State of Wisconsin
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
101 S. Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison WI 53707-7921
Scott Walker, Governor
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
Telephone 608-266-2621
Toll Free 1-888-936-7463
TTY Access via relay - 711
Request for Bid #B-025-08
FLOODPLAIN STUDIES FOR
STREAMS WITHIN THE LOWER WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS,
Vendor Questions & Agency Answers
Addendum Document 1
1. Question: Because of the size of the Wisconsin River and the braided channel geometry, will the State
require that cross sections be taken at the density required in previous RFB’s? The bed of the Wisconsin
River is comprised of fine to medium sand, so the bed geometry in the Regional Flood would be
drastically different than what would be surveyed during normal flow conditions because of the sediment
transport capacity of the river; therefore, we question the value and purpose of cross sections spaced
every 1000 feet.
Answer: Revisions have been made to Section III of the WDNR Survey Specifications document found
at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/Flood/RiskMap.html. They are as follows:
III.
RULES FOR COMPLETING INTERMEDIATE SURVEYED CROSS SECTIONS
A. For Black Earth Creek:
1. An in channel cross section must be collected both the upstream and downstream face of each
road crossing.
2. In rural areas, a minimum of one in channel cross section must be collected every 1000 ft.
3. In urban areas, a minimum of one in channel cross section must be collected every 500 ft.
4. There must be at least one channel cross section collected between road crossings in addition
to the face sections.
B. For the Wisconsin River:
The Mapping Partner shall survey intermediate cross sections when bridges or culverts are
more than 1,000 feet apart, especially where a significant change in conveyance occurs
between cross sections. The Mapping Partner may "cut" intermediate cross sections from
LIDAR datasets so long as no significant change in the stream channel geometry below the
water level occurs. When the Wisconsin River has little change in conveyance, the Mapping
Partner may determine whether fewer cross sections are needed, however a minimum of one
channel cross section must be collected every 2,000 feet regardless of changes in stream
channel geometry below the water level.
2. Question: Because of the size difference in the Wisconsin River and Black Earth Creek, based on
previous bids received, does the DNR expect to fund both the Wisconsin and Black Earth Creek detailed
studies? If there is some chance that both projects will not be funded, we would suggest that the costs for
these streams be broken into separate bid items.
Question: Given that the actual number of stream miles to be restudied based on the bids that come in,
the weighted cost per mile could change significantly for each firm after the bids are submitted. Also, the
survey and analysis for the detailed studies for the Wisconsin River and Black Earth Creek will require
dnr.wi.gov
wisconsin.gov
significantly different levels of effort. I would propose submitting three average costs per mile—One for
the Wis River, one for Black Earth Creek, and one for all the proposed approximate studies.
Question: Is the goal that all of the identified streams will be modeled as either approximate or detailed
or is there a chance that some streams or reaches will not be modeled?
Answer: The primary priority of this project is to complete detailed studies on the Wisconsin River and
Black Earth Creek. We are confident that we will be able to fund those two studies based on prices
received on past bids for similar projects. Because of this and the fact that the bid will be awarded to only
one contractor, the bid award method will remain as it stands.
Since we have stated that we plan to assign both primary project areas to the awarded contractor, and
since the total number of miles for these two project areas is then a given, we believe that bidders should
be able to assess any differences in their levels of effort for survey and analysis for each of the two
detailed studies and account for these differences in their average cost per mile bid amount for new
detailed floodplain studies that they submit on their Bid Price Sheet. The total weighted average cost per
mile is for bid award purposes only—actual compensation to the awarded vendor will be based on the
submitted prices times the number of miles of each type of study completed. Bidders should be able to
figure out what total compensation they need to cover the work required by both of the detailed studies
and then submit an average cost per mile for detailed studies, which when multiplied by the total number
of miles for both project areas gives them the total compensation they need for those two studies.
3. Question: On the Wisconsin River, is the expectation that the Prairie du Sac dam be hydraulically
modeled as part of this project? If so, is the flood elevation expected to be propagated upstream of the
shapefile extents shown in this RFB?
Answer: Yes, the dam will be included in the modeling, however the awarded vendor will be provided
with a survey of key points along the structure as well as upstream and downstream rating curves. The
contractor is not expected to do any mapping upstream of the last cross section. The most upstream cross
section’s elevation has to match the upstream study within 0.5’. Any difference in flood elevation less
than 0.5’ will be accounted for at the dam.
4. Question: Is there any flexibility in the interim deadlines, provided the overall project deadline is still
met?
Answer: Definitely. We are willing to create a staggered schedule of submittals and reviews within the
overall project deadlines.
5. Question: Does the DNR intend to award the detailed mapping and approximate studies to a single
contractor?
Answer: Yes.
6. Question: If we are submitting as a team, do you need forms from both firms or just the prime?
Answer: The prime vendor is required to submit a complete bid package. This may need to include
Vendor Information forms and Reference forms for subcontractors as necessary to demonstrate required
qualifications/competencies for the project, which are being supplied for the overall team by the
subcontracting company.
