RFP2627-002 Questions and Answers.pdf

RFP 26/27-002 LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SOLUTION

# QUESTION ANSWER

1 Could you please confirm whether a draft Service

Agreement/Contract with the District is available for review as part of this RFP? If so, kindly share the draft so that bidders can review and understand the proposed contractual terms and conditions. If not, please confirm whether the Service Agreement/Contract will only be shared with the successful bidder following contract award.

There is no draft. It is dependent upon the proposal.

2 Could you please confirm whether this opportunity is open to international bidders, or if participation is restricted to local firms only?

See Chapter 287, Florida Statutes (F.S.), which regulates District procurement of services.

Vendor preference is under section 287.084.

3 Could you please clarify whether the services are required to be performed within the United States, or whether the work may be executed from an offshore delivery location (e.g., India)? Please confirm whether an offshore delivery model is acceptable for this engagement.

See Chapter 287, Florida Statutes (F.S.), which regulates District procurement of services.

4 The District currently uses an Access database for land acquisition transactions. Could you please share the approximate number of records/tracts/parcels currently maintained in this database, along with the database schema (table/field list), so that bidders can accurately scope the data migration effort?

There are 1,024 Records in table format with 30 fields. There are an unknown number of parcel records in this database. There are approximately 314 Tracts and 1,640 Parcels recorded in GIS.

5 For the systems to be integrated (Land Acquisition & Surplus Access Database, AccuFund, ArcGIS, CivicPlus, PaperVision, and PERCH), could you please confirm the specific versions/editions currently in use, and whether each system exposes a documented API or web service for integration, or whether integration will need to occur via direct database/file-level access?

The Land Acquisition and Surplus Database is an Access Database that would ideally be replaced by this software solution.

Integrations possible via API may be bi-directional, but integrations only possible via file exports or direct database access must be read-only.

Certain information may be extracted from AccuFund via scheduled reports in CSV format, but feasibility is yet to be determined.

A combination of on-premises ArcGIS Server

11.1 and ArcGIS Online are in use, but the specific location of data sources for this project are not yet determined. ArcGIS Desktop 10.8 and ArcGIS Pro 3.4 are in-use. Compatibility with ArcGIS Server 11.1 and ArcGIS Pro 3.4 is a requirement.

CivicPlus is a cloud-hosted government website platform with an API.

On-premises PaperVision 87.5 is in use, which has an API available.

PERCH is a custom on-premises database management system tracking the District’s Ag and Environmental Projects. PERCH does not have an API available, but views of the relevant data can be created in the PERCH SQL Server database.

6 The RFP states that storing backend data tables in an on-premises Microsoft SQL Server instance is 'highly preferred.' Could you please confirm whether a cloud-hosted or vendor-hosted (SaaS) database solution would also be considered acceptable, or whether on-premises SQL Server is a mandatory requirement?

Cloud and SaaS database solutions are allowed, but using an SRWMD hosted on-premises SQL Server is highly preferred.

Scoring will reflect that.

7 If an on-premises SQL Server instance is required, will the District provide and maintain the server infrastructure (hardware, OS, SQL Server licensing, backups), or is the vendor expected to provide/host this infrastructure?

The District will provide and maintain the server infrastructure.

8 Could you please confirm the current Microsoft 365/Entra ID tenant configuration (e.g., licensing tier such as E3/E5) to help bidders scope the proposed Single Sign-On (SSO) integration?

Microsoft 365 Enterprise E3.

9 Approximately how many total user accounts (internal District staff, contractors, and any external/public-facing users) will require access to the system, and how many are expected to be concurrent users?

A current estimate is 20 users with 10 working concurrently. However, the systems should be scalable to increase users.

10 Could you please share sample copies of the current monthly and annual reports (and any existing dashboards) that the District needs replicated or automated in the new system, to help bidders understand the required report formats and data elements?

Samples provided. Formatting is flexible.

11 Could you please clarify the desired source of GIS data or API for triage map creation and file number assignment — is this expected to use ESRI ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Enterprise (on-premises), or both? Please confirm which ArcGIS licensing/products the District currently owns.

Potentially both ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Server on premises.

12 Could you please share a sample or template of the current Land Acquisition and Support (LAS) Team score sheet and the Committee/Board memorandum format, so bidders can appropriately scope the automation of this workflow?

See Question #10.

13 Solution approach: Section 5 requests a "customized off the shelf software solution."

Would the District also consider a purpose-built custom web application developed specifically to the District's requirements, or is a configured commercial off-the-shelf product required?

Purpose-built custom web application developed specifically to the District's requirements would be considered.

14 Hosting: Section 5.A states an on-premises

Microsoft SQL Server backend is highly preferred.

Would a cloud-hosted deployment (e.g., Microsoft Azure with SQL Server and full District data ownership) be considered acceptable, and would it affect scoring?

See question #6.

15 Data migration: Regarding the zero-error requirement in Section 5.F, would the District accept a jointly approved validation and reconciliation process (source-to-target record counts, exception reporting, and District sign-off) as the acceptance standard for migrated data?

Yes

16 Integrations: Can the District provide product versions and available integration interfaces (APIs, ODBC, file exports) for AccuFund, CivicPlus, PaperVision Enterprise, and PERCH?

Are these integrations expected to be read-only data pulls into the new system, or bi-directional?

See question #5.

17 GIS environment: Is the District's Esri environment ArcGIS Enterprise, ArcGIS Online, or both, and which version(s)?

See question #5.

18 Budget: Is there an established budget or anticipated not-to-exceed amount for this project?

This depends upon the proposal.

19 Financial consequences: Does the District have a preferred structure or cap for the financial consequences for missed deadlines referenced in Sections 4 and 5?

No, propose reasonable and customary consequences.

20 Contract term: What contract duration does the District anticipate for post-implementation support and maintenance?

Could vary depending upon proposal.

21 Could you please clarify the specific GIS attribute tables/feature classes (e.g., tracts, regions, program areas) that must support bi-directional communication with the 3-year planning tool, and confirm whether these currently exist in the District's ArcGIS environment or will need to be newly developed?

Exist, do not need development. Bi-directional communication is not required.

22 For timber management tracking (pre-harvest meetings, sale records, financial activity, inspections, load tracking, inventory, closeouts), could you please confirm whether this data currently exists in a structured format (e.g., spreadsheets, database) that can be provided to bidders for scoping the migration?

Currently in GIS, Papervision, or Excel spreadsheets.

23 Could you please clarify the specific role-based security requirements (e.g., number of distinct roles/permission levels expected, field-level vs.

Read only, Module level edit rights, Administrative – All Rights.

module-level security) so bidders can appropriately size the proposed access-control design?

24 Could you please clarify the District's expected technical support/help desk service levels (e.g., hours of coverage, response time SLAs, preferred support channels) so bidders can propose an appropriate support plan and cost?

M-F 8am-5pm.

25 The RFP requires data migration with a 'zero-error rate.' Could you please clarify how data migration accuracy will be verified/accepted by the District (e.g., record count reconciliation, sample audits, parallel testing), and confirm whether the District will provide a dedicated point of contact and test environment for migration validation?

See question 15. Yes, there will be a dedicated point of contact. Yes a seperate test environment can be provided by the District.

26 Could you please provide an estimated volume (number of files/records) of legacy PDFs and Excel-based documents currently stored in PaperVision Enterprise and Windows network folders that must be converted/migrated into the new system?

Documents in PaperVision are not being migrated into the new system. The new system should link to PaperVision via its API.

27 Could you please confirm whether the District will provide a dedicated User Acceptance Testing (UAT)/staging environment separate from production, and approximately how many District staff will participate in user testing and over what expected duration?

Proposer should provide UAT environment.

District would have no more than 10 users testing.

28 Could you please clarify the District's preference for training delivery (in-person at Live Oak, FL vs.

remote/virtual), the approximate number of staff to be trained, and whether train-the-trainer sessions are acceptable in addition to written/online materials and Quick Steps guides?

Remote/Virtual Training is acceptable.

Approximately 20 staff to be trained. Train the trainer would be considered.

29 The RFP requires bidders to 'define any use of AI in the creation of a proposal, software solution, or continuous improvement plan.' Could you please clarify the level of detail expected in this disclosure (e.g., specific AI tools/models used, use cases such as coding assistance, chatbots, or data analytics)?

High level and use for transparency to District.

30 Does the District have an established budget or not-to-exceed amount for this project that bidders should be aware of when preparing their cost proposals?

See Question #18.

31 The Proposed Schedule indicates commencement of work on January 1, 2027. Could you please confirm the District's expected overall implementation timeline/duration (e.g., number of months) from contract commencement to full go-live across all

Depends upon proposal.

three modules (Land Acquisition, Land Management, and Disposition)?

32 Preference for COTS if timeline is beneficial to District.District has a preference or requirement for the solution to be a configured Commercial-Off- The-Shelf (COTS)/customized platform versus a fully custom-built application, given the RFP's reference to 'a customized off the shelf software solution'?

See Question #13.

33 Could you please clarify the specific mobile use cases and platforms (iOS/Android, native app vs.

responsive web) required, and whether offline data capture/synchronization (e.g., for field staff conducting land management tasks without connectivity) is required?

No.

34 Could you please confirm the number of training sessions/hours the District expects to be included in the base proposal (e.g., for end users, administrators, and GIS staff separately), and whether refresher training post go-live should be priced as part of the base cost or as an optional add-on?

Depend upon proposal. Recommended training hours would be part of the proposal based upon complexity or intuitiveness.

35 Will the District require a dedicated training environment/sandbox (separate from production and UAT) for training sessions, and if so, who is responsible for setting up and maintaining this environment?

No. UAT and Training can occur on the same server.

36 Could you please clarify the expected format/structure for the cost proposal — specifically, whether costs should be broken down by module (Land Acquisition, Land Management, Disposition), by phase/task, or as a single all-inclusive not-to-exceed figure — and whether ongoing annual costs (licensing, hosting, maintenance, support) should be presented separately from one-time implementation costs?

Depend upon the proposal but preference for payment after milestones. All O&M costs should be presented in addition to implementation costs.

37 See Question #18.District's fiscal year budget cycle), or is the District expecting to fund the full not-to-exceed cost within a single fiscal year?

Depends upon the proposal.

38 Does the District have a preferred payment milestone structure (e.g., tied to contract signing, module go-live, UAT sign-off, final acceptance), or should bidders propose their own milestone-based payment schedule as part of the Time and Cost Proposal?

See Question #36.

