REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - Marin County/media/Files...tasks specified in this Request for Proposals (RFP ... Public Law (P.L.) 84‐99 ... Task 1.3 ‐ Prepare Subsurface Exploration

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

COYOTE CREEK LEVEE EVALUATION

DECEMBER 23, 2013

Updated January 17, 2014

Proposals will be accepted until 4:00 p.m., January 24, 2014 at:

Marin County Department of Public Works

3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 304

San Rafael, California 94903

With attention directed to:

Neal Conatser

[email protected]

RFP – COYOTE CREEK LEVEE EVALUATION i 12/23/13

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Page

SECTION 1 ‐ INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1‐2

SECTION 2 ‐ SCOPE OF WORK

Project Goals ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 3‐10

Grant Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Project Management & Administration ................................................................................................. 10‐11

SECTION 3 ‐ SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

Notice ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

RFP Schedule .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Submittal Instructions ........................................................................................................................... 12‐13

Proposal Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 13‐15

Pre‐Proposal Meeting ................................................................................................................................ 15

Questions & Clarifications .......................................................................................................................... 15

Validity ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Award of Contract ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Minimum Qualifications ............................................................................................................................. 16

Insurance .................................................................................................................................................... 16

Reference Materials .................................................................................................................................... 17

Sample Contract Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 17

SECTION 4 ‐ PROPOSAL EVALUATION & SELECTION

Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 17‐18

Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................................ 18‐19

Selection Process ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Negotiations ............................................................................................................................................... 19

SECTION 5 ‐ EXHIBITS

Exhibit A – Location Maps

Exhibit B – Available Reference Materials

Exhibit C – Sample Contract Agreement

Exhibit D – Geographic Data Contract Deliverables Guidelines

RFP – COYOTE CREEK LEVEE EVALUATION - 1 - 12/23/2013

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is soliciting proposals from experienced and well‐qualified consulting engineering firms to furnish professional services for an evaluation of the Coyote Creek levee located in the unincorporated community of Tamalpais Valley (see maps, Exhibit A). Services shall include, but not be limited to, geotechnical engineering, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, engineering design, and engineering cost estimating necessary to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current condition of the levee system and develop recommendations for both short‐ and long‐term levee improvements which meet the goals of this evaluation. Knowledge of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, standards, policies, and guidance will also be required. All technical and administrative support required to provide services and deliver completed work products to the District shall be included. A lump sum professional services contract (see sample, Exhibit C) to successfully complete all tasks specified in this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be presented to the District’s Board of Supervisors for their consideration of approval. Reference documents and background information relevant to this RFP will be available to all respondents online at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/si6xf1jngqv2wxd/9vjh8QY_0d BACKGROUND The Coyote Creek Local Flood Protection Project (Project) was constructed by the Corps in the mid‐1960s and protects a portion of the Tamalpais Valley community from high flows in Coyote Creek and Nyhan Creek (also erroneously referred to as Tennessee Creek) as well as from high tides from Richardson Bay. After construction, the Project was transferred to the District for operation and maintenance and is presently subject to the Corps’ Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) per P.L. 84‐99. The Project consists of a concrete channel and system of earthen levees situated along an approximately 7,800 ft. section of Coyote Creek extending from just upstream of Maple St. downstream to the Mill Valley – Sausalito Pathway at Richardson Bay. A second 450 ft. segment of earthen levees along Nyhan Creek, from its confluence with Coyote Creek upstream to Marin Ave., is also included as part of the Project (see Maps, Exhibit A). The Project is commonly divided into the following segments or reaches:

Upper Reach – concrete channel section beginning near Maple St. and extending downstream to the end of the concrete channel upstream of Flamingo Rd.

Middle Reach – earthen section beginning at the downstream end of the concrete channel upstream of Flamingo Rd. and extending downstream to the Highway 1 / Shoreline Hwy. Bridge. This section also includes a portion of Nyhan Creek beginning at the Marin Ave. Bridge and


extending downstream to the confluence of Nyhan Creek with Coyote Creek. Portions of the left bank downstream of Flamingo Rd. include a concrete block floodwall.

Lower Reach – earthen section beginning at the Highway 1 / Shoreline Highway Bridge and extending downstream along Bothin Marsh to the Mill Valley – Sausalito Pathway. Like much of the Project area, this reach has experienced substantial settlement due to soft soils. However, unlike other levee segments, the Lower Reach has not been maintained to its original design elevation and is regularly overtopped by high tides.

Several alterations and additions to the Project have been made since its construction including, but not limited to: the construction of a concrete masonry unit flood wall (1976) and Tennessee Valley Pathway (2013), and installation of the Crest Marin (1977), Cardinal (1983), and Shoreline (1985) stormwater pump stations. The Corps requires the District to maintain the Project to its original design specification, which was intended to convey the 20 year design flow of 1,750 cfs (USACE, 1959). The District maintains the Project by removing accumulated sediment from the creek and channel, with sediment removal occurring in 1974, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1998, and 2003. (The next sediment removal episode is tentatively planned for 2015.) Additional maintenance includes annual pump station maintenance and repairs, vegetation maintenance, and rodent abatement. The District has also added fill material to earthen sections of the levee crown in order to maintain levee elevations and installed slurry cut‐off walls within certain levee sections to address seepage. Recent Corps Routine Inspection Program (RIP) inspections conducted in 2010 and 2012 have found portions of the Project to be out of compliance with the original Project agreement and current Corps operation and maintenance standards. In 2013 the District completed a resurveying and hydraulic remodeling effort of the Project under a contract with Noble Engineering in order to help assess current conditions and help inform sediment removal needs. (Reports documenting inspection results as well as surveys and a HEC‐RAS model of the Project will be provided to RFP respondents upon written request.) Nearing fifty years in age, the District wishes to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the Project’s existing condition in order to help define and support both short‐ and long‐term maintenance and improvement goals. Maintenance and improvements may be necessary in order to address observations made during the Corps’ inspections. In addition, the development and assessment of improvement alternatives must be made in order to determine options for maintaining and, if feasible and cost‐effective, increasing the level of protection afforded by the Project.


SECTION 2

SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT GOALS The Evaluation must be comprehensive in scope and detailed in its analysis to adequately address the following goals:

1. Obtain a comprehensive and detailed account of current geotechnical conditions of the Project, including the performance of levee and underlying foundation soils.

2. Develop a complete and executable plan for bringing the Project into full compliance with the Corps’ Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP), and thereby restore full system eligibility for Public Law (P.L.) 84‐99 rehabilitation assistance. While an overall system rating of “Minimally Acceptable” is required for restoring system eligibility, the goal of the developed plan shall be to meet an overall system rating of “Acceptable”.

3. Provide a set of Project improvement alternatives, including those which: A. Meet original Corps’ requirements B. Meet current Corps’ requirements C. Meet current Corps’ requirements, plus improve the level of protection provided D. Meet current Corps’ and FEMA accreditation requirements E. Meet current Corps’ and FEMA accreditation requirements with consideration of sea‐level

rise. Where possible, alternatives should be evaluated for and maximize multi‐benefit objectives, such as providing opportunities for public access and habitat enhancement, minimizing environmental impacts, and reducing the required frequency of sediment removal.

SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work (SOW) for achieving the project goals has been grouped into the following tasks, which are described in detail in the following paragraphs:

Task 1 – Geotechnical Investigation

Task 2 – Hydraulic Analysis

Task 3 – Failure Analysis

Task 4 – Alternatives Assessment


Task 1 – Geotechnical Investigation At a minimum, the geotechnical investigation shall include the following: Task 1.1 – Review Existing Documentation Available documentation of the levee system will be reviewed as part of this task and prior to conducting the site reconnaissance under Task 1.2, including:

Reports and records of levee performance during high water events (instances of erosion, sloughing, seepage, overtopping, etc.)

As‐built drawings for the original levee and/or repairs

Levee design reports or memoranda and design computations

Levee construction reports, data, specifications

Current survey information and available surveyed cross‐sections of the river channel and levee

Records and data regarding existing utility crossings

Recent USACE Annual and Periodic Inspection reports

Regional and site‐specific geology reports, aerial imagery, test boring logs and other geologic or geotechnical data along or adjacent to the levee, soil testing data, foundation material characteristics, and inferred stratigraphy

Groundwater studies, including logs and water levels from wells in the vicinity of the levee

Information on any repairs or upgrades made to the levee system and records of permits for any alterations made to the levee since its construction (such as changes to the levee cross‐section, construction or abandonment of utilities, and bridges over the levee)

Current operations and maintenance manual for nearby levee reaches

Operation and maintenance records

H&H studies by Corps, FEMA, Noble and others

Levee and ground subsidence data The District will provide readily available documents, including reports and data, for review and will require that any additional relevant documents which are not readily available be identified and, if possible, retrieved. Documents shall be reviewed to: (1) develop a complete understanding of the levee system, typical levee sections, foundation conditions, and historic performance of the system; (2) identify areas of potential erosion, seepage, or stability concern; and (3) verify areas where additional information is desired. All existing investigation logs (e.g., test pits, boring and CPT logs) shall be compiled and input into a database for use during future analyses. All features of interest (pumps, wells, gaps, etc.) and documented historical performance issues shall be georeferenced in a Geographic Information System (GIS) database (e.g., ESRI shapefile, ESRI geodatabase) for future use. (See Appendix D for specific requirements.) Key deliverable(s): Memo listing documents reviewed, any missing documents, and a summary of significant findings; GIS database


Task 1.2 – Site Reconnaissance A detailed field reconnaissance and inspection of the levee system shall be conducted in order to document any obvious issues or areas requiring specific analysis. Reconnaissance shall include visual confirmation of as‐built/record drawings, assessment of current conditions, evaluation of maintenance and operation conditions, and field verification of RIP inspection observations made by the Corps. Key deliverable(s): Memo describing the following: (1) observations from site reconnaissance, including documentation of any obvious issues or areas requiring specific analysis; (2) descriptions of deviations from as‐built/record drawings; (3) observations of current conditions; and (4) an assessment of RIP inspection findings compared to existing conditions. Task 1.3 ‐ Prepare Subsurface Exploration Work Plan Prepare a subsurface exploration program following execution of site reconnaissance and document review as per Tasks 1.1 and 1.2. The subsurface exploration program shall provide all critical data needed to meet the goals of this SOW, including obtaining a detailed account of current geotechnical conditions of the Project, and providing a set of alternatives for Project improvement, including those which would meet FEMA certification requirements. The Subsurface Exploration Plan shall summarize the relevant findings from the site inspection and document review, layout the proposed exploration locations, types, depths, methods, and sample types, and plan for laboratory testing of collected samples. A Health and Safety Plan shall also be prepared. Key deliverable(s): Subsurface Exploration Plan and Schedule; Health and Safety Plan. Task 1.4 – Permits, ROE, USA, Field Visit Prior to the initiation of the field portion of the geotechnical exploration the Consultant shall obtain and pay for all permits necessary to perform the geotechnical explorations with the exception of any environmental permits, cultural permits/clearances, or access permits, which the District will obtain only upon the Consultant’s advisement and written request. The Contractor will be responsible for locating all utilities, contacting Underground Service Alert (USA), and coordinating with all utilities, as required to locate all utilities in the vicinity of the exploration area. Key deliverable(s): Copies of all required drilling permits; Memos requesting the need to address any additional required permits and/or clearances. Task 1.5 – Geotechnical Explorations Based on the preceding tasks, the Consultant shall prepare a field exploration program in accordance with the Corps’ geotechnical investigation guidelines. All soil classification, sampling, and logging shall be performed in accordance with ASTM 2488 and by geologists or engineers under supervision of a qualified Geotechnical Engineer with current license in the State of California.


Task 1.6 Prepare Boring Logs; Task 1.7 ‐ Subsurface Profiles; Task 1.8 Coordinate Laboratory Testing Program Geotechnical laboratory testing shall be performed on soil samples collected during the subsurface exploration program in order to aid in soil classification and development of engineering parameters for levee evaluation. The laboratory testing shall include index testing such as in situ moisture and density, grain‐size distribution, and Atterberg limits. Strength testing such as direct or triaxial shear and consolidation tests shall be performed, as appropriate. Task 1.9 – Geotechnical Data Report Data collected during the subsurface investigation and laboratory testing program shall be summarized in a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR). The GDR shall include exploration logs from borings and CPTs, laboratory test results, maps showing locations of available previous and currently performed field explorations, a description of instruments used in the investigation, and other relevant collected information. The GDR shall also include a summary of findings and a description of site conditions observed during Task 1.1 ‐ Site Reconnaissance. The consultant shall submit a draft GDR for District review. A meeting/teleconference with The District shall be held upon review of the GDR to discuss any comments or questions. A final report shall be submitted once all comments have been adequately addressed, and will be signed by a Geotechnical Engineer (GE) with current license in the State of California. Five copies of the final report for distribution shall be prepared for the District. Key deliverable(s): Draft and final Geotechnical Data Reports Task 2 – Hydraulic Analysis For Task 2 the consultant shall be provided with a HEC‐RAS model of the Coyote Creek system and shall review, update, refine, and use the model as needed to calculate all inputs necessary for successfully completing Task 3 – Failure Analysis and Task 4 – Alternatives assessment. The District will provide the Consultant with:

a. Original USACE 1‐in‐20 year flow rate b. FEMA flow rates from current Flood Insurance Study (FIS) c. Updated flow rates for the 1‐in‐20 year, 1‐in‐50 year, 1‐100 year recurrence intervals based

on revised hydrology performed by the District d. Downstream boundary conditions for the current year, 2050, and 2100 (riverine and

coastal). The Consultant shall have a well‐qualified and experienced hydraulic engineer on their team for the purpose of setting‐up, running, and evaluating the model, and incorporating the model output into the Evaluation. The Consultant shall be fully responsible for reviewing the model set‐up and assumptions and for ensuring that the parameters used are correct and meet the goals of the Evaluation. Key deliverable(s): Draft and final hydraulic analysis memo describing modeling methodology, inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Consultant shall evaluate velocity and scour on the levees and structures as well


as provide an assessment on impacts to sediment transport in the creek. Memo shall include a listing of all unresolved warnings and/or errors and a description of the modeler’s attempts to address warnings and/or errors. Task 3 – Failure Analysis The individual elements of this task shall be documented in a series of technical memorandums as indicated in the descriptions below and, along with the GDR described in Task 1 – Geotechnical Investigation, be used as the basis for assessing each of the alternatives described in Task 4 – Alternatives Assessment. Task 3.1 – Site Characterization Site characterization shall consist of a review of all available information as presented in the GDR, and partitioning of the levee system into analytical reaches, which can thereby be represented with a single representative cross‐section. The goal of each selection shall be to divide the levee alignment into a minimum number of analysis reaches that are reasonably consistent with available data, assumptions, and geotechnical analyses objectives. Once reach selection is complete, Consultant shall determine the location of cross‐sections for seepage and stability geotechnical analysis. Analysis sections shall be chosen within a reach based on the density of information and/or where the most adverse conditions are found. The number and location of cross‐sections shall be sufficient for meeting the goals of the Evaluation and shall be subject to review and approval by the District. Key deliverable(s): Site Characterization Technical Memorandum Task 3.2 – Levee Evaluation The following engineering analyses shall be performed to evaluate levee performance consistent with the requirements established in Title 44, Section 65.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 65.10):

Task 3.2.1 ‐ Stability and Seepage Analyses

Consistent with FEMA regulation 44 CFR 65.10 (b) (4), an engineering analysis of the levee embankment stability shall be performed. The analysis shall evaluate expected seepage during loading conditions associated with the base flood and evaluate if seepage into or through the levee foundation and embankment will jeopardize embankment or foundation stability. Seepage and embankment stability analyses shall be performed on generalized cross‐sections taken along the levee system and shall be based on information collected during Task 1 described above. Seepage analyses shall be performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in the following USACE documents: EM 1110‐2‐1913, Design and Construction of Levees, EM‐1110‐2‐1904, Seepage, and ETL 1110‐2‐569 Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage. Seepage analyses shall focus on through‐seepage and underseepage. Seepage analyses shall be performed using the GeoStudio computer program SEEP/W, or with an alternative pre‐approved by the District.


Slope stability analyses shall be performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in EM 1110‐2‐1913, Design and Construction of Levees and EM 1110‐2‐1902, Slope Stability. Slope stability analyses shall focus on the steady‐state and rapid drawdown loading cases. Stability analyses shall be performed using the GeoStudio computer program SLOPE/W, or with an alternative pre‐approved by the District. Task 3.2.2 ‐ Settlement Analyses Consistent with FEMA regulation 44 CFR 65.10 (b) (5), an engineering analysis will be performed to assess the potential and magnitude of future losses of freeboard as a result of settlement. Based on review of existing information provided by the District, portions of the levee system have experienced settlement to varying degrees. It is assumed that settlement analysis will be performed at up to five cross‐sections along the levee.

Task 3.2.3 – Levee Evaluation Technical Memorandum The Consultant shall provide both draft and final versions of technical memoranda summarizing the undertakings and findings of Task 3, including stability, seepage, and settlement analyses and seismic hazard evaluation (including seismic stability and liquefaction assessments). Consultant will work with the Army Corps and District staff to address any comments and recommended edits indicated from the Corps’ review. Key deliverable(s): Levee Evaluation Technical Memorandum

Task 4 – Alternatives Assessment This task involves the development of alternatives as described in Table A below. Each alternative will involve the development of recommendations for meeting all requirements for bringing the channel into full compliance under the Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, thereby restoring system eligibility for Public Law (P.L.) 84‐99 rehabilitation assistance. Where practical, a minimum of three different solutions for each alternative should be considered. Solutions may include, but not necessarily be limited to:

a. Raising levees with earthen fill b. Raising levees with floodwalls and/or other engineered structures c. Modification of the current channel alignment d. Modification to sediment management (e.g., sediment removal) practices e. Land repurposing, including real estate acquisition

In addition, a general evaluation of tidal barrier alternatives and approximate costs based on local geotechnical conditions shall be prepared at two locations within Coyote Creek (mouth and a location upstream) as approved by the District.


Table A: Preliminary Summary of Alternatives

Alternative Name

1 Baseline

2 Updated

3 Enhanced

4 FEMA

Accredited

5 FEMA

Accredited with Sea‐level

Rise

Alternative Description

Recommend improvements necessary to meet original Corps' design parameters

Recommended improvements necessary to meet current

design parameters as revised by the

District

Recommended improvements necessary to increase the level of

protection

Recommended improvements necessary to secure FEMA accreditation

today

Recommended improvements necessary to secure FEMA accreditation for the year

2050

Riverine Hydraulics

Flow Assumption

1‐in‐20 yr flow from 1960s

District revised 1‐in‐20 yr flow

District revised 1‐in‐50 yr flow

District revised 1‐in‐100 yr

flow

District revised 1‐in‐100 yr

flow

Riverine Hydraulics

Downstream Boundary Condition Assumption

MHHW from 1960s

MHHW for present day (FEMA)



MHHW for year 2050

Coastal Hydraulics

Downstream Boundary Assumption

Analysis not required

Analysis not required

100‐year Bay Coastal water

surface elevation

100‐year Approximate Bay Coastal water surface elevation

Approximate 100‐year Bay Coastal water

surface elevation for

2050

Minimum Geotechnical

Analysis Required

Failure analysis of alternative including stability,

seepage, and settlement









FEMA Accreditation per 44 CFR.

65.10

No No No Yes Yes

USACE RIP Compliant

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


The results of the Task 3 ‐ Failure Analysis, shall be used to develop recommended remedial alternatives for each reach, where needed, which shall be summarized in a Remedial Alternatives and Cost Estimating Report (RACER). The Consultant shall develop and evaluate the proposed conceptual alternatives and, where applicable, assess their viability and ability of bringing levee reaches into compliance with the requirements of 44 CFR 65.10, excluding the interior drainage analysis requirement. The Consultant shall establish dimensions and geometry of the remedial alternatives for analysis. Alternatives shall be illustrated on both scaled plan drawings with sufficient detail to clearly describe all physical attributes of the alternative and how it relates to environmental conditions. Required right of way for the alternative shall be quantified and mapped and adjacent property impacts shall be identified. This task also includes the development of quantities for the verified remedial alternatives, and preparation of preliminary cost estimates to the +‐25 percent level of accuracy. Costs shall be presented as capital costs, annual maintenance costs and shall be reduced to a present value amount for comparison between alternatives using an interest rate suggested by the Consultant and approved by the District. The project team shall submit a draft RACER for the District review. A meeting/teleconference with the District shall be held upon review of the RACER to discuss any comments or questions. The Consultant shall note and track all comments and identify how they were addressed in subsequent revisions of the report. A final report shall be submitted once all comments have been addressed, and shall be signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) and Professional Geologist (PG) licensed in the State of California. Five copies of the final report for distribution shall be prepared for the District. Key deliverable(s): Draft and final submittals of Remedial Alternatives Cost Estimating Report

GRANT FUNDING

A grant award was received from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) through the Local Levee Assistance Program (LLAP) and will reimburse the District for 55% of the up to $491,829 in costs related to completion of this Scope of Work. The Consultant shall track project costs in the level of detail required to successfully submit reimbursement requests and receive reimbursement from DWR for all eligible work performed.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION

Project Kick‐off Meeting As soon as possible following entering into a professional services agreement, Consultant shall meet with District to convene a project kick‐off meeting. Project participants will be identified and tasks, schedules, and deliverables discussed in detail. Expectations of each party will be outlined and agreed upon.


Project Status Reports The Consultant shall prepare biweekly Project Status Reports updating District staff of work progress, schedule, and budget. Project Status Reports shall include a summary of any actions requested of the District and their status. Project Status Meetings The Consultant shall maintain and provide thorough documentation of its work and be prepared to meet, as necessary, to discuss work completed, work in progress, budget, up‐to‐date schedule for project deliverables, and to address any areas of potential concern which may require resolution. Project Presentations The Consultant shall prepare content for and present project results at up to two formal meetings. Meetings may include stakeholders and members of the public. Progress Payments Payments shall be broken out by task/subtask as described in this RFP and will be paid in full upon successful completion of each task. Each invoice must provide sufficient detail such that the District can use invoices, as submitted, for obtaining reimbursement through the District’s Local Levee Evaluation (LOLE) grant with the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). This will require, for example, detailed accounts of changes incurred, including supporting documentation of hours worked by each staff member, dollars charged, and invoices from any sub‐consultants.


SECTION 2 SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

NOTICE

The Marin County Nuclear Free Zone law, the provisions of which are carried out by the County

Government's Peace Conversion Commission, prohibits the County from making investments in,

purchasing from, or in any way contracting with Nuclear Weapons contractors, or their subsidiaries.

The Commission, using the procedures outlined in Marin County Code Sections 23.13.010 to 23.13.080

has determined that the corporations listed on the website below are nuclear weapons contractors. The

County, therefore, will only make investments in, purchase from, or in any way contract with such listed

companies under circumstances where no reasonable alternative is available.

Please refer to the following link for details:

http://www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/boards‐and‐commissions/commissions/PeaceConversion

RFP SCHEDULE

12/23/13 RFP Released 1/7/14 Pre‐proposal meeting 1/10/14 Questions from consultants due 1/17/14 Responses to consultants’ questions available 1/24/14 Proposals due 1/31/14 Shortlist notification 2/10/14 – 2/11/14 Consultant interviews 2/14/14 Selection of preferred consultant 3/18/14 Issuance of Notice of Award by Board of Supervisors (estimated)

SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

General

Proposals shall be enclosed in a sealed package. Respondent’s name and address shall appear in the upper left‐hand corner of the package. All proposals shall be identified with Coyote Creek Levee Evaluation RFP legibly written on the outside of the packages(s). If multiple packages are submitted, each package must be legibly numbered (i.e., 1 of __, as required.)

Submittal

1. Respondents shall submit one (1) original with three (3) copies of its Proposal to the following address. The “original” shall be marked on the outside cover and contain a “wet” signature.


By Mail In Person or by Courier

County of Marin County of Marin

Department of Public Works

Attn: Neal Conatser

Department of Public Works

Attn: Neal Conatser

P. O. Box 4186 3501 Civic Center, Room 304

San Rafael, California 94913 San Rafael, California 94903

2. Proposals will be received until 4:00 p.m. PT, January 24, 2014. Respondents or couriers may ask for a copy of the receipt for their records. Proposals received after the stated time and date, may be considered non‐responsive and returned unopened.

3. Respondents may choose to email a copy of their complete and signed Proposal to [email protected] by the deadline and follow‐up their submittal by mailing the one (1) original and three (3) copies within two (2) business days. Emailed proposals must match in their entirety proposals received by mail or courier.

4. The District will not be responsible for submittals that are delinquent, lost, mismarked, sent to an address other than that given herein, or sent by mail or courier service and not signed for by the District.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The information requested below will be used to evaluate the respondent’s proposal based on the criteria outlined in Section 5. Respondents may be deemed non‐responsive if they do not respond to all areas, 1 through 10. Proposals shall be placed in soft binders. Proposals shall be organized in separate sections tabbed with corresponding numbers and related headings in the order presented below:

1. Executive Summary Letter 2. Validity and Statement of Compliance 3. Certificate of Insurance 4. Minimum Qualifications/Special Requirements 5. Past Performance 6. Work Methodology 7. References 8. Staffing Plan/Organization/Experience 9. Project Schedule 10. Cost Proposal

1. Executive Summary Letter

This letter shall be a brief formal letter from respondent that provides information regarding the firm and its ability to perform the requirements of this RFP. Emphasize those aspects of your organization and experiences that distinguish your firm from other firms who may respond to this RFP and why your


firm is especially qualified. Include a contact name for the proposal with an e‐mail address. The letter must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the proposing entity or by the two corporate officers authorized to bind the proposing entity as set forth in the California Corporations Code, and shall identify all materials and enclosures being forwarded in response to this RFP. An unsigned proposal submission may be grounds for rejection.

2. Validity and Statement of Compliance

State the validity of your proposal (must be a minimum of three (3) months) and a “Statement of Compliance” with all parts of this solicitation (terms and conditions, scope of services, sample agreement, etc.) or a listing of exceptions. The listing of exceptions must include: suggested rewording; reasons for submitting the proposed exception; and any impact the proposed exception may have on the services to be provided, and suggested changes.

3. Certificate of Insurance

Respondent shall state the willingness and ability to provide the required insurance coverage and insurance documents. The District shall request and the respondent shall submit prior to execution of an Agreement all insurance verification and documentation required in Section 3.

4. Minimum Qualifications/Special Requirements

Respondent shall demonstrate herein how the minimum qualifications are met as required in Section 2 (see pg. 16) of this RFP.

5. Past Performance

Include a list of previous projects performed within the last five (5) years that are relevant to the services described in the Scope of Work. For each project, please include a brief description of the project (including the type of organization for which services were performed), services performed, budget, duration, outcome, and staff performing the services.

6. Work Methodology

Discuss proposed methodology to meet requirements of the Scope of Work, approach to work, resources available, and approach to the management and integration of all activities required in the Scope of Work. Include herein an organization chart identifying key personnel, including the agreement administrator. An additional purpose of this section is for the Respondent to frame what is being asked of them and acknowledge their understanding of the goals, requirements, and constraints of the Evaluation. This may, for example, include providing expertise and ideas for achieving project goals within the constrained right of way available for the Project. Innovative thinking is encouraged. This section is an important part of the Consultant selection process.

7. References

Respondent must submit a minimum of three (3) client references from different sources of work performed within the past five (5) years similar in size and scope of the Scope of Work in this RFP. For each reference provided, include the company name and address, the name, telephone number, fax number and e‐mail address of the contact person who served as the manager for the project.


8. Staffing Plan/Organization/Experience

Provide qualifications, experience, technical knowledge, and any required certifications/licenses of firm and key personnel/project team who shall be assigned to this project, indicating key responsibilities of each classification. Include staff resumes.

9. Project Schedule

Respondent shall submit a Project Schedule for performing the services required in the Scope of Work. Respondent’s Project Schedule shall contain all necessary tasks, deliverables, and key milestones which the respondent deems necessary to successfully provide these services. Dates shall be provided for completing tasks, providing deliverables, and meeting key milestones and shall be within an amount of time considered to be reasonable given the Scope of Work. All work must be completed by June 30, 2015.

10. Cost Proposal

Respondent shall submit a Cost Proposal, which shall include all costs associated with the services to be provided. Respondent shall provide cost and labor elements by resource type, per key deliverable as identified in Respondent’s proposed Project Schedule (Item No. 9 above). At a minimum, respondent’s cost summary shall identify labor resources, hourly labor rates, and estimated hours to accomplish the Scope of Work. Note that costs will not be reimbursed on a time and materials basis and, instead, will be based on the agreed upon sum for meeting the full scope of work for the project as outlined in Section 2.

PRE‐PROPOSAL MEETING

A voluntary pre‐proposal meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM in Room 304 of the Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael. This meeting will provide prospective bidders with an opportunity to meet with District staff, seek clarification on the RFP, and ask questions related to project requirements and the bidding process.

QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS

Those with requesting clarification to this RFP shall submit all requests by Friday, January 10, 2014 at 5 p.m. PT to Neal Conatser at: [email protected]. The District will compile and respond to all respondents’ questions via an amendment issued to all respondents on or before Friday, January 17, 2014.

VALIDITY

Proposals must be valid for a period of at least 3 months from the closing date and time of this RFP.


AWARD OF CONTRACT

After a consultant is selected, the award of a contract agreement is contingent upon the successful negotiation of terms, acceptability of fees, and formal approval by the Board of Supervisors of the District.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

In order for an RFP submittal to receive consideration, respondents are required to meet the following minimum qualifications:

a. Respondent shall be currently licensed by the State of California to conduct the services described in Scope of Work.

b. Respondent and its representatives shall not be listed on the Excluded Parties List System.

c. Respondent must demonstrate a sufficient amount of successful experience with similar levee evaluation projects within the past five (5) years. Respondent should have demonstrated experience with developing and/or assessing flood protection alternatives which meet all applicable certification requirements, including those necessary for FEMA accreditation. Respondent should also have an understanding of and familiarity with the Corps’ Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP).

d. Respondent’s personnel assigned to the project shall have current and valid credentials and have a minimum of three (3) years of experience in same or similar type of work. The project manager shall be identified and shall have a minimum 5 years’ demonstrated experience in projects of this type.

INSURANCE

Respondent shall be required to provide proof of the required insurance coverage as set forth in the Sample Agreement within seven days of notification of selection of award. Failure to demonstrate proof of minimum insurance or failure to acquire minimum insurances will result in a forfeit of said award. The minimum insurance coverage required for this project is as follows: 1. General Liability = $1,000,000 ($2,000,000 aggregate)

2. Automobile Liability = $1,000,000

3. Workers’ Compensation See California Statutory Requirements

4. Professional Liability No Set Amount. See Sample Contract Agreement for Deductible Reporting Requirements


REFERENCE MATERIALS

A list of available and potentially relevant reference materials is provided in Exhibit B of this RFP and includes previous master plans and studies, among other items. Many of these items are accessible electronically and will be made available for download at Dropbox by visiting https://www.dropbox.com/sh/si6xf1jngqv2wxd/9vjh8QY_0d. Additional items not available for immediate download may be provided upon written request. Respondents to this RFP are encouraged to check Dropbox.com intermittently during the open bidding window in order to determine whether or not additional materials may have been uploaded to the site for the respondent’s consideration in developing their proposal. Note that it is the responsibility of the respondent to determine the suitability of and verify all preexisting information they chose to use from all provided materials.

SAMPLE CONTRACT AGREEMENT

A Sample Contract Agreement is provided in Section 5, Exhibit D of this RFP. Before submitting a proposal, all respondents are requested to carefully review and abide by all of the provisions set forth in the Sample Contract Agreement.

SECTION 3

PROPOSAL EVALUATION & SELECTION

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals shall be evaluated on the basis of the responses to all questions and requirements contained within this RFP. The evaluation of a respondent’s ability to provide the required services will be based on their written statements. Each proposal will be competitively evaluated on its strengths and weaknesses against the following criteria, which are listed below in no particular order of importance.

1. Staffing

a. Ability to make available the personnel and team that has the required licenses, experience, technical competence and qualifications necessary to provide the requested services.

b. Staff resumes and staffing plan (i.e., how staff will be organized and managed to support the agreement.) This includes the organization chart identifying key personnel, job titles and responsibilities for personnel who will be assigned to these projects.

c. Dedicated staff with the most experience directly related to the services described in the Scope of Work.


2. Past Project Experience

a. Demonstrated experience in and successful contract performance for efforts similar to work

outlined in the Scope of Work. Previous experience and performance should demonstrate the breadth of services the Consultant is qualified to perform, highlighting experience with public agencies within the last five (5) years.

b. Client satisfaction with similar services/projects.

c. Proven ability to successfully complete work on schedule.

3. Work Methodology

a. The Consultant’s understanding of the project objectives as illustrated by the proposed Scope of

Work and any comments on this RFP. Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed approach to the work effectively meets the project requirement, and whether all tasks necessary to accomplish the scope of work are accounted for and described.

b. How the Consultant intends to complete projects it is assigned in a timely and efficient manner while delivering a quality product.

c. The Consultant’s demonstrated ability to provide creative, thoughtful, and comprehensive approaches to meeting the objectives outlined in the Scope of Work and to provide recommendations for enhancing the Scope of Work.

5. Communication

a. The Consultant’s proven ability to clearly communicate its findings, recommendations, and

designs to staff and a diverse group of stakeholders.

EVALUATION PROCESS

1. Proposals will be reviewed to verify compliance with submission instructions, response

requirements, and minimum qualifications. Any proposal not meeting the minimum qualifications may be deemed non‐responsive.

2. Proposal evaluation will commence immediately following the review based on the criteria outlined

in this section. The District will develop a shortlist of the most qualified and responsive respondents to continue on to the interview phase of the selection process.

3. Proposed key personnel from each responsive firm may be requested to present the teams and their

qualifications at an interview. The interview format will include an opportunity for the firm to provide a formal 30 minute presentation to give an overview of the Consultant’s understanding of the problem and their strategy for addressing the problem. The formal presentation will be followed by an informal interview and question/answer period with the project team’s key personnel


4. The District reserves the right to: a) negotiate the final agreement with any respondent(s) as necessary to serve the best interests of the District; b) withdraw this solicitation at any time without prior notice and, furthermore, makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any respondent responding to this solicitation; or c) award its total requirements to one respondent or to apportion those requirements among two or more respondents as the District may deem to be in its best interests.

SELECTION PROCESS A preferred Consultant will be selected by Department of Public Works staff and key stakeholders at the conclusion of the evaluation of proposals and will be given notice of their selection on or before Friday, February 14, 2014. Final selection will take place following establishment scope and cost negotiations at the time an agreement between the Consultant and the District is approved by the District Board of Supervisors. NEGOTIATIONS

Negotiations regarding agreement terms, conditions, scope of work, and pricing may or may not be conducted with respondent. Therefore, proposals submitted should contain the respondent’s most favorable terms and conditions, since the selection and award may be made without discussion with any respondent. If satisfactory agreement provisions cannot be reached, then negotiations may be terminated. The District may elect to contact another firm submitting a proposal. This negotiation sequence continues until an agreement is reached.

