CLARIFICATION 2- RFQ-RFP Program Management Services -Parallel Interceptor QUESTION AND ANSWERS

"Protecting Public Health and the Environment"
RFQ/RFP for Parallel Interceptor Project Program Manager
Submitted Questions & Responses
August 24, 2026
Updated: September 16, 2026
PVSC provides the following responses to all inquiries received through August September
16, 2026, regarding the above-referenced project RFQ/RFP. PVSC will update this document as
necessary.
1. Given that the Parallel Interceptor Program is primarily a program management, planning,
procurement, and delivery oversight contract, the minimum qualifications for the key
personnel appear heavily weighted toward specific tunnel project experience. Can PVSC
clarify whether demonstrated success managing similarly complex water and wastewater
capital programs will be considered equivalent to the listed tunnel-specific experience
requirements?
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
2. Because the scope of services is focused on program management and owner advisory
functions, can PVSC clarify whether comparable experience leading large-scale water and
wastewater infrastructure programs of similar complexity and risk will be considered when
evaluating team firm qualifications?
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
3. Given the anticipated 15-year duration of the Program and the evolving nature of planning,
design, procurement, construction, commissioning, and operational transition activities,
can PVSC clarify how compensation proposals will be evaluated and whether Respondents
may identify assumptions, exclusions, escalation methodologies, or future adjustment
mechanisms necessary to address long-term program uncertainties?
Page 1 of 12

Response: Respondents are directed to prepare the qualifications proposals and
compensation proposals in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ/RFP.
Recommendations made by the Selected Respondent, if any, regarding work previously
performed will be reviewed and considered by PVSC and, if appropriate, be the subject of
a potential change in scope of service.
4. The Program Management scope includes early-phase activities such as geotechnical
investigations, route analysis, constructability evaluations, alternatives assessment, and
risk management prior to advancing the Program to approximately 10% design. Given the
uncertainties associated with the currently identified soft-ground tunnel alignment, can
PVSC clarify its expectations regarding revalidation of previous recommendations and the
degree to which alternative technical approaches may be considered if they demonstrate a
reduction in program risk, cost, schedule, or operational impacts?
Response: Respondents are directed to prepare the qualifications proposals and
compensation proposals in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ/RFP.
Recommendations made by the Selected Respondent, if any, regarding work previously
performed will be reviewed and considered by PVSC and, if appropriate, be the subject of
a potential change in scope of service.
5. The RFP indicates a 15-year Program Management contract and requires respondents to
provide a compensation proposal for the anticipated duration of the Program. However,
many critical elements of the Program, including the number and type of future contract
packages, procurement strategies, project sequencing, and execution approach, will not be
fully defined until completion of the early planning efforts and development of the 10%
Basis of Design Report (BODR). Additionally, the current NJPDES permit requirements
are focused on the initial 3 to 5 years of the Program, during which the most significant
decisions affecting scope, cost, risk, and overall Program delivery will be made. Given
these uncertainties, would PVSC consider limiting the required compensation proposal to
the initial 3- to 5-year phase of services, with options for renewal or future negotiated
phases as the Program becomes better defined? This approach could provide more accurate
pricing, reduce the need for assumptions and future contract modifications, and encourage
broader competition.
Response: Respondents are directed to prepare the qualifications proposals and
compensation proposals in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ/RFP.
Recommendations made by the Selected Respondent, if any, regarding work previously
performed will be reviewed and considered by PVSC and, if appropriate, be the subject of
a potential change in scope of service.
6. There appears to be a potential inconsistency between the project experience requirements.
Section VII. Qualifications requests references for three (3) Tunnel and Dewatering
Pumping Station Projects with Program Management Services, while Section IV.
Page 2 of 12

