26-00-09 Special Inspections of Trusses - Addendum 2.pdf

ADDENDUM 2

Project: Special Inspections - Trusses Date: November 25, 2025

Invitation for Bid No.: 26-00-09

Owner: Medford School District 549C

Instructions to Prospective Bidders:

This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Bidding Documents and prior Addenda as noted below. All conditions, requirements, materials and workmanship are to be as described in the Contract Documents unless specifically stated otherwise. This Addendum consists of three pages.

General Notes:

None

Bid Questions Summary:

Q1: RFP Page 2 of 14, Bullet Point 5 under "Professional of Record Shall provide the following services": This bullet point says, "Identify structural members that do not meet current code requirements for load capacities." Since the majority of the buildings being evaluated were designed under older codes, it is expected that many structural members would not meet "current code requirements" for snow load. Please clarify the scope intent and if structural engineering analysis is requested in addition to structural services for visual assessments. This specific service would significantly increase the cost of work for each building. Is the intent that if a localized retrofit of a structural member is recommended based on the visual assessment, that the school district would evaluate a retrofit that would achieve meet current code level requirements?

A1: The structural members should be evaluated for visual damage and concerns for overstressing under an average snow load for this area. If a localized retrofit is recommended after a visual inspection, the district anticipates a repair will be suggested by the chosen engineering firm, that a local contractor can perform.

Q2: RFP Page 2 of 14, Bullet Point 6 under "Professional of Record Shall provide the following services": This bullet point says, "Perform a measurement of the structure’s current deflection." Is it acceptable to provide a measurement of the long-span members from grade to underside of structure instead of the structure's deflection? The deflection may be less useful to the owner in the future when evaluating the impact of different loads on the existing structure or for evaluating a potential hazard.

A2: The District is currently gathering measurements from grade to the underside of the structure. The hope is that a deflection number can be provided for the structure (or structural member) as to measure the amount of deflection occurring during a snow or heavy rain event.

Q3: RFP Page 2 of 14, Bullet Point 3 under "Professional of Record will deliver": Is it clearer to describe the "deficient" expectation as "damage" since the intent of the visual examination is not a code deficiency check but instead a visual deterioration and/or damage evaluation?

A3: Yes.

Q4: RFP Page 3 of 14, Evaluation Criteria, Section One, Bullet Point 4: This bullet point requests disclosed names and services by subcontracted consultants and cost estimators. We do not see a cost estimate as part of the identified service and deliverable for the project. Therefore, please confirm a cost consultant is not a requirement for the project team.

A4: A cost consultant is not necessary for the project team.

Q5: RFP Page 4 of 14, Evaluation Criteria, Section Three, Bullet Point 2: This bullet point requests "total cost of work, and total project change orders". Since this type of project is not preparing work for construction, please confirm it is acceptable to provide project examples without relaying the project construction costs and/or project change orders.

A5: The District understands that a total cost of work cannot be provided at this time.

Project examples are acceptable.

Q6: RFP Page 4 of 14, Evaluation Criteria, Section Three, Bullet Point 3: This bullet point requests "Give examples of successful K-12 schools in Oregon projects for meeting project budgets and work schedules". Since this type of work is not as common, is it acceptable if examples of similar existing building evaluations and/or projects for other market sectors be provided instead?

A6: Yes. Given the newness of this type of evaluation examples of similar existing building evaluations and/or projects for other market sectors are acceptable.

Q7: RFP Page 4 of 14, Evaluation Criteria, Section Four, Bullet Point 1: This bullet point requests references of clients served. In particular, requesting contacts for K-12 school projects. Since this type of work is not as common, is it acceptable to provide references for Owner and Contractors for projects in other market sectors that can speak to our services?

A7: Yes. Given the newness of this type of evaluation examples of similar existing building evaluations and/or projects for other market sectors are acceptable.