rfp-des-2026-22-q-a.pdf

Consulting Services for the New Hampshire Coastal Watershed Flood

Hazard Assessment and Resilience Plan project

Request for Proposals questions and answers

Key updates to the RFP

Request for Proposals requirements

Project team structure, logistics and team participation

Community Champions

Engagement and consultant role

NHCFRM analysis and conceptual designs

Phase II (including Resilience Opportunity Areas)

Budget

DNCR/PDA-DPH Scope

This document contains responses to consultant questions received regarding RFP-DES-2026-22.

The RFP was amended on August 13, 2026 to reflect changes noted.

Key updates to the RFP

• Section 2.a. “$16,500” changed to “$15,500.”

• Section 4. Added requirement that proposal must not exceed 15 pages size 8.5” by 11.”

• Section 4.b. A project team description is required as part of the 15-page proposal.

Resumes are optional and may be included as an appendix that does not count toward the 15-page limit.

• Section 4.e. “$16,500” changed to “$15,500.”

• Appendix C. was updated to include additional DNCR properties and property names, and Activity 1.3a language updated to include additional DNCR properties.

• Appendix D. was added to the RFP, depicting all project deliverables and lead responsible partners.

Request for Proposals requirements

1) Are detailed staff resumes that we provide included in the 15-page limit, or may they be submitted as attachments separate from the 15-page limit proposal body? If we include a proposal cover page (before the cover letter) is that also exempt from the 15-page limit?

A1. Resumes are not required. They may be submitted as separate attachments, not included in the 15-page limit. A proposal cover page (in addition to the cover letter) is not required and would be considered part of the 15-page limit.

2) Is a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) required for the NFWF grant associated with this project? If so, has the QAPP already been approved by the EPA and is it available for review?

A2. No QAPP is required for this funding. National Coastal Resilience Funds do not require QAPPs.

3) Please clarify whether the proposal cover page and section divider/tab pages are included in the 15-page maximum page count specified in the RFP.

A3. The cover letter is not included in the 15-page maximum. A cover page and section divider/tab pages are included in the 15-page maximum.

4) Please confirm that complete resumes for key personnel are not required. If they are required, please confirm if they can be included as an attachment and not counted toward the 15-page proposal limit.

A4. Relevant experience and qualifications for key personnel are required within the 15-page limit. Resumes, while not required, can be included as an attachment and are not counted with the 15-page limit (see A1). See Section 4. Part b. for more details.

5) Please confirm if the Project Budget is included as part of the 15-page proposal limit or if it can be included as an attachment to the proposal. The requested information will likely require a table that will fill multiple pages. Also please confirm if there is a is a preferred budget template / spreadsheet that we should use.

A5. A project budget is a required proposal component (Section 4 e.) and must be included as part of the 15-page limit. There is no preferred budget template or spreadsheet.

6) Are resumes required for RFP responses? If resumes are submitted, are they included in the 15-page limit?

A6. See A1.

7) Does the 15-page proposal limit include resumes, the detailed project schedule/Gantt chart, detailed budget, and project examples, or may any of these items be provided as appendices outside the 15-page limit?

A7. See A1 for resumes. See A5 for details on budget materials. Project schedule/Gantt chart should be included in the 15-page limit. See Section 4 of the RFP for details about what should be included in the 15-page submission.

8) Are project sheets and resumes included in the 15-page count for the proposals or are they considered attached appendices in addition to the 15-page limit?

A8. See A1. Examples of similar projects are included in the 15-page limit.

9) Timelines provided in Section 2 of the RFP do not match what is included in Appendix A of the RFP. Could you confirm the following schedule discrepancies?

A9. Appendix A full project overview includes the start date for the internal NHCP project team as well as other project partners who have already been contracted, hence dates that begin before the expected Consultant start date of January 2027. Section

2 has the correct dates for the Consultant contract, while Appendix A has the overall project timeline.

10) Does a cover page count toward the 15-page limit?

A10. See A3.

11) Is an 11”x17” page size acceptable for formatting the proposed project schedule?

