DTMB-0414 (RFP Addendum 2) FS RD Harbortown EGLE.pdf

DTMB-0414 RFP (Rev 2/22)

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

ADDENDUM NO. 2

This form identifies an Addendum to a Request for Proposal for Professional Services, and incorporates interpretations or clarifications, modifications, and other information into the Request for Proposals.

Addenda will be numbered by the Project Director and distributed through SIGMA Vendor VSS as an attachment.

TO: ALL PROPOSERS DATE ISSUED 9/15/26

PROJECT NAME

Harbortown & Harbortown Upstream - Detroit River AOC Contaminated Sediments Feasibility Study/Remedial Design

FILE NUMBER

761/26502.SAR

PROJECT DIRECTOR

Sadi Rayyan

PROPOSAL DUE DATE:

10/8/26 at 2:00 p.m. local time

ADDENDUM ITEMS: Please acknowledge reading this Addendum in your proposal.

Item 1:

The proposal’s due date has been extended to Thursday October 8, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. local time.

Item 2:

Section II-5 Budget Analysis is waived. No budget analysis is required in the proposal.

Item 3 QAPP/FSP/HASP must be priced and submitted under Task 3. All references placing them in Task 1 are superseded.

Item 4:

Firms should assume full administrative hosting rights, ensure standard cybersecurity protection, and maintain availability suitable for project team needs.

Please see the following pages for questions/answers.

APPROVED BY: Sadi Rayyan

PROJECT DIRECTOR DATE: 9/15/26

http://www.buy4michigan.com/

761/26502.SAR

ADDENDUM ITEMS:

QUESTIONS

The following questions have been compiled to clarify answers to questions in portions of the RFP package:

Q1. Will the proposed project budget be provided to complete the Budget Analysis in II-5 of the RFP?

A1. No. A budget analysis is not required for this RFP.

Q2. Will the Form III-2-B, Form III-2-C and Form III-2-D be provided as referenced on Page 10 of the RFP?

A2. No. Just complete the provided III-2-A Form and the Task Cost Sheets.

Q3. Page 9 of the RFP references using the format of Form III-2-A, can additional Employee Positions and Classifications be added?

A3. See A2 above. Just complete the provided III-2-A Form.

Q4. Page 4 of the RFP references a conflict of interest (COI) statement. Please provide an example of a COI statement that would satisfy DTMB and provide guidance to clarify situations that DTMB would view as a COI.

A4. The professional needs to disclose any existing and past contracting services with parties involved or connected to the environmental issues at any of the five individual focus areas. A statement to that effect is acceptable with a list of all relevant past or current contracts within the last 10 years associated with the target areas or environmental investigations in the AOC.

Q5. What is the duration of the Bi-Weekly Conference Calls in Bid Item No. 1a? Please clarify if 30, 60, or 90 minutes?

A5. Bi-weekly meetings will be scheduled for one hour time blocks.

Q6. Page 9 of the Scope of Work indicated Task 1 includes weekly meetings with project partners; however, the Task Cost Sheet includes a line item for bi-weekly conference calls. Please confirm these are the same meetings, and the expected frequency.

A6. Yes, these meetings/conference calls are the same as the expected to be scheduled for one hour time blocks.

Q7. Invoicing instructions in the scope of work and example contract include requirements for invoices to include hours worked and rates for each employee; however, the costing sheet indicates unit rates and lump sum, which typically do not require such detail. Please confirm costing structure.

A7. Invoicing and project tracking will follow the costing sheet’s structure. Hours worked and rates for each employee will not be required.

Q8. The Scope of Work Document, Cost and Compensation Section describes tracking the overall labor hours billed each month by the individual. In addition, the end of the section states “Cost Reductions may also be negotiated for actual tasks that require less work than the generic cost estimates.” The sample Contract is also defined as “Billing Rate Not to Exceed” Contract which describes labor tracking and invoicing on an hourly basis. However, the majority of the bid items on the bid table are lump sums.

The scope and contract appear to describe a billing rate not to exceed (NTE) invoicing and payment structure. Please clarify if each of the bid items will be truly paid on a lump sum basis or if the intent is “Billable Rate Not to Exceed” instead of lump sum.

Please also add to the Contract the definition of lump sum costs and compensation because the “cost and compensation” terms throughout the documents appear to be contrary to the typical definition of lump sum.

A8. See A7 above.

Q9. Section II-5 of the Request for Proposal document requests a Budget Analysis. Is the Budget Analysis required for this proposal?

A9. See A1 above. A budget analysis is not required for this RFP.

Q10. Are sediment sampling subcontractors/drillers considered a sub-consultant or simply a reimbursable expense as a subcontractor. In summary, if we propose a drilling subcontractor for sediment sampling do we need to fill in and provide the information for a sub-consultant?

A10. No. We may require a copy of the invoice/receipt for the work completed by subcontractors/drillers.

Q11. Task 6 is titled “Development and Maintenance of ArcGIS based Web-Viewer”. The description of this task indicates this web-viewer has already been established, and the selected firm will be asked to upload data collected during the FS/RD phase of the projects. Please confirm that the scope of work for the selected firm will be to conform with the established schema for the web-viewer, and does not include development or hosting of a separate web-viewer. Further, can the established schema for the webviewer be provided?

A11. The selected firm will conform to the established schema for the web-viewer. However, the selected firm would not be expected to develop a new web-viewer but would be expected to host the currently built web-viewer and maintain and update the web-viewer as needed or the project team’s internal use. The current web-viewer consist of two mappers, the 2D Sediment Mapper and the 3D Pilot Mapper. The schema consists of sample location and depth (coring interval) of all parameters analyzed and sediment physical data of each location by target area, along with an analytical results filter to limit returned data on map. The current web-viewer is for internal use only and is housed by the current EGLE contractor. Allowing additional login would incur fees by the contractor.

Q12. The Project Schedule (page 21 of the Scope of Work) lists Weekly Reports; however, these are not mentioned elsewhere. Please confirm whether Weekly Reports should be included, and if so, under which line item on the Task Cost Sheet.

A12. Weekly Reports are not required however, monthly status reports will be required, these reports can be reported under Task 1d, Monthly Reports.

Q13. Please provide a figure that shows the locations of the hot spots for both Harbortown Upstream and Harbortown Shoreline with enough detail such that we can understand the length of shoreline that needs to be evaluated in this FS/RD.

A13. Locations of hot spots for both the Harbortown and Harbortown Upstream can be found in the respective Remedial Investigations provided through the FTP site. Both figures are labelled as Figure 8-1a in their respective reports.

Q14. The Scope of Work on page 10 indicates some shoreline surveys have been completed, can you provide this information so we can understand the type shoreline structures along these reaches?

A14. The most recent surveys for HT-UP were completed in September 2022 (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, source evaluation/in-river structure assessment) and for HT surveys (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, sources evaluation/in-river structure assessment) were completed in March 2025. Information for both of these surveys can be found in the respective Remedial Investigation Report, Section 2.1.

Q15. Scope of Work pages 9 and 27: in the SOW description, the HASP and QAPP are listed under task 1, Project Planning; however, in the Task Cost Sheet these items are listed under the Field Data Gap Investigation Task. Please clarify under which task we should add these descriptions and costs.

A15. Please include development of HASP, FSP and QAPP under Task 3.

Q16. The Scope of Work discusses the access agreement process on page 11. Is the “return and tabulation” report that is required following the warrant process to be prepared by the bidder as part of this SOW, or is the the return and tabulation report prepared by others?

A16. The Return and Tabulation Report is to be prepared by the selected firm.

Q17. The Scope of Work page 13, can you specify what is meant by “Bidding Requirements”? Does the work include preparing an RFP for remedial action?

A17. Now, preparing an RFP for remedial action as currently there is no funding to move forward with an implementation action. If funding presents itself, this may be added as a project modification if needed.

Q18. Scope of Work Task Cost Sheets have 20 data-gap sampling and analysis units and 20 geotechnical data units for each target area (Item 3), plus 20 pre-design investigation samples for each target area (Item 5).

We have the following questions on these tasks:

i. For the “per sample” cost items, please define what constitutes one sample. For example, should a sediment core with multiple depth intervals be priced as one sample or as multiple analytical samples?

ii. Please identify the required analytical suite, detection limits, analytical methods, matrices, sample depths, field duplicates, quality-control samples, data-validation level, porewater methods, sediment-toxicity testing, bioaccumulation testing, and geotechnical testing that should be assumed for the per-sample prices.

iii. Should the per-sample prices include all related activities (e.g. drilling, oversight, waste handling and disposal, laboratory charges, data management, reporting), or should some of those costs be placed in separate lump-sum items?

iv. Has any structural testing been performed on structures near the hot spots, or should costs for this be included in the data-gap sampling and analysis units?

A18. Answers:

i. One sample is represented by sampling location. One sample location should be priced to include all sediment sampling depth intervals and the associated analytical that would be included in each interval collected.

ii. The required analytical suite is included in this addendum, see tables below.

iii. All pricing associated with the cost of collecting samples at a particular location should be included in the per sample pricing. However, disposal has its own line 5f, and waste handling 5g.

iv. No structural testing has been performed near the hot spots. Any testing related to structural testing should be included in the data gap sampling and analysis units.

Q19. The Scope of Work includes preparing a Value Engineering Study on page. Is this study to be performed on the remedy selected at the conclusion of the FS? Does EGLE have any specific preferences or guidance on what is expected in the VE Study? We would generally interpret this to include a systematic evaluation of the selected remedial alternative, confirming that project objectives can be achieved in the most cost-effective and constructible manner practicable, and identifying opportunities to optimize design, sediment management, transportation, disposal, and implementation approaches prior to final design.

A19. The selected firm will be responsible for conducting the informal Value Engineering (VE) Study at the 60% design. USACE is not currently part of these projects so a formal VE would not be conducted. However, USACE would be asked to participate in an informal VE conducted by the selected firm. EGLE is in general agreement that the VE would include evaluation of the project as listed in the question. However, it is suggested that the selected firm consult with the USACE to discuss VE study expectations and process.

Q20. Scope of Work, Page 13, Task 5 Remedial Design bullet 4 - Under which pay item should we include the Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the Remedial Design?

A20. Task 5b, should include the Engineers Cost Estimate for the Remedial Design.

Q21. Scope of Work, Cost Sheets, Item 7 Travel Allowance – please provide details for what should be estimated here. Should travel costs not be included under individual lump sum costs?

A21. The estimate allowance covers the firm’s staff traveling to the project further than 100 miles one-way from the Professional firm’s office or staff member’s work location / departure point (whichever is less). Travel exceeding 100 miles one way (200 miles round trip) is reimbursable, with prior EGLE approval.

Q22. Scope of Work, Task 5, Page 14, second bullet states: Obtain local, state, and federal permits, rights of entry, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) letter preparation and approvals and other coordination with landowners necessary to implement the project. Does this refer to access agreements, etc. for the pre-design investigation, or does this refer to obtaining approvals for remedy construction?

A22. There will be sediment sampling permits which will need to be obtained. In the process of obtaining the sediment sampling permit, one of the requirements is that all landowners must give permission to allow sampling to happen. So, access agreements could potentially be a large part of the data gap investigation and the pre-design investigation. Also, during the FS, there should be SHPO and THPO investigations to ensure future remediation work will not impact potentially historic artifacts which may be found within each of the target areas. It is also expected that as part of the RD, permits will be developed to conduct the RA work but not submitted since the funding for the RA is not available. Development of permits and not submitting them would ensure that permits are ready if and when the funding becomes available.

Q23. In the RFP, Section III-1, Cost Review, states that cost proposals are reviewed on interface and total fee.

Where and how does DTMB/EGLE wish bidders to document the interface?

A23. That will be evaluated based on the firm assigning an appropriate cost to each task.

Q24. The RFP, Section II-5, requests a budget analysis. Is there an estimated budget proposed by DTMB/EGLE that you would like bidders to analyze, or are you looking for this analysis to compare against the that we are estimating and proposing?

A24. See A1 above. A budget analysis is not required for this RFP.

Q25. RFP Billable Rate, Sections I-1 and I-2, pp. 2-3 includes Phase 600 Construction Administration - Office Services, Phase 700 Construction Administration - Field Services, and states “the Professional will be required to provide design, construction oversight and technical services.” The Statement of Work indicates the contract ends at remedial design. Please confirm that construction oversight will not be part of this contract.

A25. Confirmed. Please see A17 above.

Q26. Regarding subcontractors in RFP Questionnaire, Article 6:

i. Will we be allowed to sub out work in the future to subcontractors that are not listed on our response?

ii. If we’re planning to sub out the work such as drilling, do we need to select the subcontractor now and enter their information, knowing it’s possible a drilling subcontractor might not be willing to hold or know their rates in future years? Or will we bid it out near the time of the work?

iii. Do we need to supply three recent project references for every proposed laboratory, driller, surveyor, and professional subconsultant?

iv. If we need to include subcontractors, does their letter of intent need to include anything besides their capability and willingness to conduct the work?

A26. Answers:

i. Yes, for subcontractors and no for subconsultants.

ii. You don’t need to select subcontractors now but your cost in the proposal will be binding to the firm.

iii. Only for professional subconsultants.

iv. No, that’s what you need to include in the proposal.

Q27. The approved labs listed in Table 3 of the Scope of Work include Fibertec, Merit, and Eurofins. Fibertec became Metiri and has since become part of Eurofins.

i. Please confirm that the two Michigan approved laboratories are Merit Laboratories and Eurofins.

ii. Are there specific Eurofins locations that are approved to perform testing? And if so, please provide the specific locations/addresses.

iii. If the approved laboratories listed in Table 3 are not able to perform the required parameters/methods, may alternate laboratories used? What specific certification/accreditation requirements are needed for these alternate laboratories? May we coordinate with these alternate laboratories directly?

A27. Answers:

i. It is our understanding that Fibertec still exists today but became Metiri Group. We also believe that

Metiri Group did not get bought out by Eurofins. It is also our understanding that Metiri Group is still a State of Michigan approved laboratory along with Eurofins and Merit.

ii. Eurofins Pittsburg Eurofins Test America: 301 Alpha Drive, Pittsburgh, PA at 412-963-2428

iii. If the listed contract labs cannot perform parameters/methods selected, then alternative laboratories can be discussed. The current EGLE contractor has been using Eurofins for all parameter analysis to date. If something comes up that a contract lab cannot analyze, we can discuss use of an alternative laboratory with the Project Team.

Q28. If the selected consultant will be required to review information as part of the Task Cost Sheet Item 2, Summary of Understanding Report, that is in addition to the information provided with the FTP materials, please provide an index of the additional reports, laboratory packages, GIS files, surveys, utility information, models, photographs, and other data that will be provided after award. Will the spring/summer 2027 biotoxicity sediment sampling and fall/winter 2027 results be performed under a separate contract and supplied to the selected consultant, or will the selected consultant need to perform that work?

A28. Yes, the 2027 biotoxicity study will be conducted under EGLEs current Remedial Investigation Project with EGLEs current contractor. The results will be shared with the selected contractor when the data report is finalized. Baseline FS tasks should assume available data; the contractor will incorporate biotoxicity data through a contract modification, if needed.

Q29. Questions related to Task 6, ArcGIS web-viewer:

i. Is the selected firm expected to load project data directly into the existing ArcGIS-based web viewer, or provide the data to the agency to load? Additionally, will the selected firm be responsible for building, hosting, maintaining, updating, and supporting the application throughout the contract?

ii. Where is the web viewer hosted (e.g., ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Enterprise/Portal), and will the selected firm be granted administrative or publisher access?

iii. How many users are expected to use the viewer, and will the agency provide ArcGIS Online accounts or licenses for them?

iv. Who will own and administer the web viewer after contract completion, and what specific cybersecurity, accessibility, user-authentication, or State IT requirements apply?

Additionally, for how long will access to the web viewer need to be maintained?

v. Can the agency provide the template geodatabase, data dictionary, QA/QC rules, software version requirements, and current configuration documentation for the existing GIS data?

A29. Answers:

i. It is expected that the selected firm will take over hosting of the current web-viewer and maintain and update the data as needed within the ArcGIS format.

ii. It is expected that the selected firm will take over hosting of the current web-viewer and maintain and update the data as needed within the ArcGIS format.

iii. There may be 10 to 12 expected users for the viewer. It is the selected firms responsibility to provide access to the project team.

iv. The State of Michigan will be the owner and will administer the web-viewer after the contract completion. Access to the web-viewer after the contract is undetermined but will likely be transferred to EGLE or a RA contractor to manage through the RA process. Since the web-viewer is hosted and maintained by the selected firm, there are no state of Michigan security requirements.

v. This is part of the firm’s qualifications to be evaluated. There are two mappers, the 2D Sediment

Mapper and the 3D Pilot Mapper. Sample location and depth (coring interval) of all parameters analyzed and sediment physical data of each location by target area, along with an analytical results filter to limit returned data on map.

Q30. Please confirm if the selected firm and their subcontractors, which may include construction-oriented contractors, will be allowed to bid on remedial construction.

A30. No. This professional service contract will be used to generate design and bidding documents. Whoever participates in the preparation of these activities will not be allowed to submit a bid for the construction of such design work.

Q31. Article II of the Sample Contract, page 35, indicates the professional will be paid on an hourly basis for each employee working on the project. In the Statement of Work, the Task Cost Sheets are lump sum and per sample prices. Are task subtotals fixed lump sums or not-to-exceed budgets billed on actual hours and approved reimbursables?

A31. The task subtotals are fixed lump sums. See A7 above.

Q32. Meetings and reports. The Scope of Work (p. 9) list of tasks suggests weekly meetings with minutes. Under Task 1 text, the first line mentions bi-weekly conference calls and monthly reports. The Task Cost Sheets include only bi-weekly conference calls (Item 1a). Please clarify (bi-weekly or weekly) and whether these are separate meetings with different purposes. Task 1 notes monthly progress reports. Under “Project Schedule” (p. 21, last bullet), weekly reports are noted. However, there are no other mentions of weekly reports in the scope. Please clarify the weekly reporting requirement. Are weekly reports required only during field investigation activities, or are they required for the duration of the project, including periods when work is limited to data evaluation, reporting, or other non-field tasks?

A32. Biweekly project conference calls with monthly status reports as a Microsoft Word document. Weekly reporting is not necessary for FS/RD development.

Q33. As a GLLA project, review is conducted and teamwork is provided by US EPA GLNPO and federal coordination with US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife, and other agencies (NOAA, USGS) is typically led by US EPA GLNPO. Are meetings within Task 1 inclusive of those with US EPA GLNPO, or would the engineering firm be party to additional meetings regarding report reviews and/or federal agency coordination?

A33. Project Team meetings will include US EPA GLNPO as a contributing member of the team along with other federal agencies and non-federal partners as the project progresses. All documents and project decisions will be heavily influenced by EPA GLNPO staff as these projects are not soley EGLE projects but a joint collaboration between EPA and EGLE.

Q34. Project extents. The Scope of Work notes the project extents in Figure 2. However, Task 2 and Task 3 do not include discussion of potential refinement of the project areas and (to avoid confusion) more definition and discussion on the project areas is requested. Are the project areas set and consistent with mappings in supporting documents, such as are shown as Area 1 and Area 2 in the Harbortown Upstream RI (EA, Sept. 2023, Figure 1-

3) and Harbortown Shoreline RI (EA, Aug. 2026, Figure 2-1)? For the data gaps investigations discussed in Task 3, would EGLE expect that project area refinement may be needed for areas upstream of Harbortown Upstream Area 1, between project areas along the shoreline, or downstream of Harbortown Shoreline project area, or with distance away from the shorelines? Please clarify.

A34. Figure 2 shows the overall target areas within the Detroit River AOC. Each of the target areas has been refined within the latest Remedial Investigation Reports which have been proved through the FTP link for review.

Figure 1-3 in the Harbortown Upsteram Remedial Investigation shows the areas at the time of the RI which were being investigated. The Hot spot in which to focus on in the Harbortown Upstream target area is Hot Spot 1 in both the 2018 characterization and the 2022 Remedial Investigation (Figure 8-1a HT-UP Remedial Investigation).

Hot Spot 2 (from the RI) has been removed from further development through the FS.

