212146 Supplemental Letter 1.pdf

PDF 132 KB Posted

Attached to
ITB 9028_Tree thinning & brush removal
Solicitation number
S-63400-00001547
Issued by
Deschutes County, Oregon

About this file

This is a Supplemental Information Letter #1 issued by the City of Salem Finance Department Contracts & Procurement Division in response to an Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 212146 for Architect Services for the Salem Civic Center Master Plan. The RFP closing date is January 28, 2022, at 4:00 PM local time. The letter addresses a clarification question regarding subconsultant participation in proposals, specifically regarding the timing and approval requirements for subconsultants as outlined in the sample Professional Services Agreement Section 1.1, which requires providers to furnish a list of proposed subcontractors or subconsultants within ten calendar days after agreement execution before engaging them.

The City's response clarifies that if proposers plan to use subconsultants in a significant role, the entire team qualifications should be included in the proposal submission rather than waiting until after contract award. While the City does not anticipate that the work will require detailed structural design or analysis, it acknowledges that input from a structural engineer could be valuable to the planning process. The City indicated openness to any qualified firm or individual for subconsultant roles and stated that team proposals will be scored according to established RFP criteria, with no preference indicated for continuing relationships with previously engaged firms such as MSC.

View the file

Other files

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

CITY OF SALEM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT DIVISION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION LETTER #1

January 7, 2022

RFP NO. 212146

FOR: Architect Services for Salem Civic Center Master Plan

CLOSING DATE: January 28, 2022 AT 4:00 PM (LOCAL TIME)

The following is a Question and Answer received on this RFP:

1) Q) One item, we’d like clarification on has to do with subconsultants. I noticed on the first page of the sample Professional Services Agreement; Item 1.1 states the following:

1.1 Provider shall, within ten (10) calendar days after the execution of this

Agreement and before engaging any subcontractor or subconsultant, furnish the City with a list of proposed subcontractors or subconsultants, and shall not employ any that the City may object to as incompetent or unfit.

Does this infer that the City is not looking for proposing teams to include qualifications for subconsultant team members in our response to the

RFP? Alternatively, would you prefer we include quals from partners we have had recent success with on projects such as this? If the latter, is your goal to continue your relationship with MSC (who we’ve worked with in the past) and their previous seismic evaluation of the complex, or to branch out with additional observations/options.

A) If the proposers plan to use subconsultants in a significant role, the City would like to see their entire team in the proposal. The City is not anticipating that the work will require detailed structural design or analysis but that input from a structural engineer could be useful in the planning process. If the proposer chooses to include a structural engineer, the City is open to any qualified firm or individual and will score the team’s proposal according to the RFP criteria.

Shawna Self, CPPB

Purchasing Manager

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .