RFP 25-001 Addendum 3.pdf

NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Solicitation Addendum

Northwest Florida Water Management District Attn: Procurement Officer 81 Water Management Drive Havana, FL 32333

Request for Proposal (RFP) No.: 25-001

ADDENDUM NUMBER: 3

DATE: November 7, 2024

Project Title: Continuing Services for Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling;

Hydrogeological Data Collection and Evaluation; and/or Watershed Planning, Assessment, and Program Administration Deadline For Proposal Submission Remains November 21, 2024 at 2:00 P.M. ET

This ADDENDUM NO. 3 is issued Continuing Services for Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling; Hydrogeological Data Collection and Evaluation; and/or Watershed Planning, Assessment, and Program Administration for RFP 25-001 to provide answers to questions received during the inquiry period. Attached are the questions and answers.

Responses to Questions

Question 1: It is our understanding that compensation shall only be taken into consideration during the negotiations phase of the selection process per Florida Statute 287.055 (4) (b). Please clarify with respect to the request for a “schedule of costs” and the scoring emphasis therein.

Answer: As indicated in section 3.1 of the RFP package, price is part of the Evaluation Criteria.

Question 2: Who currently holds contracts for all three categories?

Answer: There are no active contracts for any of the three categories.

Question 3: Can you please provide us with the winning submittals for the previous contracts and categories?

Answer: Contracts previously awarded under RFP 21-003 for the category of “Hydrogeologic and Groundwater Modeling Services” expired on 9/30/2024.

Submittals may be accessed at this link RFP 21-003 Category 4. No prior contracts have been awarded for the category of Watershed Planning, Assessment, and Program Administration.

https://northw091-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/toni_devencenzi_nwfwater_com/EnxzZyi3-ydAnfSzJH2nXuABFsnJWC6SskMPuq3fw2Fh7Q?e=UT6JNU

Question 4: Shall we submit Tabs A-J (Proposal Requirements, Section 2.1) for each category?

Answer: Yes. See Addendum 2.

Question 5: Is there an overall page limit for the proposal or the content within each tab?

Answer: No.

Question 6: How should a firm specify which categories they are submitting on?

Answer: The category for which you are applying should be stated clearly within the submittal. See Addendum 2.

Question 7: If a firm is submitting on more than one category, should one proposal be submitted or one for each category?

Answer: Yes. See Addendum 2.

Question 8: Should Tab G, hourly rates, include subconsultants?

Answer: Yes, hourly rates and titles shall be provided for subcontractors, if any, in the Schedule of Costs for the Term and Renewal Term.

Question 9: We kindly request a one-week extension on the proposal deadline due to the severe, recent hurricanes that have impacted our state in the last two weeks.

Answer: See Addendum 1.

Question 10: Please clarify the difference in Tab B and C, both ask for descriptions of the firm's capabilities or qualifications and both include project descriptions.

Answer: Section 2.1 subsection B should provide details regarding the qualifications of the organization and subcontractors, if any. Section 2.1 subsection C should provide details of the assigned staff’s experience and capabilities and include descriptions of similar work completed by the identified staff.

Question 11: Who are the previous contract incumbents?

Answer: See Questions 2 and 3.

Question 12: Past RFPs required separate proposals for each category for which the respondent is bidding. Is that the case with this RFP, as well? Or does this RFP call for one proposal that addresses all categories?

Answer: See Addendum 2.

Question 13: If a consultant plans to submit for more than one category, should a proposal be prepared for each category or both categories in one proposal?

Answer: See Addendum 2.

Question 14: In section H, it asks for 3 separate client references for whom the respondent has performed similar work in the past five years. Can we use references from a current employee for a project they worked on at their previous firm? Or do the project references have to be for projects performed under the company name?

Answer: The client references should be references for the Respondent that is providing a proposal for this RFP rather than for individual staff.

Question 15: Under responsibilities of the contractor, would the District be willing to adjust the current contract language to add a reference to Section 558.0035 as follows: “PURSUANT TO SECTION 558.0035 FLORIDA STATUTES, THE

CONSULTANT CORPORATION IS THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IT AGREES TO PROVIDE UNDER THIS

AGREEMENT. NO INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE, AGENT,

DIRECTOR, OFFICER, OR PRINCIPAL SHALL BE INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR

NEGLIGENCE ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT”

Answer: Exhibit A of the RFP package is provided as an example contract. Any changes to the contract language can be discussed during execution of the contract between the District and winning Respondent(s).

Question 16: Is the District requesting up to three separate proposals per respondent, one proposal for each of the three service areas described in the RFP? Or is the request to submit a single proposal containing information and qualifications for up to three of the service areas described in the RFP?

Answer: See Addendum 2.

Question 17: Per the evaluation criteria on pages 12-14 of the RFP document, there is a point value assigned to pricing. How will the District be assigning a point value to the Schedule of Costs? Do you receive the maximum point value for this section simply by submitting pricing for the term and renewal term as requested?

Answer: Evaluators will assign points for price based on cost-effectiveness of the submitted Schedule of Costs for the Term and Renewal Term.

Question 18: If we are submitting on two different categories, which will have two different org charts and sets of applicable projects, how would you like us to organize the information? Is the District expecting firms to submit one proposal that covers each of the categories of interest or separate proposals? In other words, if proposing on categories 1 and 3, should that consist of two separate proposals or one common proposal which details each of the two categories?

Answer: See Addendum 2.

Question 19: Should we submit a Schedule of Costs for subconsultants in addition to the prime firm?

Answer: Yes. See Question 8.

Question 20: Please provide the names of the incumbent firms.

Answer: See Questions 2 and 3.

Question 21: Please provide the compensation each incumbent firm received during the duration of the previous contract.

Answer: Contracts were previously awarded under RFP 21-003 for the category of “Hydrogeologic and Groundwater Modeling Services.” Compensation for work completed through 9/30/2024 for the four firms is as follows:

Contract

Firm Total Paid

22-014 Tetra Tech, Inc. $180,347.91

22-016 Jim Stidham & Associates $239,589.13

22-020 Stantec, Inc. (formerly Cardno, Inc.) $324,268.33

22-017 Verdantas (formerly HSW Consulting, LLC) $201,375.25

Question 22: Part 2, 2.1, Item G: Please confirm that only labor rates should be included in the Schedule of Costs.

Answer: See Attachment A Schedule of Costs (page 29 of the RFP package). The Schedule of Costs should be completed with hourly rates for listed staff, including subcontractors, for the Term and Renewal Term. Direct costs for equipment rental or purchases and expenses may be included in specific Task Orders (see Section

3.3 Contract Operations), dependent on the scope of services, and where included will be billed without mark-up.

Question 23: Part 2, 2.1, Item H: Can the District provide more detailed information on how and when client references will be contacted in order to ensure responsiveness?

Answer: Client references will be contacted during the evaluation of submittals which is scheduled to occur between November 21, 2024 and January 6, 2025.

Question 24: Can a respondent propose for specific scope items (ie, just Scope Item 1 or Scope Items 1 and 3, but not 2), or are respondents required to provide the complete scope of services?

Answer: See Addendum 2.

Question 25: Can you provide the anticipated annual budget they anticipate allocating to this contract?

Answer: The budget has not yet been determined for the contract(s) that will result from this

RFP.

Question 26: For the current contract in place, may I please request:

-the start date and end date of the currently in place continuing services contract -the contract (s) itself with any amendments -the number of task orders issued in total under the current continuing services contract -the previous solicitation, proposals submitted, and evaluation / tabulation sheets?

Answer: There are no active contracts for any of the three categories. See Questions 2 and 3.

Question 27: What Ground Water, H&H, and Water Quality models are currently in use by the District?

Answer: Models currently used by the District include: MODFLOW, Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), System for Environmental Flow Analysis (SEFA), and Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR).

Question 28: How many firms are currently contracted for these services?

Answer: See Question 2.

Question 29: Who are the incumbents for this contract?

Answer: See Question 3.

Question 30: How many consulting companies does the District plan to select in each category?

Answer: The number of Respondents to be awarded contracts under this RFP has not yet been determined.

Question 31: Can you shed some light on how the rates are used in scoring?

Answer: See Question 17.

Question 32: What is the approximate fee expected in each category?

Answer: See Question 25.

Question 33: Who are the incumbents in each category?

Answer: See Questions 2 and 3.

Question 34: Part 2, Section H, References: Other Water Management Districts in the state use a Consultant Performance Evaluation (CPE) form to evaluate project performance and subsequently refer to these documents when references are required. Will the District accept CPE documents as a form of project/client reference?

Answer: The District will accept CPE documents if it provides all required information in Section 2.1 subsection H.

Question 35: Part 2, Section H, References: With respect to references, can two client contacts for different, relevant projects from the same agency be counted as separate references? For example, Reference #1 would be for Project/Client #1 for Agency X, and Reference #2 would be for Project/Client #2 for Agency X.

Answer: No, three separate client references must be included.

Question 36: Part 2, Section H, References: Can NWFWMD describe how the references will be contacted or what questions will be asked of our reference contacts?

Answer: References will be contacted by phone or email and will be asked about past performance and ability to meet schedules and budget constraints.

Question 37: Attachment A, Schedule of Costs: Can we add and/or remove Position Titles as appropriate in Attachment A – Schedule of Costs for each Scope Category?

Answer: Yes, titles may differ from the Schedule of Costs (Attachment A) but must match staff titles listed in the Proposal. Titles may vary by category.

Question 38: Attachment A, Schedule of Costs: Please confirm if existing position titles can be removed or replaced within the schedule of costs.

Answer: See Question 37.

Question 39: Part 3, Evaluation and Contracting: Per Attachment A – Schedule of Costs, additional lines may be added as needed to the cost schedule, which will potentially create disparity among responses. How will the District evaluate and award the points associated with Pricing for each Category? For example, will all pricing be aggregated into a total cumulative price and lowest total price respondent receives the maximum number of points. In this case, will higher priced respondents receive a portion of the total available points based on a defined formula? If so, will the District provide the formula?

Answer: There is no standard predefined formula that Evaluators will use. Evaluators will assign points for price based on cost-effectiveness of the submitted Schedule of Costs for the Term and Renewal Term.

Question 40: What is the anticipated annual budget allocated for use under the contracts awarded in response to this solicitation?

Answer: See Question 25.