RP016-16 Addendum #1 Page 1

May 13, 2016

RP016-16 ADDENDUM #2

Q1. Is existing background data (contours, utilities, other applicable GIS data) surrounding specific project

locations listed in Tab F of the RFP available or can it be made available? Should we request specifics? A1. Please refer to the “Documents and Regulations” page on the Water Resources department tab

of the Gwinnett County website for background information on GCDWR. Contours are readily available through USGS maps. Due to the very large size of the GIS data files, GCDWR’s GIS information can be made available as necessary after consultant selection for this RFP.

Q2. In Category G – Asset Management, Planning and Modeling Services: The description of services has

significant detail on asset management, but very little on modeling and planning. Furthermore, all projects listed under Potential Project Understanding and Technical Approach for Category G are Asset Management Projects. Is that a reflection of proportion of work expected for this category (G), i.e. Is it expected that the majority of the work will be in Asset Management and very little modeling or planning?

A2. Category G projects could encompass the full suite of services listed on page 11, including

modeling and planning. The projects listed in Tab F have been identified by GCDWR as potential projects most likely to be conducted in the next few years. The Modeling Services for water distribution and sewer collection is anticipated to be a small portion of future CIP.

Q3. On pg 25, Basis of Short-Listing/Selection, half of the points (10) allotted for scoring the Proposed Fee

Schedule is allotted to comparing the proposers’ “calculated profit margin”. With other direct costs (ODCs), clerical/administrative effort, principals’ rates, etc. being excluded from direct billing and having to be included in the multiplier, how will that profit margin be derived in the review process if only the multiplier and the audited overhead rate are being submitted? It seems more information needs to be furnished by the proposers on their fee composition.

A3. Each lead consultant and major/minor sub-consultant should propose a multiplier that accounts

for their respective firms’ overhead rate and is adjusted (as determined by each individual firm) to address any ODC and labor exclusions. For the profit margin calculation, the proposed multiplier will be compared with the audited overhead rate.

Q4. On pg 14, Tab E, are there any specific qualifications or role description the County is seeking in persons

filling the roles of the Client Service Manager, Services Coordinator/Contract Manager, Project Managers, etc. listed in that paragraph?

A4. GCDWR does not have specific requirements for the key members of the project team. The proposed

staff will be evaluated based on their qualifications, experience, location, and availability.

RP016-16 Addendum #2 Page 2 Q5. On pg 18, under Service Category B, potential project example 2., is the Pump Station Condition

Assessment completed by ESI in 2011-12 available for review? A5. Yes, it is saved under the GCDWR FTP site. Follow the 5 steps below to retrieve/place

information. 1. Type the following address in the internet browser: ftp://74.174.32.37/DWR 2. Enter username: Gwinnett 3. Enter password: pub7368 4. Look in folders: Engineering and Technical Services, 2017 annual contract

Q6. On pg 7, B. Service Category B, the two paragraphs related to internal and external communications – is

it the County’s desire to have consultant’s effort in this regard similar to Category A communications services (which matches description on pg 5) or to the level of the communications efforts on the other categories, C and following?

A6. Consultant assistance with internal and external communications may be needed on projects for all

service categories. This will be determined on a project-specific basis. Q7. Pages 15 and 16. Tab F—Potential Project Understanding and Technical Approach. Category A Potential

Project No 3: Regarding the “assessment of beneficial end-use options for the biosolids generated at FWHWRC and the water treatment residuals processed at LFP”, can the referenced study results and final assessment report be provided or made available to interested respondents?

A7. This report is saved under the GCDWR FTP site. Follow the 5 steps below to retrieve/place

information. 1. Type the following address in the internet browser: ftp://74.174.32.37/DWR 2. Enter username: Gwinnett 3. Enter password: pub7368 4. Look in folders: Engineering and Technical Services, 2017 annual contract

Q8. Pages 16 and 17. Tab F—Potential Project Understanding and Technical Approach. Category A Potential

Projects: We understand that GCDWR has conducted testing at the F. Wayne Hill WRC on alternate coagulants in the tertiary treatment process. Can DWR make the results and/or associated report available?

A8. At this time, a report has not been finalized with these results. However, GCDWR will save

related information to the FTP site as soon as it is available (target by May-13-2016). Please follow the 5 steps below to retrieve/place information.

1. Type the following address in the internet browser: ftp://74.174.32.37/DWR 2. Enter username: Gwinnett 3. Enter password: pub7368 4. Look in folders: Engineering and Technical Services, 2017 annual contract

Q9. Page 19. Tab F—Potential Project Understanding and Technical Approach. Category C Potential Projects.

Item 1: Regarding the retrofit of the County facility at One Justice Square, we are assuming that the 1" runoff reduction is focused on the stormwater runoff from three areas: the Gwinnett Justice and

RP016-16 Addendum #2 Page 3

Administrative Center, the associated parking lot to the north, and the parking deck to the south. Please confirm that outlying parking lots or buildings are not to be included.

A9. The 1” runoff reduction would treat stormwater from the impervious surfaces on parcel IDs

5143 307 and 5143 168A only. The Gwinnett Justice and Administrative Center and associated structures on parcel 5143 256 would not be part of the project.

Q10. Page 14. Tab E—Key Staff Qualifications, Experiences, Location and Availability: The key project team

member table requirements includes the “levels of responsibility and availability”. To assure the most responsive proposal, please provide further specification as to the type of information that GCDWR wants to be presented in the table.

A10. GCDWR will evaluate proposed key staff based on a number of factors, including

role/position/responsibility (e.g., Client Service Manager, Project Manager, Design Engineer by Discipline, Subject Matter Experts, etc.) and percent availability to support GCDWR projects during the 5-year contract term, as well as the associated years of experience and qualifications (degrees, registrations, etc.). Additionally, two representative projects for each team member should be identified with the staff member’s associated role and participation level on each project. Please provide sufficient detail in tabular format on the key staff to address these criteria.

Q11. Page 12. Preparation of Proposals: Within the specified letter-size proposal, can a larger page size be

used, such as 11x17 c-folded, to accommodate required tables, figures, charts and exhibits? A11. Yes, it is acceptable to use 11”x17” paper in the proposal. Q12. Would you be open to an 11 x 17 page for the Overall Demand Services Org Chart and for the Tab E

Table of Key Project Team Members? A12. Yes, see response to Question 11. Q13. For Tab E, Table of Key Project Team Members, would you please define Levels of Responsibility? I think

you are asking for Vice President, Project Engineer, Design Manager, etc. A13. See response to Question 10.

Q14. For Tab E, Table of Key Project Team Members, would you please define Roles and Responsibilities? I think you are asking for the roles and responsibilities as related to the two representative projects for each key project team member.

A14. See response to Question 10. Q15. Please clarify that the Bid Bond, Payment Bond and Performance Bond requirement shown on pages 57-

58 of the RFP do not apply to the professional services requested.

RP016-16 Addendum #2 Page 4 A15. These Bid Bond, Payment Bond and Performance Bond are not applicable to this the

professional services RFP. Q16. With respect to all Categories A-I. Is a proposing organization Expected to put in a proposal for every

category even if they don’t have expertise in that category? If proposing Only in specific categories will that disqualify an organization?

A16. Firms should only propose on the service category(ies) where they have experience and

qualifications. Some firms may only want to qualify for one service category. GCDWR will select the firms that can provide the best service and value, and the number of service categories that firm proposes on has no bearing on the selection for the individual categories.

Q17. Are we permitted to include an 11x17 page for our org chart?

A17. See response to Question 11.

Q18. On Page 14, Under section titled “Tab E – Key Staff Qualifications, Experiences, Location and Availability” please clarify what the County means by the term “levels of responsibility” for each key team member.

A18. See response to Question 10. Acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the Firm Information Page. Failure to do so may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive. Thank you, Shelley McWhorter Shelley McWhorter, CPPB Purchasing Associate III Attachments: Pre-Proposal Sign-in Sheets Vendor Notification List

AECOM Technical Services Hazen & SawyerAMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. HDRARCADIS US Jacobs EngineeringAtkins Global Keck & WoodBarge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon ManhardBenchmark Management MetcalfBlack & Veatch Moreland Altobelli AssociatesBrown & Caldwell MPR Engineering Corp, Inc.Burns & Mcdonnell MWHCardozo MWH GlobalCDM Smith Inc. Neel-Schaffer Inc.CH2M Hill Engineers Nova Engineering and EnvironmentalCivil Engineering Consultants, Inc. Precision PlanningClark Patterson Lee Pure Technologies US, IncColumbia Eng. & Associates R.P WestinConstantine Eng River 2 Tap, IncCroy Engineering, LLC RK Shah & Associates, Inc.Development Planning & Engineering, Inc. S L King Technologies Inc.Dewberry & Davis Schnabel DAM Engineering, Inc.DL Byrd Industries Schnabel Engineering South, LLCEMA Stantec Consulting Services Inc.Engineering Strategies Tetra TechGBT Engineers United ConsultingGolder Associates URSGresham Smith & Partners Willmer EngineeringHalcrow WK Dickson Hatch Mott MacDonald LLC Wolverton & Associates

Woodard & Curran Inc.

red indicates that the email came back as undeliverable.