Q-A PO165 Bid - BuyOut Program.docx
DOCX document 81 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-25-1013-RMS00-MITAG-116653
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
The document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for a Request for Response (RFR) issued by the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) for a statewide voluntary flood buyout and elevation program feasibility study. The RFR, numbered BD-25-1013-RMS00-MITAG-116653, seeks a comprehensive two-phase study to be implemented across fiscal years 2026-2027, with electronic submissions required through the COMMBUYS system by July 8, 2025, and an estimated contract start date of August 1, 2025. The project will involve detailed multi-phase analysis including hazard and risk assessment, program design, benefit-cost analysis, and implementation strategy, with specific deliverables such as literature review, case study analysis, implementation barrier assessment, and pilot program structure development.
The contract has a maximum total obligation of $400,000, with $275,000 allocated for tasks in FY26 and $125,000 for FY27, potentially funded through multiple sources with incremental contract amendments. The procurement includes specific Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) requirements mandating a minimum 1% commitment to certified diverse businesses, including Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Woman Business Enterprise (WBE), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Enterprise (SDVOBE). The project aims to address increasing flood vulnerabilities, with projections showing a 12-42% increase in winter precipitation by 2070 and potential annual coastal flood damage exceeding $52 million, emphasizing prioritization of environmental justice and vulnerable populations in high-risk flood areas.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1 - Budget - Chart A and B.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| IT RFR Required Specifications.doc | DOC document | |
| form_contractor-authorized-signatory-listing-for-contractors (1).pdf | ||
| 2 CFR 200.326 (Appendix II).docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix II to Part 200.docx | DOCX document | |
| SDP_Spending_Report (5).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| busreffm (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| form_w-9_UEI.pdf | ||
| SDP_Plan_Form (4).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| form_prompt-pay-discount.pdf | ||
| instructions-for-vendors-responding-to-bids (4).docx | DOCX document | |
| CommonwealthTermsAndConditions.pdf | ||
| EFT_FORM.pdf | ||
| PO 165 RFR - Flood Buyout and Elevation Program.docx | DOCX document | |
| TEMPLATE Environmental Practices Form and Scoring Criteria 2 1 23 (1) (1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| req-specs-Edits0423-final.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A PO165
COMMBUYS Bid Number BD-25-1013-RMS00-MITAG-116653 Feasibility Study and Design Recommendations for a Statewide Voluntary Flood Buyout and Elevation Program
RFR Section & Page Number
Question
Part A, Deliverables Task 3
| 1 |
| Who does MEMA envision the review committee for Draft 2 reviews of Task 3 deliverables would consist of? Will it just be the PMT during Task 3? |
Answer
We envision the PMT plus the entire working group will review DRAFT 1 of Task 3 deliverables, while the smaller PMT group will review any subsequent drafts.
Part A, Deliverables Task 3
| 2 |
| Will any of the deliverables for Task 3 be public-facing? Should they be made 508-compliant? |
Answer
It is conceivable that the final Feasibility Study will be made public. Therefore, in accordance with state law, the final Feasibility Study Report must meet 508 compliance.
Part A, Task 4.1
| 3 |
| Should the last sentence of the first paragraph actually read “Phase 1 includes Tasks 2 and 3; and Phase 2 builds on the findings of Phase 1 and is focused on the Task 5 deliverables,”? |
Answer
It should be “Phase 1 includes Tasks 2, 3 and 4.2; and Phase 2 builds on the findings of Phase 1 and is focused on the Task 5 deliverables,” It is envisioned there will also be stakeholder engagement as part Task 4.2 to develop Goals and Metrics.
Part A, Deliverables Task 4
| 4 |
| For the “Summary memo within final report or appendix detailing how stakeholder feedback has been collected and incorporated into revised deliverables;” is the intent to just have a summary memo or have a summary memo and update Task 3 deliverables with the feedback collected during Task 4? |
Answer
All stakeholder/partner feedback must be integrated into documents and the process (where relevant) as deemed appropriate by the PMT as we proceed through the project. However, all feedback collected and how it was incorporated (or not) must be included in a summary memo/appendix.
