01GO-S3906 Disaster Response and Recovery Services Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Disaster Response and Recovery Services
- Solicitation number
- 01GO-S3906
- Issued by
- Nevada
About this file
This file is a Bid Q&A document for solicitation 01GO-S3906 Disaster Response and Recovery Services, issued by the Nevada State Purchasing Division on behalf of the Nevada Office of Emergency Management. The solicitation seeks proposals for pre-positioned, multi-award disaster response and recovery services across Nevada's 17 counties and 28 federally recognized tribal nations. Vendors may propose from eight primary capability areas: EOC Augmentation, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, Damage Assessment, Interim Housing, Debris Removal, Case Management, and Resource Center Operations, with a ninth capability area added for Logistics and Operational Support. Proposals are due August 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, with client references required by August 19, 2026, and vendor presentations scheduled for September 7–18, 2026. The initial contract term begins November 10, 2026, and runs for four years with options to renew for two additional one-year extensions. The State intends to make multiple awards with no fixed maximum number per capability area, creating a diverse, multi-vendor pool for rapid, flexible activation following Presidential disaster declarations, Governor's emergency declarations, or authorized pre-positioning events.
Vendors specify geographic coverage (statewide, regional, specific counties, or tribal nations), mobilization timeframes (12 hours for EOC Augmentation, 24 hours for Damage Assessment statewide, and vendor-proposed timeframes for other services), and unit pricing on the Service Identifier Spreadsheet, which serves as the Cost Proposal. Cost evaluation occurs at the individual sub-capability level using a fixed formula comparing each vendor's unit price against the highest and lowest prices proposed for the same sub-capability; an overall Cost factor score averages per-sub-capability scores weighted at 15 of 100 evaluation points. Scoring allocates 25 points for demonstrated experience and qualifications (including tribal and rural experience), 20 points for rapid-mobilization capacity, 25 points for technical approach and methodology, and 15 points for key-personnel expertise and availability. Nevada-based businesses receive a 5% preference, though this does not apply to this FEMA-funded solicitation. The State does not guarantee minimum service volumes, dollar values, or work activation; contracts remain dormant until an eligible triggering event occurs. Mandatory requirements include registration on NevadaEPro and SAM.gov, valid Nevada business license, compliance with Nevada law, Dun & Bradstreet financial disclosures, and specific insurance coverage (Commercial General Liability $2 million/$1 million, Automobile Liability $1 million combined single limit, Workers' Compensation at statutory rates with $100,000/$500,000 Employers' Liability, and Professional Liability $1 million/$2 million aggregate for licensed or certified professional roles). The contract is funded in whole or in part with FEMA funds, and all labor rates must be fully burdened (including salary, overhead, profit, and fringe), while travel, lodging, meals, and mobilization costs are reimbursed separately at actual documented cost not exceeding applicable GSA per diem rates.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Funding.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906 Disaster Response and Recovery Services RFP Revised.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906-Vendor-Information-Response.pdf | ||
| Standard-form-contract~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Certification-regarding-lobbying~1.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906 SOW.pdf | ||
| Terms-and-conditions-for-services~1.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906-reference-questionnaire~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01GO-S3906 SOW Revised.pdf | ||
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| 01GO-S3906-reference-questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01GO-S3906 Service_Identifier_Spreadsheet_Revised.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 01GO-S3906 Service_Identifier_Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 01GO-S3906 Disaster Response and Recovery Services RFP~3.pdf |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A 01GO-S3906 Answered | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | IEMINC | Conflicting due dates for Reference Questionnaire | The solicitation documents contain conflicting due dates for client reference questionnaires. The RFP states that references are due no later than 5:00 pm PT on 08/19/2026, while the Reference Questionnaire form lists a due date of 08/10/2026. Will the Government please confirm the correct date and time by which client references must email their completed questionnaires to the Single Point of Contact? | A revised version of the “01GO‑S3906 Reference Questionnaire,” updated with the correct date of August 19, 2026, has been uploaded into ePro on 07/28/2026. If the previous version has already been distributed, the State of Nevada will continue to accept it until August 19, 2026, no later than 5:00 PM. | |
| 2 | VRSADVISORS | Question 1: Past Performance Reference Flexibility | For newly formed or restructured sole proprietorship entities submitting proposals, will the State accept past performance references and project completions executed by the principal under previous federal, municipal, or direct-support deployments to satisfy the reference questionnaire requirements? | Yes, we weill accept past performance from the principal's prior federal, municipal, or direct-support deployments where the principal personally led or materially performed the work, even under a different or newly formed entity, consistent with standard practice for evaluating experience of newly formed firms built around an experienced principal. The Offeror should clearly document the principal's role on each referenced project. | |
| 3 | VRSADVISORS | Question 2: Task Order Sourcing and Geographic Tiering | Regarding the multi-vendor pre-positioned award pool resulting from Solicitation 01GO-S3906, will task-order assignments for regional events (such as wildland-urban interface fires or localized severe weather in Western Nevada) be prioritized based on proximity and local mobilization footprint to minimize response times? | Geographic proximity/mobilization footprint is one factor NV OEM will weigh when activating a vendor for a given incident (see Question 10), alongside capability match, availability, and cost, the RFP does not establish it as a separately weighted or guaranteed criterion. | |
| 4 | VRSADVISORS | Question 3: Cost Proposal Schedule Formats | For the Cost Proposal volume submission, does the State require hourly rates to be presented strictly on a Time-and-Materials (T&M) basis, or is there an allowance for including Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) milestone pricing structures for discrete deliverables such as grant closeout packages? | Both structures are acceptable where they fit the service. Time-and-Materials rates are appropriate for open-ended response/recovery labor; Firm-Fixed-Price milestone pricing may be proposed for discrete, well-defined deliverables such as a grant closeout package, provided the milestone and deliverable are clearly defined in the proposal. | |
| 5 | VRSADVISORS | Question 4: Subcontractor and Independent Contractor Teaming Clarification | For prime contractors utilizing a lean sole-proprietorship or independent consultant model, does the State permit the utilization of pre-vetted independent specialists on an as-needed task-order basis without requiring complex prior corporate subcontract approvals? | Yes using pre-vetted independent specialists on an as-needed, task-order basis is permitted; they should be disclosed as subcontractors (see Question 71/121) but do not require a fully executed, pre-negotiated corporate subcontract in place at proposal submission, only at time of use. | |
| 6 | VRSADVISORS | Question 5: Electronic Submission File Formatting and Redactions | Regarding the electronic upload of proposal volumes on NevadaEPro, can the State confirm that separating the Technical Proposal, Cost Proposal, and Vendor Response Forms into distinct PDF files fulfills all volume segregation requirements, and reiterate the precise protocol for marking non-confidential cost schedules versus confidential financial statements? | Confirmed by RFP 8.1.3-8.1.4 and 6.9.2: separating the Technical Proposal, Cost Proposal, and Vendor Response Forms into distinct PDFs is correct and required (8.1.3 bars combining technical and cost data in one attachment). Non-confidential cost schedules go in the Cost Proposal (8.4) and must NOT be flagged confidential (8.1.4). Confidential financial information (D&B number, P&L/balance statements, litigation disclosure, conflicts) goes in the separate Confidential Business Information attachment per RFP 7.8, flagged confidential in NevadaEPro per 6.9.2. | |
| 7 | VRSADVISORS | Question 6: Scope of Contract / Exclusivity | For vendors awarded a pre-positioned contract under Solicitation 01GO-S3906, as well as for non-winning bidders, does the State restrict or permit entities from directly contracting with local municipal, county, or tribal jurisdictions for disaster response and recovery services outside of or parallel to this master contract vehicle during the active contract period? | Award of a pre-positioned contract under this solicitation does not create exclusivity awarded and non-awarded vendors alike remain free to contract directly with counties, municipalities, or tribal nations for disaster services outside this master contract, unless a specific exclusivity clause exists elsewhere in the T&Cs (which would need to be confirmed and disclosed if so). | |
| 8 | VRSADVISORS | Question 7: Clarification Regarding NIMS/ICS and FEMA Certifications | For key personnel proposed under disaster response, recovery, and EOC augmentation roles, does the State require specific National Incident Management System (NIMS) baseline certifications (such as ICS-100, 200, 300, 400, 700, and 800) to be explicitly documented within the response package, or are professional credentials and federal Program Delivery Manager (PDMG) certifications sufficient to satisfy operational compliance? | State requiries the specific NIMS/ICS baseline courses (ICS-100, 200, 300, 400, 700, 800, as applicable to the role) be documented for proposed key personnel in response/EOC roles, since NIMS compliance is a standard FEMA/state condition for emergency management personnel; general professional credentials alone should not be presumed sufficient unless the State Training Officer says otherwise. | |
| 9 | ERIN.SAYLOR@TEAMHOUSING.COM | Existing Contract Information | Is there an existing contract for these services? If so, can the contract number and current awardees please be provided? | There are no existing contracts for these services, this is NV OEM first pre-positioned contracts cycle. | |
| 10 | ERIN.SAYLOR@TEAMHOUSING.COM | Number of Awards | Will the State of Nevada limit the number of contract awards within each category? If so, please provide the anticipated maximum number of awards per category. | RFP Section 2.2 and SOW Section 1.2 confirm the State intends to make multiple awards to build a diverse, multi-vendor pool ("prevents over-reliance on single contractors," "enables rapid scalability," "flexible plug-and-play activation") — no maximum number of awards per capability area is stated, and none is planned; award will depend on how many Offerors submit responsive, responsible proposals. Per SOW 2.1-2.2, the State does not guarantee any minimum volume, quantity, or dollar value of work; contracts remain dormant until NV OEM activates them following a Presidential disaster declaration, Governor's emergency declaration, local emergency declaration with state support request, or NV OEM-authorized pre-positioning. Selection among awarded vendors at activation will reflect capability match, geography/mobilization time, availability, and cost, at NV OEM's discretion. | |
| 11 | ERIN.SAYLOR@TEAMHOUSING.COM | Pricing | Will vendors have the opportunity to submit pricing for individual task orders as they are released, or will task order awards be based solely on the unit pricing submitted with the proposal response? | Task order pricing will be based on the unit pricing/rate structure submitted with the proposal (the awarded pool contract's pricing schedule), not a new competitive pricing exercise each time a task order is released, this is standard for pre-positioned/IDIQ-style disaster contracts and is what allows rapid activation. | |
| 12 | ERIN.SAYLOR@TEAMHOUSING.COM | Proposed Capabilities | For the capability areas a contractor elects to support, is the contractor required to support every sub-capability within each selected capability area? | Nothing in the RFP or SOW requires an Offeror to propose every capability area (Sections 3-10) or every sub-capability within one. SOW 1.2's stated rationale for multiple awards "specialized expertise for specific hazard types," "plug-and-play activation" supports partial proposals being fully responsive. RFP 5.1.6.A (Conformance/responsiveness) is scored pass/fail against RFP requirements generally, not against having bid all eight areas, or not against the ability to support every sub-capabiilty within each selected capability area. | |
| 13 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Nevada-Based Business Preference Evaluation | Section 5.2 of the RFP references a five percent (5%) Nevada-based business preference. Could the State clarify how this preference is applied during evaluation? Specifically, is the preference incorporated into the 100 point evaluation described in Section 5.1.6, applied after the evaluation scoring is completed, or calculated through another evaluation methodology? | Confirmed: per RFP 5.1.6, the preference is not part of the 100-point evaluation (A Pass/Fail, B 25, C 20, D 25, E 15, F 15 = 100). Per RFP 5.2, it would normally be applied after scoring but see Question 46/86: on this FEMA-funded procurement, RFP 5.2.5 means the preference does not apply at all. | |
| 14 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Nevada-Based Business Preference and Subcontractors | Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the RFP describe the Nevada-based business preference and inverse preference as applying to vendors based on the location of their principal place of business. Could the State clarify whether, for a proposal submitted by a non-Nevada prime contractor that includes one or more Nevada-based subcontractors, the participation of those subcontractors has any effect on eligibility for the Nevada-based business preference, or is eligibility determined solely based on the prime contractor? | Per RFP 5.2.2-5.2.3, eligibility is based on the prime Offeror's principal place of business (defined per Hertz Corp v. Friend as corporate headquarters). Nevada-based subcontractor participation does not confer the preference on a non-Nevada prime. Does not apply in any case per Question 46 the preference does not apply to this FEMA-funded solicitation. | |
| 15 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Terms and Conditions Exceptions | Section 3.1.1 states that the Terms and Conditions for Services are "to be read and not returned." However, the solicitation portal includes a field for Terms and Conditions Exceptions. Could the State confirm whether Offerors may submit exceptions to the Terms and Conditions and, if so, whether the portal field is the appropriate location to provide them? | Yes per RFP 7.2, Offerors who cannot accept the standard form contract as-is must submit a redlined Word version with justification; the portal's 'Terms and Conditions Exceptions' field should note that redlines are attached, not restate them. RFP 7.1 states that critical items (which include 7.2's contract-terms response) "will be used in evaluating and scoring responses," and that responses failing to sufficiently address them "may be considered non-responsive." So contract exceptions are not purely pass/fail outside the evaluation, poorly justified or extensive exceptions carry real risk of a non-responsiveness finding, while well-justified, limited exceptions are considered as part of scoring. Per the Evaluator Memo, negotiation with the intended awardee occurs after the notice of intent, not during initial scoring, and the State may pursue the next highest-scoring vendor if negotiations fail. | |
| 16 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Cost Proposal Content Requirements | Section 5.1.7 of the RFP describes the methodology for evaluating the Cost factor, and Section 8.4 of the RFP identifies a Cost Proposal as a required submission. However, the RFP does not appear to provide instructions regarding the required content or format of the Cost Proposal beyond the Service Capability worksheet. Could the State clarify what information Offerors should include in the Cost Proposal (e.g., narrative, assumptions, pricing methodology, or other supporting information) in addition to the completed pricing worksheet? | Per SOW Section 15.1, the Service Identifier Spreadsheet is where Offerors specify capability areas, sub-capabilities, geographic coverage, mobilization timeframes, capacity limitations, and unit pricing, this worksheet is the Cost Proposal contemplated by RFP 8.4. A separate narrative is not required, though a brief pricing-assumptions narrative may be included as "other informational material" (RFP 8.2.G) if it aids evaluation. Per RFP 8.1.3, cost information must not be combined in the same attachment as the Technical Proposal, and per 8.1.4 the Cost Proposal attachment must not be flagged confidential in NevadaEPro. Pricing should be fully burdened (labor, overhead, profit, and standard mobilization/travel/per diem also see Question 68) so unit prices are comparable across Offerors; where a service is better priced as a fixed unit rate than an hourly rate, Offerors should use whichever structure matches how the service is delivered. | |
| 17 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Service Capability Worksheet Pricing | The Service Capability worksheet includes a column for Unit Pricing/Rate Structure for each service capability area but does not specify what costs should be reflected. Could the State clarify what pricing should be included in this column (e.g., fully burdened hourly labor rates, fixed unit prices, blended rates, etc.)? | Per SOW Section 15.1, the Service Identifier Spreadsheet is where Offerors specify capability areas, sub-capabilities, geographic coverage, mobilization timeframes, capacity limitations, and unit pricing, this worksheet is the Cost Proposal contemplated by RFP 8.4. A separate narrative is not required, though a brief pricing-assumptions narrative may be included as "other informational material" (RFP 8.2.G) if it aids evaluation. Per RFP 8.1.3, cost information must not be combined in the same attachment as the Technical Proposal, and per 8.1.4 the Cost Proposal attachment must not be flagged confidential in NevadaEPro. Pricing should be fully burdened (labor, overhead, profit, and standard mobilization/travel/per diem also see Question 68) so unit prices are comparable across Offerors; where a service is better priced as a fixed unit rate than an hourly rate, Offerors should use whichever structure matches how the service is delivered. | |
| 18 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Quote Items Tab Completion | The Service Capability worksheet requests a Unit Pricing/Rate Structure for each service capability area. Could the State clarify how Offerors should complete the Quote Items tab in the NevadaEPro portal? | Offerors complete the Quote Items tab with a nominal placeholder consistent with Question 151, since actual line-item pricing is captured on the Service Identifier Spreadsheet rather than the portal's native item pricing fields. | |
| 19 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Cost Evaluation Methodology | Section 5.1.7 of the RFP describes the methodology for calculating the Cost factor score based on each Offeror's "proposed cost." Could the State clarify how cost will be evaluated when Offerors provide pricing for multiple service capability areas? Specifically, will the evaluated cost be based on the aggregate of all proposed pricing, evaluated separately by service capability, or another method? | The Cost factor is evaluated at the individual sub-capability level, not averaged or blended across a capability area. For each sub-capability an Offeror proposes, RFP 5.1.7's formula is applied by comparing that Offeror's unit price against the highest and lowest unit price proposed by any Offeror for that same sub-capability. An Offeror's overall Cost factor score is the average of its per-sub-capability scores across all sub-capabilities proposed, weighted per RFP 5.1.6.F. This ensures Offerors proposing fewer sub-capabilities are not penalized or advantaged relative to those proposing more, and that pricing units remain comparable within each scored line. | |
| 20 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Support Personnel Evaluation | Section 7.6.2 requests resumes for proposed Key Personnel, and the evaluation criteria include Expertise/Availability of Key Personnel. Could the State clarify whether Offerors may also identify proposed support personnel or surge staff who would support contract performance in addition to Key Personnel? If so, will the qualifications and availability of those individuals be considered during the technical evaluation? | RFP 7.6.2 only requires resumes for "proposed key personnel." Offerors may also identify support/surge personnel in addition to Key Personnel, with their qualifications considered for context (bench depth) but not scored under the Key Personnel factor (RFP 5.1.6.E), which applies specifically to designated Key Personnel | |
| 21 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Partial Capability Area Proposals | The Scope of Work identifies multiple sub-requirements and tasks within each service capability area. Could the State clarify whether Offerors are expected to demonstrate the ability to perform all sub-requirements within each capability area for which they submit a bid, or whether Offerors may propose services for only selected sub-requirements within a capability area? If Offerors may propose only selected sub-requirements, how will those proposals be evaluated relative to Offerors proposing the full scope of services within the capability area? | Nothing in the RFP or SOW requires an Offeror to propose every capability area (Sections 3-10) or every sub-capability within one. SOW 1.2's stated rationale for multiple awards, "specialized expertise for specific hazard types," "plug-and-play activation", supports partial proposals being fully responsive. RFP 5.1.6.A (Conformance/responsiveness) is scored pass/fail against RFP requirements generally, not against having bid all eight areas. | |
| 22 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Awards by Service Capability Area | The Scope of Work identifies multiple capability areas (e.g., EOC Augmentation, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, etc.). If Offerors submit for more than one area, could they be selected for some and not others, or will the proposal be accepted or rejected as one comprehensive submittal? | They can submit and not others, will not be rejected. | |
| 23 | HAGERTYCONSULTING | Reference Questionnaire Amendment 1 | Amendment 1 updated the "01GO-S3906 Reference Questionnaire" and revised the questionnaire submission due date to August 19, 2026. Prior to the amendment, our firm had already distributed the original Reference Questionnaire (which listed an August 9, 2026 due date) to several client references for completion. Will the State accept completed questionnaires submitted using the original version of the form, or should Offerors provide their references with the revised questionnaire for completion and submission? | The State will accept references submitted on either version of the form (see Question 1/82) as long as they are received by the corrected due date of 08/19/2026), Offerors do not need to redistribute the revised form to references who already completed the original. | |
| 24 | IEMINC | SOW, page 3, 9. Case Management; A. Licensed or certified case managers with disaster experience. | Will the Government please clarify the licensure and certification requirements? | Recommend case managers proposed under SOW Section 9 be required to meet one of the following: (1) active licensure through the Nevada Board of Examiners for Social Workers (LSW or higher, per NRS 641B); (2) a national case management credential (e.g., Certified Case Manager (CCM) through the Commission for Case Manager Certification); or (3) a bachelor's degree in social work, human services, or a related field (or) documented completion of National VOAD or FEMA Disaster Case Management Program (DCMP) training and a minimum period of disaster case management experience (6 months). 'Disaster experience' should mean direct case management service delivery following a declared disaster, not general human-services experience alone. This standard is intended for the sustained Disaster Case Management function under 9.1.1.A; shorter-term intake/casework roles feeding into DCM (e.g., MARC/DRC intake under Section 10) should not need to meet this bar unless also carrying an active DCM caseload. | |
| 25 | IEMINC | SOW, page 3, 9. Case Management; F. Financial capability assessment and assistance | Will the Government please clarify and provide details regarding what it means by Financial capability assessment and assistance? | SOW 9.1.1.F lists "Financial capability assessment and assistance" means budgeting support, connecting survivors to financial assistance programs, income/needs assessment, etc | |
| 26 | IEMINC | SOW, page 4, 10. Resource Center Operations; G. Translation services and multilingual materials. | Will virtual/remote interpretation services be acceptable for this purpose? | SOW 10.1.1.G requires "Translation services and multilingual materials" claifying answer: virtual/remote interpretation is acceptable, provided in-person interpretation remains available on request for survivors visiting a MARC/DRC in person. | |
| 27 | IEMINC | SOW, page 4, 10. Resource Center Operations | What information can the State provide regarding hours of operation and days per week the MARCs expect to be operational? | Initial activation up to 7 days/week, extended hours (e.g., 8:00am-7:00pm), for the first 2-4 weeks of peak demand, consistent with how FEMA-run DRCs typically operate during surge; Steady-state 6 days/week (Monday-Saturday), standard business hours, tapering as demand declines, consistent with typical DRC steady-state hours (weekdays 8am-7pm, shorter Saturday hours, closed Sundays); Closeout transition to appointment-based access or hand off remaining unfinished casework to a Long-Term Recovery Group/Committee, consistent with standard MARC closeout practice. | |
| 28 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | Not all scope items appear to be listed in the Service Identifier Spreadsheet. How would the Government like contractors to present pricing for the missing items? | Where a scope item in the SOW is not listed on the Service Identifier Spreadsheet, Offerors should add it as a labeled custom row under the applicable capability area and price it consistent with the instructions for that section, rather than omit it. The State is reviewing the spreadsheet for completeness and may issue a corrected version by amendment; Offerors should also flag specific missing items (see also Questions 122, 153, 154). | |
| 29 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet; 2. List specific sub-capabilities or services in Column B | Are vendors permitted to add line items to specific services/sub-capabilities (e.g. position levels I, II, III)? | Confirmed — 13 sub-capability lines are missing across 5 capability areas: Individual Assistance (SOW 4.1.1): H (ADA-compliant facilities/services), I (Data management and privacy compliance), L (Call tracking, database management, and referral coordination systems), M (Long-term recovery coordination). Damage Assessment (SOW 6.1.1): C (Residential and commercial property assessment), H (Photography and documentation protocols), L (Integration with commercial satellite imagery providers, e.g. ICEYE, Planet Labs). Debris Removal (SOW 8.1.1): I (Stump and embedded debris extraction), K (Final disposal and recycling coordination), L (Monitoring and Inspection Services). Case Management (SOW 9.1.1/'9.2'): B (Trauma-informed care training), the item corresponding to Housing stability planning, and the item corresponding to Data management system compliant with privacy requirements. Resource Center Operations (SOW 10.1.1): C (Furniture, equipment, and technology infrastructure — only partially covered by the 'IT Infrastructure' line), E (Signage, wayfinding, and branding materials), L (Daily operations management and reporting). Recommend the State issue a corrected spreadsheet adding these lines rather than ask vendors to add custom rows individually, since several Offerors will otherwise price the same missing items inconsistently or omit them. Until a corrected version is issued, Offerors should price any missing item as a custom addition under the relevant capability area, following the existing row format. | |
| 30 | IEMINC | SOW, page 1, 3. EOC AUGMENTATION; H. Capability to deploy within 12 hours of activation | Will the Government clarify if the team needs to be deployed and on the ground in 12 hours or mobilized within 12 hours? | No Column B is the fixed, State-defined list of sub-capabilities/services for pricing consistency and evaluation comparability across Offerors. Offerors should not add new position levels or line items to Column B; if a genuinely missing scope item needs to be priced, see Question 28. | |
| 31 | IEMINC | SOW, pages 2-3, 6. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT; M. Capability to deploy within 24 hours statewide | Will the Government clarify if the team needs to be deployed and on the ground in 24 hours or mobilized within 24 hours? | SOW 3.1.1.H (EOC Augmentation, 12 hours) and 6.1.1.M (Damage Assessment, 24 hours statewide) both use the word "deploy". Given Nevada's geography (SOW 14.1.1.C notes 450+ miles between Las Vegas and Reno), the stated timeframe is a mobilization window, activated, briefed, and en route/deployed, with arrival time reasonably dependent on distance to the affected area, and that Offerors should propose the mobilization timeframe they can commit to. | |
| 32 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | Should travel and other direct costs be billed at cost? | Confirm travel and other direct costs are billed at actual cost (with receipts/documentation) rather than marked up, consistent with standard T&M contracting practice, unless the Offeror has built them into a fully burdened rate per Question 68. | |
| 33 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | Will price escalations be accepted during renewals for optional periods? | A capped price escalation for optional renewal periods (e.g., tied to CPI or a stated percentage ceiling) rather than a wide-open increase, which is standard practice for multi-year state service contracts with option periods. | |
| 34 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | Will the pricing formula be applied to each individual capability or to all capabilities combined? | The Cost factor is evaluated at the individual sub-capability level, not averaged or blended across a capability area. For each sub-capability an Offeror proposes, RFP 5.1.7's formula is applied by comparing that Offeror's unit price against the highest and lowest unit price proposed by any Offeror for that same sub-capability. An Offeror's overall Cost factor score is the average of its per-sub-capability scores across all sub-capabilities proposed, weighted per RFP 5.1.6.F. This ensures Offerors proposing fewer sub-capabilities are not penalized or advantaged relative to those proposing more, and that pricing units remain comparable within each scored line. | |
| 35 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | Will a sum of the hourly rates be used in formulas or the average of the hourly rates? | The Cost factor is evaluated at the individual sub-capability level, not averaged or blended across a capability area. For each sub-capability an Offeror proposes, RFP 5.1.7's formula is applied by comparing that Offeror's unit price against the highest and lowest unit price proposed by any Offeror for that same sub-capability. An Offeror's overall Cost factor score is the average of its per-sub-capability scores across all sub-capabilities proposed, weighted per RFP 5.1.6.F. This ensures Offerors proposing fewer sub-capabilities are not penalized or advantaged relative to those proposing more, and that pricing units remain comparable within each scored line. | |
| 36 | IEMINC | Service Identifier Spreadsheet | For consistency among bidders, can the units for the requested services in the price form be identified by the Government (e.g., hourly, each, etc.)? | Yes | |
| 37 | IEMINC | SOW, pages 3-4, 9. Case Management | For compliance purposes, can the Government clarify which state agency licenses case managers? | Recommend case managers proposed under SOW Section 9 be required to meet one of the following: (1) active licensure through the Nevada Board of Examiners for Social Workers (LSW or higher, per NRS 641B); (2) a national case management credential (e.g., Certified Case Manager (CCM) through the Commission for Case Manager Certification); or (3) a bachelor's degree in social work, human services, or a related field, (or) documented completion of National VOAD or FEMA Disaster Case Management Program (DCMP) training and a minimum period of disaster case management experience 6-12 months. 'Disaster experience' should mean direct case management service delivery following a declared disaster, not general human-services experience alone.This standard is intended for the sustained Disaster Case Management function under 9.1.1.A; shorter-term intake/casework roles feeding into DCM (e.g., MARC/DRC intake under Section 10) should not need to meet this bar unless also carrying an active DCM caseload. | |
| 38 | IEMINC | NevadaEPro Portal (Items tab); Quote Instructions (page 3, section 2.b.) | In the bid portal, the Items tab currently requires a single price for the entire proposal. The "See Quote Attachment(s)" box is grayed-out and unselectable. The Quote Instructions file says "b. For solicitations where a cost schedule is required to be attached to the quote the Unit Cost, Discount % and Freight fields will be unavailable. Ensure you select the "See Quote Attachment(s)" box for the item(s)." Will the Government please correct the NevadaEPro portal to allow bidders to select "See Quote Attachment(s)? | Advise Offerors to note in their cover materials that pricing is provided via the attached Cost Proposal/Service Identifier Spreadsheet. This is common for multi-award term contracts like this one. | |
| 39 | IEMINC | RFP, page 7, Section 8; Vendor Information Response Form | Section 8 (Submission Checklist) does not include the Vendor Information Response form. Should vendors combine all of the completed Vendor Information Response forms (for the vendor and subcontractors) and provide them in the Technical Proposal? Or should the Vendor Information Response forms be combined and uploaded as a separate PDF attachment? | RFP 3.3.5 identifies the Vendor Information Response Form as a required "attachment for response," but Section 8's checklist doesn't list it as its own line item. Combined for the vendor and each subcontractor per 7.7.2 should be submitted as its own separate PDF, included within the Technical Proposal package under "other informational material" (RFP 8.2.G), not merged into the narrative, and that Section 8 be corrected to list it explicitly. | |
| 40 | IEMINC | RFP, page 7, Section 8; Federal Funding Form | Section 8 (Submission Checklist) does not include the Federal Funding form. Should vendors provide this completed form in the Technical Proposal? Or should the Vendor upload this form as a separate PDF attachment? | RFP 3.3.6 identifies the Federal Funding form as a required "attachment for response," but Section 8's checklist doesn't list it.It should be submitted as its own separate PDF within the Technical Proposal package (RFP 8.2.G) and that Section 8 be corrected to list it explicitly. | |
| 41 | IEMINC | RFP, page 2, Section 3.3 | RFP section 3.3 heading states "Attachments for Response. To be completed and returned". While 3.3.1 Scope of Work is an attachment, there doesn't appear to be any items to complete or sign. Our understanding from section 8.2.F is that we are providing a response to the scope of work within the Technical Proposal. Will the Government please clarify if we need to return the Scope of Work attachment? If so, will the Government please provide instructions on what to complete within the Scope of Work attachment? | Confirmed, Offerors are not required to mark up or return the Scope of Work attachment itself; RFP 8.2.F ("Response to scope of work") is how Offerors address SOW requirements within the Technical Proposal. . | |
| 42 | IEMINC | RFP, page 6, Section 7.6.2 | RFP states that "Provide a resume free of photos or overly stylized formatting for proposed key personnel, whether employed directly or through a subcontractor." Can contractors include photos/headshots of key personnel in other sections of the proposal? | Confirmed, recommend Offerors omit headshots/photos from the proposal entirely rather than relocate them elsewhere; RFP 7.6.2's restriction reflects a general preference for substance over presentation in the technical evaluation. | |
| 43 | IEMINC | RFP, page 6, Section 7.8.7 | RFP Section 7.8.7 is under 7.8 Confidential Business Information section. Since Client References will not be submitted by vendors, there doesn't appear to be anything to respond to in this section. Will the Government confirm that section 7.8.7 Client References is for information only and does not require a response within the submitted attachment for Confidential Business Information? | Confirmed RFP 7.8.7 (Client References) is informational only. Per RFP 8.7, reference questionnaires are "not submitted directly by vendor"; per 7.8.7.D, they won't be accepted directly from Offerors either. There is nothing for the Offeror to include in the Confidential Business Information attachment for that subsection. | |
| 44 | IEMINC | SOW, page 4, Section 9.2 | Section 9.2 Connection to Behavioral Health Services appears to be an item in the list under 9.1.1. Requirements. Will the Government please confirm if Connection to Behavioral Health should be 9.2, or correct it to be Item G. under 9.1.1? If it is corrected to item G. under 9.1.1., will the Government please correct the remaining items in the list under 9.1.1? | Confirmed this is a numbering error in the SOW as published. "9.2 Connection to behavioral health services" reads as a top-level heading, but its content and the items listed beneath it (Housing stability planning, Long-term follow-up and closure, Data management system, Cultural competency, Mobile case management) are substantively part of the 9.1.1 Case Management Requirements list. | |
| 45 | IEMINC | Number of awards | The State intends to award multiple contracts. Approximately how many awards are anticipated, and is there a cap on the number of vendors awarded per capability area? | RFP Section 2.2 and SOW Section 1.2 confirm the State intends to make multiple awards to build a diverse, multi-vendor pool ("prevents over-reliance on single contractors," "enables rapid scalability," "flexible plug-and-play activation") no maximum number of awards per capability area is stated, and none is planned; award will depend on how many Offerors submit responsive, responsible proposals. Per SOW 2.1-2.2, the State does not guarantee any minimum volume, quantity, or dollar value of work; contracts remain dormant until NV OEM activates them following a Presidential disaster declaration, Governor's emergency declaration, local emergency declaration with state support request, or NV OEM-authorized pre-positioning. Selection among awarded vendors at activation will reflect capability match, geography/mobilization time, availability, and cost, at NV OEM's discretion the RFP does not establish a fixed rotation, tier order, or mini-competition process. | |
| 46 | IEMINC | RFP, page 3, 5.2 Nevada-based business preference, 5.3 Inverse preference | Please confirm that, because this procurement is FEMA-funded, the 5% Nevada-based business preference (and the inverse preference) will not be applied. | RFP Section 5.2.5 states the preference "cannot be combined with any other preference, granted for the award of a contract using federal funds, or granted for the award of a contract procured on a multi-state basis." Because this contract will be funded in whole or part with FEMA funds, the 5% Nevada-based business preference and the inverse preference (RFP 5.3) will not be applied to this solicitation. | |
| 47 | IEMINC | SOW 1.1, RFP 2.4.1, and Service Identifier Spreadsheet (row 108); Tribal Nations Count | The SOW and cover RFP reference 28 tribal nations, while the Service Identifier Spreadsheet references 27. Will the Government please correct the discrepancy? | The correct count is 28 federally recognized tribal nations confirmed by both SOW 1.1 ("affecting Nevada's 17 counties and 28 tribal nations") and RFP 2.4.1 (same language). The Service Identifier Spreadsheet's reference to 27 is the error | |
| 48 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Selective Capability Areas and Sub-Capabilities | May a vendor propose any number of the eight Capability Areas, including only one Capability Area, without being deemed nonresponsive for the Capability Areas not proposed? | Nothing in the RFP or SOW requires an Offeror to propose every capability area (Sections 3-10) or every sub-capability within one. SOW 1.2's stated rationale for multiple awards "specialized expertise for specific hazard types," "plug-and-play activation" supports partial proposals being fully responsive. RFP 5.1.6.A (Conformance/responsiveness) is scored pass/fail against RFP requirements generally, not against having bid all eight areas. | |
| 49 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Selective Capability Areas and Sub-Capabilities | Within a selected Capability Area, may a vendor propose only certain listed sub-capabilities or service elements rather than the entire Capability Area? If so, please confirm how vendors should identify excluded sub-capabilities in the Service Identifier Spreadsheet and Technical Proposal. | Confirmed by the sheet's structure: leave the Column C checkbox blank for any sub-capability row not being proposed (e.g., under Case Management, an Offeror could check 'Licensed Case Managers' and 'Individual Recovery Planning' while leaving 'Behavioral Health Connections' unchecked). There is no separate 'excluded items' list the checkbox pattern itself is how partial proposals within a capability area are expressed. | |
| 50 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Evaluation of Partial Proposals | Will technical evaluation and contract awards be made by Capability Area, sub-capability, geographic region, or the vendor's complete proposed portfolio? | Confirming evaluation and award decisions are made at the capability-area level (and sub-capability level where separately priced) based on what each Offeror proposed — not by geographic region and not as an all-or-nothing portfolio score. | |
| 51 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Cost-Scoring Method | How will the State calculate the 15-point cost score when vendors may propose different Capability Areas, pricing units, and rate structures and no evaluation quantities are provided? | The Cost factor is evaluated at the individual sub-capability level, not averaged or blended across a capability area. For each sub-capability an Offeror proposes, RFP 5.1.7's formula is applied by comparing that Offeror's unit price against the highest and lowest unit price proposed by any Offeror for that same sub-capability. An Offeror's overall Cost factor score is the average of its per-sub-capability scores across all sub-capabilities proposed, weighted per RFP 5.1.6.F. This ensures Offerors proposing fewer sub-capabilities are not penalized or advantaged relative to those proposing more, and that pricing units remain comparable within each scored line. | |
| 52 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Service Identifier Spreadsheet Upload | Because the Service Identifier Spreadsheet combines technical information and pricing, should it be uploaded as the Cost Proposal, and should vendors repeat its nonpricing information in the Technical Proposal? | Yes, the Service Identifier Spreadsheet should be uploaded as (or as part of) the Cost Proposal, since it carries the pricing. Offerors should not need to duplicate its non-pricing technical information verbatim in the Technical Proposal narrative; a reference/summary pointing to the worksheet is sufficient. | |
| 53 | JHILL@LTS.COM | SOW and Federal Funding Attachments | Please confirm whether a section-by-section Technical Proposal response satisfies the requirement to complete and return the SOW, and identify which pages of the Federal Funding attachment must be completed and signed. | Confirmed a Technical Proposal response addressing the SOW (RFP 8.2.F) satisfies the 'complete and return' language for the SOW attachment (see Question 41). | |
| 54 | JHILL@LTS.COM | BABAA Certification | Is the BABAA certification required with the proposal, or only when a covered infrastructure task order or project is identified? | Recommend confirming BABAA certification is only required if/when a specific task order involves a covered infrastructure project subject to Build America, Buy America requirements, not a base-proposal submission requirement | |
| 55 | JHILL@LTS.COM | Proposal Formatting | Are there any page limits, font, margin, file-size, or file-format requirements not stated in the solicitation package or NevadaEPro? | None beyond what is published | |
| 56 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Mobilization Time Expectations and SLA | For "rapid mobilization across Nevada's geography" (Evaluation Criteria 5.1.6.C, Disaster Response Recovery RFP, page 3): The Service Identifier Spreadsheet (Scope of Work attachment, Column E: Mobilization Time) requires vendors to indicate mobilization timeframes in hours from activation notice. Are there defined mobilization-time expectations or SLAs per capability area beyond what vendors self-state in Column E, or is vendor mobilization capacity scored solely on the timeframes proposed? | Confirmed, beyond the two SOW-stated benchmarks (Question 84), there is no additional published SLA; mobilization capability under RFP 5.1.6.C (weighted 20 of 100 points) is evaluated on the timeframe each Offeror proposes in the spreadsheet. | |
| 57 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Grant Management Systems | What grant management platform or system does NV OEM currently use for administering the programs covered under this RFP? | Our grant management platform is ZoomGrants | |
| 58 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Self-Sufficient 72-Hour Requirement Definition | On activation, what does "self-sufficient for minimum 72 hours" (Section 3.1.1.I, Scope of Work) require in practice for consulting/technical personnel versus field logistics crews? Does this requirement apply equally to all capability lanes (EOC Augmentation, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, etc.), or do specific capabilities have different expectations? | The 72-hour self-sufficiency requirement (lodging, meals, transportation) applies to all personnel deployed under any capability area in this contract, not EOC Augmentation alone. In areas with available commercial lodging and services, this means standard self-arranged travel; in frontier and remote areas per Section 14.1.5, personnel must arrive prepared to be logistically independent for the first 72 hours of activation. Offerors should reflect this in their rate structure only for the geographic areas they propose to cover. | |
| 59 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Team Structure and References | Does NV OEM accept organizational references from both prime contractors and subcontractors on the proposed team, or does the RFP require all references to be from prime-only organizations? | RFP 7.8.7 doesn't restrict references to the prime only. Recommend confirming references may come from projects involving subcontractors on the proposed team as well as the prime, provided each reference documents the specific role performed. | |
| 60 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Current Operations | Are there incumbent contractors currently providing any of the services covered under this RFP, and if so, which capability areas are they covering? | NV OEM does not have any pre-positioned contracts, this will be first contract issued. | |
| 61 | BID@PCGUS.COM | Annual State-Level Exercises and Training Participation Requirements | Is annual participation in state-level exercises and training (Section 3.1.1.J, Scope of Work; also referenced in Section 12.4 Performance Standards and Section 13.4 Coordination Requirements) expected of all bench vendors regardless of activation status, and is that participation compensated under the contract? | All awarded vendors, regardless of current activation status, must participate in annual state-level exercises. Tabletop and notification/activation exercises may be completed virtually and are not separately compensated. Full-scale or functional exercises requiring physical resource deployment will be scheduled on a rotating basis among awarded vendors and compensated at [training rate to be defined] per the resulting contract. | |
| 62 | SYDNEY.BROWN@AECOM.COM | Cost Proposal | The Service Identifier Spreadsheet appears to include a mix of personnel classifications/staff titles, equipment and other direct cost items, unit-based services, and entire service functions or operational capabilities. To ensure consistent pricing and enable an apples-to-apples evaluation among respondents, can the State clarify the expected pricing methodology for each type of line item? Specifically, please identify which items should be proposed as fully burdened hourly labor rates, which should be priced as unit rates or other direct costs, and which should be submitted as firm fixed prices for complete services or functions. For capability areas such as EOC augmentation, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, Case Management, Resource Center Operations, and similar service offerings, should vendors provide pricing based on labor categories, unit pricing, time-and-materials rates, or a combination thereof? Additionally, if multiple pricing approaches are acceptable, please explain how each pricing type will be evaluated within the cost proposal. | Per SOW Section 15.1, the Service Identifier Spreadsheet is where Offerors specify capability areas, sub-capabilities, geographic coverage, mobilization timeframes, capacity limitations, and unit pricing — this worksheet is the Cost Proposal contemplated by RFP 8.4. A separate narrative is not required, though a brief pricing-assumptions narrative may be included as "other informational material" (RFP 8.2.G) if it aids evaluation. Per RFP 8.1.3, cost information must not be combined in the same attachment as the Technical Proposal, and per 8.1.4 the Cost Proposal attachment must not be flagged confidential in NevadaEPro. Pricing should be fully burdened (labor, overhead, profit, and standard mobilization/travel/per diem — see Question 68) so unit prices are comparable across Offerors; where a service is better priced as a fixed unit rate than an hourly rate, Offerors should use whichever structure matches how the service is delivered. | |
| 63 | SYDNEY.BROWN@AECOM.COM | Scope of Work - Debris Removal | Section 8 (Debris Removal) includes debris monitoring-related activities, such as load ticket and documentation systems for FEMA reimbursement, as well as monitoring and inspection services. In many disaster recovery procurements, Debris Removal and Debris Monitoring are solicited and contracted separately to maintain independence in monitoring, eligibility validation, quantity tracking, and FEMA reimbursement oversight. | ||
| Can the State clarify whether it intends Debris Monitoring services to be included within the Debris Removal capability area, or whether those functions are expected to be provided separately under another capability area (e.g., Public Assistance support)? If Debris Monitoring is intended to be a standalone service, please provide guidance on where and how vendors should identify and price those services within the Service Identifier Spreadsheet. Additionally, would the State permit a vendor to propose Debris Monitoring services without also providing Debris Removal services, and vice versa? | SOW Section 8.1.1 lists Monitoring and Inspection Services as item L and Temporary Debris Storage and Reduction Site (TDSRS) Operations as item C (both are sub-items within the single Debris Removal capability area (Section 8), not separate capability areas. | ||||
| 64 | SYDNEY.BROWN@AECOM.COM | Scope of Work - Public Assistance | Under Section 5 (Public Assistance), does the State intend for vendors to provide applicant support only, or also Recipient-level support to NV OEM, including grant management, project review, compliance, funding reconciliation, and closeout activities? | Public Assistance support under Section 5 includes both (a) applicant-level technical assistance to counties, tribes, and special districts, and (b) Recipient-level support to NV OEM, including grant management, project review, funding reconciliation, and closeout. These are evaluated as separate sub-capabilities. An Offeror proposing both must submit an organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan describing how it will avoid providing applicant-level assistance and Recipient-level review on the same incident or subrecipient application. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .