m03081e01 request for proposal - bidnet request for proposal kinnickinnic river i-94 to ... (kk)...

-1-

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

KINNICKINNIC RIVER I-94 TO BECHER STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY

CONTRACT NO. M03081E01

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (District) invites consulting firms (Consultant) who have experience in environmental assessment, channel bioengineering, stream geomorphology, sediment transport, environmental assessment, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling and aquatic habitat restoration to submit sealed proposals to complete the Kinnickinnic River I-94 to Becher Street Feasibility Study, Contract No.M03081E01. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The District is requesting professional services of a Consultant to perform a feasibility study which will develop alternatives and select a preferred alternative that meets the project objectives (below) for the Kinnickinnic (KK) River between the Interstate 94 Overpass on the Kinnickinnic River and West Becher Street located in the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC). The District recently completed a study (MMSD Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station Improvements Feasibility Study, 2013) that determined that this section of the KK River does not sustain a viable aquatic habitat due to low dissolved oxygen levels, lack of flow and limited diversity of channel morphology. A recommendation from the 2013 Feasibility Study included analyzing improvements to the channel morphology, which could partially address all three items. In addition, there are contaminated sediments in this stream reach. The feasibility study objectives as outlined in the grant submittal (Appendix G) are summarized below:

1. A reduction of the contaminated sediments getting transported to the Milwaukee Estuary through removal or sequestration of contaminated river sediments in the study area.

2. Improvement of fish and wildlife habitat through diversifying river channel and stream bank morphology and channel substrate diversity.

3. Improve water quality in the study reach of the KK River (dissolved oxygen (DO) goal of 5 mg/L).

In addition, the District has identified an additional goal that channel alternatives shall not increase the regulatory 1% probability flood elevation.

-2-

The project has a maximum contract amount of $200,000, and proposals shall not exceed this amount. This Request for Proposal (RFP) identifies a broad scope of services and project objectives, as opposed to specific tasks. Given the limited budget and the number of tasks that could be performed, the District is relying upon Consultants to provide a detailed project approach that fits within the project budget. As such, the Scope of Services only identifies project objectives and general scope areas, and not a typical detailed scope of services. The District is relying upon Consultants to use their professional judgment to propose a project approach, with the goal of meeting project objectives.

A general Scope of Services is shown in Attachment A. It is anticipated that the services for this feasibility study shall be completed within twelve (12) months. The Notice to Proceed date is projected to be May 1, 2015. GENERAL

Firms wishing to be considered in the consultant selection process must submit a Proposal Package no later than 1:00 p.m., local time on February 27, 2015. A complete Proposal Package shall consist of a Qualifications Envelope and a Compensation Envelope. The Qualifications Envelope shall contain the Transmittal Letter, six (6) hard copies of the Qualifications Proposal, and one (1) electronic copy of the Qualifications Proposal (Adobe pdf format) on CD or DVD, without the proposed compensation. The Compensation Envelope shall contain the Transmittal Letter and the Compensation Proposal. The Proposal Package, Qualifications Envelope and Compensation Envelopes shall be marked as shown in the box below:

Mr. James P. Morgan Senior Contract Administrator

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street

Milwaukee, WI 53204-1446

(Label as appropriate: COMPLETE PACKAGE, QUALIFICATIONS ENVELOPE, or COMPENSATION ENVELOPE)

Project Name: KINNICKINNIC RIVER I-94 TO BECHER STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY District Contract No.: M03081E01 Submittal Date: Firm Name:

The Transmittal Letter shall be on company letterhead clearly identifying the firm name, address, and telephone number. The Transmittal Letter shall be signed by a person

-3-

authorized to submit and sign a proposal and include the name of the person authorized to submit/sign the proposal, their title, telephone number, and e-mail address. Proposals received after the designated time will not be considered in the selection process and will be retained unopened until after award. The District reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals and to waive informalities or irregularities in the selection process. If it becomes necessary to revise any part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) or otherwise provide additional information, an addendum will be posted on the District’s website at www.mmsd.com , Procurement Page, Procurement Opportunities Page, Contract M03081E01.

The District will not be liable for any costs incurred by the respondents in replying to this RFP. In addition, the District is not liable for any costs for work or services performed by the selected consultant prior to a written Notice to Proceed.

Requests for further information or questions regarding this Request for Proposal should be addressed only to the individual listed below. UNAUTHORIZED CONTACT REGARDING THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WITH ANY DISTRICT EMPLOYEE MAY RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION. Any oral communication will be considered unofficial and non-binding. Proposers should rely only on written addenda issued by the individual listed below.

Mr. James P. Morgan Senior Contract Administrator

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street

Milwaukee, WI 53204-1446 Telephone: (414) 225-2132

Fax: (414) 271-0829 E-Mail: [email protected]

This RFP is available on the District’s Website at www.mmsd.com, Procurement Page, Procurement Opportunities Page, Contract M03081E01. The District is a unit of local government obligated to comply with Wisconsin’s Public Records Law, Wisconsin Statutes secs. 19.31 through 9.39. The presumption under the law is that public records shall be open to the public unless there is a clear statutory exception, unless there exists a limitation under the common law, or unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the public record confidential. As such, Proposers should assume that their Proposals will be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law. Proposals will only be accepted from firms authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin.

http://www.mmsd.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mmsd.com/

-4-

SMALL, VETERAN, WOMEN AND MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION

The District maintains a policy ensure that certified Small, Veteran, Women, and Minority Business Enterprises (S/W/MBE) offering professional services will be allowed the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for District contracts and subcontracts. The S/W/MBE participation goal for this contract is 20% of the total contract dollar amount. Minority and women-owned businesses proposed to participate on the contract must be certified as Minority or Women Business Enterprises. Small businesses must be certified with the District and are defined as businesses not exceeding $2.5 million in gross sales during the recent calendar or fiscal year. Proposers are expected to take affirmative steps to assure the S/W/MBEs are utilized in this contract. The District will recognize certain certification programs for S/W/MBEs, disadvantaged and veteran-owned businesses. In addition, the District administers a SBE certification program. Information is available at the District’s website –http://www.mmsd.com/en/procurement/SWMBE.aspx Information on minority business enterprise (MBE), women business enterprise (WBE), disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE), or veteran-owned business certification (VBE) may be obtained by contacting José Galván, the District’s Contract Compliance/Emerging Business Development Supervisor, at 414-225-2238 or [email protected]. Those firms interested in obtaining MMSD Small Business Enterprise (SBE) certification with the District should contact José Galván. A firm selected by the Proposer can only satisfy one of the three categories. The same firm may not, for example, be listed for participation as an MBE organization and an SBE organization even if the level of participation exceeds each category's goal. All firms must be certified prior to the submittal of the proposal. A proposer intending to use a firm that is not certified should account for the time needed to gain the desired certification before the proposal is submitted. ONLINE CONTRACT AND VENDOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The District has implemented an online Contract and Vendor Management System (CVMS) to monitor S/W/MBE participation and subcontractor prompt payment compliance. The prime consultant will be required to use the secure, web-based CVMS to submit monthly project information on progress payments to all sub-consultants and S/W/MBE firms. Sub-consultants and S/W/MBE firms will be required to verify progress payments.

http://www.mmsd.com/en/procurement/SWMBE.aspx


-5-

The prime consultant and any sub-consultant shall provide data electronically and are responsible to respond by due dates, respond to any requests for information, and to check the CVMS on a regular basis to manage contact information and contract records. Information to access the system will be provided to a designated point of contact with each consultant upon award of the contract. The CVMS can be accessed at the following address: https://mmsd.diversitycompliance.com/. Procedural differences between the previous conventional reporting and the new web-based system include:

Monthly progress payment status reports will be submitted via the web-based

system.

Paper copies of S/W/MBE compliance reports will no longer be required.

Consultants will be required to enter data for payments made to sub-consultants,

and sub-consultants will be required to enter data for payments received into the

web-based system.

Training and Reporting Monthly CVMS training sessions will be offered to prime and sub-consultants. Estimated initial training hours for prime or sub-consultants and estimated monthly reporting times are as follows:

Prime consultant: Initial Training: 45 minutes for prompt payment compliance

Monthly Reporting: 15 minutes for prompt payment compliance

Sub-consultant: Initial Training: 15 minutes for progress payment verification

Monthly Reporting: 5 minutes for prompt payment verification

Technical Support Vendors will have access to online and telephone support from the CVMS software vendor and District staff. For more information, please contact José R. Galván Jr., CC/EBD Supervisor, at (414) 225-2238 or [email protected]. NON DISCRIMINATION The District has adopted a Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunities policy. The following is an excerpt from that policy:

"It is the District’s policy to encourage equal employment opportunity practices on the part of private businesses. Persons seeking to do business with the District are expected to comply with applicable Federal and Wisconsin State laws, regulations and orders relating to equal employment and non-discrimination with regard to employees and subcontractors. To this end, the District shall include equal employment

https://mmsd.diversitycompliance.com/


-6-

opportunity and non-discrimination requirements as part of the District’s purchasing and contracting procedures."

