FWC 26.27.05 Questions & Answers Addendum.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 26/27-05

BID TITLE: NONNATIVE LIZARD CONTROL

UPDATE: QUESTIONS & 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 26/27-05, “Nonnative Lizard Control”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 3:30 PM (ET) on

Wednesday, September 30, 2026.

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, Randy Golightly

FWC Procurement Manager

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 2

BEGIN ADDENDUM

QUESTION #1

Could you please clarify which areas, counties, or specific public lands in South Florida are anticipated to require service under this contract?

ANSWER #1

County and/or state managed land in South Florida. Contractor/vendor access to these properties to conduct any work within this contract is the responsibility of the awarded bidder.

QUESTION #2

Are pellet rifles/air rifles permitted as a method for the humane removal of iguanas under this contract, provided all applicable laws, safety requirements, and property-specific approvals are followed?

ANSWER #2

Yes.

QUESTION #3

Please provide the project location. Any additional details regarding the scope of work.

ANSWER #3

County and/or state managed land in South Florida. Contractor/vendor access to these properties to conduct any work within this contract is the responsibility of the awarded bidder.

QUESTION #4

The solicitation identifies an estimated project budget and monthly funding limitations. Please confirm whether the stated monthly funding amounts constitute maximum reimbursable expenditures rather than guaranteed monthly payments to the Contractor.

Please also clarify whether unused funding in one month may be carried forward and utilized in a subsequent month, provided the total contract amount is not exceeded.

ANSWER #4

There will be a fixed price payment for each month based on the awarded bidder’s cost proposal. See

Scope of Work, 2. Funding, 2.1. (page 18 of Request for Proposal document).

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 3

QUESTION #5

Please clarify whether equipment purchased specifically to perform this project—including traps, cameras, GPS/data equipment, field equipment, vehicles or specialized technology—is an allowable reimbursable project cost.

If equipment is reimbursable:

a. may the Contractor recover the full acquisition cost when purchased?

b. must equipment be depreciated or allocated over its useful life?

c. does FWC require prior written approval?

d. who retains title to the equipment following expiration or termination of the contract?

e. The Purchase Order language indicates that title to certain nonexpendable property acquired with

Purchase Order funds may vest in the Commission.

ANSWER #5

Yes, this funding is intended to cover all project expenses; refer to 2. Funding, 2.1. There will be a fixed price payment for each month of service.

The Contractor will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the service and should consider that when completing a proposal and bid cost sheet. The Contractor will retain title to purchased equipment.

QUESTION #6

Please clarify the allowable method for charging project vehicle expenses. Specifically, may the Contractor charge:

a. actual vehicle operating expenses

b. mileage at an established rate

c. vehicle lease/rate included within proposed pricing?

ANSWER #6

This is not a cost reimbursement. All vehicle costs are the responsibility of the Contractor. There will be a fixed price payment for each month.

QUESTION #7

Please identify any applicable reimbursement limitations.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 4

ANSWER #7

This is not a cost reimbursement. There will be a fixed price payment for each month. Contractor absorbs the risk of any extra cost not included in the bid proposal.

QUESTION #8

Please confirm whether development and use of an artificial-intelligence-enabled platform is mandatory, or whether it is one example of an innovative technology or technique that may be proposed by the

Contractor.

ANSWER #8

An artificial-intelligence-enabled platform is mandatory technology that must be included in the proposal submitted. Note: “proposals must demonstrate a commitment to the development and implementation of innovative technologies and techniques (See Scope of Work).” An AI platform must not be used to train LLMs and must comply with all FWC cybersecurity standards.

QUESTION #9

Please confirm whether reasonable costs incurred to design, develop, configure, license, host, implement and maintain technology proposed specifically to satisfy this RFP are allowable project costs under

Attachment G.

ANSWER #9

Reasonable costs, yes. Note that the Agency (FWC) also requires large scale nonnative lizard removal.

The main objective of this Request for Proposals is to select the best proposal/contractor to provide a service for nonnative lizard removal.

QUESTION #10

If a Contractor utilizes software, databases, workflows, algorithms, intellectual property or technology that the Contractor developed or acquired prior to this contract, please confirm that such pre-existing or background intellectual property remains the property of the Contractor.

ANSWER #10

Only FWC data will be owned by FWC and must be able to be acquired in an easy to utilize method if the

FWC should not continue service.

QUESTION #11

Please further clarify what rights, if any, the Commission would receive in such pre-existing technology solely as a result of its use in performing this contract.

ANSWER #11

Only FWC data in working condition shall be received.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 5

QUESTION #12

If the Contractor modifies or enhances its pre-existing proprietary technology during performance of this contract in order to satisfy FWC-specific requirements, please clarify ownership of:

• the underlying pre-existing platform.

• generalized improvements or enhancements

• FWC-specific configurations; and

• project data generated under the contract

ANSWER #12

FWC would retain ownership of the FWC data and configurations of this data.

QUESTION #13

Please clarify whether certifications or reports identified within the technical/security requirements, including SOC 2 Type II and/or ISO/IEC 27001, must be held directly by the Respondent, or whether compliance may be satisfied through the Respondent's hosting/cloud/service providers where those providers possess the applicable certification?

ANSWER #13

Third (3rd) party validation can be utilized for cloud or hosted environments, but the hosted application must still meet all FWC cybersecurity standards.

QUESTION #14

Where the solicitation identifies a SOC 2 Type II report "or similar," please identify examples of documentation FWC considers an acceptable equivalent?

ANSWER #14

Examples of documentation that FWC may consider an acceptable equivalent to a SOC 2 Type II report include, but are not limited to, an ISO/IEC 27001 certification, a HITRUST CSF certification, a PCI DSS Report on Compliance (ROC), or another independent third-party security assessment or audit report that provides comparable assurance regarding the effectiveness of an organization’s information security controls.

FWC may also consider other industry-recognized certifications, attestations, or independent assessment reports based on the scope, rigor, recency, and relevance of the documentation to the services and information systems supporting the contract. Acceptance of any such documentation as an equivalent would remain subject to FWC’s review and approval.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 6

QUESTION #15

If FWC directs the Contractor to deploy additional personnel, vehicles and resources during a mass cold-stunned iguana event, are those emergency-response costs subject to the normal monthly funding ceiling, or may FWC authorize additional funding by amendment or change order? A serious cold event could require a sudden 10-, 20- or 30-person surge?

ANSWER #15

There will be a fixed price payment for each month. All work must be within the monthly expense cap based on the awarded bid proposal.

QUESTION #16

Attachment F – UAS/Drone Requirements: Attachment F contains technical requirements relating to

Mission Management, Flight Control and Data Collection, automatic flight logs, drone fleet management, and image mosaicking. Please clarify whether a Respondent is required to propose and provide UAS/drone capabilities in order to be responsive, or whether these requirements apply only if the Respondent elects to propose a UAS/drone component as part of its innovative-technology solution?

ANSWER #16

From an IT perspective, this would only be if the technology would be utilized or is planned to be utilized.

If utilized, all usage must meet the FWC Cybersecurity standards.

QUESTION #17

Is there any reference to the topography for potential service; ATV, dirt bike, etc?

ANSWER #17

Use of particular vehicles depends on the rules of the land management authority and landowner.

QUESTION #18

The FWC contract has a total value of approximately $2.6 million. The funding structure states that funding is available at up to $250,000 per month for the first eight months, and then up to $166,666 per month for the “remainder of the contract.”

Can you clarify what FWC means by the “remainder of the contract”? Does the $166,666 monthly amount apply only to the final six months of the initial contract period, or does it apply to the entire remaining term of the contract, including any portion of the two-year contract period? Does it assume a renewal?

In other words, after the first eight months at up to $250,000 per month, for exactly how many months does the $166,666 monthly funding limit apply?

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 7

ANSWER #18

Please refer to 2. Funding, 2.1.

During the initial term (12 months), FWC will provide up to $250,000 per month for the first 8 months, and up to

$166,666 per month for the final 4 months. There will be a fixed price payment for each month based on the awarded bidder’s cost proposal.

QUESTION #19

The Scope of Work requires large-scale removal of nonnative lizards from public lands in southern Florida.

Can FWC clarify how specific service locations will be identified, assigned, and prioritized throughout the contract term? Additionally, can FWC provide an anticipated list of counties, properties, or approximate acreage expected to be serviced so Respondents can accurately determine staffing, equipment, travel, and operational costs?

ANSWER #19

The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain proposals from bidders for effective nonnative lizard removal. Proposals should contain an effective plan, including, methodology, approach, and cost, for the removal of nonnative lizard species (green iguanas, spiny-tailed iguanas, and Argentine black and white tegus) from southern Florida’s public lands (County and state managed land throughout South

Florida). Private lands can also be considered for nonnative lizard removal as part of this RFP if the awarded bidder has landowner permission. All access permissions for public and private lands are the sole responsibility of the awarded bidder.

QUESTION #20

Is effort to be spent equally on detection/removal of all three species (tegus, green iguanas, spiny-tailed iguanas)? Or does effort have to involve at least one of the three species?

ANSWER #20

The intent is large-scale removal of all three nonnative lizard species (tegus, green iguanas, spiny-tailed iguanas) where they are present on public lands in southern Florida. See Scope of Work 1. Requirements,

1.1. (page 16). However, any interested bidder should submit their plan to address the project objectives in their proposal.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 8

QUESTION #21

What is the desired number of locations for trapping? Are there priority locations and if so, where are they located? Are there particular public land sites where FWC wishes to prioritize these efforts?

ANSWER #21

The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain proposals from interested bidders for effective nonnative lizard removal. Proposals should contain an effective plan, including, methodology, approach, and cost, for the removal of nonnative lizard species (green iguanas, spiny-tailed iguanas, and Argentine black and white tegus) from southern Florida’s public lands (County and state managed land throughout

South Florida). Private lands can also be considered for nonnative lizard removal as part of this RFP if the awarded bidder has landowner permission. All access permissions for public and private lands are the sole responsibility of the awarded bidder.

QUESTION #22

And within sites are there targets for the number of lizards to be removed or % reductions in populations within the timeframe (how will efficacy be quantified)?

ANSWER #22

There are no formal target numbers for removal. Interested bidders can provide efficacy testing as part of their proposal if they wish to.

QUESTION #23

Are there any limitations as to who the vendor may contract with? Is contracting with a university permitted?

ANSWER #23

Yes. The Contractor can subcontract with whom they wish as long as they are obeying fair labor laws.

QUESTION #24

Can you confirm that the vendor retains control of all intellectual property and any tech (traps or cameras)?

ANSWER #24

The vendor would retain those assets.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 9

QUESTION #25

In the context of this RFP, are public lands state-owned lands only? Or do they include any other types of public lands?

ANSWER #25

Includes state managed and/or county managed lands. Private lands can also be considered for nonnative lizard removal as part of this RFP if the awarded bidder has landowner permission. All access permissions for public and private lands are the sole responsibility of the awarded bidder.

QUESTION #26

With regard to the development and implementation of innovative technologies and techniques: How much focus on development and implementation of innovative technologies and techniques is acceptable relative to detection and removal? Could we implement smart trapping for one of the species while concurrently designing/constructing smart traps for the other two species?

ANSWER #26

Development and implementation of innovative technologies and techniques are an integral part of this

Request for Proposals, however, the overarching goal is the large-scale removal of nonnative lizard species, as stated in the Scope of Work. Note, technology must meet the FWC cybersecurity controls through normal operations and future innovation.

QUESTION #27

The RFP states “The Contractor shall submit one (1) original and four (4) separate electronic copies (on flash drive) of their response in a SEALED ENVELOPE”. Can you clarify the Commission wants 4 copies of the same RFP Submission on 1 flash drive or 4 separate flash drives?

ANSWER #27

One original on paper, and four (4) separate flash drives, each containing the full proposal.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 10

QUESTION #28

SOW Section 1.5 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:

(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

(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 #28

Compliance standards must be in place by the contract signing.

QUESTION #29

Please confirm the maximum amount a Respondent may propose for the initial one-year term in the Cost

Sheet. The RFP states a $2,000,000 estimated budget, but the monthly funding limit appears to total approximately $2.6 million over 12 months

ANSWER #29

For the first twelve (12) months FWC will provide up to $2,666,664; however, final payments per month are based on the awarded bidder’s proposed cost sheet. See answer to question 18.

QUESTION #30

Page 64 calls itself “EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORING SHEET EXAMPLE #2” and appears to begin in the middle of the Experience criterion before showing #5 Cybersecurity and #6 Cost, which suggests there may be missing page(s). Can the Commission clarify if that is the case?

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 11

ANSWER #30

The evaluation criteria are missing from the RFP document. Procurement Manager will post an additional addendum to attachment H with full evaluation criteria scoring sheet. Please see Scope of Work

Addendum for the full Attachment H.

QUESTION #31

On Page 11, under General Evaluation Criteria, Section 1, the document refers to an “Economy of

Presentation” section, which we are unable to locate in the document. Could you clarify what that refers to?

ANSWER #31

ECONOMY OF PRESENTATION

Each response shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of

Respondent’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Elaborate binding, colored displays, and promotional materials are not required. However, examples of services provided may be included as attachments to the response. Emphasis in each response must be on completeness and clarity of content. To expedite the evaluation of responses, it is essential that Respondents follow the format and instructions contained herein. All costs associated with preparing a response to this RFP is the sole responsibility of the Respondent.

QUESTION #32

Neither the FWC Data Sharing MOU nor the Agency Technology Blueprint & Security policies were uploaded to the VIP. Could you please share these documents for complete context of the requirements?

ANSWER #32

This is sensitive information and cannot be shared from a cybersecurity perspective. However, you can reference F.A.C. 60GG-2 for guidance.

QUESTION #33

By "public lands", is the Commission referring to specifically FWC's 32 Commission-managed lands, or does this include other public lands?

ANSWER #33

County and/or state managed land in South Florida. Private lands can also be considered for nonnative lizard removal as part of this RFP if the awarded bidder has landowner permission. All access permissions for public and private lands are the sole responsibility of the awarded bidder.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 12

QUESTION #34

Can the Commission share what Iguana removals data it has available, including GPS locations and numbers, over the past 5-10 years, or any other relevant data?

ANSWER #34

The purchasing Manager will add an addendum; Excel document containing the requested data.

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 13

Scope of Work

ATTACHMENT H

FWC 24/25-10

EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORING SHEET

This evaluation sheet will be used by the Evaluation Team to assign scores to all responses that were evaluated and designated as qualified. Scores will be averaged for all Evaluation Team members and ranked, highest to lowest averaged score. Both the presence and quality of the response will be evaluated when determining point value.

• Point Value: unless otherwise indicated, zero is lowest possible score and the number indicated in this column is the highest possible.

• Points Awarded: total number of points given by the evaluator.

Evaluator Name: ______________________________ Respondent Name: ___________________________

Evaluation

Criteria # Evaluation Item Point Value Points Awarded

Presentation and Quality of Response to RFP 0-10

Quality and completeness of responses will be evaluated based upon the requirements.

2 Work Product Examples 0-10

Work Product Examples will be evaluated based upon review of documents requested.

Methodology and

Approach 0-40

Project plans will be evaluated based upon review of the methodology, and approach as requested in the Scope of Work.

Respondent Experience and Knowledge 0-20

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 14

Points for respondent qualifications and experience will be awarded based upon an evaluation of experience with projects, engagements and technical areas as demonstrated through respondents submitted resume as it relates to the needs of this solicitation.

Cybersecurity Framework and Technical and

Functional Requirements

Matrix

0-10

Will be evaluated based on the Respondent’s compliance to the State Of Florida’s prohibition on utilizing technology services and components designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by companies owned, controlled, or domiciled in designated foreign countries of concern., as requested in the Scope of work. The

Respondent shall address each of the preferred capabilities and mandatory requirements listed in Attachment F, providing comments and explanations on how the proposed system will handle each of the functions listed. Supporting documentation for this section may be included as an Appendix to the RFP. The

Appendix may not exceed thirty (30) pages (15 double-sided pages). Failure to address each specification item with which of the three categories the item falls into for the product being proposed shall result in the response being deemed non-responsive and disqualified.

6 Cost 0-10

The evaluation of each Respondent’s cost proposal will be conducted based on the cost formula below.

Total Score 0-100

END ADDENDUM