city of columbia agenda memorandum meeting date: december 15, 2015 … · 2018. 2. 19. · city of...

CITY OF COLUMBIA

AGENDA MEMORANDUM

Updated: 12/4/2015 3:00 PM

MEETING DATE: December 15, 2015

DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Engineering

FROM: Joey Jaco, Director of Utilities and Engineering

SUBJECT: Smith Branch Watershed Supplemental Environmental

Project

PRESENTER: Joey D. Jaco P.E.

ORIGINAL BUDGET: $300,000.00

CLEAN WATER 2020?: No

FEMA DR-SC4241?: No

DOCUMENT BODY:

The above referenced Agreement is to compensate McCormick Taylor for conducting a

watershed assessment and developing a comprehensive watershed management plan for Smith

Branch Watershed. This impaired urban watershed was identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a location for Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs) relating to the City of Columbia/EPA Consent Decree.

McCormick Taylor is a firm headquartered in Philadelphia, PA with a local office located

in Columbia, SC. The following subconsultants will provide additional services: KCI

Technologies with headquarters in Sparks, MD and a local office in Columbia, SC, will provide

H&H analysis water quality data collection and analysis. Robinson Design Engineers with

headquarters in Charleston, SC, will provide H&H analysis and geomorphic assessment. Contract Amount: $313,509.22

$55,000.00 (17.54)% of the total contract value) awarded to KCI Technologies for H&H analysis

water quality data collection and analysis.

$25,000.00 (7.97)% of the total contract value) awarded to Robinson Design Engineers for H&H

analysis and geomorphic assessment. Services to be performed will impact City Council District 1.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has negotiated a not to exceed fee for this Agreement

for $313,509.22 for the specified needs above with

McCormick Taylor. The budget for this project is

$300,000.00. Funding for this Agreement will come from

the Storm Drain Capital Budget (5549999-SD387003-

658650)

Action Item (ID # 2261) Meeting of December 15, 2015

Updated: 12/4/2015 3:00 PM

The Legal Department has reviewed the Agreement. The Director of Utilities and Engineering

and the ACM for Operations recommend its approval.

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013

Smith Branch Watershed in City of Columbia, SC

E1:40,000

Selection from National Hydrology Dataset for Smith Branch in City of Columbia

NHD FlowlineSmith Branch WatershedCity of Columbia

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60.2Miles

Section I

Smith Branch Watershed Supplemental

Environmental Project

ENGRFP0002-15-16 and Addenda

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia

CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

Request for Proposals ENGRFP0002-15-16

Smith Branch Watershed Supplemental Environmental Project Commodity Code: 926-42

Issue Date: September 25, 2015

Submittal Deadline Information: Date: October 20, 2015, Time: 11:00 AM (EST) Submit Five (5) hard copies and One (1) CD of your proposal to: City of Columbia/Utilities & Engineering Department/Shannon Lizewski Attn: RFP #ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed Supplemental Environmental Project 1136 Washington Street, 7th Floor, Columbia, S.C. 29201

Requests for Additional Information and Questions must be submitted to: https://bidonline.columbiasc.gov/ifas7/bidonline Using Bid Online, user must be logged in and under the Bid tab, click “Bid Q and A”. Deadline for requesting additional information and submitting questions: October 8, 2015 5:00PM

1


CERTIFICATION

I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a bid for the same materials, supplies, or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of the proposal and certify that I am authorized to submit this proposal. In submitting a proposal to the City of Columbia, the respondent offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the respondent will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the City of Columbia all rights, title, interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of South Carolina for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the City of Columbia. At the discretion of the City of Columbia, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the respondent.

The respondent's final response as accepted by the City of Columbia shall mean: the final cost and technical proposals submitted by the awarded respondent and any subsequent revisions to the awarded respondent's cost and technical proposals and the contract terms and conditions due to negotiations, written clarifications or changes made in accordance with the provisions of the RFP, and any other terms deemed necessary by the City of Columbia, except that no objection or amendment by the respondent to the RFP requirements or the contract terms and conditions shall be incorporated by reference into the contract unless the City of Columbia has explicitly accepted the respondent' s objection or amendment in writing.

Additionally, by signing you agree to the above and to all the terms and conditions set forth in this document and if awarded this proposal shall be referenced in the fmal contract.

RESPOND~T

c~. tAJ' Chief Executive 0~

DATE: October 23, 2015

WITNESSES AS TO CITY: CITY OF COLUMBIA

BY:

TITLE: City Manager

DATE: ______________________ _

APPROVED AS TO FORM '


Table of Contents Glossary of Terms

I. Introduction A. General Information

II. Project Description and Scope of Services A. Scope of Work B. Schedule

III. Proposal Format Instructions A. Cover Letter and Executive Summary B. Organization and Key Staffing Qualifications C. Experience/Past Performance D. Approach and Scope of Work E. Availability F. Local Business Enterprise Designation G. Forms/Attachments H. Financial Proposal (TO BE PROVIDED SEPERATELY) I. Questions

IV. Proposal Submittal Instructions A. Proposal Deadline B. Public Opening C. Submittal (Digital version uploaded to Bid Online and Hardcopy version delivered to City office) D. Ownership of Proposal Documentation

V. Proposal Selection Process A. Acceptance and Rejection B. Evaluation Process and Criteria C. Selection D. Acceptance Period E. Contract (Agreement)

VI. General Information and Instructions A. Request For Proposal Process B. Confidentiality C. Respondent’s Duty to Inspect, Advise and Declare All Costs D. Proposal and Presentation Costs E. Submittal of Proposals F. Conflict of Interest; Contingency Fees; Non-Collusion Affidavit G. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Participation

VII. Terms and Conditions A. Non-Discrimination

3

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia B. Indemnification and Insurance C. Licenses, Permits and Taxes D. Non-Appropriations E. Ownership of Data F. Termination G. Whole Agreement H. State Law Applicable I. Breach/Waiver J. Severability K. Successorship L. Protest Procedures M. Delays N. Sub-Consultants O. Term of Agreement P. Ethics Q. Notice R. Miscellaneous

VIII. Attachments

A. Local Business Enterprise Designation B. Conflict of Interest Statement C. Subconsultant Business Information D. Non-Collusion Affidavit E. Business Information Statement

4

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia Glossary of Terms

Actual Cost: All direct and indirect costs incurred for services, supplies, or construction, as distinguished from estimated or forecasted costs.

Addendum/Addenda: A written change, addition, alteration, correction or revision to a bid, proposal or contract document. Addendum/Addenda may be issued following a pre-bid/pre-proposal conference or as a result of a specification or work scope change to the solicitation.

Allowable Costs: Costs that are recognized by law, regulation, or the contract. A cost that is reasonable.

Amendment: An agreed addition to, deletion from, correction or modification of a document or contract. To revise or change an existing document; a formal revision, improvement or correction.

Assignment: Legal transfer of a claim, right, interest or property.

Audit: A detailed review and examination of records, documents and the business processes with the confirmation by outside experts of a situation or condition concluding with a detailed report of findings. A formal examination or verification of financial accounts or other business operations. Examples include financial, compliance and management audits.

Capability: The ability of a bidder to fulfill the contract at time of award.

Contractor: Any individual or business having a contract with a governmental body to furnish goods, services, or construction for an agreed-upon price.

Cost: The actual expenses incurred in delivering a product, service, or construction; includes both direct and indirect costs, but does not include fee or profit for the contractor.

Deliverable: The completion of a milestone or the accomplishment of a task. Deliverables are used to measure successful performance.

Descriptive Literature: Information, such as charts, illustrations, brochures, and technical data, furnished by a bidder, on request as part of a bid, to describe the items offered; shows the characteristics or construction of a product, or explains its operation to determine the acceptability of the item. Engineer: For this particular project the terms “City Engineer” and “Engineer” are defined to mean the City Engineer of the City of Columbia, SC, acting directly or through a duly authorized representative(s), such representative acting within the scope of particular assigned duties or authority. The duly authorized representative(s) will be referred to as the Owner’s Representative in this RFP.

Functional Specification: A specification setting forth the results required from the supply or service.

Late Bid/Proposal: A bid, proposal, withdrawal, or modification received, at the designated place for receipt, after the established due date and time. Procurement policies should be established in order to provide guidance regarding how late bids/proposals are handled administratively. In most public entities, late bids/proposals are not opened and may be returned to the bidder/proposer advising that the bid was received late (after the due date and time) and cannot be accepted.

Mandatory: Obligatory, required by order, a provision that may not be waived.

Mandatory Requirements (Conditions): Conditions set out in the specifications/statement of work that must be met without alteration. Not meeting mandatory requirements may be grounds for disqualification.

5

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia Offeror: The person/entity who submits a proposal in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). One who makes an offer in response to a solicitation. Term Bidder is interchangeably throughout this RFP. Also see definition of a Responsible and Responsive Offeror/Bidder.

Pre-Bid/ Pre-Proposal Conference(Meeting): A meeting held by the buyer with potential bidders/offerors, prior to the opening of the solicitation for the purpose of answering questions, clarifying any ambiguities and responding to general issues in order to establish a common basis for understanding all of the requirements of the solicitation. This may result in the issuance of an addendum to all potential providers. In certain situations, a mandatory conference may be advisable

Price: The total amount, in money or other consideration, to be paid or charged for a commodity or service; normally includes all costs (direct labor, overhead, materials) and profit or fee.

Principal: One who employs an agent. A person who has authorized another to act for him/her.

Proposal: A proposal is a document submitted by a vendor in response to some type of bid solicitation to be used as the basis for negotiations or for entering into a contract.

Request for Proposal (RFP): The document used to solicit proposals from potential providers for goods and services (Offerors). Price is usually not a primary evaluation factor. Provides for the negotiation of all terms, including price prior to contract award. May include a provision for the negotiation of Best and Final Offers. May be a single step or multi-step process. Introduced in the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1962 as well as by the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.

Responsible Bidder/Offeror: Also referred to as Responsible Proposer or Respondent. A contractor, business entity or individual who is fully capable to meet all of the requirements of the solicitation and subsequent contract. Must possess the full capability, including financial and technical, to perform as contractually required. Must be able to fully document the ability to provide good faith performance.

Responsive Bidder/Offeror: Also referred to as Responsive Proposer or Respondent. A contractor, business entity or individual who has submitted a bid or proposal that fully conforms in all material respects to the IFB/RFP and all of its requirements, including all form and substance.

Savings: That part of disposable income not spent on current consumption; disposable income less consumption; any income that is not spent. (Bishop, 2002) Service/Services Contract: An agreement calling for a firm’s time and effort. The furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a firm, which may involve to a lesser degree, the delivery or supply of products.

Short List: Names of candidates that have been narrowed considerably from a longer list of top-ranked Offerors.

Solicitation: An invitation for bids, a request for proposals, telephone calls or any document used to obtain bids or proposals for the purpose of entering into a contract.

Technical Specifications: Specifications that establish the material and operating requirements of products and services.

Unsuccessful Bidder: A vendor whose bid was not accepted for reasons of price, quantity, or failure to comply with specifications.

Value Added: 1. The increase in worth of a product or service as it moves through various stages of

production and distribution.

6


2. What contribution a service function within an organization can make toward return on investment, increased productivity, or improved customer service.