Professional Evaluation & Ranking, A.2 Experience requests descriptions of the three (3)
most recent projects, programs, or contracts similar to the Parallel Interceptor Program.
Can PVSC clarify which requirement is correct?
Response: PVSC does not consider the sections to be inconsistent.
7. If responses to questions generate material impacts to the submittal response, would PVSC
consider a 2-week extension, depending on the timing of release of an Addendum?
Response: Not at this time.
8. RFP Page 83 states "The Respondent may include adjustments to salary rates, once every
two (2) years, beginning after 'Year 3' of the Program. Salary rate adjustments should not
be greater than the "Engineer's Pay Index of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -
Employment Cost Index ("ECI") for Professional Specialty and Technical Workers Wages
and Salaries" or 3% every two (2) years whichever is less. We have several questions
related to these restrictions:
a. Can the direct rates used for the first three years be escalated to account for no rate
increases until year 3 i.e. can we use a base rate that is escalated to year 1.5 for the
first three years of the project.
Response: The Respondents shall identify appropriate rates to use within their
compensation proposal that suit the requirements of the RFQ / RFP.
b. Is the rate cap the lesser of ECI or 3% cap per year or every two years, for example
if 3% is the effective cap is the allowable increase 3% per year or 3% over two
years (1.5% per year).
Response: The requirement within the RFQ / RFP is salary adjustments every two-
years after year three at 'ECI' or 3% whichever is less. For example, same rate for
years 1, 2, and 3. For years 4 and 5, rate from year 3 escalated per 'ECI' or 3%
whichever is less and should be the same rate for years 4 and 5. For years 6 and 7,
rate from year 5 escalated per 'ECI' or 3% whichever is less and should be the same
rate for years 6 and 7, and so on.
c. A 3% rate increase cap per year for a 15-year contract is problematic. Would PVSC
consider a more equitable cap of actual direct rate increases of ECI or 5% whichever
is greater?
Response: No. The Respondents shall identify appropriate rates to use within their
compensation proposal that suit the requirements of the RFQ / RFP.
Page 3 of 12

9. The qualifications for key/lead team members are overly prescriptive. For several of the
positions the requirements include 15 to 20 years of experience in a specific role such as
program manager, principal in charge, program controls/quality lead along with
requirements for that experience to be on water or wastewater infrastructure programs of
100 or 200 MGD or greater. For some positions there are also requirements for a certain
number of tunnel programs valued at over $350M. Combining all of these requirements
greatly limits the number of people in the industry who qualify for each role.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
10. Please confirm All allowances are just place holders to compare each bidders estimate and
not an idea of actual costs associated with the individual scope items.
Response: Allowance amounts have been identified to provide the Respondents with a base
for the items and descriptions associated with the Allowance Task items. Refer to Tasks 10
through 14 and Section IX - Costs for how allowances will be addressed.
11. An allowance of $300,000 is provided for a subcontractor/subconsultant to provide
geotechnical information. Compared to other programs of similar complexity, this
allowance is much lower than would be commonly expected and will likely be deficient
for sufficiently defining ground conditions along alternative alignments. Does PVSC
intend to authorize additional funds for geotechnical investigations following expenditure
of this allowance? Should proponents scale their effort in Task 6 to just the amount of
borings that can be completed and information collected for $300,000? Recommend that
PVSC remove the allowance from the RFPQ and separately procure the geotechnical
investigations. The costs for this effort will be significant for the tunnel, drop shafts, lift
station, collector sewers, etc. The Program Manager can assist PVSC with the procurement
process, identification of boring locations, and execution of the work.
Response: The allowance amounts noted within the RFQ / RFP are place holders. Refer to
Tasks 10 through 14 and Section IX - Costs for how allowances and their actual costs for
services will be addressed. The Respondent will be required to perform and provide soil
boring (geotechnical) information to complete the services outlined within Task 6. The
services of the subcontractor/subconsultant to perform and provide the soil borings
information (geotechnical) is included within Task 13. If additional soil borings
information (geotechnical) beyond the allocated allowance amount is required by the
subcontractor/subconsultant in order for the Selected Respondent to complete the services
outlined within Task 6, then PVSC and the Selected Respondent shall discuss potential
changes to the Program Management Services.
Page 4 of 12

