Amendment# 02 - Q&A - RFP PDAA 2027_0001 Upper Colorado River Basin Contribution Program Consultant .pdf

Amendment #2 - Questions & Answers (Q&A)

RFP PDAA 2027*0001

Upper Colorado River Basin Contribution Program Consultant

A. The following questions, and the answer to each, were received:

1. Expected applicant volume: Do you have an estimate of how many water user applications the State anticipates per cycle? Even a rough range would help us plan the outreach, technical assistance, and verification workload realistically.

i. The System Conservation Pilot Program (SCPP) is probably the best datapoint for project participation, where Colorado saw 40 applications in 2023 (and 22 projects implemented) and 50 applications in 2024 (and 46 projects implemented). But participation in this program may be significantly different, and so the SCPP figures represent only a very rough estimate. We also anticipate that the makeup of project types (e.g., full season fallow) may be significantly different for the contribution program.

2. Budget structure: The RFP references an approximately $700,000 budget and notes that the Department "does not guarantee a minimum amount of projects to be assigned". Can you clarify whether the $700,000 is intended as a not-to-exceed ceiling, a budget target, or an estimate for planning purposes? And how should we understand the billing mechanism — are we compensated on an hourly basis against the total contract value regardless of the number of awarded projects?

i. The $700,000 is a not-to-exceed ceiling, though it’s possible additional funding could be secured for a contract amendment. The selected consultant should anticipate billing for actual worked hours against the total contract value.

3. Scope boundary: The SOW references deliverables including the

Reclamation Contributed Water Annual Report and participant compensation reconciliation statements. Are CWCB staff expected to handle the legal/administrative determination of water rights eligibility and any disputes, with the consultant providing the technical analysis and documentation in support? We want to make sure we're scoping our technical assistance and verification work appropriately relative to the

Board's own review authority.

i. Correct, staff from CWCB and DWR will handle the legal and administrative determinations of water rights eligibility, although the consultant may assist in collecting relevant documentation for the water rights (e.g., water right decrees). The consultant may provide specific technical support, especially in the early phases of application review, including reviewing recent use of the water rights and evaluating call records on the relevant stream system, and may lead in coordinating responses to the applicant on the final determinations. The consultant will also draft reporting per agreements with / direction from USBR, the UCRC, and the CWCB

Board.

4. Application period: How much time from when the contract is awarded (ie.

work can begin) and the start of the application period? We'd like to know how much time we have to develop the portal and application materials.

i. The consultant is anticipated to lead on the portal and its hosting.

The portal does not need to be custom-built for Program purposes

(commercial solutions are acceptable). Program information will be posted on the CWCB website. Please see https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement as a possible example of a similar program. Exact timing of contract award and the start of the application period are unknown, and CWCB staff https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement may need to begin the application process, but we would like proposals to reflect the consultant doing that work.

5. Application portal: Who would be hosting the portal website and can you provide any privacy and security requirements the portal must adhere to?

i. The consultant is anticipated to lead on the portal and its hosting.

The portal does not need to be custom-built for Program purposes

(commercial solutions are acceptable). Program information will be posted on the CWCB website. Please see https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement as a possible example of a similar program. Exact timing of contract award and the start of the application period are unknown, and CWCB staff may need to begin the application process, but we would like proposals to reflect the consultant doing that work.

6. Is CWCB looking for the selected Contractor to determine the economic value of specific near-term contribution projects (i.e., complete individual economics analyses for each project) or will CWCB staff in coordination with the USBR/UCRC determine the economic value for specific projects?

i. The consultant will not be performing any economics work for these projects. The USBR, UCRC, and CWCB will determine a compensation scheme for projects, and the consultant will only assist in quantifying the contributed water.

7. Typically, CWCB projects operate on a July 1 – June 30 Fiscal Year. For budgeting purposes, should the Contractor plan on the first contract to operate from the Notice to Proceed (NTP) to June 30, 2027, or will it extend from NTP to December 31, 2027?

i. Year 1 will likely operate from the NTP to December 31, 2027.

8. Is the reported $700,000 Contractor budget for all 5 years of the

Near-Term Contribution Program, or the budget for the first year? We’re trying to determine if CWCB would like to see a budget for one year, or for the full 5-year program, if the contract was extended?

i. The initial $700,000 budget is for all 5 years of the Near-Term

Contribution Program, though we anticipate that most of the work will be concentrated in the first 2 years. Given that; we would like to see a budget for 5 years assuming that the contract was extended.

