All qualification submittals must be received by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 7, 2019.
Questions and Answers
Please note that a deadline to submit questions to this RFQ is set for 12:00 p.m., Thursday, May 30, 2019.
Question: Would you be able to provide the “Attachment A” and General Services Agreement (GSA) that are referenced in Exhibit E (p. 20 of the pdf)?
Answer: We will amend the RFQ to ensure the Attachment A which is our General Services Agreement and Task Order form is attached. (Attachment A is located to the right under Downloads)
Question: “Exhibit C” is missing; I assume this is intentional (i.e., that there is no Exhibit C). Is that correct?
Answer: Yes, Exhibit C was removed intentionally.
Question: The form included as Exhibit D requests the proposer’s California State Contractor’s License number. Most consultants are not contractors and will not have a Contractor’s License Number. (It appears that this form may be intended for companies that provide a different type of services.) May we assume that a contractor’s license is not required for this scope of work?
Answer: Yes, you can assume that a contractor’s license is not required for this scope of work.
Question: Section II, A.4.a.iii – Be willing to provide a client list to demonstrate that no other clients could negatively impact SAWPA or its task force agencies. Section II, G. Upon selection of a firm or firms, they will be requested to avoid conflicts of interest in the watershed whenever possible. The firm or firms will be requested that for any regulatory/water quality compliance work they would propose do in the Santa Ana Watershed to be first reviewed by the pertinent Task Force and receive approval of the Task Force prior to accepting such work that relates to or is in the purview of the pertinent Task Force.
We hope you can expand on the situations SAWPA and/or LESJWA imagines could trigger concerns of negative impact or conflict of interest. Are there examples of work that either of the Authorities believes would either cause negative impact or be a conflict of interest for the on-call Strategist/Facilitator?
Answer: An example of such a situation could occur if your firm represented a MS4 co-permittee in permit compliance for a TMDL while at the same providing regulatory strategy support for a TMDL task force. This may present a conflict of interest for the regulatory strategist. Consequently, the firm providing such services should approach the task force to obtain their OK before proceeding with both contracts. This action of getting the OK from the task force will be a majority vote of the task force administered by SAWPA or LESJWA. This can occur as soon as the firm in question feels it might have a conflict and is being considered for a task order with SAWPA and LESJWA or thereafter when considering work after a task order as the regulatory strategist is executed.
Question: Secondly, can you please expand on the process of seeking pre-approval from the Task Force for potential work in the region? How will that pre-approval be sought, what will the approval process consist of? Will it be by vote of the Task Force, or SAWPA Commission (the contracting authority)? Will the need to seek this approval only apply to Strategist/Facilitators who are currently under a task order, or all firms on the on-call list?
Answer: Seeking this approval from the Task Force need only occur after a specific Task Force has decided to hire a firm that has submitted the qualifications and has been interviewed by representatives of a task force. Not all firms responding to this RFQ needs to disclose a conflict since the type of work conducted by one task force may not be the same as for another task force. With the variety of different task force agencies in each task force, a conflict for the firm for one task force may not be there for another. The list of agencies in each task force is listed on our SAWPA website.