor get paid, for FDEP-PLS planned/agreed days that do not yield data?

-- How will payment be calculated for these non-productive days?

(nominal/proven/expected production-rate for that work-phase day?)

Please see answers to Questions #16 and #43.

50. 1.2 5/6

Acting as an agent of the department, is the Company selected/contracted to provide PLS services (direct and oversee contractors within the FSMI) excluded from being an active competitor to the data-acquisition contractor group? i.e., This same company excluded from participating, in any capacity, in support of data-acquisition within this FDEP program. (Conflicting/Competing interests such

Addendum No. 2 Page 10 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer as aerial/marine field services, processing support or asset-supply, directly or indirectly within the contractor group)

Please see answer to Question #17.

51.

Q&A –

Round-1 FDEP Ans to Q-88

FDEP advises: “Controls for use will be identified and provided to the data collection vendor by the PLS contracted to provide project oversight for the Department.”

To confirm our interpretation... Land-Survey activities in confirmation of control monuments, establish of new H/V control and mapping of check pts/surfaces (I.e., for adjustment or confirmation of Lidar Data, or Vessel positioning aid) is to be undertaken by the contracted PLS ? - this is out-of-scope for the aerial/marine data-acquisition contractor?

Please see answer to Question #16.

52. RFP2022020 -

If further edits are made to any solicitation documents, will a third round of questions be permitted, with questions specific to any new edits?

The Department does not anticipate a third round of Questions.

53.

Section 4.1 -

Overview

If a Florida licensed survey firm is selected, will the second licensed survey firm, as described in Section 4.1, still be utilized under separate FDEP contract? If so, is the secondary licensed survey firm considered to be in responsible charge of data collection and data products provided by the primary firm?

Please see answers to Questions # 41 and #42.

54.

Section 4.1 -

Overview

If a licensed survey firm is selected and a second licensed survey firm, as described in Section 4.1, will be utilized under a separate FDEP contract, does FDEP have plans to implement any oversight or dispute resolution procedure in the event these two firms have a dispute regarding any aspect of the work to be performed?

Please see answer to Question #4.

55.

Section 4.1, Section 5.3

20 of 38, As a licensed survey firm in the State of Florida, with licensed professional surveyors and mappers in responsible charge of the work for our firm, our internal data collection, processing, and QA/QC processes (as required by Florida Administrative Code for operating licensed survey firms) will be to the standards and level of care of the licensed survey firm assigned by FDEP for direction and oversight of work. As such, a licensed survey firm’s cost may not be in line with an unlicensed data collection provider, creating a scoring disadvantage for the licensed survey firm. How will this potential disadvantage be taken into account to equally compare responding firms? Additionally, will the evaluation of proposals consider the advantages (including cost savings and schedule advantages) provided by selecting a primary licensed surveyor that is legally capable of doing the work of the secondary, licensed professional firm, resulting in reduced redundancy and increased efficiency?

Please see answer to Question #4. Please also see Section 5 of the revised RFP.

56. - - Can you please provide a list of firms/people who were on the Optional Pre- Response Conference on April 5, 2022?

Addendum No. 2 Page 11 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Yes, the requested list is attached at the end of this document.

57.

RFP Section

1.7 RFP page 7

Q. Will FDEP consider answering the questions related to how many bids a vendor can be a subawardee on earlier than May 17th?

No, answers to all questions will be provided in accordance with the revised Timeline of Events contained within Addendum No. 1.

58.

1.2 Background

and Program

Information

5 & 6 of 38

From which existing contract will FDEP select the Florida Professional Land Surveyor that will direct the scope of work under this contract and what is the list/pool of PLS that FDEP has to select from for this contract?

Please see answer to Question #56.

59.

1.2 Background

and Program

Information

5 & 6 of 38

Will the FDEP contracted PLS be required to have professional liability insurance for all vendors under this contract, and will vendors and subcontractors receive this professional liability coverage for the work performed under the supervision of FDEP's PLS?

The PLS is under separate contract and already has professional liability service.

60.