Figure 2-1 in the Harbortown Remedial Investigation shows the entire Hot Spot 1, while this is generally the target area to focus on, Figure 8-1a in the 2026 HT Remedial Investigation shows the areas from the 2016 characterization along with the updated areas based on the 2026 Remedial Investigation.

For data gaps investigation at each target area, EGLE expects all the current data to be reviewed and any data gaps which are determined needed from that evaluation be addressed in the data gaps sampling to aid in the refinement of the project area and estimated volume of material to be addressed.

Focus of the data gaps investigation does not need to be between target areas (HT and HT-UP) as these areas have been sampled and any hot spots that have been identified in the characterizations or remedial investigations which are not priority have been removed from the FS/RD focus areas.

EGLE believes that contamination further away from the shorelines may not be as contaminated as the material closer to the shoreline based on previous characterizations and remedial investigations. However, all data should be reviewed and if it appears there are data gaps in areas further from the shoreline, then these areas should be targeted for data gaps sampling.

Q35. Project schedule. Commonly set fish window periods (April-May) might delay sampling in Spring 2027, compared to the 6-month permit window mentioned in the scope (p. 11). As such and with regard to fish windows, please comment on the schedule for the Data Gaps Field Sampling Event (Table 1 and Table 2).

A35. Generally, these fish window regulations are for construction and generation of turbidity, which we generally do not generate when we are sampling sediments. However, coordination with MDNR would be suggested to confirm work is allowable during these timeframes. If need to follow fish windows, these dates should be easy to work around.

Q36. The Scope of Work discusses what's included and excluded but lacks consistency. The scope for FS related tasks 2 through 4 is subject to many options with respect to approach, as well as outcomes of the FS related to setting of the PRGs. Can EGLE provide additional guidance on how differences in approach will be evaluated between competing proposals, particularly with regard to project costs?

A36. Through the contractor questions and associated addendum, the Scope of Work should provide enough detail to allow all proposals to be weighed equally not only for data gap evaluation, pre-design investigations, and PRG development but for estimated project costs between proposals.

Q37. According to the FRP, the RI sediment data are still being validated, and figures will be included in the final RI report once validation is complete. What is the anticipated completion date for the final RI report?

A37. Harbortown Remedial Investigation has been finalized and the document provided through the FTP site.

Q38. How many meetings with the leadership team are anticipated to occur during the FS process, and do they anticipate any public meetings to occur during this task?

A38. Project team conference calls will be every two weeks through the development of the FS and continue on into the development of the RD. The project period of the Cooperative Agreement between EPA and EGLE is through 9/30/2031. It is expected that project teams calls will occur every two week either for FS and RD.

Q39. The RFP under “Cost and Compensation” includes cost for developing the design of the selected remedy that includes pre-design investigations, access agreements, specifications, Preliminary to 90% design and similar tasks. These costs are highly dependent on items such as the selected remedy, scope of the PDI, etc. How does EGLE plan on evaluating costs between bidders given the wide range of existing uncertainty?

A39. Through the contractor questions and associated addendum, the Scope of Work should provide enough detail to allow all proposals to be weighed equally not only for data gap evaluation, pre-design investigations, and PRG development but for estimated project costs between proposals.

Q40. Will there be any field data outside of standard measurements (e.g., tissue sample information, soil boring log information, etc.)

A40. Currently EGLE and their current contractor are planning to carry out biotoxicity testing on Detroit River sediments in the spring 2027 to provide information needed to develop PRGs for the Harbortown and Harbortown Upstream target areas. This information will become available for the chosen firm when the biotoxicity project data is finalized. Baseline FS tasks should assume available data; the contractor will incorporate biotoxicity data through a contract modification, if needed.

Q41. Are there required EDD templates or database formats for laboratory and field data submission?

A41. All EDD templates or formatting for field and laboratory data submissions must meet EPA-GLNPO standards since all data will be shared with EPA-GLNPO and will be included in the GLSED.

Q42. What level of data validation will be required on new data?

A42. Data for the Harbortown Shoreline and Harbortown Upstream FS/RD will be put through the Electronic Data Exchange and Evaluation System (EXES) program before it is submitted to the Quality and Sample Support (QSS) Program of EPA’s subcontractor, APTIM Federal Services, LLC (APTIM) with General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), for 100 percent Tier I and 20 percent Tier II data validation as specified in the GLLA Data Reporting Standard (Version 5.0, April 2020).

Field data will be validated by a third party. Data validation will include completeness and compliance checks, data assessment, and validation at Stage 2 following Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response No. 9200.1-85, EPA 540-R- 08-005, 13 January 2009) in conjunction with the EPA CLP National Functional Guidelines for Organic, and Inorganic Data Review (EPA 2020a, 2020b).

Geotechnical and field data is expected to be reviewed for completeness and usability by the chosen firm. While not all elements of the Tier I and Tier II validation process necessarily apply to these data, those that do should be reviewed and the data checked for completeness, accuracy, precision, and relevance. The selected firm is responsible for coordination and tracking of the documents submitted to the data reviewer. The selected firm will act as the liaison between the laboratory and data reviewer on issues regarding analysis and data quality.

