PC-550000-CAW44.pdf

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LETTER OF RESPONSE

375-030-22

PROCUREMENT

04/18

Advertisement No.: 25319 DOT FM Number: 452935-1-32-01

Submittal Date: 9/17/2024 Project Name: SR 89 from SR 4 to Alabama State Line in Santa

Rosa County

Consultant’s Name: Osiris 9 Consulting, LLC (Firm must use the name shown on the Consultant’s qualification letter.)

Street Address: 325 John Knox Road Building C Suite 136

City: Tallahassee State: FL Zip: 32303

Office Location: Tallahassee, FL Contact person: Walter Nemecek

Phone: 904-233-3847 Contact email: walter.nemecek@osiris9.com By submittal of this letter the Consultant certifies that all information provided in the letter is true and accurate. The Consultant further certifies that staff proposed are currently employed by the firm(s) identified, or the Consultant shall provide a statement indicating when staff will become employed by the identified firm(s).

The Letter of Response should address the following information:

• Proposed approach and understanding of critical issues.

• Relevant project experience – Similar type of work experience.

• Other content provided by firm.

• Proposed key personnel and their proposed roles (do not include resumes).

Consultants: Please be aware that all font (including font in graphics, tables, and captions on photos) must be standard Arial Narrow, 11 point, single line spacing with no modification of font or spacing allowed. ½” clear margin on all sides must be maintained on all pages. It is the Consultant’s responsibility, due to font and format restrictions within this form, to work within the constraints of the form and its format. Character styling such as use of color, bold, and italics is allowed. Use of a table is recommended for text boxes. The page layout may be modified to add columns, tables, graphics, and photos. All graphics and photos must be created in a clean, blank word document and the “text wrapping square” option applied before cutting and pasting into this form. Consultants may add their logo at the top of the first page (directly underneath the header), however, the Consultant shall not extend the form beyond the pages allocated for the Letter to accommodate insertion of the logo. Consultants are not permitted to insert any other information in the header other than the logo. After pasting your letter into this form, highlight all text and ensure the font size of Arial Narrow, 11 point was retained. Once your content is inserted, delete any additional blank pages that are generated by pressing your delete key after the last word in the Letter of Response. Recreation of the form in another software application to modify the form format is not permitted. This form works best when saved with a .docx extension. *Please retain the source document as it may be requested at a later date in the procurement, to verify adherence with aforementioned restrictions. Note: You may begin typing on this page.

Osiris 9 Consulting (O9C) is excited to demonstrate that we are well-suited to provide design services to FDOT District 3 (D3) for the Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (RRR) of SR 89 in Santa Rosa County. Following your guidance over the past 18 months, we successfully performed as subconsultants on multiple projects within D3 including SR 87 RRR in Santa Rosa County, SR 85 Widening in Okaloosa County, and SR 390 Widening in Bay County. We used these projects as opportunities to deepen partnerships with other trusted D3 consultants, learn your preferences, and showcase our abilities. The SR 87 project, which had its “shelf submittal” last month, is a “sister” corridor to this SR 89 project. We anticipate that the improvements proposed on this project will be similar to those proposed for SR 87, and we are proposing a similar consultant team. Recently, on the SR 85 project, we received approval from Central Office with minimal comments on the only Interchange Access Request that D3 has submitted in the past year. We are grateful for the opportunity to work for D3 as subconsultants on these projects, and we respectfully request that you consider us for the prime consultant role on this project.

As you know from our marketing visits to your office in Chipley, O9C opened a Tallahassee office in 2021. We are committed to immediate responsiveness throughout this project, and our local presence within the District allows us to quickly visit the project location and D3 offices as necessary. All subconsultants on our team are also local to the District and have served you for many years. Fig. 2: Steep Front Slope

Fig. 1: Guardrail Flared Approach Terminal End Anchorage Assembly

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LETTER OF RESPONSE

375-030-22

PROCUREMENT

04/18

PROJECT TEAM, KEY STAFF, AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Our team is made up of a talented group of professionals who are eager to work with Project Manager Johnnie Kirkland to fulfill the Department’s objectives for this contract and efficiently deliver clear construction plans prior to the Production Date in January 2027. In preparation for this contract, we performed a thorough field review, discussed the project with the Technical Review Committee, and reviewed the recent five-year crash data, as-builts from the previous resurfacing project, project scope, and many other relevant resources. We understand that the general scope is to rehabilitate the pavement to maximize its life and to identify and efficiently mitigate safety issues caused by deficient existing features.

The consultant firms on our team have a history of working together, and each firm has many years of experience delivering projects through the FDOT process. The subconsultants on our team include Panhandle Engineering & Construction, Inc. (PECS), DRMP, and Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists (EGS).

All three subconsultant firms were selected strategically for this project. PECS brings to our team knowledge of District preferences gained from long tenure and the recent experience of priming the nearby SR 87 RRR project. DRMP designed and surveyed SR 89 for the previous resurfacing of these limits and has unparalleled experience on the corridor. EGS has partnered with Osiris 9 on over a dozen projects, and their key staff partnered with PECS and Osiris 9 on the SR 87 project. DRMP and EGS are both non-BDI firms, and their participation will be significantly less than the maximum allowable 45%. Please see Table 1: The O9C Team for a summary of key staff, years of experience, and roles proposed for each team member.

Walter Nemecek, PE, will serve as the Project Manager on this contract. Walter has 27 years of FDOT experience designing and managing a wide range of roadway projects including over 30 Resurfacing and Minor Design projects such as our current I-4 and I-75 resurfacing project. Almost all members of Walter’s team have worked with him for their entire careers.

Will Mechling, PE, CFM, will serve as the Project Coordinator on this project and is highly eager to make this project a success. He has served in a project coordinator role on several other design projects including the I-4 and I-75 project. Will complements Walter Nemecek by staying up to date on design decisions, management issues, and correspondence.

Satya Kolluru, PE, PTOE, IMSA II, will review the project for safety and will oversee any recommended low-cost safety improvements along the corridor. He has designed safety improvements on over 150 projects.

William Barber, PE, and Adam Grantham, PE, with PECS have a great history in D3 and will handle Temporary Traffic Control (TTC). They are also available to our team to assist on QA/QC and as a resource for any questions on District preferences that arise.

Joseph Deal, PSM, served as the D3 District Surveyor for 16 years and set the project control for the previous SR 89 resurfacing project with James Holland, PSM.

Our team is well-qualified, and we have many team members available for the delivery of this project beyond those listed in Table 1. Our SR 87 project “shelf submittal” is complete and we have no prime contracts in D3, so we are ready and available to deliver this important project.

The following projects demonstrate our team’s relevant experience:

SR 87 RRR in Santa Rosa County (FDOT D3) – Osiris 9 is a subconsultant for temporary traffic control on this rural RRR project which is primed by PECS.

SR 89 RRR in Santa Rosa County (FDOT D3) – DRMP surveyed and designed the same SR 89 limits for the previous resurfacing.

I-10 and US 129 Operational Improvements and Resurfacing in Suwannee County (FDOT D2) – Osiris 9 is the prime consultant on this operational improvement project in north Florida which includes milling and resurfacing, safety improvements, and signing and pavement marking improvements.

I-4 and I-75 Operational Improvements and Resurfacing in Hillsborough County (FDOT D7) – Osiris 9 is the prime consultant on this operational improvement project which includes

1.5 miles of milling and resurfacing of the I-4 mainline and ramps.

SR 19 RRR in Putnam County (FDOT D2) – Osiris 9 is a subconsultant for signalization and deployment of an Intersection Conflict Warning System on this rural RRR project in north Florida.

Table 1: The O9C Team Name (Firm-Years Exp.) – Role

Osiris 9 Key Staff

Walter Nemecek, PE (O9C-27) – Project Manager Will Mechling, PE, CFM (O9C-4) – Project Coordinator Imran Ghani, PE, AICP (O9C-27) – Principal/Public Inv.

David Anderson, PE (O9C-36) – QA/QC Manager Donnie Tackett (O9C-30) – Constructability Review Satya Kolluru, PE, PTOE, IMSA II (O9C-20) – Safety Bryon Wuczynski, PE (O9C-20) – Roadway and S&PM Christian Gyle, PE (O9C-20) – Drainage and Permitting Joe Moslemian, PE (O9C-6) – Roadway and Plans Production Tim Henderson, PE (O9C-6) – Plans Production

Subconsultant Key Staff

William Barber, PE (PECS-18) – QA/QC Support Adam Grantham, PE (PECS-17) – Temporary Traffic Control Joseph Deal, PSM (DRMP-33) – Survey Project Manager James Holland, PSM (DRMP-34) – Project Surveyor Tracey Ludyjan-Ybarra (EGS-18) – Environmental Support

375-030-22

PROCUREMENT

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Roadway: The project limits are SR 89 from SR 4 (MP 21.977) to the Alabama State Line (MP 26.002). The typical section of the project is rural, undivided with two 12-ft travel lanes and 10-ft shoulders (4-ft paved). Posted speeds on the corridor vary from 35 mph to 55 mph with most of the corridor posted at 55 mph. The Right-of-Way (R/W) throughout the project limits has a typical width of 100-ft, and no additional R/W will be acquired. During our field review, roadway elements throughout the project were analyzed for compliance with FDOT RRR criteria. Guardrail at the project's north end is below the current standard mounting height and has an outdated flared approach terminal end anchorage assembly.

Front slopes in several areas were observed to be steeper than allowable. There is an unprotected 14-ft drop-off within the control zone on the outside of the horizontal curve at Mt. Carmel Rd. All existing crossdrain endwalls were field verified to meet RRR lateral offset and control zone criteria based on a 55-mph design speed.

Existing superelevation cross slopes for several curves were field verified as similar to the design superelevation cross slopes. After the pavement survey is updated, we will analyze the pavement data throughout the project limits and identify any areas of normal crown or superelevation cross slopes which do not meet criteria.

Pavement: The existing pavement includes FC-6, Type SP structural course, and Asphalt Rubber Membrane Interlayer (ARMI). The overall pavement condition is fair with evidence of cracking (longitudinal, transverse, and block) throughout the project limits, raveling at some turnouts due to vehicle off-tracking, and limited minor rutting. Turnouts will be evaluated for radial widening at off-tracking locations and unpaved driveways will be evaluated for stabilization with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). Rehabilitating the pavement to maximize its life is a primary goal of this contract. We will coordinate with Hays Griffin and Wesley Chevillot to ensure that pavement issues are addressed.

Safety and Crash History: We performed a thorough review of the Signal Four Analytics crash data (January 2019 through July 2024) within the project limits which returned only six total crashes.

All crashes were no injury and occurred with dry roadway surface conditions. One crash occurred at the North Alabama Street intersection due to a possible sight distance issue. Two crashes occurred because of deer entering the roadway near Dan’s Trail.

Design Variations/Exceptions: Early in the design process, we will coordinate with the FDOT PM and District Design regarding the best approach for substandard elements including previously mentioned steep front slopes and drop-off hazards. Due to the very low number of documented crashes in the last five years, we anticipate that Design Exceptions or Variations will be justifiable.

Corrective designs for deficient elements located in areas that present increased safety risk will be coordinated with the District.

Survey: DRMP surveyed this corridor in 1999 for the previous SR 89 resurfacing project within the project limits and has the archived survey files. Our team will minimize new survey collection and will use elements from the archived survey as a starting point. New survey will be collected using Mobile LiDAR scanning of the entire project with limited extraction based on need. Utilities and drainage survey will be updated using traditional survey collection methods.

Survey for this project will be collected by DRMP in conjunction with survey collection for FPID 452944-1 (RRR of SR 89 from CR 178 to SR 4) to reduce mobilization costs.

Signing and Pavement Marking: We will review all existing signage to ensure sufficient condition, visibility, and conformance to current standards. Audible and vibratory treatment (AVT) was recently added to edge and center lines within the project limits posted at 55 mph as part of the Districtwide “Rumble Strip” initiative. We anticipate replacing the AVT within the same limits after coordination with District Design. Centerline markings will be designed based on our No Passing Zone Study. Side street markings will be designed for adequate sight distance. The James Hendricks Rd stop bar is missing and will be included in our design.

Utilities: A proactive approach to utility coordination is important to meet the rapid schedule of this type of RRR project. We will identify any potential utility conflicts due to proposed work such as riprap installation or drainage improvements within a utility conflict matrix at the Phase II submittal and update it with each subsequent phase submittal. Existing utilities within the project corridor include overhead electric and buried water, telephone, gas, and petroleum.

Drainage/Permitting: The existing drainage system is primarily an open system with ditches and swales, side drains, DBI’s, and cross drains. We observed MES’s and ditch pavement baffles in need of repair/replacement. A ditch at the project’s north end contains a concrete brick wall which is in poor condition due to erosion. No wetlands were witnessed within FDOT R/W, and no wetland impacts are anticipated. We will submit a Permit Determination to NWFWMD to confirm Exemption from permitting.

TTC: A well-designed TTC plan is essential for the safety of the traveling public and construction staff. Our plan will consider the following: SR 89 is a hurricane evacuation route, and all lanes must be opened to traffic within 12 hours if an evacuation is declared;

the corridor is signed as a bus route, and Jay Elementary and Jay High Schools are nearby; and the corridor is used by large agricultural vehicles. Based on traffic volumes and our experience on SR 87, we do not anticipate any lane closure restrictions.

Coordination/Public Involvement (PI): The primary stakeholder for this project is D3. Additional stakeholders include Santa Rosa County government, regional authorities, residents, businesses, and Mount Carmel Church. Impacts to mailboxes within FDOT R/W will require property owner coordination. TTC signs and devices will extend across the Alabama state line and will be coordinated with Escambia County (AL) staff. We are experts in the FDOT PI process and understand following the District’s process is critical.

Cost Savings: Inflation has significantly driven up construction costs in the last three years. We have reviewed the dollar amounts of programmed funding and the recent LRE total and understand the budget constraints for this project. Our team has developed several cost-savings to counterbalance inflation increases.

Why O9C? We are eager to make this project a success and have assembled a well-qualified team. Osiris 9 has a history of delivering high quality work to FDOT and maintains a 4.0 average composite consultant grade. Thank you for considering our team!

Prequalification of Prime Consultant and any proposed Subconsultants by advertised type(s) of work:

Consultant Name Project Advertised Major & Minor Work Types

3.1 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 DBE SB UU

Prime Osiris 9 Consulting, LLC (O9C)

Su bc on su lta nt s

Panhandle Engineering and Construction, Inc.

(PECS)

DRMP

Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists (EGS)

SB = Small Business UU = Under-utilized work type; subconsultant is a professional services firm and is prequalified in the Under-Utilized Work Group. Refer to the advertisement for applicability.

My firm has submitted a Bid Opportunity List through the Equal Opportunity Compliance System for this project.

https://fdotwp1.dot.state.fl.us/EqualOpportunityCompliance/Account.aspx/LogIn?ReturnUrl=%2fEqualOpportunityCompliance

DBE SB UU

Prime

Su bc on su lta nt s

SB = Small Business UU = Under-utilized work type; subconsultant is a professional services firm and is prequalified in the Under-Utilized

My firm has submitted a Bid Opportunity List through the Equal Opportunity Compliance System for this project.

https://fdotwp1.dot.state.fl.us/EqualOpportunityCompliance/Account.aspx/LogIn?ReturnUrl=%2fEqualOpportunityCompliance

DBE SB UU

Prime

Su bc on su lta nt s

SB = Small Business UU = Under-utilized work type; subconsultant is a professional services firm and is prequalified in the Under-Utilized

My firm has submitted a Bid Opportunity List through the Equal Opportunity Compliance System for this project.

https://fdotwp1.dot.state.fl.us/EqualOpportunityCompliance/Account.aspx/LogIn?ReturnUrl=%2fEqualOpportunityCompliance

REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

FOR

RESURFACING, REHABILITATION, & RESTORATION

DESIGN SERVICES

SR 89 from SR 4 to Alabama State line.

Advertisement Number Financial Project Nos. F.A.P. Nos.

25319 45293513201 N/A

DISTRICT THREE

INDEX

SECTION PAGE

1.0 PURPOSE 4

2.0 PROJECT ASSIGNED 4

3.0 SCOPE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES 4

4.0 LENGTH OF CONSULTANT SERVICES 4

5.0 CONTRACT RESTRICTIONS AND 5

PROPOSED METHOD OF COMPENSATION

6.0 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS 6

7.0 ABBREVIATED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 6

8.0 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME INFORMATION STATEMENT 10

9.0 COOPERATION WITH AGENCY INSPECTOR GENERAL 10

10.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION 11

11.0 NEGOTIATIONS 11

12.0 PROJECT MANAGER 12

FIGURES

1 LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENTS

A SCOPE OF SERVICES

AA PROPOSED METHOD OF COMPENSATION

B CERTIFICATIONS

C STAFFHOUR FORMS

D FDOT CONSULTANT FEE PROPOSALS (AUDIT PACKAGE)

E ABBREVIATED TECHNICAL EVALUATION SHEETS

(ATTACHMENTS CONTINUED)

F PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE

G STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

H FDOT STANDARD WORK CLASSES

I DBE PARTICIPATION STATEMENT

1.0 PURPOSE:

The Florida Department of Transportation requires consulting services for the design and preparation of a complete set of construction contract documents and incidental engineering services, as necessary, for improvements to the transportation facility.

The Department is considering three consultant firms for the final selection. Additional information is necessary to complete the evaluation of each firm's ability to provide the desired services. As a result, the firms shall be requested to submit an abbreviated written Technical Proposal for the anticipated work. The Technical Proposal package shall include data about the probable job performance and manpower application.

Note: Professional Services selections are “Qualifications Based Selections” (QBS) only, in accordance with F. S. 287.055, the Consultant Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA). All efforts must be made to protect the integrity of a “QBS” throughout the acquisition process.

According to CCNA, subsection (4), compensation factors can only be considered during competitive negotiations as prescribed under subsection (5). Therefore, it is not appropriate to introduce professional services contract fee information prior to final selection. Please ensure that presentation material is limited to discussion of management principles and concepts in regard to the consultant scope of work. This includes any reference to costs in dollars or percentages of the work in whole or in part, as well as references to audited rates. It is acceptable to discuss quantifiable measures associated with construction project savings.

References to consultant fees, multipliers or percentage fee savings associated with the consultant scope of work may result in the firm being found non-responsive.

2.0 PROJECT ASSIGNED:

The following project shall be assigned to the selected consulting firm:

Financial Project Nos.: 45293513201 F.A.P. Nos.: N/A County: Santa Rosa Funding Sources: State Funded

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES:

For a detailed description of the required consultant services, refer to Attachment A, Scope of Services.

4.0 LENGTH OF SERVICES:

The Consultant services shall begin upon written notice from the District Three Director of Transportation Development. The Consultant shall submit a project schedule as a part of the negotiation process to be negotiated and approved by the Department.

5.0 CONTRACT RESTRICTIONS AND PROPOSED METHOD OF COMPENSATION:

The following information is furnished to the consultant firm for consideration during the preparation of the technical proposal:

5.1 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY:

The consultant firm selected to perform the desired services must have professional liability insurance coverage of $250,000.

For purposes of contracting only, Professional Liability Insurance from a company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida is acceptable. The selected prime consultant shall submit proof of Professional Liability Insurance coverage in the minimum threshold amount designated above, prior to contracting. The policy/ies and coverage described herein may be subject to a deductible. Pay all deductibles as required by the policy. The Department shall be notified in writing with ten days of any cancellation, notice of cancellation, lapse, renewal, or proposed change to any policy or coverage described herein. The Department’s approval or failure to disapprove any policy/ies, coverage or ACORD Certificates shall not relieve or excuse any obligation to procure and maintain the insurance required herein, nor serve as a waiver of any rights or defenses the Department may have. No policy/ies or coverage described herein may contain or be subject to a Retention or Self-Insured Retention. A commitment letter from a financial institution is also not acceptable for purposes of contracting.

5.2 SUBCONTRACTUAL SERVICES:

The Department must approve services assigned to subconsultants in advance. The subconsultants must be qualified to perform all work assigned to them and must be technically prequalified with the Department in order to perform the standard types of work covered by Rule 14-75.

For subconsultants with fees less than $500,000, and/or performing specialty services (non-standard types of work), a self-certified overhead statement may be accepted. These overhead statements must be sent to Central Office for review and approval.

5.3 METHOD OF COMPENSATION:

The Department anticipates that a lump sum with limiting amounts will be established for this contract. A Total Maximum Limiting Amount shall be established based upon final negotiations and shall compensate the consultant for costs associated with the project. These costs shall include employee salaries; combined with the consultant’s actual approved overhead, the direct expense rate and Facilities Capital Cost of Money (if applicable).

In addition to compensating the consultant for project costs, the lump sum fee shall include an operating margin for professional services. The operating margin is calculated as a percentage of direct salaries. The percentage is negotiated within a range of 12 to 42 percent.

5.4 PROGRESS PAYMENTS:

For Lump Sum amounts, progress payments shall be due and payable monthly in proportion to the percentage of work approved and accepted by the Department. For maximum limiting fees, progress payments shall be due and payable monthly for the actual work performed during the billing period. Final payment shall be due and payable upon satisfactory completion of the services and approval and acceptance of the contract deliverables by the Department. Invoices for this agreement will be submitted through the Department’s Consultant Invoice Transmittal System. A Corporate User ID must be obtained from the Department for this purpose.

5.5 REGISTRATION IN MYFLORIDA MARKET PLACE

If you have not registered in MyFlorida Market Place, please register on-line @ https://vendor.myfloridamarketplace.com or call 1-866-352-3776 for assistance.

6.0 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS:

After submittal of Letters and up through contract execution, proposed subconsultants/subcontractors/sub-vendors, teaming arrangements, or key staff of the Consultant cannot be changed or substituted except in instances of force majeure or in the event of circumstances that cannot reasonably be anticipated and/or are beyond the control of the prime consultant. In such cases, changes or substitutions are subject to the discretion of the Department, and cannot be made without written approval of the Director. After contract execution, subconsultant/subcontractor/sub-vendor, teaming arrangement, or key staff changes/substitutions require pre-approval of the Department’s Project Manager before implementing. All qualification/certification requirements of the original advertisement shall govern, where applicable.

7.0 ABBREVIATED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

The shortlisted firms shall submit an abbreviated electronic technical proposal for the project. The proposal shall include sufficient information to enable the Department to fully evaluate the capabilities of the firm and its proposed approach to providing the specified services. Discussion of the firm’s past experience, which is not germane to the specified services for these projects, should not be included. The technical proposal shall not contain links to other web pages that would provide additional technical content.

7.1 ABBREVIATED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CONTENT:

The technical proposal shall address in detail the following items:

7.1.1 Approach to the Project:

https://vendor.myfloridamarketplace.com/

The consultant firm shall present the proposed approach for completing the desired work. The consultant shall demonstrate the firm's understanding of the objectives and shall discuss the means by which these objectives will be attained. The efficient use of manpower and materials shall be considered. Methods to minimize FDOT project support should be discussed along with innovative approaches for providing the services.

Discussion in your technical proposal should be limited to innovative management principles and concepts without the injection of quantifiable measures associated with consultant fees for this project. It is acceptable to discuss quantifiable measures associated with construction project savings, however quantifiable measures must not be discussed for the consultant scope of work.

7.1.2 Proposed Staffing Plan:

The consultant shall submit a staffing plan, which clearly illustrates the key elements of the organizational structure, proposed to accomplish the management, technical and administrative services required. Project management and key technical personnel within each discipline shall be identified and past experience of each, as it relates to these projects, shall be discussed. Other items to be included in the discussion of the staffing plan are:

a) Man-loading requirements for the job (both quality and quantity).

b) Man-loading capabilities of the firm.

c) Man-loading availability for the project.

7.1.3 Subconsultants:

The consultant shall address the desirability and necessity of subconsultant services on the projects. Where subconsultant services are proposed, the information specified in Section 7.1.2 shall also be furnished for the subconsultant firm(s).

7.1.4 Coordination:

The consultant shall discuss in detail the manner in which proper coordination and information exchange will be guaranteed among the Department and other agencies.

7.1.5 Quality Control:

The consultant shall demonstrate the firm's quality control program, namely the policies and procedures followed to assure a complete, accurate, and quality product.

7.1.6 Other Appropriate Data:

Other data demonstrating the ability and experience of the firm in providing the specified services may be included in the proposal.

7.2 ABBREVIATED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PACKAGE

A maximum of 5 letter-sized pages has been established for this proposal. The pertinent data shall be submitted in electronic format only. All submittals, except the organization or staffing chart should adhere to minimum font size of 11, with ½” margins. This includes graphics, tables and captions on photos. Submittals are subject to public records requests.

The data in the written Technical Proposal Package shall be restricted to the following:

1. Certifications (see 7.3)

2. Organization or Staffing chart (may be either 8 ½” x 11” or 11” x

17”, at the discretion of the Consultant. Names and levels of key personnel for Prime and Subconsultants (including Project Manager) shall be included.

3. Resumes (restricted to 2 pages each). Key staff only.

4. Schedule of Events (2-page maximum, 11” x 17” is permitted)

5. Summary Staffhours

Resumes and organization or staffing charts shall not contain links to other web pages that would provide additional technical content.

Examples of acceptable and unacceptable content for organization charts, staffing charts, and staff hour estimate charts are provided at https://www.fdot.gov/procurement/SubmittalExamples.shtm. Organization, staffing, or staff hour estimate charts containing extra narrative content (not in conformance with examples) will be deemed unacceptable, at the sole discretion of the Procurement Office, and will not be passed on to the Technical Review Committee for review and evaluation with the other submittals.

No additional information should be included in this package. The entire package should be submitted as an attached, single computer file via e-mail. PDF (Adobe Acrobat) is the preferred format, but a Word file is acceptable. Please note, the Department’s e-mail system has a 20 MB size limitation for any single e-mail, including attachments. E-mails exceeding this limitation will be rejected by the e-mail server. It is the responsibility of the Consultant not to exceed this limitation.

Submittals shall be made to d3.profserv@dot.state.fl.us and must be received by the Department no later than 12:00 p.m. Noon (local time) on October 21, 2024.

7.3 FORMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

At the time the technical proposal package is submitted, the consultant shall include the following forms which are located in Attachments B and I.

7.3.1 Truth-In-Negotiations Certificate (Form No. 375-030-30):

This certification shall be executed and included with the submittal of the Technical https://www.fdot.gov/procurement/SubmittalExamples.shtm mailto:d3.profserv@dot.state.fl.us

Proposal for any lump-sum or cost-plus-a-fixed fee professional services agreement over $60,000.00.

7.3.2 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion For Federal Aid Contracts (Appendix B Certification):

This certification for Federal-Aid contracts shall be certified and dated by an officer of the firm, association or corporation submitting the proposal.

7.3.3 Certification For Disclosure of Lobbying Activities On Federal-Aid Contracts (Compliance with 49 CFR, Section 20.100 (b):

The prospective participant certifies, by signing this certification, that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the undersigned to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, or an officer or employee of a member of Congress in connection with any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement , and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant , loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in accordance with its instruction. This form should only be completed if it is applicable for your firm. Please denote inapplicability by checking the N/A box at the top of the document and signing where indicated.

7.3.4 Vendor Certification Regarding Scrutinized Companies Lists

This certification shall be executed and included with the submittal of the Technical Proposal for any professional services agreement of $1,000,000 or more.

The authorized representative certifies, by signing this certification, that the company is not listed on either the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List or the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List.

7.3.5 DBE Utilization:

The Department encourages DBE firms to compete for Department professional services projects, and also encourages non-DBE consultants to use DBE firms as sub-consultants. However, use of DBE sub-consultants is not mandatory and no preference points will be given in the selection process for DBE participation.

Consultants are requested to indicate their intention regarding DBE participation on the DBE Participation Statement contained in Attachment I to this Request for Proposal, and to submit that Statement with their Technical Proposal Package.

7.3.6 E-Verify:

This certification shall be executed by the consultant for all procurements.

The authorized representative acknowledges and certifies compliance with Section 448.095, Florida Statutes, for the duration of the contract term.

7.4 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

Copyrighted material will be accepted as a part of a proposal only if accompanied by a waiver that will allow the Department to make paper and electronic copies necessary for the use of Department staff and agents. It is noted that copyrighted material is not exempt from the Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Therefore, such material will be subject to viewing by the public, but copies of the material will not be provided to the public.

8.0 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME INFORMATION STATEMENT:

As per Section 287.133, paragraph (2) (a), Florida Statutes, the following statement shall be made a part of all invitations to bid, request for proposals, and any contract documents:

“A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid or contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.”

9.0 COOPERATION WITH AGENCY INSPECTOR GENERAL:

As per Section 20.055(5), Florida Statutes, the following statement shall be made a part of all invitations to bid, request for proposals, and any contract documents:

“It is the duty of every state officer, employee, agency, special district, board, commission, contractor, and subcontractor to cooperate with the inspector general in any investigation, audit, inspection, review, or hearing pursuant to this section. Beginning July 1, 2015, each contract, bid, proposal, and application or solicitation for a contract shall contain a statement that the corporation, partnership, or person understands and will comply with this subsection.”

10.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION:

The consultant firm’s technical presentation shall be evaluated by a technical group. Evaluation comments shall be submitted by the group to the District Professional Services Office. The comments shall be combined with other appropriate information and forwarded to the Selection Committee.

The Selection Committee, consisting of the District Secretary, the appropriate District Director and Department Head, shall meet to discuss the capabilities of the consultant firms. At the discretion of the Committee, other persons may be requested to provide information at the meeting.

The Selection and Technical Committees shall consider and weigh the following areas in their selection process:

A. Adequacy of management staff B. Adequacy of technical staff C. Current or projected workload D. Recent or current experience in similar work E. Proposed Project Office location(s) F. Understanding of scope G. Adequacy of proposed schedule H. Innovative approaches to work I. Quality Control Plan J. Estimate of Work Effort

The Selection Committee shall establish a ranking order of the firms to provide the desired services.

The results shall be available via the Internet.

11.0 NEGOTIATIONS:

Upon ranking, the consultant firm will enter into negotiations with the Department. An automated fee proposal, staff hours and audit package shall be requested from the No.1 ranked consultant. The consultant shall submit an electronic copy of the automated fee proposal and an audit package (Attachment D), within 10 working days from the date the selection results are posted on the Internet. The audit package shall include the Letter of Qualification from the Department as documentation of the approved audited rates as well as appropriate information to support the wage rates.

The Professional Services Office in conjunction with the Department’s Project Manager will evaluate the firm’s wage rates, combined overhead and direct expense rate. If negotiations are successful, the Professional Services Office shall proceed with contract execution. If there are differences between the selected firm and the Department in the considered data, the Department's negotiator shall determine a fair and reasonable fee. The selected firm will then be given the option of accepting or rejecting the revised fee. Should the revised fee be rejected, the Department may terminate negotiations with the firm, documenting the reason for rejection, and initiate the aforementioned procedure with the firm ranked second by the Department's Selection Committee.

Should the Department be unable to negotiate a contract with the second ranked firm, the aforementioned procedure will be initiated with the third ranked firm. Should the Department be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, the Department shall select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with these procedures until an agreement is reached. The negotiated fee shall be at a compensation, which the Department determines is fair, competitive and reasonable considering the scope and complexity of the project.

12.0 PROJECT MANAGER:

The Department's Project Manager for this project shall be Mr. Johnnie Kirkland. His address, telephone number and email address are 1141 E. Jackson Avenue, Chipley, Florida 32428.

Phone (850) 625-7047; jkirkland@moffattnichol.com.

FIGURE 1

LOCATION MAP

SANTA ROSA COUNTY

Resurfacing, Restoration & Rehabilitation (RRR) Project

SR 89

From SR 4 to Alabama State Line

FPID: 452935-1

Section No.: 5806000

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

N

BEGIN PROJECT

1 MILE

CMP 21.977

END PROJECT

CMP 26.002

ATTACHMENT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

FOR ADVERTISEMENT

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

FOR

Financial Project ID: 452935-1-32-01

SR 89 from SR 4 to Alabama State Line

SANTA ROSA COUNTY

FDOT District 3

Page A-2 FPID: 452935-1-32-01

Table of Contents

1 PURPOSE

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3 PROJECT COMMON AND PROJECT GENERAL TASKS

4 ROADWAY ANALYSIS

5 ROADWAY PLANS

6a DRAINAGE ANALYSIS

6b DRAINAGE PLANS

6c SELECTIVE CLEARING AND GRUBBING (N/A)

7 UTILITIES

8 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS and ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCES

9 STRUCTURES - SUMMARY AND MISCELLANEOUS TASKS AND DRAWINGS (N/A)

10 STRUCTURES - BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT REPORT (N/A)

11 STRUCTURES - TEMPORARY BRIDGE (N/A)

12 STRUCTURES - SHORT SPAN CONCRETE BRIDGE (N/A)

13 STRUCTURES - MEDIUM SPAN CONCRETE BRIDGE (N/A)

14 STRUCTURES - STRUCTURAL STEEL BRIDGE (N/A)

15 STRUCTURES - SEGMENTAL CONCRETE BRIDGE (N/A)

16 STRUCTURES - MOVABLE SPAN (N/A)

17 STRUCTURES - RETAINING WALLS (N/A)

18 STRUCTURES - MISCELLANEOUS (N/A)

19 SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING ANALYSIS

20 SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS

21 SIGNALIZATION ANALYSIS

22 SIGNALIZATION PLANS

23 LIGHTING ANALYSIS (N/A)

24 LIGHTING PLANS (N/A)

25 LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS (N/A)

26 LANDSCAPE PLANS (N/A)

27 SURVEY

28 PHOTOGRAMMETRY

29 MAPPING (N/A)

Page A-3 FPID: 452935-1-32-01

30 TERRESTRIAL MOBILE LiDAR

31 ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT (N/A)

32 NOISE BARRIERS IMPACT DESIGN ASSESSMENT IN THE DESIGN PHASE (N/A) . 68

33 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (N/A)

34 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANS (N/A)

35 GEOTECHNICAL (N/A)

36 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

37 INVOICING LIMITS

Page A-4 FPID: 452935-1-32-01

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES

HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE/STRUCTURAL DESIGN

This Exhibit forms an integral part of the agreement between the State of Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT or FDOT) and [Consultant Name or leave blank until CONSULTANT is selected] (hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT) relative to the transportation facility described as follows:

Financial Project ID: 452935-1-32-01

Related Financial Project ID(s): (N/A)

Federal Aid Project No.: (N/A)

Roadway:

RoadwayId Begin milepost End milepost 58060000 21.977 26.002

Project Description: SR 89 FROM SR 4 TO ALABAMA STATE LINE

Bridge No(s).: N/A

Railroad Crossing No.: N/A

Context Classification:

C2-Rural Sparsely settled lands; may include agricultural land, grassland, woodland, and wetlands.

1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Exhibit is to describe the scope of work and the responsibilities of the CONSULTANT and the DEPARTMENT in connection with the design and preparation of a complete set of construction contract documents and incidental engineering services, as necessary, for improvements to the transportation facility described herein.

Major work mix includes:

o 0012 - RESURFACING

Major work groups include:

o 3.1 - Minor Highway Design

Minor work groups include o 7.1 - Signing, Pavement Marking and Channelization o 8.1 - Control Surveying o 8.2 - Design, Right of Way & Construction Surveying o 8.3 - Photogrammetric Mapping*

*Survey Method(s) to be determined by the CONSULTANT and approved by the

DEPARTMENT.

Page A-5 FPID: 452935-1-32-01

Alternative construction contracting methods have NOT been identified for this project at this time.

The general objective is for the CONSULTANT to prepare a set of Contract Documents including plans, specifications, supporting engineering analysis, calculations and other technical documents in accordance with FDOT policy, procedures and requirements. These Contract Documents will be used by the contractor to build the project and test the project components. These Contract Documents will be used by the DEPARTMENT or its Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI) representatives for inspection and final acceptance of the project. The CONSULTANT shall follow a systems engineering process to ensure that all required project components are included in the development of the Contract Documents and the project can be built as designed and to specifications.

The Scope of Services establishes which items of work in the FDOT Design Manual and other pertinent manuals are specifically prescribed to accomplish the work included in this Contract, and also indicate which items of work will be the responsibility of the CONSULTANT and/or the DEPARTMENT.

The CONSULTANT shall be aware that as a project is developed, certain modifications and/or improvements to the original concepts may be required. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate these refinements into the design and consider such refinements to be an anticipated and integral part of the work. This shall not be a basis for any supplemental fee request(s).

The CONSULTANT shall demonstrate good project management practices while working on this project. These include communication with the DEPARTMENT and others as necessary, management of time and resources, and documentation. The CONSULTANT shall set up and maintain throughout the design of the project a contract file in accordance with DEPARTMENT procedures. CONSULTANTs are expected to know the laws and rules governing their professions and are expected to provide services in accordance with current regulations, codes and ordinances and recognized standards applicable to such professional services. The CONSULTANT shall provide qualified technical and professional personnel to perform to DEPARTMENT standards and procedures, the duties and responsibilities assigned under the terms of this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall minimize to the maximum extent possible the DEPARTMENT's need to apply its own resources to assignments authorized by the DEPARTMENT.

The DEPARTMENT will provide contract administration, management services, and technical reviews of all work associated with the development and preparation of Contract Documents, including Construction Documents. The DEPARTMENT's technical reviews are for high-level conformance and are not meant to be comprehensive reviews. The CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all work performed and work products developed under this Scope of Services. The DEPARTMENT may provide job-specific information and/or functions as outlined in this contract.

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The CONSULTANT shall investigate the status of the project and become familiar with concepts and commitments (typical sections, alignments, etc.) developed from prior studies

Page A-6 FPID: 452935-1-32-01 and/or activities. If a Preliminary Engineering Report is available from a prior or current Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study, the CONSULTANT shall use the approved concepts as a basis for the design unless otherwise directed by the DEPARTMENT.

Financial Project ID: 452935-1-32-01

This 3R project primarily consists of resurfacing SR 89 from SR 4 to the Alabama State Line. Existing travel lanes and paved shoulders will be resurfaced. The typical section consists of 2-12’ travel lanes and 10’ shoulders (4' paved). The right-of-way varies throughout the project limits. No additional right-of-way will be required.

The CONSULTANT shall take a practical approach to all projects by identifying cost savings on any/all phases of a project (design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction).

SR 89 has been designated as a "Hurricane Evacuation Route".

There are no signalized intersections within the project limits.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with District Planning Office to determine if the traffic detector loops at existing Portable Traffic Monitoring Sites (PTMS) are to be reinstalled or if the sites are to be removed.

Per the FDOT Traffic Operations Office and the Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI) Database, the posted (justified) speed limit on SR 89 is 35 mph at the beginning of the project and incrementally increases to 55 mph to a point north of Old Pollard Rd (CMP 22.639). This posted speed (55 mph) is maintained through the end of the project. Initial field observations of the posted speed limit agree with the RCI Database. Any contradictions to the posted (justified) speeds described above (found posted in the field, or proposed by CONSULTANT) will require close coordination with the DEPARTMENT's Design Project Manager and approval from the FDOT Traffic Operations Office on the project's Typical Section Package.

Any sideroad turnouts identified as having substandard radii and showing signs of off-tracking shall be reviewed by the CONSULTANT to determine if improvements are feasible. Recommendations for radius reconstruction should be discussed with the DEPARMENT's Design Project Manager.

All guardrail (including guardrail end anchorage assemblies and connections to bridge rail) shall be evaluated for conformance to FDOT Standards for type, height, and offset to the travel lanes and hazards. Existing guardrail shall be evaluated to determine if the length of advancement meets FDOT Standards. The guardrail should be extended if required.

COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS: This project should be coordinated with all adjacent County, State or private projects.