Minutes of the Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission Held Thursday, November 21, 2019 9:30 Am Cst/1

Home , Kankakee River, Yellow River (Indiana)

MINUTES OF THE KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN AND YELLOW RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HELD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019 9:30 AM CST/10:30 AM EST Marshall County Building, Meeting Room 203 112 West Jefferson Street Plymouth, IN 46563

John McNamara, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. EST, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Mike Novotney, Secretary, called the roll.

Members Present Bill Crase Craig Cultice John McNamara Mike Novotney James Walstra John Shure (IL) Andrew Wheeler (IL)

Approved Proxies Present

Tom Larson for Bill Emerson

Guests Present

Jim Carter Kathe Brunnick Cotton Ekhoff Joe Skelton Ben Eaton Jim Sweeney Bob Barr Siavash Beik Stephen Heim Clyde Avery Mark Kingma Debbie Palmer Kim Peterson Julie Morris Dan Gumz Ross St. Clair Christine Keil Tony Hendricks Steven Bohan Karen Horn Julie Fox Judy Stone Gus Ellicott Sarah Haefner State Rep. Pat Boy

Staff Present Scott Pelath

Adoption of October 24 Meeting Minutes

Mr. Cultice moved for the adoption of the minutes. Mr. Walstra seconded the motion.

MOTION ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE.

Finance Report

Mr. Pelath gave a financial report, which reflected the written report contained within his Executive Director’s Report [ATTACHMENTS 1 AND 2].

Mr. Pelath noted that the State Budget Agency has started releasing the Commission’s administrative appropriations, although the agency now does so quarterly instead of annually. He also reported that NIPSCO intends to reimburse the Commission for the Kouts and Dunn’s Bridge gages through 2022. The Commission had not yet received its $2.3 million appropriation, but funds would be expected for deposit soon.

James Walstra requested that the Commission reimburse Jasper County $8,700 for the cost of a hydrology report pertaining to its FEMA project [ATTACHMENT 3].

Mr. Crase moved that the Commission pay Jasper County for the hydrology report from Jasper County’s remaining 2018 funds. Mr. Cultice seconded the motion.

MOTION APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.

Mr. Novotney moved that the Commission accept the Finance Report. The chair heard a second.

MOTION ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE.

The chair expressed his appreciation for Mr. Pelath’s work.

Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Pelath presented his Executive Director’s Report, which was distributed to members prior to the meeting [ATTACHMENT 1].

OLD BUSINESS

Consideration of county problem tree and debris removal plans

Mr. Pelath referred the Commission to problem tree and debris removal plans and costs submitted by various counties [ATTACHMENT 4].

Mr. Pelath noted that in addition to the attached submissions, the Commission specifically committed at its previous meeting to funding a problem tree removal pilot project under the leadership of Porter County.

Mr. Pelath recommended that the Commission approve at least some funding for the submissions. Given that there would be no December meeting, he suggested that counties could initiate and have a chance to complete some work before seasonal regulatory considerations take effect.

The chair recognized Tony Hendricks to present LaPorte and Starke Counties’ submission. Mr. Hendricks said that they solicited bids for six sections on the Kankakee River, and three sections on the Yellow River. Mr. Hendricks turned the bids received for the work on those sections over to the Commission.

The chair asked why the prices on the Yellow River were substantially higher. Mr. Hendricks answered that access is a greater challenge along the Yellow River.

Mr. Crase asked that Section C of the Yellow River be placed on hold. He reported that he and Craig Cultice were developing a separate plan for that section. Mr. Crase advocated that at least some money be allocated to begin work without additional delays.

Mr. Pelath asked Mr. Hendricks which sections would provide the most value for the price. Mr. Hendricks suggested that 10-Mile Road would be a first priority if DNR does not intend to allocate its own funds to problem tree mitigation. There was no confirmation of whether the Department would do so.

Mr. Novotney asked whether the work can be completed for the bid amount. The chair stated that the low bidder on all sections, Allsop Excavating, is experienced in work on the river.

James Walstra asked about the availability to either Silver Jacket or federal dollars. The chair emphasized the need to begin delivering results with newly available funds and complete work that was never before possible.

Andrew Wheeler stated that he believed that there may be federal funding opportunities in the future.

Mr. Pelath expressed his recommendation that the Commission authorize some funds for LaPorte and Starke Counties so they can initiate work.

The Commission discussed figures of $350,000 and $500,000.

Based on an engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost, Mr. Novotney also suggested a figure of $125,000 for the problem tree removal pilot project in Porter County.

