RFP 01GO-S3713

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. In regards to Section 3.5 Reporting, Dashboard, and State Broadband Office Interface of the scope of work, does OSIT have a preference on the software application to build the dashboard? We have built reporting dashboards with various software applications such as Smartsheet and Power BI. Does OSIT currently maintain Microsoft 365 Power BI licensing?

OSIT has no preferred dashboard product, because the Contractor is not being asked to select or build one. Permitting progress tracking is performed in NTIA's ESAPTT, which provides its own dashboards and reports; the Contractor's obligation under Section 3.5 is to keep that data accurate and current for every subgrantee. Any additional view is owned by the State within OSIT's existing data intake and visualization systems, with the Contractor supplying structured data and collaborating with the OSIT GIS Manager. Proposers should not assume any particular commercial licensing on OSIT's part and should not condition their approach on a specific vendor platform — Section 3.5.1(C)(5) already requires browser accessibility without proprietary software licensing requirements, and Section 3.5.1(C)(7) requires that the dashboard and all underlying data remain the property of the State. The Contractor may use whatever tools it wishes to accomplish its own internal workflows; this requirement concerns the systems of record and the views OSIT relies on, not the Contractor's internal working methods.

2. Section 3.6.3. (D): The Deliverables table states that the Subgrantee Onboarding Package (D-1) is due within 30 days of contract execution, while Cost Schedule Line 1 ties payment to OSIT acceptance of all 18 onboarding packages and initial NEPA Compliance Plans "within 45 days." Please confirm which timeline controls for D-1 and D-2, and whether the 45-day period in the Cost Schedule runs from contract execution or from subgrantee assignment.

In D-1 the 30-day requirement pertains to delivery of a template subgrantee onboarding package once the vendor (if a contract is awarded from this procurement) is under contract. Specific subgrantee onboarding packages personalized to the subgrantee’s award are due 14 days after the subgrantee executes its grant contract.

In D-2, the NEPA compliance plans for each subgrantee, working with the subgrantee and its subcontractors, are due within 45 days after the subgrantee executes its grant contract.

3. Cost Schedule Line 3 describes a one-time "FirstNet Regional PEIS Evaluation" identified as deliverable D-NEW-1. This deliverable does not appear in the RFP scope of work or in the D-1 through D-14 deliverables table. Please confirm the scope, expected content, and acceptance criteria for this deliverable, and whether the deliverables table will be amended to include it.

This reference in the cost schedule should have been stated as a more general review of environmental studies on the route to include the FirstNet Regional PEIS evaluation. The cost sheet is now updated to reflect this. This review aligns with Section 3.1.1.C of the RFP.

4. Reference: Cost Schedule, Lines 12 and 14; RFP Section 3.6.3 Cost Schedule Line 12 references "(D-9, D-10)" for dashboard maintenance and weekly briefings, and Line 14 references "(D-12)" for the data transfer package. In the RFP deliverables table, weekly briefings and monthly reports are D-11 and D-12, and the data transfer package is D-14. Please provide a corrected cross-reference mapping between Cost Schedule lines and RFP deliverables.

These are corrected on the Revised Cost Schedule that is attached in NevadaePro.

5. Section 5.3.2 requests an estimated level of effort and cost "based on (X) subgrantees over the initial contract term." Please confirm the intended value of (X). We note that the Cost Schedule and Section 2.5.1 reference 18 subgrantees.

18 subgrantees is the current number.

6. Section 5.3.1 requires a fully loaded hourly rate schedule by staff classification, with separate rates for the base year and each option year, and Section 5.3.3 requests a description of the proposed contract structure. The Cost Schedule workbook, however, provides a single price field per line item. Should the rate schedule, level-of-effort estimate, and contract structure narrative be submitted as a supplemental attachment to the cost proposal, and if so, should that attachment also not be flagged as confidential?

The vendor may submit a supplemental sheet outlining hourly costs and can mark this document as confidential.

Please follow this guidance in the terms and conditions for services attachment to the solicitation package:

1.6.2 If complete responses cannot be provided without referencing proprietary information, such information shall be provided in a separate attachment, cross-referenced to public attachments. Only proprietary information as defined in NRS 333.020(5) can be confidential.

Also, refer to Section 9.9.2 of the RFP, which states: Vendors shall submit proprietary information and confidential business information in separate files, flagged as confidential in nevadaepro.com. The State is not responsible for any information contained within a response; responses shall be released as submitted.

7. Section 11.1.5 reads: "Cost proposal attachment needs to be a not be flagged as confidential in nevadaepro.com." Please confirm that the intended requirement is that the cost proposal attachment must NOT be flagged as confidential.

The only items that are flagged as confidential are financial information and proprietary information. Everything else public information.

The Cost Proposal must not be flagged as confidential. Supplementary information supporting the Cost Proposal that contains proprietary information can be marked confidential.

Please follow this guidance in the terms and conditions for services attachment to the solicitation package:

1.6.2 If complete responses cannot be provided without referencing proprietary information, such information shall be provided in a separate attachment, cross-referenced to public attachments. Only proprietary information as defined in NRS 333.020(5) can be confidential.

Also, refer to Section 9.9.2 of the RFP, which states: Vendors shall submit proprietary information and confidential business information in separate files, flagged as confidential in nevadaepro.com. The State is not responsible for any information contained within a response; responses shall be released as submitted.

8. Section 3.1.1.7 requires the Contractor to "Ensure that all subgrantees and subgrantees are properly licensed by the State of Nevada." Please confirm whether the second reference is intended to read "subcontractors," and clarify the scope of the Contractor's licensing-verification responsibility.

Confirmed, the second (2nd) reference should read subcontractor.

9. Section 5.2.1 requires references for "a minimum of three (3) engagements," while Section 10.8.2 states that the single point of contact "may receive up to three complete reference questionnaire documents ... if determined to be required for evaluation." Please confirm whether completed reference questionnaires from all three references must be received by the August 26, 2026 deadline in order for a proposal to receive full Past Performance scoring.

Yes, references must be received by the deadline supplied in the timeline and on the Reference Questionnaire. They are sent directly to Annette Morfin amorfin@admin.nv.gov.

10. The Federal Permitting Lead qualifications state that "Established working relationships with BLM State and/or Field Offices in (State or region) are strongly preferred." Please confirm that the intended reference is Nevada and/or the surrounding region.

A base level of experience with the BLM process for permit applications, surveys and review is the baseline for the Federal Permitting Lead. However, relationships with current BLM State and Field Office staff in Nevada and the surrounding region is a desired enhanced qualification that should be highlighted in the vendor’s proposal.

11. The scope requires the Contractor to operate NTIA's ESAPTT on behalf of OSIT and to build a real-time permitting dashboard, which Cost Schedule Line 4 describes as "supplemental." Please clarify OSIT's expectations for the division of tracking functions between ESAPTT and the Contractor-built dashboard (for example, whether the dashboard must replicate ESAPTT data or only augment it), as this materially affects the level of effort for Lines 4 and 12.

The Contractor is not expected to replicate ESAPTT or to build a parallel permitting dashboard. ESAPTT — which the Contractor operates on OSIT's behalf under Section 2.6.1 — is the system of record for BEAD permitting and NEPA milestone tracking, and the Contractor's obligation is to keep it complete, accurate, and current for every subgrantee, aligned to ESAPTT's fields and to OSIT's reporting requirements under Sections 13.B and 13.D of the BEAD General Terms and Conditions. Any additional consolidated view is owned by OSIT and maintained within State systems; the Contractor supports it by supplying structured data in a standard exportable format and by collaborating with the OSIT GIS Manager. Cost Schedule Lines 4 and 12 should therefore be priced as data population, maintenance, and briefing support rather than as software development or maintenance.

12. Section 5.2.1 limits the Technical Proposal to 60 pages, excluding resumes and past performance references. The stated section maximums (3 + 10 + 25 + 5 + 5 + 5 pages) total 48 pages, plus two pages per key personnel - with the six required key personnel positions, this totals exactly 60 pages. Sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 also require a title page and table of contents within the technical proposal. Please confirm whether: The title page and table of contents count against the 60-page limit; and The two-page-per-person key personnel narratives count against the 60-page limit, including in the event a proposer names additional key personnel beyond the six required positions.

The cover page, executive summary, title page, and table of contents page do not count toward the 60-page total. If additional key personnel beyond the six positions are listed, their work histories do count toward the 60-page limit.

13. Section 8.1.5 states that financial stability shall be scored on a pass/fail basis, but the RFP does not identify what documentation proposers should submit to demonstrate financial stability (for example, audited financial statements, banking references, or a D&B rating). Please identify what, if anything, should be submitted, and whether it should be included in the Confidential Business Information attachment.

Section 10.8.3 of the RFP requests the vendor's Dun and Bradstreet Number. The vendor is welcome to include other pertinent information, such as audited financials, in a Confidential Business Information attachment.

14. Section 10.6 requires vendors to disclose all proposed subcontractors, submit a Vendor Information Response form for each, and address the management elements in 10.6.5. For scopes where field services e.g., archaeological survey, wetland delineation, biological survey may be assigned among a small set of pre-qualified subconsultants based on geography, workload, and availability during performance a. May a vendor propose a pre-qualified bench of named subconsultants, with specific task assignments made during contract performance, and if so, are the Vendor Information Response form, 10.6.5 management narrative, and mandatory-minimum certifications required at proposal submission for each named bench firm, or only for firms actually engaged under the resulting contract? b. Given that 5.4.4 requires identification of proposed subcontractors and their proposed hourly rates in the Price Proposal, and 11.1.5 provides that the cost proposal attachment is not to be flagged confidential, please confirm whether proposed subcontractor hourly rates must appear in the public cost proposal attachment, or whether they may be submitted within the confidential business information attachment.

OSIT understands the potential fluidity of this work, but vendors should make a best effort to name likely subconsultants and their duties, completing a Vendor Information Response for each proposed subconsultant. OSIT realizes there may be situations where the vendor (if one is chosen as a result of this procurement) requires a specialty skill need from a subconsultant that was not anticipated at the time of the proposal. Additions of properly vetted subconsultants not named in the initial proposal will be allowed by OSIT on a case-by-case basis.

OSIT will rely on the chosen vendor (if one is chosen as a result of this procurement) to manage against their proposed costs for each line item of the Cost Proposal. This additional work will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Hourly rates should be embedded in the vendor’s Cost Proposal as a guide to potential added vendor fees. If the vendor does include hourly rate information it wants to remain confidential, it should be submitted within the Confidential Business Information attachments.

15. If OSIT opted to award more than one contract, how would the work be divided?

Until proposals are reviewed, this question is difficult to answer with any accuracy.

16. What role will OSIT play in establishing fiber routes and maximizing categorical exclusions for subgrantees?

Route selection is the subgrantee's responsibility as the network designer; OSIT does not design routes. OSIT provides the authoritative spatial framework — the awarded project and service area boundaries, eligible location(s) data, and the program-level geospatial layers it maintains — with the OSIT GIS Manager as the point of contact for that data. The Contractor is expected to perform the environmental and land-status analysis that identifies routing and segmentation options likely to maximize categorical exclusion eligibility, and to present those options to subgrantees as recommendations. The Contractor will coordinate with the OSIT GIS Manager on base data, coordinate reference systems, and delivery formats.

17. Will subgrantees provide their own resources for fieldwork supporting NEPA, or will some require additional support as outlined in the NTIA guidance: "For a select number of BEAD Grant Program Recipients identified, prepare their EA, EIS, and CatEx documentation for NTIA technical and legal compliance and to identify potential environmental impacts in compliance with NEPA, NHPA, and other relevant federal, state, and local regulations.

Subgrantees will be expected and be contractually obligated to provide their own resources for NEPA field work. However, OSIT is realistic in understanding that certain subgrantees may require additional OSIT and vendor support (if a contract is awarded as a result of this procurement). OSIT plans to address these situations, should they arise, with the vendor and the subgrantee. OSIT will evaluate the fiscal aspects of this additional assistance on a case-by-case basis using the vendor’s hourly rates as a guide for costing additional services.

18. Is CTC Technology & Energy allowed to bid on this RFP in consideration of their having developed the BEAD plan for Nevada?

The BEAD plan for NV was developed by OSIT staff and reviewed by CTC. There is no scoring criteria listed that gives scoring weight to, or against, a vendor who reviewed the BEAD plan.

19. Section 5 of the RFP details proposal requirements. This section contradicts the Technical Proposal requirements to be considered responsive in section 11.2. Please confirm which instructions are to be followed for compliance.

Section 11.2 outlines a simple table of contents for the proposal. OSIT sees no conflict between Section 11.2 and Section 5.

20. Page 3, 3.1.E: states "Guide subgrantee in preparing a compliance plan for each subgrantee..." Is the consultant to prepare the compliance plan, or is the subgrantee? Is a compliance plan required to be by subgrantee, or can it encompass all subgrantees?

The vendor, if a contract is awarded as a result of this procurement, will be expected to understand at a detailed level the award area encompassed by each subgrantee’s award and to provide assistance in preparing a plan specific to each subgrantee.

21. Page 3, 3.1.G: states "Ensure that all subgrantees and subgrantees are properly licensed..." Subgrantees was duplicative, was there supposed to be another entity rather than subgrantee?

See Answer to Question 8.

22. Page 6, 3.2.6.C.5: "Management of compensation and valuation process..." Is the consultant responsible for the process including procuring accessors, or is the consultant responsible only responsible for the oversight of the process with others engaging the required specialists?

The subgrantee is responsible for engaging needed specialists specific to their project area. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should assist in this process with recommendations. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should also assist the subgrantee as necessary in outlining a scope of work and deliverables for these specialists.

23. Page 6, 3.3.1.B.5: "...including selection..." Is consultant responsible for providing the archeologist, or only in assisting the OSIT with the procurement of the archeological services?

The subgrantee is responsible for engaging needed specialists, including an archeologist, specific to their project area. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should assist in this process with recommendations. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should also assist the subgrantee as necessary in outlining a scope of work and deliverables for the archeologist.

24. The cost schedule includes Line 7 ESA Section 7 & Clean Water Act Section 404; however, this does not appear to be included in the RFP scope of work or in the RFP deliverables list. Please clarify the scope for this cost schedule line item.

Compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) is mentioned in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 of the RFP. Sections 2.2 and 3 of the RFP require that the vendor's, if a vendor is chosen as a result of this procurement, work complies with applicable federal statutes.

25. Section 3.2.2 Other Federal Land Management Agencies states the contractor shall provide equivalent support services, including application preparation. The scope for other sections within 3.2 Federal Rights-of-way and Easements includes assisting subgrantee with completion and submission of application material and not preparing applications. Please clarify if the scope for Section 3.2.2 is to prepare application material or assist subgrantees with completion and submission of application material.

The vendor, if one is chosen as a result of this procurement, will be expected to personalize support to the needs of the subgrantee. Form completion and submission will contractually be the responsibility of the subgrantee, but OSIT believes subgrantees will vary in the amount of assistance needed from the vendor. The vendor should be prepared to provide this support and account for this time in its Cost Proposal.

26. The cost schedule includes Line 7 ESA Section 7 & Clean Water Act Section 404; however, this does not appear to be included in the RFP scope of work or in the RFP deliverables list. Please clarify the scope for this cost schedule line item.

Compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) is mentioned in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 of the RFP. Sections 2.2 and 3 of the RFP require that the vendor's, if a vendor is chosen as a result of this procurement, work complies with applicable federal statutes.