12. What is PVSC's expected timing of their appeal to NJDEP regarding the construction of
the Parallel Interceptor?
Response: Unknown at this time. However, NJDEP denied a request to stay the challenged
requirements of PVSC's NJPDES permit, as well as similar requirements in the NJPDES
permits of PVSC's eight (8) CSO municipalities, during the appeals process. PVSC and
the CSO municipalities are, thus, obligated at this time to proceed accordingly.
13. With respect to critical questions and ones that can materially change the RFP, can PVSC
please provide responses with clarity and prior to September 11, 2026?
Response: If possible.
14. One of the nine contracts is a progressive design-build contract for the Parallel Interceptor.
Has PVSC developed a Progressive D-B contract that the PM is to use or is it expected the
PM is to develop such contract? Additionally, will PVSC lead and coordinate contract
negotiations prior to contract execution with D-B Contractor?
Response: PVSC has not developed a Progressive D-B contract. Refer to the referenced
reports, studies, and permit for documents for additional information related to the Parallel
Interceptor. The Respondents shall prepare the qualification proposal and compensation
proposal in accordance with the requirements outlined within the RFQ / RFP and the
referenced reports, studies, and permit. Should the Selected Respondent's updated route
analysis and recommended construction contracts and construction delivery methods differ
from what is noted within the RFQ / RFP, PVSC and the Selected Respondent shall discuss
potential changes to the Program Management Services. The Respondent shall refer to Task
3.1 [the Program Management Plan (PMP)] and Task 4.1 [investigates, reviews, assesses
to verify and confirm the recommendations of the Parallel Route Analysis Report] {both
of which should identify and recommend the number of construction contracts and the
method of construction for each construction contract}. Afterwards, the Selected
Respondent will develop the Final (PVSC approved) BODR to 10% design status for each
construction contract and preparation and solicitation for professional engineering services
for each construction contract. The Respondent shall refer to Task 8 -
Implementation/Execution for the requirements of the Selected Respondent pertaining to
the Program Manager Services efforts during design, bidding, and construction for each
construction contract.
15. Will there be another opportunity after the September 9th pre-proposal meeting for firms
to ask questions generated from the pre-proposal meeting?
Response: If PVSC deems that additional opportunity for questions is necessary, it shall
advise potential respondents of the same.
Page 5 of 12

16. Under Qualifications Evaluation, page 19 of 162 - Statement of Qualifications, Key/Lead
Team Member, the RFP states: "the Principal in Charge shall have a minimum of 20 years
of experience and shall have served as Principal in Charge for 200 MGD or more water or
wastewater tunnel infrastructure capital programs." We request that PVSC considers
removal of the requirement specific to tunnel infrastructure and allow for other capital
programs related to wastewater infrastructure, such as treatment works. It can be beneficial
to a Program of this magnitude that the Principal in Charge serves as a client liaison for a
variety of Program-level issues, with competency in key areas above and beyond tunnel
infrastructure, such as stakeholder management, CIP planning and funding, navigating
regulatory requirements, delivery strategies, and overall contractual oversight and
management.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
17. Under Qualifications Evaluation, page 20 of 162 - Statement of Qualifications, Key/Lead
Team Member, the RFP states: "The Deputy Program Manager/Program Delivery Manager
shall be responsible for assisting Program Manager with the program validation, delivery,
monitoring, budgets, and schedule of a program team on at least two (2) complex water or
wastewater infrastructure programs, with a tunnel construction value of $100 million or
more, within the last fifteen (15) years, that are similar in complexity to the PVSC Parallel
Interceptor Program." We request that PVSC considers removal of the requirement specific
to tunnel construction value, to allow for consideration of other directly relevant complex
water or wastewater infrastructure programs of similar cost and scale.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
18. Under Qualifications Evaluation, page 23 of 162 - Statement of Qualifications, Key/Lead
Team Member, the RFP states that the Tunnel/Geotechnical Lead/Manager shall have,
"strong knowledge, understanding, and expertise of large tunneling and dewatering pump
station and CSO projects associated with LTCPs. We request that PVSC also allows for
water supply tunnel projects, instead of limiting the requirement to CSO tunnel projects
under Long Term Control Plans.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
19. Under Qualifications Evaluation, page 26 of 162 - Statement of Qualifications, Key/Lead
Team Member, the RFP states the Engineering Specialists shall have at least five (5) years'
experience on tunneling, dewatering pump station, and CSO projects associated with LTCP
projects for wastewater treatment plants. We request that PVSC allow for water supply
tunnel experience for Geotechnical Engineers instead of limiting the requirement to CSO
Page 6 of 12

