MCDD Levee Rehabilitation RFP No. S-C26014-00008932.pdf

MCDD LEVEE REHABILITATIONS FOR FEMA ACCREDITATION

RFP No. S-C26014-00008932

4837-4949-6507.4

MULTNOMAH COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT #1

1880 NE ELROD DRIVE

PORTLAND, OR 97211

Request for Proposals ("RFP")

MCDD LEVEE REHABILITATIONS FOR FEMA ACCREDITATION ENGINEERING

SERVICES

RFP No. S-C26014-00008932

Performed on behalf of:

MULTNOMAH COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT #1

COLUMBIA CORRIDOR DRAINAGE DISTRICTS JOINT CONTRACTING AUTHORITY

January 8, 2024

Pre-Qualification:

Required Not Required

Pre-Proposal On-Site Conference:

An optional on-site pre-proposal conference will be held for this solicitation on January 16, 2024, from 2:00 to 4:00. Attendees will meet at the MCDD office: 1880 NE Elrod Drive, Portland, OR 97211, walk to the Sunderland project site, and subsequently drive to the Salmon Creek levee project site.

Proposals Due: Not later than 2:00:00 P.M. PST, February 5, 2024 Late proposals will not be accepted or considered.

Submit Proposals to: Electronic Email Address: nhandley@mcdd.org

Direct Questions in writing to:

Procurement Contact: Nicole Handley Email: nhandley@mcdd.org

RFP Page #1 of 57 mailto:nhandley@mcdd.org

-2-

4837-4949-6507.4

RFP Availability:

This RFP is available electronically through the OregonBuys website at https://oregonbuys.gov/bso. Interested parties must be registered with OregonBuys to obtain and download documents. Registration is at no cost. Future notices regarding this solicitation, including solicitation addenda, will be posted to OregonBuys. See the State Procurement OregonBuys website at https://oregonbuys.gov/bso for additional information regarding use of the OregonBuys system.

RFP Documents:

RFP MCDD Levee Rehabilitations for FEMA Accreditation

Attachment A: Sample of Proposed Contract

Documents Required in Proposal:

Attachment B: Proposer Information Form/Certifications

Attachment C: Proposer Residency Information

Attachment D: Certification Statement for Corporation or Independent Contractor

Attachment E: Insurance Requirements

Attachment F: Workers’ Compensation Exemption Certificate

Attachment G: Affidavit of Non-Collusion

Attachment H: References

Additional Documents for Reference:

Attachment I: Multnomah County Drainage District, Levee Engineering Assessment, Cornforth Consultants Inc., 2019

Attachment J: Levee Ready Columbia Technical Advisory Subcommittee, Certification Project Business Cases (IGA 5 and 6), 2021

Attachment K: Supplemental Geotechnical Letter Reports for MCDD Salmon Creek Slough Animal Burrows and MCDD Columbia Slough South Levee, Cornforth Consultants Inc., 2023

Attachment L: Chinook Landing Levee Burrowing Mammal and Woody Vegetation Intrusion Study, ESA, 2023

Attachment M: Design Memorandum, Multnomah County Drainage District No. 1, Lower Columbia River Improvement to Existing Works (Oregon and Washington), US Army Corps of Engineers, 1957

RFP Page #2 of 57 https://oregonbuys.gov/bso https://oregonbuys.gov/bso

-3-

Attachment N: Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019

1. Introduction

Multnomah County Drainage District (“MCDD”), Columbia Corridor Drainage Districts Joint Contracting Authority (“JCA”), referred to collectively as “the Districts” or “Districts”, seeks written proposals from qualified vendors able to provide permitting, professional engineering design, bid assistance, and construction support related to rehabilitating two levee segments.

See Section 7 of this Request for Proposal (RFP) for detailed Scope of Work information.

The Districts intends to award a single engineering services project contract.

The Districts anticipates entering into one, non-exclusive, not-to-exceed contract with the Consultant’s team for all the Services included within the RFP. All necessary permits, permit exemptions, and approvals shall be obtained under this contract. The owner reserves the right to reorganize the design delivery at the agency’s own discretion.

The contract term will be five (5) years; three years dedicated to design.

The contract resulting from this RFP is anticipated to be awarded in Not-to-Exceed amount of $1,379,000.

2. About Districts and Contract Administration

MCDD is a special district government that provides flood protection for residents and businesses within its jurisdiction. MCDD has an elected five-member Board that makes decisions within MCDD’s purview. MCDD has intergovernmental agreements with three other drainage districts in Multnomah County, Peninsula Drainage District #1, Peninsula Drainage District #2, and Sandy Drainage Improvement Company (including MCDD, collectively: “Districts”) to perform maintenance and manage operations in those Districts as well. The Districts collectively extend from the edge of Smith and Bybee Lakes on the west to the Sandy River on the east, with the Columbia River as the northern border and the Columbia Slough as the approximate southern boundary. MCDD helps protect lives and property from flooding by operating and maintaining stormwater and flood management systems for over 12,500 acres of land along the Columbia Slough and the lower Columbia River. These systems include: 27 miles of levee, 13 pump stations, and 45 miles of ditches, sloughs, streams, and culverts over the Districts.

Additionally, in 2015, MCDD, PEN 1, PEN 2, and SDIC formed the Columbia Corridor Drainage Districts Joint Contracting Authority (JCA), an intergovernmental entity under ORS 190. JCA has been delegated contracting authority and financial management for multi-district projects, as well as projects specifically related to levees and levee certification

RFP Page #3 of 57

-4-

This RFP describes the anticipated scope of services, the information that must be included in all proposals, and the proposal selection process.

3. About the Projects

This work covers two projects that are required to certify the levees and accredit the system under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As part of the District’s re-certification effort, Cornforth Consultants, Inc., a Portland, Oregon based geotechnical firm, identified two projects in their 2019 MCDD Levee Engineering Assessment Report (Attachment I). Subsequently, local stakeholders, the Levee Ready Columbia (LRC) partnership, conducted a preliminary assessment to identify potential alternatives that could address the identified levee performance deficiencies (Attachment J).

Project Assessments:

Sunderland Levee Rehabilitation:

A segment of the Columbia Slough levee near its transition to the Peninsula Canal does not meet compliance criteria per FEMA 44 CFR 65.10 regulations. The factor of safety (FS) for slope stability has been identified to be below the minimum 1.4 USACE requirement at two typical sections (Cornforth, 2019). Additional sections of the levee were analyzed by Cornforth in an alternatives analysis that determined the length of mitigation required. The insufficient safety factor is primarily due to an over-steepened riverward levee toe. An analysis of an existing elevation model confirms the levee toe is steeper than 2H:1V between identified levee stations. In order to meet compliance for FEMA certification, the project aims to reduce the toe slope to 2H:1V and increase the factor of safety to a 1.4 minimum. Based on review of available information, the extent between the two identified sections of levee is approximately 2,400 linear feet of improvement.

The LRC partnership identified two mitigation alternatives that could address this issue.

Both alternatives aim to reduce the slope of the levee toe to a minimum 2H:1V. Riprap will be installed for approximately 2,400 linear feet of levee at a thickness of 24-inches and height of approximately 15-feet. This solution forms the basis for alternative IGA5.A. Alternative IGA5.B builds on this same solution by creating an additional 10-foot bench using levee fill that will overlay the riprap. This additional fill will allow for additional planting and restoration actions to improve riparian habitat.

The project’s 2023 Supplemental Geotechnical Report – MCDD Columbia Slough South Levee (Attachment K) provided further development of these alternatives through additional survey and slope stability analyses. It concluded that both alternatives could meet the minimum FS if thicker riprap inlay and a keyed in riprap toe were added.

Salmon Creek Levee Rehabilitation:

This project focuses on a section of the MCDD levee along Marine Drive near the Chinook Landing Marine Park. Heavy animal activity (i.e. burrowing), naturalization of

RFP Page #4 of 57

-5-levee toe along with resulting erosion and levee integrity concerns. The extent of beaver burrows and indicators (Attachment L) indicate potential need to evaluate geotechnical impacts to the levee and Marine Drive prism and future stability. The project aims to repair the damage caused by animal burrowing and improve the riverward embankment, providing increased stability and countermeasures to prevent future burrowing from occurring. Approximately 1,700 linear feet of levee prism has currently been identified for repair and improvement.

The LRC partnership identified three mitigation alternatives that could address this issue.

Alternative IGA6.A aims to provide a stable 3H:1V embankment from the top of the existing levee prism to the toe of the channel. Rip rap (or welded wire) will be placed underneath level fill to prevent future burrowing. The alternative provides the most conservative potential solution, maximizing the levee fill required to address the project needs, resulting in the greatest footprint of encroachment into Salmon Creek.

Alternative IGA6.B aims to maximize habitat potential and minimize channel encroachment by placing material at a steeper than the USACE EM 1110-2-1913 recommendation of 3H:1V for maintenance. Levee fill will be installed between 1.5H - 2H:1V from the top of the existing levee prism to the toe of the channel.

A bench will be constructed to maximize habitat benefit with a burrowing mammal-resistant barrier placed at the interface with the levee prism to prevent future burrowing;

the bench will be approximately 10-ft wide resulting in steeper side slopes (2H:1V) to avoid excessive channel impacts and permitting challenges.

Alternative IGA6.C aims to minimize project cost by installing a sheet pile cut off wall in the existing levee prism to prevent future burrowing. Trees exist near the sheet pile and might require root-pruning to better manage the driving of sheet pile on the landward side of their root zones, without causing long term mortality. The area riverward of the sheet pile is otherwise not disturbed. Preliminary geotechnical analysis of the levee concludes a low risk associated to oversteepening due to the wide existing prism.

The project’s 2023 Supplemental Geotechnical Report - MCDD Salmon Creek Slough Animal Burrows revealed that neither Alternatives IGA6.A nor IGA6.B meet the USACE minimum FS criteria for slope stability. However, IGA6.C does meet this criterion. This report also offered a fourth alternative: a levee setback. This option would add more material on the south side of the levee to create a new 12-foot-wide crest and 3H:1V landward slope, keeping the levee centerline parallel to the existing centerline. This alternative also meets the FS criterion for slope stability.

Permitting services are expected to lead the Districts through all appropriate Federal, State, and local permitting requirements, as applicable for a flood control district operating along the Columbia Slough and Columbia River. An Alternatives Analysis to maximize ecological benefits will also be included in the scope of work. The engineering design services are expected to be multi-disciplinary, and likely to include efforts from geotechnical, environmental, and structural engineering disciplines.

RFP Page #5 of 57

-6-

4. Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District

In 2025 the Districts are expected to merge to form the Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District (the “UFSWQD”). The Oregon State Legislature created this district during the 2019 legislative session under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 550 to modernize the management of 27 miles of levee and water conveyance system that run from North Portland through Gresham, Fairview, and Troutdale. This new special district will ultimately replace the four independent Drainage Districts, each of which currently manages parts of the system, and help to establish a safer, more modern and sustainable way to manage flood safety along the Columbia River in the Portland metropolitan region. The UFSWQD will continue the work of the four drainage districts in operating, maintaining, and improving the local flood safety infrastructure along the Columbia River and responding to flood emergencies. The UFSWQD will also take on some new services, including:

• Contributing to improved water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and landscape resilience in the managed floodplain;

• Promoting equity and social justice in all aspects of the district’s operations;

• Preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change in relation to the managed floodplain;

• Providing the public with information regarding the infrastructure and the history of the managed floodplain.

A complete version of ORS 550 is located on the state’s website, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors550.html. The expectation is that this project design includes elements that advance these new UFSWQD services.

5. Timeline/Deadlines

ACTIVITY DATE

Issuance of Request for Proposal January 8, 2024 Deadline for Protest of Solicitation Documents January 16, 2024 Optional On-site Pre-Proposal Conference January 16, 2024 Deadline for Questions/Clarifications January 26, 2024, 2 p.m. PST Deadline for Addenda January 31, 2024, 2 p.m. PST Deadline to Withdraw from RFP Process Any time prior to proposal due date.

Deadline for Submission of Proposals February 5, 2024, 2 p.m. PST Initial Evaluation of Proposals February 12-16, 2024 Notice of Intent to Award (if no interviews) February 26, 2024 Interviews (if required by Districts) February 20-23, 2024 Notice of Intent to Award (if interviews held) February 23, 2024 Board Approval of Award if No Interview February 27, 2024 Deadline for filing Protest of Award (if no interviews)

March 4, 2024

Anticipated Contract Start if No Interview March 11, 2024

RFP Page #6 of 57 https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors550.html

-7-

Deadline for Filing Protest of Award (if interviews held)

March 1, 2024

Board Approval if Interview March 19, 2024 Anticipated Contract Start (if interviews held) March 31, 2024 Sunderland Levee Rehabilitation Project Pre-Design Phase Conclusion September 30, 2024 Design Phase Conclusion December 31, 2025 Construction NTP May 1, 2026 Project Completion Date December 31, 2026 Salmon Creek Levee Rehabilitation Project Pre-Design Phase Conclusion September 30, 2024 Design Phase Conclusion December 31, 2025 Construction NTP September 1, 2026 Project Completion Date June 30, 2027

The Districts reserves the right to deviate from this schedule.

6. RFP Clarifications and Protests; Addenda

6.1. Informal Questions or Requests for Clarification

Any proposer requiring clarification of the information provided in this RFP may submit specific questions or comments in writing to the Procurement Contact shown on page 1 of this document. Email is the preferred form of written communication. The deadline for submitting such questions is set forth in Section 5.

6.2. Request for Clarification or Protest of Solicitation or Contract Documents

Any proposer wishing to protest this RFP or request clarification of any provision, specification, or contract term contained in the solicitation documents, must submit such questions, comments, or protests in writing to:

Procurement Contact: Nicole Handley Phone: 971.378.2078 Email: nhandley@mcdd.org

The deadline for submitting such protests is set forth in Section 5.

6.3. Content of Solicitation Protest/Request for Clarification

The proposer's written request for clarification or protest of the RFP must include all of the following and otherwise comply with OAR 137-048-0240(1):

6.3.1.1.Sufficient information to identify the solicitation that is the subject of the protest or request;

RFP Page #7 of 57

-8-

6.3.1.2.The reasons for the protest or request, including any grounds that demonstrate how the procurement process is contrary to law or how the solicitation document is unnecessarily restrictive, or is legally flawed;

6.3.1.3.Evidence or supporting documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based; and

6.3.1.4.A statement of the desired changes to the procurement process or the solicitation document that the proposer believes will remedy the conditions upon which the proposer based its protest or request.

6.4. Addenda

If the Districts determines that a change or clarification to the solicitation documents is necessary, such information, clarification, or interpretation will be supplied in a written addendum, sent to all vendors requesting solicitation document.

Those who have registered their interest in the solicitation through request of solicitation document will be notified of addenda via email. Addenda will have the same binding effect as though contained in this RFP. The Procurement Specialist will issue all addenda. Unless otherwise specified within an addendum, Districts issuance of addenda will not extend the proposal due date and time.

Minor clerical errors related to or within addenda issued by Districts, including clerical errors in an addendum’s numbering or title, do not remove the responsibility of the proposer to acknowledge all addenda. If there are any questions related to the contents of the addenda, or how to interpret them, it is the responsibility of the proposer to elevate those concerns for the Districts consideration.

Statements made by the Districts’ representatives are not binding on the Districts unless confirmed by a written addendum.

6.5. Extension of Closing

The Districts may extend the proposal due date and time set forth in Section 5 if it determines an extension is necessary to consider and respond to a properly filed protest under this Section 6..

RFP Page #8 of 57

-9-

7. Scope of Work

The purpose of these projects is to repair levee segments in order to make the levee safer by reducing the steep slope, improving stability and seepage to meet the federal requirements. Where possible, the project will integrate strategies for climate resilience, environmental improvement, and sharing the cultural history of the region.

7.1. Phase 1: Pre-design and Design Phases

7.1.1. Pre-design: The pre-design phase of the projects, at a minimum, will include:

• Define design objectives and criteria.

• Determine all permitting requirements and appropriate flood control district exemptions to permits. Prepare permitting documents including drawings and figures.

• Perform any geotechnical exploration efforts necessary to complete design. Refer to supplied Attachments for existing geotechnical information.

• Begin permitting efforts and submissions to maintain a Ready for Construction (RFC).

• Complete an Alternatives Analysis with at least three possible options to achieve the goals of each project.

• Provide a project schedule to MCDD which will include monthly project updates and quarterly milestone meetings.

• Evaluate site for construction access and determine where access may need improvements.

• Integrate existing pedestrian path access from the levee crest to the existing path (Salmon Creek Site)

• Conduct a workshop with MCDD staff and Districts Stakeholders to review and discuss the alternatives and select a preferred alternative.

• Develop a public involvement plan that outlines a communications strategy through all project phases to inform and engage with relevant stakeholders.

• Prepare plan and profile design for 30% design completion.

• Submit 30% plans to the US Army Corps of Engineers to begin 408 permitting review.

• Prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate.

• Prepare draft and final Pre-design Report.

7.1.2. Design: The design phase of the project will, at a minimum, include:

RFP Page #9 of 57

-10-

• Conduct a workshop with MCDD staff and Districts Stakeholders to review and discuss the 30% design, pre-design report and construction cost estimate.

• Develop and submit 60%, 90%, and 100% design packages for MCDD review and comments including drawings, specifications in 6-digit CSI format, cost estimates for construction and a projected construction schedule.

• Prepare exhibits, drawings, figures, and technical information and obtain approval for all other permits.

• Prepare a complete bid items list reflecting the project specifications and all anticipated project work.

• Conduct meetings with MCDD staff to review and discuss the 60% and 90% design, specifications, construction cost estimate and schedules and bid items.

• Develop and submit stamped 100% plans and specifications, an engineer’s estimate on construction cost, a detailed construction schedule and final bid items.

• Develop structural design calculations for MCDD review if required for new or reconditioned support structures.

• Prepare a Final Basis of Design Report.

• Complete additional bid documents to support MCDD Construction Bid

Book.

7.2. Phase 2: Services during Bid, Construction, and Close-out Phases

7.2.1. Bid Phase Services: Services to be provided during the bid and award phase of the project will, at a minimum, include:

• Attend pre-bid meeting.

• Respond to bidder’s questions, per MCDD’s request.

• Prepare materials for bid addendums, including updated plans and special provisions

• Review submitted bids for responsiveness.

• Provide bid review summary with comparison to Engineer’s estimate and review with MCDD staff.

7.2.2. Construction: Services to be provided during the construction phase of the project will, at a minimum, include:

• Serve as the Districts’ construction manager as the primary point of contract and to ensure project success.

• Attend pre-construction and weekly status meetings.

• Review and respond to shop drawings, submittals, material certifications, testing requirements, change orders, and requests for information (RFIs).

RFP Page #10 of 57

-11-

• On-site construction activity monitoring and inspection reports, as necessary.

• Provide a summary of weekly construction activities and identify any contractor performance concerns.

• Receive and review contractor’s applications for payment.

• Confirm substantial completion and manage punch list items.

7.2.3. Close-out: Services to be provided during the close-out phase of the project will, at a minimum, include:

• Complete O&M plans as appropriate.

• Prepare record (As-Built) drawings (PDF and velum copies).

• Assemble and deliver all project files for the Districts’ archives.

• Contribute to the Districts’ final project report describing lessons learned.

8. Proposal Format, Content, and Submission

8.1. Proposal Format

Districts proposal standards:

8.1.1. Proposal includes a one-page cover letter as the first page of the proposal.

8.1.2. Proposal includes Attachments B, C, D, F, G, and H (not included in page count).

8.1.3. Proposal addresses all evaluation criteria in the order presented in Section 8.4.

8.1.4. Proposal may not exceed 20 pages in length. Reports, resumes, and required Attachments do not count.

Please do not include sales or promotional materials as part of proposal, unless requested.

8.2. Attachments: Proposer Certifications and Representations

Each proposal must include completed Attachments B, C, D, F, G, and H, signed electronically. Acceptable forms of electronic signature include a scanned copy of a handwritten signature on each respective Attachment form or a signature made on each Attachment form using Adobe’s Fill and Sign Digital Signature.

RFP Page #11 of 57

-12-

8.3. Proposal Content

Proposals must provide all information requested and required under this RFP.

Proposals that do not provide all such information may be rejected as non-responsive.

8.4. Proposal Responses to Evaluation Criteria

Each proposal must address each of the following Evaluation Criteria completely, and in the order provided:

8.4.1. Evaluation Criteria

Written Evaluation Criteria

Team structure and key personnel qualifications

• Identify the proposed project manager and other key personnel with prime and sub-contractors. Provide the following for these project team members:

• Their education, background, directly related work experience, professional development and licenses.

• Their unique qualifications.

• Their roles and responsibilities on this project.

• Percent availability for this project

• Home office location

• Resumes for key individuals who will be assigned to the work.

• Evidence to demonstrate ability of the project team, project manager, and key personnel to meet work schedules and budgets.

• Description of the quality control measures to be used related to technical products, budget, and schedule.

Maximum Points Available: 15

Team experience conducting inspection and design of levee infrastructure with similar characteristics:

• Provide descriptions of a minimum of three (3) projects for the prime consultant and one (1) project for each sub-consultant that exemplifies their abilities to provide services outlined in the Scope of Work.

• Explain relevant experience developing designs and providing design services during construction under the Authorities including, but not limited to, local (the cities of Portland and Fairview), state (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of State Lands, Department of

Maximum Points Available: 15

RFP Page #12 of 57

-13-

Environmental Quality), and federal (United States Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service) entities.

• Please note start and end dates for each of the above projects.

• Please also include references – point of contact and phone number – for each of these projects.

Team experience providing construction management support during bidding and construction phases:

• Include minimum of three (3) relevant projects where the prime consultant has conducted construction management services.

• Key members’ proximity to the construction site (e.g. ability to meet the owner’s representatives and respond to required field activities).

• Please note start and end dates for each of the above projects.

• Please also include references – point of contact and phone number – for each of these projects.

Maximum Points Available: 15

Understanding and approach to complete Services :

• Summarize the project management approach to complete this work, including topics such as: lines of authority, internal procedures to address work quality and cost control, and change management.

• Provide an explanation how the project team would approach the technical work identified in Section 7 of this RFP.

• Include an approach for working with permitting requirements so the timeline of the project is successfully coordinated with the relevant approval agencies for this project.

• Develop a preliminary schedule to complete the Scope of Work.

Emphasis should be given to the work identified in section

7.1.1. and what can be accomplished prior to June 30, 2024.

Maximum Points Available: 20

Proposing firm’s experience to address the extensive permitting elements with local, state, and federal agencies anticipated for these projects:

• Strategy with these agencies to discuss the problems the projects face and the possible mitigation options.

• Successfully prepare & submit applications, find solutions based on review feedback, and obtain necessary permits/approvals with these agencies.

Maximum Points Available: 10

Proposing firm’s vision for how the project team will evaluate design elements that advance the following purposes of the UFSWQD:

Maximum Points Available: 10

RFP Page #13 of 57

-14-

• Contribute to improved air quality, fish and wildlife habitat, floodplain restoration, and landscape resilience.

• Prepare for and adapt to the impact of climate change in relation to the managed floodplain.

• Provide the public with information regarding the cultural history of the managed floodplain.

MCDD is committed to advancing and embedding equity in everything we do because we believe that everyone deserves to live and work in a safe and healthy environment, and have equitable opportunities to prepare, respond, recover and rebuild from flood emergencies.

In 2019, MCDD created its first Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) Program with the purpose to provide MCDD employees and Board members with the knowledge, tools, and resources necessary to advance equity and improve outcomes for District staff, Board members, constituents, and the communities we serve. See Section

8.4.2 for MCDD’s working definitions of DEI.

By focusing on advancing equity, MCDD has set the following Equity Goals:

1) Nurture a diverse, inclusive, and creative workforce.

2) Engage and collaborate with people who reflect the diversity of the communities the Districts serves to shape decision-making, programs, and policies that impact them.

3) Provide leadership to advance equity through the delivery of water infrastructure and flood safety services.

To this end, please provide responses to the following questions.

Reviewers will consider each of the goals listed above in evaluating the responses.

1) How does your team integrate equity into its work? Please provide two examples that include how your team considers historic and existing inequities (i.e. race, age, gender, ability) in your services.

2) How will your team help to advance MCDD’s Equity Goals as part of this contract? Please provide examples of how you will address each goal.

Maximum Points Available: 15

Total Points Available: 100

8.4.2. MCDD Working Definitions of DEI

RFP Page #14 of 57

-15-

i. Diversity refers to the representation of multiple identities, perspectives and experiences in an organization. Diversity leads to innovation, creativity, and better problem-solving and decision-making.

ii. Equity refers to the fair treatment, access, opportunity and advancement for all people. Equity acknowledges that there are historically underserved and underrepresented populations and works to identify and eliminate barriers that prevent the full participation of some groups in order to achieve fairness in outcomes for all communities. Equity can be defined in the following four dimensions, as delineated in a September 2014 report from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN):

• Procedural Equity—inclusive, accessible, authentic stakeholder engagement and representation in processes to develop or implement programs and policies;

• Distributional Equity—the fair distribution of benefits and burdens across all segments of a community, prioritizing those with highest need;

• Structural Equity—institutionalized accountability; decisions are made with a recognition of the historical, cultural, and institutional dynamics and structures that have routinely advantaged privileged groups in society and resulted in chronic, cumulative disadvantage for subordinated group;

• Transgenerational Equity—decisions and investments consider generational impacts and don’t result in unfair burdens on future generations.

iii. Inclusion refers to a state of belonging, when individuals of different identities, perspectives, and experiences are valued, integrated, and welcomed equitably as decision-makers and collaborators. Inclusion involves people being given the opportunity to grow, learn, and know they belong.

8.5. Proposal Submission

Proposals must be delivered to the electronic address set forth on page 1 of this RFP no later than the due date and time set forth in Section 5. Proposals not received by the due date and time will be considered late. Districts will reject all late proposals.

Proposals must be submitted as email attachments. Proposers may submit proposals in the form of one file or as multiple files, provided that the files are clearly labeled to correspond to the file contents.

RFP Page #15 of 57

-16-

Proposals will be submitted with the following information in the proposal cover email:

8.5.1. RFP Title.

8.5.2. RFP number.

8.5.3. Proposer name.

8.5.4. Proposer address.

Proposers assumes the risk of premature disclosure of any proposal submission due to submission in an unsecure form.

In the event of a failure of Districts’ system for electronic submission of proposals that interferes with the ability of proposers to submit electronic proposals, protest, or otherwise participate in this RFP, Districts may cancel this RFP or may extend the proposal due date and time.

8.6. Proposal Withdrawal

A Proposal may be withdrawn in person with proper identification, or by issuing a written request on company letterhead, signed by an authorized representative, and received digitally by the Districts prior to 2:00 pm PST on the deadline to withdraw from the proposal process set forth in Section 5 above.

8.7. Confidential Information

The Districts is subject to the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 to 192.478), which requires the Districts to disclose all records generated or received in the transaction of Districts business, except as expressly exempted under Oregon Public Records Law or other applicable law.

Pursuant to ORS 279C.107, the Districts need not open proposals for public inspection until after execution of the contract(s) awarded under this section.

Thereafter, the Districts will not disclose records submitted by a proposer that are exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law, subject to the following procedures and limitations:

The proposer must mark all proposal pages containing the records it deems as confidential under Oregon Public Records Law and must segregate those pages in the following manner:

8.7.1. Such pages must be clearly marked with the word "Confidential" on each page of the confidential document or section of the document.

RFP Page #16 of 57

-17-

8.7.2. Proposer must separate confidential pages from its other proposal pages by providing the confidential pages to Districts in a separate e-mail file attachment.

8.7.3. In its proposal, proposer must cite the specific statutory exemption in Oregon Records Law exempting such pages from disclosure.

8.7.4. Subsections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 above will prevail in the event these provisions conflict with formatting or response instructions elsewhere in this document.

8.7.5. Proposers may not mark an entire proposal confidential. Should a proposal be submitted in this manner, the Districts will hold no portion of the proposal as confidential, unless such a portion is segregated as required under subsection 8.3.2 above and is determined exempt from Oregon Public Records Law.

Notwithstanding the above procedures, the Districts reserves the right to disclose information that the Districts determines, in its sole discretion, is not exempt from disclosure or that the Districts is directed to disclose by the Multnomah County Districts Attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, confidential information may be disclosed if the public interest requires disclosure.

Prior to disclosing items labeled as confidential, but after the Districts determines that the items do not qualify for an exemption from disclosure, the Districts will make reasonable attempts to notify the proposer of the pending disclosure.

9. Proposal Evaluation and Award

9.1. Clarification of Responses

In the event that one or more proposals are in need of clarification, the Districts will request such clarification in writing and will afford the proposer(s) contacted an opportunity to respond in kind, with the necessary clarification.

9.2. Site Visits/Informational Activities

At any point before or after the opening of proposals, the Districts may conduct site visits, demonstrations, informational and group activities with proposers for the purpose of clarification to ensure full understanding of, and responsiveness to, the solicitation documents or to consider and respond to requests for modifications to the proposal requirements. The Districts will use procedures designed to accord proposers fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revisions of proposals.

RFP Page #17 of 57

-18-

9.3. Proposal Evaluation

The evaluation process of this RFP will be comprised of a

• A written proposal.

• Interviews (should the Districts determine they are required).

An Evaluation Committee, consisting of not less than three individuals, will evaluate responsive proposals. Each evaluator will independently evaluate and score proposals in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria. The Districts may assign certain evaluators specific evaluation criteria, in alignment with the evaluator's expertise. Districts also reserves the right to have different Evaluation Committees for proposal evaluation and interview evaluation, if it chooses to.

9.3.1. Written Proposal Evaluation

9.3.1.1.Each evaluator will independently score proposals in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria, discuss their findings with Evaluation Committee members, and then finalize their scores.

9.3.1.2.The Districts will average the written proposal scores per category and then sum the category averages for a total written evaluation score for each proposal.

9.3.2. Invitation for Interview (if applicable)

9.3.2.1.After scoring the written proposals under Section 8.4 of this RFP, the Evaluation Committee may conduct interviews with one or more of the top-ranked proposers if the Evaluation Committee determines that interviews are necessary or desirable in its sole determination.

9.3.2.2.The number of proposers selected for interviews is at the sole discretion of the Evaluation Committee.

9.3.2.3.Proposers selected for interviews will be notified in advance as per Section 5.

9.3.2.4.No additions, deletions or substitutions may be made to proposals during the interviews/presentations that cannot be viewed as clarification.

9.3.3. Interview Evaluation (if applicable)

9.3.3.1. Each evaluator will score the interview evaluation criteria.

RFP Page #18 of 57

-19-

9.3.3.2.The Districts will average the interview scores per category and then will sum the category averages for a total interview evaluation score for each proposal.

9.3.3.3.The Districts will combine the written evaluation score and the total interview evaluation score to achieve a total score per proposer.

9.3.4. References

The Districts reserves the right to investigate references, including customers other than those listed in a proposer's submission. This inquiry may include, without limitation, investigation of past performance of any proposer with respect to its successful performance of similar projects, compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, completion or delivery of a project on schedule, and its lawful payment of employees and subcontractors.

9.4. Notification of Intent to Award

The Districts will notify proposers of its Intent to Award by email notification.

9.5. Negotiation

9.5.1. After the Districts has issued the Notice of Intent to Award, the Districts will commence serial negotiations with the highest-ranked responsive proposer.

9.5.2. At any time during negotiations, the Districts may terminate negotiations with the highest-ranked responsive proposer, or the next highest-ranked responsive proposer, etc. with whom it is currently negotiating if the Districts believes that:

9.5.2.1.The proposer is not negotiating in good faith; or

9.5.2.2.Further negotiations or negotiations with the proposer will not result in the parties agreeing to the terms and conditions of a final Contract in a timely manner.

9.5.3. If the Districts terminates negotiations with a proposer, the Districts may then commence negotiations with the next highest-ranked responsive proposer.

9.5.4. The Districts reserves the right to negotiate final contract terms with the selected proposer(s) to the fullest extent allowed by law and as in the best interest of the Districts, including a maximum compensation level that the Districts alone determines is fair and reasonable.

RFP Page #19 of 57

-20-

9.6. Award of Contract

If the Districts awards a contract pursuant to this RFP, it will award a contract to the responsible proposer whose proposal the Districts determines in writing is the most advantageous to the Districts based upon the evaluation process and criteria described in this RFP, applicable preferences, and the outcome of any negotiations authorized by this RFP.

10. Solicitation Terms and Conditions; Protest of Award

10.1. Districts Right to Cancel Solicitation

The Districts reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time or to reject any and all proposals, if the Districts determines that doing so is in the public interest.

10.2. Proposer Cost of Response Preparation

Proposers will bear sole responsibility for all costs incurred in preparing and providing their proposals in response to this RFP. The Districts is not liable to any proposer for any loss or expense caused by or resulting from the cancellation of a solicitation or rejection of a proposal.

10.3. Submitted Materials are Districts Property

All material submitted for any portion of a proposal in response to this RFP, or during any phase of this solicitation, will become the property of the Districts and will not be returned to proposers.

10.4. Additional Districts Reservations

The Districts reserves the right to reject all proposals, to reject any proposal not in compliance with all prescribed procedures and requirements, to waive any or all irregularities in proposals submitted, and to award any or all items or services contained in a proposal.

10.5. Proposal Validity

Proposals will remain valid for a period of 90 days following the proposal submission deadline.

10.6. Sufficient Information

All proposers represent and warrant that by responding to this RFP, they have been sufficiently informed in all matters relating to the performance of services solicited under this RFP and its attachments. Prior to submitting a proposal, all proposers will make a careful examination of this RFP and its provisions, including but not limited to all terms and conditions and specifications. Failure to take these precautions will not release a proposer from performing the services

RFP Page #20 of 57

-21-solicited under this RFP in strict accordance with the terms of any contract awarded as a result of this RFP.

10.7. Protests

10.7.1. Protest of Contract Award

A proposer may protest the Intent to Award a contract in accordance with OAR 137-048-0240, provided:

10.7.1.1. The proposer is adversely affected because the proposer would be eligible to be awarded the contract in the event that the protest is successful; and

10.7.1.2. The reason for the protest is:

10.7.1.2.1. All higher-ranked proposals are non-responsive or failed to meet the requirements of this RFP, or all higher-ranked proposers are not qualified to perform the services required under this RFP;

10.7.1.2.2. The Districts has failed to conduct the evaluation of proposals in accordance with the criteria or processes described in the solicitation materials;

10.7.1.2.3. The Districts has abused its discretion in rejecting the protestor's proposal as non-responsive or;

10.7.1.2.4. The Districts’ evaluation of proposals or the

Districts’ subsequent determination of Award is otherwise in violation of the Districts’ Public Contracting Rules or the Public Contracting Code.

Label protest as: “PROTEST OF AWARD: RFP NO. S- C26014-00008932”

Address to protest to:

Nicole Handley Email: nhandley@mcdd.org

10.7.1.2.5. All protests of Award must be in writing and

electronically received by the listed procurement official no later than 2:00 p.m. on the deadline for submitting such protests set forth in Section 5 unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Intent to Award.

RFP Page #21 of 57

-22-

10.7.1.2.6. Protests must specify the grounds for the protest including the specific citation of law, rule, regulation, or procedure upon which the protest is based. The judgment used in scoring by individual evaluators is not grounds for protest.

10.7.1.2.7. Protests not filed within the time specified in

Section 5 or which fail to cite the specific law, rule, regulation, or procedure upon which the protest is based will be dismissed. An issue that could have been raised by request for clarification or protest of the solicitation is not a ground for protest of award.

10.7.2. The Districts will resolve all protests in accordance with OAR 137-048- 0240(3).

11. Contract Terms and Conditions

11.1. Contract Award and Term

The Districts intends to award a single contract as a result of this RFP as stated in Section 1 above.

11.2. Districts Contract

Proposers are advised to thoroughly review and familiarize themselves with the Districts sample standard contract incorporated as Attachment A.

The successful proposer will be invited to enter into a contract in substantially the form attached hereto as Attachment A.

Any contract resulting from this RFP will be based on the RFP documents and in compliance with the Districts Public Contracting Rules and the Public Contracting Code.

11.3. Insurance

Proposers are advised to carefully review the insurance requirements contained in Attachment E. Proposer will promptly provide Certificates of Insurance at the Districts’ request.

------------- END OF SECTION ---------------

RFP Page #22 of 57

Multi-District Engineering Services Price Agreement

4823-9155-5014.7 Rev. 2020.09.16

ATTACHMENT A

SAMPLE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRICE AGREEMENT

between

MULTNOMAH COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1

COLUMBIA CORRIDOR DRAINAGE DISTRICTS JOINT CONTRACTING AUTHORITY

and

[FULL LEGAL NAME OF CONSULTANT]

Agreements:

MC-###-####-ESA

JCA-###-####-ESA

This Engineering Services Price Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between Multnomah County Drainage District No. 1 ("MCDD"), municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, and Columbia Corridor Drainage Districts Joint Contracting Authority ("JCA"), an intergovernmental entity created under ORS 190 (each, a "District," and collectively, the "Districts"); and [FULL LEGAL NAME OF CONSULTANT] ("Consultant") for [ADD DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES] ("Services").

The parties agree as follows:

CONSULTANT DATA

Consultant attests that it is an independent contractor solely responsible for the work performed under this Agreement. Consultant, its subconsultants, employees, and agents shall not be deemed employees of District. Consultant shall be responsible for all federal, state, and local taxes and any and all fees applicable to payments for Services under this Agreement.

Full Business Name: [FULL LEGAL NAME OF CONSULTANT] Address:

City, State, ZIP:

Business Telephone:

Email:

State of Oregon Business Registry Number:

Federal Tax Identification Number (“TIN”) or Social Security Number (“SSN”):

Oregon Business License:

Consultant must submit a completed “Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification” (Form W-9) with this signed Agreement. Payment information will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service under the name and TIN or SSN, whichever is applicable, provided by Consultant.

Consultant certifies under penalty of perjury that Consultant is a

Sole Proprietor Corporation Limited Liability Company Partnership Other [describe: ]

RFP Page #23 of 57

4823-9155-5014.7 Rev. 2020.09.16

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Initial Information.

a. Effective Date and Termination Date. The effective date of this Agreement is [INSERT DATE] or the date on which each party has signed this Agreement, whichever is later (the “Effective Date”). Unless earlier terminated as provided below, the termination date is

[INSERT DATE].

b. Contract Renewal. This Agreement may be renewed upon mutual agreement of Consultant and Districts for up to [INSERT NUMBER AND NUMERAL (##)] years. The total term of this Agreement may not exceed five years.

c. Agreement to Provide Services. Consultant agrees to provide a District with the Services described in Section 1 of Exhibit 1 (Statement of Work) upon issuance of a task order from that District identifying a specific project (a “Project”), scope of work, schedule, and price (a “Task Order. All Task Orders, contracts, purchase orders, accepted proposals, and requests for Services issued by a District to Consultant under this Agreement are subject to and governed by this Agreement, and this Agreement is incorporated into each Task Order.

Although all Services are subject to this Agreement, issuance of a Task Order for any Services is a prerequisite for any payment to the Consultant for Services.

d. Compensation Cap. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Consultant by each District under this Agreement is as follows (the amount shown below for each District is that District’s “Compensation Cap”):

MCDD: $[INSERT AMOUNT]

JCA: $[INSERT AMOUNT]

Each Task Order will include a not-to-exceed budget for a Project, including reimbursable expenses (the “NTE Project Budget”). Each NTE Project Budget under a District’s Task Order is subject to that District’s Compensation Cap, and an NTE Project Budget, when added to the total sum of the NTE Project Budgets set forth under all Task Orders previously issued by that District, may not exceed that District’s Compensation Cap.

e. Exhibits. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Statement of Work, Compensation, and Invoicing Requirements Exhibit 2: Insurance Requirements Exhibit 3: Certification Statement for Corporation or Independent Contractor Exhibit 4: Workers’ Compensation Exemption Certificate.

Exhibit 5: Consultant’s Rate Schedule Exhibit 6: [Add any maps, Specifications, Drawings, etc. or leave as "Reserved"]

RFP Page #24 of 57

4823-9155-5014.7 Rev. 2020.09.16

f. Contract Documents. A Contract is created by a District’s issuance, and the Consultant’s acceptance, of a Task Order. A Contract consists of the Contract Documents, which are as follows:

1. This Agreement;

2. A Task Order;

3. A proposal from the Consultant, as applicable, accepted in writing by a District only to the extent that it sets out the scope of any Services and an agreed-upon NTE…