Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida"

Isaac Montgomery
5 years ago
Views:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Rick Scott Governor Jennifer Carroll Lt.

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida Rick Scott Governor Jennifer Carroll Lt. Governor Herschel T. Vinyard Jr. Secretary December 12, 2012 Dear Prospective Contractor: The enclosed information has been provided for consideration in the preparation of your response to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Solicitation No C, entitled "Request for Proposals (RFP) for Grants for Innovative Projects for Phosphorus Removal in Lake Apopka, issued on November 28, All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 2:30 P.M. (ET) on Thursday, December 27, A response received after the exact time specified will not be considered. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section (3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Written notices, formal requests and proceedings must conform with the requirements set forth in Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Protests must be filed with the Procurement Section, Department of Environmental Protection, Carr Building, Room 235, 3800 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS#93, Tallahassee, Florida within the time prescribed in Section (3), Florida Statutes and Chapter , Florida Administrative Code. Any person who files an action protesting a decision or intended decision pertaining to contracts administered by the DEP pursuant to Section (3), F.S. shall post with the DEP at the time of filing the formal written protest a bond payable to the DEP in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the estimated contract amount as determined pursuant to Section (2)(c), Florida Statutes, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, the DEP may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. FAILURE TO FILE THE PROPER BOND AT THE TIME OF FILING THE FORMAL PROTEST WILL RESULT IN A DENIAL OF THE PROTEST. Sincerely, Ruth Heggen Ruth Heggen Procurement Administrator RH/rh Enclosure

2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Procurement Section 3800 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS#93 Tallahassee, Florida December 12, 2012 Questions and Answers for DEP Solicitation No C Request for Proposals (RFP) for Grants for Innovative Projects for Phosphorus Removal in Lake Apopka The following questions were raised by prospective contractors through s received on the dates shown next to the company names. The answers are herein provided for your consideration in responding to the above referenced solicitation. Taylor Engineering, Inc. December 5, 2012 Question: Answer: Regarding the referenced RFP, are Florida state and local agencies or municipalities excluded from seeking these grants for ongoing or new innovative projects for phosphorus removal in Lake Apopka? The RFP is open to anyone, including State and local agencies. Vclear Resources December 5, 2012 Answer #1: Question #2: In Section B.8. Past Performance, Respondents are requested to provide a minimum of 3 separate and verifiable clients that Respondent has provided work involving removal and off-site disposal of TP for aquatic systems. Our question: if Respondent has no such past clients and projects, besides receiving a zero on this evaluation section scoring, will the Respondent's proposal still be accepted and scored? The proposal will be accepted but would receive scores of zero for the past performance evaluations. In Attachment D, page 3 of 3, it is stated that Contractor may obtain the right to use, maintain and operate its facility on property owned by the St Johns River Water Management District near Lake Apopka. Our question: may we contact the St Johns River Water Management District now while we are preparing our proposal to seek to arrange such property use for our project to be proposed in response to this RFP? Yes, contact with the St. Johns River Water Management District is allowed prior to submission of a response to this RFP if the outcome hinges on obtaining a lease or other arrangement to use their property, as this will certainly affect costs. CPH Engineers, Inc. December 7, 2012 Please define water column. Does it include solids (muck)? DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 1 of 6

3 Answer #1: lake, and will entertain proposals including phosphorus removed from solids/flocculent. Question #2: Please identity what agencies FDEP defines as necessary regulatory agencies in Attachment D, Page 2 of 3 under Design & Construction. How many meetings & with what agency? Question #3: Answer #3: Question #4: Answer #4: Question #5: Answer #5: Question #6: Answer #6: Question #7: As it is anticipated that permitting the project will be required, the necessary regulatory agencies would be those issuing the permits, e.g., St. Johns River Water Management District, the Army Corps of Engineering and/or any local government. As to the number of meetings, this is impossible to predict. The simplest answer would be sufficient to obtain consensus on the design of the project. Attachment D, Page 2 of 3 under Operation & Monitoring How many workshops will the selected contractor be required to participate in to educate regulatory agencies on the effectiveness of the project? As with the answer to Question #2 above, this is impossible to predict. The simplest answer would be sufficient to obtain consensus on the design of the project.. At a minimum, the grantee would be required to attend at least one meeting with the partnering agencies (SJRWMD, DEP and FWC). Are permit application fees an eligible cost, specifically an application fee to Orange County EPD, SJRWMD or ACOE for review and approval of required regulatory authorizations? Permit fees are an eligible cost. The specific title of the RFP is RFP for Grants for Innovative Projects for Phosphorus Removal in Lake Apopka. Innovation often involves new and emerging technologies. The project qualifications (Attachment B, page 11 of 17, 8. Past Performance) seem counter intuitive and limiting the opportunities for TP removal innovative technologies. Will the bidder be considered non-responsive if they do not meet all of the three bulleted items or will the bidder receive a zero for the scoring? The proposal will be accepted but would receive scores of zero for the past performance evaluations. A section of the RFP addresses the State Project Plan but there are no points related to the RFP scoring. How is the State Project Plan to be considered? There are no points associated with the State Project Plan. However, respondents are to prepare and submit a State Project Plan which addresses the 5 initiatives identified. The State of Florida supports these initiatives and is passing them down to our grantees/contractors. The proposed plan will be incorporated into the selected grantee s agreement. The FDEP will pay on a cost reimbursement basis for TP removal from the water column (Attachment D, Page 2 of 3); does this cost reimbursement basis include Phosphorus removed from muck? DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 2 of 6

4 Answer #7: lake, and will entertain proposals including phosphorus removal from solids/flocculent. Ferrate & Treatment Technologies, LLC. December 7, 2012 Answer #1: Question #2: Question #3: Answer #3: Question #4: Answer #4: Attachment D, Page 2 of 3 under Scope of Services, what is the Departments definition of water column? Does the water column include muck? lake, and will entertain proposals including phosphorus removal from solids/flocculent. Attachment D page 2 of 3 under Scope of Services, does this cost reimbursement basis include phosphorus removed from muck? lake, and will entertain proposals including phosphorus removal from solids/flocculent. The qualification requirements (Attachment B, Page 11 of 17, 8. Past Performance) seem to limit the use of innovative technologies. Innovative technologies are often new and emerging. Will the respondent be considered non-responsive if all requirements are not met exactly? or will the respondent be giving a "0" for the scoring? The proposal will be accepted but would receive scores of zero for the past performance evaluations. Attachment B, Page 15 of 17, B.33, Evaluation Criteria, A. General, 2. What does the FDEP define as irregular? A minor informality or irregularity is generally one that is merely a matter of form and not of substance. It may some immaterial defect in a response or variation of a response from the exact requirements of the solicitation that can be corrected or waived without being prejudicial to other respondents. Vclear Environmental December 7, 2012 Answer #1: In Section B. 13. the Number of Awards is described. Question: May a single Respondent proposal include more than 1 proposed project, as long as all such projects use the same innovative technology and as long as each such project is no more than $600,000? In addition, may a single Respondent submit more than one proposal, with each proposal containing a single proposed project and all such proposals using the same innovative technology? No. DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 3 of 6

5 Question #2: Question #3: Answer #3: Question #4: Answer #4: Question #5: Answer #5: Question #6: Answer #6: In Section B. 2. Company Description information is requested in the proposal concerning the Respondent's years of experience providing removal and off-site disposal of TP for aquatic systems. If the Respondent has not had such prior experience and so states in the proposal, will Respondent's proposal still be considered and scored? Will the prior relevant experience of Respondent's employees and contractors in such removal and off-site disposal of TP be considered in scoring this section? The proposal would be accepted but it is anticipated that the scores for this element of the evaluation would be appropriately scored low. Experience of respondent s employees and subcontractors would be considered in the evaluation of section 4. Qualifications and Experience. In Section B. 3. Project Description, 14 different items are requested for Respondent's proposal. Not included in the 14 items is information on the speed with which TP will be removed by Respondent's innovative technology and proposed project. We request that the speed with which TP is removed be required information in the proposal and be assigned scoring points. The speed with which TP will be removed is not a scoring criteria for this RFP. Paragraph 15 of Attachment indicates our payments will be assessed the 1%Transaction Fee under MyFloridaMarketPlace; however, Section 31. of Attachment J indicates our payments will be exempt from the 1% Transaction Fee. Please advise whether our payments for this project will be assessed the 1% Transaction Fee so we may budget accordingly. Grant agreements are exempt from the 1% transaction fee. The RFP provides that Respondent will submit paid invoices for reimbursement from DEP for the project. Please advise the time frame to pay Respondent once a satisfactory invoice has been submitted to DEP, e.g., 15 days, 30 days? By statute, DEP has 40 days from receipt of a satisfactory invoice to submit payment to the grantee. In Attachment G, Section 3., the formula for scoring each proposed project's total cost per pound is described. Since we expect our project proposal to have a higher cost per pound than the cost per pound we can achieve if awarded a larger contract subsequent to the completion of the project proposed pursuant to this RFP, our question: will we be able to contract for a lower cost per pound if we're able to negotiate a contract for a much larger project of TP removal for Lake Apopka subsequent to the completion of our project, if selected pursuant to this RFP? No. There is for work anticipated or guaranteed beyond the contract resulting from this solicitation. In the event that the DEP receives additional funding, a new solicitation would have to be issued. HydroMentia, Inc. December 7, 2012 Question: We would like to express concern that the evaluation criteria and the payment mechanism within the solicitation bias the program towards projects that may not offer the lowest-cost technology to meet the Lake Apopka restoration efforts, but instead prioritize technologies that have (i) low initial capital costs and (ii) minimal scale-up costs. The cost reimbursement plan in the solicitation which is based on phosphorus removed from the water column requires that payment for all capital costs be amortized over the five-year life of the DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 4 of 6