A11. No. All pages within the 15-page limit should be letter size 8.5” by 11.”

Project team structure, logistics and team participation

12) What is your vision for the relationship, organization, and logistics between the teams?

A12. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Coastal Program

(NHCP) team of three staff is funded under the grant to manage and coordinate the project partners. The project is designed intentionally to involve key partners who work in the coastal New Hampshire watershed, because of their knowledge, experience, and long-term commitment to supporting and advocating for NH coastal watershed communities. NHCP has worked with the Core Project Team partners to map out the project tasks and sub-tasks, clearly identify responsible lead partners, and think thoughtfully and creatively about how to obtain buy-in from partners and community members to improve the likelihood of the Coastal Watershed Resilience Plan moving from plan to implementation. The consultant role ramps up at the end of Phase I, as the primary role of other Core Project Team members ramps down. The engagement partners involved in Phase II have deep knowledge of the places and people in communities where Resilience Opportunity Areas are likely to be located. They will add capacity to the NHCP and Consultant teams to execute multiple workshops effectively.

All funded and named partners were involved in the project proposal development.

13) Referring to Figure 1 Project Team Structure, will the NHDES Project Managers invite the

CWRP Project Teams to participate? What is the role and expected effort of the Consultant to support NHDES on project team member selection?

A13. See A12. NHCP worked with the Core Project Team, Engagement Team and

Technical Team organizations to develop the proposal. NHDES is responsible for contracting and engaging the project team organizations, and that work has already begun. The consultant is not expected to participate in project team member selection, though if the consultant notices that an important voice is missing from the project teams, suggestions are welcome.

14) Can more information be provided on the roles of other staff/organizational partners for the proposed scope? How many hours will staff and other partners be contributing to the individual activities/sub-task of the project? Could you provide a list of deliverables for which other project will be responsible?

A14. See A12 and A13. The total NCRF NFWF grant for this project is $999,711.27. Great

Bay 2030 grant funds total $25,300. In addition to the funds supporting the consultant team, these grant funds are supporting NHDES staff, other Core Project Team members, Technical Team members, and Engagement Team members, and participant engagement, incentives, and product dissemination. Some project partners, including

NHDES, DNCR, PDA and NHFG will provide additional staff time via other funding sources

(e.g., in-kind match, leveraged federal funds).

See new Appendix D in the RFP for the list of key deliverables and responsible partners.

15) Was NHDES assisted by a consulting firm in acquiring the NCRF grant? If so, would that consultant be a likely qualified bidder on this project?

A15. NHDES was not assisted by a consulting firm in acquiring the NFWF NCRF grant. As part of the proposal development, NHDES asked Woods Hole Group, Inc. to serve as a member of the Technical Team in their role as the NHCFRM data manager. Woods Hole

Group, Inc is not prohibited from responding or participating on teams responding to this RFP.

Community Champions

16) Is the primary role of Community Champions to increase attendance at outreach meetings and amplify project messages, as trusted voices in the community? Will these Community

Champions be compensated for their role in the engagement meetings with the Great Bay

2030 funds? RFP Section 2 Part a. states that “different project partners share responsibility for their expenditure” of the GBS funds. However, Section 4 Part e. states that the

Consultant’s budget breakdown is to include stipends/compensation for community participants where there isn’t funding from Great Bay Stewards.” Please clarify if the portion of the GBS funds allocated for the Consultant’s expenditures for engagement efforts is intended for the Consultant’s expenses related to engagement or for compensating community partners.

A16. NHDES, Great Bay Stewards and the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve will develop Engagement Guidelines in Phase I that will dictate how engagement funds may be spent. NHDES and the consultant will co-develop an engagement plan in Phase II

Activity 2.2.

https://apps.das.nh.gov/NHProcurement/File/rfp-des-2026-22-updated.pdf

The Community Champions network will be comprised of local watershed representatives who can help the project team embed local knowledge and enhance engagement in Phase I and Phase II of the project. The three regional planning commissions on the Core Project Team will be responsible for identifying, coordinating, and communicating with the Community Champions. The Core Project Team will collectively decide upon their compensation.

Total participant compensation and incentive funding held by Great Bay Stewards is

$40,000. The project partners will divide responsibility for spending these funds. Great

Bay Stewards funds are intended to be used for Community Champion participant compensation as well as other participant incentives (RFP Section 2. Part a. for a description of allowable uses of the Great Bay Stewards compensation and participant incentive funds). While the Great Bay Stewards funds are intended to cover the total anticipated expenses associated with engagement and participant incentives, the consultant team may budget for additional engagement expenses, if they feel that the suggested budget allocation is not adequate. Broader community participation, including but not limited to Community Champions, is expected in multiple Activities.

See Section C. Proposed Scope of Work for preliminary suggestions for engagement fund amounts associated with the consultant team work.

17) Is the consultant responsible for identifying Community Champions and establishing the

Community Champions network?

A17. See A16. The consultant is not responsible for identifying Community Champions and establishing the Community Champions network. The three regional planning commissions will identify and establish the Community Champions network in Phase I.

18) Will NHDES provide contact lists/databases for Community Champions, or is the identification and development of Community Champions expected to be coordinated by the consultant?

A18. See A17. The three regional planning commissions will develop, maintain, and operate the contact database of Community Champions. The consultant team will work with the Core Project Team members to communicate with and solicit time and input from Community Champions.

Engagement and consultant role

19) In Activities 2.3a and 2.4a, the consultant's primary role is stated as to support all Phase II engagement activities (e.g. workshops), which is different than Exhibit B indicating the consultant will be leading some engagement activities alongside NHDES during Phase II.

Please clarify the consultant’s role.

A19. The consultant will support the Engagement Team in Activity 2.3a and lead the engagement in Activity 2.4a (2 workshops). See Appendix D for key deliverables and responsible partners.

NHCFRM analysis and conceptual designs

20) For Activities 2.3b and 2.4b, does the NHCP team anticipate that preferred alternatives will be quantitatively evaluated or modeled using the NHCFRM, or primarily assessed through consultation with the NHCFRM data manager and interpretation of available model outputs? If additional model runs are anticipated, will those be conducted by the

Technical Support Team outside the consultant's $377,000 budget?

A20. One proposed approach could be for the consultant team to quantitatively evaluate

(where it makes sense to do so) a few priority alternatives identified in Activities 2.3a and 2.4a via additional model runs in partnership with the NHCFRM data manager.

Funds for model runs would need to be allocated from within the $377,000 budget. A limited amount of funding is allocated to the NHCFRM data manager to provide advice and input on the Technical Team and to attend a selection of workshops in Activities 2.3a and 2.4a, outside the consultant budget.

21) What access/data will be shared with the consultant team related to the flood risk model?

Will access be limited to an online viewer (or similar tool), or will staff have access to the full model results for the study area in a downloadable format (e.g., shapefile) for more in-depth analysis?

A21. The consultant team will have access to the online viewer and NHCFRM data will be downloadable on the Woods Hole Group, Inc. webpage and/or can be provided directly by NHDES staff. Please note that the NHCFRM results are only for the tidal areas of the

Coastal Watershed.

22) The RFP states that the consultant will engage with the NHCFRM data manager to understand the flood-risk-reduction implications of preferred alternatives. Should consultants assume that new model simulations of proposed alternatives will be performed, or that the consultant will interpret existing model outputs in coordination with the data manager?

A22. See A20.

23) Could you please clarify whether or not the NHCFRM data manager is also eligible to bid for this project?

A23. The NHCRFM data manager is eligible to submit a proposal in response to this RFP and/or participate on a consultant team submission.

Phase II (including Resilience Opportunity Areas)

24) During Activity 2.2, the RFP states that “the consultant and NHCP will co-develop a Phase

II engagement plan, and design a collaborative and engagement-based process to select

10-19 priority ROAs for Action Plan development.” What is NHDES’ expected division of labor between NHCP and the consultant for this task (i.e. should we assume the consultant will do 50% of the work, or more, or less)?

