Request for Proposals: Recreation and Land Management Strategies

CTA24028

The California Tahoe Conservancy has solicited to facilitate an internal visioning process to define the goals, objectives, and guiding principles of the Land Management Strategy; develop a stakeholder engagement plan; build upon previous work developing a sequenced process for completing the Land Management Strategy; and conduct technical studies to support rulemaking and land use planning.

View the Request for Proposals

Date to submit questions: April 17, 2025, by 3:00 p.m.

Responses to Questions, added on April 24, 2025

1. Section F.2.a of the RFP requests relevant work sample. Can work samples be provided via a link to a document on a publicly accessible webpage, or should the full work samples be submitted as a PDF file?
   Yes, links to documents on a publicly available webpage are accepted as relevant work samples.
2. Form 6a requires us to attach to this form an acknowledgement (Attachment 6b) signed by an authorized representative of each named subcontractor acknowledging their proposed use as described herein. We didn’t see Attachment 6b included in the RFP. Can Attachment 6b be provided?
   Attachment 6b is a typo. Please attach the form in Attachment 7, the Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Declaration. Download attachment 7, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Declarations, DGS PD 843, from the DGS website
3. Can the Conservancy provide any additional guidance on the number and type of new rules/regulations that would need to be analyzed as part of the Studies to Support Rulemaking Efforts in Task 2?
   Conservancy needs to go through the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) process to implement new rules, regulations, or fees. This contract will require analysis of both regulations and fees, which may include:i. Rules/regulations restricting off-road vehicle use;
   ii. Rules/regulations regarding ebikes;
   iii. Implementation of new fees; and
   iv. Considering non-monetary public benefits in the valuation of easements issued by the Conservancy
4. For Task 2, Studies to Support Rulemaking Efforts, does the Conservancy envision evaluating specific proposed rules as part of this task, or would the Studies to Support Rulemaking Efforts evaluate the effects of general types or categories of potential rules?
   The Conservancy would like to evaluate specific rules related to recreational uses, such as the use of off-road vehicles and e-bikes, user-created trails, and charging fees at recreational sites. However, the Conservancy is also interested in evaluating the effects of limiting or allowing all recreational uses if it is feasible to generalize recreational uses into a category for the purposes of rulemaking, similar to the general analysis of the effects of imposing fees on certain Conservancy lands.
5. For Task 2, Studies to Support Rulemaking Efforts, Fiscal Impact Study, would Conservancy staff provide information inputs on the anticipated staffing needs and associated salary and benefits costs to implement various rules and regulations that are under consideration?
   The Conservancy will provide information necessary for accurate fiscal impact studies, and studies related to rulemaking.
6. The RFP mentions the following Memo as part of the foundation of the requested work: Recreation and Land Management Strategies Memo – This memorandum summarizes work recently completed by a consultant, which reviews land management issues on Conservancy land, identifies considerations for the Conservancy Land Management Strategy planning efforts, and recommends a planning process and framework. Will the Conservancy provide this memo to bidders?
   Yes, the memo can be downloaded here.
7. Can the “Recreation and Land Management Strategies Memo” referenced on page 4 of the RFP be made available?
   See #6
8. Who was the consultant who prepared the Recreation and Land Management Strategies Memo described in the Background section of the RFP?
   WRA Environmental Consultants
9. Can a copy of the Memo mentioned on page 4 be provided?
   See #6
10. How many workshops or internal meetings does the Conservancy anticipate for developing the vision, structure, and components of the strategy? Is there a preference for in-person or virtual meetings or a combination of the two?
    The Conservancy has not set an expectation for the number of workshops/internal meetings required to develop the vision statement, goals, and components of the strategy. Each consultant can propose a number and progression of meetings based on their previous experience. It would be ideal to have a combination of in-person and virtual meetings, as long as the quality of facilitation and development of deliverables is not compromised by virtual facilitation
11. Is the expectation that we draft the stakeholder, tribal, and public engagement plan in full, or co-develop it with Conservancy staff based on their existing frameworks and relationships?
    The expectation is for the consultant to co-develop the stakeholder, tribal, and public engagement plan using the Conservancy’s knowledge and experience of regional stakeholders while also using the experience and expertise of the consultant to create transparent and appropriately scaled plans.
12. What level of specificity should the suggested strategy development process include—for example, are you looking for general engagement principles or detailed schedules, stakeholder maps, and outreach tools?
    The Conservancy has already explored general land management frameworks and stakeholder engagement methods as described in the memo linked under question #6. The Conservancy is looking to reach consensus on specific goals, scope, and components for the Land Management Strategy and define a process to start making progress on those components. Deliverables should provide detailed schedules, processes, and tools to help the Conservancy make progress on components of the Land Management Strategy.
13. How far along is the Conservancy in identifying key stakeholder groups, including tribal partners? Would identifying and analyzing stakeholders be part of our scope?
    The Conservancy has already developed a list of key stakeholders, including tribal partners. Identifying and analyzing stakeholders will not be a part of the scope of work.
14. What kind of documentation and deliverables do you envision beyond the 5-page executive summary—do you anticipate additional reports, presentations, workshop facilitation guides, or internal planning tools?
    We are assuming the question is focused on Task 1. The deliverables are described in the scope of work in RFP. The deliverables for Task 1 are: facilitated meetings; a memo or executive summary; a suggested process for the development of the Land Management Strategy; and a stakeholder engagement plan.The purpose of Task 1 is to assist the Conservancy in reaching consensus on the goals, vision, scope, and components of Land Management Strategy, and to provide a roadmap for next steps the Conservancy should take to start the development of the Land Management Strategy document, or components thereof. The Conservancy invites respondents to propose a process, tools, and products (beyond the 5-page memo) that achieves the purpose of Task 1 and meets the deliverables described in the RFP. Examples of tools and products that could help accomplish the deliverables include presentations, graphics, reports, outlines, etc.
15. What is the anticipated level of support or coordination with Conservancy leadership, Board members, or other regulatory bodies?
    Consultants will work with a cross-program committee for Task 1, which will include staff from multiple levels of the agency, including senior and executive staff. Task 2 will require the consultant to work with our legal team and Lands Division. The Conservancy’s Lands Division is leading this project and will be the main point of contact to implement this project. Assisting staff in preparing Board updates may also be required. No direct engagement with regulatory bodies is anticipated for this project.