9. The RFP lists an expected project start date of November 25th while the

September CWCB Board meeting suggested an application window opening in mid-October. Should the consultant anticipate that CWCB will be accepting applications prior to the expected consultant start date?

i. The consultant is anticipated to lead on the portal and its hosting.

The portal does not need to be custom-built for Program purposes

(commercial solutions are acceptable). Program information will be posted on the CWCB website. Please see https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement as a possible example of a similar program. Exact timing of contract award and the start of the application period are unknown, and CWCB staff may need to begin the application process, but we would like proposals to reflect the consultant doing that work.

10.The RFP states that the consultant will assist CWCB staff in managing, implementing, and administering the program. How many CWCB staff, and in what roles, will be dedicated to this effort?

i. There are 4-6 CWCB staff who will dedicate hours to the Program.

These staff will interface with the Upper Division States, UCRC, USBR, CWCB Board, and other various parties. They will guide the program and direct the consultant. The consultant will be the main contact for water users in applying for, implementing, and verifying projects. They will also be the technical leads on operations with

DWR and in any consumptive use modeling.

11.Does CWCB anticipate hosting the online portal via their CWCB / DNR website or will the portal be a standalone website – separate from CWCB?

i. The consultant is anticipated to lead on the portal and its hosting.

The portal does not need to be custom-built for Program purposes

(commercial solutions are acceptable). Program information will be posted on the CWCB website. Please see https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement as a possible example of a similar program. Exact timing of contract award and the start of the application period are unknown, and CWCB staff may need to begin the application process, but we would like proposals to reflect the consultant doing that work.

12.Does the stated budget of $700k reflect estimated costs for the initial period of work through 9/30/2027 or an alternative timeline that represents however long it takes to contract the initial $50M award?

i. The initial $700,000 budget is for all 5 years of the Near-Term

Contribution Program, though we anticipate that most of the work will be concentrated in the first 2 years. Given that; we would like to see a budget for 5 years assuming that the contract was extended.

13.What level of water right administration and DWR oversight of the conserved water is anticipated through this program?

i. DWR staff from both the State Engineer’s Office and Division

Engineer Offices will be heavily involved in the approval of projects and operations. DWR will be exclusively responsible for the administration of contributed water.

14.Does the federal funding for this project supersede the requirement that

100% of the work be completed within the state of Colorado, or should our proposed project staff be exclusively composed of Colorado residents?

i. No, the work does not need to be completed within the State of

Colorado. Federal funding does supersede this requirement.

Amendment# 01 has been posted to remove this language from the

Submission Form - page 23 of 24.

15.Would an existing contract with a water user who might later apply to the

Contribution Program be considered a conflict of interest under Section

5.12 of the RFP? Can you provide any clarification on how conflicts like this could be addressed and meet the State's requirements?

i. Any conflict determination would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, but we expect that being contracted by a water user to assist with applying to the Near-Term Contribution Program would likely be considered a conflict of interest. Merely having an existing contract with a water user on another matter would likely not be considered a conflict.

16.For the work contemplated under Task 3.5 and Task 4.2, what is the level of field work anticipated for the contractor? What role would the State's existing contractor for the "Diversion Measurement Program" play in this field work? Would the consultant selected for this work be expected to assist with implementation and field work (e.g. measurement device installation) for every application in the Contribution Program or only a screened subset?

i. No field work is anticipated for Task 3.5 of the scope of work. Unlike the Diversion Measurement Program, water users will be responsible for installation of any required infrastructure. For Task

4.2 of the scope of work, the consultant should propose how they would perform field verification of Contribution Program activities if necessary. Actual requirements may be dictated by USBR

Agreements and the consultant should be prepared to travel for site visits.

17.Are the verification methodologies for the Contribution Program pre-defined by the Upper Colorado Conserved Consumptive Use Study or another similar existing report, or would selection of consumptive use estimate methodologies be developed as part of Task 4?

i. The consultant should plan on assisting with development of verification methodologies as part of Task 4. Coordination with various other parties such as other Upper Division States, the

UCRC, USBR, and DWR should be expected and will be coordinated through CWCB staff. Familiarity with a variety of consumptive use modeling methodologies is preferred.

18.Does CWCB have any guidance on planning ranges offerors should use for applications received, applications needing detailed CCU support, selected projects, simultaneously active projects, fields/monitoring polygons, field visits and NEPA/SHPO packets?

i. The System Conservation Pilot Program (SCPP) is probably the best datapoint for project participation, where Colorado saw 40 applications in 2023 (and 22 projects implemented) and 50 applications in 2024 (and 46 projects implemented). But participation in this program may be significantly different, and so the SCPP figures represent only a very rough estimate. We also anticipate that the makeup of project types may be significantly different for the contribution program, so it is difficult to anticipate the range of projects that will need detailed CCU support, fields/monitoring polygons, field visits, or NEPA/SHPO packets.

