USVI Public Records

Document text

July 13, 2020 AMENDMENT #3- RFP- 042-T-2020 (P) – Watershed Management Studies Project – St. Thomas/St. John District Questions/Answers: ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. BIDDERS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH THEIR BID PROPOSAL. • Can you clarify that we can either submit electronically or hard copy, but that both forms of submission are not required? The Department recommends submission via electronic submission • There are two RFPs out for similar watershed planning work in STT and in STX. Is it possible for the same contractor to be awarded both contracts? Yes. If both contracts are awarded to the same group, is there some flexibility to complete the watershed work in phases? Yes. • Project schedule. The RFP presents an expected timeline for this project of 30 weeks. In light of COVID-19 and how it may affect the contractor’s ability to perform field work, is there some flexibility in the timeline? In addition to the pandemic, it has been our experience that watershed planning efforts take at least 12-18 months in order to meet EPA watershed planning standards and to provide adequate time for public and agency engagement, field assessments and sampling, and to develop project designs. The scope presented includes all of those components across 3 watersheds. Would the GVI be open to a proposal that either a) reduces the scope of the effort or b) extends the period of performance to best meet the objects of the project, and if so, which is the preference? An alternative timeline proposed by the vendor can be considered, however the proposal should still provide an outline for the requested 30-week project for bid evaluation. • Hydro-dynamic modeling: Is the primary objective of modeling efforts to understand flooding or water quality? Flooding Can you provide more background on any of the following: What specific models, if any, does the GVI require or prefer? The EPA’s System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis (SUSTAIN) is an example of a hydrology model that been used in VI assessments, and data produced and delivered to DPNR should be compatible with Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (NSPECT). Do you expect contractor to develop actual flood models, or is using the output from other hydraulic studies acceptable? DPNR seeks the most specific and locally relevant models. Is groundwater influence anticipated for model inclusion or is surface runoff sufficient, if so, what data is available? Limited groundwater data is available at DPNR. • Future scenarios. Quantification of “Rate of change to the landscape” was mentioned in the scope and “projections for future land use scenarios” was mentioned under “Data Products.” Can you provide any additional information on what is expected related to buildout or land use change analyses? DPNR seeks an understanding of the carrying capacity of the watersheds, for example impervious and pervious ratios. There is a general historical change analysis done by institutional partners. • For future projections, in addition to climate change data, are there data on land use and population projections? There is an historical change analysis done by institutional partners. Are historic estimates part of this? Yes. • Existing infrastructure mapping. Will we have access to maps/info showing underground drainage infrastructure (sewer and stormwater pipes etc.) (GIS layer?) DPNR-CZM will assist in providing or directing contractor to available data sources. • Monitoring. We are enthusiastic about the inclusion of sampling in the SOW. Can you provide additional information on the following: • What is the primary objective of proposed water sampling? Given the few number of wet weather samples in the SOW, it would be difficult to establish anything more than a snapshot of pollutant concentrations during rain events. This would be great for comparisons across sub watersheds, but not sufficient to establish loads or calibrate models. DPNR seeks the most specific, locally relevant, and realistic data collection possible to characterize surface runoff. • What is the desired number of sites and samples/site? Is a QAPP required? DPNR seeks the most specific, locally relevant, and realistic data collection possible to characterize surface runoff. • What is the objective of inclusion of water loggers in the monitoring description? If estimates of flow are expected, does the GVI have established stage-discharge relation or rating curves for these guts? DPNR seeks the most specific, locally relevant and realistic data collection possible to characterize surface runoff. There are no known rating curves. • What are the primary WQ parameters? These are listed in the RFP: nitrogen, phosphorus, nitrate, heavy metals. • Field work. The section describing field work seems to be focused mainly on collecting water samples. However, to characterize watershed conditions and to identify sites for potential restoration actions, engineers and biologists need time on the ground to walk the watershed. Are you anticipating limited field assessments for these projects? No. • FEMA-eligible projects. The scope mentions developing FEMA eligible project designs. Can you further describe what elements a FEMA eligible project must contain? FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMRP) are targeted for proposal development support. Under the deliverables and milestone-comprehensive products per watershed, it mentions “alignment of documentation with FEMA requirements and application formats.” Can you clarify if this means the Contractor would need to develop all the materials needed for submittal of an application? No. • Meetings. Under communication, we understand that public meetings are to be held before week 4 and 24. There are “several” other meetings mentioned with agencies. Are these meetings intended to be public also? Or, are these meetings more targeted and held among specific stakeholders. Both.