Backup Documents 03/11/2011 Item #10BOil
4)
N
m
cn
a
ce
a
W
V
Z
ce
a
W
a
LU
.j
am
`sO4
d7
m
a
0
s
(D \�
CL.
L
7
C1
a
p
G1
73
47
V
W
a
D
Z
H
W
W
E
L
47
s
0
W
J)
Wl y
H
H
W
D
W W
Q z
C
C7
a
a�
c
d7
U)
i
CL
12
a
�z
�O
>-
m LL
O 0
J
-J Q Z
QOW
m
Qu
GHQ
d
WW
Z 0
oU') °�
�QO Lu
N Q
s
O ~ Q
N LU U')
W
Q Z
LnJ��
'I-00 0
O Z
CD
WDO
U
Z�i-
Q
0 U 0
mZQ
Ln m
LU ELU
W
2
W>F-'
Q � �
< Q
cr Z-a J
s
Ln}-U
ch CO W
00�
z<
U
W
Q (.7
0
Q
� W
�
0
wLn
W �
Z c W
�OZ
UOw0
LU
0 =0
U Ln U
n:
U
W
I-
J
z
ce
Q
O
W
a
In
zz
H
z
W
U
m
O
ce
0
W
H
z
N
n
M
a
W
W
S
H
0
I--
W
H
J
W
a
O
a
W
2
(9
z
W
m
H
U
W
n
m
W
2
H
O
0
a
E
O
0
Q
m
W
Z
I--
z
N
Q
W
H
W
0
lz
W
J
W
J
m
FQ-
W
F-
z
0
LL
0
W
W
J
a
O
U
W
45
CL
w
m
z
2
w
F-
a
°
z
w
0
ao
w
J
H
w
F-
a
°
Z
w
0
ao
J
a
w
J
U
z
R
a
W
Q
w
J
a.
J
�E
x
Q
O
m
w
z �-
(n
a
D N
U)
W
x w
� x
LL °
a
LL
w
J
w
J
m
a
F
w
x
F-
z
O
2
x
O
LL
°
W
J
IL
o
U
w
a
a
Z
W
x
F-
:0]
w
z
O
F
W
CL
P
z
W
m
w
x
a
w
d-
~- J
LL
o
x O w
U) 01
W CO ¢
> =z
F- J_
a
¢ o W
F-
Z E
�Llia
mU�
} ~vi
¢ `= w
z �
m
�U
Oc7z_
ww
°Cp
W vi
mm
O w
Z
J (J) w
F-
U)00
U) U g
r z ¢
m
=
O U
W
0 0
0
Q Q U-
0
UJ W
W
Z
CC Z5 Q
V)
W CL
r, oo
O O oC
Z O O
Z w
H
z 2 o
F J Q
Ir F- U)
0 0 w
Z
D
Om
U z
Q
who
J J m
C) :--
Q
x
W
x
H
Z
O
cn
W
w
x
°
°
O
H
w
x
0
z
U)
F-
Z
w
O
Ix
M
O
x
O
LL
U)
w
z
M
W
W
x
x
I--
O
F-
0
w
H
2
J
W
x
M
O
x
W
m
z
2
w
a
°
N
V'S
H
W
F-
Q
0
z
W
0
2
}
J
a
w
J
U
Z
a
w
Q
w
J
a
W
J
m
a
F-
W
x
F
z
O
m
x
O
LL
°
w
w
J
IL
2
O
U
w
a
J
a
10B
Q J
W W
� O
W m ¢
�
!' w Z
> 2
a
QomU
z ��
w
x
_
<
~
57- W J Q
mU
}
J
0 LLJ a
z 0
>. F- F
N
All
Q F=_- a
w
w
°°
U
(5 o
W C0
m
0
z w Z
o
O
C
H
w°Cp
owC.
W U)
Q
x
T- xm
o w
°
mow
z
a
O
-tea
Y�
w
_
U)O0
(il
U) U 2
O
I
F- F- Q cr
U
t\
CO =O
fA
0
w
x
-U3:
J LL- Cl:
}
J O 0
a
Q w O
LL
o
ter
w
CO
=
Z
cr z
F- W
o
Z
trCO¢
M
It w w
w
w
Cr
cr
O
'
�.
w
Z O O
w C-)
F-
w
Z
z w (C
F-
O
Z 2 Z
J i
w
p.
Ir F- U)
0 o w
w
x
�zD
Q
"'Y
Z
Z D Z
CD
O
\
w
O
>-
U z 0
LLj
cn
w
w D 0
x
CL
ui
J J m
J U W
Z
CC
UHF-
HUMISTON
& MOORE
ENGINEERS
COASTAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
AND PERMITTING
September 21, 2010
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Scott D. Johnson, Purchasing Agent,
Building "G', Collier County Government Complex
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
10 B
IV) IOLJ
5679 STRAND COURT
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110
Re: RFP 10 -5572, Wiggins Pass Permitting, Modeling, & Inlet Management Plan
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit qualifications in response to the referenced RFP. We are
sincerely interested in this work and certainly possess local and state -wide technical qualifications
to assist the county with the Management of Wiggins Pass, as has been demonstrated by work we
have previously completed for the county. However, we have decided not to submit a formal
response the referenced RFP.
This difficult decision is in part based on the narrow scope of the RFP which indicates that the
county wishes to hire a consultant to pursue a specific plan already filed with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in response to which the DEP indicated that they
will not recommend favorably on permit issuance. In fact the state further suggested that the
county ... "assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on
permit issuance." Our firm has a great deal of experience in the development and implementation
of inlet management strategies in southwest Florida, and the pursuit of the design referenced in the
RFP does not appear to be an appropriate professional approach that will achieve the goal of the
county; to reduce long -term inlet management costs and extend the life of the maintenance
dredging cycle.
H &M remains sincerely interested in lending our expertise to assisting the county with addressing
management issues at Wiggins Pass in the future, should the opportunity arise. Please feel free to
call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS
Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E.
10 B"c�
Attachment 6
Vendor's Non - Response Statement
The sole intent of the Collier County Purchasing Department is to issue solicitations that are clear, concise and
openly competitive. Therefore, we are interested in ascertaining reasons for prospective Vendors not wishing
to respond to this solicitation.
If your firm is not responding to this RFP, please indicate the reason(s) by checking the item(s) listed below
and return this form via email or fax, noted on the cover page, or mail to Collier County Purchasing
Department, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112.
We are not responding to CCNA Solicitation # and Title 10 -5572 Wiggines Pass Permitting, Modeling and
Inlet Management for the following reason(s):
❑ Services requested not available through our company.
❑ Our firm could not meet specifications /scope of work.
Q Specifications /scope of work not clearly understood or applicable (too vague, rigid, etc.)
❑ Project is too small.
❑ Insufficient time allowed for preparation of response.
❑ Incorrect address used. Please correct mailing address:
0 Otherreason(s): Please see attached letter dated September 21, 2010.
Name of Firm:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Email:
Representative Signature:
Representative Name:
Humiston & Moore Engineers
5679 Strand Court
Naples. FL 34110
(239) 594 -2021
kh @humistonandmoore.com
Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. Date 9/21/2010
President
G /Current- Solicitation Template\RFP_CCNATemplate 04152010
UP_CCNATemplate
39
I0 Boefk
(9/17/2010 9[32:26 AM Eastern) Question: The DEP application in Feb 2010 was the basis of the DEP RAI dated Mar 24, 2010 In which the DEP Indicated
that - Preliminary evaluation of your proposed project leads Bureau staff to the conclusion that the placement options for the non -beach compatible material to be
dredged from the channel expansion cannot be recommended for approval.' Furthermore, the DEP indicated that .. "We are sending you these comments at this
early stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit Issuance.' Is there
subsequent Information regarding any resolution reached with the DEP since the Issuance of thee- letter of Mar 24, 2010 that would clarify any change In project
design since the filing of application No. 0142538.008.30, or, if not, does the scope of work under this RFP include development of design modifications to
address DEP concerns expressed In Mar 2010 that Indicate potential denial of a permit for this project?
(9/20/2010 10:25:15 AM Eastern) Answer: There Is no additional Information clarifying FEP or the County's position relative to the use of Interior channel
sand to build the sand dikes. This will require resolution and we would expect the successful consultant to support the county's position to move forward with this
design as outlined. Our Intent Is to select a contractor most qualified to move forward and complete this project. If design alternatives or scope changes are
required, the will be addressed at the time of contract award.
