FY27 Tidal Restoration Preliminary Field Investigation Bid BD-133892 Questions_Answers.pdf

FY27 Tidal Restoration Preliminary Field Investigation Bid BD- 133892 Questions

Q1:

Page 3 of the RFR states, "Bidders are requested to provide a single scope of work and fee proposal for a single site. DER will develop three site-specific scopes of work during the contact negotiation phase with the selected bidder (i.e., there will be a separate contract for each site)." We are interpreting this as meaning that DER is allowing a bidder to provide proposals for each of the three sites as long as they are separate proposal documents. Please confirm our interpretation and confirm that each bidder is not restricted to submitting a proposal for only one of the three sites.

A1:

DER is seeking a generalized Budget Response (MS Excel template) and Vendor Response (MS Word template) scope of work for a single site that could be applied to any of the three specified sites. Specific site budgets and scopes of work for each of the three sites will be finalized during the contract negotiation phase with a selected bidder. If there are site specific tasks or subitems please include them as a line item in the budget labeled for the specific site for budgetary purposes. As stated in Section III. Project specifications, “If there are specific tasks/sub-tasks that the bidder would like to suggest for a particular site (based on site-specific information provided in Section II above) please flag which site the task/sub-task is for and provide a budget line for this task/sub-task.”

The Vendor Response (MS Word template) scope of work should include tasks for all sites and also please describe the need for any site specific tasks, also included as line items the budget sheet, that are not applicable to all three sites. As stated in Section III. Project specifications, DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q2:

Will DER select a single consultant for all three sites? Is it possible that DER could select diƯerent consultants for each of the three sites?

A2:

DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q3:

How will DER determine if received proposals meet the stated evaluation criterion of "Appropriate allocation of qualified staƯ and level of eƯort to scope tasks."? What standards will be used to determine what is an appropriate allocation or an inappropriate allocation? How will proposals from diƯerent bidders be compared under this criterion?

A3:

To evaluate appropriate allocation of qualified staƯ and level of eƯort DER reviews the proposed staƯ, their labors levels, and hours assigned to tasks/sub-tasks. DER is looking to confirm that staƯ are qualified to complete their assigned tasks, that an appropriate number of hours is allocated to each task, and that the appropriate Labor Level(s) are assigned to a task. Please note, if the vendor is proposing any new staƯ that are not already approved under RFR ID #DER 2027 MSA, then DER would need a resume for proposed staƯ for review.

Q4:

Task 2 requires subsurface borings and soils analysis as applicable, including necessary permits. For which of the sites is DER seeking borings and how many at each site? Are the borings intended to be on upland or in the tidal waterbody? What data does DER seek for the soil analysis? Please provide more specifics as to DER's needs so all bidders are responding based on the same criteria, which will make DER's proposal evaluation process more uniform.

A4:

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications).

Q5:

The RFP says that "bidders are requested to provide a single scope of work and fee proposal for a single site". However, the RFP also says: a. "If there are specific tasks/sub-tasks that the bidder would like to suggest for a particular site, please flag which site the task/sub-task is for and provide a budget line for this task/sub-task. DER will assume that any tasks/sub-tasks that do not call out a particular site are proposed for all sites." Can you clarify whether the single scope of work and fee proposal can be for all of the sites, any of the sites, or if it needs to be for one particular site?

A5:

DER is seeking a generalized Budget Response (MS Excel template) and Vendor Response (MS Word template) scope of work for a single site that could be applied to any of the three specified sites. Specific site budgets and scopes of work for each of the three sites will be finalized during the contract negotiation phase with a selected bidder. If there are site specific tasks or subitems please include them as a line item in the budget labeled for the specific site for budgetary purposes. As stated in Section III. Project specifications, “If there are specific tasks/sub-tasks that the bidder would like to suggest for a particular site (based on site-specific information provided in Section II above) please flag which site the task/sub-task is for and provide a budget line for this task/sub-task.”

The Vendor Response (MS Word template) scope of work should include tasks for all sites and also please describe the need for any site specific tasks, also included as line items the budget sheet, that are not applicable to all three sites. As stated in Section III. Project specifications, DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q6:

Can the as-built survey and geotechnical investigation, if any, be provided for the South Street crossing in Somerset, Highway 6 bridge in Rehoboth, Interstate 195 in Rehoboth, and/or the Mason Street overpass of the Interstate 195 in Rehoboth?

A6:

This information is currently unknown. It is DER’s expectation that the selected bidder will work with the Towns to gather this type of information if it is needed as part of the proposed scope of work (see Task 2 in Section III of the Bid Request).

Q7:

Can the H&H model associated with the South Street crossing replacement project be provided?

A7:

This information is currently unknown. It is DER’s expectation that the selected bidder will work with the site owner (Town) to gather this type of information if it is needed as part of the proposed scope of work (see Task 2 in Section III of the Bid Request).

Q8:

Does DER anticipate awarding a single consultant contract or multiple?

A8:

DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q9:

The NAACC web links are both for the same structure and location. Please provide updated links.

A9:

Thank you for pointing out this error. The correct link for the Mason Street Culvert in Rehoboth is https://naacc.org/naacc_display_crossing_ts.cfm?tsId=ts217. The link to the Dublin Street Culvert in Somerset is correct:

https://naacc.org/naacc_display_crossing_ts.cfm?tsId=ts221. There was no NAACC assessment completed for the Old Providence Road site in Swansea.

We have also updated the bid request document with the correct links.

Q10:

Will DER be responsible for securing local regulatory approvals to conduct the requested geotechnical borings? If not, is that eƯort considered past of the available $50,000 per site?

A10:

As stated in the bid request under Task 2 of the Scope of Services “the selected bidder is expected to obtain any needed permissions and coordinate with the municipality or state if a publicly owned crossing”. Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications). This work should be considered as part of the available $50,000 per site.

Q11:

Please confirm that the requested design intent of the Old Providence Road crossing in Swansea is removal only?

A11:

That is correct, the intent of this project will be to evaluate potential removal (or partial removal) of the bridge, not replacement.

Q12:

With the bridge replacement on Old Providence Road being relatively recent, is there a geotechnical report available that would be adequate to avoid the need for additional field data collection? Also, does the desalination plant have a water intake pipe within or adjacent to the upland berm? Further question: Task 2 indicates that vegetation transitions upstream and downstream of the restriction should be documented. Is this intended to capture the transition from saline to freshwater habitats? Is this expected for the Palmer River, which would require fieldwork considerably farther upstream, beyond two other locations with tidal restrictions?

A12:

This information is currently unknown [Old Providence Road geotechnical report]. It is DER’s expectation that the selected bidder will work with the Town to gather this type of information if it is needed as part of the proposed scope of work (see Task 2 in Section III of the Bid Request).

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications). Please note that there is a separately funded eƯort in Swansea that is currently investigating the Palmer River system (see Section II Project Locations) which may provide additional information on that system.

Q13:

Could you please clarify the required submission format for the proposal? Should respondents only complete and submit the provided Word and Excel attachments, or should we also include additional materials, such as a cover letter, resumes, and relevant project experience, in a separate PDF?

A13:

Please only complete and submit the provided Vendor Response Word document and Budget Response Excel attachments. Respondents may provide examples of relevant project experience and explanations of staƯ qualifications within the Vendor Response Template however, please note that brevity is appreciated.

DER does not require a cover letter. Pre-qualified MA vendors should already have provided resumes for staƯ, and descriptions of relevant project experience in vendor applications under RFR ID #DER 2027 MSA. If the vendor is proposing any new staƯ that are not already approved under RFR ID #DER 2027 MSA, then DER would need a resume for proposed staƯ for review.

Q14:

The RFP says that contractors will submit a scope and fee proposal for a single site.

Does this mean that the contractor shall submit a separate scope and fee for each site that they're interested in, or are you asking contractors to only submit one generic scope and fee that may be used for either of the 3 sites? If the latter, how do we account for diƯerences in costs, like topographic survey, for each site?

A14:

DER is seeking a generalized Budget Response (MS Excel template) for a single site that could be applied to any of the three sites. Specific site budgets for each of the three sites will be finalized during the contract negotiation phase with a selected bidder.

The Vendor Response (MS Word template) scope of work should include tasks for all sites and also makes note of any specific tasks that are not applicable to all three sites for project specific budgets. As stated in Section III. Project specifications, “If there are specific tasks/sub-tasks that the bidder would like to suggest for a particular site (based on site-specific information provided in Section II above) please flag which site the task/sub-task is for and provide a budget line for this task/sub-task.”

DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q15:

Will a single contractor win all 3 sites?

A15:

DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Q16:

Can a single contractor win multiple sites if they can show cost savings and eƯiciencies gained for the Commonwealth?

A16:

DER will award a single vendor for preliminary field investigations of all three sites. A bidder’s proposal is for all three sites. DER intends to execute one contract per each site for cost accounting purposes.

Cost savings and eƯiciencies will be evaluated as part of overall value when reviewing bid responses.

Q17:

Does DER expect bidders to retain the task structure and associated deliverables outlined in Section III, or is there flexibility to modify, consolidate, or omit tasks and deliverables based on the bidder's recommended approach and the available budget?

A17:

As stated in Section III of the bid request DER has provided a general outline of tasks, but welcomes variations to the proposed approach, as appropriate.

A18:

Does DER anticipate any public or broader stakeholder engagement as part of these preliminary field investigations, beyond the coordination with DER, site owners, and project partners outlined in Tasks 1 and 3? If so, should bidders incorporate engagement activities into the proposed scope and budget?

A18:

DER does not anticipate broader stakeholder engagement at this time. Bidders should plan for coordination with DER, site owners, and project partners (if applicable), but do not need to propose any broader engagement activities.

A19:

Should the Existing Conditions Plans described in Task 3 consist of a single plan sheet for each site?

A19:

Yes, DER anticipates that for this phase of work, a single Existing Conditions Plans sheet per site is appropriate. Once negotiated, each of the three sites will have its own contract defining scope of work and required deliverables.

Q20:

Can DER clarify the anticipated level of detail for the Restoration Design recommendations and Concept Sketches identified in Task 3? Is the intent to provide high-level recommendations and conceptual illustrations of potential restoration approaches, or does DER anticipate more developed conceptual designs, including preliminary dimensions and elevations?

A20:

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on Field Data Collection Technical Memo assumptions in Task 3 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications).

Q21:

Is there a minimum site extent required for the existing conditions and wetland delineation/resource assessments? In other words, how far should the topographic survey and wetlands delineation areas extend upland of each bank, and how far upstream or downstream should the survey, wetlands delineation, and tidal study extend at each site?

A21:

DER anticipates that exact extents required for existing conditions and wetland resource assessments will be determined by the selected bidder once they have reviewed existing information and conducted an initial site visit (see Tasks 1 and 2 in the bid request). For the purposes of the bid response please use a best estimate of the minimum site extents needed based on the bidder’s understanding of the sites with the information at hand.

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications).

Q22:

In the culvert dimensions provided from NAACC (see: Display Naacc Tidal Aquatic Connectivity Assessment) what do "A," "B," "C," and "D" refer to?

A22:

“A” refers to the culvert width, “B” refers to the culvert height, “C” refers to the width of water or substrate at the bottom of the culvert (whichever is wider), and “D” refers to the depth of water in the culvert. All values are provided in feet. For a more detailed description of these dimensions and how they are measured please see the 2019 NAACC Tidal Stream Crossing Instruction Manual for Aquatic Passability Assessments

(https://streamcontinuity.org/sites/default/files/2024- 05/NAACC_Instructions%20for%20Tidal%20Crossings%208-23-19_0-UA.pdf).

Q23:

In the description of the Rehoboth site on page 3, the NAACC link directs to the Somerset site. Is there a NAACC link for the Rehoboth site?

A23:

Please see answer to Q9.

Q24:

What is the approximate depth of each body of water?

A24:

The water depth at the sites is currently unknown. Based on the NAACC tidal assessments, bidders can assume that the Somerset and Rehoboth sites are fairly shallow at low tide. The Old Providence Bridge site is on the main stem of the Palmer River and is deeper, however specific information is unknown. It is anticipated that this type of information will be assessed by the selected bidder as needed.

Q25:

What is the desired distance between survey cross-sections?

A25:

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications).

Q26:

Can more detail be provided regarding the defining of "vegetation transitions" for the survey scope?

A26:

Please see the revised bid request for additional details on field data collection assumptions in Task 2 of the Scope of Services (Section III. Project Specifications).

Q27:

Are there any existing topographic, bathymetric, utility, or other survey datasets available for the sites?

A27:

This information is currently unknown. If this information is available (from the site owner or other sources), it is anticipated that the selected bidder would compile and review it as part of the contracted scope of work.

Q28:

Are there established survey control points, benchmarks, or datum information (NAVD88, tidal datums, etc.) that can be provided for any of these sites?

A28:

If this information is available (from the site owner or other sources), it is anticipated that the selected bidder would compile and review any necessary existing information as part of the contracted scope of work.

Q29:

Are there any historical or ongoing water level, tidal, salinity, or temperature monitoring datasets available for any of these sites? Currently limited USGS data within the vicinity of the sites have been identified.

A29:

It is DER’s expectation that the selected bidder will work with the Towns to gather this type of information if it is needed as part of the proposed scope of work (see Task 2 in Section III of the Bid Request).

Q30:

Can DER provide the final design report, monitoring reports, survey files, tidal monitoring data, and as-built drawings from the 2010 Somerset Marsh Tidal Restoration Project?

A30:

DER has limited information for the 2010 Somerset Marsh Tidal Restoration Project, we have provided the following information. The selected bidder may request additional information from the Town.

2005 Pre-Restoration Tidal Monitoring Data (excel) 2005 Data Logger Locations Map (pdf) 2009 DRAFT Construction Plans (pdf) 2011 Somerset Marsh Tidal Assessment: Post-Construction Report (pdf)

Q31:

Within direct expenses, may vendors charge usage fees for use of data loggers for the required 30-day period of the project?

A31:

Vendors may not charge a usage fee for use of their own data loggers. As per the RFR ID #DER 2027 MSA “DER will not pay for the use of equipment that is owned by a vendor above and beyond the labor rate.”

Language from RFR ID #DER 2027 MSA:

Vendors are expected to provide and maintain reasonable levels of equipment and materials necessary to conduct the proposed work at their own expense. DER will not pay for the use of equipment that is owned by a vendor above and beyond the labor rate. Equipment for specific projects that is specialized or above and beyond standard equipment stock can be rented as authorized by DER on project specific basis. This equipment would be included in the project specific budget, and eligible for reimbursement

Individual project requests may specify specialized equipment that is necessary for the project. If a vendor does not have the specified equipment on hand, rental costs should be included in their project cost proposal as a direct expense, see section 3.5.

An updated bid request document has been posted to clarify project assumptions and correct a link. Please review prior to submitting a proposal. Several reference documents were also uploaded for review.