FWC 21.22-119 A#1 FInal Q&A.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners

Rodney Barreto

Chairman Coral Gables

Michael W. Sole Vice Chairman Sebastian

Steven Hudson Fort Lauderdale

Gary Lester Oxford

Gary Nicklaus Jupiter

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Robert A. Spottswood

Key West

Office of the

Executive Director

Eric Sutton Executive Director

Thomas H. Eason, Ph.D.

Assistant Executive Director

Jennifer Fitzwater

Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Mana gin g fish and wildlife resourc e s for their long-te rm well-b ei n g and the benefi t of peopl e .

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Voice: 850-488-4676

Hearing/speech-impaired:

800-955-8771 (T)

800 955-8770 (V)

MyFWC.com

DATE: AUGUST 24, 2022

ADDENDUM NO.: 1

RFP NO.: FWC 21/22-119

RFP TITLE: MULTI-AREA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

UPDATE: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The enclosed addendum has been issued for consideration in the preparation of your response to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s

(FWC) Solicitation No. FWC 21/22-119, “Multi-Area Cultural Resource

Assessments”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 2:00

PM (ET) on Wednesday, September 7, 2022.

A response received after the exact time specified will not be considered.

Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Written notices, formal requests and proceedings must conform with the requirements set forth in

Chapter 28-110, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Protests must be filed with the Purchasing Office, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1875

Orange Avenue East, Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6160 within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), F.S. and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.

Sincerely, Ruth Heggen

FWC Procurement Manager

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 1 of 7

BEGIN ADDENDUM #1

Item #1: Questions and Answers

QUESTION #1: I wanted to confirm with you that the locations requested on page 44 are those depicted on the map link provided at www.myfwc.com/recreation/wmas/. The

Janet Butterfield Brooks WEA did not appear on that search dropdown, but can you confirm the location is correct from the attached map?

ANSWER #1: Yes, the locations listed on page 44 are those depicted on the map link provided at www.myfwc.com/recreation/wmas/. See the response to Question #11 for the location of maps for this solicitation.

QUESTION #2 For the key personnel, are we allowed to list the same person for more than one position? Also, are we allowed to list multiple people for one position?

ANSWER #2: Yes, a person may be listed for multiple positions. Yes, multiple people may be listed for one position.

QUESTION #3: For Tab E: Project Approach, it says "This section shall describe the

Respondent’s strategy and methods that will be used in the performance of services as outlined in the Scope of Work of this solicitation, as well as a schedule for completion of the tasks necessary to complete this work." Is it possible to have a little more information about what is needed for a "schedule of completion"? Are exact dates necessary or are you looking more for a flowchart of how tasks are completed with approximate timelines?

ANSWER #3: A flowchart of how tasks are completed with approximate timelines is sufficient.

QUESTION #4: Can the FWC provide maps of the WMA/WEAs that are part of this RFP?

ANSWER #4: To access the shapefiles of the WEAs and WMAs that are part of this solicitation, please visit:

https://bidrequestfilessa.blob.core.windows.net/bidrequestcontainer/FWC212

2-119_Maps.zip

QUESTION #5: Are all portions of the various WMA/WEAs to be considered for high probability testing, or just certain areas within those preserves?

ANSWER #5: All portions of the WMAs/WEAs that have high probability areas should be tested.

http://www.myfwc.com/recreation/wmas/ http://www.myfwc.com/recreation/wmas/

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 2 of 7

QUESTION #6: Has an archaeological probability zone (high, medium, low) already been established for these WMA/WEAs, and if so, can that be shared?

ANSWER #6: No, an archaeological probability zone has not been established for the

WMAs/WEAs.

QUESTION #7: If above ground historic resources (bridges, structures, roads, monuments) are within the high probability areas, do they need to be recorded and assessed?

ANSWER #7: Yes, above ground historic resources within the high probability areas need to be recorded and assessed.

QUESTION #8: Page 4 of RFP states “Subcontracting IS NOT permitted pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Purchase Order.” However, the Terms and Conditions included in the RFP do not state this. Please clarify if subcontracting is permitted for this contract.

ANSWER #8: The Purchase Order Terms and Conditions (Attachment A) state “if the

Contractor is authorized to subcontract,,,”. Under this RFP, subcontracting is not authorized. However, firms may team together as a joint venture to submit one response. A copy of the agreement between the teams must be submitted with the response.

QUESTION #9: On page 6 of the RFP, Tab C – Experience – Attachment C, are we limited to only four projects, or may we use additional project examples? Also, can the dates of each project overlap?

ANSWER #9: You may use additional project examples. The dates of each project can overlap.