(9/17/2010 9:30:54 AM Eastern) Question* 10. Also under the additional scope of work under the title of Modeling of Additional Alternatives reference is
made to the potential evaluation or the re- establishment of the ebb shoal to be built by direct sand placement. The stated goals of the county Include evaluating
Potential alternatives that would extend the life of the dredging cycle at Wiggins Pass that are economically effective (county goal M4). It has already been
established that due to the volume of material In the previously existing ebb shoal, the extent of the shoal, and the cumulative impacts or dredging that will
continue if the shoal Is reestablished, that this alternative is significantly more expensive than other viable alternatives. Since it appears as If this Is not an
alternative capable of achieving the county's stated goals, why Is R included In the scope of work?
(9/20/2010 10:25:44 AM Eastern) Answer: 1 am not sure if you are questioning staffs Intent, challenging the scope of work or something else entirely. Our
Intent is not to get into a debate as to the technical validity of this request with potential consultants but to simply determine the technical competency of the
consultant to perform the scope of work. Our Intent Is to look at the various levels of reconstruction of the ebb shoal to determine if It will have any benefit or
value In prolonging the life of the pass. This train of thought was proposed by FDEP and the requirement will be outlined in the next round of RAI's.
(9/17/2010 9:30:31 AM Eastern) Question: 9. Under the scope of work for Modeling of Additional Alternatives is the statement that the Morphological model
that Is totally transparent and compatible with Delft 3D modeling programs will be used to evaluate and compare project alternatives." A previous county RFP
specified the use of Delft 3D as a requirement, and county staff has indicated that all future modeling for the county would be use the Delft 3D model, yet the
county has subsequently hired consultants that do not use Delft 3D. Furthermore, this narrow specification appears to arbitrarily eliminate consultants with equal
and possibly superior qualifications to provide cost effective services to the county. What Is the basis for listing one specific modeling program when there are
other software packages fully capable of meeting the technical requirements of the project?
(9/2012010 10:26:06 AM Eastern) Answer: The work that has been done to date to prepare this application has been Delft 30. Modeling to determine the
extent of the scope for rebuilding the ebb tide shoal remains incomplete and is required as part of this project. Model compatibility and the ability to integrate
models together Is a factor In evaluating proposals. Our expectation Is that you will address this Issue In your response to the county.
(9/17/2010 9-30:09 AM Eastern) Question: S. Under Task 1 -A.4, it is stated that No structural alternative will be considered. The County's 2009 modeling
report completed by CP &E indicated that typically coastal structures (jetties, groins and breakwaters) are used to solve this type of inlet problem, and previous
studies of Wiggins Pass completed for the county have recommended consideration of structural alternatives to achieve the county's goals. Can you confirm that
evaluation of structural alternatives Is not part of the scope of work under this RFP?
(9/20/2010 10.26:25 AM Eastern) Answer: Structural alternatives are not part of the scope of work for tills RFP.
(9/17/2010 9:29:48 AM Eastern) Question: 7. Under Task I -A.3, what is the intent In applying an "odd -even analysis" when more technical and more
detailed coastal process and inlet morphology modeling has already been completed by two different consultants under contracts with the county?
(9/20/2010 10:27:03 AM Eastern) Answer: The Odd -Even analysis is one way of many to evaluate impacts on Inlets. The key here is that the consultant ahs
many tools to evaluate the impact to inlets and to describe and articulate methods performed. Relative to this project, please make sure that any evaluation tool
that you suggest is up to date and covers all the points that are required by FDEP guidelines.
(9/17/2010 9:29:18 AM Eastern) Question: 6. Under Task 1 -A 2, what is meant by the statement "Special considerations will be given to short-term
changes so natural and man -made responses are not minimized by averaging data "?
(9/20/2010 10:27:19 AM Eastern) Answer: The point that I was trying to make here is that point and average analysis are both required and that averaging
data will tend to minimize the Impact of point analysis along the beach that may have a more serious Impact that just average data.
(9/17/2010 9:27:48 AM Eastern) Question: 4. Collier County has not previously required an Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for maintenance
dredging of Wiggins Pass. It is anticipated that a Biological Opinion (if required) that would be prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service, would be sufficient to ensure protection to endangered species and natural resources such that electing to prepare a separate EIS would not
seem necessary, particularly if it has not been a policy of the County to require one for this type of activity. Can you please confirm that it Is the intent of the
county to require preparation of an EIS as part of the scope of work under this RFP?
(9/20/2010 10:27:40 AM Eastern) Answer: An Environmental Impact Statement will be required as part of the Letter of Consistency determination
performed by the Growth management Division. It Is anticipated that much if not all of the Information required by other permitting agencies can be reused and
repackaged when submitting the EIS to Growth Management. A formal report will be required to be submitted.
(9/17/2010 9.27:25 AM Eastern) Question: 3. The RFP states that the scope of work is consistent with the 1995 Inlet Management Study, the January 2009
modeling study, and the February 2010 permit application. The recommended channel dimensions in the 1995 IMP, however, were modified for the maintenance
dredging between 2002 to 2007 to reduce Impacts from the 1995 recommended channel, and the September 10, 2010 RAI response states that the proposed
channel dimensions are the same as those revised channel dimensions. The 2010 permit application, however, proposes a significantly different dredging
template to what has been dredged previously. Does the scope of work under this RFP include evaluation of other design options that may reduce impacts and
long term costs?
(9/20/20LO 10:27:57 AM Eastern) Answer: We are committed to the channel dimensions as addressed in the 2010 permit application. This RFP does not
contemplate design options to the permit application design. If the selected consultant believes that other options should be considered, then only after award of
this contract will they be discussed.
(9117/2010 9:26:54 AM Eastern) Question: 2. The County has to date had all design work, application submittals, and responses to DEP RAI's on both
projects referenced under question 1 provided by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP &E). Is CP &E currently still working on these efforts for the County, and If
so, Is CP &E eligible to respond to this RFP or is it the county's Intent to engage a different consultant for these projects?
(9/20/2010 10:28:20 AM Eastern) Answer: CP &E is not currently working on application 0142538.008. The RFP is to select a consultant to continue with
tills process leading to a permit. CP &E is eligible to respond to this RFP and submit their qualifications for this work.
(9/ 17/2030 9:26:30 AM Eastern) Question: 1. The County currently has two active permit applications with DEP related to proposed activities at Wiggins
Pass, Application No. 0142538.008 for "Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Dredging". and Application No. 0142538.009 for "Wiggins
Pass Maintenance Dredging ". The RFP is for completing permitting process, including studies, data collection, and design elements needed to satisfy agency
requirements. Could you please confirm whether or not the scope of work under this RFP includes both of these referenced permit applications?
(9/20/2010 10:28:56 AM Eastern) Answer: Scope of work that this RFP is addressing Is only 0142538 -008.
Expired Solicitations
Solicitation Title: Wiggins Pass Permitting, modeling & Inlet management Plan (No Preproposal) S3
Active
Solicitation Number: 10 -5572
Exnrcd
w
Solicitation Summary I specifications, Terms, and Conditions I Q&A ( Planholders
Login
Agency: Collier County Purchasing
New Vwmder Registration
Contact: Scottlohnson0colliemov .net
Solicitation Starts: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:00:00 PM Eastern
Solicitation Ends: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:30:00 PM Eastern
Q&A Deadline: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:00:00 PM Eastern
Submission Method: Manual
_....... _....... ........ ... .... ... . .........._.___ .. _.. ........ .. ..... . ... _... _ __..... _..._ ........... .. ........... ........ --......
Commodity Subcommodit V
90600 - Engineering Services (other)
........................ _............... .......... ................ ................... .. .... ...._ ...... ....................... .._.. ... ..........................._...
Q&A
The deadline for asking questions has passed.
I0 Boefk
(9/17/2010 9[32:26 AM Eastern) Question: The DEP application in Feb 2010 was the basis of the DEP RAI dated Mar 24, 2010 In which the DEP Indicated
that - Preliminary evaluation of your proposed project leads Bureau staff to the conclusion that the placement options for the non -beach compatible material to be
dredged from the channel expansion cannot be recommended for approval.' Furthermore, the DEP indicated that .. "We are sending you these comments at this
early stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit Issuance.' Is there
subsequent Information regarding any resolution reached with the DEP since the Issuance of thee- letter of Mar 24, 2010 that would clarify any change In project
design since the filing of application No. 0142538.008.30, or, if not, does the scope of work under this RFP include development of design modifications to
address DEP concerns expressed In Mar 2010 that Indicate potential denial of a permit for this project?
(9/20/2010 10:25:15 AM Eastern) Answer: There Is no additional Information clarifying FEP or the County's position relative to the use of Interior channel
sand to build the sand dikes. This will require resolution and we would expect the successful consultant to support the county's position to move forward with this
design as outlined. Our Intent Is to select a contractor most qualified to move forward and complete this project. If design alternatives or scope changes are
required, the will be addressed at the time of contract award.
(9/17/2010 9:30:54 AM Eastern) Question* 10. Also under the additional scope of work under the title of Modeling of Additional Alternatives reference is
made to the potential evaluation or the re- establishment of the ebb shoal to be built by direct sand placement. The stated goals of the county Include evaluating
Potential alternatives that would extend the life of the dredging cycle at Wiggins Pass that are economically effective (county goal M4). It has already been
established that due to the volume of material In the previously existing ebb shoal, the extent of the shoal, and the cumulative impacts or dredging that will
continue if the shoal Is reestablished, that this alternative is significantly more expensive than other viable alternatives. Since it appears as If this Is not an
alternative capable of achieving the county's stated goals, why Is R included In the scope of work?
(9/20/2010 10:25:44 AM Eastern) Answer: 1 am not sure if you are questioning staffs Intent, challenging the scope of work or something else entirely. Our
Intent is not to get into a debate as to the technical validity of this request with potential consultants but to simply determine the technical competency of the
consultant to perform the scope of work. Our Intent Is to look at the various levels of reconstruction of the ebb shoal to determine if It will have any benefit or
value In prolonging the life of the pass. This train of thought was proposed by FDEP and the requirement will be outlined in the next round of RAI's.
(9/17/2010 9:30:31 AM Eastern) Question: 9. Under the scope of work for Modeling of Additional Alternatives is the statement that the Morphological model
that Is totally transparent and compatible with Delft 3D modeling programs will be used to evaluate and compare project alternatives." A previous county RFP
specified the use of Delft 3D as a requirement, and county staff has indicated that all future modeling for the county would be use the Delft 3D model, yet the
county has subsequently hired consultants that do not use Delft 3D. Furthermore, this narrow specification appears to arbitrarily eliminate consultants with equal
and possibly superior qualifications to provide cost effective services to the county. What Is the basis for listing one specific modeling program when there are
other software packages fully capable of meeting the technical requirements of the project?
(9/2012010 10:26:06 AM Eastern) Answer: The work that has been done to date to prepare this application has been Delft 30. Modeling to determine the
extent of the scope for rebuilding the ebb tide shoal remains incomplete and is required as part of this project. Model compatibility and the ability to integrate
models together Is a factor In evaluating proposals. Our expectation Is that you will address this Issue In your response to the county.
(9/17/2010 9-30:09 AM Eastern) Question: S. Under Task 1 -A.4, it is stated that No structural alternative will be considered. The County's 2009 modeling
report completed by CP &E indicated that typically coastal structures (jetties, groins and breakwaters) are used to solve this type of inlet problem, and previous
studies of Wiggins Pass completed for the county have recommended consideration of structural alternatives to achieve the county's goals. Can you confirm that
evaluation of structural alternatives Is not part of the scope of work under this RFP?
(9/20/2010 10.26:25 AM Eastern) Answer: Structural alternatives are not part of the scope of work for tills RFP.
(9/17/2010 9:29:48 AM Eastern) Question: 7. Under Task I -A.3, what is the intent In applying an "odd -even analysis" when more technical and more
detailed coastal process and inlet morphology modeling has already been completed by two different consultants under contracts with the county?
