ESBD_File_330294_ADDENDUM 1_FINAL_08012023.pdf

ADDENDUM 1:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

FOR

JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO (JBSA) UTILITY RESILIENCE STUDY AND REPORT

Technical Assistance: Responses to questions:

The following questions were received by AACOG Purchasing by the deadline of July 28, 2023. This Addendum amends the RFP where required. See AACOG responses in red bold type.

Universal Change 1: Deliverables. Replace Section 3.3 Project Deliverables with:

Name Description Due Date JBSA Utility Resilience Report

Study of critical infrastructure resources supporting JBSA-Lackland AFB, JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Port San Antonio and the Kelly Field Joint Use Airport.

Assessment of existing electrical, gas, and petroleum products infrastructure, availability of alternative and backup power sources, and critical loads in the study region, including communications infrastructure supporting energy industrial controls and backup energy requirements for water/wastewater lift and pump stations. Assess potential impacts to the community (particularly Port San Antonio and Kelly Field)- and the missions of JBSA-Lackland AFB and JBSA-Fort Sam Houston from various hazard scenarios, including long duration utility outages, cyber and physical attack. To the extent possible, project future potential impacts based upon possible mission growth scenarios.

31 August, JBSA Utility Resilience Action Plan

Prioritized recommendations for projects to enhance the resilience issues related to energy, backup energy for critical water/wastewater infrastructure, and communications for industrial controls in the study region along with potential impacts to community (particularly Port San Antonio and Kelly Field- and the missions of JBSA-Lackland AFB and JBSA-Fort Sam Houston. Project recommendations will include assessments of permitting, environmental compliance, and land use control issues related to each project.

31 August, JBSA Utility Resilience Funding Plan

Prioritized recommendations for obtaining Federal, state, and local funding to design, construct, operationalize, and sustain projects to enhance the resilience of the community (particularly Port San Antonio and Kelly Field)- and the missions of JBSA-

31 August, Lackland AFB and JBSA-Fort Sam Houston to various hazard scenarios including long duration utility outages, cyber and physical attack.

Project and Meeting documentation

• Steering committee meeting agendas/read-ahead, handouts, and minutes

• Other meeting agendas/read-ahead, handouts, and minutes.

September, Geospatial Data Final GIS layers will be provided as part of the final deliverables, if applicable. Any geospatial data used will be submitted to OLDCC in ESRI File Geodatabase format (*.gdb). Regardless of the geospatial data format, all geospatial data will include metadata in either the ISO 19139 Metadata Implementation Specification style or the SDSFIE-M style. Metadata records for each dataset will include the minimum required information per metadata style written within the organization's preferred metadata editor software, e.g., Esri's ArcCatalog

September

Universal Change 2: Throughout the document, delete references to “Phase I”.

Universal Change 2: Throughout the document, replace “JBSA Energy Resilience Report (or ‘Action Plan’; or ‘Funding Plan’)” with “JBSA Utility Resilience Report (or ‘Action Plan’; or ‘Funding Plan’)”.

Respondent #1 Questions:

• Can the required attachments be converted to our own format/design?

o You may change attachments as long as you follow the basic requirements for font and page size.

• Please confirm that references do not have to be related to facility remodeling/renovation?

o Confirmed. References should relate to studies of similar scope and magnitude as described in the scope of work.

• Is there a page limitation or font requirement?

o PER SECTION 13.0 “APPLICATION FORMAT” PAGE 19 OF RFP:

“Please do not use less than a 10-point font.”

“Proposers are asked to keep responses brief, concise and to the point.”

• Are 11x17 pages acceptable?

o PER SECTION 13.0 “APPLICATION FORMAT” PAGE 19 OF RFP:

“Applications must be typed and submitted on 8 ½ x 11 –inch plain white paper.”

Respondent #2 Questions:

• Will the SAWs drinking water system Risk and Resilience Assessment (2020) (or portions thereof) be available for reference during completion of the project?

o The selected study contractor will request documents from all study partner agencies and other sources as required.

o NOTE: nondisclosure agreements may be required with various public agencies

• Are there page limits for the proposal or any section of the proposal?

o PER SECTION 13.0 “APPLICATION FORMAT” PAGE 19 OF RFP:

“Proposers are asked to keep responses brief, concise and to the point.”

• Attachment C Profile of Proposer, item 4. requests DBE certification status. Will Texas certification as a Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) suffice to meet this item?

o Yes, HUB certification will suffice.

• Attachment F requests references for facility remodeling/renovation. Are we to assume that this is an error and experience relative to resilience assessment of critical infrastructure is sought?

o This is an error. References should relate to studies of similar scope and magnitude as described in the scope of work.

• What is the allotted budget for this project?

o AACOG will discuss budget specifics with the contractor selected to conduct the study.

• Are the findings of the Sandia National Laboratory's EMP study to be integrated into the resilience analysis and recommendations?

• Please clarify what is meant by "semi-quantitative" risk assessments cited in Task 2 (RFP page 12).

o The selected study contractor will be expected to propose a risk assessment framework that includes both quantitative and qualitative evaluations, supported by professional judgement.

Respondent #3 Questions:

• Should the Project Budget (Attachment E) be included as a section in our Proposal/Application or in a separately sealed envelope?

o Project budget was omitted from section 14.0, ORDER OF

APPLICATION contents in error. Respondents should follow the order of contents laid out in section 15.0, APPLICATION RESPONSE FORMS. Project budget should not be submitted separately.

• Please clarify what is meant by ‘closed properties’ in Item 4. Proposal Narrative –

Attachment D, of the RFP (pg.20) o The phrase “closed properties” was included in error. Respondents should disregard this requirement.

• Given that Facility-Related Control Systems (FRCS), Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and Operational Technology (OT) noted in the scope are JBSA focused, please confirm that JBSA, and other basewide FRCS Information Systems Security Managers (ISSMs) and stakeholders can be engaged as needed.

o The selected study contractor will engage with and request documents from all sources they deem necessary.

• Please confirm any and all privatized utility entities have awareness and can be engaged as needed to determine current state of their utility control systems This may include SAWS, CPS Energy, ERCOT and other stakeholders as required to determine current state of ICS/OT resiliency as part of scope for this study.

o CPS ENERGY and SAWS are partners in this project. AACOG will assist the study contractor in engaging any other public or private agencies necessary.

• Please confirm that DoD FRCS and private utility ICS/OT drawings and designs can be made available for use in this study to fulfill scope requirements for cybersecurity resilience.

public agencies.

• Please confirm any Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) documents and drawings can be provided as part of this contract.

o NOTE: the study contractor will be responsible for maintaining information security and ensuring their employees have received relevant training.

public agencies.

Respondent #4 Questions:

• Please provide details on current and future energy demand loads for the facilities that are the focus of this study.

• Do the bases currently have any energy generation capacity? If so, please describe.

o The study focuses on infrastructure outside the fence lines and control of Joint Base San Antonio. The selected study contractor will request information from JBSA as they deem necessary.

• Can AACOG consider an extension to proposal submission date? Request consideration of extension to Friday, September 1.

o NO

• What is the contract period for the JB San Antonio Utility Resilience Study and Report?

o AACOG intends to award a contract on or about September 1, 2023, with a 12-month Period of Performance.

• A DoD OLCC grant is supporting the JB San Antonio Utility Resiliency Study and

Report. What is the grant period?

o The OLDCC grant period is July 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024.

• What is the budget for the JB San Antonio Utility Resilience Study and Report?

o AACOG will discuss budget specifics with the contractor selected to conduct the study.

• In Section 11.0 (page 17 of 31) of the RFP it’s noted AACOG Board is the final decision body for contract award. Who comprises the AACOG Selection Committee?

o AACOG staff will be supplemented by representatives from CPS Energy, SAWS, and Port San Antonio.

• Has the Steering Committee for the JB San Antonio Utility Resilience Study been established? If so, who are the members? If not, will the selected Consultant assist in establishing the Steering Committee, Technical Committee, and any necessary Working Groups to support the Utility Resilience Study effort?

o AACOG staff and our contracted project coordinator are in the process of identifying the steering committee, in consultation with JBSA, CPS Energy, SAWS, and Port San Antonio.

o There will be no formal technical committee.

o Study consultant will convene informal working groups as required.

• What is expected level of design for the three (3) “Shovel Ready” Priority Projects? Schematic design referenced in the RFP. Could you please further define.

o AACOG expects project design for up to three (3) projects in the range of 10 – 30 percent conceptual design. The AACOG project team will work with the study contractor and Steering Committee to identify and define those projects further. AACOG anticipates additional grant requests in the future to fund further design.

Respondent #5 Questions:

• The RFP mentioned about inside the installation and outside the fence line infrastructure assessments, but also suggests the main focus of the study is the surrounding infrastructure that affects JBSA’s resilience and mission assurance.

