QLV26006778 Scope of Work.pdf

SOLICITATION SPECIFICATIONS

QBS- QUALIFIED BASED SELECTION OF VENDORS TECHNICAL REVIEW

TITLE: BARBERVILLE DAM ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, RICHMOND/HOPKINTON RI

SECTION A. BACKGROUND

RIDEM is seeking qualified firms to provide data collection and alternatives analysis for the Barberville Dam on the Wood River on the Richmond/ Hopkinton RI town boundary. See Figure 1 for dam locus area. The alternative analysis will provide a comprehensive evaluation of three alternatives: removal, partial removal and repair/rehabilitation. The project will provide much-needed information on the feasibility of dam removal through a comparative process which considers the ecological, recreational and financial benefits and impacts of each alternative. The anticipated outcome of the Alternatives Analysis is a comprehensive understanding of the alternatives for the Barberville Dam and identification of a preferred alternative.

The Barberville dam dates to the mid-19th-century. The primary spillway of the dam is an approximately 92-feet-wide stone masonry weir. A central dike separates the primary spillway from a 15-foot-wide canal on the west side, diverting the water through a secondary masonry weir spillway located approximately 150 feet downstream of the primary spillway. Arcadia Road runs east–west and crosses the Wood River just south of the primary spillway where a concrete bridge with a centrally located pier spans the main channel of the Wood River.

The dam is classified by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Compliance and Inspection (OCI) Dam Safety Program as a Significant Hazard Dam, which is defined as “a dam where failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of human life but can cause major economic loss, disruption of lifeline facilities or impact other concerns detrimental to the public’s health, safety or welfare”. Based on the 2024 Annual Dam Safety report, prepared by RIDEM OCI, the dam is in “Potentially Unsafe” condition due to erosion and failed walls.

A screening-level spillway adequacy analysis conducted for the Dam Safety Program in 2017 found that the dam is unable to pass either the 500-year peak flood flows or the 100-year peak flood flows. As a Significant Hazard Dam, it is required to pass the 500-year flood flow to comply with upcoming changes to the Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety.

The alternatives to be considered include removal, partial removal, and repair/rehabilitation. Each alternative will include theff canal and canal spillway in the analysis. The removal alternative will include removal of the full vertical extent and as much of the horizontal extent of the dam as possible. The partial removal alternative will evaluate reducing the vertical and horizontal extent of the dam to reduce upstream storage capacity and thus the potential for downstream impacts in the event of dam failure. This may reduce the hazard classification of the dam from Significant Hazard to Low Hazard. The repair/rehabilitation alternative will evaluate how to safely convey flows up to and including the 500-year peak flood flows. Because aquatic fish passage is a key priority of the analysis, both the repair/rehabilitation alternative and the partial removal alternative will include consideration of a fish passage structure.

2018-1 Page 2 of 4 Revised 05/17/2024

SECTION B: SCOPE OF WORK AND REQUIREMENTS

Note: All deliverables are subject to review by the Project Team and are considered draft documents until any requested revisions are accepted.

Task 1: Project Team Meetings Schedule a kickoff meeting with Project Team within three weeks of issuance of the Purchase Order. Attend regular Project Team meetings to provide updates, review critical information and advance the project.

Deliverables

• Meeting Notes

Task 2: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for review and approval by EPA and Narragansett Bay Estuary Program (NBEP) prior to any data collection.

Deliverables

• Approved QAPP

Task 3: Community Engagement Kick-off Meeting Present an overview of the project at public meeting in Hopkinton or Richmond to inform the public and gather initial feedback. RIDEM will arrange the venue and notify the public.

Deliverables

• Meeting Slides

• Public Meeting Notes

Task 4: Data Collection & Base Plan Development Collect and compile data: topography, bathymetry, sediment depth, sediment composition and contaminants, wetland delineation, Natural Heritage data, etc.

Develop a Base Plan.

Deliverables

• Data Report

• Base Plan

Task 5: H&H Modeling Develop a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic model of the stretch of the river affected by the dam. The model will be used to assess the hydraulic performance of the dam and serve as the base model for evaluation of alternatives.

Deliverables

• H&H Modeling Report

Task 6: Alternatives Evaluation Develop a concept-level plan for each alternative. Evaluate impacts of alternatives on aquatic organism passage, water quality, flood resilience, abutters, infrastructure, permitting implications as well as impact to USGS stream gauges within the potentially impacted reach of the Wood River. Develop Opinions of Probable

2018-1 Page 3 of 4 Revised 05/17/2024

Construction Cost for each alternative. Develop a Comparative Matrix to aid in evaluating feasibility (including permitting), impacts, benefits, and costs.

Deliverables

• 3 Concept-level plans

• Discussion of Benefits & Impacts

• OPCC for each Alternative

• Comparative Matrix

• Compile all of above in a Summary report

Task 7: Community Engagement Meeting Present the results of Task 6 at a public meeting in Richmond or Hopkinton and obtain feedback on the alternatives. RIDEM will arrange the venue and notify the public.

Deliverables

• Meeting Slides

• Public Meeting Notes

Task 8: Refine Preferred Alternative Support the Project Team in consideration of the alternatives and determination of the Preferred Alternative. Refine the concept plan for the Preferred Alternative to 30% design. Provide Summary Memo of steps and permits needed to complete the design and permitting of the Preferred Alternative.

Deliverables

• 30% Design Plan for Preferred Alternative

• Updated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

• Summary Memo of Next Steps

SECTION C: PROPOSAL

1. Technical Proposal

Narrative and format: Vendors must submit a technical proposal which addresses each of the following elements and is limited to six (6) pages (this excludes any appendices and as appropriate, resumes of key staff that will provide services covered by this request):

A. Staff Qualifications –. Describe the breadth of experience of the firm and the key team members across the range of disciplines described in this RFP. Resumes shall be limited to two pages per key team member and tailored to provide project experiences most similar in scope to this solicitation. Indicate examples of work within similarly broad-ranging disciplines, relate the example sites and projects to this one, the approaches the firm undertook which led to those various elements and disciplines, and how that experience is reasonably transferrable to this project and site.

B. Demonstrated Experience/References- Provide three (3) relevant client references for projects which Key Project Staff have completed. Include client names, addresses, contact names with emails and phone numbers, dates of service and type(s) of service(s) provided.

C. Approach/Methodology- Describe in detail how the firm and Key Project Staff will execute the project. Identify industry, scientific and regulatory standards. If applicable, identify potential

2018-1 Page 4 of 4 Revised 05/17/2024 alternatives to the framework described within this RFP. Quantify the approach where applicable (for example data collection boundaries & parameters, number of samples).

D. Schedule - Provide a comprehensive project schedule. The schedule must identify all major tasks, deliverables, and project milestones. The schedule should clearly show task sequencing, anticipated durations, and milestone completion points.

2. Supplemental Bidder Attestation Form

See Appendix A on the “Overview” tab in Ocean State Procures™ for information. Vendors are required to complete, sign and submit this form with their overall proposal.

SECTION D: EVALUATION AND SELECTION - SOLICITATION SPECIFIC

Technical proposals are scored and the agency will present and recommend to the state Architecture & Engineering Committee to negotiate pricing with the highest technical scored firm. If the A&E Committee approves the recommendation, it is then forwarded to the Chief Operating Officer for final approval. Once approved by the Chief Purchasing Officer the state will request a cost proposal from the highest scoring firm which must also receive a minimum of 80 (80%) out of a maximum of 100 points.

Based on the cost submitted from the highest scoring firm, the state reserves the right to negotiate for the most favorable price. If the state cannot come to an agreed price, state reserves the right to commence negotiations with next highest scoring firm.

The Division of Purchases reserves the right to select the vendor(s) or firm(s) (“vendor”) that it deems to be most qualified to provide the goods and/or services as specified herein; and, conversely, reserves the right to cancel the solicitation in its entirety in its sole discretion.

Proposals shall be reviewed and scored based upon the following criteria:

NOTE: See the “Requirements” tab of this solicitation for additional information on the evaluation and selection process in the “QLV and QLV/QBS Specifications” section.

Criteria

Possible Points

Staff Qualifications 21 Points

Demonstrated Experience 21 Points

Approach/Methodology 28 Points

Schedule 30 Points

Total Possible Technical Points 100 Points

SECTION D: EVALUATION AND SELECTION - SOLICITATION SPECIFIC