Part A, Deliverables Task 4
| 5 |
| Is there a requirement to provide translations of any meeting materials for stakeholder engagement activities to languages other than English? |
Answer
Yes, there is a requirement to provide the opportunity for translation services which may include the top five most spoken languages in the Commonwealth which include Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian creole and Chinese.
Part B, Vendor Qualifications
| 6 |
| What is the anticipated timeline for PMT and other supportive agencies to review each of the Draft 2 deliverables and provide the vendor with any recommended revisions? |
Answer
For shorter documents the turnaround time can be 3-5 working days depending on the document. But for larger documents it could be 5-8 working days depending on the document.
| Part B, 2. References |
| 7 |
| Should the “References” labelled as “2,” be included in the “Experience” or “Budget” section of the proposal file? Or should it be included as a “Required form” or in another way? |
Answer
The “Business References” form to be included in Proposal as part of Section B - Experience
| Stakeholder engagement |
| 8 |
| 1) Is the stakeholder engagement that is described as part of the Needs Assessment (Task 2.3) intended to be separate from the Stakeholder Engagement planning and implementation described in Task 4.1? |
A: Stakeholder Engagement for all relevant tasks must be included in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan broken down by phase 1 and 2.
2) Can the budget be used for cash and similar direct compensation for stakeholder engagement?
A: Yes. Any compensation must be processed by the chosen vendor, and should be clearly described in their proposal/budget.
3) The RFQ calls for the stakeholder engagement effort to ""Obtain cross-government buy-in as relevant from RMAT’s Climate Coordinators."" Could you elaborate on the extent of inside-of-government/intra-agency facilitation anticipated and what kind of "buy in" will be sought from internal stakeholders?
A: The RMAT climate coordinators are appointed Executive Office staff whose responsibilities include implementation of the ResilientMass Plan and to ensure there is awareness of work and any new policies their agencies are involved with. Because this is an existing team structure (cross-government), RMAT will be utilized to bring awareness of this study as well as the potential development of a statewide voluntary buyout & elevation program to their secretary. It is anticipated RMAT will be brought in at the beginning to bring awareness, answer any questions and then included in meetings throughout as determined appropriate by the PMT and vendor. It is also expected that approval/buy-in will be needed by relevant secretaries.
4) What are the expectations for language interpretation and translation? Will the costs for these services be covered outside of this contract?
A: We will offer the opportunity for translation and interpretation services for the virtual public meetings and the costs should be considered/detailed in this contract. Languages include the top five most spoken languages in the Commonwealth which include Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian creole and Chinese.
5) The scope outlined in the RFQ indicates "The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) and individuals from partnering agencies, will form a project management team (PMT) that will oversee the contracted vendor to ensure project scope, timeline, and budget are executed as written." Can you elaborate on what other agencies will be represented on the PMT and what role they will serve in project management and direction?
A: Currently MEMA and EEA agencies are on the PMT. This may expand by 1-3 additional members prior to kick-off. The full PMT will be involved in all aspects of the project, including document review and project direction.
| Elevation and buyout program integration |
| 9 |
| The description of the legislation directing MEMA to conduct an Acquisition/Buy-out Program Study does not include elevations. The RFR makes it clear that this is a study to look at a program that might provide support for both buyouts and elevations. Can you elaborate on the way you see the two program objectives being integrated? |
Also, should we presume that any future program will be a combined buyouts/elevations program (thus necessitating the development of a program with tools and resources to assess whether and in what circumstances elevations are preferable to buyouts and vice-versa)? Or should this study seek to evaluate whether Massachusetts should develop and pilot a combined program or one that is focused on buyouts?
Answer
This is not a legislatively mandated action. MEMA developed it during the 2023 update of the State Hazard Mitigation & Climate Adaptation Plan (ResilientMass Plan) as we currently manage local buyouts and elevation projects through FEMA HMA funding. Buyouts and elevations are two project types that buy down risk to flooding. Therefore, we are including both options in the study with the intent to include both as an offering in the program.
Yes, a future program should combine buyouts and elevations with tools and resources to assess whether and in what circumstance elevations are preferable to buyouts and vice-versa.
| Other |
| 10 |
| 1) Is the "analysis of both state led voluntary buyout and elevation programs and local led, state supported programs, concluding with recommendations for which program structure makes the most sense for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" as described for the Needs Assessment (Task 2.3) intended to be separate or distinct from the case study analysis in Task 2.2? |
A: Yes, the expectation is the study will include recommendations for which program structure makes the most sense for the Commonwealth.
2) Is the "FY20 BRIC funded Analysis of statewide opportunities for higher floodplain development standards in or outside of the state building code and benefits analysis" mentioned in Task 2.3 available to the public, or can it be made available to the teams proposing on this study?
A: The chosen vendor will have access to the results and any relevant data.
3) Can you clarify the distribution of evaluation points across the five non-SDP evaluation criteria in Section 10?
A: See Answer 15.
Can you clarify whether the SDP points applies to prime and to subcontractors?
A: Yes, SDP points apply to prime and subcontractors.
| Task 3.3 |
| 11 |
| In reference to Task 3.3, the RFP states: "Costs must consider and provide potential mitigation strategies to overcome housing, loss of tax revenue, future development limitations (deed restrictions), etc." Please clarify what is to be "overcome" in the first part of the sentence. Please clarify if the contractor is to provide potential mitigation strategies for the listed cost categories within the program design (i.e., separate from the cost-benefit analysis) and also evaluate the costs and added benefits of implementing the mitigation strategies within the cost-benefit analysis. |
Answer
Please clarify what is to be "overcome" in the first part of the sentence. Implications to “housing, loss of tax revenue, future development limitations (deed restrictions), long term land maintenance, etc." need to be considered in this study including potential strategies to reduce any roadblocks from localities on a program.
Please clarify if the contractor is to provide potential mitigation strategies for the listed cost categories within the program design (i.e., separate from the cost-benefit analysis) and also evaluate the costs and added benefits of implementing the mitigation strategies within the cost-benefit analysis. YES – mitigation strategies within the program design (FEMA HMA funding as option within the pilot program framework, property identification and prioritization, stormwater tax provisions, model language for communities, etc) are separate from the costs and benefits of implementing the mitigation strategies. The latter potentially informing the prioritization process.
| 12 |
| Please confirm that the writing sample requested in Section 2. Experience is not included in the page limit for the section. |
Answer
Correct, the writing sample is in addition to the page limit.
| 13 |
| Please clarify if the References (requested on page 16 of the RFP) should be included in the Budget Section, its own section, or another section. |
Answer
The “Business References” form to be included in Proposal as part of Section B - Experience
| 14 |
| Please confirm that vendors are to submit a PDF version of Attachment 1 with its Proposal response (counting towards the 10 pages for c. Budget), as well as a separate file as the Excel version of Attachment 1. |
Answer
Correct.
| 15 |
| Are there specific points allocated to the evaluation criteria listed on RFP page 18-19? |
Answer
| Section Description |
| Maximum Points |
| Section 1 |
| Project Approach |
| 36 |
| Section 2 |
| Price |
| 8 |
| Section 3 |
| Supplier Diversity Plan |
| 25 |
| Section 4 |
| Team Qualifications and Technical/Analytical Capabilities |
| 12 |
| Section 5 |
| Experience with Similar Projects and Project Management |
| 12 |
| Section 6 |
| Writing Experience and Communication Skills |
| 7 |
100.0
| 16 |
| Would MEMA consider allowing vendors to provide resumes as an appendix outside of page limitations? Alternatively, would MEMA consider limiting each resume to 1 page each, not included in the 15-pge limit for Section b. Experience? |
Answer
Yes, resumes limited to one page each can be an appendix outside of the 15-pg limit.
| 17 |
| Does MEMA has an anticipated size/scale of the Pilot Project? |
Answer
No, we are looking for the chosen vendor to provide recommendations based on the analysis conducted in Tasks 2 and 3.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .