FWC 26.27-04 Addendum 1 Q&A.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners Rodney Barreto Chairman Coral Gables

Steven Hudson Vice Chairman Fort Lauderdale

Preston Farrior Tampa

Joshua Kellam Palm Beach Gardens

Gary Lester Oxford

Albert Maury Coral Gables

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Office of the Executive Director Roger A. Young Executive Director

Charles “Rett” Boyd Assistant Executive Director

George Warthen Chief Conservation Officer

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: SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

ADDENDUM NO.: 1

BID NO.: FWC 26/27-04

BID TITLE: NONNATIVE SNAKE CONTROL

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 26/27-04, “NONNATIVE SNAKE CONTROL”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 1:30 PM (ET) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025.

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, Joshua Stringer FWC Procurement Manager

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 2

BEGIN ADDENDUM

QUESTION #1

Section 1.19 requires the Contractor to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques to advance the management of nonnative constrictors and provides a centralized artificial intelligence-enabled platform as one example. Can FWC confirm that the term “innovative technologies and techniques” is intended to encompass technologies beyond software, artificial intelligence, and detection platforms, including physical devices or systems designed to detect, capture, contain, or otherwise facilitate the removal of nonnative constrictors?

ANSWER #1

The term “innovative technologies and techniques” is intended to include a broad range of tools and approaches beyond software, artificial intelligence, and detection platforms. The contract language is meant to encourage the development and application of any novel, effective solutions that advance the management of nonnative constrictors. Any proposed systems or technologies will be subject to review and prior approval by the FWC to ensure alignment with program priorities and land manager permissions.

QUESTION #2

Section 1.22 specifically references “implements or devices left on the landscape to detect / remove constrictors.” Can FWC confirm that remotely deployed or unattended live-capture devices intended to safely capture and contain Burmese pythons or other nonnative constrictors may be proposed as an innovative technology under Sections 1.19 and 1.22, subject to FWC approval and applicable land-manager permissions?

ANSWER #2

Any innovative technologies and techniques that supplement traditional active survey methods with the potential to improve management of nonnative constrictors will be considered for this solicitation.

QUESTION #3

The Scope of Work identifies road cruising and visual surveying as the currently most-applied methods for surveying for nonnative snakes. Is FWC interested in proposals that supplement these traditional active-survey methods with technologies capable of operating continuously or passively between PATRIC member survey periods, provided the technology can demonstrate measurable effectiveness and appropriate safeguards?

ANSWER #3

The FWC is interested in proposals for any innovative technologies and techniques that supplement traditional active survey methods.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 3

QUESTION #4

Would FWC consider a phased pilot or field-validation program for an innovative constrictor detection or removal technology in which the Contractor establishes predetermined performance metrics, such as target-species captures, non-target interactions, capture effort, device uptime, cost per capture, or other measurable criteria, prior to broader deployment?

ANSWER #4

The FWC welcomes proposals that incorporate structured evaluation frameworks, provided they can demonstrate effectiveness, feasibility, and appropriate safeguards.

QUESTION #5

Section 2.1 states that project funding is intended both to support PATRIC program expenses and the development and implementation of innovative technologies. Is FWC prescribing any minimum or maximum portion of the available monthly funding that must be allocated to innovative technology development and implementation, or may Respondents propose an allocation based upon their methodology and anticipated return on removal effort?

ANSWER #5

Project funding must support all required contractor program expenses. Beyond those obligations, allocation of the remaining funds is flexible and may be structured according to the Respondent’s proposed approach.

QUESTION #6

The Scope of Work requires the Contractor both to maintain and administer the existing PATRIC program and to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques. Does FWC envision the long-term objective of this solicitation as simply maintaining or expanding the existing human survey/removal model, or is FWC also seeking technologies and methodologies capable of materially increasing nonnative constrictor detection and removal capacity without requiring a proportionate increase in the number of PATRIC members or survey hours?

ANSWER #6

The long term objective of this solicitation has not been defined beyond the requirement to maintain the existing program and to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques, thereby allowing reasonable flexibility regarding the prospective scope and direction of future program objectives.

QUESTION #7

Under the existing PATRIC model, is it correct that increasing the aggregate number of contractor survey hours generally requires a corresponding increase in program expenditures because PATRIC members are compensated for verified survey time at rates established by FWC?

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 4

ANSWER #7

PATRIC contractors are compensated for verified survey time and removals of nonnative constrictors at rates established by the FWC. Accordingly, any increase in contractor survey hours would result in a corresponding increase in program expenditures.

