RFP Questions and Answers 1.docx

SOLICITATION [###-####-##] – [SOLICITATION title]

ATTACHMENT H – OMWESB OUTREACH PLAN

RFP S-62900-00015030 – Southwest Tiller Fuel Break GNA Project QUESTIONS and Answers 1 – OctOBER 27, 2025 Question 1:

Section 3.3.5 Key Persons and Their Resumes

Second paragraph: “Proposer must provide contact information associated with previous work experience.”

Please clarify this requirement. Are you defining work experience as individual projects listed on the resumes?

If so, is the expectation that contact information be provided for all projects listed on the resume OR for a selection of projects shown?

If not, is the expectation that contact information will be provided for prior employers OR prior clients that can speak to the individual’s overall qualifications?

If the latter, how many references with contact information should be provided?

Answer:

The section I believe you are referring to is Section 3.3.8 (Key Persons and their Resumes), not Section 3.3.5 (COBID Certification/Outreach Plan). We are looking for the name and phone number (contact information) of an individual who can corroborate the key persons’ work experience. We understand that this may not be possible for every past work experience/previous project but ask for a good faith effort.

Question 2:

Section 3.3.1 Management Plan

Should we assume inclusion of:

Level of effort in hours by task Supporting staff – all required project staff in addition to our key personnel Equipment, resources, space – provided as a list Work breakdown structure – based on tasks and deliverables

Answer:

Yes.

Question 3:

If the contract end date is extended three months into September 2026 as discussed at the October 16 pre-proposal meeting:

(a) would all of the deliverable due dates shown in the RFP Attachment A, Sample Contract; Exhibit A (Statement of Work), Section 5 (Deliverables and Deadlines for Project Work) (page 30) also be updated to reflect this change and

(b) would the quantity for Item Number 002 (Progress Review Meeting) shown in Exhibit A, Section 11.1 (Payment and Compensation Table) (page 37) and RFP Attachment E (Price Proposal Form) be updated from 9 to 12?

Answer:

Yes and yes. Please see Addendum 1, which was posted on October 23, 2025 in OregonBuys.

Question 4:

The RFP Section 3.3.8 (Key Persons and their Resumes), second paragraph, states, “Proposer must provide contact information associated with previous work experience.” Will you please clarify if the Department intends to utilize key person employment reference contacts in making an award on the solicitation. Our request for clarification regarding RFP Section 3.3.8 is based on the observation that in many key person situations past employment references would be several years (decades) old or obsolete, leaving the current employer (that is, the RFP Proposer) the only or most reliable employment reference.

Answer:

Please see response to Question 1.

Question 5:

Deliverable due dates shown in RFP Attachment A (Sample Contract), Exhibit A (Statement of Work), Section 4 (Tasks and Required Meetings) for tasks 3 and 4 (Silviculture Report and Fire and Fuels Report, respectively) are not consistent with the due dates shown in the table in RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 5 (Deliverables and Deadlines for Project Work) (page 30). Section 4 for these two tasks shows due dates of December 15, 2025 whereas Section 5 shows the due dates of January 15, 2026. Is the intention that the due dates in Section 4 be identical to those shown in Section 5? That is, is January 15, 2026 the correct due date? If the contract end date where extended three months into September 2026 as discussed at the October 16 pre-proposal meeting, how would the due dates for these two tasks be adjusted?

Answer:

The correct due date for tasks 3 and 4 is January 15, 2026. We will amend the sample contract to remove this discrepancy. The January 15, 2026 due date will be extended 3 months.

Question 6:

Will you please clarify what silviculture-related data will be provided by the UNF-PM as described in RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 4, Task 3, item 3.1. For example, what data fields would be provided in the treatment unit tables, for prescriptions, and in the FVS outputs. Will you please clarify how the FVS modeling was conducted. For example, will you please provide a brief description of FVS run settings and assumptions for existing and post-treatment conditions?

Answer:

Treatment Unit Tables

· Prescriptions will be presented as post treatment Basal Area/Acre, TPA, and DXD spacing along with notes such as if more than one prescription will be applied for a unit. Several units will have a heavier thinning prescription in the main portion of the unit and a lighter thinning prescription in the thinned portion of the Riparian Reserve or as otherwise described in the notes.

· Since these are Variable Density type thinnings, tables will present how many acres of skips and gaps should be included in each unit. Unthinned Riparian Reserves within the unit is considered a ‘skip’, so calculation of skip acres is not just a straightforward calculation of (unit acres * 10%).

· Tables showing Land Unit allocations are included since some units are within the Late Seral Reserve (LSR) and will have a slightly different prescription.

· A table showing species composition by unit is included. Several units have fairly high Chinkapin composition so this will need to be considered.

· A table showing current and post treatment metrics including: Canopy cover, Relative Density (Rieneke), QMD, BA/A, TPA, and expected harvest volume (BF) per acre.

FVS Runs

· We simulated thinning each unit to three different relative densities using the ThinSDI keyword: 25%, 30%, and 35% of SDI max.

· SDImax for the commercial species found in the area were modified from the defaults which are too high according to Long & Shaw (2012).

· Thinning was assumed to occur in 2026.

· Canopy Cover was adjusted for post thinning to account for the lack of overlap of crowns.

Question 7:

Will you please clarify what fuels-related data will be provided by the UNF-PM as described in RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 4, Task 4, item 4.1? For example, was FVS used to develop inputs for the fire modeling? What fire modeling application was used to model existing and post-treatment fuels, fire behavior, fire probability, fuel loading, and air quality? What supplemental inputs for carbon storage and emissions and climate-related vulnerability analysis will be provided?

Answer:

Inputs for fire modeling vary from historic weather data to fuel moisture inputs to stand densities. Information for this can be pulled from various locations including FVS, IFTDSS or other fire behavior modeling tools available. I use IFTDSS to model existing and post treatment fuels, fire behavior, and fire probability. It has a lot of different functions and it gives current fuel related data via landfire products. As for the section that says “UNF will provide supplemental input for carbon storage/emissions and climate-related vulnerability analyses” that was Devin who provided that statement and I cannot speak to how that information is generated or how it will be provided.

Question 8:

Related to RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 4, Task 6, will you please clarify what botanical surveys have been completed within the Southwest Tiller Fuel Break project area? For example, have adequate botanical surveys (intuitively controlled or more intensive) been conducted in all treatment units?

Answer:

All botany surveys for the project have been completed to the level the Forest Service feels is adequate for the project.

Question 9:

Do known TESP plant populations occur within the project area?

Answer:

TESP surveys have been completed for the project, our Botanist is on leave so this question cannot be directly answered. However, if there are TESP species they should be located within the Project geodatabase with appropriate buffers.

Full botanical surveys (more similar to intuitively controlled) were done by the Botany crew for all units that were priority level 1 and most of priority 2 (excluding section where we determined TESP plants were unlikely to be). Full botanical surveys of priority 3 plots were done if known instances of unique habitat were present. For non-full survey areas, we checked for weeds in the areas. Known and newly found populations of TESP plants were mapped and entered into the NRM database. Invasive points were similarly added.

Question 10:

How are known invasive plant or noxious weed plant species documented for the project area?

Answer:

Yes, these surveys have been completed.