Amendment 2 - Additional questions - answers.xls
XLS spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70CNR-S2911
- Issued by
- Douglas County, Nevada
About this file
This document is an amendment to a state and local contracting opportunity posted by the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and Division of State Lands (DSL) for the Spooner Meadow and North Canyon Restoration Project in Douglas County, Nevada. The project involves developing restoration design plans and overseeing construction implementation to improve the meadow environment, incorporating input from the Washoe Tribe. The timeline includes conducting meadow assessments in Fall 2024, completing design plans in Winter 2025, and beginning implementation in Summer 2025. An optional site visit will be held on September 24, 2024. The evaluation criteria focus on methodology, previous work experience, staff qualifications, and cost, with a 5% preference for Nevada-based businesses.
The contract term is expected to be four years, subject to Board of Examiners' approval. The project will be funded through Nevada Environmental Improvement Program Bonds, though the specific award value is not provided. The incumbent contractor for the previous phase of the North Canyon project is eligible to submit a proposal for this opportunity. The procurement requires compliance with Nevada law, non-discrimination policies, maintaining a drug-free workplace, and refraining from lobbying activities. Mandatory insurance requirements, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, workers' compensation, and professional liability, must be met.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 70CNR-S2911 Cost Schedule~2.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 70CNR-S2911 Spooner Meadow and North Canyon Restoration Design Plans~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70CNR-S2911 Contract Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70CNR-S2911 North Canyon Phase I Design 2010.pdf | ||
| Amendment 1 Answers to Questions 70CNR-S2911.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70CNR-S2911 Attachments for Signatures.pdf | ||
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| 70CNR-S2911 Terms and Conditions for Services~1.pdf | ||
| 70CNF-S2911 Proposed Staff Resume.docx | DOCX document | |
| Letter Of Intent to Award.pdf | ||
| 70CNR-S2911 Insurance Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70CNR-S2911 Map of Project Area.pdf | ||
| 70CNR-S2911 Reference Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70CNR-S2911 North Canyon Phase II 2015.pdf |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | NCERENO25 | Delivery timeline | 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 | NCERENO25 | Evaluation | 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 | NCERENO25 | Cost Factor | 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 | The project is directly related to the normal operation and maintenance of the program and property, pursuant to NRS 338.011 it will be awarded in compliance with NRS 333 and therefore is not a public work. | |
| 4 | NCERENO25 | Scoring | The scoring scheme outlined in Item 6.1.5 indicates 25 points for â??Previous Work Experienceâ?? (Item B) and 20 points for â??Qualificationsâ??, including â??â?¦demonstrate experienceâ?¦â?? (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 has 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 has weight of 20. | |
| 5 | NCERENO25 | Scope of Work | 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 â??Assess and Quantify Data Relating to Current and Projected Meadow Conditionsâ??. Can you elaborate on a) what is DRIâ??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 | NCERENO25 | Goals and Objectives | 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 â??Fall 2024â??. Can you elaborate on the specifics for when DRIâ??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 vendors schedule. | |
| 7 | NCERENO25 | Known species | Can you specify the â??known populations of sensitive species within the meadowâ?? 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. | |
| 8 | DOLSON915 | Existing Conditions | Can you provide the full scope and project area of the DRI study going on in the meadow? | The project researchers will conduct a three-year monitoring study of Spooner Meadow to collect data on vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics to inform ecological functions and processes of the meadow. The monitoring effort will provide important baseline data for restoration treatment implementation at Spooner Meadow. These baseline data can be used to evaluate ecological performance criteria for rerouting flow from Spooner Lake to the remnant channel and improving the Management Road between Spooner Lake and the confluence of Secret Harbor and North Canyon creeks, as described in the 2013 North Canyon Creek Maintenance Road and South Ditch Project Technical Report prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers. Deliverables include a white paper detailing project results which will aid in the planning and design of the future Spooner Meadow Restoration Project. | |
| 9 | DOLSON915 | Existing Conditions | â?¢ | Is there any other mapping, digital or paper, that the state has exclusive access to related to this project that you can make available? | NDSL is using public access digital maps. This is a useful SEZ assessment from TRPA: https://gis.trpa.org/TahoeSEZViewer/ |
| 10 | DOLSON915 | Permitting | Do you expect the project to be exempt from TRPA permitting and environmental review under the NV State Parks MOU with TRPA? | All questions regarding actions exempt under the existing 2001 MOU between NDSP and TRPA will need to be directed to NDSP for verification. The responsibility to ensure they are operating within park boundaries and are free from permitting obligations lies with the vendor. | |
| 11 | DOLSON915 | Scope | Is the construction cost estimate referred 3.3.6 for the eventual construction of the full project or just the cost of construction oversight from the vendor? | Yes this refers to the oversight of the full project once it goes to construction. We understand the scope of the project may change so vendors are encouraged to provide as accurate of a cost as possible based upon professional experience and understanding of the project. | |
| 12 | DOLSON915 | Budget | Do you have an estimated budget range for construction? | No. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .