Watonwan Watershed Planning Partnership

Request for Qualifications

The Watonwan Watershed Planning Partnership (WWPP) is requesting Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from consultants with interest and experience developing watershed plans. The WWPP will be developing a Comprehensive Watonwan Watershed Management Plan, also known as One Watershed One Plan, and intends to select a consultant through the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process who best assesses the WWPP needs.  

The deadline to submit Statements of Qualifications is 3:00 pm Central Time, September 18, 2018.

Refer to the Request for Qualifications for more information.

Questions and Responses for Clarification 

Question:  The issue is the on the Professional Liability Coverage, specifically on the annual aggregate.  Our current policy has a $2 Million per wrongful act or occurrence and a $2 million annual aggregate which has been adequate for all other work we’ve done. We checked with our provider and learned that the cost associated with going from $2 million to $4 million would be close to $30,000 per year which is cost-prohibitive for us!   Could you check to see if the $2 million annual aggregate would be acceptable? 

Response:  The insurance information in Appendix C of the RFQ are Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust recommendations. The actual insurance coverage needed will be discussed with the selected consultant during negotiations

In your SOQ simply describe your current insurance policy coverage.

The Selection Committee will be scoring this item as a pass/fail based on whether insurance was addressed in the SOQ and NOT on whether the MCIT recommended minimums are met by your policy.

Question: I am wondering about the final deliverables for the Watonwan Watershed Planning Partnership, One Watershed, One Plan. Can you clarify the major deadline: “Final Draft approved - December 2019”? Specifically, does this refer to a final draft approved by the WWPP or by BWSR?

Response: The final draft must be approved by the WWPP and submitted to the BWSR and State review agencies for final review by December 31, 2019.

Question: The restriction of 11 pt font, does this also apply to header/footer content (i.e.  page numbering or running page headers)?

Response:  A smaller, readable font size can be used for page numbers and headers.

Question:  Who is on the selection committee?

Response: The Selection Committee will consist of members of the Steering Team and members of the Policy Committee.  The Selection Committee will likely have about six people, including County and SWCD elected officials and staff. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources staff may also be part of the Selection Committee.

Question: In the SOQ, what would you like to see in Appendix B: Organizational Conflicts of Interest? Should this be a statement?

Response: Appendix B in the SOQ should be a statement of any existing or planned activities that could be considered a conflict of interest as described in the RFQ.  If there are no conflicts, Appendix B should still include a statement that there are no Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

Question: If you do work for the individual Counties or Cities within the watershed in some capacity is that a conflict of interest?

Response:  A contractor doing work for a city, county or other entity in the watershed would not be a conflict of interest by itself.  In order for there to be a conflict of interest there would need to be an issue or factor that would meet one of the following conflicts which are identified in the RFQ:
  1. A consultant or consulting firm is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice due to competing duties or loyalties,
  2.  A consultant or consulting firm objectivity in carrying out the project is or might be otherwise impaired due to competing duties or loyalties, or 
  3. A consultant or consulting firm has an unfair competitive advantage through being furnished unauthorized source selection information or proprietary information that is not available to all competitors, or otherwise has an unfair competitive advantage.