RFP_ 41668_ Add_1.pdf

DATE: February 5, 2025

TO: Interested Firms

FROM: Kendall Siemiatkoski, Contracts Manager

SUBJECT: Request for Proposals 41668, Addendum 1 District Springs and Spring Runs Monitoring and Mapping

Please be advised of the following regarding the subject Request for Proposals:

1. The time and date for the receipt of Responses is extended to 1:00 p.m., February 16, 2025.

2. Question: Vegetation species identification level: Sections 4.7 through 4.9 reference continual measurements of species presence, abundance, diversity, density, and percent of channel for submerged aquatic vegetation, emergent vegetation, and emergent floating-leaved vegetation. Can the District clarify whether species identification is intended to be limited to readily identifiable dominant taxa and functional vegetation group classifications based on field-observable characteristics, rather than comprehensive botanical species inventories?

Answer: The District is open to whatever the Respondent is proposing. While the District would prefer species-level identification when applicable, classification is allowable where appropriate. Species of specific concern are invasive/exotic species of concern, keystone species, and/or threatened/endangered/sensitive species. Specific species to be identified will be negotiated with the selected proposal recipient.

3. Question: Algal classification expectations: Section 4.10 references algal type presence, abundance, density, and percent cover for epiphytic, periphytic, and filamentous algae. Can the District confirm that algal documentation is intended to be at the algal type or growth-form level, rather than species-level taxonomic identification?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

4. Question: Fauna observations and species metrics: Section 4.11 requires determination of visible fish, manatee, alligator, and turtle species presence, abundance, and diversity. Can the District confirm that these determinations are intended to be based on visual observations documented during mapping activities, with abundance and diversity interpreted as observational indices rather than formal population or statistical survey estimates?

Answer: Yes, this is correct.

5. Question: Restoration area documentation and quantification The Scope references identification and documentation of restoration areas and active restoration features, with quantification if possible. Can the District clarify whether quantification is limited to spatial extent and visible condition, rather than effectiveness evaluation or compliance assessment?

Answer: Yes, this is correct. Explicit restoration areas as evident by visible condition and visible spatial extent (e.g., exclusion cages or evident signage). This will be obviously noticeable from the water. If not visibly evident, the Respondent is not responsible for documentation unless a known area shapefile has been provided prior to field survey.

IFB 41864

Addendum 1

- 2 -

6. Question: GIS dashboard lifecycle and maintenance The Scope requires delivery of at least one ESRI ArcPro GIS georeferenced visual dashboard per spring or spring run annually. Can the District clarify whether dashboards are intended to be standalone annual deliverables, or maintained and updated cumulatively over multiple years?

Answer: The visual dashboard is meant to accompany a single year's data for a single area location Springs & Spring Run Survey. However, the District is open to a suggestion in the proposal for the data to have multiple years cumulatively available in a cumulative dashboard once said areas have been surveyed multiple times.

7. Question: Access constraints and schedule considerations Several spring runs include in-channel barriers or obstructions that may require portage or alternate access points that are not readily identifiable through desktop review. While access for kayak-based surveys is anticipated, can the District clarify whether proposers should account for additional field time associated with barriers, portages, or access adjustments within wilderness or managed areas when developing schedules and cost estimates?

Answer: Respondents, when preparing the proposal, should assume there is full access to the springs and spring runs. The District understands navigation obstructions and will assist in coordination for full access to Springs and Spring Runs. Any areas that are not accessible after District assisted coordination for survey access are not accessible.

8. Question: Scheduling and billing flexibility for baseline data collection The solicitation describes a rotating monitoring schedule with annual cost caps and identifies the first three years as baseline data collection followed by change analysis in subsequent years. Can the District clarify whether alternative scheduling approaches would be acceptable for consideration, and if so, whether billing and annual cost allocations could be structured to accommodate data collection first with analysis and reporting tasks occurring in subsequent fiscal years?

Answer: The District is open to any and all scheduling and suggestions. Actual and final scheduling is subjected to the District budget and will be negotiated with the Awarded Recipient.

9. Question: Section 3.4 - Does the consultant come up with a methodology plan?

Answer: Yes, that is part of the Respondent's proposal.

10. Question: Section 4.2 –

Has the district already defined the transects/cross sections or do they need to be developed?

Answer: They are pre-existing.

Does this task require a professional surveyor (PSLM)?

Answer: No

11. Question: Sections 4.4-4.11 - Please define continual measurements? Are location(s) existing or proposed? Please define the monitoring frequency for each spring.

Answer: Measurements and data collection should be GIS referenced and continual along the longitudinal river channel thalweg and larger/navigable braided channels, and cross-sectional at transect locations.

