B26_SQA_RFQ_25Q0499_Q_A_(FINAL)_0001.pdf

Solicitation: 140D0425Q0499 Questions

1. It seems that the EHW (37C) & (38C, 1-3) are unrelated, can you please confirm that these are in fact two separate appraisal assignments?

Yes, this is two separate assignments as indicated by two Statements of Work, in two different counties.

a. Assuming the answer to the preceding question is yes, should the quote(s) be provided within a single proposal, or separate proposals for each assignment?

Yes, this is a single proposed fee for 2 assignments in the same region

b. Do you intend to award both assignments to the same appraiser/firm?

Yes, one quote for both assignments from one appraiser/firm

2. Is appraisal standard 3 relative for these assignments (regarding relocation)?

USPAP Standard 3 is Appraisal Review Development The review process will be based on UASFLA requirements which states, “While outside the appraiser’s assignment, it bears noting that landowners are reimbursed for many types of non-compensable damage—such as moving expenses and relocation costs—through the Uniform Act or other federal statutes.”

3. Regarding 38C, 1-3:

a. Would a single value for the four non-contiguous tracts be appropriate? (rather than independent values for each) According to UASFLA, Section 1.4.6. page 23 and page 24 “The appraiser must make a larger parcel determination regardless of whether the agency designated an acquisition as a total acquisition or a partial acquisition. This is so because whether an acquisition is a total or partial acquisition cannot be determined until the appraiser has determined the highest and best use and the larger parcel. Under the rules for larger parcel determination, as described in Section 4.3.4, two physically separate tracts may constitute a single larger parcel, or a single contiguous physical tract may constitute multiple larger parcels. This can be important not only in consideration of damages and benefits, but also in the selection and analysis of comparable sales.”

b. Would it be acceptable to apply a hypothetical condition regarding ignoring any going-concern/business value related to any current agricultural operations?

None. If the Appraiser determines that a hypothetical condition is necessary for credible assignment results, he/she must contact the AVSO Review Appraiser for prior written approval.

According to UASFLA Section 4.6.2.3. page 159, Non-Compensable (Consequential) Damages. Because the compensability of a particular aspect of damage stems from its treatment in the open market between willing buyers and sellers, losses that are not reflected in sales prices in the private market cannot be considered in federal acquisitions. Applying this principle, federal courts have determined that the following losses are not compensable under the Fifth Amendment: loss of business value or going concern value; loss of or damage to goodwill; future loss of profits; frustration of plans; frustration of contract or contractual expectations; loss of opportunity or business prospect; frustration of an enterprise; loss

Attachment 001 of customers; expenses of moving removable fixtures and personal property; depreciation in value of furniture and removable equipment; increased production or management costs; damage to inventory or equipment; expense of adjusting or restructuring manufacturing operations; incurrence of removal or relocation costs; loss or cancellation of revocable permits or licenses; loss of ability to collect assessments; uncertainty premium due to tenant’s status as a government entity; and interference with development

c. Since the existing building improvements are situated on the 16-acre portion of the property that will be excluded from the conservation easement, is it necessary to value those improvements and the 16-acres they are located on?

Yes

i. Can you provide some additional detail regarding the size of the existing building improvements?

We have no additional information on building size, quality of construction or condition of any improvements.

ii. If it is necessary to value the building improvements, would a cost approach be sufficient?

UASFLA states page 34, Section 1.5.3.1. Critical Elements. In developing an opinion of market value by the cost approach, the appraiser must recognize the critical elements that must be well supported by market evidence: reproduction and replacement costs, depreciation, and entrepreneurial profit.

Must be well supported by market evidence