39 Section 5 asks for a "customized off the shelf software solution." Would the District consider a solution developed specifically for the District, or does this language mean an existing land-

See Question #13.

management product that the successful proposer configures?

a. To be direct about where our strengths lie: we have built ArcGIS functionality before, but Seamgen is a bespoke software development company. We specialize in mobile and web applications, workflow automation, agentic workflows, and system integration as a layer on top of systems such as ArcGIS — rather than in implementing ArcGIS itself. Given the District's objectives, does it make sense for a firm of that profile to submit an offer?

40 Section 5E requires native ESRI ArcGIS integration for "managing parcel boundaries."

Does the District expect the system to create and edit parcel geometry directly, or to manage attributes and records against parcel boundaries the District continues to maintain in its own ArcGIS environment?

a. Relatedly, which ArcGIS deployment is in use

— ArcGIS Enterprise on-premises, ArcGIS Online, or both — and what integration surface would be made available to the successful proposer?

No.

a. Refer to question #5.

41 Section 5A requires pulling data from the Land Acquisition & Surplus Access Database, AccuFund, ArcGIS, CivicPlus, PaperVision and PERCH into a single interface, and Section 5F requires conversion from those legacy sources.

Approximately what volume of records is in scope for migration, and which of those six systems expose a documented API or supported integration method?

See Question #5.

42 Section 5A states that an on-premises Microsoft SQL Server instance is "highly preferred." Is on-premises hosting a requirement, or would a cloud-hosted database be evaluated equally?

a. If on-premises is required, would the solution be expected to run on the District's existing server hardware, or should our proposal include the cost and procurement lead time for new hardware?

See Question #6.

43 Who is the vendor or consultant currently supporting the District's ArcGIS environment and land-management systems, and would that firm

Both systems are managed internally.

be considered for this engagement?

44 Has the District established a budget or not-to-exceed amount for the initial implementation of this project? If so, please provide the budget range or funding allocation. If not, please confirm that no implementation budget has been established.

See Question #18.

45 The evaluation criteria place significant weight on understanding the District's needs, and much of the scope concerns workflows and document flow as staff actually perform them today. Would the District make staff available for structured discovery sessions at the start of the engagement, so that the solution can be designed around the real working process — including the steps that are not captured in written procedures?

Yes.

46 COTS vs. Custom Framework: Section 5 describes the solution as a "customized off the shelf software solution." Will the District accept a custom web application engineered on modern frameworks and Microsoft SQL Server if it meets all functional, security, and timeline requirements?

See Question 13.

47 Offshore / Nearshore Talent Protocols: Are there any geographic restrictions or citizenship requirements prohibiting nearshore/offshore engineering personnel from performing software development, data migration, or testing tasks, provided all access aligns with District security and Microsoft 365/Entra ID standards?

See question 3.

48 On-Premises SQL Access: For the preferred on-premises Microsoft SQL Server backend, will the District provide secure VPN or remote access protocols for off-site development and data migration teams during implementation?

No more than 4 VPN licenses would be available.

49 ESRI ArcGIS Architecture: Does the District currently host ESRI ArcGIS Enterprise / Portal on-premises, or is it hosted via ArcGIS Online? What specific REST APIs or SDKs are expected for the bi-directional GIS synchronization?

Refer to question #5 and #21.

50 Financial Consequence Standards: Section 4 requests vendors to define recommended financial consequences for missing deadlines. Does the District have a standard liquidated damages rate or cap that must be referenced in the proposal?

See question #19

51 Presentation Format: If selected for presentations between September 21–25, 2026, will remote presentations via Microsoft Teams be evaluated on an equal footing with in-person presentations?

Yes

52 Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance: The RFP requires motor vehicle liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit applicable to any and all vehicles utilized to provide the requested services. Since the proposed services will not require the use of vehicles and the Respondent does not own or operate vehicles in connection with the performance of the contract, may this insurance requirement be considered not applicable? If so, should the Respondent simply identify this requirement as "Not Applicable" and provide an explanation in its proposal?

Yes

53 General Liability Insurance: The RFP requires Comme insurance with minimum limits of USD 1,000,000 for Advertising Injury and USD 1,000,000 General Aggreg maintains Commercial General Liability insurance wit limit of USD 5,000,000. May the District confirm whet satisfies the stated insurance requirement, provided t coverage and limits under the policy meet or exceed t minimums?

When contracted, the vendor needs to meet or exceed the requirement by providing a Certificate of Insurance.

54 Is it necessary to submit the bidder's corporate or financial documentation?

Corporate information would be required if contracted (ie: W-9, COI)

55 AccuFund Integration Scope: Which specific AccuFund modules/data (GL, AP, purchase orders, encumbrances) must be integrated? Is bidirectional sync required, or read-only reporting access sufficient? What integration method is available (ODBC, REST API, direct DB access)?

Read only reporting access is sufficient.

56 CivicPlus Integration: Which CivicPlus module is currently in use for application intake? Should CivicPlus remain the public-facing intake form (with the new system consuming submissions via API/webhook), or should the new solution fully replace the public intake experience?

Civic Plus would remain the public facing intake and data to be integrated.

57 PaperVision Enterprise Integration: What version of PaperVision Enterprise is in use, and is an API/SDK (e.g., WebLink, ImageSilo) available for document retrieval and storage, or should this be treated as a one-time migration/export?

