RFP 24-2680 Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP-761-240000002680-2
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) for archaeological assessments of orphan well and tank facilities. The RFP seeks a contractor to prepare Section 106 applications for approximately 345 individual well and tank sites, which may be grouped into up to 17 projects upon contract award. The contractor will be required to visit each site, collect photographic documentation, and prepare the necessary Section 106 applications for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) within 150 days of receiving the project batches. SHPO has provided guidance on the required assessment components, which include mapping, literature reviews, and recommendations on the need for further archaeological work. Bidders must provide sample reports, but sensitive information can be redacted.
The RFP does not specify a budget or funding source, but the contractor will be paid a lump sum per site, with the final cost dependent on the number and size of the project groupings. The State prefers adherence to the contract terms, but is willing to negotiate certain provisions. Bidders may use their own proposal format, but must provide the requested information within the RFP document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 240000002680 Archaeological Assessment Services.docx | DOCX document |
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
Sheet1
| Question # | Document and Section | Page # | Bidder Question | EGLE Response |
| 1 | Proposal Instructions | N/A | Regarding contract review and redlines, we do have exceptions to the contract language and scope of work. How open is the state to negotiating contract terms and conditions? For example, if we have redlines to the liquidated damages and penalty sections, how likely would those redlines be accepted during negotiation? | The State prefers adherence to the Contract Terms. If a bidder has exceptions and submits them as described in the RFP the State is willing to review them and some can be negotiated. Some terms are not negotiable and could make a difference in whether or not a contract could be awarded. |
| 2 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 40 | Will the selected consultant be required to include consideration of aboveground resources and a visual Area of Potential Effects in the Section 106 Applications? | This reponse from SHPO staff: I think based on our conversations the capping is entirely at ground level, there should not be tree removals or changes to the landscape, correct? If that is the case then I think you have enough justification to not require an Architectural Historian. However if there are sites that require more disruptive work to the landscape then a historian may need to be engaged. I do recommend at least checking the NR database to see if anything is previously listed in proximity, and providing sufficient site photos to show the property and viewshed. |
| 3 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 40 | The Scope includes a link to the Michigan Orphan Wells Dashboard. Will EGLE be able to provide the selected consultant with GIS shapefiles of well locations, or will the consultant be required to create shapefiles/mapping based on the mapping in the Dashboard? | Vendor should assume they would need to create the shape file from the mapping in the Dashboard. |
| 4 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 40 | Will the selected consultant be required to visit each well/tank site for photographic documentation of existing conditions, or will EGLE provide site photos and photo locations? | Vendor should assume that they would need to visit each site and collect the necessary photos to complete the scope of work. |
| 5 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 41 | In Section 1.1 it is noted that "many [well and tank sites] are located in close proximity to each other and may be combined into the same Section 106 application as makes sense geographically." It is our understanding that EGLE staff will determine the number and size of the groupings. The number and size of the groupings will affect the lump sum cost estimate per site based on an economy of scale - i.e., a single application that includes 30 sites will have a lower lump sum cost per site than an application that includes only 5 sites. Does EGLE have an estimate of the total number of groupings and the average size of the groupings that we can use for estimating the lump sum per site cost? | Vendor should base price on one site per Section 106 application. |
| 6 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 41 | In the RFP, the number of orphan well locations is listed as “approximately 345 individual sites”, and on the dashboard map there is a total number of 476 wells and 69 facilities. Could the state please provide the exact list and a map for the wells and orphan sites anticipated to be reviewed as part of this scope. Furthermore, will these sites be released all at once or in batches? If in batches, how many batches are anticipated and approximately in what intervals? | Section 106 applications are not necessary for every orphan well depicted on the Dashboard. A list of the sites and/or projects will be given to the winning vendor. They will most likely come in batches as wells and projects are added to list. Vendor can assume they will receive up to 17 projects upon award of the contract. |
