Amendment 1 Answers to Questions 70CNR-S2911.docx

Amendment 1 to answer questions received during the 1st Q&A period:

1. The contract will be awarded at the earliest in December 2024 and the expected delivery timeframe is to complete project planning, design, and permitting needs by the spring of 2025 in order to construct improvements in the summer and fall of 2025?

We anticipate this project running through two seasons, we anticipate the summer of 2025 being utilized for planning, permitting, and design. Extensive work has already been spent on planning and design, most of the work will be updating restoration plans. We will defer to the timing of the selected contractor.

2. Is item 6.1.5.B. Previous work Experience that demonstrates the vendor's ability to complete the work described asking for project examples versus 6.1.5.D. Qualifications that demonstrate the vendor is capable of producing a sound product is requesting technical qualifications for conducting restoration work in meadows? Clarification on what is being requested in each section would be appreciated.

Item 6.1.5.B should demonstrate experience in water quality projects in meadow & park environments that are used for recreation. Item 6.1.5.D should demonstrate experience in meadow health and restoration design within heavily regulated environment (i.e. State Parks).

3. Since this project is requesting the services of a professional engineer to prepare design plans how is item 6.1.6 in compliance with NRS 625.530

This answer is pending.

4. The scoring scheme outlined in Item 6.1.5 indicates 25 points for “Previous Work Experience” (Item B) and 20 points for “Qualifications”, including “demonstrate experience” (Item D). These statements seem to imply that firm qualifications accounts for 45 points overall. Is this correct?

The scoring numbers are “weights” not “points”. NDSL expects vendors to demonstrate Water Quality Improvement Project experience as outlined in overall RFP (weight of 25), and also to demonstrate meadow restoration experience working in highly regulated environments such as Spooner Lake State Park or similar in Tahoe Basin (weight of 20).

5. The RFP indicates that DRI is already contracted to provide a meadow assessment, and Item 3.2 in the Scope of Work indicates the awardee of this contract will ALSO be expected to “Assess and Quantify Data Relating to Current and Projected Meadow Conditions”. Can you elaborate on a) what is DRI’s scope of work, and b) what additional work is expected to be completed by the selected contractor?

There has been extensive work on studying this project area. We are requesting the selected vendor consider all available information when completing designs of the restoration plan. We will release the DRI grant application and progress reports for additional information.

6. The Goals & Objectives states that 4 design sets (30%, 60%, 90% and 100%) will need to be completed in Winter 2025 AND must incorporate input by the Washoe Tribe, but the technical design objective will not be known until after “Fall 2024”. Can you elaborate on the specifics for when DRI’s information will become available, and can you elaborate on how much flexibility may be available within the planned schedule?

Section 2.8.3 is amended to update the timeframe. We expect the selected vendor to consult with all stakeholders including the Washoe Tribe and incorporate their feedback where possible. We anticipate the selected vendor utilizing 2025 for permitting and design and 2026 for implementation. Vendors should include a realistic schedule for the project and the state will defer to the selected vendor’s schedule.

7. Can you specify the “known populations of sensitive species within the meadow” identified in Item 3.5.2 that will need to be integrated into the design, permits, and implementation plans?

Wildlife surveys have found a long list of "Species of Greatest Conservation Need" occupying Spooner Meadow. However, three primary groups of species are likely to be most impacted by restoration design and project implementation: (1) species that use willows and other tall-growing ground vegetation for nesting and/or cover, and (2) species that burrow underground. (3) species that forage over the meadow. High priority sensitive species that use willows and other tall-growing vegetation at Spooner Meadow for nesting and/or cover include: willow flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, snowshoe hare, sooty grouse, and northern rubber boa. For these species, it is important that the restoration design restores large areas of willow and maintains tall-growing grasses throughout the meadow. High priority sensitive species that burrow underground in Spooner meadow include mountain pocket gopher, Trowbridge's shrew, and western jumping mouse. For these species, it is important that the restoration design maintain levels of soil moisture and compaction that are suitable for borrowing. High priority sensitive species that forage over the meadow include common nighthawk, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, long-eared myotis, little brown bat, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis, Mexican free-tailed bat. For these species, it is important that the restoration design incorporates enough surface moisture and good plant diversity that results in diverse insect communities. Coordination with Nevada Department of Wildlife will be required.