PreBidConferenceNotes.docx

Newsome Creek Reach 2 Stream Habitat Improvement Design

RFQ AG-0343-S-16-0030

Pre-Bid Conference 4/19/16 1:00 PM Meeting Notes Prepared by Karen Ruklic

Government Representatives:

Karen Ruklic, Contracting Officer Anne Connor, Forest Watershed Restoration Program Manager Stephanie Bransford, Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Division Eric Merten, Forest South Zone Fish Biologist Jen McAdoo, Forest South Zone Hydrologist

Industry Attendees:

Firm Name: Individual Representing: Address/Contact Info:

Consulting

Contracting Officer started by answering a question regarding site access. Newsome Creek Road is only plowed road to 1199 – can’t even get to Newsome Town Site. County does not plow. Earliest access to site was May 15, 2015; 2015 was a really dry year.

CO then reviewed the following solicitation background information, requirements, clauses and provisions provided in solicitation. The following items were highlighted.

Quotation submission instructions provided in Block 20 of the SF-1449.

The government and Nez Perce Tribe purposefully choose not to provide a budget for construction implementation within the solicitation. Designers should not constrain the conceptual design based on funding. After the conceptual design phase is complete, initial cost estimates may lead the government to request that the implementation of the work be phased. This would require the designer to separate the construction-ready plans, specifications and cost estimates to match the phasing agreed upon.

Documents cited in attachments and referenced in the Background section were uploaded to the USFS Cloud Drive. Attendees agreed that this was working well. After receiving feedback regarding the Feasibility Study Alternative 4 drawing size, a hardcopy was scanned and uploaded to FBO.

RFQ was issued using commercial item procedures. Process is meant to be simple. All modifications executed under this contract will be bi-laterally agreed upon with price negotiations completed up front.

Key personnel identified in the accepted technical proposals shall be made a material part of the contract. Any substitutions would have to approved by the government.

Camping at a dispersed site would need to be approved by District Ranger; such approvals are easy to coordinate and allow for exceeding the 14-day limitations. Housing is limited in Elk City; campsites are usually available in the Newsome Town Site area.

Site is accessible by ATVs & UTVs only – not accessible by pick-up truck (access route); woody debris on access route not a problem, may be some minor blow-down on first trip that needs cut out.

Invoices will be submitted via IPP (Invoicing Processing Platform). Good system, easy to use.

Workers Compensation Coverage must be approved by ID Industrial Commission before Notice To Proceed will be issued.

Prework meeting would be held within 15 days after award; potential for prework in office, then move to field. Hiking to site on FS trail might be doable in May.

SCA wages apply to non-professional employees – 2 wage determinations included. Minimum wage applies $10.15/hour per Executive Order.

Reviewed evaluation clause. Return the information requested. Team of professionals proposed will be important in our technical review. This is a best value procurement with technical factors combined approximately equal to price in the award decision.

Background information discussed:

· 2 years’ worth of construction has been done in Reach 2 – all floodplain restoration. No channel work.

· Reaches 5-3 are done, revegetation was completed in 2014.

· Design philosophy illustrated in Reaches 5-3 should be carried thru to Reach 2. Specifically, system of wood, not discrete structures.

· Reach 2 is much wider and has more opportunity for channel re-alignment. Alternative 4 of Feasibility Study has 2 alignments; one adds bends, one complete stream re-meander. Need to align design within these parameters to meet our NEPA.

Powerpoint presentation was shown (see FBO). With the following discussion points made:

· Reach 2 is longest. Reach 6 (not mined) was used as a reference reach and for monitoring. Reach 1 was left alone, good habitat and fish distribution numbers (was impacted by mining though not as much as reaches 2-5).

· Throughout implementation – went from selective dredge removal to full valley bottom tailings removal.

· Floodplain elevation was dropped to lower level in Reach 2 after phase 1 & 2 completion. (Missed Reach 4 optimal elevation by about a foot – went back and removed more material to achieve lower elevation). Now inundates almost every year.

· Reference photo comparison Reach 4 to 2 in PowerPoint presentation.

· Wood left to catch sediment, slow water velocity across floodplain.

· No new wood should have to be imported for the future construction work. Plenty on site.

· The system of wood = increased shading, overhead cover. Large point structures were spread out during implementation though total amount of work required did not change.

· Wood left on floodplain has been re-configured by run-off, this has worked to our benefit.

· Constructed and natural channels are both working well.

· Government and Nez Perce Tribe desire complete floodplain interaction.

· Increased in spawning gravel is another key desire for design.

· Very low pre-smolt survival in Newsome, no over-wintering habitat, would like to see this in Newsome Creek.

· Lamprey restoration in Newsome Creek possible too…good pond habitat for “nursery” in lower reach 2.

· Ammocetes have been found in mainstem Newsome Creek

· Muddy alcoves may be important along with spawning gravels. Lamprey restoration not currently highlighted.

· Beaver have increased floodplain inundation in Reach 5, adding dams to constructed LWD structures.

· Filling ponds is not an option due to current NEPA and permits.

Showed aerial video – Reach 2 from bottom to top, soil stockpiles and large dredge repository. Video was very short but very large in size. Will not be uploaded to FBO.

· Revegetation has come back fast, floodplain has swales and depressions. Current floodplain consists of cobble with pockets of sand mixed with organics in lower swales. Conifers seedlings appear to grow within 3 years after ground disturbance.

· No revegetation plan requirement for this design.

· No grazing within project area.

Reviewed Section C:

· The wood system was not depicted in any previous contract documents – drawings were not done, no spec for a “system of wood”. Page 6, #3 clarification: key wood structures will be shown on the design sheets (i.e. those that key into existing rock features or were specifically located on newly constructed meanders). A general description or typical depicting a system of wood to connect these point structures is envisioned by the government.

· Meanders and side channels were built as designed in the completed reaches. Channel dimensions in Reach 2 have not been altered.

· Floodplain elevation was reduced via modification, isolated tailings piles were added through contract modifications or additions to future phases of construction.

· Original design in Reach 2 had 2 meanders with selective dredge pile removal, follow-on design only added 1 more meander.

· Government and Nez Perce Tribe now want a more robust, aggressive design that takes advantage of increased budget. Removal of trees was originally frowned upon. However, since the early stages of implementation, we learned that dredge piles weren’t sufficiently revegetated to provide adequate shade or suitable site for vegetation growth.

· Falling limb of hydrograph gives indication of where stream wants to go. This is a key reason for the timing of the solicitation. We want the designer on the ground as the water recedes.

· Cabin is not a heritage resource; in general, not a lot of cultural resources left and heritage concerns have not been problematic during past implementation.

· Forest Service system foot trail will need to be preserved.

· We are looking to construct next year, need construction ready plans and specs as well as cost estimates.

· November 15 is solid contract end date – funding expires at the end of November.

· Question was submitted. Would email submittal OK? Answer was yes, though contractor will need to verify receipt. See solicitation Amendment 1.

It is estimated that the solicitation amendment will be issued on Monday, April 25, 2016 to allow for email quote submission and clarify a few items.