RFP – COYOTE CREEK LEVEE EVALUATION

EXHIBIT A – LOCATION MAPS - 1 - 12/23/2013

SECTION 4 EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A –MAPS

The project is located in the unincorporated community of Tamalpais Valley near the city of Mill Valley

in southern Marin County and is within close proximity to Highway 101 and Highway 1 (Shoreline

Highway).


EXHIBIT A – LOCATION MAPS - 2 - 12/23/2013

Sections of Coyote Creek which are part of the project are highlighted on the map below. The beginning

(western most) extent of the project is near the intersection of Maple St. with Shoreline Highway (State

Highway 1) in unincorporated Tamalpais‐Homestead Valley near the city of Mill Valley. The end (eastern

most) extent of the project is the Mill Valley‐Sausalito Pathway Bridge located west of the Highway 1

Bridge over Richardson Bay.

Legend Red Line: Upper Reach / Concrete Channel Orange Line: Middle Reach / Earthen Levee* Yellow Line: Lower Reach / Earthen Levee Yellow Circle: Stormwater Pump Station Blue Line: Creek / Tributary * Some sections with concrete floodwall


EXHIBIT B – AVAILABLE REFERENCE MATERIALS - 1 - 12/23/2013

EXHIBIT B – AVAILABLE REFERENCE MATERIALS Materials listed below are available for review by respondents to this RFP.

Title Author Year

Creeks Map: Zone 3 n/a

Hydraulic Study of Coyote Canal for Tam Junction West

n/a n/a

Zone 3: FC Study n/a

Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 11 ‐ Extra Task 10‐2: HEC‐RAS Bridge Imput Data

Noble Consultants, Inc. 2013

Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 12 ‐ Extra Task 10‐4: HEC Ras Analysis to Develop Rating Curve at Stream Gage


Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 4 ‐ Project Description


Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 6 ‐ Hydraulic Analysis for the 20‐Year FEMA Flow Event


Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 7 ‐ Sedimentation Analysis


Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 8 ‐ HEC‐RAS Analysis without Boardwalk or Pedestrian Bridge


Coyote Creek Sediment Stabilization Project: Memorandum 9 ‐ Supplemental Topography & Levee Height


Grant Agreement Between the State of California DWR and MCFCWCD for a Local Levee Evaluation Grant for the Coyote Creek Levee Evaluation project

State of California California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources

2013

Lower Coyote Creek Feasibility Study: Flood Management and Marsh Enhancement Project

Phillip Williams & Associates, Ltd. 2012

Middle Reach of Coyote Creek: Sediment Management and Maintenance Plan




Title Author Year

Settlement Elevations for Kay Park/Tam Valley

Marin County Department of Public Works 2012

Geotechnical Investigation Report: Tennessee Valley/Manzanita Connector Pathway ‐ Marin County, CA

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2009

Review of Water Level Survey Data ‐ Coyote Creek Levee, Mill Valley, CA

Kleinfelder 2008

Geotechnical Evaluation: Marin Ave Drainage Improvement Project, Mill Valley, California

Kleinfelder, Witzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 2007

Crest Marin Creek Flood Improvement Project (Draft Technical Memorandum No. 1)

Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 2006

Geotechnical Investigation Report: Crest‐Marin Creek Box Culvert

Kleinfelder 2006

Geotechnical Report: Levee Seepage/ High Groundwater, Coyote Creek

Kleinfelder 2006

Laurel Way Bypass Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses


Bothin Marsh Enhancement Plan Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004

Drainage Improvement Investigation Crest Marin Creek

LTD Engineering, Inc. 2004

Coyote Creek Maintenance Dredging Plans, Cross Sections, & Details (Project Z3‐38)

County of Marin Department of Public Works

2003

Delineation of Waters of the United States at Coyote Creek

ESA 2003

Dredge Sediment Characterization ‐ Coyote Creek Dredging Project

Kleinfelder 2003

Geotechnical Report: Levee Leakage, Coyote Creek

Kleinfelder 2003

The Mill Valley Watershed ‐ Volunteer Stream Survey Manual

The Mill Valley Watershed Project, Center for Ecoliteracy

1997

Mill Valley Watershed Project Fiorillo, Jessica 1995

Geotechnical Investigation: Coyote Creek Levee Improvements

ALB Associates, Inc. 1993

Coyote Creek Maintenance Dredging Plans, Cross Sections, & Details (Project Z3‐38)


1991

Hydraulic Study of Coyote Canal for "Tam Junction West"

Majors Engineering 1990



Title Author Year

Master Drainage Plan for the Tamalpais Valley Watershed

The Murrey ‐ McCormick Environmental Group 1973

Proposed Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Spoils, Coyote Creek

Yarnell & Ron 1973

Proposed Master Drainage Plan for the Tamalpais Valley Watershed

Applied Science & Resource Planning, Inc. 1973

Coyote Creek Cross Sections (Project Z3‐21)


1970

Streams Flowing Into Richardson Bay ‐ Survey Report for Flood Control & Allied Purposes

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, SF 1967

Coyote Creek Local Flood Protection Project: Operation and Maintenance Manual


Channel Improvements Coyote Creek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, SF 1964

Coyote Creek Planset U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, SF 1964

Coyote Creek ROW U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, SF 1964

Engineering Study of Richardson Bay Lee & Praszker 1964

Detailed Project Report on Coyote Creek ‐ Prepared Under Authority of Public Law 685


Appendix to FC Study Zone #3 Eng. Office of Clyde C. Kennedy 1957

Flood Control Study ‐ Marin County Flood Control Zone No. 3

Engineering Office of Clyde C. Kennedy 1957

Page 1 of 10 Rev.20110922

CAO Contract Log #_______________MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

2012 - Edition 1

THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into this ________ day of___________________ 20___, by and between the MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "District" and , hereinafter referred to as "Contractor.”

RECITALS: WHEREAS, District desires to retain a person or firm to provide the following service: ; and WHEREAS, Contractor warrants that it is qualified and competent to render the aforesaid services;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the Contract made, and the payments to be made by District, the parties agree to the following:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: Contractor agrees to provide all of the services described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. FURNISHED SERVICES: The District agrees to:

A. Guarantee access to and make provisions for the Contractor to enter upon public and private lands as required to perform their work.

B. Make available all pertinent data and records for review. C. Provide general bid and Contract forms and special provisions format when needed.

3. FEES AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE: The fees and payment schedule for furnishing services under this Contract shall be based on the rate schedule which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and by this reference incorporated herein. Said fees shall remain in effect for the entire term of the Contract. Contractor shall provide District with his/her/its Federal Tax I.D. number prior to submitting the first invoice. 4. MAXIMUM COST TO DISTRICT:

In no event will the cost to District for the services to be provided herein exceed the maximum sum of $ including direct non-salary expenses. As set forth in section 14 of this Contract, should the funding source for this Contract be reduced, Contractor agrees that this maximum cost to District may be amended by written notice from District to reflect that reduction. 5. TIME OF CONTRACT:

This Contract shall commence on , and shall terminate on . Certificate(s) of Insurance must be current on day Contract commences and if scheduled to lapse prior to termination date, must be automatically updated before final payment may be made to Contractor. The final invoice must be submitted within 30 days of completion of the stated scope of services. 6. INSURANCE: Commercial General Liability: The Contractor shall maintain a commercial general liability insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000 ($2,000,000 aggregate). The District and the County of Marin shall be named as an additional insured on the commercial general liability policy. Commercial Automobile Liability: Where the services to be provided under this Contract involve or require the use of any type of vehicle by Contractor, Contractor shall provide comprehensive business or commercial automobile liability coverage, including non-owned and hired automobile liability, in the amount of $1,000,000.00.

