3-RFP 7136-26-ELD - Addendum 2.docx

LUBBOCK POWER & LIGHT

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

1314 AVENUE K

LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79401

ADDENDUM #2

BID NUMBER: RFP# 7136-26-ELD

TITLE: RFP# LP&L Electric Utility Structures UAV Imagery Services CLOSE DATE: September 10, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. CST DATE ISSUED: September 2, 2026 All requests for additional information or clarification must be submitted in writing and directed to:

Bonfire Vendor Discussion Tab

The following items take precedence over requirements for the above-named Request for Proposal (RFP). Where any item called for in the RFP documents is supplemented here, the original requirements, not affected by this addendum, shall remain in effect.

Questions and answers, please see questions in red.

1. For this bid, what type of software is required for the inspections? Or do we need to utilize our own? Please review item 4 of addendum #1. Offeror is to provide their own software.

2. The checklist states “Documents MUST be completed in blue or black ink or by word processor.” Can you please confirm that we can complete the forms electronically with a PDF editor? Electronic format is fine to include signatures.

3. Would you allow us to use an electronic signature platform similar to Adobe/DocuSign instead of signing in ink? Yes,

4. The RFP includes the “Bulk Power System Sourcing Disclosure Form”. Since you are requesting imagery inspection services rather than a supply of good, is this form required? Yes, form must still be filled out and signed. N/A can be labeled in the form.

5. Are you able to provide a standardized pricing page so all bidders submit pricing in the same format? No, offerors are to submit their own proposal pricing sheet.

6. We have more than one insurance broker. Are we able to list multiple brokers on the insurance requirement affidavit? Yes, please submit an affidavit form for each broker.

7. The RFP requires anomalies to be classified using LP&L’s A-E severity scale and reported with a rating, tag, affected component, and issue description. Does LP&L have an existing defect/tag library, component classification, or inspection standard that the selected Offeror should follow? Not at this time but we will develop criteria/defects upon award.

8. Does LP&L have existing PDF, spreadsheet, KMZ, naming convention, or field/schema standards that the selected Offeror will be expected to follow? If available, can LP&L provide a representative inspection report or example dataset? LP&L will provide available GIS location data, including shapefile and/or KML/KMZ files to the awarded Offeror. LP&L does not currently have a required PDF report format, spreadsheet template, naming convention, or field/schema standard for this project. Offerors should describe their standard reporting format, data schema, naming conventions, and available export formats in their proposals. A representative dataset may be provided to the selected Offeror during project implementation.

9. Could qualified electrical workers (QEWs) with a relevant amount of experience working on these specific inspection scopes across the US be a relevant resource for this program instead of a Journeyman Lineman? Must be Journeyman Lineman or Electrical Engineer.

10. Please clarify the Journeyman Lineman review requirement. Is LP&L requiring a qualified Journeyman Lineman to individually review every image, or may imagery undergo an initial review/processing workflow provided that identified conditions and final inspection results receive Journeyman Lineman QA/QC and approval? Yes as long as final QA/QC is done by qualified Journeyman Lineman or Electrical Engineer.

11. Please clarify how LP&L intends infrared/thermal inspection pricing to be applied. Should thermal review be priced as an incremental cost in addition to the applicable distribution/transmission structure review, or as a standalone per-structure inspection category? This should be priced as an additional cost.

12. The RFP requires imagery to be hosted within a secure cloud portal and notes that the selected Offeror must have the ability to migrate imagery into an asset management system. Can LP&L provide additional detail on its current or anticipated asset management, GIS, work management, or other enterprise systems that will need to interact with the inspection data? LP&L is currently evaluating options for a future asset and work management system; however, implementation may take some time. The selected Offeror should securely host the imagery and inspection data and maintain the ability to export and migrate all imagery, defect records, reports, and related metadata into LP&L’s future system using commonly accepted, nonproprietary file formats. Any specific integration requirements will be coordinated with the selected Offeror once LP&L selects and implements a system.

