22-0011 Addendum 2.pdf

Business Services Procurement and Contracting

16550 SW Merlo Road Beaverton, OR 97003

(503) 356-4555

September 20, 2022

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM NO. 2

RFP 22-0011

Master Contract for Electric School Buses

THE FOLLOWING CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THE ABOVE CITED SOLICITATION ARE ANNOUNCED:

This Addendum modifies the Request for Proposal (RFP) document(s) only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not changed or otherwise modified by this Addendum shall remain in full force and effect. This Addendum is hereby made an integral part of the RFP document. Proposer(s) must be responsive to any requirements of this Addendum as if the requirements were set forth in the RFP. Failure to do so may result in Proposal rejection. See the RFP regarding requests for clarification or change and protests of this Addendum, and the deadlines for the foregoing.

This addendum is to be acknowledged in the space provided on the Proposer Certification form supplied in the solicitation document. Failure to acknowledge receipt of this addendum may be cause to reject your offer.

The closing date IS CHANGED TO:

October 7, 2022 at 2:00 PM Pacific Time

CLARIFICATIONS/CHANGES:

The District hereby changes the Solicitation Closing date and time to October 7, 2022 at 2:00 PM Pacific Time.

Question: In reading through the bid sheet for solicitation No:22-0011, I was not seeing any mention of the buses needing to be set to the standard for buses in the state of Oregon. I want to clarify if these buses need to conform to the state standards.

Answer: State standards are listed on ATTACHMENT H, under point 3. of the General Requirements.

Question: In Section I – Introduction, it states a Proposer may submit a Proposal that includes Type C bus(ses), Type D bus(ses), or both. However, there is no opportunity to propose a Type C school bus, as the only two GVWR options in Attachment H are specific to a Type D school bus (34,000 lbs) and Type A school bus (26,000 lbs). That said, can you please tell us where we can find the specification list of the Type C school bus?

Answer: While a Type A-2 school bus can have a GVWR over 10,000 lbs, for the purposes of this RFP, all Type C school buses have GVWR ratings over 10,000 lbs. For the purposes of this RFP, the definition of a Type C school bus includes that, a “Type C” school bus is a body installed upon a flat back cowl chassis with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., originally designed by the manufacturer for carrying 10 to 54 passengers. The engine is in front of the windshield, or part of the engine is beneath and/or behind the windshield and beside the driver's seat. Additionally, Oregon Administrative Rule 581-053-0003 section 34, (School Bus Types) subsection d (OAR 581-053-0003(34)(d)) defines a Type C school bus as: “…a school bus with all or part of the engine in front of the windshield and the entrance door behind the front wheels.”

Question: Attachment B: Independent Contractor Determination is not applicable to our submittal. We will mark as NON- APPLICABLE in our submission unless directed otherwise by the District.

Answer: This is acceptable, Proposals will neither be deemed non-responsive nor negatively scored due to a Proposer’s failure to complete Attachment B. As a condition of executing any PWAs, the District may require any awarded contractors to provide additional information about its legal entity as may be required by the District or its funding sources, if any (e.g., state or federal grant sources).

Question: For Item I. Insurance Requirements in DETAILED PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES in the RFP, it states “Provide a statement of agreement to the insurance clause in the sample Master Price Agreement (see SECTION V – ATTACHMENTS)”. Can the District clarify the insurance clause?

Answer: The Sample Master Price Agreement in the RFP is mislabeled as Attachment H. All headers on the Master Price Agreement documents attached to the RFP are hereby changed from Attachment H to Attachment I. The insurance clause referenced in the above question is clarified to be Section 21. INSURANCE. of Attachment I Sample Master Price Agreement to the RFP.

Question: Can a Proposer include company information and qualifications as part of the submittal?

Answer: It is up to the Proposer’s discretion as to whether it wishes to supply company information in response to any of the DETAILED PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES. Some specific company information is requested under Attachment E Proposer Responsibility Forms.

Question: In the section Proposal Format, item c states “Pricing information must be submitted with the original proposal but IN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT which the District can evaluate as a separate evaluation criteria outside of the evaluation of all other evaluation criteria”. Is the District requesting we submit the document Attachment G: Initial Contact Term Pricing as a separate PDF?