Q43. What ArcGIS platform is currently in use for the web-based viewer?

A43. The platform in which the current web-viewer is using is the ArcGIS Experience shared securely with the project team for internal use.

Q44. What QA/QC submission requirements apply to Task 6 data management?

A44. The selected firms will include quality assurance (QA)/ quality control (QC) samples (i.e., field duplicates, field blanks, equipment blanks and matrix spike [MS]/matrix spike duplicates [MSDs]) for sediment and porewater field duplicates for 10 percent of the samples, and MS/MSDs for 5 percent of the samples. MS/MSD samples will not be analyzed for pH, grain size, bulk density, percent solids/percent moisture or Atterberg limits in sediments, and therefore, will not be collected. The selected firm must also meet all of EPA-GLNPOs QA/QC requirements for field data collection and laboratory QA/QC.

All data will be required to go through Tier I/Tier II (100 percent/20 percent) data validation will be required of the EETA and ESS data will be performed by EPA’s subcontractor.

Q45. Part I – Technical Proposal, Section I-2, requires an organizational chart identifying all project team members, including field oversight staff and their roles, as well as resumes for key personnel and field oversight staff. Professional Questionnaire, Article 5, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, also requests an organizational chart and information for Key Personnel 1 through 5.

Please confirm whether respondents should:

1. Include the organizational chart in both the Part I – Technical Proposal and the Professional Questionnaire;

2. Provide key personnel information in both locations; and

3. Limit the designation of “key personnel” to a maximum of five individuals, consistent with the five key personnel entries provided in Questionnaire Article 5.2.

If more than five individuals may be identified as key personnel, please clarify how additional key personnel should be presented in the Questionnaire.

A45. Provide an organization chart and you can reference the chart wherever is requested. Additional sheets can be used to answer questions. Duplicate placement is acceptable and cross‑referencing is encouraged.

Q46. Section I-9, Proposals, references the required proposal forms and attachments. However, we have not located Form III-2-D within the RFP documents provided for File No. 761/26502.SAR.

Please confirm whether Form III-2-D is required as part of the proposal submission. If so, please identify where the form can be accessed or provide a copy, and clarify whether it should be included with the Part I – Technical Proposal, Part II – Cost Proposal, or submitted as a separate attachment.

A46. Please see A2 above.

Q47. The RFP includes Task Cost Sheets with Fixed Unit Rate and Lump Sum line items; however, the Contract for Professional Services contemplates T&M with an NTE. Please provide further clarification of the compensation type.

A47. Please see A7 above.

Q48. Can the respondents assume there is no federal funding applicable to the Scope of Work? If federal funding is anticipated, are there any federal pricing guidelines that need to be followed in the development of the Bidder's compensation?

A48. This project is funded in part by Federal GLRI along with the State of Michigan funds. Just provide the requested information in the RFP.

Q49. Will State Prevailing Wages apply to this Scope of Work?

A49. No. This RFP is for professional services contract not construction contract. However, the firm is required to pay the mandatory minimum hourly pay and fringe benefits required on federally funded or assisted construction projects exceeding $2,000 under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) whenever construction mechanics are used.

Q50. Please provide the finalized RI report and data validation. We were not able to open the provided link in Addenda 1 ( ftp://ftp.egle.state.mi.us/EGLE_Outgoing/ ) A50. Documents were placed on a USB stick and delivered to the requester on 9/10/2026.

Q51. Has the source of contaminants in the target areas been defined/identified such that threat of re-contamination from any nearby specific sources has been mitigated? Can we assume that no upland contaminant sources require further chemistry investigation?

A51. It is our understanding at this time that there are no sources of contamination/recontamination from nearby locations upland or in-water.

Q52. Will all existing chemistry and spatial data be available for electronic download from the GLSED database?

A52. Data can be requested from the GLSED from EPA GLNPO at anytime. However, the most recent remedial investigation data may not be available in the GLSED yet since but will become available soon if it is not available now.

Q53. Does the “Geotechnical Data” included in line 3f of the Task Cost Sheet include geotechnical samples and evaluation of upland structures/bulkheads, or is it limited to sediment geotechnical conditions?

A53. The geotechnical data in line 3f of the task cost sheet does include the potential for both in-water and upland geotechnical sampling.

Q54. Will as-builts, inspection records, or diver surveys for the bulkhead walls and sheet piles available for review during the project?

A54. These records have not been acquired, it would be the responsibility of the selected firm to acquire these records for potential use during the project.

Q55. What are the most recent date(s) of bathymetric/hydrographic sediment thickness, debris and shoreline structure surveys?

A55. The most recent surveys for HT-UP were completed in September 2022 (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, source evaluation/in-river structure assessment) and for HT surveys (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, sources evaluation/in-river structure assessment) were completed in March 2025. Information for both of these surveys can be found in the respective Remedial Investigation Report, Section 2.1.