1.2 Background

and Program

Information

5 & 6 of 38

Concerning surveying tasks, will FDEP's PLS be in direct communication with each vendor or will all communication be funneled through FDEP personnel?

The Department’s PLS will be in direct contact with both the vendor and Department project management staff.

61.

2.20

Diversity

Second paragraph of 2.20 on page 14 states the following: "CBEs are encouraged to participate in the State's procurement process as both prime Respondents and subcontractors. Non-CBE Respondents are encouraged to partner with CBEs for Contract performance." In Addendum No. 1 dated April 26. 2022 the answer for question 26. states the following: "Each vendor can only be prime or a subcontractor." Aren't both of these statements contradictory, and if the latter stands what is FDEP's position under this contract for the "Participation of a diverse group of Respondents doing business with the Department..." at stated in

2.20 Diversity page 14 of 38.

DEP encourages CBEs to participate in the State’s procurement process. The RFP has been revised to clarify that Respondents are to be either a prime or a subcontractor, not both.

62.

3.4 Response Content

Requiremen ts

Please confirm that only one (1) of each Volume I, II, III is required for each prime respondent regardless if submitting for one or more regions.

Confirmed.

63.

4.8.2

Checkpoints

It was mentioned multiple times in the pre-bid meeting that no ground surveying was to be performed but in 4.8.2 Checkpoints there is a requirement of ground truthing data and checkpoints to be collected within the DPA boundaries. How does the department foresee this Accuracy Standard/Requirement to be fulfilled without a field survey?

Please see answer to Question #16.

Addendum No. 2 Page 12 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

64.

4.8.5 Horizontal Controls &

4.8.6 Vertical Controls

Will FDEP's PLS be tasked with creating and furnishing the Ground Survey Report on Horizontal and Vertical Controls?

Please see answer to Question #16.

65.

4.10.11 Tide

and Water

Levels Requiremen ts

When FDEP mentioned that no "ground survey" was required for this contract, will the department consider removing the 4.10.11 requirements that specifically call for maintenance of ground control points and water level station monitoring to support hydrographic efforts?

Correct. Please see Section 4.10.11 of the revised RFP. Tide and Water Levels Requirements has been removed.

66.

4.4.1.4 Ground

Surveys &

4.11 Final

Deliverables , 4.11.4 Ground

Data Collection

Report

Will the survey control stations for each project be designated by FDEP's Professional Land Surveyor and/or will that person establish survey controls for LiDAR and MBES data collection in the case NGS Controls stations are inadequate?

Please see answer to Question #16.

67.

4.12.1

Delivery Method

In 4.12.1 Delivery Method it states the following: "…data and derived products will be transferred/delivered from the vendor's Azure Cloud Storage, to the FDEP Azure cloud, in the same tier of storage." What storage tier of Azure Cloud Storage does FDEP have currently and/or will use for these contracts?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

68.

4.12.1

Delivery Method

Please confirm if data will need to be maintained in Azure cloud for 1 year after data collection or 1 year after the transfer to FDEPs cloud storage.

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

69.

4.12.4 Performanc e & 4.12.5

Best Reasonable

Effort

Please confirm that clause 4.12.4 and/or 4.12.5 are applicable as well to MBES data acquisition.

Yes, RFP has been revised to include MBES.

70.

Addendum No. 1, Question 52.

What is the amount of funds that have been appropriated to support this effort?

Please refer to Question #52 in Addendum #1.

71. 1.2 5& 6

If all data collection is to be performed under the direction of a Licensed Professional Land Surveyor that is under a separate existing contract of the Department, how will he/she directly oversee the data collection and maintain responsible charge as required by FAC 5J-17.053?

Addendum No. 2 Page 13 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

Please see answer to Question #16.

72. - -

In the previous questions & answers, it was stated that "Each vendor can only be a prime or a subcontractor." Can a vendor be a subcontractor for multiple prime contractors?

Please see answer to Question #3.

73. - -

Can a vendor be a subcontractor for a LiDAR firm and be the prime for multibeam contract?

No. Please see answer to Question #26 in Addendum No. 1.

74. 1.2 5&6

What firms presently have a contract with FDEP that will fill the role as oversight to circumnavigate the requirements set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 177, 472 and FAC 5J-17 governing Florida surveying and mapping?

The Department intends to comply with Florida Law. The requested list is attached within at the end of this document.

75. 1.2 -

“All LiDAR and sonar data and/or any other surveys and data….will be collected under the direction of a Licensed Florida PLS”. Please confirm that the PLS will not operationally limit the survey effort, for instance in constraining start dates, hours or patterns of work, and that all costs associated with the PLS (e.g. M&IE) will be entirely borne by FL DEP and not the survey contractor.

Please see answer to Questions #4 and #16.

76. 1.2 -

1. In practical terms what is FL DEP’s interpretation of meaning ‘will be collected under the direction of a Licensed Florida PLS’? Specifically, will the PLS direct and control line planning, QA/QC, LiDAR/sonar settings or other operations, data processing, or will their efforts be limited to QA/QC review and oversight only?

Please see answer to Question #16.

77.

RFP Section

4.7.2.1.3 RFP Page

2. This section states that Bathymetric Coverage for the 20-100m depth range shall be 100%.

Q. We assume this statement overrides the IHO Order 1a standard for coverage, which is less than or equal to 100%, and that FDEP is requiring 100% bathymetric coverage for surveys in the 20-100m depth range. Is this correct?

Correct.

78.

RFP Section

4.7.2.2 RFP Page

3. This section states that Bathymetric Grid Resolution for the 20-100m depth range shall be 1 square meter.

Q. Meeting this specification will be extremely challenging for a surface vessel operating over water depths greater than ~40m and would likely require minimum 200%+ coverage increasing with depth. An autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) would be able to achieve 1m grid resolution, but at some cost to coverage efficiency (per dollar and per unit time) and horizontal uncertainty. Will FDEP consider adopting the NOAA HSSD grid resolution thresholds for Complete Coverage Multibeam surveys? Truncated to the 20-100m depth range these values are: 2m grid for 20-40m depth, 4m grid for 40-80m depth, and 8m grid for 80-100m. Modern multibeam systems can meet and in most cases exceed these standards when deployed on a surface vessel.

Addendum No. 2 Page 14 of 18

Question Number

Solicitation

Section

Solicitation Page

Number Question / Answer

79.

RFP Section

4.7.3.2.3 RFP Page

This section states that Bathymetric Coverage for the 100-200m depth range shall be less than or equal to 100%.

4. Q. Will FDEP provide a minimum % coverage for surveys to be conducted in the 100-200m depth range, or will this be negotiated on a case-by-case basis during the Technical Proposal phase? It is noted that the resources required to conduct a full coverage survey may differ than those required for 50% coverage, 25% coverage, or the IHO Order 2 minimum 5% coverage.

Please see answer to Question #21.

80.

RFP Section

4.7.3.2.3 RFP Page

5. This section states that Bathymetric Coverage for the 100-200m depth range shall be less than or equal to 100%.

Q. Is FDEP able to clarify at this time whether it prefers <100% coverage (i.e., set line spacing) survey design for the 100-200m depth range? And if so, what is the desired set line spacing? Will this be negotiated during the Technical Proposal phase?

Please see answer to Question #21.

81.

RFP Section

4.7.3.2 RFP Page

6. This section states that Bathymetric Grid Resolution shall be up to 1 square meter, but no less than 3 square meters.

Q. Meeting this specification will be extremely challenging for a surface vessel operating over water depths greater than ~120m and would likely require minimum 200%+ coverage increasing with depth. Will FDEP consider adopting the NOAA HSSD grid resolution thresholds for Complete Coverage Multibeam surveys? Truncated to the 100-200m depth range these values are: 8m grid for 100-160m depth and 16m grid for 100-200m. Modern multibeam systems will exceed these standards when deployed on a surface vessel.

In accordance with Section 2.6, Addenda/Amendments to the RFP, the Department hereby formally amends the revised Solicitation and previously answered questions from Addendum No. 1 originally posted on 04.26.22, as identified below (the revised Addendum No. 2 Solicitation is attached separately within the Vendor Information Portal). The amendments for Addendum No. 2 are indicated in orange with strikethrough for deletions and underlines for additions.

