FWC 22.23-111 Addendum Two Final.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners Rodney Barreto Chairman Coral Gables

Steven Hudson Vice Chairman Fort Lauderdale

Preston Farrior Tampa

Gary Lester Oxford

Albert Maury Coral Gables

Gary Nicklaus Jupiter

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Office of the Executive Director Roger A. Young Executive Director

Dr. Thomas H. Eason Assistant Executive Director

Jessica Crawford Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people.

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: JUNE 19, 2023

ADDENDUM NO.: 2

BID NO.: FWC 22/23-111

BID TITLE: APALACHICOLA BAY OYSTER RESTORATION

UPDATE: ITEM 1: REVISED CALENDAR OF EVENTS; ITEM 2:

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS; ITEM 3: REVISED

INVITATION TO BID; ITEM 4: REVISED PRICE SHEET

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 22/23-111, “Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 3:00 PM (ET) on Thursday, July 6, 2023.

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, Jordan Irving, FWC Procurement Manager

BEGIN ADDENDUM

ITEM 1: REVISED CALENDAR OF EVENTS

SCHEDULE DUE DATE METHOD

Bid Advertised June 2, 2023 Posted on the Vendor Information Portal

(VIP)

NON-MANDATORY Pre-Bid Conference

June 7, 2023

@ 1:00 PM ET,

12:00 PM CT

-Teleconference- Conference call phone number: 1-888-585- Conference room number: 218-721-199

Deadline for Questions

Must be received PRIOR to:

June 9, 2023

@ 5:00 PM ET, 4:00

PM CT

See Deadline for Questions Clause

Anticipated date for Responses to Written Questions June 19, 2023 Posted on the Vendor Information Portal

SEALED BIDS DUE

(REMEMBER: The bid number should be clearly marked on envelope)

Must be received PRIOR to:

June 30, 2023

@ 3:00PM ET, 2:00

PM CT

Mailing Address:

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Attn: Purchasing 1875 Orange Ave E Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6160 Submissions are due BEFORE the date and time of the public opening.

Public Bid Opening June 30, 2023

@ 3:00PM ET, 2:00

PM CT

Public Opening Options for Attendance:

-In Person- 1875 Orange Ave E Tallahassee, FL 32311-6160

-Teleconference- Conference call phone number: 1-888-585- Conference room number: 218-721-199

Anticipated Date of Intended Award July 6, 2023 Posted on the Vendor Information Portal https://vendor.myfloridamarketplace.com/

ITEM 2: ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBJECT: MATERIAL AVAILABILITY

QUESTION #1

The mines that we have reached out to that are nearest to the project location are unable to produce a hardness of 3.5 - 4. Would a hardness of 2.4 - 3.0 be acceptable? If not, which mine meets these specs?

QUESTION #2

Page 12, paragraph 5.3 lists the acceptable sources of dolostone formations. What mines/quarries have previous projects used? Is there a list of acceptable mines/quarries that FWC has previously approved?

QUESTION #3

Our company has been unable to find a mine that has limestone within your composition specifications that makes an 11-13 inch size. The only mine we located that can provide large quantities only had 3-8 inch rock which would need to be screed and we would lose about 50% of the material so make the bid very uncompative. Can provide a list of mines that meet your specifications. And ones that might not have correct size specifications.

ANSWER #1, #2, #3

FWC has been in contact with the Florida Geological Survey to prepare the scope of work for this project. Material meeting the outlined specifications are present and being mined in the Florida Panhandle/Big Bend area. Regarding sourcing, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has resources on open mines with the State, including an interactive map (https://ca.dep.state.fl.us/mapdirect/?focus=mannon)).

Previous projects of this nature have not used the rock specifications included in this project.

SUBJECT: MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS

QUESTION #4

How is the contractor supposed to submit a definite, firm, unqualified and unconditional bid on this project based on the material constraints contained in the

ITB?

a. Basis for question: Based on our research and analysis on the amount (tonnage), type (ITB Section 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2 & 5.4, 5.4.1, 5.4.2) and handling of the rock required for this project, the contractor would need to select a mine in the closest proximity of the project and hope the selected rock is approved by FWC (5.4.1). Given the amount https://ca.dep.state.fl.us/mapdirect/?focus=mannon) of material (rock), handling, shipping and screening required, even the closest mine will consume most, if not all, of the stated budget. If the rock from the mine is rejected, this would significantly increase the contractor’s cost thereby requiring the qualifier, “bid assumes selected rock is approved by FWC.”

ANSWER #4

The Calendar of Events has been amended to provide additional time for potential bidders to contact and source material that meets specifications outlined in the scope of work. Please see answer #1, #2 for information on sourcing material. As outlined in the amended 5.4.1, if modifications are requested by FWC, the contractor must submit modifications within 10 business days.