QUESTION #10: Shovel testing to determine site boundaries is not required or desired as part of this survey (page 13 of 49). If site boundaries are not determined, providing

NRHP recommendations may be difficult. Is it important to FWC that all sites recorded as part of this project (previous and new) have an NRHP recommendation? Is it allowable to recommend sites as unevaluated pending either Phase II excavations or in some cases, additional Phase I inventory to better determine boundaries?

ANSWER #10: Complete site boundary determination by shovel testing is not required but if necessary for NRHP recommendation, the site can be recommended for further testing in the future. All sites known previously or recorded during this survey should be assessed for potential eligibility when possible.

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 3 of 7

QUESTION #11: Can you please provide shapefiles of the current boundaries of the WEAs and

WMAs that will be part of this study?

ANSWER #11: To access the shapefiles of the WEAs and WMAs that are part of this solicitation, please visit:

2.119_Shapefiles.zip

QUESTION #12: Does the FWC have a certain percentage of each study area that would be optimal to conduct reconnaissance shovel testing?

ANSWER #12: Once any predictive site model can be ascertained, then shovel testing should focus on those areas of highest probability. Random shovel testing or testing of marginal areas is not required.

QUESTION #13: Should a metal detector survey be incorporated only if historic sites are known or suspected?

ANSWER #13: Metal detecting surveys may be conducted if there is high probability of historic subsurface deposits. Such techniques are only needed to provide presence/absence and are not needed to determine full site boundaries.

QUESTION #14: There appears to be only five previously recorded structures within the study areas. Should these be re-recorded, and if unrecorded standing structures are within the project area, should they be recorded?

ANSWER #14: No, the five previously recorded structures should not be re-recorded. Any unrecorded standing structures within the project area are to be recorded.

QUESTION #15: There appears to be only three previously recorded cemeteries within the study areas. Should these be re-recorded?

ANSWER #15: No, the three cemeteries should not be re-recorded.

QUESTION #16: Are the shapefiles available for the current ten (10) project areas?

ANSWER #16: To view the shapefiles of the WEAs and WMAs that are part of this solicitation, please visit:

2.119_Shapefiles.zip

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 4 of 7

QUESTION #17: Do previously surveyed lands fall within the current Scope? Can previously surveyed lands be excluded from the total survey acreage?

ANSWER #17: The lands included have not previously been surveyed.

QUESTION #18: Will FWC provide the LIDAR data required for the successful completion of

Task 2.3 (Environmental Overview)?

ANSWER #18: No, FWC will not provide the LIDAR data.

QUESTION #19: Many portions of the ten (10) project areas are far from roads and may be difficult to access. Will any specialized vehicles (e.g., airboats, all -terrain vehicles, etc.) be required to access any parts of the project area?

ANSWER #19: Yes, specialized vehicles may be required on several of the project areas. In these cases, the contractor should coordinate with the area manager as to the best means of access. This may include vehicular access to roads that may otherwise be closed to traffic, opening of locked gates, etc. Any vehicular access off road must be coordinated with area staff prior to beginning the field work to ensure avoidance of sensitive species or habitats.

QUESTION #20: In remote areas will FWC personnel accompany the archaeological team?

ANSWER #20: If available, FWC personnel can accompany the archaeological team in remote areas.

QUESTION #21: Task 3.0 stipulates testing only in areas of high probability using a minimum number of judgmental Shovel Test Pits (STPs). No random grid shovel testing is to be utilized, metal detectors should be employed on historic sites using a strategy similar to STP survey. Site dimensions should be obtained using visual surface cues such as soil type, vegetation type, elevation, exposed artifacts, LIDAR topography, etc. Is it to be assumed that radial testing is not required and that evaluations of the NR status of each site are not required for this project?

ANSWER #21: That is correct. When possible NR status should be evaluated to the best of the contractor’s ability and recommendations for further evaluations made when applicable.

QUESTION #22: Task 3.0 stipulates that organic materials will be stabilized and preserved for future analysis. Task 3.0 also stipulates that metal artifacts should be properly stored to prevent further degradation prior to property evaluations are made regarding conservation? What methods are preferred for both organic materials and metal?

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 5 of 7

ANSWER #22: In the event organic materials are recovered that require further preservation they may be kept in water if applicable until further analysis is made. If they are deemed important enough to warrant permanent stabilization, then they shall be turned over to the State Conservation Lab in a timely manner.

Likewise, metal artifacts can be stored in archival quality boxes and/or bags.

In the event any significant metal artifacts are in need of immediate stabilization they are to be turned over to the State Conservation Lab in a timely manner. Permanent stabilization/conservation of all recovered materials will ultimately be determined by BAR Collections.

QUESTION #23: What level of laboratory analysis is required for this project?

ANSWER #23: Type classification of all identifiable artifacts. Photos of representative typed artifacts should be included in the report. Faunal analysis can be limited to basic weights and types of shell, bone, etc. recovered during the project. There is no need for comprehensive faunal analysis, pollen analysis, or radiometric dating.

QUESTION #24: Will DOE packages only be submitted for recommended eligible sites? Will sites recommended not eligible require a DOE package ? Can we assume that sites with “unknown” or “potentially eligible” recommendations pending additional investigations will not be subject to a DOE package?

ANSWER #24: DOE packages can be submitted for recommended NR sites only. If sites require further investigation for eligibility, then no DOE package is required.

QUESTION #25: Will travel be approved at a flat rate for meals ($36) or are receipts required for reimbursement up to that amount? Section 0112.061 F.S. does not specify maximum rates for lodging.

ANSWER #25: Any and all travel expenses expected to be incurred should be included in the costs proposed by the Respondent. Travel costs will not be paid separately and thus Section 0112.061 F.S does not apply.

QUESTION #26: The RFP mentions that this project is also to be conducted in accordance with

Section 106 of the NRHP. Is this due to federal funding? Will the contractor be responsible for identifying federally-recognized Tribes with ancestral ties to the region? Will the identified Tribes be a consulting party on the proposed methodology to meet project objectives?

ANSWER #26: This is not due to federal funding. Tribes will not be a consulting party on the proposed methodology to meet project objectives. In the event that human remains are uncovered, BAR would contact the necessary tribal entities to discern best course of action for disposition of the remains. The contractor would need to inform the Area Project Manager immediately if remains are uncovered.

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 6 of 7

QUESTION #27: Does FWC have LiDAR of their WEAs in tighter resolution than 2.5 to 5 feet?

ANSWER #27: FWC will not provide LiDAR of the WMAs/WEAs.

QUESTION #28: On page 13, Section 3.0, the RFP notes that the consultant is to undertake reconnaissance and evaluation of previously recorded sites within the study areas. Does this include any underwater resources and/or partially submerged resources? Furthermore, during field survey, should the respondent expect to utilize underwater archaeological methods to locate and evaluate additional submerged or partially submerged resources?

ANSWER #28: While undertaking record searches, any underwater sites that are previously recorded are to be included in the site inventory for the area. However no underwater surveying is required under this RFP.

QUESTION #29: Does FWC intend to issue a single award to one contractor or is the intention to select multiple contractors?

ANSWER #29: A single award to one contractor.

QUESTION #30: The RFP indicates that no subcontractors are allowed but also indicates that

JVs are acceptable. Are traditional teaming arrangements permitted if the team is presented transparently in the proposal?

ANSWER #30: Subcontractors are not allowed in this RFP. Companies may team together as a joint venture to submit one response. However, a copy of the agreement between the teams must be submitted with the response.

QUESTION #31: The RFP specifies a need for NEPA experience, and Section 106 NHPA is briefly referenced. Can FWC provide clarification on NEPA or 106 responsibilities for the reconnaissance surveys? Are there federal undertakings planned for these areas?

ANSWER #31: Since no federal funds will be used and no federal undertakings are planned for these areas, please disregard NEPA experience and Section 106 NHPA references.

QUESTION #32: Does FWC have an ideal schedule (NTP to draft report) for a survey?

ANSWER #32: For those project sites scheduled to be completed during the 2022/23 fiscal year, the Contractor will have from the time the purchase order is received until June 15, 2023, with the possibility of an extension to September 15, 2023 to complete all surveys and submit the final report. In year two, the final report for those project sites scheduled to be completed during the 2023/24 fiscal year will be due by June 15, 2024, and those scheduled to be completed in fiscal year

2024/25, June 15, 2025.

FWC 21/22-119, Addendum #1, Page 7 of 7

QUESTION #33: The RFP specifies a DOE package including a National Register of Historic

Places Registration Form will be completed for significant prehistoric and historical resources. A reconnaissance level survey typically precludes a DOE, although it could include recommendations of eligibility. Is the DOE anticipated to be part of the reconnaissance or a separate scope of work?

ANSWER #33: A DOE package is not necessary unless the contractor feels the site warrants

NR eligibility based on their findings. Since eligibility may be difficult to ascertain within the scope of this project the contractor shall at minimum give their recommendation on whether or not further investigation is warranted in order to determine eligibility.

QUESTION #34: Does the work include any underwater archaeological assessment areas?

ANSWER #34: No, the project does not include any underwater archaeological assessment areas.

QUESTION #35: Is it anticipated that federal funding in the form of direct, matching funds, reimbursement will be utilized to fund any of this project?

ANSWER #35: No federal funds will be utilized to fund any of this project.

END ADDENDUM #1