The study is also expected to be a supplement to JBSA’s existing Installation Energy Plan (IEP). Are we assessing all the energy and water infrastructure inside JBSA or just the infrastructure that is outside the fence and related to the JBSA’s internal infrastructure?

o The study is not expected to be a supplement to any existing or in progress plans for JBSA.

o The study will focus on infrastructure owned and operated by SAWS, CPS Energy, and Port San Antonio as it relates to supporting JBSA missions and infrastructure.

• What is the actual boundary of the study? For example, is there a radius around each installation that we should consider?

o The study is to focus on infrastructure outside JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, JBSA-Lackland AFB, and in and around Port San Antonio.

No physical distance limit will be defined.

• What is the CPS energy’s role in this study since majority of the study’s focus is the energy infrastructure which CPS energy owns and operates?

o CPS Energy, SAWS, and Port San Antonio are all project partners, providing both staff support and funding to the local match for OLDCC’S grant.

• The scope of work for Task 4 requires developing project concept implementation plans for 5 projects and “shovel ready” schematic design for 3 projects. For the “shovel ready” projects, may we assume that this will entail no more than a 10% to 15% design similar to an Air Force Planning Charrette Report (PCR).

o AACOG expects project design for up to three (3) projects in the team will work with the study contractor and steering committee to additional grant requests in the future to fund further design.

Respondent #6 Questions:

• Will participation in the JB San Antonio Utility Resilience Study exclude the consultant from participating in any project development activities (i.e., detailed design, procurement, construction, operations)?

o No. Project development activities will be handled through separate contracting actions.

Respondent #7 Questions:

• Please clarify the intended scope.

• See revised Section 3.3 Project Deliverables above. The scope is the work required to produce the products in the first three deliverables:

JBSA Utility Resilience Report, JBSA Utility Resilience Action Plan, and JBSA Utility Resilience Funding Plan.

• The main project deliverables - specifically the report, action plan, and funding plan - have a due date of 31 January 2024. Meanwhile, supporting information -specifically the project and meeting documentation and geospatial data - has a due date of 29 February 2024. Please confirm that this is correct.

• See revised Section 3.3 Project Deliverables above. The scope is the work required to produce the products in the first three deliverables:

JBSA Utility Resilience Report, JBSA Utility Resilience Action Plan, and JBSA Utility Resilience Funding Plan.

• Task 1 includes a bullet "Study Contractor deliverables from Task 2 include" and sub-bullets. Similarly, Tasks 2 and 3 include bullets for deliverables for Tasks 3 and 4, respectively. Please clarify if the numbering is off due to administrative error or correct the list of deliverables in each section to match the given task they are under numerically.

• This was a clerical error. There are five (5) major Tasks in the Scope, with related specific sub-deliverables.

• Paragraph 3.1.1 specifies that this project is to generate "JBSA Utility Resilience Report, Phase I" that is focused on long-term resilience and sustainability of missions on JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, JBSA-Lackland AFB, Port San Antonio, Kelly Field, and the surrounding communities. However, in Section 3.1.2 and Sections 3.2.1 - 3.2.5 the descriptions appear to go beyond just the Utility Resilience Report, Phase I. In addition, the Table in Section 3.3 includes both a JBSA Utility Resilience Action Plan, Phase I and a JBSA Utility Resilience Funding Plan, Phase I. None of the language in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 refer to these additional two deliverables so it is unclear if they are part of this "Phase I Utility Resilience Report" scope, and, if so, what paragraphs in Sections 3.1 and

3.2 they align with. Please clarify the scope of this project and cross-reference the Objectives and Goals sections to each deliverable so we can better understand what portions of the effort are tied to which deliverable.

• See Universal Change 3 and new Section 3.3 Project Deliverables above. The scope is the work required to produce the products in the first three deliverables: JBSA Utility Resilience Report, JBSA Utility Resilience Action Plan, and JBSA Utility Resilience Funding Plan.

• The language is "Respondents must be able to demonstrate the necessary administrative and fiscal capability necessary to successfully provide required services and to meet the financial accountability requirements of federal grants".

What specific information does AACOG want from respondents to satisfy this requirement? Also, we do not see this referred to in any of the Attachments A-H, so where does AACOG want to see the information in the proposal?

• AACOG programs are on a cost reimbursement from the funding sources. AACOG will bill the funding source after receipt of goods or services and invoices. Invoices are required for all services. Payment will be forwarded to the contractor upon reimbursement from the funding source. Contractors should note that this process may take sixty to ninety days for payment to be processed. The selected contractor must be able to accept this process. Likewise, there must be staff who are capable of maintaining and creating the documentation and audit trail to pass a federal audit. This should be addressed in the description of your organization and experience level of your staff.