See Question #5.

58 PERCH System: Could the District clarify what PERCH refers to (vendor/module/purpose) and which data or records need to be integrated with or migrated from it?

See Question 5.

59 Legacy Data Scope: Can the District provide the schema/data dictionary, approximate record counts, and years of historical data held in the Access database and other legacy sources, to properly scope the zero-error-rate migration requirement?

See Question #4.

60 Field Data Collection Tools: Does the District currently use ArcGIS Field Maps, Collector, or Survey123 for field crews (prescribed burns, mowing, invasive species, etc.)? Should the new solution replace these tools or integrate with them?

Yes, those data collection tools are used and need the data to be integrated. Do not need new solutions to replace them.

61 Offline Mobile Capability: Given field operations occur in areas with limited connectivity, is offline data capture with later synchronization required for the mobile-compatible components referenced in the Scope of Work?

No.

62 GIS Licensing: Will the District provide ArcGIS Enterprise/Portal developer licenses and API access to the selected vendor for integration development, or must the vendor procure and manage its own ArcGIS licensing?

District will not supply ArcGIS licensing for developers.

63 Hosting Model: Section 5.A states on-premises SQL Server storage is "highly preferred." Does this also require the application/web server tier to be hosted on District premises, or may the application tier be cloud-hosted with secure connectivity (VPN/ExpressRoute) to an on-premises SQL Server?

See Question #6.

64 Infrastructure Specifications: Can the District share current server specifications, virtualization platform (VMware/Hyper-V), OS versions, and network architecture to properly size any on-premises components of the proposed solution?

Windows Server 2025 running on VMware VMs.

65 Entra ID / M365 Environment: Is the District's Microsoft 365/Entra ID tenant already provisioned with the licensing tier (E3/E5) needed to support SSO and conditional access integration?

See question #8.

66 Sensitive/Restricted Data: Rare species locations, archaeological sites, and certain acquisition negotiation data are typically statutorily exempt from public disclosure under Florida law. Does the solution need built-in role-based redaction/exemption-tagging to prevent inadvertent exposure of this data through reports or GIS layers?

Yes

67 Accessibility Standard: For the ADA/Section 508/282.603 F.S. compliance referenced in Section 4, is a specific WCAG conformance level (2.0 AA, 2.1 AA) mandated for the web application and system-generated documents?

There is no specific conformance level.

68 Standardized Reporting Templates: Are there specific state or grant reporting formats (e.g., Florida Forever, FDEP, legislative reporting) that automated reports must conform to, or are formats flexible/District-defined?

See Question #10.

69 Document Template Standards: Can the District provide existing templates for memos, contracts, letters, and score sheets so the document-automation functionality can be scoped and estimated accurately?

See Question #10.

70 Electronic Signature: Is electronic signature capability (e.g., DocuSign or equivalent integration) required for contracts, memos, and closing documents generated by the system?

The District does not want to integrate with DocuSign at this time.

71 Solution Scale: Can the District share the approximate number of land tracts/parcels under management, total acreage, number of counties/regions, and number of internal system users by role, to properly size the proposed architecture and licensing?

District covers 15 Counties, 4 Regions, 290,000 acres of fee or less-than-fee owned lands.

72 Post-Implementation Support: Beyond the technical support/help desk mentioned in Section 5.E, does the District expect a defined SLA (response/resolution times), and should ongoing support be included within the not-to-exceed implementation cost or structured as a separate maintenance agreement?

This would depend upon the proposal.

73 Contract Term & Renewal: What is the anticipated initial contract term, and are renewal/option years expected for licensing, hosting, and support beyond initial implementation?

Depends upon the proposal.

74 Budget Guidance: Can the District share an approximate budget range or not-to-exceed ceiling for planning purposes, even if only indicative, to help calibrate the proposed scope?

See Question #18.

75 AI Use Disclosure Scope: Section 4 requires vendors to define any use of AI in the proposal, software solution, or continuous improvement plan. Does this also cover AI-assisted development tools used internally by the vendor, and are there restrictions on processing District data (including sensitive species/site data) through third-party AI services?

See Question #29.

76 Is there any particular file format to share the proposal document (pdf, doc, xls)?

PDF

77 Since the RFP states that the written proposal must include a detailed cost breakdown for each requirement, along with the corresponding project timeline, could you please clarify the expected level of detail for the work breakdown structure?

Specifically, what is the minimum level of task granularity expected in the proposal?

Mid-level detail that a deliverable, time, and cost can be associated with.

78 Is on-premises SQL Server storage of backend data tables mandatory, or a preference? Would

See Question #6.

cloud-hosted data-of-record with replicated reporting data to on-prem SQL satisfy intent?

79 What system/data domain does “PERCH” refer to, and what integration access does it offer?

See Question #5.

80 Should ArcGIS remain system of record for spatial data, or should the new solution become the source of truth? Confirm current ArcGIS licensing tier.

See Question #60.

81 How will “zero-error rate” migration be measured, validated, and signed off?

See Question #15.

82 What is the current record volume (active files, historical tracts, documents) to be migrated?

See Question #4.

83 For each of the six named systems (Access DB, AccuFund, ArcGIS, CivicPlus, PaperVision, PERCH): what integration method is available (REST API, ODBC, flat file, DB view), and which will be retired vs. retained as system of record post-go-live?

See Question #5.

84 The evaluation steps list STEP ONE, STEP THREE, STEP FOUR with no STEP TWO — was a step omitted from the document?

Typo. There are 3 steps.

85 Which WCAG conformance level/version governs ADA/Section 508 compliance for deliverables?

See Question #67.

86 Is a formal liquidated-damages clause expected for missed deadlines, or is the vendor free to propose its own remedy structure? What is the NTE cap structure?

See question #19

87 Does the District have an approved AI tool/platform list or data-use restrictions governing any AI features proposed?

See question #29.

88 Is a live product demo required with the initial proposal, or only upon shortlisting? What fidelity/sample data is expected?

A live demo would be needed by District Selected Proposals.

89 Must Form B references be comparably scoped (land management/GIS software) and within a defined recency window?

No but may affect scoring.

90 What field connectivity should be assumed for mobile use (rural/low-signal sites)? Is offline capture with later sync required, or is online-only mobile access sufficient?

Refer to question #61.

91 “Reduce manual task time by 40%” — what is the baseline metric, over what period, and how will this be measured and validated post-go-live?

This is an objective based upon the automation, not a required measured task.

92 Will additional question rounds be permitted beyond the July 31 deadline, or is that the only window for written questions?

No.

93 “Role-based security” is stated generally — is a specific framework required (NIST 800-53, CJIS, StateRAMP-equivalent), or is standard RBAC sufficient?

RBAC is the only requirement.

94 Is the implementation expected to be phased or delivered as a single go-live?

Depends upon the proposal.

95 Approximately how many users (internal, external, concurrent) will use the system?

See Question #9.

96 What is the estimated volume of legacy data and documents to be migrated from Access, PaperVision, CivicPlus, Excel, and PDFs?

See Questions #4 and #26. CivicPlus will only be used for form submissions.

97 What level of integration is expected with AccuFund, PERCH, PaperVision, CivicPlus, and ArcGIS (read-only, bi-directional, or full transactional)?

See Question #5.

98 What ArcGIS environment and version is currently deployed, and will GIS remain the system of record?

See Questions #5 and #60.

99 Does the District prefer a SaaS, hybrid, or on-premises application architecture, given the preference for on-premises SQL Server?

On premises is preferred.

100 Is January 1, 2027 the intended project start date or the target production go-live date?

Project start date.

101 Will the District provide existing workflow diagrams, document templates, and report samples during implementation?

See Question #10.

102 Approximately how many properties, tracts, contracts, and annual work orders will be managed by the system?

See Question #4.

103 Does the District expect configurable no-code workflow administration by business users after implementation?

No.

104 What is the budget for this work? (software licensing, implementation services, data migration, training, and ongoing support?)

See Question #18.

105 What is the preferred contract type? Depends upon the proposal.

106 What are the expected record counts and document volumes for migration?

See Question #4.

107 What integration methods are available for CivicPlus, PaperVision, AccuFund, PERCH, and Access databases?

See Question #5.

108 Can the District provide sample workflows, forms, and approval documents for acquisition, management, and disposition processes?

See Question #10.

109 Can the District provide details regarding its current ArcGIS environment, including ArcGIS Enterprise and/or ArcGIS Online deployments, user counts, licensing levels, existing parcel datasets, and integration requirements with GIS services?

See Questions #4 and #5.

110 Section 5 requests a “customized off the shelf software solution.” Please confirm whether the District will consider a solution delivered as an additional module or extension within a software platform the District already owns, has deployed, or currently has under active implementation, rather than as a separate standalone product.

Yes.

111 Sections 5.A and 5.C require functionality to create memos, contracts, bids, and letters. To accurately size the document automation effort, please provide, to the extent known, a list or count of distinct documents the solution is expected to generate across the three modules.

Approximately five. The system should output the documents as MS Word documents.

112 Section 5.A states that mobile compatibility is needed. Please clarify whether this requirement is satisfied by a responsive web interface usable on tablets and smartphones, or whether native iOS and/or Android applications are expected.

Native applications are not required.

113 Section 1 and Section 5 reference complex workflow approvals, Land Acquisition and Support (LAS) Team ranking and approval processes, and memorandum preparation for the Lands Committee and Governing Board. Please describe the number of approval levels and participating roles in these processes and confirm whether current workflow documentation exists and will be made available during discovery.

See Question #23.

114 Section 5 requires respondents to propose not-to-exceed time and cost amounts for work tasks, solutions, and/or modules. Will the District agree that the functional requirements documented and approved during a discovery and requirements phase constitute the definitive scope baseline for the not-to-exceed amount, and that requirements identified after that approval will be addressed through a mutually agreed change control process?

Scope creep would be managed and change orders will be negotiated.

115 Following District approval of requirements, will the District agree either to a change freeze on the legacy application and on the business processes being automated, or to a defined process under which changes arising during development are evaluated as change requests rather than absorbed into the baseline scope?

Unless it benefits this project, development of the Land Acquisition and Surplus Access Database would be halted during this project.

116 Are changes currently underway, or planned during the project period, to the Access database or to the manual processes described in the Background section, including changes to table structures, queries, forms, reports, business rules, or the content of documents and templates? If so, please describe their nature and expected timing.

Changes will only be made for new reporting requirements by outside agencies or to support the development of this new system.

