Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - P987 CORPS THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT HALLIGAN SEAMAN PROJECT EISAdministrative Services Purchasing Divison 215 North Mason Street y 2nd Floor y P.O. Box 580 y Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 y (970) 221-6775 y Fax (970) 221-6707 www.fcgov.com REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P987 Third Party Consultant: Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project EIS The Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley (the Cities) are requesting proposals for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project (Halligan-Seaman Project). Written proposals, twelve (12) copies will be received at the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing Division, 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Proposals will be received before 3:00 p.m. (our clock), April __, 2005. Proposal No. P987. If delivered, they are to be sent to 215 North Mason Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. If mailed, the address is P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, 80522-0580. Collusive or sham RFPs: Any RFP deemed to be collusive or a sham RFP will be rejected and reported to authorities as such. Your authorized signature of this RFP assures that such RFP is genuine and is not a collusive or sham RFP. Firms will be evaluated using the following criteria: • Team Experience • Assigned Personnel • Performance on Past Projects and Recommendations • Quality of the RFP • Cost of Service The Cities reserve the right to reject any or all RFPs and to waive any informalities. To answer any questions a prospective firm may have concerning the scope of work for this Request for Proposal contact Nancy A. Koch at (970) 350-9816 or Clifford A. Hoelscher at (970) 222-3026. Questions regarding proposals submittal or process should be directed to Opal Dick, CPPO, Sr. Buyer (970) 221-6778. Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest: No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall have a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment, material, supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision-making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be rendered. This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City. Soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins or Greeley is prohibited. Sincerely, James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP Director of Purchasing & Risk Management Administrative Services Purchasing Divison 215 North Mason Street y 2nd Floor y P.O. Box 580 y Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 y (970) 221-6775 y Fax (970) 221-6707 www.fcgov.com REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P987 Corps’ Third Party Consultant: Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project EIS The Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley (the Cities) are requesting proposals from qualified entities to act as a Third-Party Consultant (the Consultant) for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to review the Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project (Project) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Written proposals, twelve (12) copies will be received at the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing Division, 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Proposals will be received before 3:00 p.m. (our clock), June 15, 2005. Proposal No. P987. If delivered, they are to be sent to 215 North Mason Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. If mailed, the address is P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, 80522-0580. Collusive or sham RFPs: Any RFP deemed to be collusive or a sham RFP will be rejected and reported to authorities as such. Your authorized signature of this RFP assures that such RFP is genuine and is not a collusive or sham RFP. Firms will be evaluated using the following criteria: • Team Experience • Assigned Personnel • Performance on Past Projects and Recommendations • Conflict of Interest • Quality of the RFP The Cities reserve the right to reject any or all RFPs and to waive any informalities. To answer any questions a prospective firm may have concerning the scope of work for this Request for Proposal contact Nancy A. Koch at (970) 350-9816 or Clifford A. Hoelscher at (970) 222-3026. Questions regarding proposals submittal or process should be directed to Opal Dick, CPPO, Sr. Buyer (970) 221-6778. Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest: No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall have a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment, material, supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision-making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be rendered. This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City. Soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins or Greeley is prohibited. Sincerely, James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP Director of Purchasing & Risk Management REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P987 for the Corp’s Third-Party Consultant: Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project EIS Introduction The Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley (the Cities) request proposals from qualified entities to act as a Third-Party Consultant (the Consultant) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to review the Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project (Project) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A statement of the Project objectives prepared by the Cities is provided in Attachment 1. The Consultant will prepare the EIS for the (Corps). This Request for Proposals (RFP) is intended to include all anticipated work tasks required to prepare complete and comprehensive NEPA documentation for the Halligan-Seaman Project. The Consultant shall conduct the NEPA review for the Project, including preparing an EIS in full compliance with applicable requirements. The Cities may conduct some of the engineering and the environmental studies necessary for preparing the EIS and will submit that information to the Corps for review, verification and approval. The Consultant, with Corps oversight and review, will independently review the Cities’ engineering and environmental analyses to determine if they are adequate for incorporation into the EIS. Please submit twelve copies of your proposal for the Cities’ consideration. The Cities will select the top three proposals submitted by prospective Consultants for an interview. Based on the proposals and the interviews, the Cities will rank and submit their selection to the Corps for its selection. Required Proposal Format Your proposal must be submitted in the following format: 1. Cover Letter. 