RFP 2026-1000-0342 Amendment 2.pdf

STATE OF ALASKA

Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry & Fire Protection

Community Wildfire Protection Plan Development

RFP 2026-1000-0342

Amendment 2 09/02/2026

This amendment is being issued to answer questions from interested parties.

Important Note to Offerors: You must sign and return this page of the amendment document with your proposal.

Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your proposal. Only the RFP terms and conditions referenced in this amendment are being changed. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain the same.

Madelyn Lowe Procurement Officer COMPANY SUBMITTING PROPOSAL Phone: (907) 761-6357 Email: madelyn.lowe@alaska.gov

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

DATE

Questions submitted by potential offerors and answers from the state:

Question 1: Would it be appropriate to plan for an in-person visit to McGrath and engage with the other communities through alternative forms of communication, such as virtual meetings and phone calls, recognizing the challenges associated with travel throughout the region?

Answer: A hybrid approach to community outreach is acceptable; however, DFFP expects the contractor to conduct outreach in each identified community. Collaboration with tribal partners is crucial, and face-to-face engagement during the beginning phases is essential.

Question 2: Can DFFP please provide the communications plan for contractors, including more detail on the outreach strategy and directions for social media posts (based on the note under the Community Engagement Contractor Rubric in Appendix A)?

Answer: DFFP's Communications Plan is attached.

Question 3: Can DFFP clarify whether risk and hazard field verification or site visits are expected for all communities, or whether desktop analysis is acceptable in communities with limited access?

Answer: Field verification and site visits are preferred; however, desktop analysis would be acceptable where access is limited or field verification is impracticable. Offerors should describe their proposed approach and include all associated costs in their cost proposal. The specific approach, locations, and frequency of field verification and site visits may be discussed further with the intended awardee.

Question 4: Are there any populated areas not included in the RFP that the State would like to include in the plan? If so, we could consider identifying the additional level of effort and associated costs.

Answer: No. The communities identified for inclusion in this Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) are

McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai, and Telida.

Question 5: Do the communities of Takotna, Nikolai, Telida, and McGrath have reliable internet access? If not, what are the most effective ways to communicate and coordinate with local leaders and community members?

Answer: Community leadership and local entities generally have internet access, and community members often do as well. As in many remote locations, service may be intermittent.

Question 6: Does the State have specific local leaders or community representatives who would be available for one-on-one meetings, particularly in Takotna, Nikolai, and Telida?

Answer: Developing the stakeholder list is part of the CWPP process. DFFP's CWPP Coordinator will assist the contractor in developing the list.

Question 7: Does the State have any statewide datasets on wildfire, fuels, or risk that will be desired or required for use? If possible, please identify the plans, datasets, records, and contacts that DFFP and partner agencies will furnish at Notice to Proceed, including fire history, fuels and vegetation, land ownership, structures, critical infrastructure, response assets, water sources, prior mitigation projects, HMP/SCERPS documents, imagery, and community demographic information.

Answer: Yes. Additional details will be discussed after award. In the meantime, offerors may visit the State of Alaska CWPP webpage for an interactive map, resource toolkit, and additional information:

https://forestry.alaska.gov/fire/cwpp/index.

Question 8: Is there a preferred fire spread model to be used for the wildfire risk analysis?

Answer: Offerors should propose a recognized and appropriate methodology for the project and describe the model, supporting data, assumptions, and rationale in their proposal. Additional wildfire risk assessment resources are available on the State of Alaska CWPP webpage:

https://forestry.alaska.gov/fire/cwpp/index.

Question 9: Is one regional website sufficient? Who will host the webpage? Any information regarding accessibility, security, hosting duration, content approval, records retention, ownership, and maintenance requirements would be helpful.

Answer: The website is intended to serve as a one-stop resource where the public, communities, entities, and agencies can access current information, timelines, meeting recordings, and information about the CWPP development process.

Question 10: Is the State able and willing to host the ESRI materials under its license?

Answer: The applicable requirement is stated in Scope of Work, Task 4 - GIS Mapping and Spatial Analysis.

The contractor shall develop GIS-based maps supporting the CWPP; incorporate available wildfire history, vegetation, fuels, infrastructure, and mitigation project data; produce maps suitable for inclusion in the final CWPP and public presentations; and provide GIS deliverables in a format compatible with the Esri ArcGIS platform.

Question 11: Working Group/Steering Committee: Who (local and tribal governments, fire departments, DFFP officials, etc.) is expected to be involved in guiding plan development? Will the State compile this group and its contact information, or is that the awarded firm's responsibility? Please also identify which groups or officials must approve and sign the plan and whether the contractor is responsible for obtaining all resolutions, proclamations, adoption actions, and signatures.

Answer: DFFP will assist the awarded contractor in developing a stakeholder list that includes the parties identified in the question and others. DFFP will route the completed CWPP for final signatures. The signature page will be developed in coordination with the DFFP CWPP Coordinator or other DFFP-appointed personnel.

Question 12: Please identify any logistical support DFFP or the communities will provide, such as meeting venues, local transportation, lodging coordination, local contact lists, interpretation, mailing support, or access to local media.

Answer: Offerors should assume responsibility for all logistical arrangements and associated costs, including travel, local transportation, lodging, meeting space, interpretation, mailing, and other outreach needs. DFFP will assist the contractor with identifying local contacts and coordinating introductions to community and tribal representatives. Any additional support that may be available from DFFP or the communities will be discussed with the intended awardee but is not guaranteed and should not be excluded from the offeror’s proposed costs.

Question 13: Is it expected that community meetings or workshops will be held in each of the four communities, or are key stakeholders and collaborators willing to travel to a central location such as McGrath? Do the quarterly requirements in Attachment 3 apply once to the MTNT Region as a whole or separately to each community? Please state the minimum number and location of required public meetings, community-event appearances, mailed surveys, planning-team meetings, and final presentations.

Answer: The contractor should plan to conduct at least one in-person visit to each of the four identified communities: McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai, and Telida. Additional visits may be necessary based on the contractor’s proposed approach, community needs, and the progress of the CWPP development process. Offerors should account for the required visits and any additional anticipated site visits in both their technical and cost proposals.

Additional engagement may be conducted through virtual meetings, telephone calls, mailed surveys, community events, or other appropriate methods. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, the quarterly engagement requirements in Attachment 3 apply to the MTNT Region as a whole and are not required separately in each community. The final schedule, location, and frequency of engagement activities may be further coordinated with the intended awardee.

Question 14: Is the required final product one regional MTNT CWPP using a hub-and-satellite structure, or one regional CWPP with four community-specific chapters or annexes? Please identify the required level of community-specific risk analysis, mapping, mitigation projects, and implementation recommendations for McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai, and Telida. The RFP calls for one final CWPP, while the template specifically discusses multi-community hub plans.

Answer: The required final product is one CWPP for the MTNT Region. It will include risk assessments for each community and an overall regional risk rating.

Question 15: Will the project be run from the Fairbanks or Anchorage offices with respect to onsite meetings during the winter months?

Answer: The project may be managed from any location; however, in-person outreach must occur in each community.

Question 16: Please reconcile Section 2.09’s prohibition on subcontractors with other RFP provisions that refer to subcontractors and evaluate their qualifications. Does the prohibition also apply to individual independent contractors, 1099 specialists, affiliated entities, temporary personnel, specialty GIS providers, printers, website hosts, and other lower-tier vendors, or is the intent only to prohibit delegation of substantive CWPP work?

Answer: Section 2.09 prohibits subcontracting the substantive work required to develop the CWPP.

References to subcontractors elsewhere in the RFP are standard provisions and do not override this prohibition.

Individuals or entities performing substantive portions of the scope—including independent contractors, 1099 specialists, affiliated entities, temporary personnel, and specialty GIS providers— would be considered subcontractors and are subject to Section 2.09. Vendors providing incidental support services, such as printing or website hosting, are not considered subcontractors provided they do not perform substantive CWPP development work. The contractor remains fully responsible for all deliverables and contract requirements.