Mr. Pelath emphasize an expectation from the public and lawmakers of purposeful movement forward.

The chair stated his desire to fund the pilot project at the requested amount, do the entire Kankakee River, and get started on the Yellow River. He also stated that St. Joseph County would take care of its portion with local funds. The chair said the Commission needed to get something done finally.

Mr. Crase wanted to ensure that because Allsop was the lowest bidder on all sections, that their bids stand for the remainder of the proposed removal project.

Mr. Novotney moved for an allocation of $352,000 for LaPorte and Starke County tree removal with the section priorities left to the counties’ discretion. No second was heard.

The chair moved for an allocation of $500,000 for LaPorte and Starke County tree removal with the section priorities left to the counties’ discretion. No second was heard.

Mr. Pelath reminded the Commission that $117,000 in state dollars was also earmarked for the Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area.

Mr. Walstra moved for an allocation of $500,000 for LaPorte and Starke County tree removal with the section priorities left to the counties’ discretion. Mr. Crase seconded the motion.

Mr. Crase emphasized that price and cost controls are in place for the contractor’s work.

MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE.

Mr. Novotney moved that $125,000 be allocated to the pilot tree removal project between Porter and Jasper County to be administered by Porter County. Mr. Crase seconded the motion.

MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE.

Craig Cultice presented plans for problem tree removal in Marshall County, and local drainage board funds are available to begin work on certain regulated sections. He also expressed his intention that Lee Wiltjer was going to demonstrate possible removal techniques. Mr. Crase reported that he and Mr. Cultice would ask to make an additional presentation in January 2020. For those reasons, Mr. Cultice requested no additional funds at this time.

Mr. Walstra moved that Marshall County be permitted to move ahead with current plans on the Yellow River. Mr. Crase seconded the motion.

MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE.

Thayer Farm update

Mr. Pelath reported that DNR is close to closing on the adjacent Gus Ellicott property. He also conveyed his wish to have a Technical Advisory Committee meeting at the Thayer Farm in January.

Jasper County FEMA project update/hydrological report

Mr. Walstra said the project still is waiting on Corps of Engineers approval.

Verification of areas subject to assessments beginning in 2021

Mr. Pelath said IDNR is ahead of schedule in certifying the basin boundaries. He believed the work would be done well in advance of March.

NEW BUSINESS

Approval of RFQ and timeline for first phase of Yellow River design

Mr. Pelath presented a draft Request for Qualifications and a timeline for submission of Statements of Qualification and project proposals [ATTACHMENT 5].

Mr. Crase asked about the process for scoring Statements of Qualification. Mr. Pelath answered with his intention that the process be adopted in January.

Mr. Pelath asked for permission to issue the RFQ.

Mr. Crase moved that the Executive Director issue the RFQ. Mr. Cultice seconded the motion.

MOTION ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE.

Maintenance of Yellow River sediment trap at Range Road in Starke County

Mr. Crase presented two bids to maintain Sediment Trap #24 at Range Road in Starke County on the Yellow River. He requested five quotes and received two. William Beaver Excavating was the low bid for $38,700.

Mr. Crase moved to allocate $38,700 to clean Sediment Trap #24. Tom Larson seconded the motion.

MOTION ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE.

Approval of river gage contract

Mr. Pelath presented a new three-year agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey to renew the Commission’s current river gages [ATTACHMENT 6]. He asked for approval of the document.

The new agreement places all of the gages on the same payment schedule, extends the contract length from two years to three years, and adds bedload sampling capability.

Mr. Crase moved that the Commission approve the USGS agreement. Mr. Walstra seconded the motion.

MOTION ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE.

OTHER BUSINESS

None.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Kathe Brunnick thanked Mr. Pelath for attending the recent Kankakee County Board meeting.

Bob Barr expressed concerns about the effects of removing sediment from Sediment Trap #24. He cited the hydrological dynamics along the Yellow River and its possible implications for the completed pilot project.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting was scheduled for January 16, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. CDT/10:30 a.m. EDT at a location to be determined in LaPorte County.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:59 a.m. EST.

