North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Transcription

1 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services Pat McCrory Governor Donald R. van der Vaart Secretary November 19, 2015 THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL RFP NO RFP TITLE: Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within Cataloging Unit of the Yadkin River Basin ADDENDUM NO. 01 USING AGENCY: PURCHASER KATHY DALE OPENING DATE/TIME: Division of Mitigation Services January 21, 2:00 P.M. This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed by the content of the original RFP and the Information provided in this addendum notice. SECTION 1- A. GENERAL INFORMATION & CHANGES 1-Section 2.4, item g) Current Ownership and Long Term Protection A signed option agreement valid for a period of one (1) year from the closing date of this RFP or other suitable documentation of real property interest must be provided for each parcel. 2-Section 2.6 Required Templates Delete FEMA Floodplain Requirements Checklist 3-Link to GIS Online Map: 4-Link to GIS layers: 5-Section 3.2, Task 4 Delete FEMA floodplain certification 6-Section 3.2, Task 6 Delete item C. 7-Attachment H. Technical Evaluation Scoresheet Question #2 in Section 5.0 is not applicable 8-Templates Link (for this RFP): Addendum No.1 Page 1 of 5

2 SECTION 1- B. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1) Can you provide more information on what counts and what does not count towards page limits. Specifically, do the following items count towards the page limit? Cover sheet, Table of Contents Sheet, Dividers and Section Tab Sheets, Execution Sheet (Page 1 in RFP), Addendums, Cover Letter, Executive Summary, Financial Statement, Quality Control Section, Option Contracts, Stream Forms, Stream Data (XS s, etc.), Mock Scoring Sheet, Corporate Background and Experience Info (Org Charts, Project Descriptions, etc.), Project Organization Info (Resume s, etc.), Attachment D, Attachment E, Attachment F Everything above will count toward the 100 pages except Execution Sheet, Addendums, Financial Statement (Attachment E), Option Contracts, Stream Forms, Mock Scoring Sheet, Attachment D and Attachment F. 2) Page 7 Project Development; Second bullet refers to a scoring advantage for bridges or culverts with fencing but the scoring sheet does not seem to provide a way for the review team to reward extra points for these types of crossings. Please explain. Section 5.0, quest #3 discusses crossings and utility barriers and constraints. 3) Page 7-Regarding Option Agreements, can a provider provide a one-page, recorded memorandum that references a contract as opposed to providing the entire contract in the RFP? This will save pages and still be legally binding. No, if the vendor is using options to secure the property, the entire option agreement must be included. 4) Page 13 Section 3.1 Special Conditions; If the vendor provides a price for riparian wetlands, will they be responsible for developing those credits (at risk) from the start of the stream project or will DMS contract with the provider at a later date to develop the credits at the provided price? DMS may approach the vendor at any time during the contract period to request amending the contract for wetland credit delivery. Keep in mind that this is only optional for the vendor. 5) Attachment G; DMS is soliciting for 45,000 warm stream credits. Is the thermal regime the only reason that the majority of the Ararat River and Upper Yadkin LWP has been excluded from the search area? If so, would DMS consider out-of-kind (cool for warm) credits in all of the other LWP 14 digit HUCs that comprise the AR&UY LWP? There has been precedent for the IRT accepting thermal out-of-kind mitigation in certain cases. This would increase inventory significantly. No, the request is for Warm stream credits. 6) The Version of the CE Template does not appear to be posted on the DMS website yet. See the Templates hyperlink in this addendum. 7) May a Vendor submit a proposal in the name of a wholly-owned, specific purpose entity versus the parent operating company if the vendor signed into the mandatory pre-proposal meeting under the name of the parent company? If the answer is yes, would the submitting entity still get the qualifications of the parent operating company, ie experience, financial vitality, etc? The Vendor must submit any proposal under the entity name signed in at the Pre-Proposal meeting 8) Section 2.3; Page 5; Under item #2, the RFP states, Submit your technical proposal in a sealed package. Clearly mark each package with the following information: (1) Sealed Cost Proposal Should this read (1) Sealed Technical Proposal? Yes, it should be marked as Sealed Technical Proposal Addendum No.1 Page 2 of 5

3 9) Section 2.3; Page 5; Under item #4, the RFP states, Submit one (1) electronic copy of your proposal on a separate read-only CD s, DVD s or flash drive. Please clarify if this includes both the technical proposal and cost proposal, or just the technical proposal. Only the technical proposal 10) Section 2.6; Page 9; The provided DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization Form on the DMS website references the NCEEP in the header. Please confirm that this the latest and greatest DMS file or whether you would prefer the vendor to change that Header to DMS. We understand that this form is not to be signed until after contract. Use the form provided until DMS publishes a new one. 11) Section 2.4; Page 6; Since the proposals are required to be submitted in a 3-ring binder, would you considering allowing the Title Page to be presented as the first item (inserted into the clear binder cover), rather than under its own tab after the Cover Letter? No, it needs to be in the document as stated. 12) Section 3.3; Page 16; Is there a specific project type where DMS would like five years of monitoring to be proposed? Can you give more information on the five versus seven years of monitoring that is new for this RFP? No, Vendors will determine the appropriate Payment Schedule based on their mitigation types, regulatory rules and guidance 13) Section 2.4; Page 8; Please clarify whether or not the Execution Page and Attachments count towards the max page limit for the Technical Proposal. They do not count toward the page limit. 14) Section 2.7; Page 12; Specifically looking at the definition of Site, do multiple, contiguous parcels automatically qualify as they have in the past or could DMS still reject it as a site if DMS, in its sole discretion does not agree with the hydrologic or ecologic connectivity? For example, if a provider had an option on four contiguous parcels but the creeks did not all flow together within the project area, would this automatically be considered a site or do we need to submit them as separate sites or options to be sure? Our suggestion would be to continue to utilize the old definition of a site (contiguous parcels) but that a site could also be considered with non-contiguous parcels if the resources have hydrologic or ecologic continuity in DMS s sole discretion. As the definition states, they must have functional connectivity, it is up to the Vendor to determine that. 15) Section 3.1; Page 13; The RFP states, On the Cost Proposal form (Attachment C), there is a line for an optional riparian wetland credit cost. In additional to the cost, does DMS prefer us to list the amount of credits? DMS is only asking for the credit cost if an amendment would be considered in the future. DMS does not want anything further. 16) Section 3.3; Page 16-17; If successful credit delivery occurs years 1-6, will the final 10% payment be released at year 7 of monitoring or after successful closeout and final credit release? If the site has delivered all contracted credits up to this point and the final monitoring report meets all of the success criteria, payment will be released. Keep in mind that if credits are reduced before or during closeout, the contracted vendor will need to reimburse the State for the contracted cost of the lost credits. 17) Section 5.1; Page 19; Please confirm that the Vendors submitting proposals can communicate about their sites with members of DMS during the site visit phase of the evaluation period. Communication is open during the site visits but only involving information submitted in the technical proposal and only with the project review team. Addendum No.1 Page 3 of 5

4 18) Section 6.1; Page 22 / Attachment E; Page 34; The RFP states that Attachment E must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor. Could this be the Vendor s CPA, Bonding Company, or Company President? It must be the Vendor s President or CEO that signs this document. 19) Attachment H; Page 4; Item #6 seems to be incomplete. It reads, For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to. Please clarify- subject to what? No, Vendors will determine the appropriate Payment Schedule based on their mitigation types, regulatory rules and guidance 20) Within the proposal, the terms Vendor and Contractor are used interchangeably. Please offer any clarification that needs to be made. For the purpose of this RFP, the terms are interchangeable. SECTION 2 PLEASE NOTE THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this addendum prior to bid opening time and date. Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached. Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum. Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer. SECTION 3 Execute Addendum: BIDDER: ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Note: It is the offeror s responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP. Addendum No.1 Page 4 of 5

5 DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE (Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid Closing Date) SEALED BID NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES ATTN: KATHY DALE 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX / ETC.) (Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt) SEALED BID NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES ATTN: KATHY DALE 217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G RALEIGH NC IT IS THE OFFER S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED, SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED. Addendum No.1 Page 5 of 5