7-49-RFP-26 Addendum 1.pdf

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 1 of 7

120 MALABAR ROAD SE, PALM BAY, FL 32907-3009

49-RFP-26

Citywide Debt Collection Re-Bid September 28, 2026

Addendum 1

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

The purpose of this addendum is to provide the following changes, modifications, or additions to the contract documents and technical specifications.

QUESTIONS RECEIVED:

1. QUESTION: Please describe your level of satisfaction with your current or recent vendor(s) for the same purchasing activity, if applicable.

RESPONSE: Service was satisfactory, but there were issues with incorrect billing of collection fees, resulting in back-and-forth over invoice corrections.

2. QUESTION: Are bidders permitted to deviate in any way from any manner of quoting fees you may be expecting? For example, if there is a pricing page in the RFP, can bidders submit an alternate fee structure? If there is no pricing page in the RFP, do you have any preference for how bidders should quote fees or can bidders create their own pricing categories?

RESPONSE: Bidders must respond with either flat-rate fees or percentage fees, as shown in the bid table.

3. QUESTION: When is the anticipated award date?

RESPONSE: The award date is to be determined.

4. QUESTION: When is the anticipated contract start date?

RESPONSE: Upon contract execution.

5. QUESTION: When is the anticipated go-live date?

RESPONSE: Upon contract execution.

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 2 of 7

6. QUESTION: Can you please indicate what inbound and outbound contact methods, beyond phone calls or letters (such as email and text), would be permitted by the scope of work?

RESPONSE: Please see the Scope of Work, General Service Requirements, Number 6.

7. QUESTION: Who is your electronic payment/credit card processing vendor?

RESPONSE: The City of Palm Bay Building Department currently uses Bridgepay to collect credit card payments.

8. QUESTION: What is your case management/accounting software system of record?

RESPONSE: Intuitive Municipal Solutions (iMS). Outstanding accounts are tracked in Excel.

9. QUESTION: If applicable, will accounts held by any incumbent(s) or any backlog be moved to any new vendor(s) as a one-time placement at contract start-up?

RESPONSE: Please see Scope of Work, Transfer of Accounts, Number 1.

10. QUESTION: Have all cases been fully adjudicated by the time of placement?

RESPONSE: There are no accounts in litigation.

11. QUESTION: What billing servicer do you utilize?

RESPONSE: N/A

12. QUESTION: To what extent are these accounts owed by private consumers versus commercial businesses?

RESPONSE: 90% Commercial

13. QUESTION: What estimated or actual dollars were paid last year, last month, or last quarter to any incumbent(s)?

RESPONSE: Previous vendor fees were based on a percentage of what was owed to the city and were paid directly to the vendor. Fees collected in 2025 were $1488.18, 2024-$1304.24, and 2023-$2682.24.

14. QUESTION: How are fees currently being billed by any incumbent(s), by category, and at what rates?

RESPONSE: The previous vendor billed account holders directly. See question 17 for percentages.

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 3 of 7

15. QUESTION: To what extent will the location of the bidder’s proposed location or headquarters have a bearing on any award?

RESPONSE: NA

16. QUESTION: Please identify the reason the City canceled or discontinued the previous procurement for Citywide Debt Collection Services and reissued the requirement as 49-RFP-26. Were any material scope, pricing, contractual, or evaluation concerns identified during the previous procurement that proposers should consider when preparing responses to this re-bid?

RESPONSE: All proposals were rejected because the documents were altered from what the City issued, preventing an apples-to-apples comparison.

17. QUESTION: Please identify the previous contractor and provide the contingency fee rates applicable under the contract that expired on March 31, 2026, including any separate rates for primary and secondary placements.

RESPONSE: The most recent Vendor was RTR. First Placement -60-day old 12.5%, 90-day old-14%, 120-day old 16%. Second Placement 20%

18. QUESTION: Please provide the approximate age distribution and dollar value of the 406 primary accounts and 249 secondary accounts expected at contract commencement, preferably by year of expiration or by aging category.

RESPONSE: All accounts are from the last 3 years. Of the outstanding accounts, 76 are secondary placements totaling $5,700. As of July 2026, there are approximately 406 primary accounts totaling $30,450.

19. QUESTION: Please provide the historical annual or monthly number and dollar value of Building Department accounts placed with the previous contractor during the most recent available 12-month period.

RESPONSE: In 2025, 1156 Accounts were placed, valuing $78,699.

20. QUESTION: Please provide the previous contractor’s recovery or liquidation results for Building Department accounts during the most recent available 12-month period, separately for primary and secondary placements if available.

RESPONSE: The previous Vendor resolved about 600 accounts and received approximately $10,000. All were primary placements. The only secondary accounts are when a new contract is awarded.

21. QUESTION: Appendix A identifies an average annual quantity of 700 accounts and an average annual dollar amount of $54,000 for each of the 60-, 90-, and 120-day

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 4 of 7 categories. Does the City anticipate placing 700 accounts annually in each category, for a combined total of 2,100 first-placement accounts and $162,000 annually, or do the three rows represent alternative placement-aging scenarios applied to the same estimated annual inventory?

RESPONSE: Alternative scenarios applied to the same estimated annual inventory.

22. QUESTION: The RFP states that the City does not accept partial payments on placed accounts. May the contractor establish payment arrangements under which installments are retained until the full amount has been received, or must the debtor remit the entire balance and collection fee in one transaction?

RESPONSE: If the collection agency wants to establish arrangements, that is their choice. The Building Department does not accept partial payments for outstanding balances.

23. QUESTION: If payment arrangements are permitted, may the contractor remit collected installments to the City as received, or should remittance occur only after the debtor has paid the full account balance?

RESPONSE: Remittance should occur only after the debtor has paid the full account balance.

24. QUESTION: How frequently will City departments notify the contractor of direct payments, account recalls, adjustments, lien-search payments, bankruptcies, deceased debtors, or other account-status changes?

RESPONSE: As they happen.

25. QUESTION: For accounts paid to the City through a lien search, what information will the City provide to distinguish qualifying lien-search payments from other direct payments for which the contractor remains entitled to its collection fee?

RESPONSE: If payment is made directly to the city for some reason, the Building Department will pay the fees to the collection agency for Building Department accounts. We do our best to direct all customers placed in collections to the collection agency.

26. QUESTION: Please provide the total outstanding balance associated with the approximately 406 primary placement accounts and 249 secondary placement accounts expected to be transferred to the awarded contractor.

RESPONSE: $36,150.00

27. QUESTION: Please identify the incumbent collection agency and provide the pricing structure currently or previously utilized under the contract.

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 5 of 7

RESPONSE: See question 17.

28. QUESTION: What was paid to the incumbent collection agency in the last year?

RESPONSE: See question 13.

29. QUESTION: What is your level of satisfaction with the incumbent's service and recovery?

RESPONSE: See question 1.

30. QUESTION: Will you provide any historical data/metrics regarding historical placements, placement volumes, inventory by debt type, average account balances, age at placement, or typical monthly placement volumes?

RESPONSE: Please see Scope of Services- Project Description- Building Background, and questions 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 32, and 34.

31. QUESTION: The pricing schedule lists 700 accounts under the 60-day, 90-day, and 120-day categories. Do these represent unique annual placements, or the same accounts progressing through successive aging stages?

RESPONSE: The same accounts are progressing through successive aging stages.

32. QUESTION: Please provide annual account placement volumes, total placement dollars, and recovery results for the previous three fiscal years.

RESPONSE: FY23-24 339 submitted, $25,425

FY24-25 471 submitted, $35,325

FY25-26 93 submitted, $6,975 (stopped submitting in Jan 26)

33. QUESTION: The solicitation references both Building and Utility Department accounts.

Should proposers assume only Building Department accounts will be included at contract award? If Utility or other account types may be added during the contract term, please provide estimated types and annual volumes and balances.

RESPONSE: Only Building accounts will be included. Utilities is not part of this solicitation.

34. QUESTION: Please provide the age distribution of the existing primary and secondary placement inventories expected to be transferred to the awarded contractor.

RESPONSE: All accounts are from the last 3 years.

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 6 of 7

35. QUESTION: Are there any minimum recovery goals, service-level requirements, or performance standards that will be used for contract administration, evaluation, or renewal?

RESPONSE: The goals are to collect as many outstanding fees as possible and to have the collection agency recover its fee directly from the customer.

36. QUESTION: Should proposers submit separate pricing for each aging category, or may a single contingency rate be proposed for all primary placements?

RESPONSE: Separate pricing, but it can be the same for all primary placements.

37. QUESTION: Do organizational charts, references, sample letters, and sample reports count toward the stated page limitations for the Qualifications and Technical Proposal sections?

RESPONSE: Organizational charts and references included in the Qualifications and Technical Proposal sections count toward the stated page limitations. Sample letters and sample reports do not count toward the page limitations.

38. QUESTION: The Project Details mention both the Utility and Building Departments, but Section 2.1 only references the Building Department and unpaid permit fees. Will Utility accounts be included in the initial contract? If so, can the City provide the estimated annual number and dollar value of Utility accounts, average account balance, and approximate age when they are sent to collections?

RESPONSE: See question #33.

39. QUESTION: Appendix A shows 700 accounts totaling $54,000 for each of the 60-day, 90-day, and 120-day categories. Are these three separate groups of 700 accounts, or are the same 700 accounts being shown at three possible ages of placement?

RESPONSE: The same accounts are shown at 3 stages of placement.

40. QUESTION: The RFP states that approximately 406 primary Building accounts will be transferred at the start of the contract. Can the City provide the approximate total dollar value and aging of these accounts?

RESPONSE: $30,150

41. QUESTION: The RFP also identifies approximately 249 secondary placement accounts totaling $19,000. Can the City provide the approximate age of these accounts and how long they were worked by the previous collection agency? Will any previous collection activity or contact history be provided with these accounts?

RESPONSE: All accounts are from the last 3 years. The City does not have any information about how long or to what extent the accounts were worked.

49-RFP-26- Citywide Debt Collection Service Re-bid - Page 7 of 7

42. QUESTION: The RFP states that the collection agency will collect the original balance plus its collection fee directly from the debtor. For percentage-based pricing, should the contingency percentage be calculated on the original balance owed to the City?

Does the City currently have policies and language notifying customers that a collection fee may be added when an account is sent to collections?

RESPONSE: Yes, to both questions.

43. QUESTION: Section 2.1 states that first notices must be mailed no later than 45 days after “the City receives the first submittal of delinquent accounts.” Is this intended to mean 45 days after the collection agency receives the first placement file from the City?

RESPONSE: This should be within 45 days of submittal to the collection agency.

44. QUESTION: Did the City utilize a previous collection agency? If so, who was the previous vendor, and what contingency fee or pricing structure was used for Building and Utility accounts?

RESPONSE: See question 17.

45. QUESTION: If an account is paid directly to the City or recalled after collection activity has started, does the contractor receive the full contracted contingency fee, or is the fee calculated differently based on the work performed?

RESPONSE: See question 25.