38. 3.4.2.4 17

In reference to the data storage requirements, will the State of Florida allow an encrypted AWS S3 Cloud storage as opposed to the MS Azure cloud storage?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

Please see answer to Question #18.

49. - -

Can you provide additional information regarding vendor cloud storage requirements for this RFP/data?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

Please see answer to Question #18. Please provide more specificity if further clarification is needed.

Addendum No. 2 Page 15 of 18

50.

Please clarify if unit pricing is to include task management/project management and cloud storage, etc. Costs or if these costs will be addressed separately.

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP. The Department will not be responsible for Microsoft Azure Cloud Storage Costs.

Please see answer to Question #31.

104. 3.4.2.4 18

Does FDEP require survey companies to upload directly to the States Azure Cloud or are the survey companies supposed to create our own cloud storage and provide FDEP with passwords to access?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

Please refer to Section 4.12.1 of the revised RFP. The vendor is required to provide Azure Cloud storage for up to 1 year following deliverable submittal.

125.

3.4.2.4 Tab

D and 4.12.1

18 and 29

Does FDEP have a good understanding of the cost associated with MS Azure Cloud storage and data transactions? The amount of data that will be stored and delivered, if inclusive of source data and derived products, could measure in petabytes and therefore have a large associated cost (approximately $150k/month).

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

Please see answers to Questions #31 and #63. For developing costs estimates, please see link (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/blobs/storage-blob-reserved-capacity) for reserved, one year storage rates at the MS Azure tier “Cool”. Additional details pertaining to data transfer can be found in the answer to Question #127.

127.

3.4.2.4 Tab

D

As part of data transfer/delivery, does FDEP expect to transfer cloud to cloud, vendor to FDEP, or consume the vendor cloud storage i.e. hand off the keys to the cloud?

Please see Section 3.4.2.4 of the revised RFP.

Once the deliverables have been approved, data and derived products will be transferred/delivered from the vendor’s AZURE cloud storage, to the FDEP Azure cloud, in the same tier of storage. Ingress costs will be at the expense of the Department and the transfer timing will be determined by the Department within the one-year period.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/blobs/storage-blob-reserved-capacity https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/blobs/storage-blob-reserved-capacity

Addendum No. 2 Page 16 of 18

Attendee List from the Optional Pre-Response Conference (Addendum No. 2, Q&A #56)

Meeting Summary

Total Number of Participants 94

Meeting Title HOLD- FSMI

Meeting Start Time 4/5/2022, 2:28:14 PM

Meeting End Time 4/5/2022, 3:48:30 PM

Meeting Id 2b3ee534-00b8-487f-bc83-58ffb490a78e

Full Name Join Time Leave Time Duration Email Role Participant ID (UPN)

Altenburg, Grace 4/5/2022, 2:28:14 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:06 PM 1h 16m Grace.Altenburg@FloridaDEP.gov Presenter Grace.Altenburg@FloridaDEP.gov

Gleason, Marisa 4/5/2022, 2:28:39 PM 4/5/2022, 3:48:30 PM 1h 19m Marisa.Gleason@FloridaDEP.gov Presenter Marisa.Gleason@FloridaDEP.gov

Bouza, Eddy 4/5/2022, 2:35:41 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:52 PM 1h 9m Eddy.Bouza@FloridaDEP.gov Presenter Eddy.Bouza@FloridaDEP.gov

Anderson, Lori L 4/5/2022, 2:39:37 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:17 PM 1h 5m Lori.L.Anderson@dep.state.fl.us Presenter Lori.L.Anderson@dep.state.fl.us

Armstrong, Karen E 4/5/2022, 2:46:55 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:57 PM 58m 1s Karen.E.Armstrong@FloridaDEP.gov Presenter Karen.E.Armstrong@FloridaDEP.gov

Nichols, Amanda 4/5/2022, 2:54:16 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:54 PM 50m 38s Amanda.Nichols@FloridaDEP.gov Attendee Amanda.Nichols@FloridaDEP.gov

Swope, Bill 4/5/2022, 2:55:07 PM 4/5/2022, 3:32:44 PM 37m 37s bSwope@Halff.com Attendee ah3701@Halff.com

Francois, Trae 4/5/2022, 2:55:08 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:50 PM 49m 42s tfrancois@Dewberry.com Attendee tfrancois@dewberry.com

Irving, Bonnie 4/5/2022, 2:55:27 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:00 PM 49m 33s Bonnie.Irving@FloridaDEP.gov Attendee Bonnie.Irving@FloridaDEP.gov

Rick Wallace 4/5/2022, 2:55:37 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:58 PM 49m 20s Rick.Wallace@nv5.com Attendee Rick.Wallace@nv5.com

Jack Breed 4/5/2022, 2:56:10 PM 4/5/2022, 3:46:22 PM 50m 12s jbreed@civilsurv.com Attendee jbreed@civilsurv.com

Benjamin Leonard 4/5/2022, 2:56:26 PM 4/5/2022, 2:56:28 PM 1s ben@lcmc.us Attendee ben@lcmc.us

Benjamin Leonard 4/5/2022, 2:58:35 PM 4/5/2022, 2:59:41 PM 1m 6s ben@lcmc.us Attendee ben@lcmc.us

Benjamin Leonard 4/5/2022, 3:00:48 PM 4/5/2022, 3:02:54 PM 2m 5s ben@lcmc.us Attendee ben@lcmc.us

Mannix, Chris 4/5/2022, 2:56:27 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:56 PM 49m 28s Chris.Mannix@Woolpert.com Attendee Chris.Mannix@Woolpert.com

Jerry D Stewart 4/5/2022, 2:56:38 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:04 PM 48m 26s Jerry.Stewart@wginc.com Attendee Jerry.Stewart@wginc.com

Karlin, Alvan 4/5/2022, 2:57:02 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:56 PM 47m 54s akarlin@Dewberry.com Attendee akarlin@dewberry.com

McInnis, Gloriann 4/5/2022, 2:57:11 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:28 PM 48m 17s Gloriann.McInnis@FloridaDEP.gov Presenter Gloriann.McInnis@FloridaDEP.gov

Paul Badr 4/5/2022, 2:57:16 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:03 PM 47m 46s pbadr@gpinet.com Attendee pbadr@gpinet.com

Patterson, Keith 4/5/2022, 2:57:18 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:10 PM 47m 51s kpatterson@Dewberry.com Attendee kpatterson@Dewberry.com

Sherryl Gilbert 4/5/2022, 2:57:19 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:33 PM 48m 13s sherryl@usf.edu Attendee sherryl@usf.edu

Steven Murawski 4/5/2022, 2:57:23 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:02 PM 47m 38s smurawski@usf.edu Attendee smurawski@usf.edu

Rinne, Andrea 4/5/2022, 2:57:40 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 47m 20s Andrea.Rinne@tetratech.com Attendee Andrea.Rinne@tetratech.com

Larson, Ashley M 4/5/2022, 2:57:45 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:59 PM 47m 13s Ashley.M.Larson@FloridaDEP.gov Attendee Ashley.M.Larson@FloridaDEP.gov

Hobie (Guest) 4/5/2022, 2:57:57 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:46 PM 47m 49s Attendee

Nayegandhi, Amar 4/5/2022, 2:58:04 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:48 PM 46m 43s anayegandhi@Dewberry.com Attendee anayegandhi@Dewberry.com

MacDonald, Mark 4/5/2022, 2:58:04 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:06 PM 47m 1s mmacdonald@fugro.com Attendee mmacdonald@fugro.com

Matthew Hommeyer 4/5/2022, 2:58:08 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:04 PM 46m 56s mhommeyer@usf.edu Attendee mhommeyer@usf.edu

Chris Echols 4/5/2022, 2:58:15 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:50 PM 46m 34s cechols@conshelf.com Attendee cechols@conshelf.com

Lowiec, Michael 4/5/2022, 2:58:19 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:00 PM 46m 41s Michael.Lowiec@aptim.com Attendee Michael.Lowiec@aptim.com

Rachel Bobich | RMB GEO 4/5/2022, 2:58:20 PM 4/5/2022, 3:33:54 PM 35m 34s Attendee

Tim Carlile (Guest) 4/5/2022, 2:58:24 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:19 PM 46m 55s Attendee

Traci Aquara 4/5/2022, 2:58:25 PM 4/5/2022, 3:48:23 PM 49m 58s taquara@usf.edu Attendee taquara@usf.edu

Michael Hewlett 4/5/2022, 2:58:37 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:09 PM 46m 31s mhewlett@conshelf.com Attendee mhewlett@conshelf.com

Tim McClinton 4/5/2022, 2:58:39 PM 4/5/2022, 3:30:02 PM 31m 23s TMcClinton@deainc.com Attendee Jtm@deainc.com

Konkus, John 4/5/2022, 2:58:44 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:53 PM 46m 8s John.Konkus@woolpert.com Attendee John.Konkus@woolpert.com

Clarke, James 4/5/2022, 2:58:45 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:06 PM 46m 20s ja.clarke@fugro.com Attendee ja.clarke@fugro.com

Roulhac, Jada 4/5/2022, 2:58:50 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:51 PM 46m 1s Jada.Roulhac@FloridaDEP.gov Attendee Jada.Roulhac@FloridaDEP.gov

Desiree Butler-James 4/5/2022, 2:59:01 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:57 PM 45m 55s desiree.butler-james@saildrone.onmicrosoft.com Attendee desiree.butler-james@saildrone.onmicrosoft.com

Russell Hyatt 4/5/2022, 2:59:01 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:04 PM 46m 2s russell@hyattsurvey.com Attendee russell@hyattsurvey.com

Gordon Stevens (CSA) 4/5/2022, 2:59:01 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:10 PM 46m 8s gstevens@conshelf.com Attendee gstevens@conshelf.com

Jesse Price 4/5/2022, 2:59:06 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:14 PM 46m 8s jprice@espassociates.com Attendee jprice@espassociates.com

Andrews, Jeffrey 4/5/2022, 2:59:06 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:58 PM 45m 52s Jeffrey.Andrews@aptim.com Attendee Jeffrey.Andrews@aptim.com

Bryce, Patrick 4/5/2022, 2:59:06 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:57 PM 45m 51s patrick.bryce@aptim.com Attendee patrick.bryce@aptim.com

Carpenter, Scot 4/5/2022, 2:59:11 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:14 PM 46m 3s sCarpenter@halff.com Attendee ah4404@halff.com

Gerhard, John 4/5/2022, 2:59:11 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 45m 49s John.Gerhard@Woolpert.com Attendee John.Gerhard@Woolpert.com

Neff, Dave 4/5/2022, 2:59:25 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 45m 35s Dave.Neff@woolpert.com Attendee Dave.Neff@woolpert.com

Tim Cawood 4/5/2022, 2:59:26 PM 4/5/2022, 3:48:17 PM 48m 51s TCAWOOD@mckimcreed.com Attendee TCawood@mckimcreed.com

Tim Shaw 4/5/2022, 2:59:29 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 45m 32s tshaw@conshelf.com Attendee tshaw@conshelf.com

Burgstahler, Meredith 4/5/2022, 2:59:43 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:18 PM 45m 35s mburgstahler@Dewberry.com Attendee mburgstahler@dewberry.com

Lovin, Jeff 4/5/2022, 2:59:50 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:48 PM 44m 57s Jeff.Lovin@Woolpert.com Attendee Jeff.Lovin@Woolpert.com

DAS Joshua Helton (Guest) 4/5/2022, 2:59:58 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:06 PM 45m 7s Attendee

Daniel Bidot 4/5/2022, 3:00:08 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:28 PM 45m 20s dbidot@precisionmeasurements.com Attendee dbidot@precisionmeasurements.com

Rose, Kaylee 4/5/2022, 3:00:11 PM 4/5/2022, 3:42:12 PM 42m 1s Kaylee.Rose@FloridaDEP.gov Attendee Kaylee.Rose@FloridaDEP.gov

John Bean (Guest) 4/5/2022, 3:00:13 PM 4/5/2022, 3:48:04 PM 47m 50s Attendee

Clark, Dan 4/5/2022, 3:00:23 PM 4/5/2022, 3:41:14 PM 40m 51s dClark@Halff.com Attendee ah2408@Halff.com

Forrest, Beth 4/5/2022, 3:00:24 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:50 PM 44m 25s Beth.Forrest@aptim.com Attendee Beth.Forrest@aptim.com

Murphy, Tom 4/5/2022, 3:00:25 PM 4/5/2022, 3:48:11 PM 47m 46s Tom.Murphy@Woolpert.com Attendee Tom.Murphy@Woolpert.com

Slover, Kevin 4/5/2022, 3:00:32 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 44m 29s kslover@Dewberry.com Attendee kslover@Dewberry.com

Scott Sharpe 4/5/2022, 3:00:53 PM 4/5/2022, 3:43:39 PM 42m 46s ssharpe@conshelf.com Attendee ssharpe@conshelf.com

Sarah Grasty 4/5/2022, 3:00:54 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:56 PM 44m 2s grastys@usf.edu Attendee grastys@usf.edu

Ryan Kett 4/5/2022, 3:01:00 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:54 PM 43m 54s Ryan.Kett@wginc.com Attendee Ryan.Kett@wginc.com

Towle, Rachael 4/5/2022, 3:01:02 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:04 PM 44m 2s Rachael.Towle@woolpert.com Attendee Rachael.Towle@woolpert.com

Tim Carlile (Guest) 4/5/2022, 3:01:02 PM 4/5/2022, 3:02:49 PM 1m 47s Attendee

Smits, Mark 4/5/2022, 3:01:05 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:00 PM 43m 55s Mark.Smits@Woolpert.com Attendee Mark.Smits@woolpert.com

Bubser, Dan 4/5/2022, 3:01:30 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:50 PM 43m 19s dbubser@Dewberry.com Attendee dbubser@Dewberry.com

Kelly Mallette 4/5/2022, 3:01:39 PM 4/5/2022, 3:43:57 PM 42m 18s Kelly@rlbookpa.com Attendee Kelly@rlbookpa.com

Feldpausch, Robert 4/5/2022, 3:01:49 PM 4/5/2022, 3:46:20 PM 44m 31s Robert.Feldpausch@tetratech.com Attendee Robert.Feldpausch@tetratech.com

12288066044 4/5/2022, 3:01:56 PM 4/5/2022, 3:46:07 PM 44m 10s Attendee

Klipp, Emily 4/5/2022, 3:02:00 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:52 PM 42m 52s esklipp@Dewberry.com Attendee esklipp@Dewberry.com

Thiel, Phil 4/5/2022, 3:02:10 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:01 PM 42m 50s pthiel@Dewberry.com Attendee pthiel@Dewberry.com

Ericson, Andrew 4/5/2022, 3:02:19 PM 4/5/2022, 3:44:54 PM 42m 35s aericson@Dewberry.com Attendee aericson@dewberry.com

Walmsley, Renee 4/5/2022, 3:02:29 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:03 PM 42m 34s Renee.Walmsley@tetratech.com Attendee Renee.Walmsley@tetratech.com

Mueller, Mike 4/5/2022, 3:02:36 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:04 PM 42m 28s Mike.Mueller@woolpert.com Attendee Mike.Mueller@woolpert.com

Todd King 4/5/2022, 3:02:41 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:22 PM 42m 40s TKing@mckimcreed.com Attendee TKing@mckimcreed.com

Hart, Karen 4/5/2022, 3:02:49 PM 4/5/2022, 3:45:03 PM 42m 13s Karen.Hart@woolpert.com Attendee Karen.Hart@woolpert.com

Kurt Allen 4/5/2022, 3:02:50 PM 4/5/2022, 3:41:15 PM 38m 25s…