(9/20/2010 10:27:03 AM Eastern) Answer: The Odd -Even analysis is one way of many to evaluate impacts on Inlets. The key here is that the consultant ahs
many tools to evaluate the impact to inlets and to describe and articulate methods performed. Relative to this project, please make sure that any evaluation tool
that you suggest is up to date and covers all the points that are required by FDEP guidelines.
(9/17/2010 9:29:18 AM Eastern) Question: 6. Under Task 1 -A 2, what is meant by the statement "Special considerations will be given to short-term
changes so natural and man -made responses are not minimized by averaging data "?
(9/20/2010 10:27:19 AM Eastern) Answer: The point that I was trying to make here is that point and average analysis are both required and that averaging
data will tend to minimize the Impact of point analysis along the beach that may have a more serious Impact that just average data.
(9/17/2010 9:27:48 AM Eastern) Question: 4. Collier County has not previously required an Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for maintenance
dredging of Wiggins Pass. It is anticipated that a Biological Opinion (if required) that would be prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service, would be sufficient to ensure protection to endangered species and natural resources such that electing to prepare a separate EIS would not
seem necessary, particularly if it has not been a policy of the County to require one for this type of activity. Can you please confirm that it Is the intent of the
county to require preparation of an EIS as part of the scope of work under this RFP?
(9/20/2010 10:27:40 AM Eastern) Answer: An Environmental Impact Statement will be required as part of the Letter of Consistency determination
performed by the Growth management Division. It Is anticipated that much if not all of the Information required by other permitting agencies can be reused and
repackaged when submitting the EIS to Growth Management. A formal report will be required to be submitted.
(9/17/2010 9.27:25 AM Eastern) Question: 3. The RFP states that the scope of work is consistent with the 1995 Inlet Management Study, the January 2009
modeling study, and the February 2010 permit application. The recommended channel dimensions in the 1995 IMP, however, were modified for the maintenance
dredging between 2002 to 2007 to reduce Impacts from the 1995 recommended channel, and the September 10, 2010 RAI response states that the proposed
channel dimensions are the same as those revised channel dimensions. The 2010 permit application, however, proposes a significantly different dredging
template to what has been dredged previously. Does the scope of work under this RFP include evaluation of other design options that may reduce impacts and
long term costs?
(9/20/20LO 10:27:57 AM Eastern) Answer: We are committed to the channel dimensions as addressed in the 2010 permit application. This RFP does not
contemplate design options to the permit application design. If the selected consultant believes that other options should be considered, then only after award of
this contract will they be discussed.
(9117/2010 9:26:54 AM Eastern) Question: 2. The County has to date had all design work, application submittals, and responses to DEP RAI's on both
projects referenced under question 1 provided by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP &E). Is CP &E currently still working on these efforts for the County, and If
so, Is CP &E eligible to respond to this RFP or is it the county's Intent to engage a different consultant for these projects?
(9/20/2010 10:28:20 AM Eastern) Answer: CP &E is not currently working on application 0142538.008. The RFP is to select a consultant to continue with
tills process leading to a permit. CP &E is eligible to respond to this RFP and submit their qualifications for this work.
(9/ 17/2030 9:26:30 AM Eastern) Question: 1. The County currently has two active permit applications with DEP related to proposed activities at Wiggins
Pass, Application No. 0142538.008 for "Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Dredging". and Application No. 0142538.009 for "Wiggins
Pass Maintenance Dredging ". The RFP is for completing permitting process, including studies, data collection, and design elements needed to satisfy agency
requirements. Could you please confirm whether or not the scope of work under this RFP includes both of these referenced permit applications?
(9/20/2010 10:28:56 AM Eastern) Answer: Scope of work that this RFP is addressing Is only 0142538 -008.
10 Bock
PWd1+ro
RFP #
Title
Advertisement Date
Due Date
Email Notices Sent
Solicitations Downloaded
Summary of Proposers
110 -5572
Wiggins Pass Permitting, Modeling, and Inlet Management Plan
8/26/2010
9/24/2010
717
�- 102
Proposers City State Master # of CD
Copy Copies
Tetra Tech EC, Inc IStuart JFI 1 1 8
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc I Boca Rato JFI 1 7
Notes:
1 Non Responder: Humiston and Moore Engineers
Opened By: IScott Johnson
Witnessed by: 1joanne Markiewicz
Date: �_ 9/2472010