Sixmile Cr Wildlife Xing Study (OT)

Agency:	State Government of Montana
State:	Montana
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	541620 - Environmental Consulting Services
Posted Date:	Aug 21, 2024
Due Date:	Sep 11, 2024
Solicitation No:	Sixmile
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

Christopher Dorrington, Director

2701 Prospect ▪ PO Box 201001

Helena MT 59620-1001

Date:

August 15, 2024

Subject:

Request for Proposals

I-90 Wildlife Crossing Study

STW-0(014)

UPN 10564000

To Whom It May Concern:

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is accepting proposals from consulting firms

interested in the preparation of a strategic plan. One firm will be selected to perform the work

specified herein.

Teams may be established as necessary; however, it is expected that the prime consultant will be

capable of completing the vast majority of the work, and the proposal must clearly identify the

prime for this contract. As a rule, the prime consultant must complete at least 50% of the work

for a specific project or assignment unless written exception is given.

If your firm is interested, please submit a proposal as described herein.

Consultant Design Bureau

Phone: (406) 444–6209

Fax: (406) 444–6253

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Engineering Division

TTY: (800) 335–7592

Web Page: www.mdt.mt.gov

SCOPE OF WORK

The primary goal of the I-90 Wildlife Crossing Study is to evaluate wildlife crossing

accommodation(s) strategies that will maximize the reduction of wildlife-vehicle collisions,

while providing safe passage for wildlife movement within a 68-mile segment of I-90 between

Missoula and Garrison.

This planning study will be a two-to-three-year study focusing on identifying important

terrestrial wildlife movement corridors and use this information to determine the need, type, and

feasibility of constructing one or more wildlife crossings that will effectively accommodate both

wildlife and motorists.

Draft Scope of Services

LOCATION

The study is on Interstate 90 between Missoula, at reference post 106.0, and Garrison, at RP

174.0.

PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES

The project schedule will be developed and negotiated prior to executing the contract agreement.

Project deliverables will be established through a scoping meeting and executed per the project

agreement.

STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND POLICIES

Work is expected to follow MDT’s various Manuals, Guides, and Policies. These items may be

found on MDT’s Design Consulting web page at: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/consulting/.

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

Submit one (1) electronic version (Adobe© PDF format) of the proposal. Hard copy

proposals will not be accepted.

Submit the electronic version by uploading to the State of Montana File Transfer Service (FTS)

site, which can be accessed at this link: https://transfer.mt.gov. To upload to FTS, an account

must be created unless the person who is uploading already has an account. Uploading

instructions can be accessed at https://transfer.mt.gov/Home/Instructions. When your proposal

has been uploaded, the FTS system will prompt you for an email address to send to. Please send

this email of your uploaded proposal to the following individuals:

Sheryl Tangen: stangen@mt.gov

Kelly Williams: kwilliams@mt.gov

Ben Rickman: brickman@mt.gov

The Department must receive the proposals for this RFP no later than 3:00 PM MST,

September 10, 2024.

Page 2 of 7

Regardless of cause, late proposals will not be accepted and will automatically be disqualified

from further consideration. It shall be solely the vendor's responsibility to assure delivery at the

specified office by the specified time. Offeror may request the State return late proposals at

vendor’s expense or the State will dispose of late proposals if requested by the offeror. (See

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 2.5.509.). If no request is made, late proposals become

the property of the Department. All proposals submitted on time become the property of the

Department.

The costs for developing and delivering responses to this solicitation are entirely the

responsibility of the offeror. The State is not liable for any expense incurred by the offeror in the

preparation and presentation of this submittal.

TENTATIVE RFP/SELECTION SCHEDULE

The anticipated schedule for consultant solicitation and selection for this contract is as follows

(subject to change):

August 15, 2024: RFP released

September 10, 2024: Proposals due to be submitted to MDT Consultant Design

September 27, 2024: Proposals reviewed, rated, and ranked by the evaluation committee

October 2, 2024: Consultant Selection Board meeting to select consultant

October 23, 2024: Scoping meeting with selected consultant

There are three (3) members on the evaluation committee for this RFP (subject to change):

1. MDT Resources Section Supervisor

2. MDT District Biologist

3. FHWA Environmental Protection Specialist

PROPOSAL CONTENTS

The proposal must contain the information listed in this section. The proposal is limited to seven

(7) pages, not including the required Appendices. A single cover jacket/title page is allowed if

desired and will not count in the page limit. Each page is defined as one side of a letter size sheet

(no larger than 8 ½” x 11”), minimum font size of 10. Evaluation of information will begin with

the first page immediately following the cover jacket/title page, and every page will be counted,

in order, from that point forward, including any table of contents or divider pages the firm wishes

to include. Once the page limit is reached, any information included thereafter will be removed

and not considered or scored. Please organize your proposal in the same order and numbering

format as shown below, which will assist MDT in reviewing your proposal:

Questions

1) Team Qualifications

Provide a discussion on how the team you propose to use for this study (including

subconsultants, if used) is best qualified to respond to the requirements of this study.

Discussion should focus on the requirements for this specific study, particularly your

team’s expertise and experience, as it relates to the work described in the “Scope of

Work” section above. Provide examples of previous related project experience as it

relates to these services. Include an organizational chart of your team for this project.

Resumes may be considered as supplemental information for scoring this question.

Page 3 of 7

2) Project Approach

Describe your team’s project approach and understanding of the study including

challenges you foresee as they relate to this study and its requirements.

Appendix A: Resumes

Include brief resumes for the key personnel to be assigned to the contract. Resumes are

limited to one (1) page per person.

Appendix B: Cover Page Form

Include a completed version of MDT’s standard cover page form, available at the following

location:

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/MDT-CDB-002-Proposal-SOQ-Cover-Sheet.pdf

Information presented in the cover page form will not be considered in proposal scoring.

Appendix C: References

Submit references that includes a minimum of five (5) separate contracts from the past

three (3) years. If applicable, you may submit multiple contracts for a single client. Each

contract must pertain to work similar to the proposed scope of services. Include client

name, a currently employed primary contact person, an alternative contact person,

corresponding valid phone numbers and emails for both contacts, a range of contract value,

and a brief description of the work performed. If MDT needs to use these references for the

Past Performance Score (as described in the “Evaluation of Proposals” section below) and

is unable to contact the required number of references after a reasonable effort, the firm

will receive a zero for the missing reference(s).

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following factors:

1) Team Qualifications (50 points possible)

2) Project Approach (100 points possible)

3) Record of past performance (30 points possible)

a) If two (2) or more MDT evaluations specific to the discipline for this contract are

available for the consultant, the average score of these evaluations will be used.

Evaluations for Project Management & Overall Performance will also be included.

b) If fewer than two (2) MDT evaluations specific to the discipline for this contract are

available for the consultant, but there are two (2) or more MDT evaluations are

available for other work disciplines, the consultant’s current overall past performance

score from MDT evaluations will be used.

c) If there is only one (1) MDT evaluation available for the consultant, the record of past

performance score will be an average of the MDT evaluation and one (1) reference

check from the references provided in the unbound attachment.

d) If no MDT evaluations are available, the average score of two (2) reference checks

from the references provided in the unbound attachment will be used for this score.

Regardless of partnership/teaming relationships, the past performance of the prime

consultant will be the past performance scored that will be used for this score.

Page 4 of 7

All Proposals will be evaluated using the following basic scoring methodology:

o Outstanding/Exceptional response: 90-100% of the available points

o Good response: 70-90% of the available points

o Average response: 50-70% of the available points

o Poor response: 30-50% of the available points

o Qualifications not clearly met: 0-30% of the available points

Following the review, evaluation, and rating of all proposals, the final results will be presented to

the Consultant Selection Board (Board) at the MDT Headquarters Building. At this time, the

Board will select the most qualified firm(s) to perform the work. The Board may consider any

proposal scoring within 2% of the highest-scoring proposal as equally qualified and take into

account its knowledge of the firms’ workload, past performance, and familiarity with the project

area and local entities in selecting the most-qualified consultant. In the event that a firm cannot

be identified as the most qualified through an evaluation of these proposals, MDT reserves the

right to narrow down the list of responding firms to an appropriate short list. Short-listed firms

will either be asked to provide a supplemental proposal or asked to be interviewed or provide a

presentation. Scores from the proposals, supplement project proposals (if used), and interviews

(if used) will be carried forward to determine final consultant score. Consultant selection is

finalized by MDT at the Consultant Selection Board meeting.

INDIRECT COST RATE REQUIREMENTS

Proof of the firm’s Indirect Cost Rate (overhead rate) is not required with this proposal

submittal. However, an Indirect Cost Rate may be required prior to executing a contract

according to MDT’s Indirect Cost Rate Requirements:

All submitted indirect cost rates must be calculated in accordance with 23 CFR 172 for the cost

principles of 48 CFR part 31 and include the required items identified in the MDT Indirect Cost

Rate Policy located in Appendix A of the Consultant Services Manual on the MDT Internet

website.

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/consultant_manual/consultant-design-

manual_combined.pdf

Do not show any actual numerical financial information such as the overhead rate or

personnel rates within your proposal. Specific cost information of the firm or team should not

be part of the proposal.

AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Contract agreements will generally be administered on a cost-plus fixed fee basis. The contracts

will have negotiated cost ceilings. If a consulting firm is selected for a specific project and a

contract agreement is successfully negotiated, certain financial information will be required as

part of the contract agreement. As described in the Indirect Cost Rate Requirements section

above, all Consultants and subconsultants must provide the Department with an Indirect Cost

Rate (as applicable) audited (when applicable) in accordance with 23 CFR 172 for the cost

principles of 48 CFR Part 31 and based on the firm’s latest completed fiscal year’s costs.

Personnel rates, profit, and direct expenses must be clearly outlined and provided to the

Department. The standard MDT agreement can be found at the following address:

Page 5 of 7

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Title	Closes
Sixmile Cr Wildlife Xing Study (OT)	09/11/2024

Sixmile Cr Wildlife Xing Study (OT)

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also