In accordance with that policy, the District requires that the Proposer complete and submit the Certification of Non-Discrimination (Attachment B) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Data form (Attachment C) as an appendix to the Qualifications Proposal. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The successful Proposer is expected to enter into a contract with the District. A Draft Contract is provided as Attachment E. Proposers must identify with their Compensation Proposal any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the draft Contract. INSURANCE Proposers should be prepared to provide proof of insurance coverage required by the District. Insurance requirements are set forth in the draft Contract provided in Attachment E. Proposers must identify with their Compensation Proposal any exceptions to the insurance requirements presented in the draft Contract. SELECTION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE The proposals considered in the selection process will be evaluated by a Consultant Selection Advisory Committee (CSAC) according to the criteria and point system presented below. The District will not release the names of committee members and requires that Proposers direct any questions to the aforementioned District Contact Person. The CSAC will evaluate the proposals utilizing the proposal evaluation criteria (except compensation). The District, because of time constraints and depending upon the thoroughness of the proposals, may at its sole option award a contract based upon the initial proposal submittal. Do not assume there will be an opportunity for submittal of additional information. Submit your proposal as if it were your “best and final offer.” Following evaluation of the technical proposals, the CSAC will recommend to the Selection Overview Committee (SOC) to either select a consultant based solely on the proposals, or to interview the highest-rated Proposers. If the District intends to hold interviews, the Proposers to be interviewed will be contacted to schedule an interview. The interview will further evaluate the Proposer in the following categories: (1) Project Manager/Key Personnel; (2) Overall Qualification of Firm/Team; and (3) Project Approach. The point values or ratings for these categories are subject to change based upon the interview. After completing the technical evaluation, compensation packages of only the highest-rated proposals will be opened. There will be no required number of compensation

-7-

packages opened. Following selection of the highest rated Proposer, a letter will be sent to all Proposers informing them of the District’s selection and the date of anticipated District Commission meeting to award the contract. The District will negotiate contractual terms, level of effort, and scope of services with the highest rated Proposer. Upon successful negotiations, District staff will recommend to the District Commission a contract award. The Contract award recommendation will be made to the Proposer whose proposal best complies with the RFP and will be the most advantageous to the District, as indicated by the highest rated proposal. The following is the proposed schedule for this study, including anticipated District timeframes for selection and award: January 30, 2015 Issue RFP February 11, 2015 Pre-Proposal Meeting – 10 a.m., at District Headquarters,

260 West Seeboth Street, Milwaukee February 27, 2015 Deadline for Receipt of Proposals March 6, 2015 Selection by Committee March 10, 2015 Complete Contract Negotiations May 18, 2015 Commission Award May 23, 2015 Notice to Proceed (NTP) 45 Weeks after NTP Complete Draft Feasibility Study 50 Weeks after NTP Complete Final Feasibility Study 52 Weeks after NTP Complete project PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA The following information must be included in each Proposal and will form the basis of the evaluation. The point number is the weight of each criterion. Generally, when scoring proposals, the District will follow the Evaluation Scoring Table presented in Attachment F. PROJECT MANAGER/KEY PERSONNEL - 20 points Include the name and qualifications of the Consultant Project Manager (PM) to be assigned to this Study. Include the Project Manager's prior similar experiences on:

Projects which best illustrate his/her expertise to perform the requested services.

Meeting schedules and budgets.

-8-

For any projects listed include the name and phone number of the owner’s representative in charge of the Study. Provide the identity and qualifications of Key Personnel (both prime and subconsultants) to work on this Study. Include the experience of Key Personnel which best illustrates their expertise to perform the requested services. Provide an organizational chart illustrating the relationship between the PM, QA/QC Coordinator, and Key Personnel. Identify subconsultants in the organizational chart by name, firm, and if S/W/MBE. Provide resumes of PM and Key Personnel only as an appendix to the Qualifications Proposal. OVERALL QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM / TEAM - 15 points Provide a brief description of the overall qualifications of your firm and Study team. Provide examples (not more than three) of similar projects performed by your team within the last five years. The examples should include the nature of your involvement in the project, any special environmental, political, or technical problems involved in the project, how the problems were resolved, the Consultant’s experience with sustainability principles and practices, the name and phone number of the owner's representative in charge of the project, the Consultant’s contracted amount for the project, the total project cost, and when the project was performed. PROJECT APPROACH - 30 points The proposed project approach should include the following:

A statement of project understanding.

A detailed project approach that should describe the utilization of specific methodologies, analyses, modeling, public involvement and other techniques to achieve the project goals outlined in Attachment A.

A proposed level of effort spreadsheet using Attachment D as a template. For this purpose, only fill in the “Labor Hours” column. The spreadsheet should include:

- A listing of all major tasks corresponding to the scope of services in

Attachment A. - Proposed hours for all project personnel (including subconsultant personnel) by

task including QA/QC effort.

A detailed schedule for all tasks. The proposed schedule should meet the timeline set forth in the RFP. The schedule should highlight key milestones. Describe any concerns in meeting the schedule, and identify if the proposer believes the

-9-

schedule can be shortened. If the proposer believes the schedule can be shortened, describe how this might be done.

Include a detailed description of the quality control plan that will be utilized during this project. The plan should include specific procedures to be used in assuring that the quality of the deliverables meets the District’s criteria and the standard of ordinary professional care. The plan should detail the products to be reviewed for this project, reviewer’s identity, review timing and frequency, review documentation, dispute resolution procedure, and sign-off requirements.

SMALL, WOMEN, MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (10 Points) Provide a list of certified Small/Veteran, Women, and Minority Business Enterprises (S/W/MBE) firms proposed to work on this project. The list should include the proposed percentage, based on the contract value, and experience in the type of work for each S/W/MBE firm. The participation goals for the DISTRICT are currently 5% for small business, 2% for women business, and 13% for minority business enterprises. However, since there are limited sub-consulting opportunities given the scope of services, any combination of one or more certified S/W/MBE firms may satisfy the participation goal. The percent involvement, the meaningfulness of the involvement, and the capability of the S/W/MBE firm to perform the work will be evaluated under this criteria. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE DISTRICT – 10 points Firms who have done business with the District have been evaluated by District Project Managers. This evaluation reflects a firm’s performance relative to: 1) quality of work, 2) performance against schedule, and (3) performance against budget. A maximum of 10 points will be awarded to firms based on these evaluations. If a firm has no previous experience with the District, the District will award points based on the average of firms who have worked for the District. Firms with previous experience should provide a list of the District projects they have worked on. LOCAL OFFICE PREFERENCE (5 Points) It is a District goal to maximize the local economic impact of the DISTRICT’s annual operating and capital spending for the benefit of the DISTRICT’s taxpayers and to take advantage of increased levels of customer service provided by local firms. As such, firms responding to this RFP shall describe within their proposal the following information concerning their presence in the Sanitary Sewer Service Area (SSSA). It is a District goal to maximize the local economic impact of the District’s annual operating and capital spending for the benefit of the District’s taxpayers and to take advantage of increased levels of customer service provided by local firms. As such, firms responding to this RFP shall describe within their proposal the following information concerning their presence in the Sanitary Sewer Service Area (SSSA):

Staff who are permanently assigned to an office outside the SSSA cannot count work performed at a firm’s local office.

-10-

Lab testing services are to be excluded when determining local office preference.

A firm must have an office that is established at the time of submittal of the proposal and is located in the SSSA in order for the hours to count in the column A total.

Provide a table that describes the amount of work (based on hours) to be performed by each project team member (see example below). In this example, some of the prime firm’s work is being performed in another office, which is located outside of the District’s SSSA.

Column A B C

Firm Of the total hours on the project, the percent of

work performed by staff who are permanently

assigned to the “within SSSA” office (based on

hours)

Of the total hours on the project, percent of work performed by staff who

are permanently assigned to the “outside

SSSA” office (based on hours)

Percent of all work

performed (based on

hours)

Firm A (prime & complete

address(s))

50% 15% 65%

Firm B (subconsultant &

complete address)

25% 0% 25%

Firm C (subconsultant &

complete address)

10% 0% 10%

Total (equal to the sum in the

columns)

85% 15% 100%

Points may be deducted for an incomplete and/or incorrect table. For questions please contact José Galván, the District’s CC/EBD Supervisor, at jgalvá[email protected].

mailto:jgalvá[email protected]

-11-

Describe the prime’s local office’s function within the overall company. For example, is it the headquarters of the company? Is it a branch office? What functions are performed at this office? Provide the total number of employees at this office. COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS - 10 points Present a separate sealed envelope with the proposal that is plainly marked, "Compensation Envelope." All costs shall be shown in U.S. dollars. The compensation proposal shall include the following to complete the Scope of Services as identified in Attachment A. Use the spreadsheet included as Attachment D as a template for the format and level of detail required.

A listing of all major tasks corresponding to the scope of services in Attachment A.

Proposed hours (level of effort) and fully-loaded hourly billing rates for all project personnel (including subconsultant personnel) by task.

Hourly billing rates should include firm overhead, such as computer resources, telephone, local travel, and the like. Please review the draft contract (Attachment E) for more information on reimbursable expenses.

The consultant shall identify expense items that they intend to seek reimbursement for (versus covered in overhead), highlighting and itemizing unusual expenses for which Proposer will seek reimbursement (e.g. long distance travel and housing, software licenses, laboratory services). The cost proposal should include an estimate of reimbursable expenses by task. The District will not reimburse for items that are not on the list of reimbursable items.

Identification of subconsultant's involvement by task.

A spreadsheet of the total costs associated within the proposal by your firm and those subconsultants/subcontractors you are utilizing, along with the percentage of participation of each subconsultant/subcontractor that is based on the proposed total dollar amount of the project. The grand total dollar amount shall be clearly indicated.

Modifications or expansions of tasks should be clearly delineated on the spreadsheet as separate tasks. Hours for modifications or expansions should not be included as part of the tasks under the requested Scope of Services.

The District has a maximum budget of $200,000 for this contract. For this contract, due to the grant limitations, this is the maximum amount that Consultants may submit. The District standard contract is based on a Fixed Hourly Rate Plus Expenses Not To Exceed Agreement, except where the contract is for “on-call” services. A sample contract is available for review by Proposers. Payments will not be made above the cap absent changed conditions or extraordinary circumstances. GENERAL FORMAT All proposals shall be written in English. All proposals shall contain concise written material and may contain illustrations. Legibility, clarity and completeness are essential. All submittals must use 8-1/2” x 11” portrait format, but may be supplemented using 8-

-12-

1/2” x 11” landscape or 11” x 17” illustrations. Twelve point font shall be used. Marketing brochures are not allowed. A complete Proposal Package shall consist of a Qualifications Proposal and Compensation Proposal in separate sealed envelopes. The Qualifications Envelope shall contain the Transmittal Letter and the Qualifications Proposal (electronic and hard copies), without the proposed compensation. All Qualifications Proposals must contain the following tabbed headings and be limited to the length indicated:

Proposal Transmittal Letter

Project Manager / Key Personnel, (4-page maximum)

Overall Qualification of Firm / Team (4-page maximum)

Project Approach (8-page maximum)

S/W/MBE Involvement (2-page maximum)

Previous Experience With the District (2-page maximum) The Compensation Envelope shall contain the Transmittal Letter and the Compensation Proposal (Attachment D hard copy only), without the qualifications proposal. Resumes are to be no longer than one pages each and are to be included in an appendix, along with District forms Attachments B and C, which require the Proposer’s signature. Marketing brochures are not allowed. The RFP and the successful Proposer’s proposal will become part of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the RFP and the Proposal, the RFP will govern.

ATTACHMENT A -1-

ATTACHMENT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL



The Consultant is responsible to provide all necessary resources to complete the work described in the scope of services defined herein and as submitted in the Consultant’s proposal. The work shall be performed in strict accordance with the policies and procedures of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (District). The Consultant has the ultimate responsibility that the work, as outlined in this proposal, shall be completed within the agreed upon schedule and satisfy the conditions of the Contract.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is a feasibility study to recommend channel alternatives that shall meet four project objectives. Three of the objectives were outlined in the grant submittal (Appendix G) and include: a reduction of contaminated sediment, improved fish and wildlife habitat and improved water quality within the study reach. The fourth objective is to ensure that the channel alternative selected does not increase the 1% probability flood elevation. The Consultant shall develop a scope of work for this RFP that meets these objectives and is within the budget limits of $200,000 Sediment Objective: Select a channel alternative that will reduce contaminated sediments transported to the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC) from the study reach. Limited sampling of the sediments within the channel bed in the feasibility study area were completed prior to the Great Lakes Legacy Act Project (GLLAP) which removed contaminated sediments from the KK River channel from Becher Avenue to Kinnickinnic Avenue. Additional information on the GLLAP can be found at this web site: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/kkriver.html. The Consultant shall propose a method to assess the impact of the proposed channel alternatives on reducing the transport of contaminated sediments from the study reach to the downstream portion of the KK River Estuary. The Consultant proposal shall also provide a recommendation for any sediment sampling to be performed as part of this contract. Habitat Improvement Objective: As part of the Consultant’s proposal, the Consultant shall propose a method for determining the impact of proposed channel alterations on fish habitat and fish passage.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/kkriver.html

ATTACHMENT A -2-

The method should include impacts on habitat due to upstream improvements in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and fluctuating lake levels. Water Quality Improvement Objective: The MMSD 2013 feasibility study indicated that a modified channel with improved velocity and diverse channel morphology could provide the necessary aeration to improve levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in both the study reach and downstream into the estuary area below the Becher Street Bridge. The Chapter NR 104.02 requires maintaining DO in the KK River estuary at a level of 3.0 mg/L. The AOC Remedial Action Plan has set a goal for DO within the estuary at 5.0 mg/L which is the target proposed to be achieved by the channel alternatives for the study area. Within the Consultant’s proposal, the Consultant shall propose a method to assess the impact of the proposed channel alternatives on improvements to water quality both in the study reach and the KK River Estuary. A Kinnickinnic River DO Model was developed for the MMSD Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station Improvements Feasibility Study and includes a hydrodynamic model (ECOMSED) and a water quality model (RCA). This model is available but not required to be used to satisfy the water quality objective of this project. Floodplain Objective: Within the Consultant’s proposal, the Consultant shall propose a methodology to demonstrate, in a preliminary manner, that the channel alternatives meet the study objective of no increase in the 1% probability flood elevation. The use of models is not a requirement of this study. This Study is grant funded and the feasibility study needs to be completed within 52 weeks of the notice to proceed (expected May 1, 2015) Assumptions for this project: No environmental impact statement required. No threatened and endangered species or archaeological resources requiring further study are present. There following information is available for the study area:

Phase I ESA: KK River between S. Chase Ave and S. 27th Street, Contract No. W40002E01 (2008)

Phase I & II ESAs: KK River Flood Management: S. 6th Street to the I-94 Bridge, Contract No. W40002D01 (2009)

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Source Identification for the Kinnickinnic River between Becher St. and Kinnickinnic Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (2003)

Kinnickinnic River Sediment Transport Planning Study. Contract No. W40002E01. (2011)

ATTACHMENT A -3-

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009. Memorandum Report Number 194

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). Managing the Waters Edge: Making Natural Connections. 2010a, http//www.swwtwater.org/home/documents/ManagingtheWatersEdge_final.pd

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds Technical Report No. 39, 2008. http//www.swwtwater.org/home/documents/mr_194_kk_mn_rivers_stream-habitat-biological-assessment.pdf.MMSD.

Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station Improvements Feasibility Study. Contract No. M01007P01(2013)

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Remedial Action Plan Update, December, 2013.

In addition to the above the following models are available for the KK River. These models are available but not required for this project. In 2008, SEWRPC updated the Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) and Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) models for the KK River watershed. The District has used these models for the following KK River projects listed below:

KK River Channel Rehabilitation Preliminary Engineering Project (W40002E01) – Completed

KK River Reach 2 Phase 1 Design Project (W40002D04) – In Progress

Wilson Park Creek Flood Management Planning Project (W45002E01) – Completed

Wilson Park Creek Reach 3 Preliminary Engineering Project (W45002E02) – In Progress

Lyons Park Creek Flood Management Planning Project (W41001E01) – In Progress

KK River Feasibility Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) – In Progress

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT The Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, clarity, and completeness of all work required under this contract. The Consultant shall perform all work required by this contract under the direction of a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of Wisconsin. Deliverables from the Consultant to the District are listed in Appendix A. A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TASKS

Provide Feasibility Study (Study) Team management services under the direction of a Study Project Manager (PM) who shall have overall responsibility for

ATTACHMENT A -4-

coordination, management, and reporting of the Study Team activities to the District’s PM. Project Management services, at a minimum, shall include the following: 1. Within one week of issuance of the Notice to Proceed, coordinate, prepare

for, and attend one initial Study kick-off meeting to be conducted at the District and attended by appropriate District and Consultant team members. Consultant staff in attendance shall include the Study PM and all key personnel. The purpose of the meeting will be for staff to meet and to discuss general topics such as: feasibility study goals, procedures, issues, schedule, information needs, etc.

2. Provide a study work plan within two weeks of the Notice to Proceed

identifying staffing assignments, level of effort by task, communications, study record keeping and filing, task schedule and deliverables.

3. Prepare and submit a study schedule including key milestones and cash

flow projection prior to the kick off meeting using a bar chart format so that feasibility progress can be monitored. The overall schedule shall be in the form of a time-scaled format and shall show the work activities, including sequences of performance and interdependency. Each activity shall be labeled with a complete description and the estimated duration in days. An activity is defined as a time or resource-consuming element of work. The activities selected for inclusion in the overall schedule shall be discrete. When necessary, discrete activities shall be subdivided into smaller discrete activities so that the dependency relationships may be shown. The level of detail shall be sufficient to enable the District to determine that the study has been adequately planned and to facilitate the determination of the real progress as the work is performed.

4. Procurement of District file codes and application of said codes to all

correspondence and deliverables. The Consultant shall deliver copies of all file coded correspondence and deliverables to the District Records Center.

5. Provide monthly progress status reports. The monthly reports shall

consist of narrative status reports and design schedule and cost updates in the format shown in Appendix C and shall be submitted to the District within two weeks of the month-end accounting cutoff dates. The status reports should include an identification and evaluation of study constraints and issues that may affect study costs.

6. Coordinate, prepare for, and attend monthly progress meetings with the

District PM to discuss the following information, but not limited to: study status, schedule, issues affecting study progress, potential issues that

ATTACHMENT A -5-

may arise, budget, and the following month’s activities and action items. Progress meetings shall be conducted at the District headquarters.

7. Provide study coordination and management of all Consultants'

subconsultants and other team members. 8. Ensure study team members are utilizing current base information relating

to District coordinate information, utilities, and other on-going projects.

9. Coordinate the work in progress with the District’s PM. The District’s PM shall contact appropriate District personnel to provide interpretation of general District concerns.

10. Prepare opinions of probable costs for each channel alternative for the

study area as defined in this RFP. Include permit costs, and all other construction-related costs and fees in the probable cost opinion. Determine life cycle costs, including annual and incremental Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs as compared to current O&M costs.

11. Quality Control (QC) processes to address both technical quality and

conformance with District standards. 12. Meet with affected property owners, locally elected officials (Alderperson

and County Supervisor), representatives from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Milwaukee County Parks Department, City of Milwaukee, AOC Committee and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), and other affected parties during the feasibility study. Note that Consultants shall propose a specific stakeholder involvement plan as part of the proposal.

13. Prepare and distribute meeting agenda seven days prior to all meetings.

The agenda shall include a listing of issues that require discussion including issues raised by the District and a listing of data and information that are requested.

14. Prepare meeting minutes (draft and final) for all meetings and distribute

within three and seven days, respectively, of all meetings. 15. Provide timely response to District comments regarding “exceptions”

reports that are provided by the Consultant in response to prior District comments on review products noted herein. (See Appendix A.)

16. Ensure timely identification of relevant records and other information available from the District and necessary for the feasibility study process. Assemble relevant information and review for suitable use in establishing design parameters and criteria to be used in the feasibility study process.

ATTACHMENT A -6-

17. Safety – The Consultant (and subconsultants) shall adhere to District safety requirements.

B. REVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION

1. At this point, the District has not identified specific review tasks, engineering, modeling, evaluation, or other calculations methods necessary to assist in developing alternatives that meet the project objectives. After the Consultants proposal is submitted, the District and the Consultant shall meet and finalize specific tasks, and these tasks shall become part of the final scope of services.

C. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Perform a planning level alternatives analysis and selection of a preferred alternative. Assume a minimum of three primary alternatives. There most likely will be additional sub-alternatives. The alternatives should strive to achieve the study objectives: 1. Reduce contaminated sediments getting transported to the KK River

Estuary.

2. Improvement of fish and wildlife habitat through diversifying river channel and stream bank morphology and channel substrate diversity.

3. Improve water quality in the study reach of the KK River (dissolved oxygen

(DO) goal of 5 mg/L).

4. No increase to the regulatory 1% probability flood elevation or base flood elevation (BFE).

The alternative analysis and selection of a recommended alternative for all alternatives should address the following: 1. Identify a minimum of three feasible alternatives.

2. Develop a mechanism to evaluate and rank all feasible alternatives.

Evaluation criteria shall be developed with concurrence of the District and with input from stakeholders listed in A.12. The preliminary list of criteria should include, but is not limited to: a. Environmental, sediment mitigation and water quality impacts.

b. Aquatic habitat improvement.

c. Flood risk impacts (channel work only).

d. Invasive species management (aquatic and terrestrial vegetation).