QUESTION #5

The stone size is considerably smaller than other reef projects, why was the sizes chosen.

ANSWER #5

The two sizes were chosen after discussions with other researchers and management entities, as well as with local stakeholders. These two sizes allow for sufficient scientific robustness and are adequately in line with local oyster fishery historical practices (i.e., the smaller rock is still able to be tonged).

QUESTION #6

The project “Scope of Work” refers specifically to the deployment of dolomite? Will the owner consider alternatives to the crushed dolomite if alternative materials meet the specifications requirements?

ANSWER #6

FWC is only considering material that meets the criteria outlined in 5.3 in the ITB’s scope of work.

SUBJECT: TOLERANCE

QUESTION #7

The grade stone to +/-2” with this size is impossible to determine the tolerance, It should be determined based on the size of the stone exposed.

QUESTION #8

Page 13, paragraph 5.10 defines the allowable height tolerances to be within 2”. Based on the variableness of the rock shapes, voids, and how they will lay next to and on top of each other, the 2” tolerance is not reasonable. We believe a tolerance of 6”-8” is more realistic and achievable for this project.

ANSWER #7, #8

Deployment relief criteria outlined in 5.10.1 and 5.10.2 in the ITB’s scope of work has been amended. The tolerance has been changed to +6.0 inches. Please note that this is a one-way tolerance. Please see 5.10.1 and 5.10.2 in the ITB’s scope of work for additional information.

SUBJECT: DEPLOYMENT

QUESTION #9

How are you going to determine 100% of product was deployed and what is the expected amount to determine this?

ANSWER #9

An FWC site monitor will be present during restoration activities. The contractor will provide documentation on tonnage and/or volume of material deployed per reef site. Please see answer #17 for details on tonnage and volume of material.

Additionally, the FWC site monitor will conduct a side-scan survey of the restored reefs shortly after restoration. The survey will ensure the full extent of the reef was restored.

QUESTION #10

What is the maximum allowed space between rocks?

QUESTION #11

If each reef element was laid by hand and fitted as a puzzle it would still leave a porous and uneven surface. This being said, actual construction is underwater and completed by an excavator and other equipment. Therefore, it would leave an even more uneven, porous surface. Therefore, the cubic yard and measuring tolerance would be dramatically different in the intended scope of work. The price per ton laid with an average greater tolerance for elevation seemingly will be more beneficial to each party. The peak of each rock could be managed to a greater tolerance than the entire surface itself.

ANSWER #10, #11

Each 1-acre restoration reef should be uniform based on the deployment treatment. For example, if a reef is restored with large rock with a 2-ft relief, the entire acre should have large rock deployed to a 2-ft relief (or within the acceptable tolerance level).

SUBJECT: TIMEFRAME

QUESTION #12

Can the timeline for this project be moved?

a. Basis for question: The current timeline is unrealistic based on the amount of material that must be procured, approved, transported, screened, loaded and deployed

QUESTION #13

If you estimate that the deployment of rock could feasibly start, after sizing and screening some, on August 1st that gives you about 75 working days at the most not including weather days. if the 24 sites require somewhere between 70-90 thousand tons, that's over 1,000 tons per day delivered to site, screened, sized, loaded, deployed and grading of site. That's over 50 trucks per day to the staging area. We as a company do not think this schedule can be done this year let alone secure the specified low magnesium limestone in that quantity. But might be feasible to stage, truck screen and size this year.

QUESTION #14

Page 11, paragraph 4.2. The requirement to have all material deployed in the 24 each 1-acre parcels by October 31, 2023 is not feasible in our opinion. The time to mine the material, screen it, stockpile it, deliver it and deploy it for the amount of tonnage that will be required will take longer than the allowable time currently stated. We estimate a minimum of 6 months from the time of a Notice To Proceed with additional allowances given for weather impacts.

QUESTION #15

Timeframe of the October 31, 2023 is unrealistic proposal to stockpile the product by expected date. Proposed to stockpile the product by October 31, 2023, and begin deployment March 2024. The purpose of the modified timeframe is dependent upon the quantity of tons needed to successfully complete the project.

ANSWER #12, #13, #14, #15

The timeline has been adjusted for this project. The new completion date for this project is November 15, 2024. All material deployment must be completed by October 31, 2024. Furthermore, no material deployment can begin until March 18, 2024.

QUESTION #16

Provide expected timeframe for renewal year.

ANSWER #16

No renewal year will be requested for this project. The timeline has been adjusted for this project. The new completion date for this project is November 15, 2024. All material deployment must be completed by October 31, 2024. Furthermore, no material deployment can begin until March 18, 2024.

SUBJECT: CUBIC YARDS

QUESTION #17

How to quantify the product, bid is using cubic yards, but the product is purchased in tons.

Provide the formula or quantity used to determine total cubic yards needed for all 24 sites.

QUESTION #18

Currently the Bid is in Cubic Yards. For the sake of giving you the best price, what formula should we use to translate Cubic Yards to Tons for both size fractions as they both have varying void space?

QUESTION #19

Page 18, All stone suppliers sell based on a per ton basis not a per cubic yard basis and trucking is based on weight factors not on cubic yard factors. Will you change the “price per cubic yard” to a “price per ton” designation?

ANSWER #17, #18, #19

Assuming a material density of 130 lb/ft3, a cubic foot would be 130 lb. A total of 43,560 ft3 is needed to increase the relief of 1 square acre by 1 ft, and 47120 ft3 is needed to increase the relief of 1 square acre by 2 ft. Therefore, 5,662,800 lb is needed for 1 ft. of relief for a square acre, and 11,325,600 lb for two ft. of relief. Further calculating the two rock type treatments, and six replicates, 203,860,800 lb or 101,931 tons of material would be needed for this project. The tonnage would be evenly split between the two rock sizes. Please note that this information is derived from calculations, and real-world deployment may require additional tonnage to ensure the reefs are restored to the correct specifications.

SUBJECT: PRICING

QUESTION #20

Page 18, Price Sheet bid items c and d. Material suppliers will not hold their pricing for a year and other commodities that are major contributors to the cost such as fuel, lubes, etc. have market volitivity making the pricing of these 2 line items a year out very difficult. Could these 2 bid items be changed to reflect some sort of escalation factor(s) that would allow FWC to receive the best pricing available?

ANSWER #20

Please see answer #16.

SUBJECT: PRIOR PROJECTS & STAGING

QUESTION #21

Where was the staging area of the last project?

QUESTION #22

Please explain where the last oyster reef restoration was staged from?

ANSWER #21, #22

The last FWC project of this nature had no land-based staging area. All material was brought in on hopper barges via the intracoastal waterway. Projects administered by other entities have used the Apalachicola bridge causeway, areas near the Mill Pond, 2 mile, and near Lynn’s Quality Oysters on US Highway 98.

As a reminder, the contractor must secure the use of any staging area(s) and provide the FWC Project Manager with a fully executed and notarized agreement between the property owner (if not the Contractor) and the Contractor, for any staging area(s) prior to a Notice to Proceed being issued.

SUBJECT: REEFS & LOCATIONS

QUESTION #23

Does the reef follow the contour of the straight or is the top a known (constant) elevation?

If the top elevation is known what is the contour of the bottom elevation to quantify the amount of stone for each reef?

ANSWER #23

The contractor will be provided with coordinates for all restoration areas, as well as deployment treatments (i.e., which rock size and reef height to utilize). Each area will be 1 square acre in size, and have a constant depth profile.

QUESTION #24

How many spot elevations will be taken per 1 acre to determine for method of payment or tolerance?

ANSWER #24

The FWC site monitor will conduct a side-scan survey of the restored reefs shortly after restoration. The survey will ensure the full extent of the reef was restored, as well as provide depth measurements of the reef. Any areas within the restored reef that are outside of the tolerance outlined in 5.10.1 and 5.10.2 will need to be correct, as outlined in 5.13.

SUBJECT: SURVEY

QUESTION #25

Who is providing the survey?

QUESTION #26

Who is providing the as-built survey?

QUESTION #27

What survey requirements will be needed?

ANSWER #25, #26, #27

FWC will conduct the as-built survey.

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE

QUESTION #28

What is the proposed budget for the project? Will the project be fully funded at the time of the award?

ANSWER #28

The main objective is to achieve a scientifically robust pilot study. In the scope of work, FWC has outlined four treatment types (two rock sizes and two reef heights). A minimum of six one-acre reefs of each type are necessary to achieve the scientific scope FWC is aiming for, though additional reef restoration would be welcomed. The state has allocated $10M dollars this past legislative session for restoration in the Apalachicola Bay which will be available for this pilot project, and FWC believes the 24 acres, outlined as previously described, can be achieved within that allocation.

QUESTION #29

If the project takes place during Hurricane season, would the owner allow a separate Mobilization / Demobilization for approaching tropical weather events?

ANSWER #29

FWC will communicate and work with the contractor on restoration scheduling issues due to tropical storm weather events. For additional information, refer to the Force Majeure information in the ITB.

QUESTION #30

Will there be any restrictions on marine operations having the ability to deploy spuds, in order to anchor barges during operations? Will the contractor be allowed to moor barges close to the jobsite?

ANSWER #30

Marine operations outlined in question #30 are permissible.

QUESTION #31

How will partial payments be determined? What verification will be required to justify quantities to be invoiced?

ANSWER #31

Partial payments will be processed for completed restoration activities. Partial payment invoices should include the tonnage of material deployed and refer only to restoration reefs that have been completed and approved by FWC. Please see answer #9 for information regarding how FWC will verify completed reefs. For financial consequences for partially completed restored reefs, please see the amended Financial Consequences in the scope of work.

QUESTION #32

As the required quantity of materials are so large and stone supplier will have to travel a great distance, would the owner consider adding a ‘Stored Material’ payment?

ANSWER #32

No stored material payment will be considered. The ITB’s price sheet has been amended to request a price per tonnage. The price should be inclusive of all necessary costs for the contractor to complete all restoration activities.

QUESTION #33

Are there any restrictions on working days? For example, weekends, holidays, etc.?

ANSWER #33

Please see 5.14 in the ITB’s scope of work.

QUESTION #34

Is a bid bond required for this job? and if so, do we just use the cost per cubic yard and multiply by some random quantity we come up with?

ANSWER #34

Please see Performance Bond language in the ITB document.

QUESTION #35

Please provide copy of permits for this project.

ANSWER #35

Please click the following link to download the permit, https://bidrequestfilessa.blob.core.windows.net/bidrequestcontainer/FDACS.General .Permit.zip

Please that the while this permit expired on August 9, 2023, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) is currently engaged on getting a new permit issued. Upon permit execution, FDACS will provide the permit to FWC. The FWC Project Manager will provide the permit to the contractor at that time.

ITEM 3: REVISED INVITATION TO BID

The Invitation to Bid and included Scope of Work have hereby been revised to the following:

1. COMPLETION DATE

Project shall be completed by the Contractor by November 15, 2024.

4.1. All material deployment must be completed by October 31, 2024. Deployment operations cannot begin until March 18, 2024.

https://bidrequestfilessa.blob.core.windows.net/bidrequestcontainer/FDACS.General.Permit.zip https://bidrequestfilessa.blob.core.windows.net/bidrequestcontainer/FDACS.General.Permit.zip

5.4.1. The Contractor shall provide the location of the area where the material will be sourced to allow FWC to verify the proposed material. FWC has the right to request additional information from the Contractor including, but not limited to, a copy of a current materials laboratory assay (data sheet) dated within 60 days of bid opening, which reports 1) the respective average dry bulk density of the material (lbs. per cubic foot or yard), 3) the percentage of magnesium, and 4) Mohs hardness of the proposed material. The Commission will notify the Contractor of approval of proposed materials within three (3) business days of receipt. If modifications are requested by the Commission, the Contractor must submit modifications within ten (10) business days.

5.10. Deployment material shall be placed as follows:

5.10.1. “LOW RELIEF” defined as a height of 12.0 – 18.0 inches from the substrate.

5.10.2. “HIGH RELIEF” defined as a height of 24.0 – 30.0 inches from the substrate.

9. FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES

9.1. Payment will be reduced by the amount of material not deployed on each site. For example, if a reef is restored with only 60% of the necessary material to complete the reef, payment will be reduced by 40%.

ITEM 4: REVISED PRICE SHEET

Revised Price Sheet begins on the following page.

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

REVISED PRICE SHEET

FWC 22/23-11

CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ALTER THE PRICE SHEET IN ANY WAY.

Price quoted shall not contain any Federal or State sales or use taxes. The bidder recognizes that the State of Florida, by virtue of its sovereignty, is not required to pay taxes on services, goods and/or equipment purchased incident to such service. Quoted price shall include all necessary items to complete the project.

ALL ITEMS SHALL BE BID OR THE BID WILL BE REJECTED. THE BID WILL BE AWARDED TO

THE RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER THAT SUBMITS THE LOWEST TOTAL PRICE.

Deployment of Small Sized Dolostone, as outlined in Section 5.

Price per ton = $ _____________________________________

Deployment of Large Sized Dolostone, as outlined in Section 5.

Price per ton = $ _____________________________________

TOTAL BID PRICE = $_____________________________________

BY SIGNING BELOW, I ATTEST THAT I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE BID AND AGREE TO FURNISH

THE SERVICE AT THE PRICE QUOTED ABOVE. I HEREBY AFFIRM I HAVE NOT BEEN IN ANY

AGREEMENT OR COLLUSION AMONG BIDDERS IN RESTRAINT OF FREEDOM OF COMPETITION.

Contractor: ___________________________

Address: _____________________________

Signed: _______________________________

Print Name: __________________________

Title: ________________________________

Fax: _________________________________

City/State/Zip: ________________________

Telephone: ___________________________

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

END ADDENDUM

REVISED Price Sheet