2026-06-17 Addendum No. 1 - 260623-01.pdf

CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROJECT NO.: 260623-01

June 17, 2026

ADDENDUM NO. ONE (1)

THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS TO THE RFP DOCUMENTS

RFP #260623-01, HEREBY BECOME A PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

NOTIFY ALL SUBCONTRACTORS AFFECTED BY THIS ADDENDUM.

PROPOSALS DUE (UNCHANGED): Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 5:00 PM (via email as outlined in RFP)

General Information:

As the pre-proposal meeting was non-mandatory and was virtual, a formal Record of Attendance was not kept. Firms represented at the pre-proposal meeting were as follows:

GLUMAC

Arris Engineering PAE Engineering KCL Engineering Colebreit Engineering Interface Engineering Systems West R&W Engineering Sazan Group Greenbusch Group LSW Architects Windsor Engineering

Questions & Answers:

1. QUESTION: What is the expected construction budget for this project?

ANSWER: The expected construction budget is $6 million for the combined work at Oliver Milddle School and Parklane Elementary School. There is not an assumed split between the two.

2. QUESTION: Do you have AutoCAD backgrounds of both schools?

ANSWER: Yes, we have architectural backgrounds in AutoCAD of both sites. We cannot attest to their accuracy, but they were generated in roughly 2021.

PROJECT NO.: 260623-01

June 17, 2026

ADDENDUM NO. ONE (1)

3. QUESTION: What are the square footages of the sites?

ANSWER: Parklane Elementary is approximately 47,327 SF (excluding the new gymnasium built in 2023), and Oliver Middle School is 86,459 sf.

4. QUESTION: Are electrical as-builts available for each building for the service upgrades?

ANSWER: We have record documents of both. We cannot attest to their accuracy but are from roughly 2022. These will be provided to the awarded firm.

5. QUESTION: Is either building on any historical register?

ANSWER: No. Neither are on any register. Both have had exterior-based changes in recent years.

6. QUESTION: Could we get copies of the Powell Butte HVAC upgrades currently under construction?

ANSWER: Yes, a dropbox link is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xjfo36fcq2ythupxs7kd0/AAmfm9bO-vZDjoS6OwrIrX4?rlkey=2gw94o57u3nryxhm0ba6php16&st=807d9i4v&dl=0

7. QUESTION: Can we get the peak demand for the last 12 months of each site?

ANSWER: Yes, that information will be made available ahead of the interviews but not necessary as part of the initial RFP process.

8. QUESTION: Can we get record drawings of each school?

ANSWER: Yes, we have many drawings of recent modifications of each school that are our records, but we cannot attest to their accuracy. Those will be made available to the awarded company.

9. QUESTION: Are references and resumes needed for consultants?

ANSWER: References and resumes are only needed for the prime proposer personnel assigned to the project. Sub-consultant firms need only be mentioned and a few sentences about your work history with that sub-consultant. EXCEPTION: If the prime proposer is NOT a mechanical engineering firm, then we will need the resumes and references of the mechanical engineering sub-consultant firm and their assigned personnel.

10. QUESTION: Regarding the possibility of early procurement, we are wondering how this would be approached, and which project participants would be in charge of procurement. Would the need for early procurement push the team toward a CM/GC arrangement, or would the District take on the responsibility of purchasing and storing the equipment?

ANSWER: It would be the intention of the district to directly early procure necessary equipment against the engineer’s early bid set. Assume two bid sets and two bidding phases. At this juncture, the district is not pursuing this as a CMGC. That might change if discovered conditions make it prudent.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xjfo36fcq2ythupxs7kd0/AAmfm9bO-vZDjoS6OwrIrX4?rlkey=2gw94o57u3nryxhm0ba6php16&st=807d9i4v&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xjfo36fcq2ythupxs7kd0/AAmfm9bO-vZDjoS6OwrIrX4?rlkey=2gw94o57u3nryxhm0ba6php16&st=807d9i4v&dl=0

PROJECT NO.: 260623-01

June 17, 2026

ADDENDUM NO. ONE (1)

11. QUESTION: Regarding schedule, we would like to know if the District intends on reviewing each of the three phase documents deliverables (including CD prior to submitting for permit) and what time duration is necessary for the District to complete their review for each milestone deliverable.

ANSWER: Yes, the district will review PD, SD, and DD documents, but not CD’s. Those reviews are customarily one week in duration. R&C will request a 50% CD set simply to confirm on time progress. Cost estimates will be required to complete the PD, SD, and DD phases, but not the CD phase. The district would expect design update meetings at some frequency ahead of the final phase submission. We leave that frequency up to the engineering firm.

12. QUESTION: How is PCEF Stakeholder review align with the durations and phasing in #11 above?

ANSWER: PCEF stakeholder review (separate entity) has typically been a week and aligned with the same timing as the district. In house stakeholders will be limited to 3-4 district personnel and R&C.

13. QUESTION: Can design-phase coordination and OAC meetings be conducted virtually or hybrid, with in-person attendance limited to site visits and construction milestones?

ANSWER: We expect most design and OAC meeting activities will be virtual. Initial site investigations during early design will be on site.

14. QUESTION: Please confirm whether hazardous materials are known or suspected in the work areas. If so, please clarify the anticipated abatement scope and whether abatement work will be contracted separately by the District.

ANSWER: Both buildings are of an age that asbestos will be present. Much asbestos in both buildings has been removed, but some remains. At the end of the SD phase, the district will take the known scope and test likely effected areas to confirm whether positive. Any abatement is outside of the scope of this work, save for coordination of any demolition, so plans are not redundant. The district uses PBS/Apex.

15. QUESTION: Please confirm what existing documentation will be provided for each school: CAD backgrounds, Revit models, PDF as-builts, etc.

ANSWER: There is a link to the current Powell Butte HVAC upgrades in this addendum. All others record documents will be provided to the awarded firm. It should be noted that while these are the district’s record documents, we do not attest to their accuracy, which should be verified on site.

16. QUESTION: Please confirm whether the District has current design/construction standards, controls standards, equipment preferences, or prohibited system types that must be followed.

ANSWER: The district has existing direct digital control systems in each of the two buildings – Honeywell, which was added in 2022. This will be preserved in the new design. The district is open to various equipment types and brands and has not adopted specific criteria.

PROJECT NO.: 260623-01

June 17, 2026

ADDENDUM NO. ONE (1)

17. QUESTION: Please confirm that building commissioning will be contracted directly by the District.

ANSWER: Yes, commissioning is planned to be direct-hired by the district, though this has not been accomplished as yet. We will have someone on board by the end of the SD phase.

18. QUESTION: The PCEF program has aspirational equity goals that include the following:

• 2.7 Aspirational Equity Goals

• 2.7.b Professional Services Goal - If professional services are required, twenty-five percent

(25%) should be contracted to COBID-certified firms.

Will this be taken into consideration during the proposal process?

ANSWER: The district does not plan to utilize those metrics in their selection. HOWEVER, the district remains highly interested in equity and COBID practices, and the firm should highlight their status and/or approach to equity.

END OF ADDENDUM ONE (1)