ATTACHMENT A -7-

e. Constructability.

f. Permitting and other regulatory concerns.

g. Costs (capital and O&M).

h. Stakeholder and community acceptance.

i. Property right needs.

D. RECOMMENDED NEXT PHASE

1. After development and concurrence of a recommended alternative, Consultant shall work with the District to identify the next specific steps necessary to implement the recommended alternative. Broadly, the District would pursue preliminary engineering as the next phase. It will be important to understand what tasks should be performed in the next phase. Examples of these tasks may include, but not be limited to the following:

a. Modeling (DO, H&H, etc.).

b. Sediment or biologic sampling.

c. Phase 1 or Phase 2 Environmental Assessment.

d. Water quality monitoring.

e. Surveying.

f. Recommendations to begin discussions with regulatory agencies.

g. Typical preliminary engineering work (to 30% design).

These tasks will depend upon what work is performed under the contract that is the subject of this RFP:

E. SURVEYING

1. The Consultant shall provide the following:

a. Survey requests adherent to the survey schedule with an appropriate notice before survey work is to begin (3 weeks minimum).

b. An identification of facilities and utilities requiring additional field survey to complete the design of the proposed facilities.

c. Site visits to verify the survey and design information.

d. Electronic files of any new alignments in Drawing Exchange Format (DXF) or Extensible Markup Language (XML) format.

e. Coordinates for staking of any new structures.

ATTACHMENT A -8-

2. The District shall provide the following:

a. All benchmark information and control coordinates (specifying the necessary legend information and datum used).

b. Any other preliminary survey work that may be necessary for the design of the study.

c. Survey the marked locations of all underground utilities identified through the Digger’s Hotline process.

d. Elevations and coordinates of any necessary sediment or other sampling locations, if applicable.

e. Coordinates, elevations, and descriptive codes of all collected data in a format specified by the Consultant (e.g. Excel file, text file, Design (DGN) file).

F. FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

The consultant shall prepare draft, draft final and final feasibility study reports which will document the study’s findings, alternatives and a recommended alternative. A conceptual outline of the feasibility study report can be found in Appendix D.

APPENDIX A -1-

APPENDIX A



DELIVERABLES OF THE CONSULTANT TO THE DISTRICT

Description

No. of Copies

* Original Feasibility Study Schedule (hard copy) 1

* Monthly Feasibility Study Progress Status Report including Feasibility Study Schedule updates (hard copy or E-mail)

2

* Materials to be presented at all Meetings or Workshops (hard copy) 5

* Draft and Draft Final Feasibility Study Report (electronic / hard copy) 1 / 5

* Final Feasibility Study Report (electronic / hard copy) 1 / 5

* QA/QC Sign-Off Forms (hard copy) 1

* Feasibility Study Report for Submittal to Regulatory Review Agencies 1 / 5

* As needed, HEC-RAS and HSPF computer model or other computer models (electronic CD-R). Models will be submitted to the District with the appropriate documentation.

2

* Opinion of Probable Costs (to be included in the Feasibility Study Report) 1

As needed, Geotechnical Boring Logs and related Excel spreadsheet information (electronic)

1

* Indicates submittals for District review.

APPENDIX B -1-

APPENDIX B



DELIVERABLES OF THE DISTRICT TO THE CONSULTANT

Description No. of

Copies District Review Comments on Submittals

1

Computer models As

Required

Any Available Project Data (reports, record drawings, geotechnical data)

As Required

As needed, Electronic Spreadsheet Application Template for Geotechnical Data Report

1

District Staff Consolidated Review Comments for Draft and Draft Final Feasibility Study Report

1

Surface water collection and analysis completed by the District for the study area

As

Required

APPENDIX C -1-

APPENDIX C



MONTHLY STATUS REPORT* OUTLINE 1. Overall updated Study Schedule spreadsheet by Task Order.

2. Schedule narrative referring to each activity on the Overall Schedule including:

A. Activities completed this report period. B. Activities in progress this reporting period. C. Activities scheduled next reporting period. D. Activities left to complete next reporting period.

3. Study issues for Resolutions:

A. Cause of issue. B. Corrective action and schedule adjustments to correct the issue. C. Impact of the issue on other activities, milestones and completion dates.

4. Study Management Issues:

A. Budget problems. B. Schedule problems. C. Invoice and payment status by date for entire contract. D. Percent complete task status.

5. Pending items and status thereof:

A. Potential contract amendments and out-of-scope activities. B. Time extensions.

6. List of deliverables with date(s) completed.

Relevant documents and memorandum (Include copies of all Correspondence and E-mails if deemed relevant).

*This report can be made either in hard copy or E-mail format.

APPENDIX D -1-

APPENDIX D



PROJECT REPORT The Feasibility Study Report shall include the information outlined below: Executive Summary (created after completing the final draft report) Introduction Background Review, Analysis and Evaluation Alternatives Analysis Summary of recommended alternative Summary of stakeholder and public meetings results and discussions Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for selected alternative Recommended next phase Consultants may modify the structure of the report with concurrence from the District

APPENDIX E -1-

APPENDIX E



BORING LOG

PROJECT INFORMATION

MMSD CONTRACT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME

CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTOR PROJECT NUMBER

YEAR BEGAN

NUMBER OF BORES DRILLED

DRILL LOCATION METHOD

DATUM OF ELEVATIONS

MAP OF DRILL LOCATIONS (Automatic Fill-DO NOT

ALTER) _LOC.pdf

HISTORIC BORING REVIEW PERFORMED

COMMENTS

APPENDIX E -2-

BORE NO

DRILLER NAME

(COMPANY) DRILL DATE

DEPTH (feet)

ELEVATION (feet)

EASTING (SPCS) NAD27

NORTHING (SPCS) NAD27

BORE TYPE

LAB DATA

DOCUMENT NAME

(Format BoreNo.pdf)

(Automatic Fill-DO NOT ALTER) COMMENTS

Sample-1 STS 1/1/2005 15.00 787.00 2525609.71 389052.87 Soil Yes 0_Sample-1.pdf This is a sample

100

APPENDIX E -3-

APPENDIX E -4-

APPENDIX F



APPENDIX F -1-

Figure 1: Map Showing Project Location and Location of Completed Habitat Restoration Project Upstream.

APPENDIX G



APPENDIX G -1-

Kinnickinnic River Stream and Habitat Rehabilitation,

Milwaukee Estuary AOC

(GLRI AOC FWS Activities in 2013)

Project Summary

The proposed project consists of a feasibility study to determine the habitat and water quality

benefits for channel reconstruction on the Kinnickinnic (KK) River between S. Chase Avenue

and W. Becher Street (Figure 1), located in the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC).

Previous sampling of the sediments within the channel bed in the project area, done as part of the

feasibility study for the Great Lakes Legacy Act remediation project that occurred immediately

downstream, has indicated elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and

heavy metals. The area of this proposed project was not addressed as part of the Legacy Act

Project because contaminant concentrations were relatively low compared to the area

immediately downstream. Furthermore, this site did not contain the elevated concentrations of

PCBs that the downstream area did. In addition, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage

District (MMSD) recently completed a study of the area that determined that this section of the

KK River does not sustain a viable aquatic habitat due to low dissolved oxygen levels, lack of

back flow, and limited diversity of channel morphology (MMSD, 2013). A recommendation

from the MMSD study included analyzing improvements to the channel morphology, which

could partially address all three items. The proposed feasibility study will expand on this

recommendation by (1) modeling the habitat and water quality benefits from an improved

channel design, (2) performing additional sampling and analytical testing of the channel bed to

determine the extent of contamination, (3) providing updates and obtaining feedback from local

and regional stakeholders, and (4) documenting the findings and recommendations in a final

report.

Once labeled as one of the most endangered rivers in the United States by American Rivers, the

KK River is experiencing a renaissance within the last 10 years, given a renewed focus by the

local stakeholders and community to reclaim this river as an asset and restore habitat functions.

In the last five years, millions of dollars have been invested in habitat rehabilitation projects on

the KK River immediately upstream and downstream of the project site (Figure 1). Moreover,

work is ongoing further upstream to remove several miles of concrete channel lining, to perform

stream restoration, and to implement residential and commercial green infrastructure projects

across the watershed. The ecological benefits of the improvements made upstream and

downstream of this river section can be greatly enhanced if conditions are appropriate for aquatic

habitat within the proposed study area (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

[SEWRPC], 2010).

AOC Background/Project Location

The Milwaukee Estuary was listed as an AOC primarily because of multiple contaminated

sediment sites, which contributed toxic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

PAHs, and heavy metals to the estuary and, ultimately, Lake Michigan. Additionally, terrestrial

and aquatic habitat loss and fragmentation contributed to several impairments. The rivers within

the AOC were historically modified (straightened, dredged, sheet piled, dammed, etc.) mainly to

APPENDIX G -2-

accommodate large vessel commercial shipping and to increase runoff rates for draining the once

extensive wetland complex originally present. Furthermore, combined and sanitary sewer

overflows from wastewater treatment plants and soil erosion and nutrient enrichment from

throughout the estuary’s watershed contributed to degraded water quality. The area’s conversion

from a significant wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently

exists allowed for the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area that

currently exists, but this conversion has led to significant environmental degradation in water

quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.

These sources of impairment led to designation of 11 of the possible 14 BUIs as applicable to the

Milwaukee Estuary AOC. (Two of the 11 were identified as “suspected”.) The impaired

beneficial uses for the Milwaukee Estuary AOC are summarized in the table below.

Table 1. Causes of Beneficial Use Impairments in the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern

(AOC).

A lower case x indicates that, at the time of the original Remedial Action Plan, these sources

were not understood to be part of the source contributing to a particular impaired beneficial use,

but are now considered to be a component of the impairment.

Sources of Pollution or

Problem

Toxic

Subst

ance

s

Poin

t S

ourc

e an

d R

unoff

Poll

uti

on

Physi

cal

Hab

itat

Alt

erat

ion

Oth

er

Impaired Beneficial Use (Original AOC

boundaries)

Degradation of fish and wildlife populations X X X X

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat X X X X

Degradation of benthos x X x X

Restrictions on dredging X X

Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption X X

Bird/animal deformities or reproduction problems

(suspected) x x

Fish tumors or other deformities (suspected) x x

Beach closings/recreational restrictions X X

Degraded phytoplankton and zooplankton populations X X X

Eutrophication or undesirable algae X X X

Degradation of aesthetics

X x X

APPENDIX G -3-

The proposed project is on the KK River in the Milwaukee Estuary AOC, immediately upstream

from where a Great Lakes Legacy Act cleanup occurred in 2009. The KK River is the most

urban and developed of the three AOC rivers/watersheds. The watershed is approximately 25

square miles on the south side of Milwaukee and is essentially completely built out with 93% of

the watershed classified as urban land use (SEWRPC, 2010) (Figure 2). In addition, of the 31

miles of stream length of the KK River and its tributaries, approximately 9 miles are lined with

concrete and an additional 8 miles are contained within enclosed channel culverts (SEWRPC,

2010). In 2007, it was named one of the most endangered rivers in the United States by

American Rivers. Since that time, partners have developed several plans and have implemented

projects on the KK River to address its chronic problems. The proposed project would continue

that progress and was identified as a key action in the 2012 Remedial Action Plan Update for the

Milwaukee Estuary.

Prior to the Legacy Act work, a background sediment assessment and source identification

assessment were completed by Xiaochun Zhang, WDNR (2003). The background sediment

assessment showed some elevated PAH contamination in sediment that was generally consistent

with other urban sites. The source identification report attributed the contamination to historical

discharges, spills, and other inputs associated with industrial activities and urban development.

Consequently, there was no individual industry or other entity identified as responsible for the

contamination.

A January 2012 jet fuel spill at Mitchell International Airport (several miles upstream from this

site) was reported. Sheens were detected on the Kinnickinnic River to at least the 1st Street

Bridge, but the potential impacts to sediments are not yet known. Sediment sampling related to

the airport spill will be conducted April 2013.

Scope of Work

Upon notice of award of grant funding for the proposed project, MMSD will develop a complete

contract scope of work and publicly advertise a request for proposals seeking professional

services of qualified consultants. MMSD will utilize a qualifications-based selection process to

identify the firm recommended for award. Following contract award, it is anticipated that the

contract will take approximately one year to complete. MMSD will closely manage the

professional services contract and provide technical review and support throughout the contract.

Technical review will also be requested of the WDNR, the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), NOAA and other project stakeholders at key milestone periods throughout the

project.

The following is a preliminary scope of work to be performed by the selected consultant.

Task 1 – Data Collection

MMSD, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and others have completed

several watershed studies and reports from projects performed adjacent to the project site. These

documents contain information directly related to the proposed feasibility study. This includes

the KK River Sediment Transport Study (MMSD, 2011), habitat and water quality assessments

performed by MMSD and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within and immediately upstream of

the project area, and analytical testing of contaminants within sediments within, upstream, and

downstream of the project area. The consultant shall coordinate with MMSD to collect and

http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/resources/most-endangered-rivers-2007.html

APPENDIX G -4-

review all relevant information from recently completed projects on the KK River. In addition,

the consultant shall inventory all completed, ongoing, and proposed projects within the

watershed. It is expected that they can inventory the entire watershed given that the KK River

Watershed is relatively small. They will be able to use their judgment as to how closely they

need to evaluate the different projects based on its potential impact to the project site.

Task 2 – Stakeholder Meetings

Several project stakeholder groups with interest in the proposed project area have already been

established. These include the AOC steering committees as well as technical, regulatory, and

community groups for the upstream KK River projects. The consultant shall work with MMSD

to coordinate meetings with the various stakeholders throughout the project to provide updates

and obtain feedback on project objectives.

Task 3 – Field Investigations

The consultant shall perform necessary field investigations to collect information on existing

habitat, water quality, and geomorphic conditions. These investigations will be limited, because

much of this information was collected under MMSD’s KK River Flushing Station

Improvements Feasibility Study (2013) and KK River Sediment Transport Planning Study

(2011).

The consultant shall also obtain multiple soil and sediment samples throughout the project area

and submit to a lab for analytical testing to identify and determine the levels of contaminants on

the site. (The depth of sampling will depend on the potential options for the channel. Most of

the recommended work will likely be filling sections of the channel but other sections may need

some excavation, e.g., sediment islands.) Limited sampling and testing was performed by the

WDNR previously within the site area as part of the characterization for the Kinnickinnic River

Great Lakes Legacy Act project, which indicated elevated levels of PAHs and heavy metals

within the site sediments (Figure 3). Similar results were also identified in projects immediately

upstream and downstream of the project area. The area of this proposed project was not

addressed as part of the Legacy Act Project because contaminant concentrations were relatively

low compared to the area immediately downstream. Additionally, this site did not contain the

elevated concentrations of PCBs that the downstream area did.

Task 4 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation

The consultant shall develop conceptual geomorphic design alternatives based on the data from

previous studies, site investigations, the project’s habitat and water quality objectives, and

additional stakeholder input. The alternatives will be evaluated based on a number of factors,

including the habitat and water quality benefits, constructability, permitting, community

acceptance, and construction and maintenance costs.

Task 5 – Feasibility Report

The consultant shall prepare draft and final feasibility reports which will document the study’s

findings and recommendations. The report shall also identify the permits and real estate required

to construct the project and estimates of the total construction and long term maintenance costs.

APPENDIX G -5-

BUIs Addressed

Because this project addresses contaminants, primarily PAHs, this project would directly address

degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, degradation of

benthos, restrictions on dredging, fish tumors, or other deformities (suspected as impaired for the

AOC). The project, once implemented, could also potentially have a positive impact on water

quality, which is another component of all the aforementioned impairments. The impairments

that are also addressed by improving water quality include degradation of phytoplankton and

zooplankton populations, eutrophication and undesirable algae, and degraded aesthetics.

Besides addressing contaminants and water quality, the project would also improve the degraded

physical conditions in that portion of the KK River, and would address fish and wildlife habitat

and populations.

Outcomes, Outputs and Expected Results

Outputs

1. Plan of action for managing contaminated sediments on the site

2. Length of river/stream connected and functional as fish and aquatic organism habitat

3. Pounds of contaminated sediments removed

4. Stream-miles with suitable buffer habitat width of 75 feet or greater preserved or

established

5. Area of exotic invasive species removed

Outcomes

1. Reduction of contaminated sediments in the Milwaukee Estuary

2. Improvement of fish and wildlife habitat (via the in-stream and shoreline improvements)

3. Improvement in water quality in that section of the KK River

Expected Results from Feasibility Study

Identify implementable actions and associated costs for near term (one to five years) and long

term (over five years) for the site, given other pending/planned MMSD improvements within

the watershed.

Collaboration and Partnerships

This project will be completed with the input of FWS. The Milwaukee Estuary Fish and

Wildlife Technical Team, which designated this project as a priority for the AOC for fish and

wildlife habitat, would also assist in the review of the feasibility study. Additionally, MMSD

will obtain input from various other technical, regulatory, and community based stakeholders

established under other KK River projects through several stakeholder meetings held throughout

the duration of the project.

Reporting Requirements

Quarterly progress and accountability reports will be provided to the RO. There are no other

reporting requirements with the other project partners, but updates will be provided regularly

during project stakeholder meetings.

APPENDIX G -6-

Budget

Budget Category & Project Activity/Task Estimated Cost

Personnel (salary & benefits)

MMSD Project Manager $ 47,000

Other MMSD Staff $ 39,000

MMSD Survey Crew $ 10,000

Total MMSD Staff $ 96,000

Travel

$ 0

Supplies, Materials

Facilities and Materials for Stakeholder Meetings $ 2,000

Contracts and Cooperative Agreements

Feasibility Study (Professional Services Contract)

Task 1 – Document Review $ 10,000

Task 2 – Stakeholder Meetings $ 20,000

Task 3 – Field Investigations $ 70,000

Task 4 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation $ 60,000

Task 5 – Feasibility Report $ 40,000

Project Management $ 15,000

Contract Contingency $ 35,000

Total Feasibility Study Contract Costs $250,000

Total Costs $348,000

Contacts

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Kevin L. Shafer, P.E. Patrick Elliott, P.E.

Executive Director Project Manager

260 W. Seeboth Street 260 W. Seeboth Street

Milwaukee, WI 53204 Milwaukee, WI 53204

Phone: 414.225.2181 Phone: 414-225-2168

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Megan O’Shea

Milwaukee Estuary AOC Coordinator

2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Dr.

Milwaukee, WI 53212

Phone: 414.263.8625

Email: [email protected]




APPENDIX G -7-

References

American Rivers. 2007. America’s Most Endangered Rivers Report: 2007 Edition.

http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/resources/most-endangered-rivers-2007.html.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). 2011. Kinnickinnic River Sediment

Transport Planning Study.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). 2013. Final Draft – Kinnickinnic River

Flushing Station Improvements Feasibility Study.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). 2010. Stream Habitat

Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River

Watersheds: 2000-2009. Memorandum Report Number 194.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Source Identification for the

Kinnickinnic River between Becher St. and Kinnickinnic Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

APPENDIX G -8-

Figure 1: Project Location

APPENDIX G -9-

Figure 2: Kinnickinnic River Watershed

APPENDIX G -10-

Figure 3: Project Area and Sediment Sampling Locations

APPENDIX H



APPENDIX H -1-

REFERENCE INFORMATION

The documents listed below are for reference only and may not be a complete list of information that may be available for the Consultant’s review. The reference items listed below are located at the following link: https://mmsd.brickftp.com/f/1902436f0

Phase I ESA: KK River between S. Chase Ave and S. 27th Street, Contract No. W40002E01 (2008)

Phase I & II ESAs: KK River Flood Management: S. 6th Street to the I-94 Bridge, Contract No. W40002D01 (2009)

Kinnickinnic River Sediment Transport Planning Study. Contract No. W40002E01. (2011)


Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Remedial Action Plan Update, December, 2013.


Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009. Memorandum Report Number 194

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). Managing the Waters Edge: Making Natural Connections. 2010a, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds Technical Report No. 39, 2008. (Parts 1-3

The WDNR Documents reference items are at this link: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/KKRiver.html

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Source Identification for the Kinnickinnic River between Becher St. and Kinnickinnic Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (2003) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Legacy Act Data (Website with Multiple Documents)

https://mmsd.brickftp.com/f/1902436f0

ATTACHMENT B -1-

ATTACHMENT B



CERTIFICATION OF NON-DISCRIMINATION The Proposer hereby certifies not to discriminate and to comply with the District’s Non-Discrimination provision of this Request for Proposal. The District's Commission Policy on Non-Discrimination requires compliance with applicable Federal and Wisconsin state laws, regulations and orders relating to equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination. ______________________________________ Proposer ______________________________________ Signature ______________________________________ Title ______________________________________ Date

ATTACHMENT C -1-

ATTACHMENT C



EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY DATA

Below please provide the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District with the total number of females and minorities employed by your firm. In addition, we require you to state the percent of minorities and females that are available in the labor market from which you draw your workforce. These figures may be obtained from your local Job Service, State Labor Department or the U.S. Census Bureau. Any questions you have may be addressed to the District’s Small, Minority and Women Business Coordinator at (414) 225-2238. DATA: A. Total number of Employees . B. Total Number of Minorities \ %. Hispanic \ %. Black \ %. Native American \ %. Asian \ %. C. Total Number of Females \ %. Hispanic \ %. Black \ %. Native American \ %. Asian \ %. D. Labor Market Availability: Minorities %, Females %. Please use the total number of employees as base when calculating percentage for each group.

FIRM NAME: ___________________________________________________

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________

CITY/STATE: ___________________________________________________

CONTACT PERSON:___________________________________________________ TELEPHONE NO: ___________________________________________________ NOTE: The 2008 Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical Area labor market availability figures are: Minorities 20%, Females 48%.

Submit this form with Bid.

ATTACHMENT D -1-

ATTACHMENT D



LOE/COMPENSTATION SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE

*Expand as needed to show staffing details

Line

Labor Labor Expenses* Subtask #

Hours* Costs*

Total

A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

Coordination and Project Management $

Meetings $

1 Task Total

$

B. REVIEW, ANALYSIS AND EVELUATION

Review $

Analysis

Evaluation $

2 Task Total $

3 C. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS $

4 D. RECOMMENDATIONS $

5 E. SURVEYING $

6 F. FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT $

7 PROJECT TOTAL (Add Lines 1-6) $

8 Total MBE Participation (including applicable portions of allowances)

$

9 MBE participation as a percentage of total project costs (8/7x100)

%

10 Total WBE Participation (including applicable portions of allowances)

$

11 WBE participation as a percentage of total project costs (10/7x100)

%

12 Total SBE Participation (including applicable portions of allowances)

$

13 SBE participation as a percentage of total project costs (12/7x100)

%

ATTACHMENT E -1-

ATTACHMENT E



DRAFT CONTRACT Note to Proposers: The following document is a template. Actual terms and conditions will vary, and will depend on the scope of services, selection of consultant and any agreements regarding price and payment. Exceptions to these terms and conditions should be communicated at the time of proposal and will be considered in proposal evaluation.

DRAFT CONSULTANT CONTRACT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR TITLE

Contract Number

This Agreement is made between the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (District) with

its principal place of business at 260 West Seeboth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204-1446

and Name (Consultant), with its place of business at address.

1. Term of Agreement

This Agreement will become effective on date and will terminate on the earlier of: (1) the date

the Consultant completes the services required by this Agreement; or (2) the date a party

terminates this Agreement as provided by this Agreement.

2. Services to be Performed

As directed by the District, the Consultant agrees to perform consulting services on District's

behalf for the title project. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary personnel, materials,

services, equipment, facilities (except as otherwise specified herein) and otherwise do all things

necessary for or incident to the performance of the Scope of Work, which is attached and made a

part of this Agreement.

The Consultant is responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion,

and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services to be

furnished by the Consultant under this Contract. Plans and specification shall be sealed by a

Professional Engineer.

The Consultant will furnish the Reports of Work and Deliverables set forth in the Scope of

Work. Approval or acceptance by the District of drawings, designs, reports, deliverables, or

other materials furnished hereunder shall not relieve the Consultant of any responsibility for the

technical adequacy and accuracy of the work.

For all tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, time is of the essence. The acceptance of a late

performance, with or without objections or reservations by the District, does not waive the right

to claim damages for such breach nor constitute a waiver of the requirement of timely

performance of any tasks remaining to be performed.

ATTACHMENT E -2-

The Scope of Work includes Engineering Services During Construction (“ESDC”), which

involves the timely and thorough review of shop drawings, Requests for Information and other

submittals.

The Responsibilities and Deliverables of the District are set forth in the Scope of Work.

3. Payment

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the Consultant agrees to complete all work under this

Agreement for an amount not to exceed $dollars (the “Cap”), of which $dollars is budgeted as

an allowance for Engineering Services During Construction and $dollars is budgeted as an

allowance for Bid and Award Services [can add other allowance amounts as necessary] (as

defined in the Scope of Work). This is a “time and expenses” Agreement with a “not to exceed”

cap. Consultant shall invoice the District at the rates set forth below and shall invoice the

District for expenses as set forth in Article ___. Unless this Agreement is amended in a writing

signed by either the District’s Executive Director or Director of Technical Services, the

Consultant shall not be entitled to payment above the Guaranteed Cap and Consultant shall

complete the entire Scope of Work at no additional charge to the District after the Guaranteed

Cap has been reached. The District will not make payment to the Consultant nor shall the

Consultant seek reimbursement for any work performed that is outside the Scope of Work.

Services shall be billed at no higher than the following hourly rates for the individual listed.

Individuals not listed below shall be billed at not higher than the hourly rate listed below for

an individual of equivalent education and experience. Billing rates may be increased annually,

beginning on March 1, _____, however the rate increase may not exceed the increase in the

Consumer Price Index for All Consumers for Milwaukee-Racine for the immediately previous

December to December period.

Insert Compensation Schedule here:

4. Prospective Renegotiation of Allowance for Engineering Services During Construction

and Bid and Award

The Cap includes an allowance of $_______ to pay the Consultant for Engineering Services

During Construction and an allowance of $___ to pay for Bid and Award Services. These

allowances are generally based on the Consultant’s proposal for the Project. After bid

documents have been completed, if, in the judgment of the District, there has been a material and

substantive change in the scope of the project, the Consultant may request to renegotiate the level

of effort and costs for Engineering Services During Construction and/or Bid and Award. The

District may then modify the Agreement to include this revised cost. District staff may be

required to seek approval from the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission for revised allowance

amounts. Any revised allowance amount shall be set forth in a written amendment signed by

either the Director of Technical Services or the Executive Director. The District will not be

obligated to pay for any Engineering Services During Construction Services or Bid and Award

Services in excess of the revised allowance amount.

ATTACHMENT E -3-

5. Terms of Payment

Consultant shall submit an invoice to District no more often than monthly for the work

performed during the previous month. The invoice should include: Request for Payment of

Engineering Services, an invoice number, the dates covered by the invoice, a detailed description

of the hours expended and the work performed, expenses, and the Contract Number numberD01.

Invoices must cover the same period of time as the Monthly Progress Report and sufficient detail

must be provided so that work listed on the Monthly Progress Report can be easily correlated to

the invoice. Invoices must include a Consultant Contract Budget & Expenditure Report.

All hours worked must be invoiced with 120 days of the date of service. As a matter of practice,

the District attempts to pay all invoices in approximately 30 days. If no disputes arise, and your

invoice has not been paid 60 days after it was received by the District, you may file a claim for

interest, at a rate of 5% calculated annually, on amounts not paid after the 60th day. Payment of

interest shall not excuse or cure any default or delay in payments of amounts due.

Final payment under this Contract shall not constitute a waiver of the District’s claims against

the Consultant.

To expedite the payment of invoices under this Contract, all invoices shall be sent, in duplicate

directly to the following address:

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Accounts Payable Department

260 West Seeboth Street


Project Manager: ___________________________

6. Expenses and Materials

District shall reimburse Consultant for ordinary and reasonable expenses and materials that are

directly attributable to work performed under this Agreement.

Reimbursable expenses shall be for those items specifically identified in the Consultant’s

proposal.

Travel expenses shall be reimbursed only if specifically included in the Consultant’s proposal or

when travel is pre-approved by the District. Airfare shall be reimbursed for coach class only; the

Consultant agrees, to the extent practical, to book passage early enough to obtain available

discounts. Stays at hotels, and the like, should be coordinated through the District to assure, to

the extent practical, that government lodging rates are obtained when available, and that

exemptions from state or local taxes are recognized. When travel is reimbursed, the District shall

reimburse Consultant for approved personal automobile mileage expenses at the current IRS

mileage rate.

Software expenses shall be reimbursed only if specifically included in the Consultant’s proposal

or when pre-approved by the District. Consultant is expected to have appropriate software for

ATTACHMENT E -4-

CADD, scheduling, estimating, file sharing, accounting, and document production without

additional charge to the District.

Consultant shall not mark up reimbursable expenses, but shall invoice the District for actual

costs. These costs are included in the “not to exceed” amount of this Agreement.

Consultant shall submit an itemized statement of Consultant’s expenses along with the invoice

specified in Section 4, Terms of Payment, above.

Consultant is not entitled to separate reimbursement for overhead expenses.

7. Consistency with Proposal

The Consultant will perform services and bill the District in a manner that is generally consistent

with the Consultant’s proposal, cost proposal and any Level of Effort spreadsheet submitted with

the proposal. The Consultant agrees that Small, Women, and Minority Business Enterprise

(S/W/MBE) participation in the services will be generally consistent with the Consultant’s

proposal. Significant departures from the proposal with respect to billings, level of effort, scope

or S/W/MBE participation shall be communicated to the Project Manager as soon as Consultant

is aware of the change. In the event that Consultant’s proposal for S/W/MBE participation

becomes infeasible or is no longer appropriate for the services to be performed, Consultant

agrees to use good faith efforts to achieve alternate S/W/MBE participation.

8. Independent Contractor Status

Consultant is an independent contractor, not District's employee. Consultant's employees or

contract personnel are not District's employees. The Consultant agrees not to replace any project

personnel identified in their proposal without the approval of the District. Such approval shall

not be unreasonably withheld. This Contract does not create a partnership relationship.

Consultant does not have authority to enter into contracts or make purchases on District's behalf.

9. Intellectual Property Ownership

The Consultant assigns to the District all rights in all project specific designs, creations,

improvements, original works of authorship, formulas, processes, know-how, techniques,

inventions and all other information or items created by Consultant for the District during the

term of this Contract, upon receipt of payment for such services. The rights assigned include title

and interest in all patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, and other proprietary rights.

The Consultant must obtain written assurances from Consultant's employees and contract

personnel that they agree with this assignment.

The Consultant agrees not to use any of the intellectual property mentioned above for the benefit

of any other party without District's prior written permission.

All information or items created by the Consultant for the District during the term of this

Contract are instruments of service in respect to the project. They are not intended or

represented to be suitable for reuse by the District or other on extensions of the project or on any

ATTACHMENT E -5-

other projects. Any reuse without prior written verification or adaptation by the Consultant for

the specific purpose intended will be at District’s sole risk and without liability or legal exposure

to the Consultant. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Consultant shall retain its

rights in standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any

other proprietary property.

10. Publicity

The Consultant will not use in advertising or publicity regarding this Contract the name of the

District, its service mark, or logo without the written consent of the District.

11. Changes

Changes to this Agreement may be made only in writing signed by the District’s Executive

Director or Director of Technical Services and by an authorized representative of Consultant.

Consultants deviating from the requirements of this Agreement without a written and executed

amendment do so at their own risk. District will not issue amendments to increase the Cap of the

Agreement unless it is accompanied by a corresponding change in the Services to be Performed

or unless it is the result of the prospective renegotiation of Engineering Services During

Construction.

The District will not make payment to the Consultant nor shall the Consultant seek

reimbursement for any work performed that is outside the Scope of Work.

12. Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data

The Consultant assures that the cost and pricing data submitted for evaluation with respect to

negotiation of this Contract or amendment is based on current, accurate, and complete data

supported by its books and records. If the District determines that any price (including profit)

negotiated in connection with this Contract or any amendment was increased by any significant

sums because the data provided was incomplete, inaccurate, or not current at the time of

submission, then such price or cost or profit shall be reduced accordingly.

13. Confidentiality

Consultant will not disclose or use, either during or after the term of this Contract, any

proprietary or confidential information of District without District's prior written permission

except to the extent necessary to perform services on District's behalf or to the extent necessary

to respond to legal requirements and government orders.

Consultant shall not be restricted in using any material which is publicly available, already in

Consultant's possession or known to Consultant without restriction, or which is rightfully

obtained by Consultant from sources other than District.

Upon termination of Consultant's services to District, or at District's request, Consultant shall

deliver to District all materials in Consultant's possession relating to the District.

ATTACHMENT E -6-

14. Business Permits, Certificates and Licenses

Consultant has complied with all federal, state and local laws requiring business permits,

certificates and licenses required to carry out the services to be performed under this Contract.

Designs shall be stamped by a professional engineer.

15. State and Federal Taxes

District will not:

A) withhold FICA (Social Security and Medicare taxes) from Consultant's payments

or make FICA payments on Consultant's behalf;

B) make state or federal unemployment compensation contributions on Consultant's

behalf; or

C) withhold state or federal income tax from Consultant's payments.

Consultant shall pay all taxes incurred while performing services under this Contract; including

all applicable income taxes and, if Consultant is not a corporation, self-employment (Social

Security) taxes. Upon demand, Consultant shall provide District with proof that such payments

have been made.

16. Fringe Benefits

Consultant understands that neither Consultant nor Consultant's employees or contract personnel

are eligible to participate in any employee pension, health, vacation pay, sick pay or other fringe

benefit plan of District.

17. Workers' Compensation

District shall not obtain workers' compensation insurance on behalf of Consultant or Consultant's

employees. If Consultant hires employees to perform any work under this Contract, Consultant

will cover them with workers' compensation insurance and provide District with a certificate of

workers' compensation insurance before the employees begin the work.

18. Unemployment Compensation

District shall make no state or federal unemployment compensation payments on behalf of

Consultant or Consultant's employees or contract personnel. Consultant will not be entitled to

these benefits in connection with work performed under this Contract.

19. Insurance

Every consultant and all parties furnishing services or product to the District must provide the

District with evidence of the following minimum insurance requirements. In no way do these

minimum requirements limit the liability assumed elsewhere in the contract. All consultants

shall, at their sole expense, maintain the following insurance:

ATTACHMENT E -7-

A. Commercial General Liability Insurance including contractual coverage:

The limits of this insurance for bodily injury and property damage combined shall be at least:

Each Occurrence Limit $1,000,000

General Aggregate Limit $2,000,000

Products-Completed Operations Limit $2,000,000

Personal and Advertising injury Limit $1,000,000

Business Automobile Liability Insurance:

Should the performance of this Agreement involve the use of automobiles, Consultant shall

provide comprehensive automobile insurance covering the ownership, operation and

maintenance of all owned, non-owned and hired motor vehicles. Consultant shall maintain limits

of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage combined.

B. Workers’ Compensation Insurance:

Such insurance shall provide coverage in amounts not less than the statutory requirements in the

state where the work is performed, even if such coverages are elective in that state.

C. Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Works Act/Railroad Protective Liability

Where work under this Agreement includes any water or navigational exposure, coverage shall

be included to cover the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Act and the Federal

Jones Act. Where the work under this Agreement includes any railroad hazards, Railroad

Protective Liability coverage shall be maintained.

D. Employers Liability Insurance:

Such insurance shall provide limits of not less than $500,000 policy limit.

E. Excess/Umbrella Liability Insurance:

Such insurance shall provide additional limits of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence in

excess of the limits stated in (A.), (B.), and (E.) above.

F. Professional Liability

Professional Liability Insurance covering actual or alleged negligent acts, errors or omissions,

and wrongful acts committed during the course of, or arising out of the provision of services

under the Contract with limits of $5,000,000 per claim and $5,000,000 in the aggregate,

including coverage for defense costs. Coverage shall be maintained during the term of the

Agreement and for a period of no less than three (3) years after the termination of the

Agreement.

ATTACHMENT E -8-

Additional Requirements:

The insurance specified in (A.), (B.) and (F.) above shall: (a) name the District and its

commissioners, directors, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds by endorsement

to the policies, and, (b) provide that such insurance is primary coverage with respect to all

insureds and additional insureds. (Additional Insured CG 20 10 11 85 endorsement or

equivalent).

The above insurance coverages may be obtained through any combination of primary and excess

or umbrella liability insurance. MMSD may require higher limits or other types of insurance

coverage(s) as necessary and appropriate under the applicable purchase order. Consultant shall

require each of its subcontractors to maintain insurance as listed above. As an alternative, the

Consultant may provide the required insurance to cover its subcontractors or may submit a

request to the Project Manager or Risk Management Coordinator for consideration of a lower

level of insurance coverage for its subcontractors.

Except where prohibited by law, all insurance policies, except Professional Liability, shall

contain provisions that the insurance companies waive the rights of recovery or subrogation, by

endorsement to the insurance policies, against MMSD, its subsidiaries, its agents, servants,

invitees, and employees and their insurers.

Consultant shall provide certificates evidencing the coverages, limits and provisions specified

above on or before the execution of the Agreement and thereafter upon the renewal of any of the

policies. Consultant shall require all insurers to provide MMSD with a thirty (30) day advanced

written notice of any cancellation, nonrenewal or material change in any of the policies

maintained in accordance with this Agreement. Coverage must be placed with carriers with an

A. M. Best rating of A- 10 or better.

Mail to: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

260 West Seeboth Street


Attn. Safety and Risk Management Specialist

20. Indemnification

Indemnification by Consultant Generally. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant

agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the District and its commissioners, employees and agents

from and against all claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits, judgments and

expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of defense), of any nature, kind or

description, which (a) arise out of, are caused by or result from performance of the Consultant's

services hereunder and (b) are attributable to bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease or

death of any person, or to damage to or destruction of property resulting therefrom, but (c) only

to the extent they are caused by any negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant, anyone

directly or indirectly employed by the Consultant or anyone for whose acts the Consultant is

legally liable. This Subparagraph is intended to be and shall be construed as consistent with

Wisconsin law.

ATTACHMENT E -9-

Intellectual Property Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant

shall and does agree to indemnify and hold harmless the District and its commissioners,

employees, and agents from and against all claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits,

judgments and expenses (including attorney's fees and other costs of defense), of any nature,

kind or description, to the extent such result from any claimed infringement of any copyright,

patent or other intangible property right caused by the Consultant, anyone directly or indirectly

employed by the Consultant or anyone for whose acts the Consultant is legally liable. The

Consultant shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless such persons for such matters

when the claimed infringement occurs in materials provided by the District or at the direction of

the District.

21. Suspension of Work

The District may order the Consultant in writing to suspend, delay, or interrupt all or any part of

the work for such period of time as the District may determine to be appropriate for the

convenience of the District, up to 90 days in the aggregate, unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

If the performance of all or any part of the work is suspended, delayed, or interrupted for an

unreasonable period of time by an act of the District or by District's failure to act within a

reasonable time, the District shall make an adjustment for any increase in the cost of

performance of this Contract (excluding profit) necessarily caused by such unreasonable

suspension, delay, or interruption. However, no adjustment shall be made under this clause for

any suspension, delay or interruption to the extent (1) that performance would have been so

suspended, delayed or interrupted by any other cause, including fault or negligence of the

Consultant, or (2) for which an equitable adjustment is provided for or excluded under any other

provision of this Contract.

22. Terminating the Contract

With reasonable cause, either District or the Consultant may terminate this Contract, effective

immediately upon giving written notice.

Reasonable cause includes:

(A) a material violation of this Contract, or

(B) any act exposing the other party to liability to others for personal injury or

property damage.

The District may terminate this Contract for its convenience by giving thirty (30) days written

notice to the Consultant. In the event of such termination, the District shall only be responsible

for the payment of services rendered by the Consultant up to the date of termination.

23. Force Majeure

The Consultant shall not be in default by reason of any failure in performance of this Contract if

such failure arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the

Consultant. Such causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or of the public

enemy, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually

ATTACHMENT E -10-

severe weather, but in every case the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without

the fault or negligence of the Consultant.

24. Exclusive Contract

This is the entire Contract between Consultant and District.

25. Severability

If any part of this Contract is held unenforceable, the rest of the Contract will continue in effect.

26. Applicable Law

This Contract will be governed by the laws of the state of Wisconsin. The Consultant shall

comply with any applicable Federal, State, and District laws, codes and regulations in connection

with work under this Contract.

27. Resolving Disputes

If a dispute arises under this Contract, the parties agree to first try to resolve the dispute with the

help of a mutually agreed-upon mediator in Milwaukee County. Any costs and fees for the

mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. Parties are solely responsible for their respective

attorney fees. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days after it is referred to the mediator,

either party may take the matter to court. Venue in any action brought under this Contract shall

be proper only in either the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County or the Federal District Court for

Eastern Wisconsin.

28. Notices

All notices and other communications in connection with this Contract shall be in writing and

shall be considered given as follows:

(A) when delivered personally to the recipient's address as stated on this Contract;

(B) three days after being deposited in the United States mail, with postage prepaid to

the recipient's address as stated on this Contract; or

(C) when sent by fax to the last fax number of the recipient known to the person

giving notice. Notice is effective upon receipt provided that a duplicate copy of

the notice is promptly given by first class mail, or the recipient delivers a written

confirmation of receipt.

29. Notice of Costs Approaching Agreement Amount

The Consultant shall provide notice to the District in writing when 75% of the contract amount

has been incurred, whether invoiced to the District or not, or the contract amount will be

insufficient to cover Consultant’s time and expenses under the Agreement. NOTE: This notice

is for informational purposes only, and is required by policy of the Metropolitan Sewerage

ATTACHMENT E -11-

Commission. It does not confer any right to additional payment by the District, nor does

it change Consultant’s obligations under the Cap of this Agreement.

30. No Partnership

This Agreement does not create a partnership relationship. The Consultant does not have

authority to enter into contracts on District's behalf.

31. Effect of Purchase Order

This Agreement supersedes any conflicting, additional, or supplemental terms and conditions

included or incorporated into any purchase order the District issues to the Consultant for this

project.

32. Assignment

Consultant may not assign any rights or obligations under this Contract without District's prior

written approval.

33. Subcontractors

Consultant may at its discretion engage subcontractors to perform services under this Agreement,

but Consultant shall remain responsible for proper completion of this Agreement.

Consultant agrees that it shall be responsible for the payment of all claims for labor performed,

including fringe benefits, and materials used or consumed in the project, including without

limitation because of enumeration, those items listed in section 779.14(1e)(a) Wisconsin

Statutes.

Consultant agrees that it shall comply with section 66.0135 (Wisconsin Statutes) and make

payments to subcontractors within seven days of receipt of payment by the Consultant from the

Owner. The Owner reserves the right to make direct payments to the subcontractor or to pay the

Consultant with checks that are made payable to the Consultant and one or more subcontractors.

Consultant agrees to maintain a list of all subcontractors and suppliers performing labor or

furnishing material under this contract.

34. Audit and Access to records

The Consultant shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence directly pertinent

to performance of all work under this Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles and practices consistently applied. The Consultant shall also maintain the financial

information and data used in the preparation or support of any negotiated change. The District

shall have access to all such books, records, documents, and other evidence for the purpose of

inspection, audit and copying during normal business hours. The Consultant will provide proper

facilities for such access and inspection.

Records under this Contract shall be maintained by the Consultant during performance on all

work under this Contract and for seven years following contract completion, unless such records

ATTACHMENT E -12-

are given to the District. In addition, those records which relate to any controversy arising under

any Contract, litigation, the settlement of claims arising out of such performance, or to costs or

items to which an audit exception has been taken, shall be maintained by the Consultant for a

minimum of three years following the resolution of the controversy, unless such records are

given to the District.

Consultant agrees to cooperate and assist the District in the production of any records in the

possession of the Consultant that are subject to disclosure by the District pursuant to the State

of Wisconsin’s Open Records Law (Wis. Stat. §§19.31-19.39). The District shall reimburse the

Consultant for the actual, necessary, and direct cost of reproduction of the record in a format

consistent with the Open Records Law. Consultant agrees to indemnify the District against any

and all claims, demands, and causes of action resulting from the Consultant’s failure to comply

with this requirement.

35. Standard of Care

The Consultant represents that it shall perform the Services in accordance with the standards of

care and diligence normally practiced by consulting firms in performing services of similar

nature. The Consultant is responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely

completion and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services

furnished by the Consultant under this Contract. The Consultant shall, without additional

compensation, correct or revise any errors, omissions or other deficiencies in his designs,

drawings, specifications, reports and other services.

The District's approval or acceptance of drawings, designs, specifications, reports and incidental

work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve the Consultant of

responsibility for the technical adequacy of his work. The District's review, approval, acceptance

or payment for any of the services shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights under this

Contract or of any cause for action arising out of the performance of this Contract.

The Consultant shall be, and shall remain, liable in accordance with applicable law for all

damages to the District caused by the Consultant's negligent performance of any of the services

furnished under this Contract, except for errors, omissions, or other deficiencies to the extent

attributable to the District or District-furnished data. The Consultant shall not be responsible for

any time delays in the project caused by circumstances beyond the Consultant's control.

The Consultant's obligations under this clause are in addition to the Consultant's other express or

implied assurances under this Contract or State law and in no way diminish any other rights that

the District may have against the Consultant for faulty materials, equipment or work.

36. Consultant's Visit(s) to Construction Site(s)

Visits to the construction site and observations made by the Consultant shall not relieve the

construction contractor(s) of its obligation to conduct comprehensive inspections of the work

sufficient to ensure conformance with the intent of the construction contract documents, and

shall not relieve the construction contractor(s) of its responsibility for construction means,

methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures necessary for coordinating and completing all

portions of the work under the construction contract(s) and for all safety precautions incidental

ATTACHMENT E -13-

thereto. Such visits by the Consultant are not to be construed as part of the inspection of the

on-site inspection personnel defined below.

37. The Consultant's On-site Personnel

The Scope of Work may provide for the Consultant’s personnel to provide services at the

construction site or during the construction phase of the Project. Services provided by the

Consultant during the construction phase will not cause the Consultant to be responsible for the

contractual obligations of the construction contractor(s), nor is the Consultant expected to take

on the construction management responsibilities of the District’s “Resident Engineer.”

38. The Consultant's Role in Disputes Between The District and Contractors

If after construction begins, disputes between the contractor and the District arise, the Consultant

will promptly investigate and analyze such disputes and attempt to resolve them to the mutual

satisfaction of the parties and, failing such resolution, recommend a course of action for the

District.

MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE

DISTRICT

COMPANY

By: __________________________________ By: _____________________________

Kevin L. Shafer, P.E. Name

Executive Director Title

Date: ________________________________ Date: ___________________________

Approved as to form:

_____________________________________

Attorney for the District

ATTACHMENT F – PROPOSAL SCORING TABLE

ATTACHMENT F -1-

-Rating Implementation/

Project Approach Qualifications of Firm/Team

Qualifications of

Project Manager /

Key Personnel

Software Solution

(if included in

project scope)

Outstanding:

(100%

of Points)

Proposal describes specifically how and

what will be accomplished in a superior

manner, both quantitatively and

qualitatively.

Positive Indicators:

1. Clarity and rationality

2. Deliverables related to project scope

3. Quality checks/reviews

4. Level of effort

5. Key issues for each deliverable are

identified

6. Efficient use of personnel

7. Innovative approach

Proposal provides good material, meets all

requirements, is very desirable, and

contains a response that is clearly superior.


1. Significant projects in key areas

2. Organizational depth and scope

3. Established in the marketplace for

three years or more

4. Previous assignments of like nature

5. Team has collaborated on previous

projects

6. Contingency resources are available

Proposal provides good material, meets all

requirements, is very desirable, and

contains a response that is clearly superior.


1. Project Manager is experienced in

critical areas

2. PM has managed similar sized

projects

3. Key personnel are experienced in all

critical areas

4. Specialists to assist team are available

5. Experience with similar projects

6. Commitment/dedication of resources

Proposal provides good material,

meets all requirements, is very

desirable, and contains a response that

is clearly superior.


1. Proven existence of established

methodology

2. Methodology used previously

3. Comprehensive software support

4. Integrated software tools

5. Ease of use by end user

Adequate to

Good:

(60% to 80%

of Points)

Proposal, in general, satisfies the RFP

requirements and describes specifically

how and/or what is to be accomplished.

Half or more of the positive indicators

noted above are met. No major

deficiencies noted.


requirements and provides information on

capabilities, resumes, and similar types of

projects. Half or more of the positive

indicators noted above are met. No major

deficiencies noted.


requirements. Half or more of the positive

indicators noted above are met. No major

deficiencies noted.


requirements. Half or more of the

positive indicators noted above are

met. No major deficiencies noted.

Marginal:

(30% to 40%

of Points)

Proposal reiterated requirements, but

offered no explanation of how or what was

to be accomplished in the technical scope

of work; less than ½ of positive indicators

listed above are met.

Negative Indicators include, but are not

limited to:

1. Inaccurate statements

2. Project Approach has deficiencies

Proposal does not supply adequate

description of the qualifications of

team/experience/personnel/resumes of

people and/or case histories. Less than ½

of positive indicators listed above are met.


limited to:

1. Projects not related to RFP

2. Excessive use of subcontracts

3. Work experience not related

Proposal does not supply adequate

description of the qualifications of project

manager/key personnel /resumes of people

and/or case histories. Less than ½ of

positive indicators listed above are met.


limited to:

1. Limited experience of the PM

2. Poor reference checks

3. Projects not related to RFP

4. Inadequate resources

Less than ½ of positive indicators

listed above are met.

Negative Indicators include, but are

not limited to:

1. Methodology unproven or

unsubstantiated

2. Limited software

Unacceptable:

(0 Points)

Proposal fails to provide pertinent

information, or provides information that

cannot be understood.








information, or provides information

that cannot be understood.