| 7 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 43 | Will photos be provided by EGLE of the well site? Section 106 applications typically require photos for inclusion. Does SHPO want photos for these wells ? If so, who will provide them, the contractor or EGLE? | This response from SHPO staff: For archaeology, no, we do not need images. To expedite our reviews for these specific special health and safety-related projects, we will accept atypical archaeological assessments which essentially just covey whether previously identified sites correspond to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for each project and whether archaeological work is recommended. The assessments should include locational mapping and simple literature reviews, detailing's any sites within a 1/8-mile radius of the APE for each project. If the consultant thinks it relevant, they can include figures of relevant historic map details and aerial images. However, these types of figures not compulsory for these specific projects. We do not need photos, soil data, probability modeling, or even an exhaustive background review. Presence or absence of sites w/in the 1/8-mile search radius and a recommendation as to whether archeological work is needed, will suffice for our review. Also, if the consultant recommends archaeological work, the recommended work should be qualified (e.g., survey, monitoring, site evaluation, etc.). |
| 8 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 45 | Is there a deadline for completing the contract? Does the 150 day for delivery refer to the "batches" in which the orders will be received as mentioned in question 1, or the contract? It will require SHPO 30 to 45 days to provide the required requested site and survey files once the firm who wins this project receives a batch of wells to assess. Given this, it is likely that the soonest any given batch of wells can be assessed is about 60 days. | Vendor should assume they will receive up to 17 projects upon award of the contract. The State of Michigan would like the Section 106 applications submitted to SHPO within the 150 day mark. |
| 9 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | 51 | Given that sample reports can contain sensitive archaeological and client information, we are hesitant to provide report samples. Can you please clarify if there are specific aspects or sections of the reports you are most interested in? Furthermore, would it be acceptable to provide redacted versions of these reports, ensuring that all sensitive information is obscured, while still demonstrating our capabilities and adherence to reporting standards? | The vendor will share the Section 106 application with the State of Michigan project manager for approval before submitting to SHPO. |
| 10 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | N/A | SHPO might want the above ground resources assessed, which will also require a qualified architectural historian, which is typical for Section 106 applications. Can you confirm whether SHPO will want this? | This reponse from SHPO staff: I think based on our conversations the capping is entirely at ground level, there should not be tree removals or changes to the landscape, correct? If that is the case then I think you have enough justification to not require an Architectural Historian. However if there are sites that require more disruptive work to the landscape then a historian may need to be engaged. I do recommend at least checking the NR database to see if anything is previously listed in proximity, and providing sufficient site photos to show the property and viewshed. |
| 11 | RFP 240000002680 - Schedule A: Statement of Work | N/A | Does SHPO want the locations of the lines that are being removed to also be mapped and assessed? (This is something I have included in the past when completing Section 106 applications assessing the closing of oil wells for an engineering firm.) | This response from SHPO staff: Yes, we do need the archaeological assessments to include flowlines that are planned for removal |
| 12 | Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting | N/A | During the pre-bid meeting we were informed that the well data would be provided in "batches" of wells that are in somewhat close proximity and that there could be around 20 or so of these batches. How often, or within what timeframe, do you expect to release or send these batches to the archaeological firm who wins the bid? | A list of sites and/or projects will be given to the winning vendor. Section 106 applications are not necessary for every orphan well depicted on the Dashboard. A list of the sites and/or porjects will be given to the winning vendor. They will most likely come in batches as wells and projects are added to list. Vendor can assume they will receive up to 17 projects upon award of the contract. |
| 13 | Proposal Instructions | N/A | Can we use our branded proposal format to respond to the RFP, or is the expectation that proposers enter the requested information into the provided RFP document? | It is the State's expectation that bidders enter the requested information in the RFP document provided. |
| 14 | Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting | N/A | Will EGLE provide photos of the sites to the Contractor? | Vendor should assume that they would need to visit each site and collect the necessary photos to complete the scope of work. |
| 15 | Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting | N/A | When do you want the project completed, the RFP says 150 days? | Vendor should assume they will receive up to 17 projects upon award of the contract. The State of Michigan would like the Section 106 applications submitted to SHPO by the 150 day mark. |
| 16 | Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting | N/A | Do above ground structures and even the oil equipment itself need to be assessed for historical purposes? Do we need an above ground archaeologist? | This reponse from SHPO staff: I think based on our conversations the capping is entirely at ground level, there should not be tree removals or changes to the landscape, correct? If that is the case then I think you have enough justification to not require an Architectural Historian. However if there are sites that require more disruptive work to the landscape then a historian may need to be engaged. I do recommend at least checking the NR database to see if anything is previously listed in proximity, and providing sufficient site photos to show the property and viewshed. |
| 17 | Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting | N/A | What about flowline removal and doing assessments of the flowline corridor? | This response from SHPO staff: Yes, we do need the archaeological assessments to include flowlines that are planned for removal |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .