AMENDMENT 3 - Questions and Answers #2.pdf

AMENDMENT 3 – Questions and Answers #2

Request for Proposal No.260000001301 Analysis of Wildlife Vehicle Collision Hot Spots for Planning Future Wildlife Crossings

Q # Document & Section

Page # Bidder’s Question State’s Answer

1. General question Are universities eligible to apply as lead? Some of the questions on the Vendors Question Worksheet do not apply to universities (ex.

gross annual sales for last 5 years).

See Amendment 2 Questions and Answers #1 for answer to this question.

2. General question The RFP does not reference a budget amount.

Is the full $467,376 awarded to MDOT through the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program available for this project? If not, what is the percentage of this amount available for the project?

See Amendment 2 Questions and Answers #1 for answer to this question.

3. General question Is there a page limit for proposals, similar to MDOT Research proposals?

No, there is not a page limit for proposals

4. Proposal Instructions 2 Does the qualifications proposal have to be submitted in a modifiable format, or is PDF enough?

PDF format only is acceptable.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 4 Relevant Experiences

13-

Can relevant experiences include out-of-state and/or relevant federal projects or must they be State of MI projects?

Yes, relevant experiences may include out-of-state or federal projects. Relevant experience is not limited to Michigan projects.

6. Schedule A. Scope. Question related to “Using existing species data…”

36 Can MDOT provide additional information relative to the data that will be provided? For example, what format(s) will the data be provided in?

Data will be provided in several formats, including spreadsheet, shapefile, Word document, and PDF.

7. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 1. Identify and model occurrences of WVCs. Question related to “Contractor will be responsible for collecting data from various sources…”

36-

Can MDOT provide an example of what additional sources of data you expect contractors to collect?

Data for focal herptiles is most limiting and additional WVC data for these species would greatly benefit the project.

Q # Document & Section

Page # Bidder’s Question State’s Answer

8. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 1. Identify and model occurrences of WVCs.

36-

Various literature is cited, but there is no reference list included in the RFP. Are you able to provide a full list of references?

See following attachment – APPENDIX 6.

LITERATURE CITED.

9. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 2 Identify and model wildlife habitats/corridors

37-

Does Michigan have modeled habitat maps of the species of interest that Michigan DOT would like us to use, or does Michigan DOT expect original habitat mapping for all 8 species for the project to occur during the study?

Michigan has localized habitat maps for some of the species of interest but will rely on the contractor to derive habitat maps for some species using available data. However, habitat mapping is of secondary importance to identifying and mapping collision hotspots.

10. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 2 Identify and model wildlife habitats/corridors

37-

Does the State of Michigan have a recommended land use/land cover layer that it prefers for intersecting habitat analysis?

Yes, Michigan has landcover layers that can be used, along with many other pertinent GIS based layers. Those layers will be accessible to the contractor.

11. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Can MDOT clarify if the contractor is expected to visit all top 20 locations or just a prioritized subset as determined by MDOT?

Yes, the contractor is expected to visit all the top 20 locations. Visits will be conducted in collaboration with MDOT and MDNR to maximize efficiency.

12. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Can the contractor utilize drones during field visits to gather aerial images of the sites? Aside from aerial shots, products could also be derived to help assist in developing the mitigation strategy

Yes, the contractor may use drones for imaging, but this is not a requirement of the RFP. This activity would need to be coordinated with MDOT and possibly other entities with policies on drone uses and may not be able to be used in any and/or all locations.

13. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Who will select and invite MDOT staff, MDNR staff, and potentially staff from other organizations?

MDOT and MDNR will take the lead in inviting their internal staff and appropriate staff from other organizations.

14. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Who will coordinate and organize the program so the sites (20 at a minimum) can be visited in a logistically efficient manner (i.e., move from location to location over multiple consecutive days)?

MDOT and MDNR will work jointly with the contractor to create a well thought out plan for the site visits.

Page # Bidder’s Question State’s Answer

15. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Who is responsible for the costs for MDOT, MDNR and other organizations (time, travel, meal, stays).

The contractor is not responsible for these costs.

A portion of the grant was allocated to cover these costs for MDOT and MDNR. This portion of the grant is separate from the contractor’s total allotment.

16. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 4 Conduct field visits

38 Task 4 states "MDOT will determine the number of site visits field visits based on the analysis and availability of funds". The Price Schedule requests a price for field visits to the top 20 identified hot spots. Could you please clarify if there is a minimum number of hot spot locations or number of visits per location bidders should assume while developing the price schedule?

There will be a minimum of 20 hot spots visited. If the budget allows, there could be more sites visited.

17. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 6 Public Outreach Events

38 There will be 7 public outreach meetings, correct?

This is correct. There will be one meeting held for each of MDOT’s 7 Regions.

18. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 6 Public Outreach Events

38 Are the public meetings expected to be in person or via an on-line platform such as Zoom?

The contractor should expect to attend one in-person meeting for each Region. There will be a virtual option offered for public attendance only.

19. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 6 Public Outreach Events

38 Who is responsible for organizing these events, sending invitations, arranging for location etc.

for the seven MDOT Regions?

MDOT will handle arranging these events and sending invitations. The contractor will be responsible to attend and to assemble the meeting content.

20. Schedule A. 1.1 General requirements Task 6 Public Outreach Events

38 Can these 7 meetings be organized in a logistically efficient manner (i.e., move from location to location over multiple consecutive days)?

Yes, these meetings can be organized all together and completed in an efficient manner.

Page # Bidder’s Question State’s Answer

21. Schedule A, Section 3 Acceptance

39 The RFP states "Expectation 2: Available data collected and used in the hotspot mapping tool is provided to MDOT and MDNR in standardized format in an MS Excel spreadsheet". Would data provided under an agreement of use for the purposes of this project, but not publicly available, be exempt? Additionally, does this expectation refer to the underlying spatial datasets themselves, or to the processed outputs derived from those spatial data that were used to generate the hotspot mapping tool?

All data collected and used on this project should be provided to MDOT and MDNR in the most logical format for that data, including inputs and outputs. For example, data on hotspot location and habitat characteristics would be best provided in spreadsheet format. Whereas habitat mapping conducted may be best provided in shapefile or raster format. Data format expectations will be a discussion with the contractor at the beginning of the project.

22. Schedule B - Pricing 44 Will MDOT require Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing with a specified maximum profit percentage or should bidders use loaded rates for the price schedule?

CPFF is not required and will not be considered.

Bidder must determine/propose pay items, a pricing unit (each, per hour, lump sum, etc.) for each pay item, and a total price for each pay item.

24 | P a g e Michigan Wildlife Vehicle Collision Hot Spot Analysis for Planning of Future Wildlife Crossings

APPENDIX 6. LITERATURE CITED

Belant, JL. 2007. Human-caused mortality and population trends of American marten and fisher in a U.S. National Park. Natural Areas Journal 27: 155-160.

Brown, J. 2006. Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects.

Publication FHWA-HEP-06-011. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 96 pp.

Carter, NH, DG Brown, DE Etter, and LG Visser. 2010. American black bear habitat selection in northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan. USA, using discrete-choice modeling.

Cramer, P, J Kintsch, J Gagnon, N Dodd, T Brennan, L Loftus-Otway, K Andrews, P Basting, L Frazier, and L Sielecki. 2022. The strategic integration of wildlife mitigation into transportation procedures: a manual for agencies and partners. NDOT Research Report. Report number

700-18-803C.

Cubberly, E. 2022. Habitat use and movements of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) and wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in a shared landscape. Thesis. Purdue University.

Gehring, TM, LM McFadden, SA Prussing, C Buchanan, E Nelson, and BJ Swanson. 2019. Spatial ecology of re-introduced American martens in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan.

American Midland Naturalist 182: 239-251.

Hoving, CL, YM Lee, PJ Badra, BJ Klatt. 2013. Changing climate, changing wildlife. A vulnerability assessment of 400 Species of Greatest Conservation Need and game species in Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3564.

Huijser, MP, ER Fairbank, and KS Paul. 2022. Cost effective solutions: best practices manual to reduce animal-vehicle collisions and provide habitat connectivity for wildlife. NDOT

Research Report. Report No. 701-18-803 TO 1 Part 2.

Jiang, X, Y. Qiu, and RW Lyles. 2013. Hazard assessment of deer-vehicle collisions in Michigan.

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 19: 900-915.

McCluskey, EM, FC Kuzma, HD Enander, A Cole-Wick, M Coury, DL Cuthrell, C Johnson, M Kelso, Y

Lee, D Methner, L Rowe, A Swinehart, and JA Moore. 2023. Assessing habitat connectivity of rare species to inform urban conservation planning. Ecology and Evolution. DOI:

10.1002/ece3.11105.

McFadden-Hiller, JE, DE Beyer Jr, and JL Belant. 2016. Spatial distribution of black bear incident reports in Michigan. PLoS ONE 11: e0154474.

Newsome, A, Z Sebesvari, and I Dorrestijn. 2023. Climate change influences the risk of physically harmful human-wildlife interactions. Biological Conservation 286: 110255.

O’Neil, ST, and JK Bump. 2014. Modeling habitat potential for elk expansion in Michigan, USA.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 10: 111-131.

25 | P a g e Michigan Wildlife Vehicle Collision Hot Spot Analysis for Planning of Future Wildlife Crossings

Paterson, JE, J Baxter-Gilbert, F Beaudry, S Carstairs, P Chow-Fraser, CB Edge, AM Lentini, JD

Litzgus, CE Markle, K McKeown, JA Moore, JM Refsnider, JL Riley, JD Rouse, DC Seburn, JR

Zimmerling, and CM Davy. 2019. Road avoidance and its energetic consequences for reptiles. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5515.

Rajewski, JA, HR Campa III, GJ Roloff, and SM Gray. 2024. Eastern massasauga rattlesnake

(Sistrurus catenatus) detection and space use near roads in the southern lower peninsula of

Michigan, USA. Final Report. Report No. SPR-1726. Michigan State University.

Spalding, B. 2023. Identifying threats to Blanding’s and wood turtle recruitment in northern

Michigan. Thesis. 35 pp. Purdue University.

Sudharsan, K, SJ Riley, and H Campa III. 2009. Relative risks of deer-vehicle collisions along road types in southeast Michigan. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 341-352.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2022. Outdoor recreation satellite account (ORSA). 2022 Michigan.

Weiskopf, SR, OE Ledee, and LM Thompson. 2019. Climate change effects on deer and moose in the Midwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 83: 769-781.