19.Does “daily water tracking” require consultant review and update every day for every active project, or daily-granularity records with exception-based consultant review? What DWR systems and import formats are expected?

i. We expect daily water tracking may occur when projects have operations that may change on a daily basis (e.g. change in river call). Some projects may require less-frequent tracking and operations, but may still be accounted for on a daily basis after the fact. Consultants should propose what public-facing DWR systems and formats will be used to perform daily water tracking.

20.For the online portal, does CWCB have a required or preferred

State-approved platform, security standard, authentication method, hosting environment, data-residency requirement, license arrangement and post-contract ownership/transition expectation? The Scope of Work asks the proposer to “configure” a platform, does that mean a platform already exists for this program to use?

i. The consultant is anticipated to lead on the portal and its hosting.

The portal does not need to be custom-built for Program purposes

(commercial solutions are acceptable). Program information will be posted on the CWCB website. Please see https://cwcb.colorado.gov/diversionmeasurement as a possible example of a similar program. Exact timing of contract award and the start of the application period are unknown, and CWCB staff may need to begin the application process, but we would like proposals to reflect the consultant doing that work.

21.What compensation methodology, rate/range or policy parameters will

CWCB approve before public outreach, and what elements must the consultant develop and justify to UCRC/USBR?

i. The consultant will not be performing any economics work for these projects. The USBR, UCRC, and CWCB will determine a compensation scheme for projects, and the consultant will only assist in quantifying the contributed water.

22.For field verification and remote sensing, is one planned visit per selected project plus exception-triggered visits acceptable? Should pricing scale by project, field/polygon, acreage or visit?

i. Exact verification details are yet to be determined by USBR, UCRC, and the Upper Division States. This may also depend upon project type. Please propose a pricing scheme that scales with hours worked.

23.For NEPA and SHPO support, is the consultant expected to perform screening and prepare standard packets, or manage full project-specific compliance through agency completion? May complex project compliance be funded outside the $700,000 administration budget?

i. Yes, the consultant is expected to perform screening and prepare standard packets. CWCB staff will assist with complex projects. No work will be funded outside the original budget.

24.Do weekly project-management meetings and biweekly reports continue throughout all optional renewal years, including periods with limited active work? May cadence be adjusted by mutual agreement after launch?

i. The initial $700,000 budget is for all 5 years of the Near-Term

Contribution Program, though we anticipate that most of the work will be concentrated in the first 2 years. Given that; we would like to see a budget for 5 years assuming that the contract was extended.

Cadence of meetings and biweekly reports may be adjusted by mutual agreement after launch.

25.If annual chained-CPI rate increases are approved, will the contract maximum be increased, or must the contractor deliver fewer hours within the same maximum?

i. The contract maximum will not automatically increase with CPI rate increases, but additional funds may be secured in future years depending on workload and contractor performance.

26.What consultant role is expected for Tribal outreach versus State-led government-to-government engagement and consultation?

i. The consultant may assist State-led engagement and consultation with Tribal water users as needed.

27.What are the expected UCRC/USBR review packages, annual reporting templates, review cycles and deadlines?

i. All details of UCRC and USBR requirements are still being drafted and the consultant should display a broad and flexible ability to meet these requirements and deadlines.

28.Does the State expect monitoring equipment and infrastructure purchases to be paid from the $700,000 consultant budget, participant/project funds or another source?

i. Another source. The consultant funds will not compensate for required equipment and infrastructure.

29.The Scope of Work, Task 1, dictates weekly project management meetings. Given that the $700,000 budget is very limited and great uncertainty exists surrounding program volume, is this an absolute requirement or can the proposer suggest an alternate approach that meets this need and preserves budget for the technical tasks.

i. The initial $700,000 budget is for all 5 years of the Near-Term

Contribution Program, though we anticipate that most of the work will be concentrated in the first 2 years. Given that; we would like to see a budget for 5 years assuming that the contract was extended.

Cadence of meetings and biweekly reports may be adjusted by mutual agreement after launch.

B. Any other amendments that are not related to the Q&A received:

1. Amendment# 01 - Submission Form of RFP document page 23 of 24 updated to remove that 100% of the work resulting from this award will be completed within the State of Colorado.

C. All other terms and conditions of RFP PDAA 2027*0001 remain the same.