24-16-KB Addendum 1.pdf

Addendum 1 RFP No. 24-16-KB Page 1 of 4

Addendum #1 to

Spotsylvania County

RFP #24-16-KB

Stormwater and Environmental Professional Engineering Services January 24, 2024

Addendum #1 to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 24-16-KB is issued in accordance with the RFP Terms & Conditions and is intended to provide additional information and clarification to Respondents.

Addendum #1 consists of three (3) items which are listed below, attached hereto and made a part hereof to RFP No. 24-16-KB.

ITEM 1 – CHANGES TO RFP

1. Remove Section IV – Contract Award, Contract Term, and Ordering Procedures, Letter A in its entirety, and replace with the following:

“A. Contract Award. Once negotiations have been conducted with each Offeror(s) so selected, the County shall select the Offeror(s) which has made the best proposal, and shall award a Contract to that Offeror. It is the intent of the County to award contracts to three (3) fully qualified and best suited firms in which negotiations were conducted, for each RFP category listed in Section III. Should the County determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one Offeror is fully qualified for an RFP Category, or that one Offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that Offeror.

It is not necessary for Offerors to submit a proposal for all categories identified in the RFP. Separate awards will be made for each category and each category will be scored separately. All categories in which the Offeror is submitting for can be included in one single proposal with each category clearly identified. Offerors shall also fill out and submit with their proposal, Attachment E, Engineering Categories so it is clear which categories they are submitting for.”

2. Add subdivision F to Section IV – Contract Award, Contract Term, and Ordering

Procedures, as follows:

“F. Task Order Distribution. The County will distribute task orders on a rotational basis.

However, the County also reserves the right to issue Task Orders to other A/E’s under Term Contracts at its sole discretion, based on its evaluation of each A/E's qualifications, expertise, current workload, capabilities, performance record, location or distance to the project, and other factors as may be pertinent to the particular project. It is understood that more than one Task Order may, at the County’s sole discretion, be offered to the Contractor during the Contract Term.

RFP No. 24-16-KB Page 2 of 4

Although the potential exists for multiple Task Orders during the Contract Term, services are ordered based on need, therefore the County does not represent or guarantee that the A/E Contractor will receive any Task Orders.

ITEM 2 – Q&A

1. For clarification, it was mentioned that up to three offeror’s will be selected for each of the five categories, please confirm.

ANSWER: Yes, please see Item 1, Number 1 of this addendum.

2. For clarification, it was mentioned that if three offeror’s are selected for each of the five categories, that a rotation of tasks will be utilized for each category with the multiple offeror’s, please confirm.

ANSWER: Yes, please see Item 1, Number 2 of this addendum.

3. Are there any DBE requirements?

ANSWER: No.

4. Do we need to know our subs up front?

ANSWER: It is preferred to provide the subs at the time of submitting your proposal.

5. Per the RFP, Section VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, H.5, “The Offeror shall provide information on the corporate structure of its firm as well as any proposed subcontractors required to perform the required work.” Does the County require the corporate structure of each subcontractor?

ANSWER: Yes.

6. Do we need to have our Vendors (e.g. laboratories, drillers, etc.) included in our submittal as well, or can we add after the contract is awarded as needed?

ANSWER: It is preferred to provide the Vendors at the time of submitting your proposal.

7. Can we sub for another firm if we are primary in another category?

8. Is it permissible to submit as a prime consultant and a subconsultant in the same category?

9. Does the county require references from the subconsultants?

ANSWER: Not at the time of submitting the proposal however reference may be requested at any time after.

10. Will this proposal include any of the required Virginia Ordinance updates such as the Chesapeake Bay, MS4, IIDE and the New Combined E&S/SWM ordinances?

11. Section C number 24, can you expand on the potential for doing MS4 annual reports?

ANSWER: If the County is deemed to become an MS4, we would require assistance in

RFP No. 24-16-KB Page 3 of 4 providing the documentation for the annual reports.

12. Are you currently an MS4?

ANSWER: No, however we were listed in the short list of potential localities to be required by DEQ.

13. Are there any incumbents?

14. Who are the incumbents?

ANSWER: Sullivan, Donahoe and Ingalls, P.C., Legacy Engineering, P.C. and Wetlands Studies and Solutions, Inc.

15. Will the existing incumbent firm continue with this proposal along with the new entrants?

ANSWER: No, the current contracts will expire. Incumbents are encouraged to submit a proposal along with all other Vendors.

16. Are the current contracts broken into the same five categories?

17. Will this proposal and the selected Offeror’s take over any of the existing County projects?

18. If we are submitting to all five engineering categories, can we submit one organization chart or do we need a separate organization chart/resumes for each category.

ANSWER: One organization chart is acceptable.

19. If we are submitting to all five engineering categories, can we submit one statement of understanding or is a separate statement of understanding required for each category?

ANSWER: One statement of understanding is acceptable.

20. Per the RFP, Section VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, B. “… The Offeror is asked to address each evaluation criteria contained in Section VII, Proposal Evaluation Criteria and to be specific in presenting their qualifications.” Please confirm if the County wants the proposal to be structured based on the evaluation criteria.

ANSWER: The structure of the proposal is left to the discretion of the Vendor.

21. Would it be acceptable to have separate proposals per category contained in one volume of the proposal and then have a combined attachments section?

ANSWER: The structure of the proposal is left to the discretion of the Vendor.

22. Where in the Statement of Understanding should we include our team’s experience?

ANSWER: The structure of the proposal is left to the discretion of the Vendor

23. Per the RFP, Section VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, H.4, “Proposed approach to

RFP No. 24-16-KB Page 4 of 4 provide the requested services”: Is the approach just for the broad Engineering Categories or should it include the detailed subcategories under the Engineering Categories?

ANSWER: This is just for the broad Engineering Categories.

24. Per the RFP, Section VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, H.6.i, “A list of completed projects and a resume of personnel expected to be assigned to this contract including the name(s) of the partner in charge”: Does the County want a list of completed projects or full project sheets? If a list, do you want us to include anything specific about the projects in the list?

ANSWER: A list of completed project with an overview of each.

ITEM 3 – PRE-PROPOSAL ATTENDEES

1. Rachel Schwaab, Ramboll

2. Leo Snead, JMT

3. Legacy Engineering, Briana Hairfield

4. Shoaib Pasha from WebHawkx Technologies

5. Stacey Juran, IMEG

6. Nadine Robertson, WSSI, Inc.

7. Chris Schrinel, WSSI, Inc.

8. Jennifer Hubbard, Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.

9. Thomas Laughlin, TRC Engineers, Inc.

10. Marit Chasse, RDA

11. Hollis Sullivan, RDA

12. Timothy Jacoby, RDA

13. Varun raj podduturi, Webhawkx Technologies

14. Faiza Tanzeem, WebHawkx LLC

15. Mary Schmidt, Dewberry

16. Claire LeDoyen, Environ-Civil Engineering

17. Kevin Utt, AMT

18. Hannah Gill, Dewberry

19. Jhave Khay, Langan Engineering and Environmental Services

20. Randy Comer, Froehling & Robertson

21. Karuna Pujara, ATCS

22. Michael Claud, Timmons Group

23. Andrea Heller, APEX Companies, LLC

Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum with Proposal submission.

January 24, 2024 Katie Baird Date Senior Procurement Officer