If so, are we to include Attachment G in the original proposal as well?

Answer: The RFP is hereby changed to remove the requirement to submit pricing information as a separate document. Proposers do not need to provide Attachment G as a separate PDF.

Question: We have a question regarding the Dealer’s License requirement for the subject solicitation. On the top of the first page of Attachment H, the second of three items states “Bidder must be a valid dealer for units bid”. Can the District please clarify the dealer requirement for this opportunity? Hypothetically, could an electric bus manufacturer bid on this opportunity while obtaining a dealer’s license concurrently? Please let us know the exact dealer requirements.

Answer: The intent of this is that the Proposer is authorized to sell the bus(es) included in its Proposal(s). For example, Proposers don’t have to have a dealer’s license. If a manufacturer wants to sell to us directly (i.e., be a Proposer), it may do so. In evaluating Proposals, the District may, however, consider product support, (e.g., if there are no authorized dealers in our area how any warranty problems would be addressed, etc.).

Question: In Section II – 4.REQUIRED/DESIRED DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS , it states Desired: The District requires delivery of electric school buses no later than 365 days from the date of issuance of a purchase order. Could you please define the terms desired and required. What do these terms mean in relation to your district's expectations in response to this bid?

Answer: To clarify this and in response to other questions asked, the District hereby makes the following changes to Section II 4.

REQUIRED/DESIRED DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS (strikethrough indicates text removed, bold indicates text added):

4. REQUIRED/DESIRED DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS:

a. Required: F.O.B. Destination (Beaverton School District Transportation Department) delivery terms.

See the required Certification under Section IV of this RFP for more detail of the required terms.

b. Desired: The District desires requires delivery of electric school buses no later than 365 days from the date of issuance of a purchase order. Proposers guaranteeing shorter delivery schedules will be more desirable in relevant evaluation area(s). The awardee shall reimburse the District a fixed sum for each day beyond the guaranteed date bus delivery is delayed.

Question: Section b notes that “the awardee shall reimburse the District a fixed sum for each day beyond the guaranteed date bus delivery is delayed.” Please provide the amount of the delivery penalty per day.

Answer: This clause has been deleted (see above).

Question: We request that you differentiate between “nameplate energy” and “usable energy” in battery performance and require case studies/references of districts that are getting 100 mile minimum range in real life practice.

Answer: We will not accept this request. It is common industry practice that a manufacturer will publish/communicate the rated expected mileage based on the battery kW and the expected “useable” mileage. Mileage is dependent upon driver operation, operational environment, and accessory usage (e.g. air conditioning, heater, etc.).

Question: Are you requiring “Buy America” compliance in manufacturing?

Answer: No.

Question: Would you consider a 77-passenger count bus?

Answer: No.

Question: Would you consider a conventional style bus with 10,000lb front axle?

Answer: Yes – for the 217” Type C only.

Question: Please provide preference of AC charging vs DC fast charging.

Answer: Preference is for Level II, AC charging.

Question: Please confirm that you require body/chassis to be designed, engineered, and built by one manufacturer.

Answer: This is not a requirement from Oregon Department of Education and it is not required for busses proposed under this RFP.

Question: Will you accept grease lubricated axels?

Answer: In and of itself, this would not be grounds for determining a Proposal non-responsive, however, it would not be favorably considered in applicable scoring.

Question: At first glance, it appears as though the RFP specifications are written in a way that only allows for one manufacturer to properly participate in this procurement. If that is intention, or there is a product that if preferred, please let us know.

Answer: The specifications are developed to provide the District with optimal value and suitability relative to the District’s needs, within applicable regulations, and to reasonably encourage competition. The District does not assess that the specifications only allow for one manufacturer to properly participate in this RFP. The District does not consider the above statement, presented as a question and clarification, to be a Solicitation Protest, and therefore, this clarification is not a Solicitation Protest response. As additional assurance that the specifications allow for reasonable competition, this RFP is structured so that deviations from the Bus Specifications are allowed, only resulting in a potential score reduction but not necessarily non-responsiveness. Specifications may be further negotiated during any contract negotiations resulting from this RFP.

Question: Section IV-A Response and Evaluation 3.iv.A This section notes “All other proposal pricing scores must be weighted against the lowest price proposal (Lowest price scores the highest. All other higher priced proposals are weighted against the lowest priced proposal).” Please provide more description as to how the pricing points will be calculated for proposers not offering the lowest price.

Answer: The District hereby makes the following changes (strikethrough indicates text removed and bold indicates text added) to Section IV-A Response and Evaluation 3.(iv.)(A):

v. INITIAL BUS PRICING.

A. Complete a separate version of ATTACHMENT IG PRICE SCHEDULE to provide initial contract term pricing for all buses included in your Proposal. Include a narrative or other information clearly describing any additional pricing discounts, terms and conditions, etc., for the District’s consideration. Pricing will be compared among all responsive Proposals submitted. The Initial Bus Pricing that is, in the judgement of the committee, the most advantageous to the District will be the most favorably considered. Such advantageous pricing attributes may include, but are not limited to, lower pricing, price certainty (e.g., over the contract term, etc.), and overall value. The lowest overall priced proposal will receive the full points available. All other proposal pricing scores must be weighted against the lowest price proposal (Lowest price scores the highest. All other higher priced proposals are weighted against the lowest priced proposal).

The District hereby makes the following changes (strikethrough indicates text removed and bold indicates text added) to the text on Attachment G:

INITIAL CONTRACT TERM PRICING

Provide the firm, per-bus price for each type of Bus included in your Proposal. The Price must be inclusive of all costs associated with the Bus (e.g., delivery, any applicable taxes/fees, warranty, etc.). If the proposed per bus prices are not firm for the initial contract term, clearly describe proposed pricing for the initial contract term. If more bus types are included in your Proposal than spaces provided, use the blank space or attach an additional sheet to provide the required information:

The District hereby makes the following changes (strikethrough indicates text removed and bold indicates text added) to Section I(8.)(d.) of the RFP:

d. It is desired that Tthe Supplier's Pricing and Rates must remain firm through June 30 of each contract period, or otherwise allows for the District to achieve certainty in its budgeting and grant application processes.

The District hereby makes the following changes (strikethrough indicates text removed and bold indicates text added) to Section II(6.)(a.) of the RFP:

a. Required: Proposed Ppricing terms shall be held firm as proposed for the initial contract term. Adjusted pricing may shall be held firm for each subsequent Contract term, if any.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type C Bus Specifications Vehicle Dimensions, 2. Wheelbase shall not exceed 217”. Please confirm that the District will not consider award to proposals where the wheelbase exceeds the 217” wheelbase.

Answer: The above specification is hereby changed to indicate: Wheelbase shall not exceed 225”.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Brakes – Service: 3. Meritor automatic slack adjusters

4. Front & Rear disc brakes. Please confirm what type of air brake system is required. Drum brake systems include slack adjusters.

Disc brakes do not include slack adjusters.

Answer: The above specification is clarified to use Meritor slack adjusters if drum brakes are used.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Instruments & Gauges – Driver’s Area 3. Voltmeter. Please confirm that a voltage readout in the driver information display for the 12V auxiliary battery meets the District’s definition of a voltmeter.

Answer: A voltage readout in driver display will meet the specification.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Compartments 4. Side luggage compartments mounted midway at left and right sides. Due to the high voltage battery packs being mounted between the wheels, this conflicts with the availability of luggage compartments. We request the removal of this specification requirement.

Answer: This specification is to remain as is.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Compartments 7. Push through luggage compartment (130 cu.ft).

Due to the high voltage battery packs being mounted between the frame rails between the wheels, this conflicts with the push through luggage compartment availability. We request the removal of this specification requirement.

Answer: This specification is to remain as is.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Lighting 4. LED exterior student loading door light which will adequately illuminate the entire step well. The lamp circuit shall be wired through the headlamp or clearance lamp system and shall be activated only when the door is opened. This requirement is described initially as an “exterior loading door light” but also describes a light which adequately illuminates the entire stepwell which would be an interior light. Does the District prefer an exterior body mounted light that illuminates the ground outside the bus at the entrance door, a light that is mounted inside the bus that illuminates the stepwell area, or both?

Answer: An LED exterior student loading door light which will adequately illuminate the ground outside the bus and an interior LED light which will illuminate the entire stepwell.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Lighting 1. The area around each lens of the bus safety lights shall be painted black, extending outward a minimum of 3 inches where practicable –AND—Paint 4. Background behind warning lights to be painted black. The background area behind the warning lights is not painted black. The background is made of durable molded ABS, and black in color. Please consider this an approved alternate to the black painted specification requirement.

Answer: These specifications are from the State of Oregon Minimum Standards OAR 581-053-0240(40)(b)(C)(ii). We believe the intent was a black background behind the safety light. A black plastic piece would meet the spec.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Safety Equipment 2. Triangle kit to be mounted in a bracket at the wall ahead of the right seat barrier. On a rear engine transit school bus, the front RH barrier is mounted just rearward of the entrance door. There is no room on the wall for a triangle kit to be mounted. Please provide details on another suitable location for the triangle kit to be mounted.

Answer: The kit is to be mounted in the driver's area.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Stepwell 3. Stainless steel grabrail installed in entrance door area. Specification item #1 in this section lists a requirement of a “stainless-steel grab rail shall be installed at rear of stepwell.” Does item #3 indicate a requirement for an additional forward grabrail in the entrance door?

Answer: This specification is hereby changed to delete, "A stainless-steel grab rail shall be installed at rear of stepwell." from #1.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Repair Manuals 2. Parts & service manuals shall be provided on USB flash drive. Our service manuals, parts catalogs, driver handbooks, and wiring schematics are all available on the Blue Bird Vantage online portal. This provides for immediate access for multiple users simultaneously. Please consider this as an approved alternate to the USB flash drive specification.

Answer: This specification is hereby changed to add, "or via another electronic format (e.g., online, etc.)" to the end of the sentence.

Question: Section V – Attachments, Type D Bus Specifications, Miscellaneous 4. Include manufacturing/assembly plant tour/inspection with travel & lodging for up to eight (8) BSD employees. Please confirm what the District’s expectations are for this item. Is just a plant tour desired? Or is it the District’s requirement to include an inspection of the District’s first built unit off the assembly line?

Answer: The intent is plant tour, however inspection may also be Proposed.

Question: S Section V – Attachments, Attachment I, Sample Contract, 29. Performance and Payment Bond, If the value of this contract exceeds $50,000 the provider shall, prior to starting work, provide Performance and Payment Bonds equal to the contract price. Performance and payment bonds are not typically required by school districts for contracts for the purchase of school buses. Please confirm that performance and payment bonds will be required.

Answer: Performance and payment bonds will not be required.

Question: The page numbering of the document is not consistent and missing certain page numbers (e.g. 2, 5, 8-12, etc.).

Please confirm that pages or sections of the document are not missing in the PDF version available from Oregon Buys.

Answer: The page numbering is the result of a clerical error. There are not any pages missing from the RFP.

Question: At the pre-conference that took place on 8/25/22, it had been said an addendum was to be posted with answers to the questions that were submitted. When should we expect that addendum to be published?

Answer: In accordance with the RFP and its governing code/laws, statements made by the District's representative at the pre- Proposal conference do not change the Solicitation Document unless the District confirms such statements with a Written Addendum. This Addendum 2 addresses the questions that the District has received in writing and any questions it was able to capture during the Pre-Proposal Conference. If any subsequent addenda are issued, it/they will be issued in accordance with applicable code/law.

Question: Could you please confirm the date/time that vendors should be expecting answers back to the requests for clarification?

Answer: This Addendum 2 addresses the questions that the District has received in writing and any questions it was able to capture during the Pre-Proposal Conference. If any subsequent addenda are issued, it/they will be issued in accordance with applicable code/law.

Question: Can the Beaverton School District extend the due date for the submittal, if possible? Any extra time would be greatly appreciated.

Answer: The deadline was extended by Addendum 1. This Addendum 2 does not additionally extend any Solicitation deadlines.

End of Addendum 2