Page 2 of 10 Rev.20110922

Workers’ Compensation: The Contractor acknowledges the State of California requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code. If Contractor has employees, a copy of the certificate evidencing such insurance, a letter of self-insurance, or a copy of the Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure shall be provided to District prior to commencement of work. Errors and Omissions, Professional Liability or Malpractice Insurance. Contractor may be required to carry errors and omissions, professional liability or malpractice insurance. All policies shall remain in force through the life of this Contract and shall be payable on a "per occurrence" basis unless District specifically consents to a "claims made" basis. The insurer shall supply District adequate proof of insurance and/or a certificate of insurance evidencing coverages and limits prior to commencement of work. Should any of the required insurance policies in this Contract be cancelled or non-renewed, it is the Contractor’s duty to notify the District immediately upon receipt of the notice of cancellation or non-renewal. If Contractor does not carry a required insurance coverage and/or does not meet the required limits, the coverage limits and deductibles shall be set forth on a waiver, Exhibit C, attached hereto. Failure to provide and maintain the insurance required by this Contract will constitute a material breach of this Contract. In addition to any other available remedies, District may suspend payment to the Contractor for any services provided during any time that insurance was not in effect and until such time as the Contractor provides adequate evidence that Contractor has obtained the required coverage. 7. ANTI DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI HARASSMENT:

Contractor and/or any subcontractor shall not unlawfully discriminate against or harass any individual including, but not limited to, any employee or volunteer of the District and the County of Marin based on race, color, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, age or condition of disability. Contractor and/or any subcontractor understands and agrees that Contractor and/or any subcontractor is bound by and will comply with the anti discrimination and anti harassment mandates of all Federal, State and local statutes, regulations and ordinances including, but not limited to, County of Marin Personnel Management Regulation (PMR) 21.

8. SUBCONTRACTING:

The Contractor shall not subcontract nor assign any portion of the work required by this Contract without prior written approval of the District except for any subcontract work identified herein. If Contractor hires a subcontractor under this Contract, Contractor shall require subcontractor to provide and maintain insurance coverage(s) identical to what is required of Contractor under this Contract and shall require subcontractor to name Contractor, District, and County of Marin as an additional insured under this Contract for general liability. It shall be Contractor’s responsibility to collect and maintain current evidence of insurance provided by its subcontractors and shall forward to the District evidence of same. 9. ASSIGNMENT:

The rights, responsibilities and duties under this Contract are personal to the Contractor and may not be transferred or assigned without the express prior written consent of the District.

10. LICENSING AND PERMITS:

The Contractor shall maintain the appropriate licenses throughout the life of this Contract. Contractor shall also obtain any and all permits which might be required by the work to be performed herein. 11. BOOKS OF RECORD AND AUDIT PROVISION:

Contractor shall maintain on a current basis complete books and records relating to this Contract. Such records shall include, but not be limited to, documents supporting all bids, all income and all expenditures. The books and records shall be original entry books with a general ledger itemizing all debits and credits for the work on this Contract. In addition, Contractor shall maintain detailed payroll records including all subsistence, travel and field expenses, and canceled checks, receipts and invoices for all items. These documents and records shall be retained for at least five years from the completion of this Contract. Contractor will permit District to audit all books, accounts or records relating to this Contract or all books, accounts

Page 3 of 10 Rev.20110922

or records of any business entities controlled by Contractor who participated in this Contract in any way. Any audit may be conducted on Contractor's premises or, at District's option, Contractor shall provide all books and records within a maximum of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of written notice from District. Contractor shall refund any monies erroneously charged.

12. WORK PRODUCT/PRE-EXISTING WORK PRODUCT OF CONTRACTOR:

Any and all work product resulting from this Contract is commissioned by the District as a work for hire. The District shall be considered, for all purposes, the author of the work product and shall have all rights of authorship to the work, including, but not limited to, the exclusive right to use, publish, reproduce, copy and make derivative use of, the work product or otherwise grant others limited rights to use the work product. To the extent Contractor incorporates into the work product any pre-existing work product owned by Contractor, Contractor hereby acknowledges and agrees that ownership of such work product shall be transferred to the District.

13. TERMINATION:

A. If the Contractor fails to provide in any manner the services required under this Contract or otherwise fails to

comply with the terms of this Contract or violates any ordinance, regulation or other law which applies to its performance herein, the District may terminate this Contract by giving five (5) calendar days written notice to the party involved.

B. The Contractor shall be excused for failure to perform services herein if such services are prevented by acts of God, strikes, labor disputes or other forces over which the Contractor has no control.

C. Either party hereto may terminate this Contract for any reason by giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice to

the other parties. Notice of termination shall be by written notice to the other parties and be sent by registered mail.

D. In the event of termination not the fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be paid for services performed to

the date of termination in accordance with the terms of this Contract so long as proof of required insurance is provided for the periods covered in the Contract or Amendment(s).

14. APPROPRIATIONS:

The District's performance and obligation to pay under this Contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the State of California or other third party. Should the funds not be appropriated District may terminate this Contract with respect to those payments for which such funds are not appropriated. District will give Contractor thirty (30) days’ written notice of such termination. All obligations of District to make payments after the termination date will cease. Where the funding source for this Contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation or grant from the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the State of California or other third party, District's performance and obligation to pay under this Contract is limited by the availability of those funds. Should the funding source for this Contract be eliminated or reduced, upon written notice to Contractor, District may reduce the Maximum Cost to District identified in section 4 to reflect that elimination or reduction. 15. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

It is expressly understood that in the performance of the services herein, the Contractor, and the agents and employees thereof, shall act in an independent capacity and as an independent Contractor and not as officers, employees or agents of the District. Contractor shall be solely responsible to pay all required taxes, including but not limited to, all withholding social security, and workers’ compensation.

16. AMENDMENT:

This Contract may be amended or modified only by written Contract of all parties. 17. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL:

Page 4 of 10 Rev.20110922

The Contractor shall not substitute any personnel for those specifically named in its proposal unless personnel with substantially equal or better qualifications and experience are provided, acceptable to District, as is evidenced in writing.

18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the parties hereto agree that venue shall be in the County of Marin, California.

19. INDEMNIFICATION:

Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold District, its employees, officers, and agents, harmless from any and all liabilities including, but not limited to, litigation costs and attorney’s fees arising from any and all claims and losses to anyone who may be injured or damaged by reason of Contractor’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of this Contract. 20. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS:

The Contractor shall comply with any and all Federal, State and local laws and resolutions: including, but not limited to the County of Marin Nuclear Free Zone, Living Wage Ordinance, and Board of Supervisors Resolution #2005-97 prohibiting the off-shoring of professional services involving employee/retiree medical and financial data affecting services covered by this Contract. Copies of any of the above-referenced local laws and resolutions may be secured from the Contract Manager referenced in section 21. In addition, the following NOTICES may apply:

1. Pursuant to California Franchise Tax Board regulations, District will automatically withhold 7% from all payments made to vendors who are non-residents of California.

2. Contractor agrees to meet all applicable program access and physical accessibility requirements under State and Federal laws as may apply to services, programs or activities for the benefit of the public.

3. For Contracts involving any State or Federal grant funds, Exhibit D must be attached. Exhibit D shall consist

of the printout results obtained by search of the System for Award Management at www.sam.gov. Exhibit D - Debarment Certification

By signing and submitting this Contract, the Contractor is agreeing to abide by the debarment requirements as set out below.

The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact relied upon by District.

The Contractor shall provide immediate written notice to District if at any time the Contractor learns that its

certification was erroneous or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

Contractor certifies that none of its principals, affiliates, agents, representatives or contractors are excluded, disqualified or ineligible for the award of contracts by any Federal agency and Contractor further certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:

Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily

excluded by any Federal Department or Agency; Have not been convicted within the preceding three-years of any of the offenses listed in 2 CFR

180.800(a) or had a civil judgment rendered against it for one of those offenses within that time period;

Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in 2 CFR 180.800(a);

Have not had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or Local) terminated within the preceding

three-years for cause or default.

The Contractor agrees by signing this Contract that it will not knowingly enter into any subcontract or covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction.

Page 5 of 10 Rev.20110922

Any subcontractor will provide a debarment certification that includes the debarment clause as noted in preceding bullets above, without modification.

21. NOTICES:

This Contract shall be managed and administered on District’s behalf by the Department Contract Manager named below. All invoices shall be submitted and approved by this Department and all notices shall be given to District at the following location:

Contract Manager:

Dept./Location:

Department of Public Works P. O. Box 4186 San Rafael, CA 94913-4186

Telephone No.:

Notices shall be given to Contractor at the following address:

Contractor: Address:

Telephone No.:

22. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXHIBITS

Check applicable Exhibits CONTRACTOR’S INITIALS

EXHIBIT A.

Scope of Services

EXHIBIT B.

Fees and Payment

EXHIBIT C.

Insurance Reduction/Waiver

EXHIBIT D.

Contractor’s Debarment Certification

EXHIBIT E.

Subcontractor’s Debarment Certification

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract on the date first above written. CONTRACTOR: APPROVED BY MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: By: __________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Title: ________________________________ By:__________________________________

DISTRICT COUNSEL REVIEW AND APPROVAL (required if template content has been modified) District Counsel: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________

Page 6 of 10

EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES (required)

Page 7 of 10

EXHIBIT “B” FEES AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE (required)

Page 8 of 10

EXHIBIT “C”

INSURANCE REDUCTION/WAIVER (if applicable) CONTRACTOR: CONTRACT TITLE: This statement shall accompany all requests for a reduction/waiver of insurance requirements. Please check the box if a waiver is requested or fill in the reduced coverage(s) where indicated below:

Check Where Applicable

Requested Limit Amount

CAO Use Only

General Liability Insurance

$

Automobile Liability Insurance

$

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Professional Liability Deductible

$

Please set forth the reasons for the requested reductions or waiver.

Contract Manager Signature:

Date:

Extension:

Approved by Risk Manager:

Date:

Page 9 of 10

EXHIBIT D

DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTORS (AttachSAM Printout)

Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT E

DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION FOR SUBCONTRACTORS (Attach SAM Printout)

EXHIBIT D – GEOGRAPHIC DATA CONTRACT DELIVERABLES GUIDELINES

Starts on following page.

Q:\DOCUMENTS\GIS_Guidelines_deliverables\GUIDELINES FOR SUPPLYING GIS DELIVERABLES.doc

2

GEOGRAPHIC DATA CONTRACT DELIVERABLES GUIDELINES COUNTY OF MARIN DPW - FLOOD CONTROL

Geographic data should be delivered via CD-ROM, DVD, or electronic data transfer (e.g., email, fileshare, FTP, etc) and should contain the following:

Geospatial data (shapefiles, geodatabases, CAD, rasters, etc.) Associated data tables or relational databases Summary descriptive document and basic metadata

A text document (Word and/or ASCII text file) describing the dataset should accompany any submission and provide all necessary information for understanding the submittal. At a minimum, the document should include:

List of each file contained in the submittal Description of the dataset, including all spatial data, related tables and any

project codes Version and date of the data Information on sensitive data issues (if any) Contact information for those responsible for creating the data and who have the

responsibility for maintaining the master version of the data A short description of data themes (limited to one to two sentences for each

theme) Linking fields (to documents, a Microsoft Access database, and/or digital

photographs) Geospatial Data There are several ways to represent spatial data in a GIS including points, lines, polygons (vector data), or rasters/images. Appropriate representations will vary depending on the scale and goals of the contract. Prior to data collection, these issues should be addressed and resolved in the project scope in consultation with the project or data manager. File Naming Conventions and Directory Structure Clear and meaningful file and field names should be used that convey the nature of the data and subject represented. Names should not contain spaces or special characters, but may contain underscores. Coordinate System All spatial data should be geo-referenced with projection information defined in the data file that is submitted. All spatial data should use the following coordinate system: Projection: California State Plane, Zone III Datum: North American Datum 1983 HARN Units: Foot

Q:\DOCUMENTS\GIS_Guidelines_deliverables\GUIDELINES FOR SUPPLYING GIS DELIVERABLES.doc

3

Any data submitted that does not use the coordinate system above must include a projection file. Spatial Data Formats Data formats should be clearly stipulated and agreed upon with contractors or cooperators before data collection and processing start. Vector Data Vector data should generally be supplied as ArcView shapefiles, ESRI Geodatabases, or ArcInfo interchange files (*.E00). Raster Data All cell-based datasets or grids should be supplied as an ArcInfo GRID and/or ArcInfo interchange files, compatible with the current version of ArcGIS. Geo-referenced digital aerial photography and imagery should be supplied as 8-bit grayscale GeoTiff, 24-bit RGB GeoTiff, or tagged image file format (.TIFF) files with any associated geo-reference information included. Source CAD drawings must have defined datum and projection information so that exported data can be read in ArcGIS. Non-geographic elements such as drawing borders, title blocks, north arrows, and detail drawings should not be included in export files. If there are questions about choosing data formats contact the project manager or the GIS Specialist for guidance before data collection begins. Data Collection Methods When using GPS for data collection, the GPS unit type, model, averaging method used for static mapping (point), error correction technique (type of differential correction used), and GPS quality filters employed should be recorded in the metadata and discussed in the Descriptive Document. When digitizing features from maps or photographs, the source, scale, date, and methods (i.e., process steps) should be recorded in the metadata and discussed in the Descriptive Document. Attribute Data Simple attribute data should be included as part of the ArcGIS feature attribute table. Complex attributes should be delivered in a well-structured relational database format as a Microsoft Access .MDB file using current versions of Microsoft Access. Map features and database records should share a common unique identifier or primary key that relates the map feature to the table record. Quality Control The Contractor should document the QA/QC procedures used to assess the data as well as report on the resulting accuracy and precision.

EXHIBIT C – SAMPLE CONTRACT AGREEMENT

Starts on following page.