A24. The NHDES team suggests that labor should be divided approximately 50/50 on tasks where NHCP and the consultant team are co-developing products. That said, the

NHDES team is open to suggestions and ideas from the consultants.

25) Can more information be provided about the role of the consultant team in Activity 2.1

Priority Resilience Opportunity Areas (ROAs)? The RFP indicates that the consultant role for this activity is limited and will be carried out during regular core team meetings in

Activity 1.1.

A25. In Activity 2.1, the 40-60 priority ROAs will be selected by NHDES, the regional planning commissions, DNCR, and PDA, primarily via the prioritized results from the

Flood Hazards Assessment. This is anticipated to take place as part of regularly scheduled monthly Core Project Team meetings. NHDES will facilitate the decision-making process. The consultant is expected to participate in the meeting.

26) In Activity 2.2 and 2.6, please clarify whether the selected consultant is expected to develop the screening criteria used to identify vulnerable and feasible ROA sites, or whether the consultant should apply screening criteria that have already been developed by stakeholders or others.

A26. Initial inputs and criteria will be integrated in the Flood Hazard Assessment (FHA)

Model (Phase I Activity 1.4) and will be led by NHCP with support from the Technical

Team and Core Project Team. The consultant is not responsible for developing FHA model inputs and criteria but will be expected to offer feedback as a member of the

Core Project Team. The FHA outputs will result in 40-60 Priority ROAs (Activity 2.1; see

A26 for consultant role). The consultant is expected to develop, in partnership with

NHCP, a “collaborative and engagement-based process” to select the 10-19 prioritized

ROA sites for action planning (see Section 2. Part c, Activity 2.2). This process will likely include developing some screening criteria based in geography, feasibility, and other factors to be determined.

27) For Activity 2.3a and 2.3b, developing the ROA Action Plan templates and ROA Action Plans, what design level or feasibility analysis is expected of the selected consultant? Is the RFP wording of “refine conceptual options” intended to mean the Consultant will review the concepts compiled by NHCP and provide enhancements to the concepts and/or other concepts but still at the conceptual level?

A27. This will depend on the status of existing project ideas within each ROA. In cases where few ideas already exist and/or where the consultant and stakeholders identify new options, preliminary is most likely acceptable. At some sites a refined preliminary design concept may already exist, and the Core Project Team and stakeholders may want to advance it to 30% design. NHDES is open to consultant proposals that are based in feasibility/budget, leave room for some flexibility/creativity based on site context, and offer meaningful steps forward for the ROAs. The Core Project Team wants to avoid

Action Plans that list existing concepts without making meaningful progress. Also see

A29.

28) To what level of design (i.e. preliminary, 30%, 60%?) does NHDES expect for the conceptual designs within ROA Action Plans?

A28. See A27 and A29.

29) Should ROA Action Plans include cost estimates, and if so, does NHDES have a preferred methodology or level of accuracy?

A29. Each ROA Action Plan should evaluate the benefits, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and potential funding for each proposed Nature-based Solution and include a timeline for phased implementation. The ROA Action Plans will identify and prioritize NbS that address projected coastal and inland flood risks, focusing on both near-term (through

2050) and longer-term adaptation needs. These NbS may include wetland, dune, and riparian buffer restoration; living shorelines; and green stormwater infrastructure.

30) Will hosting, long-term maintenance, and platform licensing for the web-based report and interactive tool be provided by NHDES, or should these costs be included in the proposal?

A30. Ideally the consultant should not need to include costs of platform licensing, hosting, and long-term maintenance for the web-based report and interactive tool.

NHDES can host the landing page for the project as well as any PDFs. NHDES does not have a Developer ArcGIS Online (AGO) subscription and has limited AGO credits. Other project partners may be able to provide access to an AGO Developer subscription and credits or other long-term hosting for the web-based interactive tool. NHDES is in discussions with UNH and other partners to determine existing capacity and resources.

The project team is willing to consider alternative platform ideas from the consultant team and can commit to explore ways to fund them that do not require the consultant to budget for associated long-term costs.

31) Given that the final number of ROA Action Plans may range from 10 to 19, should proposals assume a specific number for budgeting purposes?

