Addendum Q&A.pdf

ADDENDUM #1

RFP #S-63500-0012140

BEAVER HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE

DATE: January 10, 2025

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Following are questions asked during the pre-bid conference held on 01/07/25 as well as received by Proposers and ODFW’s answers. The answers and clarifications provided below by ODFW are for informational purposes ONLY and DO NOT constitute a change to the terms, conditions, technical specifications or requirements of the RFP.

Question 1: Are there in house SME are they Beaver Biologist or Subject Matter Experts (SME) for other fields?

Answer 1: Technical review is primarily in-house for ODFW; SME will be external and representing a range of expertise. A list will be provided to Contractor of SMEs that ODFW has identified .

Question 2: In between May and June, how long will the document be reviewed by review committee?

Answer 2: Hoping to have a turn around time of two weeks for committee review and two weeks to incorporate feedback.

Question 3: Would you speak a little more on graphics and layout, how much effort would you like put into that?

Answer 3: Not expecting high level graphics, more focus on the scientific paper level, informative, do graphics support text., This needs to balance accessibility between experienced and new learners.

Question 4: Is technical review committee formed currently, or will that be formed for this?

Answer 4: A new committee will be formed

Question 5: With the list of SME’s provided, can we propose more?

Answer 5: Yes

ADDENDUM #1 – RFP #S-63500-00012140 2

Question 6: What is budget range?

Answer 6: $50-$60k

Question 7: Attachment B spot for notary, does that need to be notarized at time of bid submittal?

Answer 7: Yes, everything needs completed on all forms prior to bid submittal.

Question 8: Do you have a style guide for documents?

Answer 8: We do not have a required style guide. Here are some example documents of the level of information we are looking for with flexibility on the amount of graphics and photos included.

https://www.calapooia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KBO_and_LRP_2014_Landowner_oak_guide_1.0.pdf https://xerces.org/publications/guidelines/pollinator-friendly-parks https://cascadiaprairieoak.org/documents/wetland-prairie-guide

Question 9: would you be open to a collaborate proposal? Multiple awards and separate out scope or subcontract?

Answer 9: There is no clause for awarding to multiple Contractors in the RFP, however we are not restricting Contractors from sub-contracting out some of the work. Please refer to Attachment A Sample Contract subcontractor language.

Question 10: Has the internal technical advisory team been selected already? I am assuming since it is "internal" that means it is all ODFW staff? Is it possible to share this list now?

Answer 10: The team has not been selected yet. We may include some staff from other agencies or organizations if additional perspective is needed for a well-rounded review.

Question 11: The RFP says that ODFW will provide a list of "subject matter experts" and current studies. Is the contractor able to add to this list and select from it? Or does it define the exact, and sole resources to be consulted? Is it possible to share these lists now?

Answer 11: We will provide a list of SMEs that are willing to assist in this process. I need to check with participants, so that list is not currently available. Contractors can suggest other resources. The list of current studies will be a resource to assist the selected contractor. We expect that it will be added to as appropriate.

https://www.calapooia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KBO_and_LRP_2014_Landowner_oak_guide_1.0.pdf https://www.calapooia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KBO_and_LRP_2014_Landowner_oak_guide_1.0.pdf https://xerces.org/publications/guidelines/pollinator-friendly-parks https://cascadiaprairieoak.org/documents/wetland-prairie-guide

Question 12: Based on the fact that "subject matter experts" are to be consulted, it appears to be the case that the contracted product will not be required to be solely a review of published literature, and can incorporate a substantial amount of unpublished observations and natural history experience of the experts: Is this correct? Or is a pure "literature review" more to be expected?

Answer 12: We would like the product to be supported by published literature and it may include newer information and perspectives from experts that have not published their work but have significant expertise with this topic. I would not characterize it as using a substantial amount of unpublished observations as the primary references.

Question 13: In the 20-30 page product: It is assumed that literature cited/bibliography is not included within this total. However, would illustrations, diagrams and figures be acceptable as an additional appendix to these 20-30 pages, rather than included in the total?

Answer 13: The 20-30 pages is for the main body of the document and it’s a guide for the approximate length rather than a hard number. It’s a balance between providing enough information and keeping the documents accessible and easy to read through. Appendices can be additional.

Question 14: In terms of institutional processing, there was a question regarding if this contract was being viewed as a "personal services" or "purchase order" for a final product? I see "services" referenced multiple times in the RFP but needed to double check.

Answer 14: This will be a personal services contract.

Question 15: Attachment H. Are we just required to sign the form, or are we supposed to put our responses to the evaluation criteria into the form? If so, are we required to use the lines provided, or are we allowed to insert tables, etc.?

Answer 15: Put responses to the questions on the form and sign it. If unable to fill out the form in current format, please ensure the answers to questions align with the formatting as much as possible.