ATTACHMENT 1

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

To: KRB-YRBDC Members From: Scott D. Pelath, Executive Director Date: November 18, 2019

On October 25, the State Budget Committee authorized the release of our $2.3 million state appropriation. I have submitted a claim voucher to the State Budget Agency for the amount, and the funds should soon be available for deposit. We received some good questions from the Budget Committee members during the hearing, and overall, they conveyed support for our work. I was grateful that Bill Crase accompanied me to Fort Wayne to support our cause. Given that the Commission will have to adopt a new budget in January, I am not going to recommend that we immediately amend the budget with only weeks remaining in the calendar year. However, at the November meeting, we may choose to allocate some funds with confidence that the dollars will arrive. I can account for any such decisions in the next year’s budget. I will ask, however, that we be mindful of the intended use of resources that we described to the Budget Agency. As directed in October, I have made a draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from potential Commission consultants available for review. It represents the first step toward substantial, long-term capital projects within our mission, and the goal is to extend requests by December 1. Finance Report Budget. We finally received one quarter’s worth of our state administrative appropriation of $12,859.25. Although we have sufficient cash resources to cover any delays, clearly these disbursements are going to lag behind our budget targets. The Budget Agency formerly released the annual appropriation in a lump sum, but they switched to quarterly payments with the start of the new fiscal year. Since the financial statement through October 31, the Commission has reimbursed Lake County for removal of the logjam at State Line Bridge. The total cost was $19,875.00. As of November 15, our cash balance at Horizon Bank was $581,770.43. For next year’s budget considerations, NIPSCO has informed me that for at least the next three years, they intend to continue reimbursing the Commission for the Kouts and Dunn’s Bridge river

7 gages. After 2022, however, they will be forced to re-evaluate their commitment as their Wheatfield plant is shuttered. For the near-term, however, we can expect those gage costs to be defrayed.

State Capital Appropriations. As I mentioned above, we gave the Budget Agency our best estimate for the use of our capital appropriation. When developing the new budget for CY2020, the Commission can expect that those stated intentions will be reflected in the new document. Quotes on problem trees and logjams. The counties have received quotes and prepared some proposals for removing problem trees and logjams. It appears that costs will not be insignificant, and priorities must be set. More detailed information will be provided in separate documentation. Accounting. NIRPC is still in the market to take Talaya Jones’ place as our primary accountant since her promotion. The QuickBooks system we purchased is now operational for performing tax withholding, and other system capabilities continue to be under development.

Website

The website at www.kankakeeandyellowrivers.org now hosts all approved Commission and KRBC minutes back to 2010. One also can find adopted Commission policies and Technical Advisory recommendations, relevant news articles, Google Earth maps, and links to key information resources. Legal Services Upon careful consideration, the Attorney General’s office suggested that counsel in Jasper County would be better suited to develop our Memorandum of Understanding for our commitment to the FEMA project. After consulting with Commissioner Walstra and Vince Urbano, I have reached out to the Jasper County attorney, and he is examining the matter. I hope to have a document to consider when we reconvene in January to adopt along with the budget. The Commission has received a possible claim for repair services provided to Newton County following the 2018 flood. Since the exclusive easement has since changed from the county to the Commission, our deputy is currently reviewing the situation to determine what would constitute an appropriate resolution. Public Information and Outreach On November 12, I spoke to the Kankakee County Board over in Illinois at Chairman Wheeler’s invitation. Their meetings are quite large and well-attended, and I had the opportunity to exalt our interstate cooperation while highlighting future plans for Indiana sediment mitigation. The board also made time for Siavash Beik and Bob Barr to make a detailed presentation. Overall, the reaction from both the board and the audience was welcoming and positive.

Attendance at our Lake County public information meeting was light but highly engaged. Most importantly, it generated a Chicago Tribune article about our work, which reached more people than we could have at a public forum alone. This month, I had a lengthy conference call with the governmental and technical staff of Ducks Unlimited. More than anything, we simply wanted to establish a working relationship and explore the possibility of future partnerships. One thing to bear in mind is that their staff resources are divided among many competing priorities, and their engagement with planning assistance has a lengthy time window. It was worthwhile to make the connection, though. Governmental Outreach

Over the past couple of weeks, I have visited the majority of Emergency Management Agencies in the eight counties of the basin. I had no agenda; I simply wanted to form relationship before the next flood, and not during it.

I have noted a significant disparity in Emergency Management prioritization among the counties. I look forward to supporting each of them with ongoing communications and teamwork whenever necessary.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has offered us a new, three-year agreement for our existing river gages. Not only will there be a nominal savings, but the intention is to add bed-load sampling capability to the Yellow River gages.

Technical Advisory Committee

The Technical Advisory Committee has not convened since the last Commission meeting.

Upcoming Meetings As I announced last month, it was my hope that we would forgo a December meeting with the holidays, personal travel schedules, and increased family commitments approaching. When we reassemble in January, I intend to have a new budget ready for adoption and some Statements of Qualifications from consultants to evaluate. As always, should you have any questions please email me at [email protected] or (219) 861-7999, and I will always benefit from hearing from you.

ATTACHMENT 2

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

LAPORTE AND STARKE COUNTY TREE REMOVAL QUOTES SUMMARY

LAPORTE AND STARKE COUNTY TREE REMOVAL QUOTES

Kankakee Section A B C D E F

ALLSOP 119,000 59,000 159,000 115,000 19,000 179,000 NOWATZKE 385,650 296,450 677,250 567,250 195,775 699,425 DIRT WORKS

Yellow Section A B C

ALLSOP 335,000 387,000 543,000 NOWATZKE 1,584,700 1,901,900 2,346,500 DIRT WORKS 740,000

Legend

Kankakee A English Lake confluence to Highway 8, approximately 288 trees. Kankakee B Highway 8 to Highway 39, approximately 135 trees. Kankakee C Highway 39 to Highway 30, approximately 507 trees. Kankakee D Highway 30 to Highway 35, approximately 360 trees. Kankakee E Highway 35 to Highway 6, approximately 25 trees. Kankakee F Highway 6 to Highway 104, approximately 558 trees. Yellow A English Lake confluence to Highway 39, approximately 1219 trees. Yellow B Highway 39 to Highway 35 (Knox), approximately 1463 trees. Yellow C Highway 35 (Knox) to Starke Marshall County Line Road, approximately 1805 trees.

MARSHALL COUNTY SUBMITTED PLAN

ATTACHMENT 5

KANAKEE RIVER BASIN AND YELLOW RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

December 1, 2019

Contents

Thursday, November 21, 2019 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 23 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION; RFQ PROCESS ...... 25 2.1 Project Description; Scope of Work ...... 25 2.2 Estimated Cost; Maximum Time Allowed ...... 26 2.3 Project Schedule ...... 26 2.4 Commission Executive Director; Ex Parte Communications ...... 26 2.5 Questions and Clarifications; Addenda ...... 27 2.6 Consultant/Technical Support ...... 27 2.7 Equal Employment Opportunity ...... 28 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS ...... 30 4.1 Determining Short-listed Submitters ...... 30 4.2 Notification of Short listing ...... 31 4.3 Debriefing Meetings ...... 31

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On July 1, 2019, the State of Indiana established the Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission (“the Commission”) under IC 14-13-9 to address nearly a century of mounting water resource challenges in Northwest Indiana.

The Commission consists of a nine-member panel representing eight Northwest Indiana counties and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Two non-voting representatives of Iroquois and Kankakee Counties in Illinois serve as advisory members.

Under Indiana law, the Commission may execute the following tasks within its exclusive 75-foot easement along the channels of the Kankakee and Yellow Rivers: (1) bank stabilization; (2) tree removal; (3) the construction and operation of sand traps; (4) channel reconstruction; (5) sediment removal; (6) acquisition, construction, and maintenance of access roads to levees and the channel of each river; and (7) other actions considered necessary by the commission to carry out this chapter.

The Commission currently is requesting Statements of Qualifications (“SOQs”) from entities (“Submitters”) interested in submitting proposals for mitigating stream bank erosion and stabilizing slopes along the Yellow River in Marshall and Starke Counties, Indiana (the “Project”). Secondarily, the Commission also wishes to assemble a list of interested designers, consultants, and other entities that may be qualified annually to provide other future services to the Commission.

The Project described in Section 1.2 and all Commission projects will be funded with public dollars, thereby requiring that the Submitters adhere to all pertinent federal, state, and local requirements.

The Commission makes no guarantee that a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued for this Project.

1.1 Procurement Process

The Commission will use a two-phase procurement process to select a designer for the Project. This Request for Qualifications (this “RFQ”) is issued as part of the first phase to solicit information, in the form of SOQs, that the Commission will evaluate to determine which Submitters are the most highly qualified to successfully design the Project. The Commission anticipates an approved list of at least three, but not more than five most highly qualified Submitters that submit SOQs. In the second phase, the Commission will issue a Request for Proposals (the “RFP”) for the Project to the approved listed Submitters. Only the approved listed Submitters will be eligible to submit proposals for the Project. Each approved listed Submitter that submits a proposal in response to the RFP (if any) is referred to herein as a “Proposer.” The Commission will award a design contract for the Project, if any, to the Proposer offering the best overall combination of qualifications, project understanding, project approach, value, and other elements to be determined as described in the RFP.