7. Question: In the “Specifications/Scope of Work”, the second paragraph under “1. Project Background”
states: “Currently the scope of work for the Lower Wisconsin River project listed in Appendix A and
available for download from our web page at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/Flood/RiskMap.html
includes only streams to be studied with detail study methodologies.” However Appendix A actually
indicates that there is approximately 116 miles of Detailed Study and approximately 615 miles of
Approximate Study. Please clarify.
Answer: The original text referenced in Section 1 of RFB B-025-08 was misleading and has been
amended to the following: “Currently the scope of work for the Lower Wisconsin River project listed in
Appendix A and available for download from our web page at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/Flood/RiskMap.html includes streams to be studied with detailed
and approximate study methodologies. Limited funds are available, so the detailed studies on the
Wisconsin River and Black Earth Creek will be funded first and whatever remains after that will be
applied towards a portion of the approximate mileage listed in Appendix A. The logic behind asking for a
price for both types of studies is due to our priorities and the differences in methodologies”
8. Question: Regarding the Bid Price Sheet, why is the Detailed Study price weighted at 0.67 and
Approximate Study weighted at 0.33 when the breakdown estimate provided in Appendix A is
approximately 16% Detailed and 84% Approximate?
Answer: The weighted average is not meant to be representative of the total mileage that will be studied.
Because the primary priority is to get the Wisconsin River and Black Earth Creek studies updated, only
the funds that remain after those projects are awarded will be applied towards the approximate modeling.
Weighing the two average cost per mile bid amounts in the fashion indicated on the Bid Price Sheet
places a higher significance on the detailed study price while still allowing for some competition on the
approximate price. Because we know we are not going to ask contractors to complete approximate
studies on all stream sections listed, the total miles of approximate mileage listed in Appendix A is
irrelevant to our bid award decision and is not being used in our weighting factor for bid award.
9. Question: The Department web page at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/Flood/RiskMap.html ,
provided shapefiles and the Prioritizing Map indicating 7 miles of leverage (approximate study), 10 miles
of leverage (new detailed study), and 93 miles of redelineated study reaches. Are these efforts outside of
the RFB #B-025-08 project’s scope? Have they been superseded by the study reaches in Appendix A? Or
could they be added to the scope of this work?
Answer: The “Prioritizing Map” under the “WDNR Prioritizing” section of the web page represents the
overall scope of the Wisconsin River Watershed project, including work to be completed in-house by the
WDNR. All of the leverage studies and redelineation listed on that map will be completed by the DNR
and will not be added to the scope of work for RFB #B-025-08.
10. Question: We understand that DNR typically does not reveal its actual budget for this work. However,
there are considerable economies of scale in this work that enable us to provide the Department a more
competitive bid if the magnitude of the work is known. Can the Department provide Vendors a range for
the potential budget to help us better price our bid?
Answer: As mentioned in the answer to Question 2, the magnitude of this project is primarily
completing detailed studies on the Wisconsin River and Black Earth Creek. Based on prices received on
past bids for similar projects, we expect the prices of the awarded contractor will be in a range that
permits us to accomplish those two studies and still have some funds in our budget available for
completion of portions of the streams listed for approximate studies (probably not to exceed 300 miles).
11. Question: Existing data suggests the Wisconsin River has a deep channel bottom within significant
lengths of the study reaches. In such situations, bathymetric data collection techniques may be required.
This type of data acquisition requires different expertise from typical survey techniques. Will the
Department ask the references or FEMA to verify that the Vendor has this specific experience?
Question: There are several differences in FEMA specifications and requirements for county-wide and
multiple county studies compared to localized studies related to floodplain encroachments and LOMRs.
For example, the Vendors will produce Survey, Hydrology, Hydraulics, TSDNs in compliance with
FEMA Data Capture Standards, format data in compliance with FEMA’s database specifications and
DVT check, and mapping accuracy in compliance with FEMA’s PM38 Floodplain Boundary Standards.
Creating county wide mapping products in compliance with these techniques requires different
capabilities and experience than more localized studies. How will the Department ensure that its Vendor
has the necessary experience to provide FEMA with the required deliverables associated with this work?
Will it specifically ask the references or FEMA to verify that the Vendor has this experience?
Question: Appendix A provides the proposed reaches for detail and approximate study. A large portion
of this work will be on the Wisconsin River, a large river system that is different from many of the typical
smaller rivers and creeks the Department has studied in the past in that more complex hydraulics may be a
part of the water surface profile development. Will the Department ask references to confirm the
Vendor’s experience in surveying, modeling and mapping large riverine systems such as the Wisconsin
River?
Answer: As part of the DNR’s validation procedure, the winning vendor’s reference(s) must verify they
have the qualifications and experience necessary to complete the work in accordance with DNR and
FEMA specifications.
12. Question: What kind of high water mark information is available for the proposed study reaches? Can the
District provide the Vendors with a list of the high water mark data/information so that cost can be
factored into the bid?
Answer: We do not have any high water mark information available for either the Wisconsin River or
Black Earth Creek. Please note, in the absence of this information, the vendor is required to acquire this
data per Section 2.A of RFB #B-025-08 —“The Contractor will search for historical high water marks in
an attempt to calibrate the hydraulic models.”