(Definitions above provided by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing & Free Dictionary.com)

7


I. Introduction

A. General Information The City of Columbia (CoC) is seeking a qualified engineering firm to conduct a watershed assessment and to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan (henceforth the “Plan”) for Smith Branch Watershed (SBW). SBW is primarily located within the CoC limit and flows through the new Bull Street redevelopment project, Earlewood Park and ultimately to the Broad River. The goal is to develop a framework for achieving local watershed protection and restoration projects and to ensure that efforts build upon and complement one another. The Plan will be made available to the public and ultimately serve as a guide for future activities in the watershed. The successful applicant for developing the proposed Plan will demonstrate previous experience in watershed plan development. This is best demonstrated by providing examples of existing plans conducted by the applicant. The ultimate goal of the project will be to develop a watershed assessment and an integrated watershed management plan for SBW that will address the goals and objectives outlined in this call for proposals. The protocol and content of the Plan should include, as a minimum, the specific criteria presented below. The geographic scope of this study is the watershed as defined by the outer drainage divides from the Smith Branch confluence with the Broad River. The drainage divides will be adjusted for extra-basin transfers of surface water by the stormwater system and will be delineated using the latest available topographic and storm sewer data. Variations within the SBW for the baseline assessment will depend on the delineation of sub-basins. Minimum Qualifications Applicant should demonstrate expertise by themselves or a willingness to procure expertise by appropriate subcontractors in geographic information system (GIS) technology, civil engineering, water resources planning and management, and ecology. GIS expertise should include the ability to manipulate terrain models (e.g., digital elevation models), CAD plans, shape files of municipal storm sewer systems, drainage divides, etc., and to import field and hardcopy data such as historical maps and building plans to georegistered digital formats. Civil engineering expertise should include the ability to interpret hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) model output, interpret water quality (WQ) data, and evaluate H&H and WQ data and modeling needs. Water resources planning and management expertise should include total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance. Ecological expertise will be needed to assess aquatic habitat conditions and potentials and to recognize native riparian species of trees and shrubs and make recommendations about potential introductions of native species. Deliverables An Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) will be developed for SBW that will include at least five components:

• Data Compilation with Metadata • Drainage Divide Delineation. • Baseline Watershed Study. • Evaluation and Mapping etc. • Potential Improvement Projects

Project is to be completed 120 days after Notice to Proceed.

8

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia Data Resources The project should begin by identifying data resources, and collecting and organizing the data into a form readily adaptable for developing and implementing a baseline study for the IWMP. This will include, but not be limited to, the following: Spatial (GIS) Data • Richland County GIS data (land-use, demographics, infrastructure, etc.) • COC and Rich Co. zoning maps • USC-GEOG (Wooten) Impervious Surfaces Study (2006) • RBWA Impervious Surfaces Study (proposed 2012) • USGS LiDAR topographic data • Maps of soils, geology, wetlands, etc. Previous Studies • COC proposed “connectivity” project • Literature review of relevant soils, geology, ground water, and wetlands studies Hydrologic, Hydraulic, Watershed, and Ecological Data and Models

• USGS Southeast regional urban stream-flow analyses (e.g. Putnam, 1972; Bohman, 1990 & 1992; & Logan et al., 1995)

• Bio-diversity data • Water quality data

• COC and Richland County storm-sewer maps Many of these data may be available from previous work, from researchers, government agencies, and stakeholders, so determining the availability, reliability, and utility of each of these data components should be an initial priority for the study. In addition, the IWM Plan should specify and prioritize the data series that should be developed and maintained to enable monitoring and assessment of the Restoration Plan. In addition to the identification and acquisition of existing data, the Plan should call for the collection, assimilation, and archiving of streamflow, water quality, and spatial data on an on-going basis. This is needed, not only to evaluate the existing conditions and identify the relative need for mitigation in various subwatersheds, but also as a basis for critical assessments of the success of mitigation activities or further degradation by on-going urbanization. Thus, in order to establish and maintain a long-term monitoring plan for runoff and water quality, potential contacts should be identified for collaborations with government agencies (USGS, DHEC, DNR, COC, Rich.Co., etc.) for resources and transfer of relevant data to and from SBWA and other community organizations.

9

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia Stakeholders The following are potential stakeholders in the Smith Branch restoration effort. In developing the Plan, additional substantial stakeholders should be identified and the potential role that each of these stakeholders is willing and able to play in this project should be identified.

• COC - Engineering, Storm Water Management, Streets Division, Parks and Recreation • Smith Branch Watershed Alliance

• Richland County - Public Works, Richland District One School, Recreation Commission • State of South Carolina - DHEC, USC, SCDOT, Richland County Legislative Delegation • North Main Association

• Adjacent Neighborhood Associations – Earlewood, Cottontown • Businesses • Railroads, utilities • Community health organizations • Environmental groups • Columbia College, Columbia International Regulatory Drivers Restoration efforts in the Smith Branch watershed must comply with the following governmental regulations: • MS4 requirements for COC (Phase 1) and for Richland County (Phase 2)

• City of Columbia and Richland County - Ordinances and Best Management Practices • NPDES permits • Army Corp of Engineers 401/404 Permit • FEMA regulations • Section 303d compliance with the TMDL requirements may ultimately apply II. Project Description and Scope of Services

A. Scope of Work. The goals of this effort are to evaluate the site specific and systematic character of the Smith Branch Watershed (SBW) to determine potential opportunities for stream stability, water quality improvement, outfall protection, and floodplain and habitat viability. The intent of this investigation is to identify and prioritize potential restoration opportunities for future implementation, including:

• Work with the City of Columbia, Smith Branch Watershed Alliance (hereafter, the stakeholders) to develop an integrated watershed management plan (the Plan).

• Establish baseline watershed conditions with desktop and field analyses including the topics in Parts I & II, to help identify problem areas and for later assessments of success or failure of rehabilitation projects.

• Assess flood risks and mitigation potential o Conduct a hydrologic analysis based on existing data o Assess stream banks and channel erosion;

10


o Assess existing Stormwater Management (SWM) facility effectiveness and evaluate potential sites for opportunities to retrofit existing facilities or install new proposed facilities;

o Identify potential sites for proposed new SWM facility opportunities; o Identify current flooding hot spots and recommend engineering solutions

• Assess water quality and mitigation potential • Identify and prioritize stream restoration and SWM projects according to cost, treatment

potential, and benefit to society; • Assess greenway/riparian buffer feasibility • Assess riparian & aquatic habitat and biologic integrity and mitigation potential • Develop education and outreach plan

Section – I Conduct a Desktop Analysis. 1. Maximize the use of available data through a comprehensive review and compilation of existing records and information sources including, but not limited to, the following:

• City-provided data and documents; • Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data; • US Geological Survey and other streamflow data; • Previously conducted hydrologic and hydraulic studies • Available aerial photographs; • Plans/computations for constructed projects; • Literature search; • Previously identified Best Management Practices (BMPs) and DHEC criteria

2. Review and analyze the present condition of the SBW including, but not limited to, the following:

2.1 Identify drainage divides to define SBW and sub-basins in consultation with the stakeholders 2.2 Compile and analyze available hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) data and studies for flood- and drought-risk assessment

• Flow stage and discharge measurement data at past and existing streamflow gauges, with assessment of quality.

• Quantity of existing public impervious areas and private impervious areas with and without adequate SWM control

• Digital urban storm sewer maps • Water surface profiles and data used to compute them: channel cross sections,

roughness values, constrictions, long profiles, etc. 2.3 Collect, analyze and assess available water quality (WQ) data. Two gauges are now taking WQ measurements (flow stage, specific conductivity, pH, DO, temperature, and turbidity) at 15-minute intervals. In the context of regulatory and public health criteria, an assessment is needed of the data monitoring and need to extend or expand it. 2.4 Assess riparian and aquatic habitat and biologic integrity. Summarize available information and recommend potential projects to improve the ecological condition of the creek.

11


2.5 List existing structural measures and non-structural management strategies with action items/proposed improvements as applicable;

2.6 List and map stream locations to be field analyzed.

3. Identify potential problems, resolutions, and opportunities

3.1 Identify the presence of potential watershed management problems (or “fatal flaws”) and any available resolutions for all preliminary project candidates. Examples could include, but are not limited to: permit, utility, high groundwater or bedrock, environmental, historical, constructability, property ownership, public acceptance, aesthetics, and cost issues. The consultant is to identify and eliminate unfeasible or marginal restoration strategies and sites. This analysis should be coordinated with the Greenway analysis. 3.2 Evaluate the feasibility of SWM implementation techniques based on: their relative benefits and impacts on the existing built and natural environment, design constraints, and cost. Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Traditional SWM measures; • Environmental Site Design (ESD) / Low Impact Development (LID) measures (e.g., green

streets, green roofs, infiltration systems, cisterns, permeable pavement, bioretention, etc.);

• SWM retrofit opportunities; • Structural facilities; • Non-structural facilities; • Upland public/private property restoration; and • Candidates for outreach programs, program type and quantifiable benefit achieved in

the event of success.

3.3. Evaluate the feasibility of stream restoration techniques based on their relative benefit, impacts on the existing built and natural environment, design constraints, and cost. This evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Stabilizing eroding stream banks; • Streambed grade control to stop or reverse bed degradation; • Providing bankfull benches or bank grading to increase flood-prone areas, thereby

reducing shear stress on the bed and banks; • Improving in-stream habitat through the installation of structures such as rock or wood

wing reflectors; • Installing measures such as cross vanes, J-hook vanes, and cover logs; • Riparian plantings

3.4 Evaluate and propose potential greenway routes from Bull Street Commons to the terminus of the greenway at Earlewood Park. A key goal of the SBG feasibility assessment should be to identify the long-term location of the channel and greenway corridor so future channel restoration and transportation relocation projects can be coordinated. The Plan is not expected to include greenway designs but should include a feasibility analysis with width or thoroughfare limitations, locations where land acquisition and easements would be needed, estimated costs, and potential projects that can move towards the SBG. The Plan should review generic

12


greenway design principles that balance transportation, water quality, ecologic, and esthetic functions. The SBG should be both a transportation corridor and provide riparian buffers to reduce the introduction of non-point source pollutants (NPS). The Plan should compare SBG widths needed for both transportation and buffer functions and compare them with available widths along the creek. Channel reaches with near-channel sources of NPS pollution should be identified vs. those with storm sewer outflows. This information should be used to evaluate where buffers would be most effective.

3.5. Compile results and identify areas for field investigation.

Section – II Perform Field Evaluations, Data Collection, and Analyses Field evaluations will be performed to further assess the health of the watershed and to verify and build upon the findings of work completed in Part I. Modeling, sub-basin comparisons, and geomorphic analysis will be conducted. 1. Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analyses will be conducted to assess flood and drought risks in the watershed.

1.1 Calibrate existing stream flow gauges. 1.2 Spatially distributed rainfall-runoff modeling will be conducted for the basin to quantify flood magnitudes and frequencies in different parts of the basin. Models will be calibrated using the latest stream-flow data. Available data from various sources, such as digital maps of impervious surfaces and the urban storm sewer system, should be incorporated in the model. Some parameterization data may already be available for Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and other models. 1.3 Water-surface profiles will be evaluated where available or generated.

2. Benefits and solutions at the sub-watershed scale will be determined in the context of noting differences between sub-watersheds. The analysis should consider how relative impacts to the system and benefits from rehabilitation are likely to vary between land uses. For example, problems and needs may differ between sub-basins dominated by residential, commercial, or industrial land uses. In order to recognize these differences and ensure management strategies that will be compatible with the characteristics of the individual sub-watersheds, field observations should be combined with desktop hydrologic and spatial analyses to note site conditions including, but not limited to, the following:

• Forest cover; • Sedimentation; • Wetlands; • Soil types; • Drainage paths/streams; • Proximity to houses; • Other structures; • Active parks; • Other SWM present within the drainage area; • Utilities;

13


• Access; • Location or presence of/condition of existing SWM facilities; • Quantify the amount of existing impervious area; • Drainage patterns/issues or connecting drainage areas; • Access to potential projects; • Hot spots; • Grading constraints; • Inventory existing vegetation and specify native or non-native; • Areas for stream restoration; • Stream location verification; • Visual assessment of all storm drain outfalls in the streams. and • Potential greenway right of way

3. Geomorphic field evaluations will be conducted to assess the conditions of stream channels, water quality, and ecological habitats. These will include stream evaluations utilizing, as applicable, the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI), Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) field methods, or other suitable methods to evaluate bank stability, channel scouring/deposition, identification of bankfull channels, an inventory and sampling of channel bed and bank materials and textures, preliminary computations of sediment transport capacity, identification of likely sediment sources and sinks, and potential sites that could be modified to store flood water and overbank sediment. These geomorphic evaluations should be done in conjunction with an inventory and mapping of channel reaches distinguished on the basis of cross-section size and shape, bank protection, bed material, bridge crossings, etc. In addition, reconnaissance assessments of water quality, physical in-stream habitat, and riparian habitat conditions should be conducted at the reach scale during geomorphic evaluations. 4. Hydrologic, sub-watershed, and geomorphic studies will be guided by, but not limited to, principles and methods used by the following watershed studies, which may be obtained from the City’s website, that utilize similar methods of evaluation and formatting:

• An Ecological Assessment of Streams in Gaithersburg, Maryland 2001-2002 by Versar, Incorporated; and

• Middle Great Seneca Creek Watershed Study by URS Corporation. Section – III Develop and Evaluate Restoration and Management Alternatives

1. Based on the work completed in Section I and Section II, recommendations will be made of site-specific structural management alternatives that can be sponsored by Capital Improvement Projects. 1.1 Compile a minimum of twenty-five (25) opportunities that yield quantifiable benefits, such as credits toward treated impervious cover, pollutant load reduction, flooding etc. • Selection shall be prioritized based on cost, treatment achieved and benefit to society.

The best options will maximize benefits for the lowest possible cost. • Five (5) of the twenty-five (25) opportunities shall be “recommended management

strategies,” which are actions that do not result in construction of Capital Improvement Projects (i.e., tree planting, etc.).

14


• Any improvement that may mitigate potential loss of life and structural damage shall be placed at a higher priority.

1.2 A selection of no more than ten (10) of the twenty-five (25) potential opportunities identified during the desktop analysis will be field checked to examine environmental and physical site constraints (including soil classification & infiltration rates and depth to ground water) and site potential. These top ranked potential projects should be described in greater detail and engineering “typicals” should be provided whenever possible.

1.3 Conduct field visits with City of Columbia and Smith Branch Alliance staff.

1.4 Provide GIS Data and other data used in development of alternatives. Once the inventory of twenty-five (25) opportunities has been completed, the following information will be delivered in the form of GIS layers:

• Public lands; • Private and residential land areas, with potential for LID alternatives and innovative

solutions; • Large rooftop impervious areas, with potential for green buildings options; • Land use coverage comments identifying area of significant discrepancy between the

GIS data and field conditions; • Impervious coverage comments identifying area of significant discrepancy between the

GIS data and field conditions; • Soil types • Development and redevelopment patterns; • Existing flow paths and drainage areas for terminal storm drain structure; • Existing SWM facility drainage area, broken down by water quality and quantity

treatment; • Natural resources such as trees, wetlands, parklands, riparian buffers, and stream

valleys; and • “Hotspots” as identified per the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Illicit

Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) manual, including descriptions of locations, indicators and sources of water quality impairment.

2. All data shall be delivered in a format compatible with the City’s version of the software: ArcGIS 10.1 SP1 for Desktop. Section – IV Develop Watershed Plan and Report on Results

1. Create a comprehensive Final Report that includes Parts I through III and incorporates any direction from two work sessions with the City of Columbia, University of South Carolina, and the Smith Branch Alliance watershed association.

2. Provide progress reports with preliminary assessments and work sessions

15


2.1 Progress reports shall be provided to the stakeholders at 65% and 95% completion of the Final Report. 2.2 Within a month of submission of each of the progress reports, a workshop will be held with the stakeholders to go over the report and solicit input. 2.3 All progress reports and the final report should be provided in both Adobe PDF and Microsoft Word formats, in addition to two (2) hard copies.

B. Schedule. The RFP process includes the following schedule:

Task Date Time (if applicable) RFP Issuance in Bid Online September 25, 2015 Advertisement (The State) October 4 and October 11 Advertisement (SCBO) September 28, 2015 Questions Deadline October 8, 2015 5:00 pm Submittal Deadline October 20, 2015 11:00 am Evaluation Period 10/2015 – 11/2015 Anticipated City Council Review/Approval

12/1/15

III. Proposal Format Instructions To standardize responses and simplify the comparison and evaluation of responses, all proposals must be organized in the manner set forth below, separated into sections, and appropriately entitled. All information and materials requested shall be provided in the Proposal under a single cover. The following must be included in this section in order for a respondent to be considered responsive:

A. Cover Letter and Executive Summary. a. The cover letter must be signed by an authorized signatory. b. The cover letter must include contact information for the project manager. c. A signed copy of the solicitation certification (page 2) must be included. d. Exceptions, if any, to the City Standard Terms and Conditions (See Section VI) e. Conflict of Interest Statement (see Section V, Item H and Attachment B). f. A Non-Collusion Affidavit (see Attachment D) g. Fees associated with this project will be sought from the recommended respondent only

and will update the respondent’s proposal prior to seeking City Council approval.

16

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia B. Organization and Key Staffing Qualifications. The respondent shall provide the services of qualified, experienced staff members to this project sufficient to perform the duties described in this document. List any subconsultants and/or subcontractors that will be employed on this project (within Attachment C). Identify the division of responsibility among the firm’s staff members. This project does lend itself to the Mentor Protégé Program, but it is not a requirement for a firm to be considered responsive. Information pertaining to the City’s Mentor Protégé Program can be found at http://www.columbiasc.net/business-outreach/mentor-protege/.

The respondent should also provide information concerning participation with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises on similar projects as applicable. Resumes for all key project personnel (for those performing the audit and those managing the long-term savings) should be included and show at least the following:

1. Name, specialty, title, and project assignment. 2. Description of relevant experience with firm (and previous employers), to include

project names and scope, role on project, and other pertinent information. All project/experience description must include dates.

3. Office location where employed. 4. A synopsis of experience, training or other qualities which reflect the individual’s related

experience and contribution to the project. Provide any certifications, licenses, etc. on performing this type of work

5. Three (3) prior client references including current, verified telephone numbers. 6. Business Information Statement – Attachment E – This document will be reviewed by a

City representative experienced in reviewing financial health and stability in order to gauge “responsibility.”

C. Experience/Past Performance. Submit a one page summary of five (5) relevant projects, at

least three (3) of which have been completed, to illustrate the specialized expertise, demonstrated experience, applicable qualifications, and available resources of the Consultant. Past experience with utility rate analysis is preferred. Each project summary shall include the following information:

1. Project name, location, description, dates of services, and status 2. Role of firm 3. Firm’s project manager 4. Key project team members (with emphasis on the participation of team members

proposed for this project) 5. Specialized expertise and/or resources applied during project, with concise explanation

of their value and relevance to the Scope of Services of this project 6. Experience of the local office charged the administration of this particular contract 7. Name and current telephone number of a client contact person for each project 8. Results of work, fees collected, basis of fee, and duration of project work

The consultant shall submit a sample of work product for at least one (1) of the relevant projects of which has been completed. The consultant is encouraged to provide a complete list of additional relevant projects. This list should include the location, dates of service, basis of fee and fee, firm’s project manager, and the name and

17

http://www.columbiasc.net/business-outreach/mentor-protege/

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia telephone number of a client contact person. The Consultant’s quality of the completed work and the performance of the project team may be verified by contact with the current and previous clients. Litigation History. Submit a summary of the litigation history for your firm for the past five (5) years, including the following information for each case:

1. Style of the case 2. Parties to the litigation 3. Court in which litigation was filed and civil action number 4. Nature of claims 5. Whether the case is pending or resolved, and if resolved, the date of and

manner in which it was resolved (e.g., relief granted by court, settlement by or among parties, dispositive motion, trial verdict)

D. Approach and Scope of Work. The consultant shall describe in detail its approach to the

project outlined in the Project Description and Scope of Services. This section must present written and graphic information in sufficient detail so that the City can ascertain the consultant understands the scope and nature of the work involved. The respondent shall fully describe its approach, provide specific details regarding how the City’s requirements will be met, and explicitly identify any deviations, exceptions, and/or alternatives.

E. Availability. The firm shall outline its current and projected workload and state its commitment to provide the requested services as well as a schedule to begin this project. In addition, the full name and address of the firm and the branch office that will perform the services shall be described herein.

F. Local Business Enterprise Designation. The intent of the Local Business Enterprise program

is to promote opportunities for businesses located within Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Newberry, Richland and Saluda counties to participate in the procurement process for professional services. See Attachment A for eligibility requirements. This designation must be obtained and approved by the Compliance Office prior to issuing your proposal. The prime firm submitting must have the designation in order to qualify.

G. Forms/Attachments The following forms shall be included in one’s submittal:

1. Local Business Enterprise Qualification Statement (Attachment A)

2. Conflict of Interest Statement (Attachment B)

3. Subconsultant/Subcontractor Business Information Form (Attachment C)

4. Non-Collusion Affidavit (Attachment D)

5. Business Information Statement (Attachment E)

18


H. Financial Proposal – TO BE PROVIDED SEPARATELY A Financial Proposal must also be submitted to the City in a separate sealed envelope as well as a separate document uploaded to Bid Online. This information will not be factored into the proposal evaluation process. Further, this information will not be opened until a respondent has been recommended by the Evaluation Committee. Respondents who are unsuccessful in the selection process will be mailed their Financial Proposal back unopened.

I. Questions

No interpretations or clarification of the meaning of the instructions or scope of services will be allowed orally (except for general information). Every request for such interpretation should be in writing through Bid Online at https://bidonline.columbiasc.gov/ifas7/bidonline/. Using Bid Online, the user must be logged in, and under the Bid tab, click “Bid Q and A.” The deadline for requesting additional information and/or asking questions is listed in Section II. B. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be issued in the form of written addenda to the Request for Proposals.

IV. Proposal Submittal Instructions

A. Proposal Deadline

Proposals will be opened at the date and time listed in Section II. B. in the 7th floor conference room at 1136 Washington Street, Columbia, SC 29201 and the names of respondents announced.

Proposals must be responsive to the requirements stated in the Project Description and Scope of Services, Proposal Format Instructions, General Information and Instructions, and Terms and Conditions.

B. Public Opening

Proposals will be publicly opened at the date and time listed in Section II. B. at 1136 Washington Street, Columbia, SC in the 7th floor conference room.

C. Submittal If your firm is interested in providing the described scope of work, you MUST submit a proposal through Bid Online at https://bidonline.columbiasc.gov/ifas7/bidonline. One must be registered with this software in order to respond. All Proposals shall be submitted using Bid Online by the date and time listed in Section II. B. The City is not responsible for late RFP’s caused by any method of delivery. Proposals received after the designated time may not be considered.

19


In addition to submitting through Bid Online, it is REQUESTED that five (5) hardcopies of a proposal and one (1) digital copy (i.e., CD or thumb drive) be hand delivered and/or mailed to Utilities and Engineering Department at1136 Washington Street, Room 714, Columbia, SC 29201, Attention: Shannon Lizewski. All information regarding the opening date, type of proposal, and name of City’s assigned contact should be clearly marked on the outside of the sealed envelope containing the response.

D. Ownership of Proposal Documentation

Upon receipt of the Proposal by the City, the Proposal and all included documentation shall become the property of the City, without compensation to the respondent, for disposition or usage by the City at its discretion. The City assumes no responsibility or obligation to respondents and will make no payment for any cost associated with the preparation or submission of proposals.

