17548_addendum_2_version_3.pdf

Office of State Procurement 112 Administration Building

50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

Addendum No.: 2 Version 3 Date of Addendum: June 24, 2026

Due Date, Time: June 30, 2026, 4:00 P.M. Revised Due Date, Time: July 17, 2026, 4:00 PM CT

Buyer: Matthew Figgins & Jonathan Moxley Agency: Administration (Office of State Procurement)

SWIFT Event/Posting Ref. No.: G0210-2000017548 Title:

Autobody and Mechanical Repairs of Heavy Equipment and Commercial Trucks

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

This addendum containing the following revisions, additions, deletions, or clarifications is hereby made part of the Solicitation, including the Sample Contract and Exhibits if applicable.

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the due date and time of the Solicitation and respond to questions received by the deadline stated in the Solicitation.

Responders acknowledge receipt of this addendum by responding to SWIFT Event No. G0210-2000017548, Version [2] (or more recent version) by the solicitation due date and time.

Except as modified by this addendum, all the terms and conditions remain in full force and effect.

1. ADDENDUM

1. The State extends the due date and time of the Solicitation from June 30, 2026, 4:00 PM CT to July 17, 2026, 4:00

PM CT.

2. The State extends the question period to submit questions in writing from June 11, 2026, 4:00 PM CT July 11, 2026, 4:00 PM CT.

3. The following sections of the Solicitation are amended as follows (strike through is used for deletions and underlining for insertions):

3.1 Section #3, Item 1: Anticipated Contract Term, is here by REVISED to: The term of this contract is anticipated to be from August 2026 to July 2028, with the option to extend up to an additional 36 months in increments determined by the State.

3.2 R-724(5) - Exhibit D: Price Schedule, is here by DELETED and REPLACED with the following: R-724(5) – Exhibit D:

Price Schedule 2.0, which is attached to the solicitation.

4. Below are the State’s responses to questions received by the deadline stated in the solicitation.

Q1. If I am offering the same services from multi-locations, do I have to fill out for each location or can I do all locations that have same pricing on one sheet?

A1. All shop locations with the same pricing can be submitted on one sheet. You will need to be sure to list and specify which locations are tied to each specific price sheet. Please refer to the Price Schedule Instructions sheet that shows multiple locations on the line for SHOP LOCATION(s) for this Price Schedule (lines 12 and 13). Locations listed on invoices must match location listed on Purchase Order.

Locations and Point of Contacts can be added and edited in SWIFT in the Vendor Portal at any time.

Q2. Why is this bid a net plus our profit instead of a discount off list bid? Why are we being required to show our profit?

A2. This price schedule is consistent with other furnish - and - install vehicle and equipment repair contracts used by the State. Additionally, because of the extensive range of potential parts and raw materials that may be included under this contract and to provide responders with flexibility in pricing within a volatile economic environment the cost‑plus price schedule is the most appropriate and effective structure. It supports both consistency with existing State contract practices and adaptability for fluctuating material costs. Per the solicitation document, Section 6 of the Solicitation Terms, Item 8.3: The State does not consider cost or prices to be trade secret material, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37.

Q3. If we have a SWIFT ID that we have used for the parts submission. Can we use the same SWIFT ID, or will we need to obtain another for the service submission?

A3. A vendor can use the same SWIFT ID for multiple contracts. The Exhibit D Price schedule for this contract allows for Labor Rates, Parts, and Materials.

Q4. Will we need a submission per location or how should the multiple locations be noted? Specifically on the “Exhibit D Price Schedule: where it is asking for contact names and addresses.

A4. Refer to A1.

Q5. Is it sufficient to put our corporate location information in the business information section and then list the SWIFT location ID’s in the shop locations section?

A5. Yes. Please refer to A1 for more details.

Q6. I'm looking to offer to fix whatever repair required but I'm not seeing any details posted on the supplier system do you have any details?

A6. The purpose of this solicitation is to award a contract to responder(s) to provide Autobody and Mechanical Repairs of Heavy Equipment and Commercial Trucks owned and operated by State Agencies and Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) members, which may be purchased by State Agencies and Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) members on an as needed basis. Please review the solicitation documents.

Q7. Regarding the Exhibit D: Pricing, Section 1.3 Hourly Rate Pricing: “State will not pay for travel-related expenses, travel time, meals, lodging, or idle time.” For the various labor rates, are we o�er a Shop Rate (at our facility), Field Rate (work done, not at our facility), and Travel Rate (we charge a rate for technician travel time and also a rate per mile traveled from our facility)?

A7. The State is not considering Field work as a part of this solicitation, at this time. There will be no specific consideration for travel related expenses including but not limited to travel time, meals, lodging, or idle time.

Q8. For contract pricing, as the contract is from August 2026 to July 2028, with an option to extend up to an additional 48 months, what is the process for updating our pricing? Specifically, our hourly labor rates increase over time. Are we able to adjust, or do we need to plan our rates for up to a six-year contract?

A8. Yes, labor rates are adjustable via dually executed amendment. Also: we have corrected the contract extension options to 36 months, see Section 3.1 of this addendum.

Q9. Our repairs require parts varying from large weldments and booms to electrical sensors and wiring harnesses.

Markups vary depending on the part. How do we address that?

A9. Please review Section 3.2 for update on Exhibit D: Price Schedule requirements. Responders may add more lines, subcategories, or other means of differentiating and grouping of parts and materials in the Cost-Plus markup. Responders may do this by brand, or price grouping and have different percentage mark ups for each line.

Q10. Our company’s inspection units are distributed direct from the manufacturer to the end user. There are no dealers or distributors. We consider the cost of our parts and markups to be proprietary.

A10. Per the solicitation document, Section 6 of the Solicitation Terms, Item 8.3: The State does not consider cost or prices to be trade secret material, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37. Refer to A2 for more information.

Q11. Regarding the bid instructions. We do not price on a cost plus basis but rather an MSRP basis. The pricing spreadsheet I received doesn’t appear to be able to accommodate that. Do you have any suggestions for me on how I can price from MSRP instead of cost or will that be an issue for us?

A11. Please see A2.

Q12. Regarding the Certification for Commercial vehicles: Mandatory Inspection Program (MIP) – What if we don’t have this and it is currently full until October 2026 or later? Would we still be considered if we were enrolled and working to get certified. We are a small shop in International Falls, MN, assuming there isn't going to be a ton of work immediately and probably not many others offering services in this area.

A12. Yes. Responders will be considered; however, the contract will not be executed until the State receives acceptable evidence of the MIP certification.

Q13. Regarding the sample invoice/quote, I didn't see an attached sample only the items expected to be present.

Do you have an actual example we need to mirror or just ensuring those items are listed in our invoice being sent.

A13. The State does not provide a templated invoice; we want to capture what the quote and invoice will look like from your company. We will also verify that the sample quote and invoice meet the requirements outlined in Exhibit D – Supplement 1 from the sample contract.

Q14. Our Parts team recently completed the renewal of another contract, which runs through June 2027 and covers all OEM parts. That contract is structured as MSRP/List less a percentage, while R-724 is structured as cost plus a percentage. If we were to participate in both contracts, we would be maintaining two different pricing structures in our system. This could create confusion at the branch level regarding which pricing model should be applied in various situations. Additionally, this may result in different pricing being offered to State of Minnesota contract users depending on which contract is applied. Can you provide guidance on how the State would expect vendors to handle this scenario?

A14. The State understands that suppliers may hold multiple contracts with differing pricing structures. For purposes of this Contract R‑724, responders are expected to apply the pricing model defined within this specific contract (cost plus a percentage) whenever the contract is used by an ordering entity.

Suppliers may continue to maintain other pricing structures for separate contracts; however, it is the responsibility of the supplier to ensure that branch level staff can correctly identify and apply the appropriate contract and its corresponding pricing method. The State does not prescribe how suppliers configure their internal systems, but suppliers should implement internal controls, staff training, or system prompts as needed to prevent confusion and ensure consistent and accurate pricing to State contract users.

Ultimately, whichever State contract is being referenced by the purchaser at the time of order should govern the pricing applied. The State expects suppliers to manage any internal complexity necessary to comply with the contract requirements.

END OF ADDENDUM