2. Project Team. If the project team changed from the Statement of Qualifications, specify how it has changed. 3. Conflict of Interest. Specify whether any members of your firm or any members of your team completed any water related engineering, water resource planning, water utility master planning, water rights perfection, water system design, environmental analysis, water demand analysis, growth projections or construction contracts, either directly or indirectly, for any of the entities participating in the Halligan - Seaman Water Management Project during the past 5 years including: 1) system planning 2) water treatment, 3) water storage (potable & non-potable), or 4) water transmission. If so please list the entity you, or your team members performed the work for, the completion date (or expected completion date) of services provided and describe the nature of the work performed. Specify whether any members of your firm or any members of your team completed any water related engineering, water resource planning, water utility master planning, water rights perfection, water system design, environmental analysis, water demand analysis, growth projections or construction contracts, either directly or indirectly, for any other water providers in the Poudre River basin during the past 5 years including projects for: 1) system planning 2) water treatment, 3) water storage (potable & non-potable), or 4) water transmission. If so please list the entity you, or your team members performed the work for, the completion date (or expected completion date) of services provided and describe the nature of the work performed. 4. Proposed Work Plan. The Scope of Work (SOW) will be divided into four Phases as follows: • Phase I. NEPA scoping and preliminary coordination • Phase II. Alternatives Analysis • Phase III. Draft EIS and supporting documents • Phase IV. Final EIS The requirements of Phase I SOW are detailed below. General requirements for subsequent phases are also presented. Your proposal should provide a specific, detailed work plan for Phase I activities, which will be the basis of the first work order. A new work order will be issued for each subsequent phase. The proposal should provide a general discussion of the approach to Phases II, III and IV, based on information available at this time. 5. Phase I Cost Estimate and Billing Rate Information. For this task, the Consultant must provide a spreadsheet in the proposal showing for each individual task: 1) estimated work hours by individual and corresponding hourly rates, 2) any other charges for personnel such as computer time and other “technology fees,” 3) cumulative labor costs per task, 4) estimated reimbursable expenses, and 5) total estimated costs per task (labor + reimbursable expenses). Note: There is no allowable mark-up for reimbursable expenses and subconsultants. o Provide current billing rates for all personnel who will be assigned to the project and reimbursable rates for the prime Consultant and all sub-consultants on the project team. o The final SOW and costs for each Phase of the work will be negotiated prior to each work order being issued. o Provide budget estimates for Phase II, III and IV costs The project manager for the Consultant will be involved in negotiating the scope and cost for each Phase of the project and the proposal cost should reflect this effort. 6. Proposed Project Schedule. Provide a proposed schedule for completing the individual Phases and tasks of the entire NEPA process and clearly list the assumptions that were incorporated into the development of the schedule. Phase I SOW. NEPA Scoping and Preliminary Coordination Task 1. Cooperating Agency Meetings/Scoping Meetings/Project Meetings The Consultant will attend an initial meeting with the Cities and the Corps (the kickoff meeting), cooperating agency meetings, and separate NEPA scoping meetings. The purpose of the initial meetings is to familiarize the parties with the Cities' problems and the need for a Halligan- Seaman Project; establish the proposed NEPA schedule; to introduce Corps, the Cities, and cooperating agency representatives assigned to the NEPA process; and to review available information, identify issues, and discuss reporting procedures, and information transfer. The Consultant will prepare the materials (poster board displays, handouts and meeting notices) needed for all scoping meetings, cooperating agency meetings, as well as the Notice of Intent (NOI) for project scoping and EIS. Prior to NEPA Scoping, the Cities will prepare a Pre-Scoping Information Document which will include a description of the problems the Halligan-Seaman Project must address, an initial list of alternatives, and maps locating these alternatives. Materials that the Consultant must prepare for NEPA Scoping include a description of the NEPA process and any diagrams necessary to support such description. The Consultant will also prepare and distribute, as necessary, all public meeting notices and will document all public and agency meetings. NEPA Scoping meetings will be led by the Corps and facilitated by the Consultant. The Consultant will prepare a NEPA Scoping Report that summarizes all information gathered during scoping. The Consultant will provide five copies of the report in draft form to both the Corps and the Cities prior to preparing the final document. For purposes of developing a budget for this Proposal, the Consultant should assume attendance at a six-hour kickoff meeting and 20 three-hour formal meetings in the Fort Collins/Greeley Area. The Consultant should assume three of the 20 formal meetings will be scoping meetings with one each being held in Fort Collins, Greeley, and Livermore. In addition to the above-referenced formal meetings, the Consultant will attend monthly meetings with the Corps and the Cities throughout the NEPA process to coordinate work tasks, as well as all other meetings referenced below. Task 2. Data Collection/Record Maintenance The Consultant will collect, compile and inventory all data needed to write an acceptable EIS, including a complete and comprehensive literature search of studies completed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for the Northern Integrated Supply and Windy Gap Firming projects. The Cities will provide engineering reports, hydrology modeling results, previous environmental studies and Project related data and analysis for the alternatives to the Corps for use in preparing the EIS. The Consultant will independently review and analyze the engineering data and reports provided by the Cities. The Consultant will document conclusions of its review in a Data Gaps Report that will include recommendations to the Corps and the Cities on additional analysis needed, if any. The Consultant, the Corps, and the Cities will closely coordinate their respective tasks to assure the needed data gathering and analyses are completed in a timely fashion. The Consultant will keep organized project work files documenting the data collected and any analyses completed to perform the work described in the Scope of Work. The Consultant shall maintain a complete and comprehensive Administrative Record and make it available to the Corps and the Cities upon request. The Consultant will be responsible for all aspects of mapping impacted resources and man- made features, collecting environmental and man-made feature attribute data, creating geospatial data sets that integrate the mapping and attribute data components, as well as spatial analysis and all cartographic products created for reports, meetings, informational brochures and other public information documents such as project newsletters and updates to the project web site(s). The Consultant must provide to the Cities on request, as well as at the conclusion of the work, all digital geospatial data and corresponding analysis tools, and all cartographic projects and the tools that created them, in a manner such that the products or analyses can be easily reproduced by the Cities’ staffs. The Consultant shall maintain a master schedule of all tasks, including critical path items for materials and information that the Cities are required to provide to the Corps, and critical path items that the Consultant must provide to the Corps and the Cities to maintain the overall NEPA schedule. The Consultant will need to incorporate the schedules of the other consultants working directly for the Cities into the master schedule. The Cities will provide this information to the Consultant. Task 3. Draft EIS Chapter 1, Purpose and Need The Consultant with the Cities will work together to prepare the Problem Statement, Pre- Scoping Information Documents and all other applicable reports. With assistance from the Cities and direction from the Corps, the Consultant will compile, collect, and verify data such as, water supply, use, demands, conservation, and rights prior to drafting the Purpose and Need Statement section (Chapter 1) of the DEIS. Phase II SOW. Alternatives Analysis NOTE: After Phase I is completed, a final Phase II scope of work will be negotiated with the Corps and the budget will be negotiated between the Cities and the Consultant. NOTE: Monthly meetings between the Corps, Consultant, and the Cities will likely continue throughout the Phase II work. Task 1. Verification of the Cities MODSIM Hydrology Model The Cities plan to use their MODSIM model for generating hydrology simulations necessary to evaluate impacts and complete the EIS. MODSIM is a comprehensive system of integrated computer programs and data that simulate stream flows, reservoir operations, diversions, and water supply in the Cache la Poudre River basin (Hydrology Simulations). The Consultant will independently review MODSIM and determine the adequacy of the model for use in producing the Hydrology Simulations necessary to complete the EIS. If the Consultant determines that MODSIM requires modification, the Consultant will submit to the Corps and the Cities a detailed list of proposed modifications and the justifications therefor. Once the Corps and the Consultant agree that MODSIM is adequate for EIS purposes, the Cities will develop a recommended list of Hydrology Simulations they propose to conduct with MODSIM to support the studies necessary for the EIS. Once the Corps agrees on which simulations are necessary for the EIS, the Cities will produce those simulations and provide the results in a Hydrology Simulation Report to the Corps for use in preparation of the EIS. The Corps may elect to have the Consultant work directly with the Cities in designing the Hydrology Simulations to be analyzed for the EIS. The Corps may require additional simulations to be conducted by the Cities. Task 2. Identification, Screening and Analysis of Alternatives The Cities will provide background information documenting what alternatives were evaluated prior to selecting their preferred project. Using the information provided in this report, the Corps and the Consultant will perform an independent alternatives screening and draft Chapter 2 (Alternatives) of the EIS. Your Proposal should include a description of the methodology and level of detail the Consultant proposes to use to conduct the screening analysis of alternatives. A sufficient level of information should be included in the Proposal so that the Corps and the Cities can understand the level of detail being proposed for the alternatives screening effort. Before the independent screening analysis begins, the Corps, Consultant and the Cities will meet and discuss methodologies to be used and the level of detail required for the screening analysis based upon the methodologies proposed by the Consultant in the Final Scope of Work, recommendations from the Cities, and the comments compiled in the NEPA Scoping Document. This initial work as defined may not be all-inclusive. The Corps may decide that additional practicability factors are needed. The Consultant will develop a draft Alternatives Report that includes discussions of how the alternatives were selected. The Consultant will prepare a matrix table of all the reasonable alternatives. The table should include factors such as public interest, cost, logistics, technology issues, screens, impacts and benefits to aquatic resources, and any other factors necessary to compare the alternatives. The matrix table and draft Alternatives Report will be provided to the Cities for review. The Consultant will prepare the Alternatives Analysis Report based upon the comments received from the Cities. Under the direction of the Corps, the Consultant will work closely with the Cities to coordinate the content and completion of work products and assure timely completion of the screening analysis. Phase III SOW. DEIS and Supporting Documents NOTE: After Phase II is completed a final Phase III scope of work will be negotiated with the Corps and the budget will be negotiated between the Cities and the Consultant. NOTE: Monthly meetings between the Corps, Consultant, and the Cities will likely continue throughout the Phase III work. For the purpose of developing a general work plan, the Consultant should assume three structural alternatives (dams), two non-structural alternatives (operational changes), and the no action alternative will be analyzed in detail as “reasonable” alternatives in chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft EIS. Also assume that, at a minimum, the following appendices to the Draft EIS will be required: a. Hydrology Simulations Report b. Habitat Assessments and Resource Impacts Reports c. Biological Assessment d. Recreation Opportunities and Constraints Report. The report will address issues and may include recreation surveys e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report f. Draft and Final Mitigation and Monitoring Plan g. Draft 404(b)(1) Technical Document h. Draft Programmatic Agreement on Cultural Resources Task 1. Draft Affected Environment (Chapter 3 of the EIS) The Consultant will compile all the necessary resources mapping, surveys and site-specific analyses to adequately describe the environment that might be affected by implementation of each alternative. The Consultant will fully describe the baseline conditions and discuss changes to the baseline conditions that could occur before project construction is anticipated to begin. The following environmental parameters that might be affected by the alternatives will be analyzed: a. Land Features Study area Topography General setting Geology and soils Mineral sources Climate b. Aquatic Resources Surface hydrology (using MODSIM simulations provided by the Cities) Floodplain analysis (including HEC- RAS modeling, if required by the Corps) Water quality Existing and future water use Groundwater hydrology Water rights Geomorphology c. Air Quality d. Noise e. Biological Resources Wetlands Riparian Vegetation Wildlife Aquatics Fisheries Species of special interest Threatened and endangered species f. Socioeconomics Population Land ownership and use Industry Employment and income Housing Community services Public facilities Public finances Community cohesion Regions of influence Dam failure analysis Prime and unique farmlands Environmental justice g. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assume Class I surveys Assume Class III surveys Ethnographic surveys h. Recreational Resources Recreational surveys h. Visual Aesthetics i. Transportation In addition to the environmental parameters listed above, the Proposal should include any recommendations on other parameters for analysis that the Consultant feels are necessary for completion of the EIS. Task 2. Environmental Consequences (Chapter 4 of the EIS) The Consultant will complete all the necessary resources mapping, surveys and site-specific analysis to adequately describe the environmental impacts of each alternative. The Consultant shall fully describe the environmental consequences for the environmental parameters for each alternative listed in Task 1. . Task 3. Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 5) and Coordination and Consultation (Chapter 6) Because numerous water development projects are planned or underway along the front range of Colorado, the cumulative impacts analysis portion of the EIS is anticipated to be challenging. Depletions and alterations to Poudre River and South Platte River streamflows may require extensive modeling, and integration with other proposed projects will likely be necessary. The cities have developed a model to assess the streamflow impacts from the Halligan-Seaman Project. The Corps, Consultant, and the Cities will meet to discuss how to address cumulative impacts from the proposed Halligan-Seaman project and other development projects in the area. The resulting cumulative impact analysis will be reviewed by the other parties. Task 4. Biological Assessment After the Cities select their preferred alternative and before the DEIS is completed, the Consultant shall prepare a Biological Assessment addressing the impacts of the preferred alternative on threatened and endangered species. Task 5. Section 404 (b)(l) Impact Analysis The Consultant will prepare for inclusion as an appendix to the DEIS, a draft 404 (b)(l) Technical Document that addresses the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(l) guidelines for the alternative(s) determined to be practicable. The final document will include a matrix of impacts to aquatic resources for each of the alternatives. Task 6. Printing and Distribution of the DEIS and Preparation for Public Hearings The Consultant will be responsible for all reproduction of the DEIS (printing and duplication of compact discs) and will mail the copies to a distribution list compiled by the Corps and the Cities. The Consultant will be required to maintain a master mailing list and update that list as appropriate throughout the project. The Consultant will be responsible for preparation of all notices, poster board displays and handouts needed for the public hearings to be conducted by the Corps during the public comment period on the Draft EIS. Phase IV SOW. Preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement NOTE: After Phase III is completed a final Phase IV scope of work will be negotiated with the Corps and the budget will be negotiated between the Cities and the Consultant. NOTE: Monthly meetings between the Corps, Consultant, and the Cities will likely continue throughout the Phase IV work. Task 1. Review of Comments Received on the DEIS The Consultant will review the comments received on the DEIS and prepare an initial categorization of comments, suggesting the best entity to draft the response. The Cities and other cooperating agencies as needed, will review the categorization of the comments and may be requested to prepare responses or provide information to formulate responses. Task 2. Preparation of Responses to Comments Received on the DEIS At the Corps’ direction, the Consultant, the Cities, and the Corps will meet to determine who will prepare an initial draft response for each of the comments received on the DEIS. For example, if a comment is received about an engineering aspect of the DEIS, the Cities may be the appropriate entity to prepare the draft response. The Corps, other cooperating agencies, and the Cities will review the responses to the comments received on the DEIS before the comments are considered final. The Corps and the Consultant will finalize the response to comments. Task 3. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Supporting Documents The Consultant will prepare a preliminary FEIS and supporting documents for review by the Corps and Cities. The Corps, Consultant, and the Cities will meet to discuss comments and what, if any, additional studies should be conducted, and who should conduct the additional studies. As directed by the Corps, the Consultant will incorporate comments, changes, additional studies, and revise the schedule for production of the FEIS. The FEIS shall include all pertinent information developed during the study and approved for inclusion by the Corps. Task 4. Printing and Distribution of the FEIS The Consultant will be responsible for all reproduction of the FEIS (printing and compact discs) and shall mail the documents to a distribution list agreed to by the Corps and the Cities. Important Notes to the Consultant Except as noted, this Scope of Work is intended to include all of the anticipated work tasks necessary to prepare a complete and comprehensive NEPA evaluation. The Cities will conduct the following tasks and provide associated information and reports to the Corps and the Consultant for their use in preparing the EIS: 1. Prepare a Pre-Scoping Information Document 2. Provide Feasibility Reports on dam enlargements for both Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs 3. Prepare an Operations Report generated from the MODSIM model and information on water rights. 4. Compile available biological and other resource data relating to streamflow changes. 5. Coordinate all access, as required, for project field tasks As described above, the Consultant will independently review documents, data and other materials provided by the Cities. The Consultant will analyze and verify the accuracy of the documents, data, studies and other materials. The Consultant will document its use of existing materials and verification procedures in its preparation of the EIS. The cities are completing the Operations Report using the MODSIM hydrology simulations. The Consultant may experience a delay in reviewing Project Operations and modeling results until this report is final. Note: The Corps can direct additional studies for verification as needed in consultation with the Cities. Evaluation Criteria for Request for Proposal Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. These criteria will be the basis for review of the written proposals and interview session. The rating scale is from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 being an outstanding rating. Weighting Factor Criteria Standard 4.0 Team Experience Does the team have the capability and experience with projects of similar size and scope? Does this experience include water development projects in Colorado? Does it include experience as a third- party contractor with the COE? Does the prime consultant and the project manager have the management experience necessary to successfully run the project? 4.0 Assigned Personnel What are the qualifications of the Project Manager? Has the team identified all the personnel that will work on the project? Are sufficient people with the requisite skills assigned to the project? Has the team (prime and subconsultants) worked together before? Are all of the pertinent resource areas that need to be analyzed in the NEPA document covered by experience staff? 1.0 Performance on Past Projects and Recommendations Were past projects completed on-time and within budget? 1.0 Conflict of Interest Does any member or firm on the project team have a real or perceived conflict of interest, particularly in a NEPA context? Can the contractor clearly execute a NEPA conflict-of-interest disclosure? 1.0 Quality of the RFP Is the RFP clear, concise, well organized, well written and free of extraneous material? Reference evaluation (Top Ranked Firm) The project Manager will check references using the following criteria. The evaluation rankings will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory. QUALIFICATION STANDARD Overall Performance Would you hire this Professional again? Did they show the skills required by this project? Timetable Was the original Scope of Work completed within the specified time? Were interim deadlines met in a timely manner? Completeness Was the Professional responsive to client needs; did the Professional anticipate problems? Were problems solved quickly and effectively? Budget Was the original Scope of Work completed within the project budget? Job Knowledge a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work? b) If Professional administered a construction contract, was the project functional upon completion and did it operate properly? Were problems corrected quickly and effectively? Attachments 1. Statement of Project Objectives 2. Consultant Selection Schedule 3. Standard contract provisions 4. GIS Evaluation Specifications, MODSIM Evaluation Specifications Attachment 1 HALLIGAN-SEAMAN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT Project Objective The objective of the Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project is to cooperatively develop approximately 72,000 acre-feet of additional storage capacity in the Cache la Poudre River Basin in two phases so that the Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley and their partners can more efficiently manage their water rights resulting in an increased yield sufficient to provide 1-in-50 year drought protection within their service areas. Attachment 2 June 15, 2005: Eight copies of the proposals from the top five Consulting Teams must be received by 3:00 p.m. M.S.T. as follows: If hand delivered, to: City of Fort Collins Purchasing Division 215 North Mason St., 2nd Floor Fort Collins, CO 80522 If Mailed, to: City of Fort Collins Purchasing Division P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580. June 28, 2005: Cities announce top three teams for interviews July 12, 2005: Cities and Corps interview top three teams July 19, 2005: Third-Party Consultant selection announced. Attachment 3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WORK ORDER TYPE (Form) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day and year set forth below by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, and THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, Municipal Corporations, hereinafter referred to as the "Cities" and _____, [insert either a corporation, a partnership or an individual, doing business as____________], hereinafter referred to as "Professional". WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein expressed, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of Services. The Professional agrees to provide services in accordance with any project Work Orders for the HALLIGAN-SEAMAN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT, hereinafter referred to as the “Project”, issued by the Cities. A blank sample of a Work Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", consisting of one (1) page and is incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Work Schedule. The services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the Work Schedule stated on each Work Order. 3. Time of Commencement and Completion of Services. The services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be initiated as specified on each Work Order. Time is of the essence. Any extensions of any time limit must be agreed upon in writing by the parties hereto. 4. Contract Period. This Agreement shall commence upon the date of execution shown on the signature page of this Agreement and, except as provided in paragraph 5 herein, shall continue in full force and effect until finalization of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Project 5. Early Termination by the Cities/Notice. Notwithstanding the time periods contained herein, the Cities may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by providing written notice of termination to the Professional. Such notice shall be delivered at least fifteen (15) days prior to the termination date contained in said notice unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties. All notices provided under this Agreement shall be effective when mailed, postage prepaid and sent to the following address: Professional: ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ City of Fort Collins Clifford A. Hoelscher 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 City of Greeley Nancy A. Koch 1100 10th Street, 3rd Floor Greeley, CO 80631 In the event of any such early termination by the Cities, the Professional shall be paid for services rendered prior to the date of termination subject only to the satisfactory performance of the Professional's obligations under this Agreement. Such payment shall be the Professional's sole right and remedy for such termination. 6. Design, Project Insurance and Insurance Responsibility. The Professional shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion and the coordination of all services rendered by the Professional, including but not limited to designs, plans, studies, field investigations, evaluations, analyses, reports, specifications, and drawings and shall, without additional compensation, promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies. The Professional shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the Cities and their respective officers and employees, in accordance with Colorado law, from all damages whatsoever claimed by third parties against the Cities and for the Cities' costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees arising directly or indirectly out of the Professional's negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. The Professional shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limits, and errors and omissions insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. 7. Compensation. In consideration of services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, the Cities agree to pay Professional on a time and reimbursable direct cost basis designated in Exhibit "B", consisting of ___ (_) page(s), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. At the election of the Cities, each Work Order may contain a maximum fee, which shall be negotiated by the parties hereto for each such Work Order. Monthly partial payments based upon the Professional's billings and itemized statements are permissible. The amounts of all such partial payments shall be based upon the Professional's progress (as verified by the Cities) in completing the services to be performed pursuant to the Work Order and upon approval of the Professional's direct reimbursable expenses. Fort Collins and Greeley shall each be billed separately for 50% of the work completed in any billing cycle. Final payment shall be made following acceptance of the work by the Cities. Upon final payment, all designs, plans, studies, field investigations, evaluations, analyses, reports, specifications, drawings, and other services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole property of the Cities. 8. Cities’ Representative. The Cities will designate, prior to commencement of work, their Project representatives who shall make, within the scope of his or her authority, all necessary and proper decisions with reference to the Project. All requests for contract interpretations, change orders, and other clarifications or instructions shall be directed to the Cities’ Representatives. 9. Monthly Report. Commencing thirty (30) days after Notice to Proceed is given on any Work Order and every thirty days thereafter, Professional is required to provide the Cities’ Representatives with a written report of the status of the work with respect to the Work Order, Work Schedule and other material information. Failure to provide any required monthly report may, at the option of the Cities, suspend the processing of any partial payment request. 10. Independent Contractor. The services to be performed by Professional are those of an independent contractor and not of an employee of the City of Fort Collins or City of Greeley. The Cities shall not be responsible for withholding any portion of Professional's compensation hereunder for the payment of FICA, Workers' Compensation, other taxes or benefits or for any other purpose. 11. Personal Services. It is understood that the Cities enter into this Agreement based on the special abilities of the Professional and that this Agreement shall be considered as an agreement for personal services. Accordingly, the Professional shall neither assign any responsibilities nor delegate any duties arising under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Cities. 12. Acceptance Not Waiver. The Cities' approval of designs, plans, studies, field investigations, evaluations, analyses, reports, specifications, drawings, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve the Professional of responsibility for the quality or technical accuracy of the work. The Cities' approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights or benefits provided to the Cities under this Agreement. 13. Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to be a material element of this Agreement. In the event either party should fail or refuse to perform according to the terms of this Agreement, such party may be declared in default. 14. Remedies. In the event a party has been declared in default, such defaulting party shall be allowed a period of ten (10) days within which to cure said default. In the event the default remains uncorrected, the party declaring default may elect to (a) terminate the Agreement and seek damages; (b) treat the Agreement as continuing and require specific performance; or (c) avail itself of any other remedy at law or equity. If the non-defaulting party commences legal or equitable actions against the defaulting party, the defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred because of the default. 15. Binding Effect. This writing, together with the exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and shall be binding upon said parties, their officers, employees, agents and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the respective survivors, heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of said parties. 16. Law/Severability. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the construction, interpretation, execution and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for any proceeding brought by any party to this Agreement against another party hereto and related to, or arising out of, this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Weld County, Colorado. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Special Provisions. Special provisions or conditions relating to the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit "C", consisting of ___ (_) page(s), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a municipal corporation By:_______________________________ James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP Director of Purchasing and Risk Management Date:_____________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Assistant City Attorney CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO a municipal corporation By:_______________________________ Date:_____________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Assistant City Attorney [Insert Corporation's name] or [Insert Partnership name] or [Insert individual's name] Doing business as ____[insert name of business] By:_______________________________ __________________________________ PRINT NAME __________________________________ CORPORATE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT Date:_____________________________ ATTEST: _____________________________ CORPORATE SECRETARY (Corporate Seal) EXHIBIT "A" WORK ORDER FORM PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF FORT COLLINS AND GREELEY AND ______________________ DATED: Work Order Number: Purchase Order Number (Fort Collins): Purchase Order Number (Greeley): Project Title: HALLIGAN-SEAMAN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT Commencement Date: Completion Date: Maximum Fee: (time and reimbursable direct costs): Project Description:____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Scope of Services: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Professional agrees to perform the services identified above and on the attached forms in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein and in the Professional Services Agreement between the parties. In the event of a conflict between or ambiguity in the terms of the Professional Services Agreement and this work order (including the attached forms) the Professional Services Agreement [or this Work Order?] shall control. The attached forms consisting of Exhibits A, B, _, consisting of ___ (_) pages are hereby accepted and incorporated herein, by this reference, and Notice to Proceed is hereby given. Professional: By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ City of Fort Collins: Submitted By: _______________________________ Special Projects Manager Date: _______________________________ Reviewed By: _______________________________ Water Resources & Treatment Manager Date: _______________________________ Approved By: _______________________________ Utilities General Manager Date: _______________________________ Approved By: _______________________________ James B. O’Neill, II, CPPO, FNIGP Director of Purchasing & Risk Management Date: _______________________________ City of Greeley: Submitted By: _______________________________ Water Resource Manager Date: _______________________________ Reviewed By: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ Approved By: _______________________________ Director, Water & Sewer Department Date: _______________________________ Approved By: _______________________________ Purchasing Manager EXHIBIT “B” Time and Cost Basis [To be Provided} EXHIBIT “C” Special Conditions [To be Provided} Attachment 4 GIS Evaluation Specifications All digital deliverables will be provided in an ArcMap 9.x compliant spatial feature class (personal Geodatabase, coverage, shape file ASCII text file). All data will be collected or projected in Horizontal – NAD83 HARN State Plane Colorado North US Survey Feet, Vertical NAVD 1988 for City of Greeley and Vertical NAVD 1929 for City of Fort Collins. A written work plan describing feature class and its associated attributes will be provided. Data files will be provided on an agreed upon media format. The methodology to be used for the project will be written and agreed upon with the parties involved prior to going to bid. MODSIM Evaluation Specifications The Poudre River Basin Network was developed, and is simulated, with the MODSIM river basin network flow model. The model employs a primal-dual network optimization algorithm to simulate a priority based allocation and distribution system. The Poudre River Basin Network contains approximately 722 nodes and 935 links. Simulations are executed under the ms-dos 'command-line' environment. The third-party contractor must be familiar with network flow algorithms and optimization principles. Demonstrable experience using the PCMSS (PC MODSIM Shell) versions of MODSIM is valuable. Administrative Services Purchasing Divison 215 North Mason Street y 2nd Floor y P.O. Box 580 y Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 y (970) 221-6775 y Fax (970) 221-6707 www.fcgov.com ADDENDUM No. 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of Bid: P987 Corps' Third Part Consultant: Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project EIS OPENING DATE: 3:00 P.M. (Our Clock) June 15, 2005 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes are hereby made. REVISION: SUBMITTALS: Please submit eight (8) copies of your proposal for the Cities’ consideration. EVALUATION CRITERIA: See amended criteria attached. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. VI. Evaluation Criteria for Statement of Qualifications Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. The rating scale is from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 being an outstanding rating. The evaluation committee will establish ranking of the firms and submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for final selection. Weighting Factor Criteria Standard Team Experience Does the team have the capability and experience with projects of similar size and scope. Does the prime consultant and the project manager have the management experience necessary to successfully run the project? 4.0 Assigned Personnel What are the qualifications of the Project Manager? Has the team identified all the personnel that will work on the project? Are sufficient people with the requisite skills assigned to the project? Has the team (prime and subconsultants) worked together before? Are all of the pertinent resource areas that need to be analyzed in the NEPA document covered by experience staff? 1.0 Performance on Past Projects and Recommendations Were past projects of high quality and completed in a timely manner? 4.0 Project Understanding Does the proposal show a comprehensive understanding of the permitting requirements related to this project, , and does it define a scope of work that encompasses the analyses and procedures necessary to meet all federal requirements? t 4.0 Cost and Work Hours Do the proposed costs and work hours compare favorably with the estimate? Are the work hours presented reasonable for the effort required in each project task or phase? 4.0 Conflict of Interest What conflicts of interest exist given previous or current work being done by the firm(s) or team members for entities participating in the Halligan-Seaman project, or for any other water providers in the Poudre River basin?