6 project. Therefore, a proposer of a technology that has a relatively high capital cost will be required to operate the project at a financial loss for several years. As the solicitation does not allow for any profit, the cost reimbursement program as proposed provides a disincentive for innovative technologies with high capital costs and low operating costs, even if the technology may have lower overall treatment costs when scaled to make a significant impact in Lake Apopka. Secondly, the evaluation criteria are heavily weighted toward project price both in terms of (i) total project cost and (ii) cost per pound of phosphorus removed. As the project is of relatively short duration (five years), as with cost reimbursement, the scoring criteria are biased toward systems and technologies with lower initial capital costs (e.g. chemical treatment technologies). : It is important to note treatment technologies employed in both wastewater and nonpoint source nutrient control in the state of Florida and throughout the US almost exclusively have relatively high capital costs. As an example, the two largest phosphorus control treatment programs in the state of Florida (i) the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) associated with the Lake Okeechobee/Everglades system and (ii) the Lake Apopka Marsh Flow-way - both employ low-cost treatment technologies that have relatively high initial capital costs. Yet in our opinion, these high capital cost/low operating cost technologies would appear to be at a disadvantage based on the proposed cost reimbursement and evaluation criteria in the RFP. Question: To illustrate this point, provided below is information on the Lake Apopka Marsh Flow-way, which is reported to have a phosphorus treatment cost of less than $100 per pound. Provided in Table 1 are the actual phosphorus removal rates for the first five years of the flow-way system s operation. In Table 2 are calculated pay-for-performance fees that would be generated for a 1 acre marsh floway system based on actual performance of the Lake Apopka marsh floway and reimbursement fees ranging from $100-$500 per pound of phosphorus removed. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 5 of 6

Answer: Because the amount of money allocated by the legislature for this project was limited to $600,000, the group of agencies overseeing this

Due to start up costs and the amount of funding available, a pay for performance contract would limit the ability for new, innovative

The current grant structure allows for costs to be reimbursed as they are incurred; therefore, there is no need to operate at a financial loss.

Additionally, although the water column is generally defined as a conceptual column of water from surface to bottom sediments, and thus would

7 Answer: Because the amount of money allocated by the legislature for this project was limited to $600,000, the group of agencies overseeing this project moved away from a pay for performance basis to a cost reimbursement basis. Due to start up costs and the amount of funding available, a pay for performance contract would limit the ability for new, innovative technologies to operate profitably. The current grant structure allows for costs to be reimbursed as they are incurred; therefore, there is no need to operate at a financial loss. It is not our intention to deliberately limit any legitimate proposal in the quest for new, innovative technology. Additionally, although the water column is generally defined as a conceptual column of water from surface to bottom sediments, and thus would not typically include the muck at the bottom of Lake Apopka, the Department is well aware of the amount of phosphorus in the muck lining the bottom of the lake, and will entertain proposals including solids. End of Questions and Answers (12/12/12) for DEP Solicitation No C DEP Solicitation No C, Questions & Answers (12/12/12), Page 6 of 6

1. Project Information 1.1. Project Location: Northwest Corner of Dickman Road and Elsberry RoadApollo Beach, Florida in Hillsborough County

1. Project Information 1.1. Project Location: Northwest Corner of Dickman Road and Elsberry RoadApollo Beach, Florida in Hillsborough County REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RFSOQ No. FWC 14/15-14 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is