1.2 Project Goals

The following goals have been established for the Project: a) Design and construct solutions to stabilize stream banks, reduce sediment erosion, and increase channel capacity for portion of the Yellow River beginning 1,560’ east of the Marshall-Starke County Line and ending 6,212’ west of the county line. Considerations at the site that may include:

 Stabilizing slopes;

 Reducing bank grades;

 Applying toe wood or rock toe, or other value-oriented solution;

 Permanently controlling erosion;

 Using locally native grasses, turf, trees, and other plantings to support stability;

 Protecting and reinforcing infrastructure; and

 Employing instrumentation and performance monitoring.

b) Develop comprehensive, appropriate, and reliable construction contract documents that support the effectiveness of proposed stability and erosion control solutions. Design a high- quality project that minimizes future maintenance including but not limited to:

 Permanent erosion control that addresses concerns of stream bank erosion, surface flow erosion, seepage flow erosion, channel sedimentation, and vegetation planting performance;

 Optimization of water flow within the channel;

 Minimizing adverse impacts and damage following reasonably foreseeable future flood and weather events; and

 Providing vegetative stabilization or other solutions that result in effective short- term and long-term stability of repaired stream banks and slopes.

c) Provide designs that are consistent with the wild and natural characteristics of the Yellow River in Marshall and Starke Counties.

d) Maximize the quality of the project within the budget. Allow for innovation and added value beyond minimum requirements.

e) Monitor the performance of the design following Final Completion.

f) Obtain Final Completion of the design as soon as possible, but no later than May 31, 2021.

1.3 Submitter Information

To allow receipt of any addenda or other information regarding this RFQ, each Submitter is solely responsible for ensuring that the Commission’s Executive Director as described in Section 2.4 has its contact person name and e-mail address. If an entity intends to submit a proposal as part of a team, the entire team is required to submit a single SOQ as a single Submitter.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION; RFQ PROCESS

2.1 Project Description; Scope of Work The purpose of the project is to mitigate stream bank erosion, stabilize slopes, and reconstruct portions of the Yellow River channel.

The Kankakee River and its major tributary in Indiana, the Yellow River, were once part of the second- largest freshwater marsh in the United States. In the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, major dredging projects substantially drained the marsh for agriculture. The Kankakee River in particular was deepened and straightened, and both the Kankakee and Yellow Rivers were then fed by a growing network of drainage ditches throughout the region.

Over the past hundred years, 1) heavy erosion due to increased frequency and duration of bankfull flows as well as flow velocities and 2) a linear increase in both annual flows and water levels have adversely affected state and local governments’ ability to cope with the increased frequency and severity of major flood events.

In 2018, the State of Indiana and State of Illinois partnered to fund the development of a long-term work plan for the Kankakee River Basin. Christopher B. Burke Engineering recommended a plan, which the Commission formally adopted as the Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan in September 2019.

The work plan’s first active management task is to reduce sediment supply from Yellow River upstream of Knox, Indiana. The Commission formally made the Yellow River a top priority at its September 2019 meeting, and directed Marshall and Starke County officials to select sites for commencement of the work.

Section 5.1.1. of the work plan recommends approximately 13 miles of Yellow River streambank restoration. However, due to budgetary and cash flow considerations, the Commission intends to

25 break the overall effort into phases. This Project represents the initial phase of a larger Yellow River initiative targeted for completion in 2026.

In 2017, the Commission’s legal predecessor, the Kankakee River Basin Commission, sanctioned a pilot project to demonstrate the viability of streambank reconstruction along a quarter-mile stretch of the Yellow River. While the pilot continues to be evaluated, its results thus far have demonstrated significant promise for stream bank and slope stabilization and sediment reduction.

Additional information regarding the work plan and the Yellow River Pilot Project can be found at www.kankakeeandyellowrivers.org.

2.2 Estimated Cost; Maximum Time Allowed

The estimated cost to reconstruct 13 miles of the Yellow River is $23,076,000. This Project represents only a portion of that cost. For CY2020, the Commission has tentatively budgeted funds for related engineering and design costs. Design of the first phase of the Yellow River initiative described encompassed by this Project is targeted for completion by second quarter CY2021.

2.3 Project Schedule

The deadline for submitting RFQ questions and the SOQ due date stated below apply to this RFQ. The Commission also anticipates the following additional Project milestone dates. This schedule is subject to revision by the RFP and addenda to this RFQ.

Issue RFQ December 1, 2019 Deadline for submitting RFQ questions December 31, 2020 SOQ due date January 15, 2020 Notify approved listed Submitters February 1, 2020 Issue RFP February 1, 2020 Technical and Price Proposals due March 15, 2020 Technical and Price Proposals Scores Announced April 15, 2020 Recommendation of Contract Award April 15, 2020 Anticipated Approval of Agreement May 15, 2020 Anticipated Notice to Proceed May 15, 2020

2.4 Commission Executive Director; Ex Parte Communications

Scott Pelath is the Commission’s Executive Director. As Executive Director, Mr. Pelath is the sole contact person and addressee for receiving all communications about the Project. Only written inquiries, in letter form or email, will be accepted. Except as permitted by Section 7.1 and below, all inquiries and comments regarding the Project and the procurement thereof must be made by e-mail or letter to:

Mail Delivery: Scott D. Pelath Executive Director Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission 6100 Southport Road Portage, IN 46368

E-mail: [email protected]

During the Project procurement process, commencing with issuance of this RFQ and continuing until award of a contract for the Project (or cancellation of the procurement), no employee, member or agent of any Submitter shall have any ex parte communications regarding this procurement with any member of the Commission, their advisors, or any of their contractors or consultants involved with the procurement, except for communications expressly permitted by the Commission’s Executive Director and this RFQ (or, subsequent to issuance of the RFP).

Any Submitter engaging in such prohibited communications may be disqualified at the sole discretion of the Commission.

2.5 Questions and Clarifications; Addenda

Questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFQ must be submitted in writing to the Commission’s Executive Director as described in Section 2.4. To be considered, all questions and requests must be received by 4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on the date indicated in Section 2.3.

The Commission reserves the right to revise this RFQ at any time before the SOQ due date. Such revisions, if any, will be announced by addenda to this RFQ.

The Commission will use the following guidelines when responding to questions and requests for clarification and issuing addenda:

. The Commission will answer questions and requests for clarification Questions and post the answers on the Commission’s website.

. The Commission will send an e-mail notification to the contact person for each Submitter as soon as each addendum or clarification is issued. The notification will include an electronic copy of the addendum or clarification when possible.

2.6 Consultant/Technical Support

The Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee provides guidance in preparing and evaluating this RFQ and the RFP and advice on related financial, contractual and technical matters.

2.7 Equal Employment Opportunity

The Submitter will be required to strictly adhere all federal, state, and local Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and workplace non-discrimination laws, regulations, and policies.

3.0 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 General Instructions

This section describes requirements that all Submitters must satisfy in submitting SOQs. Failure of any Submitter to submit their SOQ as required in this RFQ may result in rejection of its SOQ. In preparing a response to this RFQ, interested firms shall note the following general instructions:

 Please present the requested information in the following order.  Please do not attach any additional forms, resumes, brochures, or other materials to your submittal, unless otherwise noted below.  Submittals shall be limited to (25) 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

3.2 Submittal Requirements

In response to this RFQ, interested firms shall submit the following information.

1. Letter of Interest a. Name of your firm, location(s) of the office(s) from which the above-described professional services will be performed, and the name of and contact information for the person authorized to negotiate on your behalf. b. Brief statement regarding your current familiarity with the Commission’s current issues and needs. c. Brief narrative describing your understanding of the professional services described above and/or herein.

2. Statement of Qualifications a. Completed Professional Services Checklist (ATTACHMENT 1). b. Completed Professional Services Questionnaire (ATTACHMENT 2). c. Summary of the personnel that would be involved in performing the professional services described above and/or herein (i.e., project team), including a brief description of their roles and responsibilities in the performance of such professional services and their experience and expertise as it relates to the performance of such professional services. If applicable, please indicate the office to which each member of the project team is assigned.

d. Resumes for each member of the project team. Please include such resumes as an attachment to your submittal. Such attachment will not count toward the submittal page limit described above. e. References for at least five clients for whom you have provided professional services similar to those described above and/or herein. Please provide the client’s name, client’s address, person of reference, reference’s phone number, reference’s e-mail address, and a brief description of the professional services provided to such client.

3. Project Approach a. Narrative describing your approach to project management and to working with the Commission during the performance of the professional services describe above and/or herein, and describing the communications procedures and other relevant techniques that will be used to coordinate with the Department.

4. Knowledge of Local Conditions a. Narrative describing your current familiarity with the Commission’s current issues and needs.

5. Additional Information a. Any additional information that will allow the Commission to accurately evaluate your qualifications and ability to assist the Commission with the development, administration, and implementation of the Commission’s Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan.

3.3 Submittal Location

Submitters shall forward SOQ’s electronically in .PDF format to the Executive Director via the e-mail address provided in this RFQ. If any paper copies of your submittal will be submitted, please submit three copies, printed double-sided, to:

Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission RE: Statement of Qualifications 6100 Southport Road Portage, Indiana 46383

3.4 Submittal Due Date and Time

All SOQs must be received by 4:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, on the SOQ due date indicated in Section 2.3. 29

4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS Additional information about the consultant selection process for these projects is provided below.

Step 1. Interested Firms Prepare & Make Submittals: Interested firms prepare and submit to the Department submittals in response to this RFQ in accordance with the instructions set forth herein.

Step 2. Commission Evaluates Submittals: Submittals prepared in accordance with the instructions set forth in this RFQ and received by the submittal deadline set forth herein will be evaluated by the Commission staff in consultation with its staff and Technical Advisory Committee. Submittals will be evaluated according to the following criteria and scoring system:

Evaluation Criteria LETTER OF INTEREST 05 points Firm Information Knowledge of Local Conditions Project Understanding STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 45 points Firm’s Qualifications & Experience Project Team’s Experience, Education & Expertise PROJECT APPROACH 15 points Project/Client Management Approach KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS 15 points FIRM’S PROXIMITY TO SITE 15 points SUBMITTAL FORMAT & QUALITY 05 points

The Department’s evaluation will be based on the information presented in the submittals, as well as information on past project performance, information obtained from references and other entities, and such other information as may be obtained by the Department during the evaluation process.

4.1 Determining Short-listed Submitters

The Commission will total the scores for each responsive SOQ and prepare a ranked list of Submitters. The Commission anticipates short-listing at least three, but not more than five most highly qualified Submitters that submit SOQs.

The Commission reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel this RFQ, issue a new request for qualifications, reject any or all SOQs, seek or obtain data from any source that has the potential to 30 improve the understanding and evaluation of the responses to this RFQ, seek and receive clarifications to an SOQ and waive any deficiencies, irregularities or technicalities in considering and evaluating the SOQs.

This RFQ does not commit the Commission to enter into a contract or proceed with the procurement of the Project. The Commission assumes no obligations, responsibilities and liabilities, fiscal or otherwise, to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred by the parties responding to this RFQ. All such costs shall be borne solely by each Submitter. In addition, the Commission assumes no obligations, responsibilities and liabilities, fiscal or otherwise, to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred by the parties if the Commission elects to not issue an RFP for the Project.

4.2 Notification of Short listing

Upon completion of the evaluation, scoring and short-listing process, the Commission will send the list of short-listed Submitters (if any) to all Submitters. The Commission will also publish on its website at www.kankakeeandyellowrivers.org.

4.3 Debriefing Meetings

Once the Commission announces the approved list (if any), the Commission may arrange debriefing meetings with Submitter organizations. The purpose of a debriefing meeting is for the Commission to provide informal and objective comments to a Submitter on the Commission’s review of their SOQ, and provide feedback that may help Submitters improve their SOQ’s for future procurements. A debriefing meeting also provides an informal setting to discuss this RFQ and the procurement process.

5.0 RETENTION OF SOQ’S FOR FUTURE WORK

As part of this RFQ process, the Commission intends to retain SOQ’s from professional consultants with experience with the various tasks associated with the development, administration, and implementation of the Commission’s duties and tasks described in IC 14-13-9 and the Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan.

The SOQ’s of Submitters responding to this RFQ shall be retained by the Commission through the period ending January 15, 2021. Submitters may be contacted by the Commission from time to time either to enter into an annual professional services agreement, provide professional services on a per project basis, or to consider an RFP for other work sanctioned by the Commission.

The scope, extent, and character of such professional services and the cost thereof shall be mutually agreed upon prior to the start of the performance of such services and established in writing.

After January 15, 2021, the Submitter may be asked to update or resubmit its SOQ in order to retain eligibility for work under this section.

ATTACHMENT 1

Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission Professional Services Checklist

Please complete the following checklist to indicate your experience with the various tasks associated with implementation of the Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan. Please see the accompanying Professional Services Questionnaire for additional descriptions of the various tasks listed below.

1. Investigation/Study Phase Services a. Flood Control Planning b. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning c. Desktop Assessment d. Field Investigation e. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling f. Preliminary Water Quality Modeling 2. Design Phase Services a. Topographic Surveying b. Easement Preparation c. Utility Coordination d. Wetland Delineation e. Environmental Permitting f. Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling g. Plans & Specifications 3. Bid Phase Services a. Bid Phase Services 4. Construction Phase Services a. Construction Administration b. Construction Observation 5. Outreach and Documentation Services a. Public Education & Outreach b. Public Participation & Involvement c. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission Professional Services Checklist (cont.)