The vendor, if one is chosen as a result of this procurement, will be expected to personalize support to the needs of the subgrantee. Form completion and submission will contractually be the responsibility of the subgrantee, but OSIT believes subgrantees will vary in the amount of assistance needed from the vendor. The vendor should be prepared to provide this support and account for this time in its Cost Proposal.

28. We respectfully request clarification regarding the Technical Proposal requirements in Sections 5 and 11 of the RFP. Section 5.2.1 states that the Technical Proposal shall not exceed 60 pages and establishes the following page allocations: Cover Letter & Executive Summary (3 pages), Firm Qualifications & Experience (10 pages), Key Personnel (2 pages per person), Technical Approach & Work Plan (25 pages), Dashboard & Reporting Approach (5 pages), Staffing Plan (5 pages), and Quality Assurance & Risk Management (5 pages). These allocations total 53 pages before any Key Personnel pages are included. Because Section 4.4 requires six identified key personnel positions, the permitted two pages per person would add 12 additional pages, resulting in a total of 65 pages. Additionally, Section 11.2 (Submission Checklist - Technical Proposal) identifies a Title Page, Table of Contents, Signed Certification Regarding Lobbying, Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements, Response to Critical Items, Response to Scope of Work, and Other Informational Material. It is unclear whether these items are intended to be included within the 60-page limitation, submitted separately, or excluded from the page count. Could OSIT please clarify: (1) whether the 60-page limit includes or excludes the Key Personnel narrative pages described in Section 5.2.1(C); (2) whether the Title Page and Table of Contents count toward the page limit; (3) whether the items identified in Section 11.2 are intended to be included within the Technical Proposal page limit or submitted separately; (4) whether a specific proposal organization is preferred when addressing the requirements of Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11; and (5) which documents, if any, are excluded from the 60-page limitation.

Refer to Answer to Question 12.

29. Item 8.1.5. of the Evaluation Criteria states that "Financial stability shall be scored on a pass or fail basis." 1) What do we need to provide in order to meet this criteria and show financial stability? 2) Where should we provide this? and 3) If to be included within our Technical Proposal, will those pages be omitted from the 60 page limit?

Refer to Answer to Question 13.

30. Will subgrantees be expected to retain their own environmental consultants? For purposes of proposal preparation, please clarify whether subgrantees will maintain responsibility for preparing project-specific NEPA/EHP documentation, environmental screening analyses, consultation support materials, and permit application materials, with OSIT's selected consultant providing technical assistance, QA/QC review, guidance, and oversight. The RFP requires the consultant to develop geographic segmentation strategies designed to maximize CE eligibility. Please clarify whether the selected consultant is expected to develop recommended NEPA Project Area configurations for subgrantee consideration, or whether final NEPA Project Area determination and subdivision decisions remain the responsibility of the subgrantee. For purposes of proposal preparation, should proposers assume that subdivision of project award areas into multiple NEPA Project Areas remains optional and ultimately the subgrantee's decision?

For part 1 of the question, the subgrantee is responsible for engaging an environmental consultant and will be contractually obligated to complete environmental review. The vendor, if one is chosen as a result of this procurement, should assist in this process with specific recommendations for the subgrantee and their consultant.

OSIT expects that, due to the fluidity and complexity of certain projects, the subgrantee and their subcontractors will require varying levels of assistance. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should be prepared to provide these services on a case-by-case basis.

While OSIT will rely on the chosen vendor (if a contract is awarded as a result of this procurement) to manage against their proposed costs for each line item of the Cost Proposal, this additional work will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Hourly rates should be embedded in the vendor’s Cost Proposal as a guide to potential added vendor fees. If the vendor does include hourly rate information it wants to remain confidential, it should be submitted within the confidential business information attachments.

For part 2 of the question, the Contractor, if one is selected as a result of this procurement, develops and recommends NEPA Project Area configurations; the subgrantee makes the final determination for its own project, in coordination with OSIT. OSIT's preference is to use the existing project identifiers (RPA IDs) as equivalent to NEPA Project Areas, given their generally small size for wireline projects in most cases. Subdivision into NEPA Project Area subunits is a tool rather than a requirement; where it demonstrably improves the NEPA permitting process it will be considered, and proposers should assume it is applied selectively. Segmentation recommendations (D-3) shall be delivered as geospatial data — not solely as narrative or static maps — with project area boundaries, stable project area identifiers, and the attributes required for ESAPTT NEPA project area records. Those identifiers are the keys used for NEPA milestone tracking and Section 13.D reporting and shall remain stable across the contract term.

31. For ROW, local permits, tribal easements, and franchise agreements, please clarify whether the selected consultant is expected to prepare, submit, and manage applications on behalf of each subgrantee, or whether subgrantees and their consultants will prepare application materials with OSIT's selected consultant providing technical review, coordination, and support. 4. Will engineering design drawings, route exhibits, plats, legal descriptions, construction plans, and other engineering deliverables required to support NEPA review, federal, state, local, or Tribal ROW applications, and permitting processes be provided by the subgrantees and their engineering consultants, or is OSIT's selected consultant expected to prepare or manage the preparation of these materials on behalf of the subgrantees? 5. Please clarify whether field surveys and resource investigations (e.g., cultural resource surveys, archaeological investigations, biological surveys, wetland delineations, habitat assessments, TCP studies, tribal monitoring, or similar technical studies) are expected to be performed by the selected consultant, managed by the selected consultant through subcontractors, or procured and managed directly by subgrantees.

The subgrantee is responsible for engaging an environmental consultant and will be contractually obligated to complete environmental review and permit applications. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should assist in this process with specific recommendations for the subgrantee and their consultant.

OSIT expects that, due to the fluidity and complexity of certain projects, the subgrantee and their subcontractors will require varying levels of assistance. The vendor, if one is chosen from this procurement, should be prepared to provide these services on a case-by-case basis.

While OSIT will rely on the chosen vendor (if a contract is awarded as a result of this procurement) to manage against their proposed costs for each line item of the Cost Proposal, this additional work will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Hourly rates should be embedded in the vendor’s Cost Proposal as a guide to potential added vendor fees. If the vendor does include hourly rate information it wants to remain confidential, it should be submitted within the confidential business information attachments.

32. The scope requires the Consultant to coordinate pre-NEPA assessment activities, including geophysical testing and drilling, and to function as the "last point of assurance" that approvals have been obtained prior to ground disturbance. Please clarify whether OSIT's selected consultant is expected to perform compliance tracking and readiness reviews, or whether the consultant is expected to certify that all permits, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained prior to construction or other ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, please clarify whether geotechnical investigations, test borings, drilling, potholing, and other field investigations will be planned and managed by subgrantees and their engineering/environmental consultants or by the selected consultant. 7. The scope requires support across NEPA compliance, federal/Tribal/state/local ROW, Section 106 consultation, Tribal engagement, permitting coordination, dashboard management, and reporting. To establish a common basis for pricing, please provide the estimated quantity of anticipated work items (e.g., subgrantee assignments, project segments, CEs, EAs, ROW applications, Tribal consultations, Section 106 reviews, field surveys, and recurring reporting obligations) or identify the planning assumptions proposers should use for cost estimating.

Answering each item:

First, OSIT's selected consultant, if one is selected from this procurement, will be expected to perform compliance tracking and readiness reviews, and to certify that all permits, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained prior to construction or other ground-disturbing activities.

Second, the subgrantee and their environmental and construction subcontractors will be expected to plan and conduct geotechnical investigations, test borings, drilling, potholing, and other field investigations.

Third, OSIT will provide an estimate of the number of activities anticipated across each subgrantee's project area under separate cover. These will be good-faith estimates and are expected to vary. The Contractor, if one is selected from this procurement, develops and recommends NEPA Project Area configurations; the subgrantee and their subcontractors make the final determination for its own project, in coordination with OSIT. OSIT's preference is to use the existing project identifiers (RPA IDs) as equivalent to NEPA Project Areas, given their generally small size for wireline projects in most cases. Subdivision into NEPA Project Area subunits is a tool rather than a requirement; where it demonstrably improves the NEPA permitting process it will be considered, and proposers should assume it is applied selectively. Segmentation recommendations (D-3) shall be delivered as geospatial data — not solely as narrative or static maps — with project area boundaries, stable project area identifiers, and the attributes required for ESAPTT NEPA project area records. Those identifiers are the keys used for NEPA milestone tracking and Section 13.D reporting and shall remain stable across the contract term.

Here are some general estimates that may help in forming a more accurate proposal:

Construction segments have not been defined as of the date of this Addendum. Segments will be defined post-award by the Contractor in coordination with OSIT and each subgrantee, based on the subgrantee's approved project design and construction sequencing. For pricing purposes, proposers shall use the field inspection guidance provided OSIT offers the following data on BEAD Regional Project Areas that may assist vendors in crafting their response (note that these numbers could change based on NTIA guidance)

Number of Subgrantees: 18 current Number of RPAs: 148 current Number of LEO RPAs: 43 current Number of Serviced BSLs: 26,191 current

Number of Serviced BSLs by technology:

Fiber: 17,023 Cable: 748 Licensed Fixed Wireless: 1,013

LEO: 7,407

33. Please clarify the timeline of this deliverable. (Section 3.6.1, Deliverable D-1). Does the 14 day window start after the 30 days or are they concurrent?

Refer to Answer to Question 1.

34. For pricing and staffing assumptions, please indicate if there will be any LEO satellite sub-awardees that have included ground facilities that may require NEPA or other permitting or access authorizations. If so, please provide information on the number and nature of the ground facilities.

There are two LEO satellite subawardees under the Nevada BEAD program. Neither is expected to have ground facilities funded through BEAD. For pricing and staffing purposes, proposers should therefore assume zero BEAD-funded LEO ground facilities requiring NEPA review, permitting, or access authorizations. OSIT will notify the Contractor if this assumption changes during performance.

35. Will OSIT provide awarded service areas, route alignments, fiber mileage, wireless site locations, and other preliminary engineering information for each project sufficient for ESAPTT network map and project description submission? If not, should the Contractor include effort to collect these materials from each subgrantee and prepare the related ESAPTT submissions?

OSIT will provide the authoritative award-level spatial data it holds — awarded project and service areas, eligible location sets, and the associated project identifiers — and proposers should not price effort to reconstruct it. Route alignments, fiber mileage, wireless site locations, and preliminary engineering detail originate with the subgrantees and are being collected through OSIT's own State-owned data intake. The Contractor should price effort to assist subgrantees in preparing and submitting that data, review submissions for completeness before they enter OSIT's review queue and serve as first-tier support for submission issues, rather than standing up an independent collection channel that bypasses OSIT's intake. The Contractor remains responsible for preparing and entering the resulting ESAPTT network map and project description submissions.

36. The Cost Schedule includes a FirstNet Regional PEIS Evaluation deliverable in Line 3, but the scope of work does not reference this item. Is the PEIS Evaluation intended to be included in the scope? If so, please provide additional detail on the required tasks.

Refer to Answer to Question 3.

37. Should webinar development/archiving required by Section 3.5.3(E) be priced separately or included in onboarding activities? Does the State have an anticipated number of webinars expected to be developed?

Please follow the Cost Proposal. OSIT anticipates webinars will be embedded in several line items in the Cost Proposal. For example, Geographic Segmentation Strategies and Federal Agency ROW instruction may each have their own webinar. Embed the costs for webinars into the line item for which the webinar is providing instruction.

38. Is Complaint Tracking System (Reference: Section 3.6.2, Table item D-10) expected as a standalone implementation effort similar to the dashboard build, since the Cost Schedule only includes ongoing tracking/facilitation?

No — the Complaint Tracking System (D-10, in the deliverables table at Section 3.6.1; the question cites Section 3.6.2) is a process deliverable, not a software implementation. The underlying complaint data supports OSIT's reporting obligation under Section 13.D of the BEAD General Terms and Conditions, and OSIT is building the intake and tracking capability within its own State-owned systems. What the Contractor delivers is the complaint intake and escalation process: categories aligned to the three Section 13.D reporting types, intake and triage procedure, escalation paths, resolution-status definitions, handling of business-confidential material, and the associated subgrantee guidance. The Contractor operates that process on an ongoing basis, keeps records current, and supplies the data to OSIT in a standard exportable format; no separate complaint-tracking application should be priced.

39. Section 3.1.1(G) requires the Contractor to "ensure that all subgrantees and subgrantees are properly licensed by the State of Nevada to undertake the construction and testing activities." Please clarify: (1) What licenses are intended by this requirement? (2) Does this requirement refer solely to Nevada contractor licensing requirements, or does it include professional engineering, environmental, archaeological, geotechnical, and other specialized licenses or permits? (3) Please clarify which entities the Contractor must verify for licensing, as this requirement refers to "all subgrantees and subgrantees."

The licenses required will vary and should be researched by the vendor (if one is chosen as a result of this procurement). At a minimum, licensing requirements will include a Nevada Business License, a Nevada Contractor’s license (if one is necessary to conduct the tasks the subgrantee or its subcontractors will be undertaking), and professional licenses required by State law for specialist professions.

Refer to Question 8 for the answer to the third part of this question.

40. Given the requirement for structured weekly briefings under Section 3.5.2 and Weekly Briefing Documents under Deliverable D-11, should proposers assume weekly meetings and briefings will occur every week for the full four-year term, or only during active permitting and compliance periods?

Assume weekly meetings will occur throughout the 4-year term, beginning with onboarding updates and transitioning subgrantee by subgrantee into more field discussions.

41. Section 5.4.1 requests separate rates for the base year and each option year; however, Section 2.4 describes a four-year contract term with one additional one-year option. Please clarify the rate structure required for the Price Proposal.

The expected initial contract term is 4 years. Please use the Cost Proposal to outline a 4-year cost. Please also list the price for a 5th-year option.

42. Section 3.1.1,G: Please clarify the parties being referred to in this section.

Refer to Answer to Question 8.

43. Section 11.1.3: Please indicate what is meant by "section."

Section in this context refers to the Technical Proposal and forms that must be submitted with the proposal. For example, the Technical Proposal is one section; the Cost Proposal another section; the Vendor Information form another section.

44. Section 5.4.1, and Section 8.1.7: Please identify precisely which figure will be used as the vendor's "proposed cost" for scoring purposes.

The total four (4)-year price from the Cost Proposal.

45. Section 8.1.6 (D): Past Performance is worth 15 points under this section. How will that factor be scored if a client fails to return the questionnaire by the deadline through no fault of the proposer? Will a proposal be deemed non-responsive if fewer than three questionnaires are received?

A proposal will be deemed non-responsive if fewer than the minimum three (3) questionnaires are received.

46. Section 5.2.1 (C): Please clarify whether the two-page-per-person Key Personnel section is included within the overall 60-page technical proposal limit.

Refer to Answer to Question 12.

47. Section 11.2: Do the title page, table of contents, mandatory-minimum response, critical-items response, and required forms count toward the overall 60-page technical proposal limit?

Refer to Answer to Question 12.

48. Section 5.4.1 and 8.1.7: Section 5.4.1 requires a rate schedule, an estimated level of effort, and allows a hybrid of fixed-price, time-and materials, or task order basis pricing. Section 8.1.7 indicates that the cost factor score is based on the following equation, unless the subject solicited requires alternative scoring. The highest proposed cost from any vendor and the lowest proposed cost from any vendor will be added together to generate a combined total. For each vendor, that proposed cost will be subtracted from the previously combined total. This number is then divided by the highest proposed cost. The resulting number is multiplied by the cost factor weight to generate a weighted cost score. Please identify precisely which figure will be used as the vendor's "proposed cost" for scoring purposes.

The total 4-year price from the Cost Proposal.