Request for Qualifications(RFQ) Drainage Study and Alternatives Analysis

Transcription

1 Skagit County Drainage and Irrigation Improvement District 17 Request for Qualifications(RFQ) Drainage Study and Alternatives Analysis Consultant Services solicited by the Drainage and Irrigation Improvement District #17. Released: November 19, 2018 Submissions due: 5:00 PM on December 14, 2018 Late submissions will not be accepted, nor will they be returned. The District accepts no responsibility for misdirected or lost documents, and it reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive any irregularities and/ or informalities at its sole discretion. Submit Qualifications to: Jenna Friebel at 1 P age

2 Request for Qualifications for Drainage Study and Alternatives Analysis I. REQUEST The Skagit County Drainage and Irrigation Improvement District 17 (District) solicits interest from qualified applicants to develop a Proposal explaining how their firm would perform hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the District Study Area in support of an alternatives analysis to improve both drainage, as well as fish passage and habitat (Project). The District will review all Requests for Qualifications (RFQ s) received and select the top-rated firms, which will be invited to make a presentation to and interview with the District s Technical Review Team. It is anticipated that the selection process will be completed by January 2019.The target date for the completion of this Project is February The District reserves the right to amend the terms of this RFQ, to circulate various addenda, or to withdraw the RFQ at any time, with or without notice. Consultants submitting proposals in response to this RFQ must be capable of providing the products and services described. Joint ventures and/or the use of sub-consultants is allowed. The District assumes no obligation of any kind for expenses incurred by any respondent to this solicitation. This document contains a description of the scope of work that the District expects will be completed but should not be considered all-inclusive. The respondent is invited to take this description as a basis and expand upon the work described here, fully describing how they would accomplish the work. The respondent is urged to provide detail or additions to this description of work in their Proposal to demonstrate their experience and competence for all aspects of this Project. The respondent will draw upon their own experience in similar successful projects, in-house expertise, and experience and expertise drawn from sub-consultants. Questions regarding the Proposal should be directed to Jenna Friebel at jfriebel@skagitdidc.org or (360) P age

3 II. BACKGROUND In 2017, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contacted the District to collaborate on potential alternatives that would benefit the District drainage and improve fish habitat, and remove a fish barrier. As part of the U.S. District Court injunction, WSDOT is mandated and funded to remove a fish passage barrier (culvert) at Interstate 5 MP , located in the northern portion of District 17. In response to that request, and in response to increasing drainage problems, the District has had several meetings with WSDOT, other stakeholders and landowners to discuss potential alternative concepts. Rather than work independently on solutions that separately meet WSDOT and the District s priorities and mandates, WSDOT and the District have agreed to work collaboratively to see if an alternative that address both needs is feasible and affordable. The scope of work below defines the analysis and outreach that will be performed for this Drainage Study and Alternatives Analysis (Project). The goal is to mutually and sustainably address District infrastructure, drainage and flooding concerns, as well as address WSDOT s fish passage barrier in the District Study Area. Study Area Skagit County Drainage and Irrigation Improvement District 17 is located within the Skagit River Delta. The District encompasses approximately 4,537 acres and is bordered by the City of Mount Vernon to the north, the South Fork Skagit River to the west, Fisher Slough to the south, and Carpenter Creek/Hill Ditch to the east (Figure 1). Interstate 5 (I-5) bisects District 17 geographically in a north to south direction. Land use along the I-5 corridor from the northern boundary of District 17 to Hickox Road is dominated by commercial development. Except for residential and commercial land uses associated with the Conway community and I-5 interchange, land use for the remainder of District 17 is predominantly agriculture. The District drainage infrastructure includes open ditches, culverts, and a syphon structure. For the purpose of this Project, the District Study Area encompasses the District service area upstream of the Fisher Slough Syphon (overview map). In addition, the Consultant will need to evaluate hydrologic inputs to the District Study Area from the contributing basins located in the City of Mount Vernon and unincorporated Skagit County. III. PROJECT Scope of Work: Drainage Study and Alternatives Analysis The scope of work below requires the Consultant to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision necessary to perform the services as detailed. The basis of the Proposal should address the following: Task 1. Project Management The Consultant will attend up to 12 monthly District Commissioner meetings. The Consultant will work with the District to make sure the Project is on schedule and within budget and will report to the Project Manager on programs in a monthly progress report and invoices. 3 P age

4 Task 2. Public and Stakeholder Outreach The Consultant will support the District to work with landowners and other stakeholders such as, but not limited to, WSDOT, the City of Mount Vernon, Skagit County, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify drainage problems, develop alternatives, and present results of the hydraulic modeling. This outreach will include a variety of techniques including public meetings, stakeholder meetings, and small meetings with affected landowners. Deliverables include meeting materials and meeting notes. Task 3. Site Survey and Base Mapping The Consultant will work with the District to prepare an accurate base map of the District Study Area. The District Study Area is defined as all of the District assessment area upstream of the Fisher Slough syphon structure (Figure 1). The purpose of this task will be to collect topographic and survey data necessary to support hydrologic modeling of the District Study Area and contributing basins and hydraulic modeling of the District Study Area drainage infrastructure. This task will include collecting topographic data of areas inundated during the 2018 flood event and filling data gaps of inverts and dimensions of existing culverts and drainage channels. Deliverables include updated base map of the study area in GIS and PDF format, and an excel file with infrastructure data including inverts, size, and materials and conditions. Task 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling The Consultant will develop a model of the District Study Area and contributing basins to simulate existing conditions. This model will be used to evaluate opportunities to meet fish passage requirements impacted by I-5, and up to four potential alternatives to address drainage and habitat concerns, and future conditions for the preferred alternative. Task 4.1 Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, the Consultant will evaluate the District Study Area drainage infrastructure under three runoff scenarios (1) the February 2018 flood, (2) the 2-yr rainfall return frequency event and (3) 50-yr rainfall return frequency event. The Consultant will prepare data and mapping showing areas of inundation under each runoff scenario and the estimated duration of inundation at up to 10 different reporting locations within the District Study Area. This evaluation of the existing drainage system, will allow the District to verify flooding problems, identify constrictions in the existing drainage infrastructure, and support the development of alternatives. Task 4.2 Model I-5 Maddox Creek Alternatives The Consultant will characterize the alternatives that supports drainage, habitat improvements, and fish barrier removal, as identified in the model and will run the existing conditions model to evaluate the District Study Area drainage infrastructure under three runoff scenarios (1) the February 2018 flood, (2) the 2-yr rainfall return frequency event and (3) 50-yr rainfall return frequency event. The Consultant will prepare maps showing areas of inundation under each runoff scenario and water surface elevations and duration of inundation at up to 10 different reporting locations within the District Study Area. This evaluation, will allow the District to verify potential downstream effects and provide cost estimates for each alternative. 4 P age

5 Task 4.3 Alternatives Analysis The Consultant will work with the District and other partners to develop up to four alternatives to address existing flooding problems and improve habitat and fish passage within the District Study Area. One Alternative will include rerouting Maddox Creek to a corridor located east of I-5. Depending on the result of the existing conditions analysis additional alternatives may include enlarging the channel in specific reaches where the current channel may be undersized, diverting off-site water from the District drainage system, and/or enlarging existing pipes. Each alternative must be permitable and have landowner support or District easements. Once the alternatives have been conceptually developed, the Consultant will simulate three runoff scenarios (1) the February 2018 flood, and (2) 2-yr, and (3) 50-yr rainfall return frequency events for each alternative. The Consultant will prepare maps showing areas of inundation for each alternative. The results from this analysis will be used to support landowner, stakeholder, and public outreach and select a preferred alternative. Task 4.4 Future Conditions The Consultant will simulate the preferred alternatives for a future buildout scenario for the 2-yr rainfall return frequency event and the 50-yr rainfall return frequency event. The Consultant will prepare maps showing areas of inundation under each runoff scenario and water surface elevations and duration of inundation at up to 10 different reporting locations within the District Study Area. This evaluation will allow the District to identify potential future drainage problems associated with the preferred alternative and will inform future design phases of the Project. Task 5. Select a Preferred Alternative The Consultant will work with the District and other stakeholders to develop criteria by which to evaluate each alternative. The evaluation criteria will include at a minimum the potential to improve drainage and drainage maintenance, impacts to private landowners, installation and maintenance cost, and habitat improvements that will result in removal of the Maddox Creek fish passage barrier under I-5. Each alternative will be scored based on agreed upon criteria. The District will select a preferred alternative. Task 6. Technical Report The Consultant will document modeling methods, provide costs estimates, assumptions, and results in a technical report. The report will also include schematic drawings for each of the alternatives evaluated, documentation on the scoring criteria and selection of the preferred and chosen alternative. The draft report will be reviewed by the District and the Consultant will respond to comments and finalize the report, and provide the supporting data and analysis used to develop these alternatives. 5 P age

6 IV. Consultant Selection SCHEDULE The following is an outline of the proposed consultant selection schedule. The schedule may be modified while refining the contract scope of work after the consultant selection process has been completed Issue Request for Qualifications: November 19, 2018 Information Meeting: 9:00 AM November 27, 2018 Skagit Co. Dike District #3 Building Dike Rd Conway, WA Submittal Deadline: 5:00 PM December 14, 2018 Technical Team to Review RFQ: December 17 and 18 Interview Finalists: Week of January 7, 2018 Negotiate Scope of Work and Agreement: V. BUDGET AVAILABLE The budget for this Project is to be determined on a per task basis. Consultant firms are advised that upon subsequent review, evaluation, and discussion of proposals and approaches to the Project, the District may make budget adjustments to optimize achievement of Project objectives and opportunities within currently available resources. It is anticipated that Consultant s work for this Project will be between $100,000 to $120,000. VI. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Successful respondents must have demonstrated experience in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, engineering, and alternatives analysis, as well as ensure effective communications during the analysis and selection of preferred alternatives and the ability to provide accurate pre-design cost estimates. VII. PROPOSAL CONTENT Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward concise description of consulting firm s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the request. Proposals must include the following information and address evaluation criteria listed in Section IX- Consultant Selection: 1. QUALIFICATIONS A. Provide name, address and telephone number of the consulting firm, and Project Manager; B. Names of Project Team members, professional certifications/registrations and relevant experience of each; and C. A listing of relevant expertise that the firm will provide and how long the firm has provided such expertise with a list of similar relevant projects and where to view them; D. References, including names and phone numbers of contact persons. 6 P age

7 2. APPROACH A. The Technical Proposal, addressing the scope of work described, and the consulting firm s approach describing how it will be accomplished. 3. SCHEDULE A. Provide a Project schedule that includes all scope of work tasks, milestones and deliverables. Submission of the Proposal shall be in PDF format, contain a cover letter of submittal from the Consultant s Project Manager, and be limited to 15 double-sided pages not including the cover letter, or the list of client references, describing who may be contacted where similar work was completed by the consulting firm in the last five-years. If the RFQ does not include these items, is not submitted on time, or exceeds the specified page length limit, it will be deemed non-responsive and may not be eligible for further consideration. All submittals become the property of the District and will not be returned. IX. CONSULTANT SELECTION Selection Criteria: The primary selection criterion will be the ability of the firm to understand the issues and accomplish the tasks described in the Proposed scope of work, Section III. Firms will be evaluated and ranked based on the following criteria: A. Qualifications of Key Personnel (50 points) Demonstrated relevant qualifications of the Principals, Project Managers, and Consultant Team Members; B. Relevant Experience (55 points) Demonstrated in-depth experience and excellence in the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, engineering, and alternatives analysis, related technical and discipline areas and the ability to provide accurate pre-design cost estimates and use of best practice, new technologies, and innovation, as well as past performance in successfully completing this type of project. The District will give preference to firms normally engaged in performing the type of work specified; C. Project Approach (40 points) Understanding of Project scope, required services, key issues and permitting requirements, and strategy and support for stakeholder engagement. Demonstrate how best practices used in previous work will be implemented on this Project. Proposals must meet the scope and needs included herein and be presented in a clear and organized manner; D. Team Collaboration/Presentation Experience (40 points): Experience with high profile projects including public and stakeholder group involvement. Solid experience in organizing and facilitating group discussions, guiding consensus-building, and making effective presentations with the ability to listen and respond to a variety of audiences. Respondents will be evaluated on examples of their experience, qualifications, and references, The District will consider all these criteria when evaluating the best package of product and service. This includes overall Proposal suitability, a clear and organized Proposal, quality, and timeliness of previous work performed; E. Ability to work within deadlines and to develop mutually agreed dates for deliverables (15 Pts): Have the resources to provide the services and meet this Project s deadlines. 7 P age

8 The District may conduct such investigation, as the District deems necessary to assist in the evaluation of any Proposal and to establish the responsibilities, qualifications and financial ability of a Consultant to perform the work in a manner suitable to the District s satisfaction with the time prescribed in the Contractor s Proposal. Selection Process: The consultant selection process will be conducted as follows: 1. An informational meeting will be held November 27th to answer questions. If a representative from interested firms cannot attend, please provide contact information to Jenna Friebel so that post-advertisement information, if any, can be distributed to interest firms. 2. The closing date and hour for receipt of the proposal is 5:00pm, December 14, Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered. In the event that sufficient proposals are not received, the date may, at the District s sole discretion, be extended until an adequate number of proposals are received. 3. The proposal review and selection process may require personal interviews with one or more proposing firms. These interviews will be held the week of January 7th. 4. Selection of the consultant shall be based on District s evaluation of the best proposal and bestqualified respondent using the criteria and information outlined in this RFQ. Such determination shall be made at the sole discretion of the District. 5. Contract negotiations will be initiated immediately upon selection of the consultant. If the District is not able to negotiate a satisfactory contract, scope of services, billing rates or overhead costs consistent with Federal and State requirements, negotiations will be terminated and the consultant will be notified by mail. In this event, the proposals of the remaining pool of respondents will be evaluated and negotiations will be initiated with one of the remaining respondents selected as most qualified to complete the work. 6. This selection process does not obligate the District to enter into a contract with any of the responding firms. 7. Unsuccessful proposers will be afforded the opportunity of debriefing conferences if they so request. The request for a debriefing conference must be made within three days of receipt of the written notification indicating that their proposal was not selected. Discussions will be informal and limited to a critique of the requesting consultant s proposal. This feedback will assist the proposer in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their proposal. District representatives will explain the scoring of a consultant s proposal. Debriefings may be conducted in person or by telephone and may be limited to a specific period of time. X. INCURRED COST This RFQ does not obligate the District to award any contract, nor will the District be responsible for any cost or expense that may be incurred by the respondent in preparing and submitting a Proposal in response to this RFQ, or any cost or expense incurred by the respondent before the execution of a contract agreement. The respondent shall be solely responsible for any and all costs associated with submitting a Proposal including any and all costs associated with interviews. No claims shall be submitted to the District for preparation or presentation of Proposals. All expenditures under any contract are subject to eligibility requirements in the applicable agreements, as well as all applicable state and federal laws. 8 P age

9 XI. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY & TITLE VI REQUIREMENTS Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information The District in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), commits to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, in all of its programs and activities. This material can be made available in an alternate format by ing Jenna Friebel at or by calling collect at (360) Title VI Statement The District in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 26 will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration for an award. The preparation of this RFQ was financed in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The provision of Federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting U.S. Government approval of plans, policies, programs or projects contained herein. Dates of publication in the Daily Journal of Commerce: November 19, 2018, and November 26, P age

10 10 P age