117 In addition to documented processes, are there informal or undocumented practices that staff currently rely upon to complete their work, such as editing records directly in Access tables rather than through a form, maintaining personal or departmental spreadsheets alongside the primary system, applying manual data corrections that no form supports, or one-off procedures used to handle exceptions and edge cases?

Yes, Excel Spreadsheets are used but will be replaced by this new system.

SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

MEMORANDUM

TO: Governing Board

FROM: Lorna Radcliff, Chief, Office of Land Management

THRU: Katelyn Potter, Director, Outreach and Operations

DATE: May 14, 2026

RE: Land Management Update Report

BACKGROUND

The following information summarizes land management activities cumulative as of April 31, 2026.

Vegetative Management (acres) FY 2026 Planned

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Herbicide Treatments 160 Start in June 0% Mechanical Treatments 1,657 486 29%

Prescribed Fire (acres) FY 2026 Planned

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Districtwide 12,133 1,153 10%

TRSF 807 555 69%

Invasive Plant Treatments FY 2026

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Contractors (acres) 217 41 19%

Ecological Services Monitoring FY 2026

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Wading Bird Rookeries (sites) 14 Start in May 0% Natural Community Mapping (acres) 617 Second Visit

Completed 0%

Gopher Tortoise Surveys (acres) 158 99 63%

Timber Harvests FY 2026

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Acreage Sold 2,327 1753 75%

Revenue (estimated) $1,300,000 $565,790 44%

Reforestation FY 2026

Reporting Period Completed

Percent

Reforestation (acres) 248 250 101%

Conservation Easements FY 2026 Planned

Reporting Period Completed

Percent

Monitor Current Easements 14 2 14%

Hydrologic & Road Maintenance

FY 2026

Planned

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Culvert Replacements 17 1 6%

Road maintenance (miles) 181 184 102%

Tract Maintenance FY 2026

Reporting Period Completed

Percent Complete

Mowing (total miles) 1,614 360 22%

Site Maintenance (total visits) 2052 1156 56%

Enhanced Patrols (hours) 800 444 56%

Sign Replacements 42 9 21%

Cultural Resource Monitoring 60 75 125%

Special Projects

Starke Bypass Mitigation Area: Contractors conducted invasive plant treatment. Plans being reviewed for wetland plant permit compliance by March 2027.

Falmouth Springs Park: Wetland delineation and topographic survey are complete. Design and permitting in tentative budget for FY2026-2027.

Steinhatchee Falls Park: Design and permitting is complete. Renovation of the boat ramp is pending funding. Florida Boating Improvement Program grant applied for.

Lasky Tract: Guardrail installation and new gates installed. Cleanup in tentative budget for

FT2026-2027.

Parking Area Improvements: New parking areas created for Woods Ferry, Jerry Branch, Swift Creek, and Rocky Creek. Guardrail installation for the parking areas planned for completion by September 30, 2026.

Water for Nature. Water for People.

Suwannee River Water Management District | County Road 49, Live Oak, FL 32060 | 386.362.1001 | MySuwanneeRiver.com

[Date]

[Name] [Contractor] [Address]

Subject: Contract Extension [Number]

Dear [Ms/Mr Last Name]:

The Suwannee River Water Management District is hereby renewing, upon the same terms and conditions, the above referenced agreement for General Consulting Services for Fiscal Year 2021. All conditions of Agreement number [insert number] shall remain in effect for the period beginning [insert begin date] and ending [insert end date].

This is a no cost amendment; all other conditions of your contract will remain the same. Please contact the project manager [insert project manager name & phone] with any questions.

Sincerely, Hugh Thomas Executive Director

HT/

CONTRACT/TWA CLOSE OUT FORM &

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

TO:

FROM:

THRU:

DATE:

RE: Contract/TWA Close Out and De-obligation of Funds

Deliverables:

On Time Yes No

Complete Yes No

Substantial Editing Required Yes No

Invoicing:

On Time Yes No

Accurate with supporting documentation Yes No

Overall Performance:

All Deliverables sent to Central Files N/A

Form #002-00274

I hereby certify that all work has been completed and all invoices submitted under this agreement. This form will effectively close out this contract/TWA.

Contract/TWA Number: ___________________

Contractor: _________________________________ ________

Contract Amount: $______________ _ _

Paid to Date: $____________________ De-Obligated Amount:______________

Amount of Final Invoice: $_____________ Paid Pending

Performance Evaluation:

Records and Contract Manager

Ranking 1-Poor to 5-Excellent

MEMORANDUM

TO: <<name>>, Executive Director

FROM: <<staff name, title>>

THRU: <<deputy executive director name, title>>

DATE: <<date>>

RE: Contract for Services <<what ever pertains to memo>>

RECOMMENDATION

Use this sample language as a template for the recommendation for contract execution, amendment or renewal. <<Staff recommends the Executive Director renew the contract with Forestree Network Services, LLC, for an amount not to exceed $28,178 for Herbicide Application Services in Fiscal Year 2015.>>

BACKGROUND

Use this sample language as a template for the background information. <<The application of herbicide on District lands is a beneficial tool that is sometimes needed to achieve goals identified in the District’s Land Management Plan. Under these contracts, herbicide would be applied to approximately 310 acres to control hardwood vegetation for the purpose of releasing existing pine trees from hardwood competition and facilitating the use of prescribed fire.

Herbicide will be applied using backpack sprayers and spot-guns that release a metered amount of chemical in a designated grid pattern across treatment areas. Herbicide will be applied at the lowest rate possible to achieve project objectives.>>

Account Code -

APPROVED BY:_________________________ Date:______________

Executive Director or Designee

-1-

CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF TIMBER ON DISTRICT PROPERTY

(DISTRICT Selling to Private Entity)

Sandlin Bay #6

THIS CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF TIMBER ON DISTRICT PROPERTY, is made and entered into as of its EFFECTIVE DATE, by and between the DISTRICT and the PURCHASER and for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS: The following terms shall have the following meaning herein unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

(The first definitions are listed out of alphabetical order as they will need to be changed from contract to contract.)

ADVANCE PAYMENT shall mean the total sum of $XXXXX.

DAMAGE DEPOSIT shall mean the PURCHASER’s check, cashier’s check, money order, or surety bond given to the DISTRICT to serve as a security deposit, in the amount of $10,000.

DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER shall mean XXXXXXXX, whose contact information is XXX.XXX@srwmd.org 386.362.XXXX, or such other person as may be designated by the DISTRICT upon written notice to PURCHASER.

PURCHASER shall mean XXXXXXX, Inc., a Florida profit corporation, whose address is ADDRESS, Perry, FL 32348 and whose Federal Tax ID No. is XX-XXXXXX.

PURCHASER PROJECT MANAGER shall mean XXXXX whose contact information is EMAIL, 386.XXXXXXXX or such other person as may be approved, in advance and in writing (including email), by the DISTRICT.

REQUEST shall mean the DISTRICT’s Invitation to Bid number XXXXXX as advertised.

TERM shall mean the time period beginning on the EFFECTIVE DATE and ending 12 months from EFFECTIVE DATE.

CONTRACT shall mean this Contract for the Sale of Timber on District Property between the DISTRICT and the PURCHASER.

DISTRICT shall mean the Suwannee River Water Management District, a special taxing district organized under Chapter 373 of Florida Statutes, whose office address is 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060.

EFFECTIVE DATE shall mean the date the CONTRACT is executed by the last party to execute it.

EXOTIC SPECIES shall mean those species of plants that are listed on in Category I and II of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s List of Invasive Plant Species, as it may be amended from time to time.

mailto:XXX.XXX@srwmd.org

-2-

HARVEST or HARVESTING shall mean the cutting, harvesting and removing from the PROPERTY of trees for sale.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES shall mean any hazardous or toxic substances as defined in any Federal or Florida statute or the regulation or rule of any governmental agency with jurisdiction over the PROPERTY.

NOTICE TO PROCEED shall mean the written notice given by the DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER to the PURCHASER signifying that the PURCHASER may enter upon the PROPERTY and proceed with the HARVEST of the TIMBER.

PROPERTY shall mean all of those certain parcels of real property owned by the DISTRICT as shown on the TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEETS.

PROTECTED SPECIES shall mean those species of animals and plants that are listed as endangered or threatened by the applicable Federal and/or Florida governmental agency and/or are given legal protection (other than ordinary hunting regulations, bag limits and similar protections) under and Federal or Florida law.

REQUIRED INSURANCE LIMITS shall mean (i) for workers’ compensation insurance, the limits shall be as required by law; (ii) for motor vehicular liability insurance, the limits shall be for not less than $500,000 combined single limit; (iii) for general liability insurance, the limits shall be a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 general aggregate.

TIMBER shall mean those species and type(s) of trees located on the PROPERTY which are designated for HARVESTING as shown on the TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEETS. If the PROPERTY contains more than one parcel, the trees to be HARVESTED may differ from parcel to parcel as shown on TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEETS. TIMBER shall not include any dead stump wood or lightwood, regardless of species.

TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET shall mean for each stand of trees which are to be HARVESTED located on the PROPERTY, the sheet, attached hereto, showing all of the relevant information and terms for such stand and the HARVEST thereof. In the event of any conflict, the specifications and guidelines shown on the TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATION SHEET shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of this

CONTRACT.

2. SALE AND PURCHASE OF TIMBER: The DISTRICT shall sell the TIMBER to the

PURCHASER, as provided in this CONTRACT. PURCHASER shall purchase the TIMBER from the DISTRICT and HARVEST the TIMBER, as provided in this

3. DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER: The DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER is designated as the DISTRICT’s representative for purposes of enforcement of the provisions of this CONTRACT regarding the HARVESTING of the TIMBER on the PROPERTY.

PURCHASER agrees to cooperate fully with DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER in complying with the terms and provisions of this CONTRACT. PURCHASER shall report the commencement, any interruption, recommencement, or completion of HARVESTING operations by telephone to the DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER at least twenty-four (24)

-3-hours prior to such.

4. PURCHASER PROJECT MANAGER: The PURCHASER PROJECT MANAGER shall have direct, primary, and continuing responsibility for the PURCHASER’s HARVEST of the TIMBER under this CONTRACT. While other individuals and specialists will be involved, the PURCHASER PROJECT MANAGER shall be available to DISTRICT on a timely basis throughout the TERM. The PURCHASER PROJECT MANAGER shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, and interpret and define the PURCHASER’s obligations with respect to HARVEST of the TIMBER under this CONTRACT and otherwise bind the PURCHASER under this CONTRACT.

5. TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET: For each stand of TIMBER to be

HARVESTED which is located on the PROPERTY, there is attached a TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET. Each TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET shall control the HARVEST of such stand of TIMBER. Each TIMBER STAND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET shows, for such stand, the following:

5.1 A map of the PROPERTY showing where the stand of TIMBER is located. The

PURCHASER shall conduct its HARVESTING operations only in the area shown on such map. Such map shall also show the location of any PROTECTED SPECIES and/or EXOTIC SPECIES known to the DISTRICT.

5.2 The specie(s) of trees which are to be HARVESTED from this stand. For the subject stand, the PURCHASER shall only HARVEST the listed type(s) of trees.

5.3 The type of HARVEST that is to be conducted on the stand. For the subject stand, the PURCHASER shall only conduct the type of HARVEST shown.

5.4 The product definitions. For the subject stand, the PURCHASER shall harvest and fully utilize where practical all trees which meet the specifications shown.

5.5 The product prices. For the subject stand, the payments to be made to the

DISTRICT for the trees HARVESTED shall be calculated using the prices shown.

6. PURCHASER NOT TO ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY NOR COMMENCE

HARVESTING TIMBER PRIOR TO RECEIVING A NOTICE TO PROCEED: The PURCHASER shall not enter upon the PROPERTY, with manpower and equipment, nor commence HARVESTING any TIMBER, until and unless it receives a NOTICE TO PROCEED from the DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER. Prior to issuing a NOTICE TO PROCEED, the DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER may require a conference with the PURCHASER or the PURCHASERS REPRESENTATIVE and the Master Logger who PURCHASER has retained to supervise and control the HARVEST of the TIMBER. This conference is to provide each party an opportunity to discuss the details of the CONTRACT, sequence of HARVESTING the TIMBER from certain stands, logging plans, roads to be used for hauling, areas for loading of logs, areas where skidding is not allowed, and other matters pertinent to the HARVEST of the TIMBER.

7. HARVEST TO COMMENCE PROMPTLY, PROCEED DILIGENTLY AND BE

COMPLETED DURING THE TERM: Upon receiving the NOTICE TO PROCEED, the PURCHASER shall promptly commence HARVESTING the TIMBER. Thereafter, the PURCHASER shall diligently continue such HARVEST until completion. The

-4-

PURCHASER shall complete all HARVESTING of the TIMBER during the TERM.

8. EXTENSIONS OF THE TERM: The DISTRICT may, in the sole discretion of the

DISTRICT, grant an extension of the TERM. However, extensions should be rare and the PURCHASER should not plan on being awarded any extension of the TERM. The DISTRICT will consider granting an extension only when Acts of God or other extreme contingencies beyond the control of the PURCHASER prevent PURCHASER from completing HARVESTING within the TERM. Requests for extensions must be made by PURCHASER, in writing, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the end of the TERM with the reasons for the request stated therein. Market price fluctuations, mill closures, mill quotas, mill limits, and any other market conditions or issues are not conditions that warrant or justify extensions of the TERM.

9. REPORTING OF THE TIMBER HARVESTED: The PURCHASER shall report and pay for all TIMBER removed from the PROPERTY on a weekly basis as follows:

9.1 Prior to the commencement of HARVESTING, the DISTRICT PROJECT

MANAGER shall provide the PURCHASER, free of charge, with Timber Sale Accountability Forms and Load Security Tickets, which shall be used by PURCHASER, according to instructions, to keep track of the TIMBER being HARVESTED.

9.1.1 The Timber Sale Accountability Log Form is a DISTRICT document that is required to be onsite during the HARVEST. It is a tabulated form that must be filled out for each load before the load leaves the PROPERTY. Each form will show all loads for a specific week and each week a new form must be used. The Timber Sale Accountability Form for each week will be attached to the weekly report submitted to the DISTRICT with payment. The PURCHASER may use their own Load Sheet if it is equivalent to the DISTRICT’S Form.

9.1.2 The Load Security Tickets are a DISTRICT document that consists of three tickets; a top ticket which is white (the “WHITE TICKET”), a middle ticket which is pink (the “PINK TICKET”) and a bottom ticket which is yellow (the “YELLOW TICKET”). All of these tickets have printed on them a specific ticket number so that they can be reconciled with each other. The tickets are arranged so that by writing on the WHITE TICKET a conformed copy is made on the PINK TICKET. For each load the WHITE TICKET and PINK TICKET are filled out to show the pertinent information for such load. The YELLOW TICKET will only show the name of the DISTRICT and the ticket number. The tickets will be used as follows:

9.1.2.1 A different numbered packet of one WHITE TICKET, one PINK

TICKET and one YELLOW TICKET must be filled out and used by the PURCHASER for each truck load of TIMBER which leaves the

PROPERTY.

9.1.2.1 The WHITE TICKET will be retained onsite as directed by the

DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER and such WHITE TICKETS will be picked up from time to time (usually several times a week) by the DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER during each week.

9.1.2.2 The PINK TICKET is retained by the PURCHASER and attached

-5-to the weekly report submitted to the DISTRICT for payment.

9.1.2.3 The YELLOW TICKET must be attached to the truck load of

TIMBER before such load leaves the PROPERTY. The YELLOW TICKET should be attached to the load of TIMBER on the driver’s side near the front of…