6. Plan Review Services a. Plan Review 7. Inspection Services a. Drainage Infrastructure Inspection b. Structural Inspection 8. Other Services a. Other

ATTACHMENT 2 Kankakee River Basin and Yellow River Basin Development Commission Professional Services Questionnaire

Please complete the following questionnaire to describe your experience with the various tasks associated with the Project and other tasks contained in the Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan. Submit your response to this questionnaire as an attachment to this questionnaire.

1. Investigation/Study Phase Services a. Flood Control Planning  Briefly describe your experience with the development of flood control plans. b. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning  Briefly describe your experience with the development of sediment management plans. c. Desktop Assessment  Briefly describe your experience with the review of data at the desktop, including available reports, mapping, construction plans/as-built plans/record drawings, and/or geographic information system data. d. Field Investigation  Briefly describe your experience with the investigation of flood control and sediment management related issues in the field, including drainage problem investigation and drainage and/or storm water infrastructure identification, inspection, and assessment. e. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling  Briefly describe your experience with the development of preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic models to support the development of flood control and sediment management plans. o Please indicate the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling programs you typically use for such purposes. f. Preliminary Water Quality Modeling  Briefly describe your experience with the development of preliminary water quality models to support the development of flood control and sediment management plans. o Please indicate the water quality modeling programs you typically use for such purposes.

2. Design Phase Services a. Topographic Surveying  Briefly describe your experience with performing topographic surveying to collect information used in the design of flood control and sediment management improvements. b. Easement Preparation  Briefly describe your experience with conducting legal records research, preparing legal descriptions, and preparing exhibits to support the acquisition of necessary easements for flood control and sediment management improvements. c. Utility Coordination  Briefly describe your experience with conducting utility coordination, including identifying utilities, conducting field investigations, identifying utility conflicts, notifying affected utilities, conducting utility coordination meetings, and reviewing utility conflict resolution plans. 35

d. Wetland Delineation  Briefly describe your experience with the identification, delineation, and determination of wetlands and wetland jurisdictional boundaries in the implementation of flood control and sediment management improvements. e. Environmental Permitting  Briefly describe your experience with the interpretation of federal, state, and local environmental regulations applicable to flood control and sediment management improvements.  Briefly describe your experience with preparing permit applications and other materials necessary to acquire federal, state, and local environmental authorizations needed to support the implementation of flood control and sediment management improvements. f. Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling  Briefly describe your experience with the development of hydrologic and hydraulic models to provide a basis of design for flood control and sediment management improvements. o Please indicate the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling programs you typically use for such purposes. g. Plans & Specifications  Briefly describe your experience with the development of construction plans and technical specifications describing the scope, extent, and character of flood control and sediment management improvements. o Please indicate the computer aided design (CAD) programs you typically use for such purposes.  Briefly describe your experience with the development of opinions of probable cost for flood control and sediment mitigation.

3. Bid Phase Services a. Bid Phase Services  Briefly describe your experience with assisting clients during the bid phase, including advertising and obtaining bids, facilitating pre-bid meetings, issuing addenda, and evaluating bids and bidders.

4. Construction Phase Services a. Construction Administration  Briefly describe your experience with providing construction administration services, including facilitating pre-construction conferences, reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information, conducting periodic observation, and reviewing applications for payment, during the construction of flood control and sediment management improvements.

b. Construction Observation  Briefly describe your experience with providing construction observation services, including conducting regular observation, determining whether the work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents, documenting progress on the work, measuring completed work, and serving as liaison between the parties, during the construction of flood control and sediment management improvements.

5. Outreach and Documentation Services a. Public Education & Outreach  Briefly describe your experience in helping comply with public education and outreach requirements. b. Public Education & Outreach  Briefly describe your experience in helping comply with public participation and involvement requirements. c. Monitoring, Recordkeeping & Reporting  Briefly describe your experience in helping achieve compliance with relevant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

6. Plan Review Services a. Plan Review  Briefly describe your experience with performing review of construction plans and other materials for compliance with relevant codes and ordinances. o Please indicate your familiarity with laws, regulations and standards governing the Kankakee and Yellow Rivers. o Please indicate your familiarity with the Commission’s Kankakee River Flood and Sediment Management Work Plan.

7. Inspection Services a. Flood Control and/or Sediment Management Infrastructure Inspection  Briefly describe your experience with identifying, inspecting, and assessing flood control and/or sediment management infrastructure.

8. Other Services a. Other  Briefly list and describe your experience with other services related to the development and implementation of flood control and sediment management improvements and/or the inspection, maintenance, repair, construction, and/or reconstruction of flood control and sediment management improvements that may benefit the Commission.

ATTACHMENT 6

RIVER GAGE CONTRACT