QUESTION #8

Is one of FWC's objectives for the “innovative technologies and techniques” requirement to identify methods that can increase detection, capture, or removal capacity at a rate greater than the corresponding increase in field labor, survey hours, or program expenditure?

ANSWER #8

The requirement to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques is not tied to any specific objective related to increasing detection, capture, or removal capacity at a rate disproportionate to field labor or program expenditures. The solicitation encourages the exploration of innovative approaches without prescribing a particular performance outcome of that nature.

QUESTION #9

Does FWC consider increasing the number of PATRIC members and/or aggregate survey hours, by itself, to constitute the type of innovation contemplated by Sections 1.19 and 2.1, or is FWC seeking approaches that improve the effectiveness, productivity, reach, or efficiency of constrictor removal beyond increases attributable solely to additional human survey effort?

ANSWER #9

Increasing the number of PATRIC members or the aggregate survey hours does not constitute the type of innovations contemplated under Sections 1.19 and 2.1.

QUESTION #10

In evaluating proposed innovative technologies, will FWC consider improvements in measures such as constrictors removed per field labor hour, detections per survey hour, cost per removal, geographic coverage per dollar expended, continuous operating hours, or other measures demonstrating increased removal capacity relative to traditional survey effort?

ANSWER #10

In evaluating proposed innovative technologies, the FWC will take all relevant performance measures into consideration.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 5

QUESTION #11

The RFP currently establishes a minimum of 30 and maximum of 50 PATRIC members, subject to potential increase by FWC. Is the 50-member maximum intended in part to reflect an operational or budgetary limit on indefinitely scaling constrictor removal through increases in contractor headcount?

If not, what factors does FWC anticipate considering before increasing the size of the program?

ANSWER #11

The current limit of 50 PATRIC members reflects existing partner agreement constraints. Any future adjustment to the program size would need to be evaluated within the parameters of those partner agreements, along with considerations such as program performance, administrative capacity, and alignment with overall management objectives.

QUESTION #12

Is FWC interested in technologies capable of providing detection or removal effort during periods when PATRIC members are not actively conducting a compensated field survey, thereby increasing the total amount of time during which removal efforts are occurring without requiring an equivalent increase in paid survey hours?

ANSWER #12

The FWC is interested in any technologies that can improve the management of nonnative constrictors, including those capable of providing detection or removal effort during periods when contractors are not actively conducting compensated field surveys.

QUESTION #13

Because the Scope of Work identifies road cruising and visual surveying as the currently most-applied methods of locating nonnative snakes, is FWC seeking innovative technologies that reduce the program's reliance upon direct visual encounters between survey personnel and constrictors as a prerequisite to successful removal?

ANSWER #13

The FWC is interested in proposals for any innovative technologies and techniques that supplement traditional active survey methods.

QUESTION #14

Is scalability across increasingly large or difficult-to-access geographic areas an objective of the innovation component of this solicitation, particularly where increasing conventional survey coverage would otherwise require additional personnel, vehicles, survey hours, or other recurring operating expenditures?

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 6

ANSWER #14

The requirement to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques is not tied to any specific objective related to scalability. The solicitation encourages the exploration of innovative approaches without prescribing a particular performance outcome of that nature.

QUESTION #15

Given the five-year initial contract term and potential five-year renewal, does FWC expect the successful Contractor's innovative technology program to progressively improve the efficiency and scalability of constrictor control over the life of the contract rather than simply maintain the same removal methodology and level of technological capability throughout the contract period?

ANSWER #15

There is flexibility regarding how the innovative technology program may evolve over the duration of the contract.

While the solicitation does not prescribe a specific trajectory for efficiency or scalability enhancements, proposals that outline a structured, progressive approach to improving nonnative constrictor management capabilities over time will be fully considered.

QUESTION #16

Does FWC consider a scalable solution to nonnative constrictor management to include technologies or methodologies capable of producing increased detection or removal capacity without requiring a proportionate increase in personnel, paid survey hours, and operating expenditures? If so, should Respondents specifically address this type of scalability within their Methodology and Approach?

ANSWER #16

The requirement to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques is not tied to any specific objective related to increasing detection or removal capacity at a rate disproportionate to field labor or program expenditures. The solicitation encourages the exploration of innovative approaches without prescribing a particular performance outcome of that nature.

QUESTION #17

Does FWC view the successful Contractor primarily as an administrator of the existing PATRIC program, or as a long-term program partner responsible both for administering current operations and actively developing new technologies, techniques, and operating models for nonnative constrictor control?