Q56. As noted under Cost and Compensation section, "The actual tasks that will be conducted over the life of the contract period cannot be reliably anticipated". Therefore, the TASK COST SHEET has provided defined generic descriptions and quantities for pricing. However, the Cost and Compensation section also asks the contractor to develop costs for geotechnical and chemistry sampling and a number of different surveys, “as needed”, to fill data gaps. Furthermore, the TASK COST SHEET does not define what specific elements and items are required under items 3E and 3F. Given the inherent uncertainty of what may be conducted under the data gap investigation task, can EGLE clarify what specific items should be priced under TASK COST SHEET items 3E and 3F? Without this specificity, we believe EGLE may get widely varying scope and pricing for these items.

A56. The required analytical suite is included in this addendum, see tables below.

Q57. SOW - Page 9 - Task 1 - Description indicates one QAPP, FSP, and HASP will be developed. Tables 1 and 2, as well as the Task Cost Sheets, indicate one of each document for each site. Please clarify.

A57. This SOW is for two separate target areas within the Detroit River AOC. To keep costs separated by project please place costs for the development of QAPPs, FSPs, and HASPs separately in each task sheet.

Q58. SOW - Page 10 - Task 3 - Please clarify if the "data gap work plan" referenced in this section is a different document from the "FSP" mentioned in Task 1. If the "data gap work plan" is the same document as the "FSP" in Task 1, please specify what task the plan should be developed under (Task 1 or 3).

A58. These are the same and should be developed under Task 3.

Q59. SOW - Page 13 - Task 5 - First paragraph - Please clarify - will the reviewed and finalized permit package for the design and its implementation be submitted formally to the reviewing agency for acceptance/approval or, due to current lack of funding to implement and permit expiration dates, will the permit package not be submitted for regulatory review / approval?

A59. A Joint Permit Application should be prepared but not submitted since the timeline for a dredging project is currently unknown. This would allow for the submission of a permit if funding for construction were to become available at some point throughout this FS/RD process.

Q60. SOW - Page 13 - Task 5 - First bullet - Marine surveys - earlier in the SOW it indicates this data has been previously collected. Is it EGLE's assumption that the current survey data is not complete or that additional data will be required?

A60. In-water surveys have been conducted for both target areas. The most recent surveys for HT-UP were completed in September 2022 (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, source evaluation/in-river structure assessment) and for HT surveys (bathymetric, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, utility investigation, sources evaluation/in-river structure assessment) were completed in March 2025.

Information for both of these surveys can be found in the respective Remedial Investigation Report. It is EGLEs assumption that the selected firm would have additional surveys they would like to conduct or add to the current data set to move forward.

Q61. SOW - Page 14 - Task 5 - Third bullet - Are the sources of ongoing contamination referred to in this bullet point source or diffuse? Does EGLE anticipate an action will be required for the ongoing contamination source(s) prior to remedy implementation?

A61. To date, there are no known ongoing contamination sources. However, if at some during the project sources are identified then it is expected they would need to be addressed.

Q62. SOW - Page 15 - Task 6 - Development and Maintenance of ArcGIS based Web-Viewer: The task header describes development and maintenance of ArcGIS based web-viewer, however Task 6 text only requires the contractor to collect data in format to match the schema of the current GIS data and upload the new data to the web-viewer.

i. Please clarify whether or not the contractor will be responsible for development and maintenance of the existing web-viewer.

ii. What is the current schema of the GIS data?

iii. How many individual services will need to be updated?

iv. Where is the web viewer hosted and how will we access it for data editing?

v. How frequently are data updates expected?

vi. Are any feature updates to the web viewer needed/conducted by another party?

A62. Answers:

i. The State of Michigan’s current RI contractor is currently hosting and administering the ArcGIS based web-viewer. It is expected that the selected firm will take over hosting and administering the web-viewer.

ii. There are two mappers, the 2D Sediment Mapper and the 3D Pilot Mapper. Sample location and depth (coring interval) of all parameters analyzed and sediment physical data of each location by target area, along with an analytical results filter to limit returned data on map.

iii. There are two mappers as stated above, each would need to be updated with additional data gap/PDI information which would assist the project team moving forward. Access for all project team members would also need to be updated.

iv. Currently the web-viewer is host by EGLEs current contractor. Upon selection of the firm, it would be expected for the chosen firm to host the web-viewer for future use.

v. Data updates are infrequent. Updated as new data is collected or additional important information needs to be added.

vi. The current EGLE contractor will need to make updates to the webviewer since there are several RIs which have yet to be finalized.

Q63. SOW - Page 15 - Cost and Compensation - Please clarify whether HT-UP and HT sites will have separate deliverables developed or will both sites be included in a single deliverable; or whether it will be a mixed approach.

Example of a mixed approach - one HASP, QAPP, FSP/Data Gap Work Plan, Summary of Understanding Report, Data Gap Report and Evaluation, all of which would be inclusive of both sites and then; one FS, one RD and one set of permits for each site so RA could occur independently if needed.

A63. Mixed approach, QAPP/FSP/HASP developed for each target area but the FS and RD will be developed as one for both areas in one document with individual permits for each site area.

Q64. SOW - Page 21/22 - Tables 1 and 2 - Tasks #1 and #3 - Text indicates HASP, QAPP, FSP will be completed in Task 1 but tables 1 and 2 indicate these documents will be completed under Task #3. Please clarify which task the documents should be priced under.

A64. Please include under Task 3.

Q65. SOW - Page 23 - Invoicing - First paragraph - Text states "Project costs will be reimbursable…on an as-incurred basis…" please confirm this only applies to non-firm fixed priced tasks/items and that FFP tasks will be invoiced on a percentage of completion basis.

A65. Invoices will be reimbursed on a percent of completion basis. See A7 above.

Q66. SOW - Page 23 - Invoicing - Second paragraph - Please confirm that invoice items for Firm Fixed Price tasks will be billed on a percent complete basis and not require additional backup.

A66. See A7 and A65 above. A progress report will be required with each invoice submitted.

Q67. Scope of Work - The proposal includes two project areas, each with a separate cost table. Please confirm whether the work is anticipated to be awarded to one firm for both project areas or will each project area be awarded separately?

A67. The proposal for the two project areas will be awarded to one firm.

Q68. Scope of Work, pages 15 and 16: Will the contract lab perform porewater and geotechnical analysis? Or should the costs for these required analyses be requested from other labs? Can EGLE provide the number of porewater samples. preferred method collection (in situ / ex situ) and required analysis?

A68. The selected firm must use a State of Michigan Contract Laboratory, listed below. All contract lab details for use are the responsibility of the selected firm. All costs associated with shipping of environmental samples to the chosen environmental lab will be at the cost of the selected firm and can be reimbursed.

Fibertec (It is understood that Fibertec was bought out by Metiri. EGLE is currently investigating whether Metiri is a current State of Michigan Contract Lab) 1914 Holloway Drive, Holt, MI 517-699-0345 lab@fibertec.us Point of Contact:

Stacy Kotecki skotecki@fibertec.us 517-699-0345 ext. 2

Merit 2680 East Lansing Drive East Lansing, MI 48823 517-332-0167 Point of Contact: Maya Murshak mayamurshak@meritlabs.com 517-827-2744

Eurofins TestAmerica 10448 Citation Drive, Suite 200 Brighton, MI 48116 810-229-2763 Point of Contact:

Gail Carr gail.carr@testamericainc.com 734-276-7655

It is suspected that there is a data gap for porewater, however, depending on the bidder, porewater may be collected in the FS and/or RD.

See the attached tables.

Q69. Scope of Work, Laboratory Analysis, page 24: The RFP indicates that analytical samples will be submitted through the EGLE Contract Laboratory and later says “if a contract lab must be utilized for sample analysis, the lab will be chosen based on cost and availability” Please confirm whether proposers should include laboratory analytical costs in the cost proposal or if they should be excluded from the consultant's cost proposal.

A69. Laboratory analytical cost should be INCLUDED in the bidders proposal.

Q70. Scope of Work, Invoicing, page 24: The scope of work requires a summary sheet listing each individual’s name, position/classification, hours worked each day, and hourly billing rate to be submitted with the monthly invoice. Since the services are to be compensated on a lump-sum, per-task basis, please confirm whether this detailed labor summary is still required for invoicing purposes.

A70. See A66 above.

Q71. For the lump-sum services, please confirm whether monthly invoicing will be based on the percentage of completion for each individual task, or whether the DTMB requires a different billing and payment structure A71. Percentage of completion for each task will be acceptable for the monthly invoice.

Q72. Request for Proposal, II-5 Budget Analysis: The RFP requires an assessment of budget, but no project budget was identified in the solicitation. Please provide the proposed project budget or confirm that this evaluation is not required.

A71. See A1 above.

Q72. Scope of Work, Cost and Compensation, page 15, #4 and page 16, #4: Please clarify where the costs associated with these services (geotechnical samples as well as bulk and porewater sediment chemistry, in river utility investigations, hydrographic surveys, debris surveys, sediment thickness evaluation as well as shoreline structure survey) should be included in the cost sheet.

A72. Geotechnical task line 3f; the remaining examples, depending on whether the services will be conducted under the FS or RD portion, FS services can be included in task line 3e, RD services can be included in task line 5a.

Q73. Scope of Work, Cost and Compensation, page 16, #8 and page 17, #8: Please clarify if this is associated with the Item # 1-d in the cost sheet or a separate report?

A73. This Scope of Work includes FS/RD development for two Detroit River AOC target areas, Harbortown Shoreline and Harbortown Upstream. Work for both of the target areas is included in this RFP, however, for project summaries and budget summaries should be written up separately to allow for cost tracking at each target area.

Q74. Scope of Work, Task 6 Development and Maintenance of ArcGIS based Web-Viewer:

i. Who is currently hosting and administering the ArcGIS based web-viewer? Will the selected contractor be given administrative or publishing rights to the system?

ii. In addition to housing and maintaining sediment data, what types of GIS layers are anticipated needed to be created and maintained in the web-viewer and what is the likely frequency of updates needed?

iii. Who is the intended audience of the web-viewer? Will anything be shared outside of the internal team?

iv. Can bidders be provided a link to the existing Web-Viewer?

A74. Answers:

i. The State of Michigan’s current RI contractor is currently hosting and administering the ArcGIS based web-viewer. It is expected that the selected firm will take over hosting and administering the web-viewer.

ii. There are two mappers, the 2D Sediment Mapper and the 3D Pilot Mapper. Sample location and depth (coring interval) of all parameters analyzed…