42184-2RFQ26 AD1.pdf

DATE: August 31, 2026

TO: Interested Firms

FROM: Breanna Pierce, Procurement Specialist

SUBJECT: Addendum 1 to Request for Qualifications 42184 – Mechanical Vegetation Management with Operator

As a result of questions received from potential respondents, please be advised of the following changes to the subject Request for Qualification:

1. The time and date for the submittal of responses remains the same: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 1,

2. Question: After reviewing the equipment requirements listed in the Invitation to Bid, wanted to clarify whether the specific makes and models of equipment listed by the Owner are required in order to perform the work. Could you please confirm whether we are required to have these specific pieces of equipment and attachments, or whether we may use different makes/models of equipment that are equivalent in size, horsepower, capabilities, and performance and can safely perform the required work?

The equipment listed are examples of the types of equipment we have employed on various projects.

Other makes and models that can do similar work are acceptable.

3. Question: Are you able to share a sample bid document for a project with this scope or can you reference another project with the same scope I could review completed bid packages for?

Each work order request is different regarding acreage, type of vegetation, and size of vegetation.

Equipment needed differs from project to project based on these parameters. Some are large continuous acreage mulching/mowing while others may be more linear as when brushing back road edges. Qualified vendors bid on projects that they are interested in and have adequate equipment for..

4. Question: Must a firm that responded to 42184 also respond to 42184-2RFQ26 in order to be considered?

Yes, a firm must submit a response to Solicitation 42184-2RFQ26 to be considered for this procurement opportunity. RFQ 42184-2RFQ26 is a separate and distinct solicitation from RFQ 42184. The solicitation documents expressly state that the District is requesting Statements of Qualifications to establish a new pool of prequalified contractors under RFQ 42184-2RFQ26.

Because the prior solicitation was rejected and reissued, there is no provision for automatic inclusion, transfer, or carryover of responses submitted under RFQ 42184. Accordingly, any firm seeking consideration for prequalification under RFQ 42184-2RFQ26 must submit a complete and responsive qualification package in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

5. Question: Will contractors prequalified under 42184 be included in the same pool as those prequalified under 42184-2RFQ26?

No contractors or respondents were prequalified under Solicitation 42184. Following the rejection of that solicitation, the District published a Notice of Intended Decision stating that the procurement would be re-solicited at a later date, resulting in Solicitation 42184-2RFQ26. As such, any prequalification pool established under 42184-2RFQ26 is derived solely from the reissued solicitation. This interpretation is supported by the solicitation language, which consistently refers to “this solicitation” when describing the pool of prequalified contractors, indicating that the pool is limited to respondents who submit qualifications in response to 42184-2RFQ26.

6. Question: Is the $1,500,000 aggregate not-to-exceed budget shared across agreements resulting from both solicitations?

Solicitation 42184 was rejected and subsequently re-solicited as 42184-2RFQ26, which constitutes a separate and independent procurement. The $1,500,000 not-to-exceed amount represents the budgeted Cap-Share allocation for this solicitation only and should not be interpreted as a shared or aggregate budget across multiple solicitations. Following evaluation of the Statements of Qualifications, only respondents determined to be qualified under 42184-2RFQ26 will be eligible to participate in future Work Order Requests. Funding for each individual Work Order will be established based on the specific scope of work and acreage requirements associated with that request. Accordingly, the solicitation language clearly limits the referenced $1.5 million budget to 42184-2RFQ26 and does not extend it beyond this procurement.

7. Question: Documented equipment access. Section 2.1(d) permits a Respondent to own, lease, or have documented access to the required equipment. Will documented access, for example a written availability letter from an equipment dealer or rental supplier, be evaluated as equivalent to owned equipment for the Equipment Availability and Capability criterion?

Yes. If a respondent provides proof of ownership, a lease agreement, or documentation demonstrating access to the required equipment, such as a written availability letter from an equipment dealer or rental supplier, the respondent will be considered to have access to that equipment for evaluation purposes. Section 2.1(d) states: “Respondent must own, lease, or have documented access to equipment.” The solicitation makes no distinction in the evaluation criteria between equipment that is owned, leased, or supported by documented access. Accordingly, a written availability letter constitutes acceptable documentation of access and will be evaluated as meeting the requirement.

8. Question: Work Order equipment specifications. Will the equipment specifications provided with each Work Order Request vary by project, for example some requiring boom-reach equipment able to work from a levee top and others requiring only track-mounted equipment? If so, may a prequalified contractor decline to quote a Work Order whose equipment specification it cannot meet, without effect on its standing in the pool or on its past-performance evaluation?

Yes, equipment specifications will vary by project. The solicitation states, “Provide a list of equipment specifications required for each Work Order Request,” confirming that equipment requirements will be determined on a project-specific basis. A qualified contractor may decline to respond to a Work Order Request if unable to meet the equipment requirements for that project. The RFQ does not require contractors to respond to every Work Order Request, nor does it include any penalty for declining due to equipment limitations.

9. Question: Production rates. Are the production rates stated in Scope Section III.B (one acre per day moderate density, two-thirds acre per day heavy density, and eight acres per day for palmetto and trees under four inches DBH) evaluated as part of this prequalification, or are they performance requirements applied to the equipment and acreage specified in each individual Work Order?

Production rates are performance requirements, not prequalification scoring criteria. Section III.B describes required rates during Work Order performance, not during RFQ evaluation. The pass/fail criteria for prequalification only require: “Respondent provided documentation showing its equipment is suitable… and capable of meeting production requirements.” Thus, production rates are not evaluated as performance metrics during RFQ review, only as capability.

10. Question: Pricing. Please confirm that no pricing, rate schedule, unit-price sheet, or bid bond is to be submitted with a response to this Request for Qualifications, and that pricing is submitted only in response to individual Work Order Requests following prequalification.

The purpose of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to evaluate and establish a pool of qualified contractors based exclusively on demonstrated experience, capabilities, and qualifications, without consideration of pricing. Respondents are not required to submit pricing, rate schedules, unit prices, bid bonds, or any other cost-related information as part of their qualifications package. Consistent with the solicitation’s intent, pricing will be solicited only after prequalification has been completed and specific Work Orders are issued. As expressly stated in the RFQ, “Work Orders… shall be competitively solicited among all prequalified contractors,” and “Contractor compensation will be based on Contractor’s quote… in each Work Order Request.” Accordingly, contractor selection under this RFQ is based solely on qualifications, while pricing competition occurs at the individual Work Order stage.

11. Question: Affiliated and predecessor experience. May a Respondent rely on projects performed by a wholly owned subsidiary, an acquired entity, or a predecessor operating under a prior trade name to satisfy the three-year experience requirement and the Similar Projects minimums in Sections 2.1(a) and 2.1(b)? If so, what documentation of the corporate relationship should accompany the Similar Projects Form?

Yes, if properly documented. The RFQ requires three years’ experience and similar projects but does not restrict the source of that experience to the respondent entity alone. You may rely on: wholly owned subsidiaries, acquired entities predecessor companies, and prior trade names. Documentation recommended: proof of ownership or acquisition (e.g., merger documents, Sunbiz filings), statement explaining continuity of operations, and clear linkage between the entity performing the work and the Respondent Attach this explanation to the Similar Projects Form.

12. Question: Subcontracted equipment. Section 17 of the draft Agreement requires written District approval to subcontract. May a Respondent identify in its Tab C submittal a subcontractor providing specialized equipment with operator, and would that subcontractor's equipment be credited toward the Equipment Availability and Capability criterion?

Yes, with conditions. Section 17 of the draft Agreement requires District approval to subcontract, but the RFQ allows: “Respondent must own, lease, or have documented access to equipment…” A subcontractor providing equipment with operator qualifies as “documented access” if you provide documentation (e.g., subcontractor commitment letter). Thus, subcontractor equipment can be credited toward Equipment Availability and Capability.

13. Question: Evidence of insurance at submittal. Section 2.3, Tab A(5) requires proof of insurability at submittal, with a full Certificate of Insurance required of the Successful Respondent. Please confirm that a broker's letter of insurability meeting the Attachment C limits is sufficient at submittal, and that carrier-equivalent endorsement forms are acceptable in place of CG 20 10 04 13 and CG 24 04 05 09 where a carrier issues its own equivalent form.

Yes. Tab A(5) requires: “Proof of insurability… Successful Respondent will be required to obtain and provide a Certificate of Insurance…” This means proof at submittal, not full COI. A broker’s letter meeting Attachment C limits is acceptable. Carrier equivalent endorsements are also acceptable because the RFQ does not require CG specific forms, only coverage equivalent to the stated requirements.

14. Question: Pollution and environmental impairment coverage. Attachment C requires Pollution/Environmental Impairment Liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence where the contractor transports or stores fuel on a vehicle, trailer, or piece of equipment. Please confirm whether this coverage must be evidenced at submittal or only at Agreement execution.

The RFQ does not require Pollution Liability to be shown at submittal. Tab A(5) only requires “proof of insurability” for required insurance(s). Attachment C lists Pollution Liability only when applicable (fuel transport/storage). Thus: At RFQ submittal; proof of insurability is sufficient and At Agreement execution; full COI including Pollution Liability must be provided if applicable to your operations.

15. Question: As I read through the list of submittals, I didn't see that a bid bond was required. I just wanted to confirm. Also, do you have a budget for this project*?

This project does not require a Bid Bond. The total budgeted amount is $1,500,000, which serves as the Cap Share for all projects executed under the term of this agreement. Individual Work Order Requests will have varying estimated budgets that are substantially lower than the overall Cap Share amount. The estimated annual spend is $500k/annum. Each awarded Work Order Request will be deducted from the available Cap Share balance. The vendor awarded a specific Work Order Request will be responsible for completing that project. Because multiple Work Order Requests are anticipated throughout the year, the Cap Share structure provides the necessary funding framework to support these recurring project needs while maintaining budget oversight and accountability.

16. Question: Would it be advantageous for the St. John's River Management District to have an aquatics company like us on the contract? We have 6 weedoo boats and 2 Kaiser Spider excavators (Mulching Head).

This RFQ is limited to upland mulch mowing; therefore, the equipment described would not be suitable for this solicitation. The District may consider this type of equipment for future aquatic vegetation management projects if a relevant opportunity is advertised.

NOTE: Please acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in your submittal.

If you have any questions regarding this addendum, contact Breanna Pierce at (386) 643-1168 or via email at bpierce@sjrwmd.com.