FWC 22.23-75 A#1 Final.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners

Rodney Barreto

Chairman Coral Gables

Steven Hudson Vice Chairman Fort Lauderdale

Gary Lester Oxford

Albert Maury Coral Gables

Gary Nicklaus Jupiter

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Robert A. Spottswood Key West

Office of the

Executive Director

Dr. Thomas H. Eason

Acting Executive Director

Jessica Crawford

Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Finance and Budget Office

(850) 488-6551

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: MARCH 7, 2023

ADDENDUM NO.: 1

RFP NO.: FWC 22/23-75

RFP TITLE: ANNUAL STATEWIDE DEER HARVEST SURVEYS

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 22/23-75, “Annual Statewide Deer Harvest

Surveys”.

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

PM (ET) on Friday, March 17, 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, Ruth Heggen

FWC Procurement Manager

FWC 22/23-75 ADDENDUM #1 2

BEGIN ADDENDUM #1

Item #1 – Questions and Answers

Question #1: How many registered hunters are they in Florida?

Answer #1: Annually, approximately 80,000 hunters purchase a deer permit (required for hunting deer in Florida). In addition, another 200,000 hunters purchase or have annual or lifetime license packages that include a hunting license and deer permit. However, possessing these licenses do not necessarily indicate intent to hunt deer in any given year. Additionally, youths 15 years old or younger and adults 65 years old and older do not have to purchase a hunting license or deer permit, and their numbers are not adequately captured.

Question #2: Budget for the RFP?

Answer #2: We would prefer not to provide our estimated budget. Rather, we would like proposals to propose the most cost-effective method to achieve the objectives outlined in the RFP. We believe that we have the funding needed to complete this project appropriately.

Question #3: Is there an incumbent for the RFP? If yes, can you provide the name and contract number?

Answer #3: Responsive Management, the current contractor, was awarded under RFP number FWC 11/12-49. Purchase Orders are issued to them on an annual basis.

Question #4: The RFP indicates that the previous deer harvest survey was conducted by telephone/internet. For the sake of reliable and accurate trend comparisons, it would seem important that the new survey be conducted using the same data collection methodology. Does FWC have a preference on data collection methods?

Answer #4: Although we recognize the importance of continuity of survey methods in order to make comparisons over time, we also place a high importance on obtaining accurate harvest survey estimates. If another data collection method can be used to give more reliable and accurate results, then we would be willing to make changes in the methodology used.

FWC 22/23-75 ADDENDUM #1 3

Question #5: Are valid working email addresses available for 100% of the hunters in the license database?

Answer #5: When creating a customer account, hunters are required to supply an email address. However, this data is not often updated; so on older accounts, the email addresses may no longer be valid.

Question #6: Previous survey projects using license databases sometimes have a bounce-back rate of upwards of 20-30%. If the license database contains a significant number of invalid/bounce-back emails, does FWC have phone numbers for all hunters?

Answer #6: When creating a customer account, hunters are required to supply a phone number. However, this data is not often updated; so on older accounts, the phone numbers may no longer be valid.

Question #7: Previous research has shown that harvest surveys conducted entirely by email can overrepresent harvest numbers, since hunters who successfully harvest deer tend to be more likely to complete the survey. Does FWC have any preference on email as a mode of data collection?

Answer #7: We believe that the use of email can be a useful way of collecting survey data, but we prefer that it not be the only method of collection. Not all of

Florida’s deer hunters have access to or are experienced in the use of computers. A diversified approach to survey data collection will likely elicit a better response and include a better representation of FWC’s diverse user group.

Question #8: In reviewing the previous report, it appears that the survey effort required essentially 10 different surveys, one for each DMU (apparently this was also to account for the potential for crossover when hunters hunt in more than one DMU). To help the respondent identify the DMU in which they hunted, it seems follow-up questions were needed to identify landmarks/nearest towns to identify the county and then DMU. Can you confirm that this accurately describes the interviewing procedures needed to ascertain DMUs?

FWC 22/23-75 ADDENDUM #1 4

Answer #8: Yes, follow-up questions are needed to help ascertain the DMU. Most hunters should know the county in which they hunted, but some may need to use landmarks/nearest towns to help them identify the county. Some counties are completely contained within a DMU, but there can be up to four DMUs in a single county. For these counties, follow-up questions regarding location in relation to major roads will be needed to determine

DMU.

Question #9: We would like to clarify/confirm the methods required to conduct this project. The last report indicates that the initial survey effort consisted of a statewide survey to identify statistically valid proportions of deer hunters hunting in the DMUs; a follow-up survey effort then consisted of more targeted data collection to satisfy the DMU-specific quotas of hunters who harvested a deer. Is this accurate?

Answer #9: This initial survey on the overall population of deer hunters, including nonresidents, determined where deer hunters as a whole went hunting. The proportions of hunters in the DMUs from this overall sample established the proportions hunting in the various DMUs and subsequently allowed weighting factors to be put on the data to allow statewide results. In the second phase of the survey, the sample was stratified to obtain completed interviews for those DMUs in which a low number of completed interviews had been obtained so that results would be statistically valid. In this case, targeted sampling focused on hunters who hunted in DMUs with low sample sizes in order to obtain a large enough sample size in those DMUs to provide statistically valid results.

Question #10: It seems that in order to obtain the quotas for each DMU, the survey contractor would need to analyze the completed surveys on an ongoing basis in order to determine where additional surveys would be needed. The final data would then be weighted by DMU based on the initial statewide survey effort. In the analysis, is it also necessary to categorize unknown DMUs (for people who aren’t sure which DMU they hunted)?

Answer #10: Yes, that is correct.

FWC 22/23-75 ADDENDUM #1 5

Question #11: A similar phone/internet harvest project required almost 50,000 calls to establish harvest rates and then obtain the required number of completed interviews for each management unit. Additionally, a separate email effort for the project required several thousand emails with phone follow-ups to identify eligible hunters. Do these numbers sound in line with what FWC envisions for this survey?

Answer #11: Yes, these estimates are in line with previous efforts. For the 2021-22 deer harvest survey, the contractor made approximately 71,000 phone calls and sent approximately 129,000 emails in order to obtain 4,431 completed hunter interviews.

END ADDENDUM #1