12. Question: Objectives Sections: For 3.3 Water Quality and 3.4 Fauna –

What is the interval collections for this data. Is it one time per year or multiple times per year?

Answer: Once per spring/run every 3 years.

How soon would the District like the data collection to begin?

- 3 -

Answer: Work may begin as soon as the contract is finalized, access has been coordinated, and all requirements have been met to allow work to begin.

13. Question: Is this a new contract? If not, who are the incumbents for this contract?

Answer: This is a new project and will be a new contract. There is no existing incumbent.

14. Question: Does the District anticipate this will be a recorded webinar series with attendance from District staff? Or a standalone virtual tutorial?

Answer: This will be a tutorial that will document the functional use of the data and dashboard. It can be a recorded webinar series. If the Respondent chooses to provide a stand-alone virtual tutorial, a meeting where District Staff are allowed to ask questions will be necessary.

15. Question: Can you please provide a previous report that details the water quality, flora/fauna observations, and spring run cross sections?

Answer: This data does not exist.

16. Question: Will the Springs monitoring for 2026 to begin in October to align with the fiscal year?

Answer: The District would like to get some springs/spring runs mapped and monitored this fiscal year. The Respondent Proposal should assume a full-fiscal year is available. The District and the Awarded Respondent will discuss final scheduling during contract negotiation.

17. Question: Item 1 states a minimum of 3 years’ experience performing “springs and spring runs monitoring and mapping services” but also states 3 “similar projects (monitoring and mapping services)”. Please clarify if the 3 similar projects have to be directly related to spring and spring run monitoring and mapping, or just similar monitoring and mapping services (e.g. wetland and upland vegetation monitoring and mapping, stream mapping, etc).

Answer: Similar monitoring and mapping services are sufficient.

18. Question: Will the channel morphological characteristics outlined in item 3.2 such as total channel width, depth, and navigable channel width need to be survey grade data?

Answer: No

19. Question: What is the desired frequency of sampling each spring/spring run? Is each spring/spring run expected to be sampled/monitored once annually or on a continuous basis?

Answer: This is a three-year rotation; each spring will not be sampled each year.

20. Question: What is the number of “designated cross sections” or the approximate number of assessment locations?

Answer: The existing transects that we would like to have assessed as designated cross-sections are as follows:

Spring/Run # of Transects

Alexander 15

Vol. Blue 5

Juniper 15

Rock 16

- 4 -

Silver 14

Silver Glen 10

Wekiva 25

Salt 12

21. Question: The “Similar Work Detail” page says to list relative project experience within the last 5 years, but the “Resume of Key Individuals” asks for related experience within the last 3 years. Can you confirm if all experience required is within 3 or 5 years?

Answer: 5 years

22. Question: The scoring rubric states that “who submits the lowest proposed overall cost to the District’s budget will receive a raw score of a ‘5’”. The total weight of this category is a 20, will the lowest cost receive a 20 or a 5?

Answer: Respondent providing the lowest cost will receive a 5, which carries a weight of 20% of the overall score.

23. Question: Are there previous reports using the requested methods to use as a reference?

Answer: The attached report has completed work similar to that requested for this RFP. Additional metrics are being requested to be quantified within this RFP.

24. Question: What specific data will be collected at the cross-sections? Same as what will be collected in the channel. Part of the proposal is for the

Answer: Respondent to Propose a Mapping and Monitoring Plan within the specifications listed in the RFP for what data is required.

25. Question: Do the cross-sections need to be measured concurrently with the continual data collection?

Answer: Yes, concurrently or consecutively - all in the same time frame.

26. Question: The RFP States: “4.15 After collection of initial baseline data (within the first three-years), provide a Geographic Information System (GIS) georeferenced change analyses section in the Report (above in Section 2.14) quantifying the differences between years to determine georeferenced changes in submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, algae, and areas of impact through time at specific locations and summarized for each spring and spring run mapped/monitored.”. Is this section applicable since each spring/spring run will only be monitored once within the 3-year contract period?

Answer: The first 3-years will be baseline data collection for each spring/spring run. After the initial 3-years of baseline data, the reports should include a change analysis to illuminate spatial changes for the data collected.

27. Question: For sites with power boat restrictions, will they allow boats with electric motors?

Answer: No. Areas with motor boat restrictions (i.e., wilderness areas) will not allow motorized vessels, regardless of how the motor is powered. [ The Wilderness Act ] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwilderness.net%2Flearn-about-wilderness%2Fkey-laws%2Fwilderness-act%2Fdefault.php&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc3e9d7e89ae243c17d7708de60311108%7Cb0c8375fdaa740b9a01b690d8d3723b9%7C0%7C0%7C639053961035639858%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Uug65XHQYDhOlQLDdBAaj74S7KzX9xZryKgN0PDtYT4%3D&reserved=0