• Task 4 description requests 3 shovel ready projects. Is this a flexible target?

What percentage/level of engineering design does AACOG expect for a project to be "shovel ready"? The standard industry terms include 10%, 30%, 60%, and 90% design levels. In typical AE work, the project isn't "shovel ready" until the 90% design level and sometimes not until the design is 100% complete. Given a total period of performance of 5 months and the fact that the prioritized projects won't be validated by the client until perhaps 3 months in, it is of questionable feasibility to deliver 3 projects to 90-100% design. Designs require multiple planning/design charrettes and updates to the design after each. There is not enough time on the calendar to do this within the PoP.

• AACOG expects project design for up to three (3) projects in the team will work with the study contractor and steering committee to additional grant requests in the future to fund further design

• Can the engineering design be excluded from the proposal to ensure a scope that can be completed in the time frame requested with robust analysis?

• Due to a clerical error, incorrect dates were included in the Project Deliverables table. See revised Section 3.3 Project Deliverables above. AACOG expects project design for up to three (3) projects in the range of 10 – 30 percent conceptual design. The AACOG project team will work with the study contractor and steering committee to additional grant requests in the future to fund further design

• Task 2 and 3 each include a non-public workshop/tabletop exercise. Can these two workshops be conducted during the same week as two parts of one event?

• Possibly, but respondents must demonstrate how they will produce all the work and products described in the Deliverables and Scope using this approach.

• Is there flexibility in the number of projects recommended?

• Per the text of Task 4:

i. “From the Critical Infrastructure List, develop a listing of up to 20 essential community projects…”

ii. “Identify five (5) most critical projects…”

iii. “Prioritize up to three (3) projects for engineering…”

• Can the tabletop exercise be excluded from the proposal to ensure that the scope of the project can be accomplished within the requested time frame?

• No. See answers above and new deliverable dates in revised Section

3.3 Project Deliverables above.

• 1.0 Purpose "will study community energy and water infrastructures that serve and support the missions of the JBSA – Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), JBSA – Fort Sam Houston, and Port San Antonio." Other sections also include Kelly Field and the City of San Antonio. Is there potential to limit the scope of the project to the core installations and surrounding communities?

• It is anticipated that the infrastructure studied will be in relatively close proximity to JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, JBSA-Lackland AFB, and Port San Antonio. We do not define a specific distance from these locations because it is possible that a critical infrastructure asset (e.g., an interconnection between electric transmission and distribution networks) may be located well away from them. The selected Study Contractor will be expected to work with AACOG, CPS Energy, SAWS, Port San Antonio, and JBSA to identify any such assets as part of Task 1.

• It should be noted that Kelly Field is a joint-use airfield co-owned and operated by Port San Antonio and JBSA-Lackland AFB, and situated between the two entities. There is no requirement to study all infrastructure in the jurisdiction of the City of San Antonio.

• Can the vulnerability analysis be limited to one or two hazards/threats only?

Section 3.1.1 states "Specific focus will be applied to various hazard scenarios including long duration utility outages, cyber and physical attack, and, to the extent possible, projections of impacts on future mission growth for both the military and community." Task 2 states "Conduct semi-quantitative risk assessments of the impact of man-made and natural threats, to include but not limited to intentional kinetic, cyber, or electromagnetic attack, flooding, extreme weather events, and unanticipated changes in environmental conditions on the impairment of the continued operational utility of the installation, Port San Antonio, and critical public services (i.e., first responder facilities and operations)"

• No.

• Is the 5 month time frame for executing the project flexible?

• See answers above and new deliverable dates in revised Section 3.3 Project Deliverables above.

• Does AACOG want us to place the names of "all Officers" in the numbered 1-5 list? And, what license(s) being suspended or not are you asking for? The PE or other registrations of the given officer or the license of the company to do business or other? Also, we have about 50 officers in our company. Is it safe to assume you want the names of up to 5 that are going to be responsible for this work?

• This relates to staff that will be actively engaged in this project. They must have current licensing/certifications in the related field of this

RFP.

• We have been in business for 53 years. We cannot list "all" current and prior government entities/clients, type of services for each, etc. If AACOG is interested in recent experience related to this solicitation, recommend asking for 3 or 5 years

• Include only relevant prior experience and individual experience with Government entities. Do not include experience prior to 2018.