Issue Date: September 1, 2026
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS POSTED HERE.
QUESTIONS & RESPONSES:
The responses below are provided for clarification purposes only. These responses do not alter the requirements of the RFQP except where specifically noted. All other RFQP requirements remain in effect.
1. Approximately how many public meetings (i.e., community education, outreach, events, etc.) should the consultant budget for on an annual basis?
Response: The Work Plan calls for a minimum of one community outreach session in each target community in Q1 of 2026 and a second round of community outreach sessions in each target community at the beginning of year 3 of the grant. At this time, InvestUP has not established a specific number of public meetings per year, but considers the number identified in the Work Plan as a minimum. Respondents should assume a reasonable level of community outreach and public participation support throughout the grant period and describe how they would accommodate such activities. Meeting frequency will depend on site selection, project activity, and community needs.
2. Is it anticipated that regular status meetings will be in person or will participation via virtual methods be acceptable?
Response: Virtual participation is acceptable for routine project status meetings. However, the selected consultant should anticipate that certain meetings, site visits, community outreach events, or significant project discussions may require inperson attendance. The Approach section (section 3) should explain how the consultant will approach in-person meetings.
3. How many firms does InvestUP anticipate contracting with for this project?
Response: InvestUP anticipates selecting one primary consultant through this RFQP process. However, firms may wish to partner and/or subcontract with other firms in response to the RFQP. Such partnerships and/or subcontracts should be explained in the RFQP response.
4. Can section divider pages be used? If so, will divider pages count toward the 10-page limit?
Response: Yes. Section divider pages containing only section titles and utilized for the sake of organization may be used and will not count toward the 10-page limit.
5. Can project sheets be included as part of Appendix 3 or are those considered previously prepared materials?
Response: Project sheets may be included in Appendix 3 if they are directly relevant to demonstrating experience and qualifications. General marketing materials, brochures, or previously prepared qualification statements should not be included, consistent with the RFQP requirements.
6. Section 1 requests a list of “all” brownfield and hazardous-substance assessment/remediation projects completed within the past five years. Can firms provide a representative list instead?
Response: The intent of this requirement is to understand the breadth and depth of the firm’s relevant experience. Firms may provide a comprehensive list as an appendix if needed. The proposal narrative may highlight the projects most relevant to this assignment.
7. If a complete list is required, may it be included in an appendix and excluded from the page count?
Response: Yes. A complete project list may be included in Appendix 3 and will not count toward the 10-page proposal limit.
8. Is the Certification form on page 3 required to be completed and included with the proposal?
Response: Yes. Respondents should complete and include the Certification form contained in the RFQP package.
9. If so, where should it be placed, and is it excluded from the 10-page limit?
Response: The completed Certification form may be included immediately following the cover letter or within the appendices. The Certification form will not count toward the 10-page proposal limit.
10. Is the individual identified as the primary contact for regular communications also required to attend all project meetings, or may another member of the project team attend as needed?
Response: The primary contact should serve as the principal point of communication for the project. However, other qualified team members may attend meetings as appropriate based on the subject matter and project needs.
11. Is a rate escalation throughout the years of the project allowed to be included in the fee schedule?
Response: Yes. Firms may propose future rate escalations provided they are clearly identified in the fee schedule and include the assumptions upon which those escalations are based. InvestUP reserves the right to negotiate final contract terms.
12. Is InvestUP looking for a list of services with costs or only the specific costs listed?
Response: InvestUP is seeking:
- A fee/rate schedule for key personnel who will be assigned to the project;
- The average cost of a Phase I ESA;
- The average cost of travel to the western Upper Peninsula region
Any additional fee information the respondent believes will help InvestUP understand and compare anticipated project costs should be included. Respondents are encouraged to provide enough detail for InvestUP to evaluate both cost competitiveness and overall value.
13. Is it anticipated that the selected consultant will be responsible for generating public outreach materials (printed or digital) or updating a website with this information?
Response: The selected consultant should anticipate assisting with community outreach and public engagement activities. At this time, InvestUP does not anticipate requiring the consultant to independently maintain or update a project website. Specific outreach material needs will be determined as projects advance. While extensive work developing outreach and public facing reporting materials are not expected, there will likely be some collaboration between the Coalition and the consultant in developing such materials.
14. Did the coalition have assistance from consultant(s) to prepare the successful grant application and, if so, who?
Response: The coalition utilized Fishbeck in a supportive role in developing the EPA Brownfield Assessment Coalition grant application. These services were limited to an initial meeting with the Coalition team to discuss application strategy and a final review of the draft application with comment. The Coalition also utilized the services of KSU TAB.
15. The RFQP indicates that the coalition will select a single consultant. Is there openness to selecting more than one consultant?
Response: InvestUP anticipates selecting one primary consultant through this RFQP process. However, firms may wish to partner and/or subcontract with other firms in response to the RFQP. Such partnerships and/or subcontracts should be explained in the RFQP response.
16. Is the coalition asking for typical cost ranges for Phase II ESAs, BEAs, QAPPs, Work Plans, etc.? (i.e., a unit rate fee schedule for the efforts that go into those activities)? If so, will the coalition provide a specific list of services for respondents to provide cost ranges for and an example scope of work since the level of effort for some tasks will vary based on actual project specifics?
Response: Respondents may provide typical cost ranges for services such as Phase II ESAs, BEAs, QAPPs, Due Care Plans, Brownfield Plans, and Act 381 Work Plans if they believe such information will assist InvestUP in evaluating their proposal. Because project-specific scopes can vary considerably for these items, InvestUP has only specifically requested the following:
- A fee/rate schedule for key personnel who will be assigned to the project;
- The average cost of a Phase I ESA;
- The average cost of travel to the western Upper Peninsula region
Any additional fee information the respondent believes will help InvestUP understand and compare anticipated project costs should be included.