13. To assist Offerors with planning appropriate staffing and review capacity, can LP&L clarify the anticipated cadence and seasonality of imagery collection and delivery, including whether data will be provided continuously, in periodic batches, or as a monthly upload, and the expected turnaround time from receipt of imagery through completion of the reviewed dataset and final deliverables? LP&L anticipates providing imagery primarily through monthly uploads; however, imagery may occasionally be delivered in periodic batches depending on field operations, weather, staffing, and collection schedules. Offerors should plan for variable monthly volumes sufficient to support LP&L’s annual target of approximately 11,600 structures. The expected turnaround time from receipt of imagery through completion of review, QA/QC, and final deliverables is approximately two to three weeks.

14. What turnaround time does LP&L expect from receipt of each monthly imagery package through completion of the reviewed dataset and final deliverables? (lag time from collection to deliverable). 2-3weeks

15. How will imagery be organized when provided to the selected Offeror? Will LP&L associate and folder imagery by structure ID or asset prior to upload, or should the Offeror anticipate receiving larger unstructured imagery datasets that will require sorting, geolocation, asset assignment, and file renaming as part of the review process? The RFP identifies geolocating, assigning imagery to the corresponding structure ID, and renaming imagery as part of the Offeror's scope. LP&L will organize imagery by circuit and provide the applicable GIS shapefiles/KMZ data. Imagery will include embedded location metadata, and a nadir image will be captured at each structure to help establish its location. However, LP&L will not necessarily pre-folder or rename every image by structure ID. The selected Offeror should anticipate sorting the imagery, verifying geolocation, associating each image with the correct structure ID, and renaming or organizing the files as required by the RFP.

16. If imagery provided by LP&L is incomplete, unusable, incorrectly associated with an asset, or otherwise insufficient to complete the required inspection review, how should the selected Offeror account for the administrative and quality-control effort already performed? Should those structures be considered billable once review/QC activities have begun, or only after sufficient imagery is available to complete the inspection? Structures will be considered billable only after sufficient imagery is available to complete the inspection review. The selected Offeror should notify LP&L as soon as possible when incomplete, unusable, incorrectly associated, or otherwise insufficient imagery is identified so that any quality issues can be promptly resolved.

17. The RFP states PDF and spreadsheet reporting summarizing inspection results. Would LP&L consider allowing the selected Offeror's secure cloud-based inspection platform to serve as the primary environment for reviewing imagery, defects, ratings, comments, and inspection history, with PDF and spreadsheet reports generated or exported as needed Yes as long as it can be exported.

18. Would LP&L be open to recommendations from the selected Offeror regarding imagery collection techniques, file naming conventions, metadata requirements, folder structure, or other data standards that could improve the efficiency and consistency of asset association, inspection review, and reporting? Yes

19. Can LP&L provide additional information regarding the UAS platforms, cameras, and sensors anticipated for use in collecting the visual and thermal imagery under this program? Specifically, should Offerors anticipate imagery collected using DJI platforms, Blue UAS/NDAA-compliant platforms, other aircraft systems, or a combination of equipment? LP&L anticipates collecting imagery primarily with the Skydio X10 using its factory-installed visual and radiometric thermal camera systems. The Skydio X10 is a Blue UAS/NDAA-compliant platform. Offerors should not anticipate imagery collected using DJI platforms; however, LP&L may use other approved aircraft or sensor systems if operational needs change.

20. Section III references approximately 11,775 distribution structures and 443 transmission structures annually, while Addendum #1 states LP&L anticipates approximately 11,600 structures annually. Please confirm the estimated annual quantities LP&L intends Offerors to use for pricing and proposal evaluation, including the anticipated quantities for distribution, transmission, and transmission structures with distribution underbuild. 11,600 distribution 443 transmission .disregard the 11,775

21. Please confirm whether the requested infrared/thermal inspection price is intended to be an additional per-structure charge applied in addition to the applicable distribution, transmission, or transmission-with-underbuild unit price, or whether thermal review should be included within those respective structure prices. This will be an additional cost.

22. LP&L identified ArcGIS as its current system. Does LP&L require a direct connection into ArcGIS, or will providing compatible files, inspection data, and image links be acceptable? Providing compatible files, inspection data and image links will be acceptable.

23. Since the final defect matrix won't be shared until after award, should Offerors propose their own severity/classification methodology in the technical approach section, understood to be reconciled against LP&L's matrix later? Yes

24. Does every image require review by a Journeyman Lineman, or are they required for a sampling of images for quality control purposes? A Journeyman Lineman is not required to review every image. However, a qualified Journeyman Lineman or Electrical engineer must perform spot checks on a representative sample of the reviewed imagery for quality-control purposes.

25. Is the use of Artificial Intelligence and/or Machine Learning allowed in the image inspection process before certified lineman review? Yes.

26. What asset management system does LP&L want imagery/reports migrated into — and is API/integration work expected, or just a defined export format? LP&L is currently evaluating options for a future asset and work management system; therefore, no specific API or system integration is required at this time. The selected Offeror will be expected to securely host and retain the imagery and inspection data and provide exports of all imagery, defect records, reports, and associated metadata in commonly accepted, nonproprietary formats suitable for future migration. Any API, integration, or system-specific requirements will be coordinated separately if LP&L selects and implements a system during the contract term.

27. The addendum says LP&L anticipates 3–4 thermal images per applicable structure, focused mainly on transmission. Since "infrared/thermal inspection" is its own pricing line item, can you confirm: does thermal imagery apply to distribution structures at all, or primarily/only transmission? Please include Distribution price for thermal

28. With monthly volumes variable around the ~11,600/year average, how much advance notice does LP&L typically give before a monthly package is delivered, so we can staff appropriately? LP&L can provide a 30 day notice.

29. Is there flexibility on contract terms beyond indemnification/venue. No.

30. What's the expected RGB image count per structure (distribution vs. transmission), now that thermal counts are separated out from the original 6–10 / 20–30 combined ranges? LP&L anticipates providing approximately 3–4 RGB images per applicable structure. Images will focus primarily on critical connection points, including jumpers, connectors, insulators, and other components where defects are most likely to occur. Coverage may vary depending on structure configuration and complexity.

31. Does LP&L have any expectations, preferences, or restrictions regarding the use of AI-assisted or automated tools within the imagery review workflow? LP&L does not restrict the use of AI-assisted or automated tools within the imagery review workflow. However, AI-generated findings must be subject to appropriate QA/QC, including spot checks performed by a qualified Journeyman Lineman or professional engineer. The selected Offeror remains responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of all final findings and deliverables.

32. Do we need to have journeyman or lineman conducting the reviews of the inspection or can we have experienced engineers complete this? Must be Journeyman Lineman or Electrical Engineer.

33. What kind of thermal imagery will we be reviewing and are we looking for anything in particular like hot spots? LP&L will provide original radiometric thermal imagery captured primarily using Skydio X10 UAS platforms. Thermal imagery will generally focus on transmission structures and electrical connection points or components where abnormal heating may occur, such as connectors, jumpers, splices, switches, and other energized hardware. The selected Offeror should review the thermal imagery for abnormal heat signatures, hot spots, or thermal anomalies that may indicate loose or deteriorating connections, excessive resistance, component degradation, or other conditions requiring further investigation. Identified anomalies should be documented, associated with the applicable structure/component, and prioritized based on apparent severity.

34. How many images are you expecting to deliver on a per pole/structure for both transmission and distribution? We anticipate 6-10 on distribution and up to 20-25 on T-line

35. Do you have a list of defects and their severity to be identified during pole assessment for review? LP&L will provide the selected Offeror with the applicable defect list and severity classifications upon award.

36. The RFP references hosting of imagery within the successful bidder's secure cloud portal. Does LPL intend to upload captured imagery directly to the bidder's cloud, or will some other process be utilized? How will imagery be organized by structure? LP&L intends to upload captured imagery directly to the selected Offeror’s secure cloud portal or other mutually agreed-upon secure transfer method. The selected Offeror will be responsible for securely hosting and maintaining the imagery and associated inspection data in a manner that allows LP&L to access and export the data. LP&L will provide available circuit information, GIS/shapefile data, and geolocation information associated with the captured imagery. The selected Offeror should anticipate using this information to associate and organize the imagery by the corresponding structure/asset within its platform.

Thank You,

1 RFP# 7136-26-ELD - Addendum #2 image1.png