A31. Assume the range of 10-19 ROA Action Plans and consider what level of detail the

Consultant could propose for each end of that range. There will be a minimum of six and maximum of 10 ROA Action Plans for the Coastal Watershed communities, and a minimum of four and maximum of nine ROA Action Plans for the State Parks/Ports and

Harbors.

32) For development of the proposal budget, should consultants assume the maximum of 19

ROA Action Plans, or can proposals establish an assumed number of Action Plans within the specified ranges based on the available $377,000 budget?

A32. See A31.

33) Please confirm if stormwater impacts should be included in the analysis.

A33. Freshwater flooding impacts will be relevant for ROAs depending on the location. In some cases, past and future flooding impacts will be stormwater-based. NHDES does not expect the consultant to conduct stormwater modeling. However, in ROAs where stormwater-based flood impacts are of concern, these should be considered to the extent possible, including with regard to best management practice preliminary design concepts and next steps recommended in the Action Plans.

Budget

34) For Activity 1.4, please confirm that given the 0.5% budgetary restriction for this activity, the selected consultant is not expected to perform any site-specific H&H modeling within the non-tidal or tidal communities of the CW area outlined in the RFP Appendix B map, and that the expectation is that the flood hazard analyses should rely exclusively on publicly available datasets and mapping products, such as FEMA FIRMs, NOAA SLR Viewer, and the NHCFRM dataset.

A34. The suggested budget % for this activity is 0.5 (not a restriction). This is an indication of expected effort on Activity 1.4. The consultant may propose amendments to any budgets for any activities within their proposal. See Appendix D for key deliverables and responsible partners. NHCP and RPC will lead Activity 1.4. Public datasets and local knowledge will be the primary inputs to the FHA. New H&H modeling will not be conducted. The consultant is expected to participate by providing feedback as a member of the Core Project Team.

35) The RFP suggests percentage allocations by activity. Are these intended solely as planning guidance, or will proposals be evaluated based on consistency with the suggested activity-level budget allocations?

A35. The suggested percentage is intended to indicate a suggested level of effort for planning purposes. Consultants are welcome to propose deviations from the suggested estimates. Consider providing a clear explanation of the adjustment where estimates differ significantly.

36) Please confirm if bill rates need to be constant over the duration of the 30-month long project period of performance, or if they can be escalated to reflect salary adjustments.

A36. Bill rates may be escalated to reflect salary adjustments over time.

DNCR/PDA-DPH Scope

37) In Activities 1.3a and 1.3b, are the nine DNCR and three PDA-DHP sites intended to be evaluated in a higher level of detail to inform development of the ROA priority criteria, or is it intended for the consultant to assess the feasibility and applicability of previously established screening criteria?

A37. The consultant team is expected to gather additional detailed data at the DNCR and

PDA-DHP sites. The consultant is expected to evaluate gaps in available data and collaborate with DNCR and PDA-DPH to fill in critical gaps. Note that in the RFP amendment, the number of DNCR properties was increased from 9 to 11. See A39 and

A40.

38) For the nine DNCR coastal properties and three PDA-DPH harbor/port properties, does

NHDES have existing GIS datasets, asset inventories, site plans, and facility records that would be made available to the consultant?

A38. See A37 and A39. Available existing datasets, inventories, site plans, etc. will be shared with the consultant DNCR and PDA-DPH properties. The consultant is expected to evaluate gaps in data and collaborate with DNCR and PDA-DPH to fill in critical gaps.

Note that in the RFP amendment, the number of DNCR properties was increased from 9 to 11.

39) Activity 1.3b calls for inventorying nine DNCR coastal properties; however, eight properties appear to be listed in the RFP. Can the NHCP team confirm the nine DNCR properties anticipated for the inventory and associated field visits?

A39. The RFP has been amended to include 11 DNCR coastal properties. The Appendix C

Map has been updated.

40) Activity 1.3b states there are nine DNCR coastal properties to be inventoried, however only eight are listed. Could you confirm if there are eight or nine properties?

A40. See A39.