MS4 Mapping RFP Q&A.pdf

Professional Services for MS4 Stormwater System Mapping RFP Q&A

Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District On Behalf of the Jefferson County Stormwater Coalition

RFP: 2026-001

August 19, 2026

Questions and Answers:

1. Q: One of the coalition members is the Town of LeRay, which contains part or wholly Ft. Drum Army Base. Is the base included in the comprehensive MS4 plan? If yes, what kind of restrictions, access, or limitations will be encountered trying to gain information on existing MS4 infrastructure and future GIS mapping?

A: Fort Drum handles their own MS4 network, so it would not be included in work under this RFP.

2. Q: Is the Watertown Correctional Facility included in the comprehensive MS4 plan? If yes, what kind of restrictions, access, or limitations will be encountered trying to gain information on existing MS4 infrastructure and future GIS mapping?

A: As the state still owns the land and facility, the town doesn't need to map the correctional facility’s stormwater systems. We have confirmed this with the DEC employee overseeing the town’s MS4 permit.

The prison should be treated as a private entity, with the town only responsible for mapping future and existing post-construction stormwater management practices (SMPs) as part of the MS4 permit’s year 5 requirements.

3. Q: Is the Watertown International Airport included in the comprehensive MS4 plan? If yes, what kind of restrictions, access, or limitations will be encountered trying to gain information on existing MS4 infrastructure and future GIS mapping?

A: Like Ft. Drum, the airport is its own MS4 entity and will not need to be mapped by the town.

4. Q: Can JCSWCD provide an approximate inventory of the existing GIS, CAD, spreadsheet, paper mapping, and other stormwater infrastructure records available for each of the eight participating MS4 Operators?

A: The existing inventory for each municipality varies with many having some form of low-detail digital inventory. An estimated quantity of total features is provided below in Question 5.

5. Q: Are approximate quantities or estimates available for the stormwater assets that are currently mapped and/or anticipated to require field verification or new collection within each municipality (e.g., outfalls, interconnections, catch basins, manholes, culverts, pipes, ditches, and stormwater management practices)?

A: The estimated quantity of features is as follows:

1. Outfalls – 75

2. Inter/Intraconnections – 7

3. Stormwater Structures – 707

4. Stormwater SMP – 96

5. Municipal Facility – 17

*These estimates are those of municipal staff. Actual number of features will be different.

Estimates do not include linear feet/miles of stormwater conveyance features (e.g., pipes, swales, etc.) as existing data is limited for some of the participating municipalities.

**It should also be noted that each of these features above shall be visited and verified to ensure all necessary data associated with each feature is collected.

6. Q: The RFP indicates that participating municipalities will provide DPW and highway staff support for field survey activities as part of the local match. Please clarify the anticipated level of municipal staff participation. For example, will municipal personnel accompany consultant field crews, identify infrastructure based on institutional knowledge, provide access, and/or directly assist with field data collection?

A: Yes, we expect municipal staff to accompany field crews and assist with the example tasks provided. Coordination between field crews and municipal staff will be the responsibility of the contractor.

7. Q: Is there a required horizontal and/or vertical positional accuracy for field-collected stormwater assets? Is survey-grade GNSS required for any features, or is mapping-grade/sub-meter GNSS acceptable for the purposes of the MS4 inventory?

A: There is no required positional accuracy for field collected stormwater assets. The comprehensive system mapping must be in a readily accessible format, with scale and detail appropriate to provide a clear understanding of the MS4, to serve as a planning tool to allow for prioritization of efforts and facilitate management decisions by the MS4 Operator.

8. Q: Should proposers assume that all existing mapped stormwater assets require field verification, or may existing records determined to be sufficiently reliable through the data gap/QA review be incorporated without field verification?

A: Yes, contractors should assume that field verification for each asset will be required, as existing data sets seem to be missing at least one required field. Privately owned post-construction SMPs may be the exception to this if aerial imagery and SWPPP records will suffice.

9. Q: Does JCSWCD or the Coalition currently maintain an ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Enterprise environment that the selected consultant will be expected to use? If not, should proposers assume that GIS applications and data will initially be developed/hosted within the consultant's environment prior to final delivery?

A: Part of the Stormwater Coalition’s goal with this grant is to standardize their mapping data for easier reporting and analysis.

Jefferson County SWCD has access to ArcGIS Online, but there is no current environment the consultant will be expected to use. Jefferson County SWCD and various municipalities have preliminary data layers across multiple software applications they are willing to share with the selected contractor. But proposers should assume that GIS applications and data will initially be developed/hosted within the consultant's environment prior to final delivery. That said, as stated in the RFP, Jefferson County SWCD will need access to data collected to fulfil year 3 permit requirements by February 12, 2027, to complete MS4 annual reports.

10. Q: Does JCSWCD have an existing GIS schema, data dictionary, naming convention, or required feature/attribute structure for the MS4 datasets, or is the selected consultant expected to develop the standardized GIS data model based on GP-0-24-001 requirements?

A: The coalition’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan has Excel sheets with some naming conventions and field names specified that contractors are welcome to use when creating their GIS database, but we are open to whatever fields and naming conventions firms typically use. Our main goals with this grant are to comply with the MS4 permit and to end up with a final product that is accessible to municipal DPW and Highway staff.

11. Q: Are Diamond Maps accounts/configurations already established for the participating municipalities, and will Diamond Maps provide the selected consultant with data schemas, import specifications, technical assistance, and/or other requirements necessary for implementation?

A: Approximately half of the participating municipalities have existing Diamond Map accounts.

The selected consultant will need to coordinate with the Diamond Maps team for the requirements necessary for implementation.

12. Q: The RFP establishes separate 15% MBE and 15% WBE participation goals. If a subcontractor is currently NYS-certified as both an MBE and WBE, may participation by that firm be credited toward both goals?

A: Yes, if duel-certified, participation can be credited toward both, or either goal.

Since releasing RFP 2026-001, we have received our draft contract from the state. Unlike our initial MWBE plan, the contract does not specify a specific 15/15 split. Only that participation must total 30% between MBE and WBE firms. We’ve clarified this discrepancy with DEC’s MWBE division and, although they would prefer an even split, any combination that achieves 30% MWBE participation will be in compliance with our funding source.

13. Q: Please confirm whether the 15% MBE, 15% WBE, and 6% SDVOB participation goals are calculated against the consultant's actual proposed contract amount or against the $400,000 maximum master budget identified in the RFP.

A: The participation goals will be calculated against the full grant amount used on these efforts, not just the consultant’s actual proposed budget amount (potentially the full $400,000).

This means if the full $400,000 grant amount is utilized, $120,000 must go to MWBE firms and $24,000 must go to SDVOBs.

14. Q: Please confirm that substantive technical services such as GIS data compilation and conversion, database development, geospatial analysis, QA/QC, field data collection, environmental/stormwater support, and system integration may be assigned to appropriately certified M/WBE and SDVOB subconsultants and credited toward the applicable participation goals.

A: Yes, the selected consultant may subcontract with MWBE and SDVOB subconsultants to meet the required participation goals.

15. Q: Given the anticipated September 11, 2026, kickoff and requirement to complete preliminary Year 3 field data collection before December 31, 2026, are there specific municipalities, assets, or permit requirements that JCSWCD considers the highest priority for the initial field effort?

A: If all the year 3 compliance items cannot be collected before the permit deadline, our priority is to ensure that each MS4 has at least some mapping completed within each required layer (e.g., MS4 Outfalls & Interconnections, Municipal Facility Interconnections, Locations Receiving Stormwater From Another MS4/Private System, Public Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs), Municipal Facilities Inventory). If a municipality has no attributes in a certain layer (e.g., Locations

Receiving Stormwater from Another MS4/Private System) that is acceptable but needs to be noted so we can record that in their annual report.

From the above categories, we’d prioritize the following:

MS4 Outfalls & Interconnections

Latitude/longitude, receiving waterbody name, receiving waterbody type, receiving waterbody PWL Segment ID, type of monitoring location (MS4 Outfall or Interconnection), type of conveyance (open drainage or closed pipe), material, shape, submerged in water (y/n), submerged in sediment (y/n), prioritization (high/low) o Note: the 2026 Coalition SWMP contains all this data, except prioritization, for all reported outfalls (no interconnections have been documented).

Important Clarification: Under the MS4 permit, outfalls are defined as “any point of stormwater discharge from pipes, ditches, and swales, as well as other points of concentrated flow, to surface waters of the state, from an MS4 Operator’s MS4.” Any structure we’d traditionally think of as an “outfall” that does not outlet to a mapped stream would instead be mapped under the year 5 “Storm Sewer Conveyance” category.

Intraconnections

Latitude/longitude, receiving waterbody name, receiving waterbody type, receiving waterbody PWL Segment ID, prioritization, municipal facility name

Publicly Owned SMPs

Address, tax parcel, latitude/longitude, receiving waterbody name, receiving waterbody type, receiving waterbody PWL Segment ID, type of practice, date of last inspection, inspection results (as available), corrective actions identified and completed (as available), required inspection frequency, date of installation/ discovery, reason for installation, responsible party for maintenance, responsible party contact information, and the location of documents depicting O&M requirements (this will be MS4 Operator’s responsibility to track down).

o Note: The Coalition’s 2026 SWMP Plan contains an Excel sheet with preliminary data for currently inventoried structures, but this is not an exhaustive list. All 20 of these SMPs are within the Town of LeRay.

Municipal Facilities

Verification and mapping of current municipal facility inventory Excel file including:

identifying additional municipal facilities within MS4 boundaries, prioritization (high/low), receiving waterbody name, receiving waterbody type, receiving waterbody PWL Segment ID, and working with municipalities to record missing contact and BMP information.

o Note: 29 facilities exist on the Coalition’s existing inventory, but we do not believe this is an exhaustive list.

16. Q: For infrastructure that cannot reasonably be located or verified during the initial field period due to weather, snow cover, access restrictions, buried structures, or other field conditions, will the consultant be permitted to document the data gap and complete verification during a subsequent field effort?

A: While there are situations that prevent the collection of data, every effort should be made to meet permit deadlines. If a subsequent field effort is required outside of permit terms it must be done within a reasonable timeframe.

17. Q: Can the District provide additional information regarding Diamond Maps licensing, implementation responsibilities, and coordination with the Diamond Maps team?

A: Coordination with Diamond Maps is the responsibility of the selected consultant. Some of the participating municipalities that currently have a Diamond Maps License may be able to help facilitate those efforts.

18. Q: Is there an anticipated budget for this project?

A: The maximum master budget cannot exceed $400,000.

19. Q: Would field work associated with this project be subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements?

A: Prevailing wage does NOT apply to this project

20. Q: If the selected consultant can develop the mapping directly into the Diamond mapping system for each community, is it required to develop the master file in ESRI as an interim step? There are time and money savings involved in not developing the ESRI File. In our experience, the Diamond mapping is also easier to share and ‘provide access’ to granted outside users than the ESRI system.

A: Yes, a master ESRI file is required.

21. Q: Can the County shapefiles and attribute for each area be provided or is this something we would need to purchase from Jefferson County real property?

A: Jefferson County SWCD and each municipality involved with the project will willingly share all existing related files and Excel sheets with the selected consultant. We do not anticipate the need to purchase any shapefiles.

22. Q: Are there other MS4 areas that have a similar work product that could be provided as an example for the selected consultant?

A: There are other MS4 areas throughout New York State that must do the same system mapping as the Jefferson County Stormwater Coalition. The selected consultant may reach out to them to see if they would be willing to share that information.

23. Q: What is the estimated coverage of existing mapping, including both digital mapping and/or as-built drawings?

A: The coverage of existing mapping varies greatly between each municipality. Prior to the commencement of work, the selected consultant will meet with each municipality to further understand what is needed within each municipality.