ANSWER #17

The FWC will view the successful Contractor as a program partner responsible for both administering the existing operations and contributing to the development of new technologies, techniques, and operating models for nonnative constrictor management over the life of the contract.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 7

QUESTION #18

Does FWC expect the successful Contractor to function as an innovation partner that proactively proposes new methods and technologies throughout the five-year contract, rather than limiting innovation efforts to technologies specifically requested by FWC?

ANSWER #18

The successful Contractor is expected to function as an innovation partner throughout the duration of the contract and may proactively propose new methods and technologies as they are developed. However, any such proposed innovations must be submitted for review and receive prior approval from the FWC before implementation.

QUESTION #19

Does FWC consider the ability to convert successful experimental technologies into repeatable, scalable operational tools to be an important component of the innovation requirement in Section 1.19?

ANSWER #19

The FWC will take proposals for any relevant innovative techniques and technologies into consideration. These technologies must meet all FWC cybersecurity standards and be compliant with F.A.C 60GG-2.

QUESTION #20

When evaluating innovation under this solicitation, does FWC place greater value on technologies and methodologies that directly increase the detection, capture, and removal of nonnative constrictors from the environment, as opposed to downstream uses or disposition of constrictors after removal has already occurred?

ANSWER #20

Proposals should address the development and implementation of innovative technologies and techniques to advance the management of nonnative constrictors. Downstream processes may also be included where relevant.

QUESTION #21

Is FWC seeking a Contractor whose principal differentiator is the ability to administer the existing PATRIC program, or does FWC expect the successful Contractor to demonstrate a substantive capability to develop and implement technologies that may ultimately reduce the amount of human survey effort required to achieve a given level of constrictor removal?

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 8

ANSWER #21

The FWC expects the successful Contractor to demonstrate strong capability in administering the existing PATRIC program and to show substantive capacity to develop and implement innovative technologies and techniques that supplement traditional active survey methods.

QUESTION #22

Does FWC anticipate that successful innovation under this contract could reduce the future need to continually increase PATRIC member headcount, survey hours, and associated operating expenditures in order to increase total constrictor removals?

ANSWER #22

At this time, no determination has been made on that point. Whether successful innovation under this contract could reduce future needs related to PATRIC member headcount, survey hours, or associated operating expenditures is a topic for future consideration and is not specified within the current solicitation.

QUESTION #23

Page 8 requests that “An economic analysis of the proposed methodology should also be included.” Can the Commission clarify what they are requesting there, or is that open to interpretation?

ANSWER #23

In this context, an economic analysis refers to a clear, structured explanation of the financial implications of the approach that is proposed, including a quantitative assessment of costs and benefits.

QUESTION #24

Can FWC clarify if the total $29.6m budget reflects the total 5-year budget or the total 10-year budget, inclusive or exclusive of the renewal period?

ANSWER #24

The proposed budget reflects the maximum total amount for the ten year period.

QUESTION #25

The FWC Data Sharing MOU was not uploaded to the VIP. Could you please share the MOU for complete context of the requirements?

ANSWER #25

Uploaded to VIP.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 9

QUESTION #26

Section 1.21 requests that the Respondent provides various data related items, including a SOC 2 Type II report (or similar) and ISO/IEC 27001 certification, but is silent on the timing when the data related items are to be provided to FWC. Note that our review of other recent FWC RFPs, such as FWC 25/26-25 (see section 6.1.10), allow for these data related items to be provided after response. Potential contractors had no reasonable basis to know that such would be a requirement for this program prior to the release of this solicitation. This report and certification are not a requirement under similar statewide invasive management program such as FWC's ongoing PATRIC program, nor required in similar invasive programs in other state jurisdictions. SOC 2 Type II report requires a multi-month observation period and ISO 27001 requires a two-stage certification audit, each typically taking six to nine months to obtain. Due to this recently announced requirement, please confirm that the following process is sufficient for compliance:

o (a) an engaged audit firm, ongoing audit, and timeline for attaining SOC 2 Type II report and ISO 27001 certification within 120 days of contract execution; or o (b) a staged approach, for example a SOC 2 Type I report, a third-party penetration test report, and the hosting provider's SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 reports, at or shortly after commencement, followed by the SOC 2 Type II report and ISO 27001 certification within 120 days of contract execution.

ANSWER #26

Please refer to F.A.C 60GG-2 for cyber controls that have to be met. Controls must be in place before contract signing.

END ADDENDUM