V. Proposal Selection Process

A. Acceptance and Rejection

Any proposals that do not conform to the essential requirements of the RFP shall be rejected. The City reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in submittals and reserves the sole right to determine what constitutes informalities and minor irregularities. The City also reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP and to negotiate separately with competing respondents. The City is not obligated to enter into any contract on the basis of any submittal in response to this RFP. The City reserves the right to request additional information from any firm submitting under this RFP if the City deems such information necessary to further evaluate the firm's qualifications

B. Evaluation Process and Criteria The Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the information presented in the proposal package, and on an analysis or other available information. The City may conduct investigations or interviews as it deems necessary to assist in the evaluation of any proposal submitted and to establish to the City’s satisfaction the qualifications of any respondent.

The criteria outlined below and described further hereinafter will be used to evaluate the Proposals. The proposal evaluation is based on a total maximum score of 100, with the following point breakdown per category.

Organization and Key Staffing Qualifications – Submittal must include information outlining the capabilities of the firm as well as a list of personnel specifically assigned to the proposed project, including their qualifications, overall experience, recent experience on projects of similar nature and complexity to the proposed project, sub-consultant, Mentor Protégé Program and disadvantaged business enterprise firm participation (30 points). Experience/Performance – Review of past performance on projects of similar nature and

20

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia complexity as the proposed project; evaluation of client references whether included in the proposal response or not; evaluation of litigation history for the past five years; and review of a sample work product (30 points). Approach/Scope of Work – Review of respondent’s description of approach, how the City’s requirements will be met, and any deviations, exceptions, and /or alternatives. The City will take special note of Approach listed for Tasks listed (25 points). Availability – Evaluation of the work load of the proposing firm and the staffing to be assigned to the proposed project; proposed time schedule; accessibility or location of the proposer’s offices or facilities from which the services are to be provided in relation to the City (10 points). Local Business Enterprise Qualification – Five (5) evaluation criteria points will be given to each local vendor that has received the LBE Designation through the City’s Compliance Office. All proposal requirements must be met, or be capable of being met, by the responding firm, or its proposal will be disqualified as being non-responsive.

All inquiries or correspondence relating to or in reference to this RFP and all proposals submitted shall become the property of the City when received and subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure by law. Unless required by law, proprietary or financial information submitted by a Respondent will not be disclosed if Respondent visibly marks each part of the proposal which Respondent considers to be confidential or proprietary information with the word “Confidential.”

Submittals will be evaluated per criteria listed above. The City may short list the top rated firms and request an interview phase. Scoring for interviews, should they be used, will be on a 1, 5, 10 rating scale. Any information pertaining to this project will not be revealed until after the City has awarded the project, unless otherwise required by law.

C. Selection

It is anticipated that the submitted proposals will be evaluated and the top ranking firm will enter the contract negotiation stage. Negotiations will be entered into with the highest ranked firm in an effort to confirm a pricing structure that is acceptable to all and address any questions remaining after the selection process. If an appropriate contract can be successfully negotiated between the parties, it will be taken to City Council for approval. If a successful contract cannot be negotiated with the highest ranked firm, negotiations will be undertaken with the next firm in order of ranked preference.

The City reserves the right to hold interviews in addition to proposal document review in order to select a top ranking firm if it is determined to be needed. BID ONLINE “AWARD CRITERIA – PROPOSALS” – Award will be made to the highest ranked,

21


responsive and responsible offeror whose offer is determined to be the most advantageous to the City.

D. Acceptance Period

Any proposal in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 120 calendar days. At the end of this time the proposal may be withdrawn at the written request of the respondent if no award has been made. If the RFP is not withdrawn at that time, the proposal in its entirety, including the price structure, shall remain in effect.

E. Contract (Agreement)

Upon award of the contract by the City, the consultant shall agree to deliver services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein and any negotiations that may occur. Consultant shall understand that minor technical adjustments may be necessary as work progresses. Timely, quality service is critical to continuation of work under this contract.

Proposed Terms and Conditions are included (see Section VII). All responders should thoroughly review these prior to submitting a proposal. Any proposed revisions to the terms or language must be submitted in writing with the Firm’s response to the Request for Proposal. The certification contained herein shall be signed by an officer of the firm having authority to execute the contract.

VI. General Information and Instructions

A. Request for Proposal Process The RFP is not a bid. In the event that the City elects to negotiate a contract with a selected respondent, any contract shall contain at a minimum the terms and conditions (or substantially the same terms and conditions) as hereinafter stated. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion to reject all submissions, reissue a subsequent RFP, terminate, restructure or amend this procurement process at any time. The final selection and contract negotiation rests solely within the sole discretion of the City. B. Confidentiality Unless otherwise required by law, and until the public opening of the proposals, all information, materials and other documents submitted by a respondent shall not be released or made available to any person or entity except City representatives assisting in this procurement process. Unless required by law, proprietary or financial information submitted to the City by a respondent will not be disclosed if the respondent visibly marks each part of the proposal that the respondent considers confidential, financial or proprietary information with the work “Confidential.”

C. Respondent’s Duty to Inspect, Advise and Declare All Costs

22


Each respondent shall become fully acquainted with the City’s requirements and the scope of the services to be provided. Respondents have a duty to request any information from the City as it deems necessary to prepare the RFP. Such requests shall be made in compliance with Paragraph B of this section. No change order will be granted or additional compensation permitted if it is based upon information that the respondent knew, or should have known, as part of the respondent’s duty to become acquainted with the City’s circumstances and requirements.

D. Proposal and Presentation Costs

The City will not be liable in any way for costs incurred by respondents in the preparation of their proposals in response to the RFP, in the presentation of their proposals or for participation in any discussion or negotiations.

E. Submittal of Proposals

All responses to this RFP must be clearly marked “ENGRFP0017-14-15 – Proposal for Rocky Branch Watershed Supplemental Environmental Project”. A minimum of five (5) hard copies and one (1) digital copy on CD, PC readable, labeled and not password protected shall be submitted. Save each attachment as a separate PDF file on the CD. Also save each attachment as a MS Word document, with each attachment saved separately.

All Proposals shall be submitted using Bid Online no later the date and time specified in Section II.B. and the CD and hard copies shall be submitted to the City of Columbia Utilities & Engineering Department, 1136 Washington Street, 7th Floor Columbia, SC 29201. All late proposals will be rejected. The City is not responsible for late RFP’s caused by delays in mail delivery or a delay in any other in method of delivery.

F. Conflict of Interest; Contingency Fees; Non-Collusion Affidavit

The following terms and conditions regarding Conflict of Interest, Contingency Fees, and Certification of Subcontractors will be included in the Agreement for Consulting Services on this project.

1. Conflict of Interest. See Attachment B. Respondents shall promptly notify the Contract Administrator or Procurement Manager, in writing, by certified mail, of all potential conflicts of interest for any prospective business association, interest, or other circumstance, which may influence or appear to influence the respondent’s judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify the prospective business association, interest, or circumstance, the nature of work that such a person may undertake, and request an opinion of the City as to whether the association, interest, or circumstance would, in the opinion of the City, constitute a conflict of interest. The City will respond to such notification by certified mail within thirty (30) days.

By submitting this proposal, the respondent certifies that it has no conflict of interest with any employee, agent, elected official or officer of the city or any other conflict as may be set forth herein.

23


No direct or indirect contact with the mayor of the City of Columbia or City of Columbia Council members will be allowed. If such contact is made, the city reserves the right to reject the proposal.

2. Prohibition against Contingent Fees. The consultant warrants that he and his Subcontractor(s) have not employed or retained any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the consultant or subcontractor(s) to solicit or secure this Agreement and that he and his Subcontractor(s) have not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm other than a bona fide employee working solely for the consultant or his Subcontractor(s) any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of this Agreement. For any breach or violation of this provision, the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement without liability and at its discretion to deduct from the price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, payment, or consideration.

3. Non-Collusion Affidavit. See Attachment D. More than one proposal from an individual, firm partnership, corporation, association or related parties under the same or different names will not be considered. If the City believes that collusion exists among respondents, all proposals from the suspected firms will be rejected. “Related parties” means respondents or the principals thereof, which have a direct or indirect ownership or profit sharing interest in another respondent.

Respondents shall comply with all local, state, and federal directives, orders, and laws as applicable to this RFP and any resulting contract. By responding to this RFP, respondents certify that the response is made without previous understanding, agreement, or connection with any person, firm or corporation making a proposal for the same item, and they certify the knowledge that this would constitute an illegal action.

G. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Participation

The City encourages the participation of all businesses in offering their services and/or products.

VII. Terms and Conditions

A. Non-Discrimination

The successful respondent will take affirmative action in complying with all federal, state and local requirements concerning fair employment and employment of the handicapped, and concerning the treatment of all employees, without regard or discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or physical handicap.

B. Indemnification and Insurance

24


The respondent will agree to indemnify, defend, hold harmless and reimburse the City, its agents, and employees from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, and all claims for damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of any action or failure to act by respondent, its subcontractors, officers, agents and employees of any of the obligations under the contract. Losses, liabilities, expenses and claims for damages shall include, but will not be limited to, civil and criminal fines and penalties, loss of use or services, bodily injury, death, personal injury, or injury to real or personal property, defense costs, legal fees and costs, and attorney’s fees for an appeal.

The respondent will also agree to promptly notify the City of any civil or criminal actions filed against the respondent or of any notice of violation from any federal or state agency, or of any claim as soon as practical as relates to the services provided. The City, upon receipt of such notice, shall have the right at its election to defend any and all actions or suits or to join in defense.

The consultant shall procure and shall maintain during the life of this contract, whether such operation be by himself or by a subconsultant or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, such insurance as required by statute, ordinance, or this contract, to adequately protect the owner from any claims or damages including bodily injury or death, which may arise from them during operations under this contract.

1. All insurance required shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officials, employees or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of insurance provided by the contractor and shall not contribute to it.

2. Insurance shall be obtained for not less than the limits of liability as specified by these instructions.

3. The consultant shall include all sub-consultants as insured under its policies, or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for subcontractors and shall be the same as provided in these instructions for the contractor.

4. Each insurance policy required by these instructions shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, unless thirty (30) days prior written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

5. Workers’ Compensation Insurance - The consultant shall procure and shall maintain during the life of this contract, Workers’ Compensation Insurance for all employees to be engaged in work on the project under this contract, and in case any work is sublet, the contractor shall require the subconsultant similarly to provide Workers’ Compensation Insurance for all of the latter employees to be engaged in such work unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by the contractor’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance. The consultant shall not permit any person who is not protected by Workers’ Compensation Insurance or a properly approved Self-Insured Workers Compensation Program to perform any activity related to this contract.

25


6. Liability Insurance - The consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for any injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise form or in connection with the performance of the work by the consultant, his agents, or representatives, employees or subcontractors. The City shall be specifically covered as an insured in all liability policies amount of such insurance shall be as follows:

Commercial General Liability Insurance: A separate general liability policy naming the consultant or other person who will be performing the activity as insured and also naming the City as an additional insured in an amount not less $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, and $2,000,000.00 aggregate limit for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, and products completed operations

7. The consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate showing satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, which shall be approved by the City prior to commencing work on this contract, nor shall the consultant allow any subcontractor to commence work on this contract until all similar insurance required of the subconsultant has been obtained and approved.

C. Licenses, Permits and Taxes

It shall be the responsibility of the consultant to obtain any approvals, permits and/or licenses as may be required by law, state or ordinance to perform work required under this Agreement. The consultant shall be responsible for any costs relating to same. The consultant shall be responsible for identifying and providing any applications and supporting documentation to the City for any approvals and/or permits required of the City in order for the consultant to perform the services required under this Agreement. Such approvals and/or permits may include, but not necessarily be limited to, SCDHEC Construction Permits, SCDHEC Stormwater Management for Construction Sites Permits, SCDHEC Water Resources Permits, Corps of Engineers Permits, City/County/SCDOT Encroachment Permits, Encroachment Permits for other utility rights-of-way and Railroad Right-of-Way Encroachment Permits/Agreements. The City shall obtain the approvals and/or permits identified by the Consultant and pay any costs relating to same. The consultant shall answer questions and consult with the City and/or appropriate authorities as necessary to assist the City’s efforts in obtaining required permits/approvals. The consultant shall procure a City of Columbia business license while performing services under this Agreement.

D. Non-Appropriations

Any contract entered into by the purchaser resulting from this bid invitation shall be subject to cancellation without damages or further obligation when funds are not appropriated or otherwise made available to support continuation of performance in a subsequent fiscal period or appropriated year.

26


E. Ownership of Data

All data, documents or other information of any description generated by or used by the consultant or any subconsultant retained by the consultant and related to the services required by this Agreement shall be the property of the City and shall not be used by the consultant for any purpose whatsoever except to perform the services required by this Agreement. F. Termination

At termination of this Agreement, the consultant shall immediately provide the City with all records and data in any format the consultant is capable of producing and at no cost to the City, which were generated, created or received by the consultant in performance of the services required by this Agreement or as the City may deem necessary to perform the required services by the City or the consultant’s successor. All records shall be free from any proprietary claims of interest. The consultant agrees to fully cooperate with the City and any successor to ensure an effective transition to continuously provide the required services. The City may terminate the contract at any time upon any of the following grounds: 1) failure by the City to appropriate funds for the performance of any of the services required in this Agreement in any annual budget; 2) The consultant fails to perform any of the services required in this Agreement, and does not correct such deficiency within fifteen (15) days after having been notified of such deficiency by the City; 3) force majeure; 4) the City shall, at its sole option and discretion, have the right to terminate this contract for any reason whatsoever. A termination for default under this Agreement, if wrongfully made, shall be treated as a termination for convenience under this clause; 5) upon expiration of the term of the agreement; and 6) by mutual agreement.

Notice of termination shall be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. In the event of termination, the consultant shall only be entitled to the actual direct costs of all labor and material expended on the services required under this Agreement prior to the effective date of the termination plus fifteen percent or the consultant shall be entitled to be paid a pro-rata percentage of the total Agreement price which is equal to its percent of completion, whichever of the two methods provides the lowest sum to be paid to the consultant. In no event shall the consultant be entitled to assert a claim in quantum meruit or any other measure of damages other than that stated herein.

G. Whole Agreement

This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and the consultant and supersedes all prior communications, negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. Only written Change Order signed by both the City and the consultant may amend this Agreement. H. State Law Applicable

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of South Carolina.

27


The consultant agrees to subject itself to the jurisdiction and venue of the Circuit Courts of Richland County, State of South Carolina as to all matters and disputes arising or to arise under this Agreement and the performance thereof. The City may seek attorney’s fees and the consultant agrees to pay such fees as awarded by the Court or other body. No attorney’s fees may be sought by, nor will be paid to, the consultant. I. Breach/Waiver

The failure of either the consultant or the City to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to insist upon strict performance of such provision or of any other provision of this Agreement at any time. Partial payment by the City shall not be construed as a waiver. Waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute waiver of a subsequent breach. J. Severability

In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be void or unenforceable, all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. K. Successorship

The contract shall be binding upon the respondent and upon its successors and assignees. The contract shall be binding upon the City in accordance with its terms and provisions.

L. Protest Procedures

1. Right to protest: Any actual or prospective bidder, Offeror, respondent, or sub-contractor who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the appropriate procurement officer. The protest setting forth the grievance shall be submitted in writing within five (5) days after such aggrieved persons know or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto, but in no circumstance after 10 days of notification of the award of the contract.

2. Authority to resolve protests: The appropriate procurement officer shall have the authority, prior to the commencement of an administrative review as provided in this article, to settle and resolve a protest of an aggrieved bidder, Offeror, respondent or subcontractor, actual or prospective, concerning the solicitation or award of a contract. This authority shall be applied in a manner consistent with regulations or laws governing the procurement of supplies, services and construction for the City.

3. Decision: If the protest is not resolved by mutual agreement, the appropriate procurement officer shall issue a decision in writing within 10 days. The decision shall state the reasons for the action taken.

4. Notice of decision: A copy of the decision under Number 3 above of this section shall be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the protestant and any other party intervening.

28


5. Finality of decision: A decision under Number 3 of this section shall be final and conclusive, unless fraudulent, or unless any person adversely affected by the decision requests a review in writing, setting forth the grievance to the City Manager within 10 days of the decision. The protestant may also request an interview with the City Manager.

6. Request for review. The request for a review shall not stay the contract unless fraudulent.

M. Delays

If delay is foreseen contractor shall give thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Utilities & Engineering Department. The City has the right to extend delivery date if reasons appear, in the sole discretion of the City, to be valid. Contractor must keep the City advised at all times of status of order. Default in promised completion times without accepted reasons) or failure to meet specifications, authorizes the Director of Procurement to purchase supplies, equipment or services elsewhere and charge full increase in cost and handling to defaulting contractor.

N. Subconsultants

The consultant will not assign or sublet its obligations to perform the services required by this Agreement without the written consent of the City. The use of subcontractors will not relieve prime consultant of any obligations and the awarding consultant remains liable for full and satisfactory performance per the contract term and conditions.

O. Term of Agreement

The successful consultant shall commence once the notice to proceed is issued. The term of the project will be for a base period of two (2) years from award and contract execution, with the option to renew or continue with work for two (2) additional one-year periods at the mutual pleasure of both parties.

The decision whether to extend the contract, upon written request, shall be in the sole and exclusive discretion of the party receiving the request and neither party shall be under any obligation to agree to an extension of the initial term or any additional term.

P. Ethics

The consultant is subject to the provisions of the 1991 Ethics Reform Act (8-13-100, et seq, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, as amended). Under this Act, City employees are prohibited from accepting anything of value from any person. “Anything of value” includes, but is not limited to, lodging, transportation, entertainment, food, meals, beverages, money, gifts, honorariums, discounts and interest-free loans. Q. Notice

29


Written notice to the City shall be made by placing such notice in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and addressed to: Director of Utilities and Engineering, City of Columbia, Post Office Box 147, Columbia, South Carolina 29217.

Written notice to the consultant shall be made by placing such notice in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and addressed to: Consultant Name, & Company, Inc., Address. R. Miscellaneous This Agreement is subject to City Council approval. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the consultant. The consultant shall be responsible for performance of all services required by this Agreement. The consultant does not act as the City’s agent or employee. In the event there are any disagreements between the City and the consultant with regard to any of the requirements, specifications or interpretation of this Agreement, the consultant agrees to defer to the reasonable interpretations of the City as, from time to time may be made by the City. Ambiguities in the terms of this Agreement, if any, shall not be construed against the City.

VIII. Attachments

30

32

LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE DESIGNATIONF.

City of Columbia: Smith Watershed Supplemental Environmental Project October 27, 2015

McCormick Taylor is not quali� ed for the Local Business Enterprise Designation (LBE). Per Addendum No. 1, the prime � rm is not required to be an LBE � rm to submit.

ENGRFP0002-15-16 Smith Branch Watershed City of Columbia LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE QUALIFICATION STATEMENT – ATTACHMENT A

City of Columbia Qualification Statement

Local Business Enterprise (LBE) (DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES & ENGINEERING)

Revised 10.15.14 By checking all boxes below, I certify that My Company meets all of the following qualifications to be eligible for the local vendor preference. I understand qualifications w ill be researched and verified by the Compliance Team. The City reserves the right to audit the company’s qualifications for the local vendor preference as the City deems necessary and re-certify the company at least once every four years. A company must be certified PRIOR to bid openings. Yes, my company: Is independently owned and operated (Ownership of a local business must be direct, independent, and by individuals and/or other businesses within the Columbia-Newberry CSA. Company owner must provide document verification of local residency. (Copy of driver’s License, utility bill, most current individual or corporate state and/or federal tax return). Is in good standing with State of South Carolina (LBE firm must be in good standing with the State of South Carolina regarding its payments of taxes and required business licenses). Has a business license in one of the 7 counties making up the CSA jurisdiction. Has at least one year of presence within the CSA Jurisdiction (LBE must have presence within any of the 7 CSA jurisdictions for at least one year prior to applying for LBE Certification issued by the City of Columbia).

7 CSA Jurisdictions include: Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Newberry, Richland and Saluda.

Has at least 50% of employees residing within any of the 7 CSA jurisdictions. Applicant must attach a list of all owner/employee addresses and submit with this Qualification Statement - - Names are optional, give street address, city, state & zip. (This rule applies to full-time, part-time and contract employees.) Note: Term of certification: Certification is valid for a period of 4 years from issue date. 30 days prior to expiration the LBE firm may submit documentation to re-certify. Company Name:

____________________________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________Type of Products or Services:

_______________________

Please self-identify ownership as one: Minority___ Women-owned___ Other___(tracking

purposes only)

Current Business License Number: _______________________ County?

_____________________

Phone Number: __________________ Email: _______________________COC Vendor

#_________

I certify with my signature below that all of the information given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also recognize that by signing that any false information indicated above may lead to penalties or sanctions.

31


Owner’s Name: ________________________ (Print) _____________________________

(Signature)

NOTARY - Sworn to before me this ________________ day of ________________

20__________

Notary Public for the State of ______________________ My Commission Expires:

_____________

Notary Name: _________________________ (Print) _____________________________

(Signature)

Please submit this ORIGINAL document to: Department of Utilities and Engineering Tel: (803) 545-3049 Attn: LBE Administrator / Team Fax: (803) 545-4130 PO Box 147 / 1136 Washington Street, 5th Floor Email: [email protected] Columbia, SC 29217

Qualified / Not Qualified: __________________________________Date: ___________

32

ENGRFP0002-15-16Smith Branch WatershedCity of Columbia

BUSINESS INFORMATION STATEMENT - ATTACHMENT E

Applicant Name: ________________________________________________

Applicant Headquarters Address: ____________________________________

____________________________________

Applicant Local Office Address: ____________________________________

____________________________________

Applicant Phone No.: __________________ Fax No.: ____________________

Tax ID No. (Soc. Sec. No., if Sole Proprietor): ________________________

Person who can respond authoritatively to any questions about this statement:

Name: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________

Phone: _______________________________

Select One: ___ Corporation ___ Sole Proprietor ___ Partnership

___ Joint Venture ___ Other (Indicate)

1. Organization

A. How many years has your organization Been in business under its present business name? ______

B. Under what other former names has your organization operated?___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

C. If your organization is a corporation, please indicate:Date of incorporation: ________________________________State of Incorporation: ________________________________President’s Name: ________________________________Vice President’s Name(s):_________________________ _________________________________________________ ________________________

36

McCormick Taylor Inc.

Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street , 10th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

1441 Main Street, Suite 875

Columbia, SC 29201

803.978.2744 803.978.2747

23-1683759

David J. Griffin

Senior Environmental Scientist

803.978.2744

X

69

McCormick Taylor & Associates

May 15, 1967PennsylvaniaChief Executive Officer: James C Wiggins, P.E

Chief Visionary Officer: Patrick J. Guise


Secretary’s Name: ________________________________Treasurer’s Name: ________________________________

D. If your organization is a partnership, please indicate:Type of partnership (if applicable): _____________________Date of organization: _____________________Name(s) of general partners: ______________________________________________ _____________________

E. If your organization is a sole proprietorship, please indicate:Date of organization: ________________________________Name of owner: ________________________________

F. If the form of your organization is other than those listed above, describe it and name the principals:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

G. Submit a copy of the Applicant’s current organization chart showing numbers of employees by discipline and the names and titles.

H. Is the Applicant related to another firm as a parent, subsidiary or affiliate?___ Yes ___ No

If yes, give names and addresses of all affiliated parent and/or subsidiary companies. Indicate which companies are subsidiaries._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. Judgments:Has the Applicant or any officer, director or owner thereof had any judgments entered against him within the past ten years for breach of contracts for governmental or non-governmental construction, including, but not limited to, design-build or construction management?___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, provide details on any such judgment._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Contract Compliance:Has your firm been found to be in substantial noncompliance with the terms and conditions of prior contracts with City of Columbia without

37

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

X

Not applicable.

X


good cause?___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, provide details of such instance._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Has your firm been found to be in substantial noncompliance with the terms and conditions of prior contracts with any other public body without good cause?___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, provide details of such instance._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

K. Convictions:Has the Applicant or any officer, director or owner thereof been convicted within the past ten (10) years of a crime related to governmental or non-governmental construction or contracting?___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, provide details on any such conviction._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

L. Debarment:Is the Applicant or any officer, director or owner thereof currently debarred pursuant to an established debarment procedure from bidding or contracting by any public body, agency or another state or agency of the federal government?___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, provide details._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Confidential and Proprietary Information

Information submitted is subject to review under the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA). Please clearly disclose at the top of each page if the information contained on such page is proprietary information

3. Financial Statements

Include a copy of your firm’s most recent financial statements.38

X

X

X

X

Due to its proprietary nature, our financial statement is enclosed in a seperate, sealed envelope.


Submitted by: ________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________________

39

McCormick Taylor, Inc.

October 14, 2015


Exhibit A –Bid Online Tutorial

40


- END OF REQUEST -

41

Section II

McCormick Taylor

Final Proposal

18

APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK D.

City of Columbia: Smith Branch Watershed Supplemental Environmental Project October 27, 2015

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

McCormick Taylor understands that the City of Columbia is seeking a qualifed en-gineering � rm to conduct a watershed as-sessment and to develop an Integrated Watershed Management Plan for the Smith Branch Watershed (SBW). We also under-stand that this impaired urban watershed was identifed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justics (DOJ) as a location for the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) related to the City of Columbia/EPA Consent Decree. In ac-cordance with the Consent Decree, the SEP’s are intended to be implemented across three watersheds in Columbia including: Gills Creek, Rocky Branch and Smith Branch. The Gills Creek Watershed Association has completed a Master Plan identifying speci� c locations and types of treatment where watershed im-provements will occur and is proceeding with a Design Build effort to implement some of the recommendations. The McCormick Taylor team is pleased to have been recently select-ed by the City and Rocky Branch Watershed Alliance for the development of an Integrated Watershed Management Plan for Rocky Branch.

The Smith Branch Watershed Alliance (SBWA) is actively seeking input from stakeholders and committees on watershed goals and plans to utilize this Integrated Watershed Management Plan as a tool to better characterize and understand the dynamics of Smith Branch and to properly prioritize and select the appropriate watershed remediation projects.

McCormick Taylor also understands that like the Rocky Branch Watershed, Smith Branch has a history of � ooding problems including this most recent event estimated as a 500 year by USGS at the Smith Branch gauge. We know that there is now more resolve and aggressiveness planned by City of� cials to

implement improved stormwater manage-ment plans. In addition, we know that the City has existing program management tools via Ordinances that can be used to imple-ment stormwater protection strategies. For instance, Section 21-46 (c) of the Stormwater Management and Sedimentation Control al-lows the City to establish Special Protection Areas "which require additional control of stormwater quality and quantity than provided by minimum design standards." We under-stand that, especially given the recent cata-strophic � ooding, identifying areas suitable for such Special Protection will be integral to our Teams efforts for both Rocky Branch and Smith Branch Watersheds.


19

KNOWLEDGE OF WATERSHED CONDITIONS

McCormick Taylor has speci� c knowledge of the Smith Branch Watershed through our Team members' (RDE) current work on the Bull Street Redevelopment Project. The watershed is quite urbanized and has numerous pinch points where fooding is prevalent. We have provid-ed below descriptions of potential areas of interest that we have come across in our current feld work and design efforts. These will likely be reviewed in more detail as part of this watershed assessment effort.

1. Lorick Branch

Lorick Branch is located along/near Lorick Avenue in the northeast section of the SBW. A majority of this tributary is channelized and runs through wooded residential areas and has numerous road crossings. Little is known regarding the stormwater ! uctuations that occur in this area, although it is believed that its channelized state results in ! ooding conditions downstream.

2. The Palmetto Richland Medical Park

The Palmetto Richland Medical Park is situated between the Harden Street Extension and SC 277 in downtown Columbia. Smith Branch, a perennial stream runs through the southwestern portion of the complex. Evidence of slope erosion was noted in multiple areas. Because this property is owned by USC, there is great potential for it to be included in future planning for BMP/restoration designs.

3. Mental Health Property

The former SC Department of Mental Health Property located at the intersection of Bull Street and Elmwood Avenue is currently being de-veloped to support a new baseball � eld as well as commercial and res-idential properties. As a component of this project, a portion of Smith

Palmetto Richland Medical Park

Lorick Branch

Branch that was built over/closed in years ago is in the planning stages of being day-lighted. Our Team partner Robinson Design Engineers (RDE) has provided hydrologic assessment including monitoring and modeling, hydraulic modeling, geomorphic assessment, and eco-logical engineering design for this project. This project has been included as one of the � ve in this proposal and represents not just speci� c related experience within Smith Branch but also as valuable data and modeling that can be used as part of the watershed assessment.

3. Earlewood Park

Earlewood Park is located in the historic Earlewood district in downtown Columbia. The park is surrounded by residential neigh-borhoods and offers a community center, an amphitheater, and numerous facilities for sports. Smith Branch Watershed Alliance meetings are also held at this location. The physical features of the park include steep, grassed and/or mulched hills, pine tree stands and open drainage ditches that wind through-out the grounds. Many of the “natural” ditches are spanned by small footbridges for pedes-trian traf� c. Due to the centralized location of this park within the SBW, and its position just downstream from where the primary tributar-ies of the Smith Branch converge, there ap-pears to be great potential for BMP/restoration designs or other improvements in this area to provide relief to upstream and downstream “problem areas."

5. Southeast SBW

Due to the development of properties — to include stormwater system installation and diversion — little is currently known about the southeastern section of the SBW. Included in this portion of the SBW are portions of the Benedict College and Providence Hospital campuses. This area will require particular attention to determine its ! ow characteristics and contributions to the Smith Branch.

Earlewood Park


20

WORK PLAN

The following is an outline of a workplan developed to provide the City of Columbia and the Smith Branch Watershed Alliance with an Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) for the Smith Branch Watershed. We view this Work Plan as interactive with the City and SBWA and if awarded this contract, we will coordinate closely to � ne tune the � nal scope of services. The Work Plan outline below follows the Scope of Services advertised in the RFP.

SECTION 1

Task 1 – Conduct a Desktop Analysis

McCormick Taylor, Inc. will review and synthesize all available information on the watershed, including but not limited to the Spatial (GIS) Data, Previous Studies and Hydrologic, Hydraulic, Watershed and Ecological Data and Models information as listed in the RFQ. With our current work at the Bull Street Redevelopment project, our team has detailed site information and modeling as well as cursory data recon-naissance in the surrounding watershed area. As noted in the previous section, we are well aware of issues and some of the hot spots that are of concern in the Smith Branch Watershed. We are aware of the detailed GIS information of the watershed divides and storm drain system as well as the local knowledge that the City of Columbia is able to provide. The review will be performed to initiate the characterization of the watershed, identify any additional problem locations to evaluate in more detail, provide a readily accessible and organized structure of the data and establish a baseline from which effective management decisions can be made to improve watershed conditions.

Task 2 – Review and Analyze the Present Condition of the Smith Branch Watershed

2.1 This task will include a more detailed assessment of data collected under Task 1 which will involve the determination of the drainage divides from analysis of the GIS data, coordination with the City of Columbia GIS contact, the Smith Branch Alliance and University of South Carolina. Some of this effort has been initiated with RDE's work at the Bull Street Redevelopment Project.

2.2 Compile and Analyze H&H Data

The Team will incorporate and summarize all of the existing H&H data for the Smith Branch Watershed. All existing gauge data for the USGS gauge (02162093) will be collected and evaluated for completeness and quality. Discharge values are available at the existing gauge and any additional monitoring data will be evaluated for their calibration relationship to stage measurements. Gaps in the data will be highlighted that could limit the type of analysis, such as partial ! ow duration, peak ! ow values, or similar ! ow frequency analyses that could be used in drought and/or food assessments.

The digital urban storm sewer maps will be analyzed to see if the entire system is mapped. Any missing information will be highlighted as a need for future survey work. Incomplete records (missing pipe sizes, material type, invert elevations, etc.) will also be highlighted. The goal will be to analyze the ability to model the storm sewer system to pro-duce accurate timing and ! ow predictions throughout the entire watershed. Any holes in this system will be documented and marked as a data need for the next stage of the project.

An assessment will also be made of existing impervious surface areas and how much of this area is covered by mapped storm sewer infrastructure. Any developed areas of the watershed that are not adequately treating storm ! ow will be delineated in GIS and these areas will be further separated into private and public areas. This process will allow these areas to be targeted for future stormwater improvements as well as locations to study for potential stormwater or ! ooding problems.

Water surface models and the associated data and documentation will be collected from sources such the City and FEMA (most recent hydraulic models of Smith Branch as available). A summary will be made of the origin of the data used in these models and the validity of the assumptions that were used. Recommendations for improvements to the water surface models will be made for later phases of this study.

A tributary to Smith Branch is scheduled to be “daylighted” and restored as part of the Bull Street Redevelopment Project. As part of this effort, a new stream gauge has been established in the tributary, and a detailed H&H study was performed as part of the design and permitting process. Team member RDE performed these H&H analyses for the daylighting project, and we will incorporate this information into our analysis of the entire catchment.

2.3 Collect and Analyze Water Quality Data

The Team will compile available water quality data to assess current water quality conditions in the watershed and to determine how existing monitoring programs could be modi� ed or expanded to meet the data needs of management decisions related to water quality regu-lations and public health criteria. The City’s two newly installed water quality stations (Smith Branch A and B) will be analyzed for their water quality data trends. Other potential available sources to be investigated for data include:

§ Sustainable Midlands

§ Smith Branch Watershed Alliance

§ Congaree Riverkeeper

§ Richland County

§ South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

§ South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control


21

Data will be reviewed to ensure a base level of completeness and quality control before being incorporated into the analysis. Data not meeting these criteria can still be used potentially as observational or anecdotal information.

The primary data source for analysis will be the two water quality sta-tions (A and B) installed in June 2015, which include stage, tempera-ture, turbidity, pH, speci� c conductivity, and dissolved oxygen. Any applicable stage and � ow data from the USGS gauge will be used to supplement the water quality data as needed. The Team will review the full compilation of available data to 1. characterize existing water quality and 2. recommend modi� cations to existing monitoring with the primary purpose of supporting decision-making within current and expected regulatory and human health criteria and based on the results of the characterization. The regulatory context primarily includes NPDES MS4 requirements and Section 303(d) impairment listings and any subsequent TMDL requirements anticipated in the future. Human health criteria will primarily include bacteriological issues.

Modi� cations could include changes in spatial location or scale to add, remove, or move monitoring sites to key locations. The team will also review monitoring frequency, parameters, and methods to ensure that data collected is of the utmost utility. Smith Branch, like many other urban watersheds, suffers from degradation due to stormwater run-off, bacteria, sediment and trash and has a TMDL for fecal coliform. Additional monitoring for these parameters will be explored.

Methods, results, and recommendations of the desktop water quality analysis will be included in the draft and � nal comprehensive report.

2.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat – Given the � eld reconnaissance and ground-truthing of riparian areas and aquatic habitat will occur during the Geomorphic Assessments phase, this desktop component will utilize data gathered to both target areas for in� eld sampling and characterization as well identifying stream and riparian segments that appear to be in need of enhancements. This will include an assessment of opportunities to combine fragmented riparian patches into connected corridors and perhaps Greenways for recreational access.

2.5 Structural and Non-Structural Measure Identifi cation – We view this task as evaluating the extent, condition and impact on the watershed of existing structural measures and constraints and where modi� cations are most warranted. These could include, for instance: riprap lining such as the section in Maxcy Gregg Park; concrete fumes, undersized culverts, rail road bridge tunnels (e.g. above Olympia Park). Evaluations of these areas as potential watershed improvement proj-ects as part of the IWMP will incorporate assessments of structure use, site condition (e.g. stable/unstable), integrity of structure, hydraulic in� uence upstream and downstream.

2.6 List and Map Stream Locations to be fi eld analyzed – Using the information collected from City GIS and storm drain maps, McCormick Taylor's � eld crews will be supplied with all stream segments to be analyzed in the � eld. All data collection platforms will be via tablets and web maps.

Task 3 – Identify potential problems, resolu-tions and opportunities

3.1 We suspect a large number of ma-jor problem areas within the Smith Branch Watershed will be identi� ed through coordination with the various stakeholders. Some we have already included under Knowledge of Watershed Conditions. Others could be identifed through the data acquisition and review, desktop analysis and � eld reconnaissance. Regardless of previous history of problem assessment, we would recommend a review of each along with other opportunities in the context of this effort to enhance and restore Smith Branch Watershed. As noted in the RFQ, this assessment will parallel the study of Greenway opportunities.

3.2 Evaluate Feasibility of Stormwater Management Implementation Techniques -

Under this Task, McCormick Taylor will perform a retro� t investigation, which will follow a similar approach to the Retro� t Reconnaissance Investigation (RRI) as described in the EPA Urban Small Watershed Restoration Manual (USWRM) Series Manual 3. The primary focus will be to assess ret-ro� t potential of existing stormwater facili-ties, ponds and outfalls located within Smith Branch Watershed.

Items of concern will include identifying areas where storm water management or water quality improvements can be implemented, including storm drain outfalls and other input points with signi� cantly developed subareas. This will include any existing structures/BMP’s that can be retro� tted. A photo record of these areas will be developed for use in the report preparation.

A rating system for prioritizing the feasibility of stormwater management retro� ts will be developed. Each site will be ranked based on the following existing conditions and site con-straints detailed on the RRI forms:

§ Upstream existing stormwater management (SWM) facilities

§ Drainage area and amount of impervious cover

§ Site topography/slope

§ Tree/vegetation impacts

§ Utility/storm drain impacts

§ Site accessibility for construction and maintenance

§ Environmental impacts/permitting

§ Cost/bene� t ratio


22

McCormick Taylor’s sample project “Lower Gunpowder Falls Watershed Assessment” utilized this approach to identify potential stormwater management capital improvement projects.

3.3 Evaluate the Feasibility of Stream Restoration Techniques – This analysis will rely heavily on identi! ed site constraints, problem areas, results of the hydrologic and hydraulic studies and most im- portantly the geomorphic site assessments. McCormick Taylor has extensive experience in working with stream systems in urban environ- ments. The lower section of Smith Branch that we are investigating will be a challenge given the site constraints (buildings, parking lots, utilities etc.) as well as the " ashy nature of Smith Branch. McCormick Taylor will identify all opportunities for stream improvement, determine feasibility and cost. We expect there will be some projects that will be “band aid” ! xes such as bank stabilization, however, we will also focus on ! xes that are more systematic that will result in the recovery/restoration of a more substantial and connected system of reaches. Key here will be the identi! cation of goals speci! c to the reach at hand and we expect to closely coordinate these goals through the Smith Branch Watershed Alliance and interested stakeholders.

3.4 Greenway Route Analysis – McCormick Taylor understands the importance and interests of the SBWA, the City of Columbia and Richland County to intertwine the commerce and recreation of Columbia with its natural water and riparian features. We are currently working on the Concept Plan for the connection of the existing trails at Olympia Park and along the Congaree at Granby and as part of the Rocky Branch Watershed Assessment, will be evaluating the Greenway Corridor through the Kroger Property. The corridor possesses a great opportunity to provide a comfortable transportation link while harness-ing the adjacent land to ! lter stormwater pollutants, provide riparian buffers, improve water quality and enhance the character of the exist-ing ecosystem. The feasibility assessment will also evaluate alterna-tives to determine appropriate widths and potential right of way acqui-sition required for potential uses such as walking and cycling. Design goals include:

§ Use a context sensitive design approach. Consider the potential and adjacent uses, environmental factors, community desires, and overall plan goals when making design decisions.

§ Treat watershed and stormwater management as amenities to the community and not requirements. Celebrate the natural func-tion of this land and enhance and showcase it instead of utilities. Investigate opportunities for education and recreation.

§ When we create stormwater facilities, ensure they are aesthetically pleasing and educational. And use the entire watershed as a system instead of a series of sites.

§ Enhance viewsheds.

§ Enhance habitats.

Some of our prior experience developing greenway feasibility assess-ments includes the Schuylkill County Open Space and Greenway Plan which included a long-range plan for a variety of greenway connections that interfaced with streams and wetlands in the county.

Although design is not needed at this phase, our prior work on the South River Greenway in Waynesboro, VA will be useful in feasibil-ity assessments because we are familiar with different approaches that guide effective greenway design. Please note that we have included in this submittal Mr. Nate Evans who is a community planner and designer focusing on pedestrian, bicycle and ADA access with over 20 years of experience.

3.5 Data Compilation for Field Investigation – McCormick Taylor will compile the results and required mapping for use in the ! eld reconnaissance. All ! eld crews will be equipped with a data collection platform using tablets/web maps. An important consideration here before ! eld work initiates is access to private properties to conduct the ! eld assess-ments. McCormick Taylor will coordinate with the City about the potential to use a web map feature that would be able to update property access approval in real time for ! eld crews. This was developed for our watershed project with Howard County, MD.

SECTION II

Task 1– Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

1.0 Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analyses will be conducted to assess food and drought risks in the watershed.

1.1 Four stream-" ow gauges will be cali-brated: gauges at Maxcy Gregg Park, Olympia Avenue, Whaley Street, and near Gervais St. Calibrations should take advantage of exist-ing data by coordinating with the City, USGS, and the Alliance. The USGS gauges at Above Gervais and Above Pickens have been discon-tinued since January 1, 2015, but calibrations will allow hind-computation of the seven-year records at both sites. Although the Above Pickens gauge is redundant with a new Maxcy Gregg Park gauge at the same site, neither gauge has been calibrated. The Plan should consider the potential for the City renegotiat-ing an agreement with USGS to restart the Above Gervais Street gauge.

Calibrations should involve collaboration with the USGS.


23

1.1 Gauge Calibration – The existing USGS stream gauge in Smith Branch reports both water depth and discharge, and the stage-discharge relationship (“rating curve”) for the gage is well-established. Following USGS methods, we will measure discharge at a minimum at the B gauge and at the A gauge as well if the USGS data are not applicable for this location. This will allow the development of stage- discharge relationships for the two gauges, which are necessary for calibrating H&H models. These calibrated H&H models can then be used to calculate pollutant loads, to quantify the frequency and magni-tude of � ow events throughout the system, and to assess the effect of conceptual improvements. These analyses and calibrated models can also then be used to determine stream erosion potential, stream stabil-ity, and sediment transport and deposition.

Gauges can be calibrated with in-� eld measurement of stream dis-charge using a SonTek Doppler hand held � ow meter and topset wading rod. Discharge will be measured over the entire channel cross-section using the USGS mid-point method. Direct measurement of discharge over a range of � ows will allow for development and calibra-tion of a stage-discharge relationship. Detailed cross-sections of the gauged area will allow for the development of a rating curve for the gauge that can then be further calibrated to the � ow measurements taken in the stream.

1.2 Spatially distributed rainfall-runoff modeling will be conducted for the basin to quantify � ood magnitudes and frequencies in different parts of the basin. Models will be calibrated using the latest stream-� ow data. Available data from various sources, such as digital maps of impervious surfaces and the urban storm sewer system, should be incorporated in the model. Some parameterization data may already be available for Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and other models.

1.2 Model Development

The Team will prepare hydrologic/hydraulic models for the Smith Branch Watershed (SBW) that will be used for planning-level assess-ments of � ooding and stream erosion.

There are many rainfall-runoff hydrologic models available, from simple spreadsheets that estimate annual runoff to complex models that com-bine hydrology, pollutant loading, and water quality. Because of the urbanized nature of the watershed and the potential need for model-ing � ows within the storm drain system, the Team recommends that EPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) be used for hydrologic calculations. Unlike other hydrologic models such as TR-20 or HEC-HMS, SWMM was originally designed with urban hydrology and storm drain � ows in mind. KCI has successfully used SWMM for watershed assessments from 100 acres to 50 square miles. SWMM is also ca-pable of being run either for single events or for continuous rainfall. The nature of the � ooding issues in SBW and the need to quantify food frequencies leads to a requirement for continuous modeling.

Model parameterization begins with de� ning the scale for hydrologic modeling. Increasing the number of subwatersheds and decreasing their size can provide better resolution for identifying and prioritizing problem areas; however, this may require a higher cost in complexity and resources needed.

In order to model � ooding SBW potential in suf� cient detail, the Team recommends that the hydrologic model be developed with catchment

outlets at critical locations. These include ma-jor road crossings and signi� cant tributaries, both natural channels and storm drain outfalls. This could be customized for Smith Branch based on proposed future changes, such as the Bull Street Redevelopment Project. Based on the urbanized nature of the watershed, the Team expects an average catchment size of 50 acres would provide the detail needed.

Input requirements vary considerably among models. For hydrologic models, including SWMM, the following parameters will be re-quired to estimate surface runoff:

Precipitation: 15-minute or 5-minute rainfall data from a rain gauge in close proximity to the watershed is the best source of precipitation for a watershed with a response time of approximately 30 minutes.

Land Use and Percent Impervious: Runoff characteristics will be based on land use or land cover. Land use and impervious cover for modeling will be taken from the GIS lay-ers developed during the project

Soils: For hydrologic modeling, in� ltration is modeled explicitly as part of runoff calcu-lations. KCI will use the most recent soils data available from USDA.

Conveyances: Storm drain maps and data will be used to model large pipes and culverts where necessary. Stream cross- sections can be used in SWMM to provide better calculations of � ows for input to the hydraulic model.

The Team will use stream gauge data to calibrate the hydrologic/hydraulic models. For each event modeled, discharge and water surface elevations will be compared to gauge data. Model parameters will be adjusted so that the modeled discharges and depths attain a reasonable approximation to the gauge mea-surements. Comparisons with historic events will also be made to determine if the model represents roadway overtopping or � ooding that actually occurred.

1.3 Water Surface Profi le Evaluation - Building on the analysis and recommendations from Section I, 2.2 of this project, the Team will � nalize the need for additional or expanded water surface pro� le modeling. The proposed improvements will focus primarily on either the model geometry or the model hydrologic inputs. New cross-section data collection will be proposed for areas outside of the existing


24

modeled areas, and additional recommendations may be made to revise other cross-sections as needed. The models will be assessed in light of current site conditions, particularly at crossings that play a large role in controlling water surface pro� les. Any new cross-sections or structural data will be obtained through traditional survey or with available LIDAR data as appropriate. Channel roughness values will be evaluated in the � eld to determine if the existing models are accurately depicting watershed conditions.

Once the new model geometries are compiled, the hydrologic � ow data in the models will be updated to re� ect the data developed from the spatially-distributed rainfall-runoff relationships, updated stormwater network, and the stream� ow calibrations from available gauge data. These updated models will then be used to show the extent of areas of � ooding concern in conjunction with the mapped FEMA � oodplains.

Task 2 – Watershed Benefi ts and Solutions Analysis

To assist in the systematic watershed assessment efforts, McCormick Taylor will conduct a watershed-based suitability analysis to identify and prioritize suitable enhancement sites that would improve and protect Smith Branch and its tributaries and sensitive resources watershed-wide. Utilizing ESRI’s ArcMap software, we will build a ras- ter-based GIS model to assess the stream, pond and outfall reconnaissance data in conjunction with resource, land use and property data to identify optimal enhancement sites. A series of modeling parameters will be developed through coordination with the City and SBWA that will focus on: proximity to streams; overall channel condition; proximity to wetlands and other valuable resources; land use; zoning; site size; and property boundaries/ownership. Weights will be applied to each parameter, as appropriate. Once potential sites have been identi� ed a rating system will be applied to each site based on the overall bene� t to the watershed. A map will be developed identifying enhancement areas ranked by overall bene� t to the watershed.

Task 3 – Geomorphic Field Evaluation

McCormick Taylor will cruise the stream channels within the watershed to assess current channel condition, noting stream stability, buffer con-dition and width, in-stream habitat and any other unique features. From our estimation of the stream designations (from USC and SBWA data), the main channel length to be investigated (orders 3,4 and 5) is approx-imately 21,710 linear feet and the tributaries (orders 1 and 2 are ap-proximately 40,400 linear feet). We will utilize GPS to record locations of site features as well as ground photos. The base reconnaissance efforts will be followed by geomorphic � eld surveys which will include, at minimum, stream cross-sections, pro� les and pebble counts at lo-cations which may provide both characteristic reference conditions as well as unstable reaches. We estimate the following quantities required for � eld efforts:

§ 20 200’ pro� les (~10% of total watershed stream length)

§ 50 cross-sections (3 per pro� le reach)

§ 20 pebble counts (150 counts minimum per pro� le reach)

The stream walks and geomorphic mea-surements to assess stream stability will be conducted based on site conditions and a variety of stability assessments may be used such as: the Rosgen Stream Channel Stability Assessment (uses Pfankuch, Bank Height Ratios, and Channel Evolution Model Assessments), Qualitative Stability Assessments (focus on identi� cation of head cuts, nick points, base level lowering, lean-ing or undercut trees, exposed infrastruc-ture, aquatic vegetation and aquatic biotic communities), Stream Bank Ribbon Testing, Comparisons of Bar Sample versus armored rif� e compositions (Whiting and King, 2000), Hydrologic Flashiness Indices, Tractive Force calculations, relative channel comparisons to regional channel geometries (meander patterns and cross–section geometry), and historic photo comparison.

During the � eld walks other items of interest will also be identi� ed such as:

§ Geomorphic grade control

§ Exposed bed rock

§ Exposed or endangered utilities

§ Approximate width and composition of ripar-ian corridor

§ Erosion potential

§ Debris accumulations

§ Barriers to aquatic species migration

§ Areas of excessive deposition

§ Culverts, pipes and bridges

§ Hydraulic controls

Data collected during the � uvial geomorphic surveys will be processed and evaluated with at-a-section modeling software using continuity and roughness relationships (likely Manning’s) such as Bentley FlowMaster®, The Reference Reach Spreadsheet (Mecklenburg 2004), or created spreadsheets.


25

Task 1– Identifi cation and Prioritization of Opportunities

1.1 Compile Minimum of 25 Opportunities – We consider this task as the most important in the development of the IWMP. We would like to direct attention to our sample report that was delivered as part of this submittal “Lower Gunpowder Falls Watershed Assessment” June 2011. We feel the methodologies and products produced from this report are in total alignment with the goals of the City and SBWA for this watershed assessment. To identify the minimum of 25 opportuni-ties, we would recommend a very similar approach. The effort entailed breaking the primary watershed in subwatersheds determined by geo-morphic and hydrologic breaks. Once completed, several evaluations were conducted both in the � eld and using GIS data to further evalu-ate the individual subwatersheds. For the Lower Gunpowder project, it was determined that connectivity was the primary watershed issue, including lateral, longitudinal and temporal connectivity. In coordina-tion with the client, a series of metrics were then generated in order to further de� ne and eventually rank each drainage area. Each drainage area was ranked by existing conditions impairment based on a set of metrics developed in response to observed watershed stressors. So in this manner, we were able to determine in which sub basins impairment was the greatest. Based on this ranking, Capital Improvement Projects were identi� ed in drainage areas with the greatest impairment. This methodology is outlined in Figure 2.

Once the data for each metric was collected and the analysis conducted within each drainage area, the results were ranked with the lower scores indicating the greatest potential for improvement. Drainage areas with conditions closest to the ideal were ranked the highest, while those that were most impaired and/or had capacity for improvements ranked the lowest. A combination of the rankings of the “existing condition” and “opportunities” resulted in the “cumulative” scoring and rank. See Table 3. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate how the metrics were separated into three categories: Geomorphic, Ecologic and Hydrologic. Utilizing this detailed assessment and prioritization approach, a mini-mum of 25 opportunities will be identi� ed and 5 management strate-gies. Our intent for this phase of the work will be to coordinate closely with the SBWA to discuss this approach and determine where we may want to modify the model and/or metrics. We see this as an iterative and collaborative process with the SBWA and City.

What is of tremendous value here is that there is ! exibility to develop the metrics to suit the speci� c characteristics of the watershed. In addition, it is likely that the metric development efforts that will have already been coordinated through the City and RBWA for Rocky Branch, will be translatable for immediate use on Smith Branch.

SECTION III – DEVELOP AND EVALUATE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES


26

1.2 Site Reconnaissance and Typical Development of up to 10 Sites – Based on the results of the prioritization, up to 10 sites will be investigated in more detail (visually) to assess site constraints and constructability. Design solutions will be developed and illustrated at a minimum with typicals. A narrative summarizing the existing condi-tions at the site and the proposed restoration solution will be provided. In addition, cost estimates for design and construction will also be prepared.

1.3 Field Reviews – McCormick Taylor would be pleased to conduct ! eld visits of these selected sites with the City of Columbia, University of Carolina, and the Smith Branch Alliance Staff. All attend- ees would receive the site reconnaissance summaries, typical and cost estimates prior to the ! eld review.

1.4 Provide GIS Data – A data driven GIS model will be developed to identify the 25 opportunities. All data inputs, intermediary datasets, and outputs from the model, both spatial and tabular, shall be per-sisted in an ArcGIS 10.1 compatible geodatabase. Data sets would include, but are not limited to impervious and land use coverage, natural resources, SWM facility drainage areas, IDDE hotspots, opportunity locations, model weighting factors, etc.

Using the Collector for ArcGIS app on tablet devices, ! eld crews will be able to easily compare GIS reference layers, such as land use and impervious coverage, to actual ! eld conditions and digitize any sig-ni! cant discrepancy areas in real time. When paired with a sub-meter accuracy external GPS, these tablets accurately show a ! eld reviewer’s position in relation to reference layers displayed on the digital map.

The reviewer can then digitize any point, polyline, or polygon features necessary, as well as attach photos directly to each feature. These features are then viewable in real time on other ! eld crews’ tablets, through a web browser, and for use in GIS desktop analysis.

We have extensive experience delineating stormwater drainage areas for various counties and municipalities. Using GIS tools like ArcGIS Hydro, rough drainage areas can be delineated very rapidly, but an H&H engineer would then review and tweak each drainage area to ensure it matches ! eld conditions as much as possible to account for things like curbs, pipes, and swales that GIS tools and data might not accurately capture. These drainage areas would be delineated in a to- pologically accurate manner that eliminates any small gaps or overlaps between adjacent drainage areas.

Task 2 – Data Packaging and Delivery

McCormick Taylor will organize, package and deliver all data in a format compatible with the City’s version of the software: ArcGIS 10.1 SP1 for Desktop.

SECTION IV - DEVELOP WATERSHED PLAN AND

REPORT ON RESULTS

Task 1 – Upon completion of the ! eld investi-gations and analysis and review of comments on the technical memorandum, McCormick Taylor will develop a Final Report to sum-marize the results of the watershed inves-tigations. The Final Report will contain at a minimum:

§ Final goals and objectives to guide restoration implementation

§ An overall watershed map highlighting the key resource features

§ Watershed-wide plan recommendations

§ Methodology of metric development that guided prioritization

§ Prioritization of recommended retro! t and stream restoration projects

§ Conceptual renderings/typicals of recommended solutions for stream and retro! ts

§ Supporting technical memos and appendices

Task 2 (2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) – Progress Reports and Workshops -

McCormick Taylor will provide Progress Reports to stakeholders at 65% and 95% completion of the Final Report and would be pleased to be part in Workshops for each phase to go over the report and solicit input. All Progress Reports will be provided in both Adobe PDF and Microsoft Word formats, in addition to two (2) hard copies.

In addition to the Workshops during the report development, McCormick Taylor will also prepare for and attend up to three additional coordination meetings to provide updates on progress and discuss various past and future activities associated with the watershed assessments. Possible items of discussion at the coordination meetings may include but not be limited to the following: watershed characterization, ! eld assessment methods and results, problems or issues with ! eld assessment activities, data organization and dissemination, and discussions to identify and maximize opportunities within the Smith Branch Watershed study areas.

Oct ‘15 Nov ‘15 Dec ‘15 Jan ‘16 Feb ‘16 March ‘16 April ‘16 May ‘16 June ‘16

Work Program Schedule Smith Branch and Rocky Branch Watersheds

July ‘16 Aug ‘16

I. Conduct Desktop

Analysis

1. Data Review

2. Review RBW

2.1 Drainage

2.2 H&H

2.3 Collect WQ

2.4 Riparian

2.5 Struc Meas

2.6 List/Map Streams

3. ID problems

3.1 ID Flaws

3.2 Eval Sum

3.3 Eval Stream

3.4 Greenway

Months

II. Field

1.1 Goges

1.2 Hydro Modeling

1.3 WS Profiles

2. Solutions ID

3. Geomorph

III.

1.

1.1- ID 25 opps

1.2- ID 10

1.3- Field Reviews

1.4- Prande GIS

IV. Pland Report

1.Final Report

2.Progress Reports

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

2 Week

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

6 Weeks

4 Weeks

1 Week

1 Week

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

4 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

6 Weeks

4 Weeks

1 Week

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

Rocky Branch Watershed

Smith Branch Watershed

McCormick Taylor, Inc.Proposal Summary

Smith Branch Watershed

Task Man-hours Task Totals

Section I Review Existing Data & Desktop Analysis 584.00 $77,251.36 Section II Field Assessment 816.00 $103,908.30 Section III Develop & Evaluate Restoration Alternatives 482.00 $62,980.49 Section IV Develp Watershed Plan & Report Results 292.00 $40,920.01 Final Watershed Assessment Report 244.00 $28,449.06

Totals 2,418.00 $313,509.22

Job No. TBD

Section III

Record of Negotiation

During the negotiation process we agreed to the following changes of the terms and conditions stated in the RFP:

McCormick Taylor would like to request the following exceptions to the City Standard

Terms and Conditions:

Pg. 25, Clause VII (B) Indemnification – We request to revise the first sentence as follows:

“The respondent will agree to indemnify, defend, hold harmless and reimburse the City and its agents, and employees from and against any and all losses, liabilities, and expenses, and all and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of any action or failure to act to the extent caused by, and in proportion to, the negligence of respondent, its subcontractors, officers, agents and employees in the performance of its services under the Agreement of any of the obligations under the contract.. Losses, liabilities, and expenses and claims for damages shall include…”

Pg. 26, Clause VII (B)(4) Insurance – We request to revise as follows:

“Each insurance policy required by these instructions shall be endorsed to state that Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, unless thirty (30) days prior written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City by respondent.”

city of columbia agenda memorandum meeting date: december 15, 2015 … · 2018. 2. 19. · city of...

Documents