tunnel projects under Long Term Control Plans, and also remove tunnel experience
requirements for Hydraulics Engineers, LSRPs and Environmental Engineers overseeing
permits.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
20. Could you please confirm whether Attachment P (Disclosure of Investments in Iran) and
Attachment Q (Certification of Non-Involvement in Prohibited Activities in Russia or
Belarus) are required to be completed and submitted as part of the proposal package? We
note that both are included in the RFQ/RFP as "sample" forms.
Response: Attachments P and Q must be completed.
https://www.nj.gov/treasury/purchase/forms/DisclosureofInvestmentActivitiesinIran.pdf
https://www.nj.gov/treasury/administration/pdf/DisclosureofProhibitedActivitesinRussia
Belarus.pdf
21. Section IV.E.8 (page 29) The RFQ states:
"For the Subconsultant firm(s) providing key/lead team members, provide a description of
a minimum of three (3) programs similar/relevant to the PVSC Parallel Interceptor
Program previously performed by the key/lead Subconsultant, one of which should be a
complex water or wastewater infrastructure capital program with a value, or multiple
projects with an aggregate of, $250 million or more. Each description shall be limited to
two (2) pages and shall demonstrate the Subconsultants experience relevant to its
specifically defined responsibility."
We request the language to be amended as follows (with suggested added text in green
italics):
"For the Subconsultant firm(s) providing key/lead team members in technical roles,
provide a description of a minimum of three (3) programs similar/relevant to the PVSC
Parallel Interceptor Program previously performed by the key/lead Subconsultant, one of
which should be a complex water or wastewater infrastructure capital program with a
value, or multiple projects with an aggregate of, $250 million or more. For Subconsultant
firm(s) provided key/lead team members for communications, funding assistance, public
outreach, or similar non-technical support functions, provide a description of support on a
minimum of three (3) complex infrastructure programs. Each description shall be limited
to two (2) pages and shall demonstrate the Subconsultants experience relevant to its
specifically defined responsibility.
Page 7 of 12

Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
22. We request that the requirements for Funding Assistant Lead/Manager be revised as shown
in green italics (added text) and red strikethrough font (deleted text):
"...shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of experience overseeing the financial resources
associated with heavy construction-related municipal infrastructure projects in the
wastewater industry. The Funding Assistance Lead/Manager must have worked as a
Funding Assistance Lead/Manager on at least one (1) or multiple projects with an aggregate
construction value of $100 million or greater, municipal infrastructure water or wastewater
treatment capital improvement project.
Response: Deviation from the stated minimum qualifications will not be considered non-
responsive but will be factored into scoring the response.
23. In lieu of a continuous 15-year commitment from certain key personnel, would PVSC
accept a succession planning approach demonstrating continuity of leadership and
knowledge transfer?
Response: As provided for in the RFQ/RFP, key personnel may be changed with the
consent of PVSC.
24. Can PVSC further define the scope of legal support identified in the RFP [with regard to
interceptor routing and geotechnical work]?
Response: In both instances, legal support may be necessary for land and/or easement
acquisition, including, but not limited to, condemnation proceedings.
25. Given that PVSC is conducting a qualifications-based selection for this engagement,
should Attachment G be included in the Compensation Proposal rather than the
Qualification Proposal since it contains labor hours and billing rate information?
Response: No.
26. Given that many of the capital programs that we are supporting are multiple years in length,
often spanning decades, will PVSC accept project references that are still underway? For
example, we started a program in 2001 and it is still underway today.
Response: Yes.
Page 8 of 12

27. Please confirm that the various "Engineering Specialists" and resources for "Additional
services as required by Section VI" do not require full resumes.
Response: Full resumes for such positions are not required in the submission but may be
required upon PVSC's request.
28. Please confirm that the biographies requested on page 18 of the RFP should only be
included in an appendix with the full resumes.
Response: The biographies requested on Page 18 of the RFQ/RFP should only be included
in an appendix with the full resumes.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
September 16, 2026
29. The responsibilities outlined for the Principal in Charge include providing overall
leadership and direction to the Program team, acting as the client liaison, reporting directly
to PVSC's Chief Engineer, monitoring Program performance, establishing key
performance indicators, reviewing budgets and schedules, and overseeing corrective
actions. These responsibilities appear to overlap with functions typically associated with
the Program Manager role on large program management engagements. Can PVSC clarify
its expectations regarding the respective roles, authority, and level of involvement of the
Principal in Charge versus the Program Manager? Specifically, what level of day-to-day
engagement, decision-making responsibility, and client interaction does PVSC expect from
the Principal in Charge throughout the Program, and how will these responsibilities differ
from those of the Program Manager?
Response: Please refer to RFQ/RFP Section IV.E for the descriptions of the key/lead team
members.
30. How should the Final BODR acceptance, the 10% design development, and the RFQ/RFP
issuance be sequenced in the proposal schedule, given that page 62 states work on the
multiple design contracts should not proceed until the Final BODR is accepted? If PVSC
limits the RFP to the first 5 years of the program, aligned with the NPDES permit, these
items will be resolved allowing the best course of action for the delivery of the project.
Response: Respondents should prepare the qualifications proposals and compensation
proposals in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ/RFP. As stated within
Task 8 (page 64), the Respondent shall develop the Final BODR to 10% design status and
create RFQ/RFP to solicit and select professional engineering services to complete the
Page 9 of 12

designs and oversee the construction administration services for the multiple design
contracts.
31. The RFQ/RFP indicates that the Program may be delivered through multiple procurement
packages and over a 15-year implementation period. Can PVSC clarify the expected level
of detail and accuracy for compensation associated with later phases of the Program where
scope, schedule, delivery methods, and resource requirements may not yet be fully defined?
Response: Respondents should prepare the qualifications proposals and compensation
proposals in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ/RFP, with as much
detail and accuracy as may be practicable at this time.
32. Regarding Part 7. Business Entity Experience and References, Section C, Item viii - Key
Staff Resumes: Please clarify the intent of Item viii. The RFP already requires resumes for
proposed key personnel in a separate section of the submission. Under Part 7, Section C,
Item viii, are Respondents expected to:
1. Include the same key staff resumes again, resulting in duplication of the resumes
provided elsewhere in the proposal;
2. Include resumes for the individuals who worked on the referenced projects, even if they
are not proposed as key personnel for the PVSC Parallel Interceptor Program; or
3. Simply identify the proposed key personnel who participated in the referenced projects
and provide their resumes only once in the designated key personnel section?
Response: The Respondents may include resumes for the individuals who worked on the
referenced projects. However, the resumes for key personnel for the PVSC Parallel
Interceptor Program will be the focus as part of the professional evaluation and ranking
methodology. Duplication is not required.
33. The RFQ/RFP specifies Professional Liability Insurance of $15,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. Because this requirement exceeds the professional liability limits
commonly required on comparable assignments, would PVSC consider accepting a lower
limit of $5,000,000 or $10,000,000? If not, would PVSC provide additional information
regarding the rationale for the $15,000,000 requirement? Does this apply to subconsultants
as well?
Response: The amount of Professional Liability Insurance is reflective of the scope and
duration of the project as well as its function as the single-most important component of
the overall Regional Long Term CSO Control Plan. While PVSC may, if requested by the
Successful Respondent, consider a lower limit, Respondents should respond with the limits
as currently set forth, which also apply to subconsultants.
Page 10 of 12