Madonna Creek Dam Repair Bio RFPQ_FEMA.pdf

RFPQ Madonna Creek Dam Repair Biological Services_Non-A&E Services – Federal Funding

Rev. July 2024

MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND QUALIFICATIONS (RFPQ)

April 17, 2025

INVITATION

The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is pleased to announce the opportunity to provide biological surveying, site clearing and monitoring services for the Madonna Creek Dam

Repair Project at Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve (“Project”). Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) financial assistance will be used to fund all or a portion of the

Project.

Copies of the RFPQ will be posted to the public-sector procurement platform, Bidnet, a link to which will be made available on the Bids and Proposals page of the District website, https://www.openspace.org/what-we-do/bids-proposals.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Brief Description of the Project

A. Location

The Project site is approximately 1.5 miles due east of the Highway 1 and Highway 92 interchange in Half Moon Bay and can be accessed via Muddy Road from Highway 92.

B. Site Conditions and Surroundings

Madonna Creek is an intermittent creek that generally flows in a northwest direction and is a tributary to Pilarcitos Creek. The creek drains a 1.7-square mile subbasin which consists of

Eucalyptus groves, shrubland, mixed riparian habitat, and flat farmland. Within the approximately 0.6-mile stretch of Madonna Creek and its floodplain lie two earthen dams roughly 2,000 feet apart (upper and lower) each impounding an upstream pond. Vegetation along the Project site, which solely consists of repairs to the lower dam, is composed of densely mixed riparian species.

C. Project Design Objectives and Requirements

The District is seeking to provide pre-construction biological surveys and biological monitoring services during construction of the Madonna Dam Repair Project. The Project scope consists of repairing and stabilizing the embankment immediately downslope of the lower dam. The downslope face of the earthen dam sustained damages during the winter storms of 2022/2023 due to an undersized spillway that led to the overtopping of the dam. Much of the existing slope has eroded due to the overtopping of the dam as well as undercutting at the base of the erosional feature due to seepage through the earthen dam. The erosional feature is planned to be restored to https://www.openspace.org/what-we-do/bids-proposals its original grade using engineered fill, rock slope protection, and native vegetation. The Project has acquired CEQA and regulatory permitting coverage under the District’s Programmatic Open

Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (OSMRP).

The Project is anticipated to take 54 working days to complete.

Scope of Work

Objectives

This RFPQ is intended to attract a qualified environmental and biological consulting firm to provide biological services including pre-construction biological site surveys, construction site clearance, and biological monitoring during construction.

1. Review of existing biological information for the site and complete additional biological

(wildlife) surveys required to assist project construction mitigation measures and best management practices included in the District’s OSMRP (Attachment 5).

2. Provide the District and Contractor with findings from their surveys and to provide recommendations on avoidance and clearance measures for SSS.

3. Review dewatering plan and provide comments on potential improvements to the plan.

Provide recommendations for any additional exclusionary measures within the dewatering plans to prevent harm to wildlife or aquatic species within the project site, if necessary.

4. Provide daily biological site clearance and construction monitoring. The selected consultant is anticipated to provide recommendations on the frequency and duration of required site clearance and monitoring services based on site conditions and observed environmental risks.

Scope of Work

The District is seeking to retain a qualified biological consulting firm to conduct the tasks listed below.

The Consultant shall provide environmental support for the Project. The Consultant shall assess potential ecological impacts and recommend best management practices to minimize environmental disturbances. This scope includes reviewing existing site information/project plans, conducting pre-construction biological assessments/surveys, and providing site clearance and biological monitoring during construction activities in accordance with the District’s

OSMRP BMPs (Attachment 5).

TASK 1 – REVIEW EXISTING SITE INFORMATION/COMPLETE BIOLOGICAL

SURVEYS

The consultant shall review the Madonna Creek California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment and Surveys, prepared by Californian Environmental Services, Inc. June 29, 2018 (Attachment

1), the site access map (Attachment 2), the Project site map (Attachment 3), site photos

(Attachment 8), the District’s OSMRP BMPs (Attachment 5), Minimizing Phytophthora BMPs

(Attachment 6) the OSMRP Project Notification form (Attachment 7), the Project construction plans (Attachment 9), and the District’s Data Schema (Attachment 10).

Provide the District with avoidance and wildlife screening recommendations.

Consultant shall conduct biological surveys, assessment and/or other documentation of sensitive species and habitats required to support project design and bio-monitoring efforts identified in

Task 2. Special status species (SSS) known to or have the potential to occur at the project locations include:

• California red-legged frog (CRLF; within critical habitat)

• San Francisco Dusky Footed Woodrat

• Migratory and nesting birds

Consultant shall review existing information pertaining to SSS documented in the project site including:

• Sensitive status species observations including, but not limited to:

• California Natural Diversity Database

• District SSS GIS layers

• Critical habitat areas

• Previous survey data and reports

Consultant shall prepare a wetland and jurisdictional delineation and quantify impacts jurisdictional areas. Rare plants are not present and not potential to be present in the Project site.

Consultant shall conduct pre-work site surveys to identify and locate, including GPS information, all sensitive natural resources, including occurrences of individuals, potential habitat, and nests/middens. Special attention shall be paid to CRLF and other SSS amphibians, noting their prevalence in the work areas, and identify number and locations of middens. Use

OSMRP BMPs to minimize impacts to SSS and to design for avoidance rather than handling, trapping or relocating. Consultant shall provide recommendations to reduce project impacts.

TASK 1 DELIVERABLES

• Final assessments/reports.

• Data layers or shapefiles showing locations of SSS and resources.

• Avoidance and wildlife screening recommendations.

• Meetings (2) 1-hour virtual meetings to discuss draft assessments/reports.

TASK 2 – BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

• Prior to Project construction, the contractor shall review the District’s flagging protocol

(Attachment 4) in order to identify sensitive natural resources and areas within the

Project site. The District will require that the selected consultant provide an environmental awareness training to all contracted workers working on the Project site.

During construction, the qualified biologist shall provide daily surveys and monitoring as necessary and determined by the qualified biologist, monitor construction activities and exclusionary measures if necessary.

TASK 2 DELIVERABLES

• Environmental awareness training for all workers on site as needed

• Pre-construction surveys

• Flagging and protection of sensitive natural resources within the project area consistent with District Flagging Protocol

• Daily morning pre-work surveys as needed

• Daily monitoring of exclusionary measures, work area delineation, and flagged sensitive features, prior to and during construction activities as needed

• Daily monitoring and inspection of potential dewatering or diversion facilities

• Routine checking of the contractor and confirmation that all phytophthora BMPs and weed-free certifications are being followed

• Ongoing adherence to all OSMRP BMPs applicable to the project site

• Project reporting and communication with District

TASK 3- PROJECT CLOESOUT

• Ensure all necessary steps are completed to formally close out the biological monitoring requirements detailed in the OSMRP BMPs and all other applicable guidance documents.

TASK 3 DELIVERABLES .

• Final report summarizing project compliance with protection of sensitive natural resources within project area in accordance with the District’s OSMRP. The Consultant shall also report any SSS observed within the project site within the duration of the

Project using the District’s Data Schema.

Project Funding and Federal Requirements

The Project is subject to FEMA grant funding in whole or in part and will be subject to a grant funding agreement (Grant Agreement), a copy of which will be provided to proposers upon request. The District’s Professional Services Agreement (Contract) includes required Federal contract requirements.

In addition, if a proposer anticipates utilizing subconsultants or subcontractors on the Project, the proposer must consider small businesses, minority businesses, women’s business enterprises, veteran-owned businesses, and labor surplus area firms for subcontracts, as set forth in 2 CFR §

200.321. Consideration means:

(A) These business types are included on solicitation lists;

(B) These business types are solicited whenever they are deemed eligible as potential sources;

(C) Dividing procurement transactions into separate procurements to permit maximum participation by these business types;

(D) Establishing delivery schedules that encourage participation by these business types;

(E) Utilizing organizations such as the Small Business Administration and the

Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce; and

(F) Requiring subcontractors to apply this section to lower-tier subcontracts, if any.

Project Budget (Independent Cost Estimate)

The District’s estimated budget for the Scope of Work is $55,000 (Independent Cost Estimate).

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Please keep Technical Proposals to no more than twelve pages, not including qualifications. The

Cost Proposal may be submitted in the same file as the Technical Proposal.

Technical Proposal

I. Proposed Approach

Provide a description of how the project team intends to complete the work, including a detailed list of any necessary tasks to complete the project that are not identified in the

Scope of Work identified above in the Project Description. Provide any exceptions to the

Project Schedule included in the Scope of Work.

II. Team Description

Provide a description of the Project team (including any proposed subconsultants) that addresses the following:

A. Project team structure. Provide an organizational chart or description of the probable Project team. Include all key Project team members and explain their role and responsibility throughout the project. Identify the Project team members who will be the daily contacts for contract administration.

B. Prior experience. Provide a summary of the background and specific pertinent expertise of key personnel, as well as a statement of their time commitment to the project. Include examples of the project team’s previous experience with comparable projects. Examples should emphasize projects that are withing California Red Legged

Frog (CRLF) habitat with similar infrastructure improvements, and projects that were subject to federal funding. Include descriptive information such as the character of the project, the scope of involvement, location of the project, and the completion of the project. Project teams are encouraged to include illustrations or photographs of work designed and/or developed by team members. Provide a description of the firm’s method of, and experience in, controlling project costs and schedules.

C. References. Provide a list of at least three current references that have relevant knowledge concerning the project team’s ability to manage similar projects. Names, affiliations, addresses, and current telephone numbers of all references must be provided.

III. Qualifications

Provide a biography describing the project team members’ individual qualifications and history, years in business, location(s), legal structure, ownership, organizational structure and key staff who would be committed to this project.

IV. Contract Template

Provide a statement of the firm’s acceptance of the Contract, including insurance and indemnification requirements. See attached the District’s Professional Services

Agreement Template. Please note that any additional contractual terms and conditions included with a proposal will not be considered part of the Contract.

Cost Proposal

Provide a detailed cost proposal that is divided by task. The Cost Proposal should include all anticipated reimbursable expenses as a separate line item(s), the charge rates of all personnel who are proposed to perform the work (including tasks to be performed by subconsultants), and an hourly rate schedule for other individuals who are not specifically identified as part of the proposed Project team, and any other costs or expenses. Provide a description of the key assumptions underlying the Cost Proposal. If appropriate, identify cost saving strategies as well.

NOTE: If the District’s Independent Cost Estimate exceeds the Simplified Acquisition

Threshold, Cost Proposals must be based on rates, charges and expenses without markup and include, as a separate line item, the proposed profit percentage markup for the Scope of

Work. The allowable profit percentage/fixed fee markup cannot exceed 15%.

SELECTION PROCESS

This RFPQ is being distributed to firms who have come to our attention based on the quality of their work and also has been posted on the District website and on Bidnet for dissemination to the general public to elicit proposals from an array of interested firms.

Additionally, the District maintains a file of consultants qualified to perform projects in their appropriate professional services categories. Firms that are deemed qualified through this solicitation, even if not awarded a contract for this work, will be identified on a list of prequalified consultants for future similar work.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used to evaluate written proposals.

1. Quality of Proposal

A. Consistency with the objectives

B. Demonstrating an understanding of the project

C. Fulfilling proposal requirements as described in this RFPQ

D. Overall presentation

2. Implementation Approach

A. Organization, structure and responsibilities of the project team

B. Proposed approach

C. Proposed strategies to reduce time and costs

3. Implementation Expertise

A. Proven track record, the technical ability of the team to accomplish the District’s goals

B. Background, qualifications, experience and expertise of the firm (including subconsultants) in similar projects

4. Additional Considerations

A. Working within similar CRLF habitat and infrastructure projects

B. Working on other FEMA funded projects

5. Cost Proposal

A. Cost Proposal represents a fair and reasonable price to the District compared to other

Cost Proposals received and District’s Independent Cost Estimate

The District will establish an evaluation panel to score the proposals. Each member of this panel will evaluate and score each proposal. A proposer’s final numerical score for its written proposal will be the average of the numerical scores given by each member of the evaluation panel for that proposal. The below table identifies the maximum points that may be awarded for each category that will be evaluated in the proposals and the Total Score (Proposal).

Proposal Scoring

SECTION Maximum Points Available

1. Quality of Proposal 20 (Section total)

a. Consistency with the objectives 5

b. Understanding of the project 5

c. Overall presentation 10

2. Proposed Approach and Staffing 30 (Section total)

a. Organization, structure and responsibilities of the project team

b. Proposed approach 10

c. Proposed strategies to reduce time and costs

3. Technical Experience 40 (Section total)

a. Statement of Experience 30

b. List of References 10

4. Additional Considerations 15 (Section Total)

a. Working within similar CRLF habitat and 10 infrastructure projects

b. Previous experience working on other

FEMA funded projects

5. Cost Proposal 5 (Section Total)

a. Price is fair and reasonable 5

Total Score (Proposal) 110

Interview Evaluation Criteria

As part of its evaluation of qualifications and proposals, the District reserves the right to conduct interviews with the top-ranked proposers based on the Total Score (Proposal). Interviews may be by telephone, video conference or by in-person presentation/interview. If the District decides to conduct interviews, it will determine how many of the highest ranked proposers based on the

Total Score (Proposal) it will interview. For example, if the District decides to interview three

(3) proposers, it will interview the three (3) highest-ranked proposers.

If the District elects not to conduct interviews, the final scoring and ranking will be based on the

Total Score (Proposal). If the District elects to conduct interviews, the final scoring and ranking will be based on the sum of the Total Score (Proposal) and Total Score (Interview). There will be a maximum of fifty (50) points available for the interviews. The total maximum points for the

RFPQ is one hundred sixty (160) points.

The District will establish an interview panel, which may include some or all of the same persons who evaluated the written proposals. Each member of this panel will evaluate and score each interviewed proposer based upon the overall impression of the proposers’ ability to successfully complete the Project consistent with the District’s expectations. Factors that will be evaluated are: (1) the proposer’s ability to clearly communicate its understanding of the District’s objectives and its vision to achieve such objectives; (2) the proposer’s enthusiasm for, and commitment to, the Project; (3) proposer’s willingness to work with the District in a cooperative, flexible, constructive, and transparent manner; and (4) the content and organization of the proposer’s presentation and its ability to effectively respond to questions posed by the District during the interview. A proposer’s final numerical score for its interview will be the average of the numerical scores given by each member of the evaluation panel for that interview. The below table identifies the maximum points that may be awarded for each category that will be evaluated in the interview and the Total Score (Interview).

Interview Scoring

SECTION Maximum Points Available

1. Understanding of District Objectives 20 (Section total)

2. Commitment to Project 10 (Section total)

3. Working Relationship 10 (Section total)

4. Overall Interview Presentation 10 (Section Total)

Total Score (Interview) 50

The District reserves the right to have discussions with any or all of the proposers at any time during the evaluation process to clarify information in a proposal or request additional information to supplement a proposal. The District also reserves the right to rely on information outside of the proposals or received from sources other than respondents.

Negotiation and Basis of Award

The District will provide notification to responding proposers of the final ranking and scoring based on the Total Score (Proposal) and Total Score (Interview), if applicable (Final Ranking).

The Final Ranking will include a minimum of three (3) consultants, if possible. After the District issues the Final Ranking, it will attempt to negotiate a contract with the top-ranked proposer. If the District is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the top-ranked proposer, it may terminate the negotiation and commence or continue negotiations with other proposers. The

District reserves the right to negotiate with any or all of the proposers at any time, terminate negotiations with any proposer at any time and/or terminate the RFPQ process at any time.

The District will recommend award of the Contract to the responsible proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with price and other factors considered, and with whom the

District has reached agreement. The recommended award will not be on a “low bid” basis.

RFPQ and Contract Award Schedule

The following is a tentative schedule that is subject to change. The District will inform all proposers of changes in the schedule via Bidnet.

May 23, 2025

June 2, 2025

June 3, 2025

June 4, 2025

July 9, 2025

Deadline to receive proposals

Firm presentations / interviews (if deemed necessary)

District issues Final Ranking

Begin negotiations with top-ranked firm(s)

Board of Directors approves Contract

Requests for Additional Information and Questions

All questions, and/or requests for explanation are due by 4:00 PM, May 8, 2025. Answers will be provided no later than 4:00 PM, May 14, 2025. Questions may be emailed

(syao@openspace.org), or mailed or hand-delivered to the District’s Administrative Office, 5050

El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA, 94022. All the questions and answers will be listed as an addendum to the RFPQ and posted to Bidnet. The District reserves the right to post addenda until 48 hours prior to the proposal submittal date and time.

The addenda issued by the District on Bidnet become part of this RFPQ. Each proposer is responsible for checking Bidnet for addenda, notices, and answers to questions to ensure they have access to all pertinent information. In the event a proposer obtains information about this

RFPQ through any means other than Bidnet, the District will not be responsible for the completeness, accuracy or timeliness of the final RFPQ document. Proposers can rely only on this RFPQ and any subsequent addenda, notices, and answers issued by the District on Bidnet.

Proposer cannot rely on any other written or any oral statements of the District or its officers, Directors, employees or agents regarding matters covered by the RFPQ, including information that is sent separately via email.

Communication Restrictions

With the exception of the pre-proposal conference, interviews or discussions initiated by the

District staff to clarify information in a proposal or request additional information to supplement a proposal, proposers shall not communicate with any evaluation panelists or District staff, other than Sean Yao, Capital Project Manager I, regarding this solicitation until after the award of contract. Attempts to contact District staff other than the Capital Project Manager during the solicitation process may result in disqualification.

Proposers may not collude, directly or indirectly, among themselves in regard to this solicitation;

attempt to influence any other proposers or potential respondents or participants in the solicitation process, including District staff member or evaluation panelists; or submit incorrect information in the response to this RFPQ or misrepresent or fail to disclose material facts during the evaluation process. Any evidence that indicates that a proposer has failed to adhere to the above may result in the proposer’s disqualification from the solicitation.

PROPOSAL DEADLINE

One (1) copy of each final proposal is to be submitted in electronic format (Microsoft Word and/or Adobe PDF) by 4:00 PM, May 23, 2025, to Sean Yao, Capital Project Manager I, (syao@openspace.org). The District at its sole discretion may grant an extension to all candidates if circumstances require additional time.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

Two optional site tours have been scheduled on April 29th at 1:00 PM and May 1st at 12:00 PM.

If you plan on attending, you must RSVP to Sean Yao, Capital Project Manager I, at syao@openspace.org by 4:00 PM the day prior.

VISITING THE PROJECT SITE

Access to the proposed project site requires a District permit to enter. All off-trail navigation, including within the study area, is currently prohibited unless prior District approval in written form is obtained. If you wish to visit the site, please contact Sean Yao, at (650) 772-3645 to obtain the necessary clearance.

GENERAL STIPULATIONS

The District is not responsible for any expenses which proposers may incur in preparing and submitting the proposal. The District will not be liable for any costs incurred by the proposers that are related to the RFPQ process; this includes production of the proposal, interviews/presentations, travel and accommodations. The District reserves the right to request or negotiate modifications to the proposals that are deemed appropriate. All proposals received from proposers in response to this RFPQ will become the property of the District and will not be mailto:syao@openspace.org returned to the proposers. In the event of contract award, all documentation produced as part of the contract will become the exclusive property of the District. The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive minor irregularities. The District also reserves the right to seek new proposals or re-advertise if responses have not been satisfactory or for any other reason.

PUBLIC RECORDS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, INDEMNIFICATION

The District recognizes that proposers will occasionally believe that all or portions of their proposals are confidential or proprietary. This can present problems in participating in a public agency RFPQ process. All proposals, strategies, supporting information, rate schedules and other information and documents are presumptively public records under the California Public

Records Act (Gov’t Code section 6250 et seq.), subject to prompt disclosure upon request by any member of the public.

The District is not soliciting, does not wish to receive, and will not treat any information received under this proposal as proprietary or confidential information, unless specifically called for or expressly accepted by the District General Counsel in writing, and will be accepted and considered only when, in the sole discretion of the District it is necessary to serve the public purpose of the project. If the inclusion of confidential or proprietary information is determined to be necessary to the proposal, proposers must identify each and every specific item and each and every page, and segregate the information into a separate envelope or electronic file labeled conspicuously as confidential, with a cover page describing the information and applicable law exempting the same from disclosure. Any material marked or claimed as confidential or proprietary may be returned to the proposer by the District or destroyed and may not be considered in the review of proposals if the claim does not appear justified or would inhibit the public purposes of the project proposed.

If the documents have been properly marked and expressly accepted as confidential and proprietary in writing by the District General Counsel, the District will make its best effort to advise the proposer of any Public Records Act request, should any be received, seeking documents claimed to be confidential or proprietary, to give the proposer an opportunity to take legal steps to protect such property from disclosure to third-party requester. The District expressly disclaims any duty and will not defend the confidentiality or proprietary nature of any information submitted. By submitting any confidential or proprietary information to the

District, the proposer agrees to holds harmless and indemnify and defend the District and its officers, employees, and agents for any and all costs, including attorneys fees, incurred by the District or awarded to a Public Records Act requester relating to a request for release of proposer’s data should the proposer ask the information to be handled as proprietary or confidential.

All proposals will be held as confidential until the District has completed its evaluation, negotiated the Contract with the selected proposer and made its notice to recommend award to the Board of Directors. All proposers will receive notice of the District’s recommendation to award through Bidnet. All proposals and other records related to this RFPQ shall not be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act until the District issues the notice of recommended award.

PROTESTS

If a proposer wants to dispute an award recommendation, it must submit a protest in writing to the District no later than five (5) business days after the District publishes its notice of recommended award. All protests must detail the grounds and factual basis for the protest and provide all supporting information. Protests will not be considered for any the following: non-responsive proposals; late submission of proposals; or a dispute regarding the RFPQ requirements and/or specifications that could have been addressed by submitting a question and/or objection. Failure to submit a timely written protest to the contact listed below will bar consideration of the protest.

Protests must be submitted to Sean Yao, Capital Project Manager I, syao@openspace.org.

The Assistant General Manager, or designee, will issue a written decision on any protest. The decision may be based on the written protest alone or may informally gather evidence from the protestor filing the protest or any other person having relevant information. The determination of the Assistant General Manager, or designee, on the protest shall be final and non-appealable. No public hearing will be held on the protest. Time being of the essence, the District reserves the right to proceed with award and commencement of the Project notwithstanding any pending protest or legal challenge.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1) Madonna Creek CRLF Habitat and Assessment Survey

2) Project Access Map

3) Project Site Map

4) Wildlife Flagging Protocol

5) District OSMRP BMPs

6) Minimizing Phytophthora Contamination

7) OSMRP Project Notification Sheet

8) Project Site Photos

9) Project Plans

10) District’s Data Schema

11) Davis Bacon Wage Determination

12) District Professional Services Agreement Template