7-Kaysville City AV RFP Addendum No 3.pdf

Kaysville City AV Replacement RFP | Addendum No. 3

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Kaysville City Council Chambers

Police Department Emergency Operations Center

Audiovisual System Replacement

ADDENDUM NO. 3

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL EXISTING-CONDITION INFORMATION

RFP Issue Date: August 17, 2026

Addendum Issue Date: September 22, 2026

Proposal Due Date: September 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time

This Addendum No. 3 provides additional clarifications, responses to written proposer questions, and supplemental existing-condition information related to the Request for Proposal. It is incorporated into and made part of the RFP.

Except as expressly modified or clarified below, all requirements, terms, conditions, and deadlines remain unchanged.

1. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: Please clarify insurance, bonding, liquidated damages, prevailing-wage, permitting, and tax requirements applicable to this project.

Answer: The selected contractor will be required to provide documentation of liability insurance with coverage of at least $2,000,000. The City is not establishing additional insurance-specific requirements through this RFP beyond the stated minimum coverage. No bid bond, performance bond, or payment bond is required. The City is not establishing liquidated damages or separate prevailing-wage requirements through this RFP.

The selected contractor must be properly licensed to conduct business in the State of Utah and must maintain any contractor or professional licenses required by the State of Utah for the work performed under this project.

The City does not currently anticipate that a City permit will be required for the work as scoped. If the final design includes work requiring a City permit, the City will coordinate the applicable permitting requirements with the selected contractor.

The City is tax-exempt for purchases made directly by the City. Proposers are responsible for determining the appropriate tax treatment of purchases made by the contractor and should clearly identify any taxes included in their proposal.

Any additional customary contract, licensing, or insurance documentation, if applicable, will be addressed with the selected contractor during the contract process.

Question 2: The final addendum is targeted for September 28, 2026, with proposals due September 30, 2026. Will the proposal due date be extended if the final addendum includes material changes affecting scope or pricing?

Answer: The September 28, 2026 date is the target date for final responses. The City may issue responses earlier.

The proposal due date remains September 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time. If an addendum includes material changes that the City determines require additional proposal preparation time, the City may extend the proposal deadline by written addendum.

Question 3: Will the City accept price adjustments if Notice to Proceed is issued more than 120 days after the

September 30, 2026 proposal due date?

Answer: The City does not anticipate Notice to Proceed being delayed more than 120 days after the proposal due date. If Notice to Proceed is not issued within 120 days, the City will consider documented requests for price adjustments at that time. Any adjustment is subject to City review and written agreement and is not automatic.

Question 4: How will schedule impacts caused by equipment availability, lead times, owner-furnished items, or other conditions be handled in relation to the target substantial-completion and final-acceptance dates?

Answer: The RFP identifies April 30, 2027 as the target substantial-completion date and May 26, 2027 as the target final-acceptance date. These are planning targets and may be adjusted by mutual agreement with the selected proposer as part of the final project schedule. The City's priority is successful completion with appropriate equipment and a reliable, fully functioning system. Necessary schedule adjustments will be coordinated and documented.

Question 5: Please provide the meeting calendar, blackout dates, allowable work windows, maximum acceptable outage, temporary operating-method requirements, and Police Department access requirements.

Answer: The City has flexibility regarding installation scheduling and room availability. Specific work windows, outages, meeting impacts, and any temporary arrangements will be coordinated with the selected proposer as part of the final project schedule and contract process. The City can provide project access badges. The EOC is located in a public/non-restricted portion of the Police Department and does not normally require a special Police escort, fingerprinting, or security clearance for normal project work. Staff Conference Room access requires coordination because it is an active work area.

Question 6: What review turnaround time should proposers assume for City review and approval of design submittals?

Answer: The City is not establishing a fixed number of business days for design or submittal review. Review timelines will be coordinated with the selected proposer as part of the final project schedule. The City intends to provide reviews and feedback in a timely manner so as not to unnecessarily delay the project.

Question 7: Appendix D provides a standardized pricing matrix. May proposers add rows, columns, supplemental pricing schedules, or more than five Optional/Alternate items?

Answer: Yes. Proposers shall complete Appendix D so the City's standard pricing categories and totals remain clear.

Proposers may add rows or columns and/or attach supplemental pricing schedules to provide the detail required by the RFP, including equipment quantities, unit pricing, extended totals, project management, shipping, travel, subscriptions, support, warranties, allowances, and other applicable costs. More than five Optional/Alternate items may be provided.

Question 8: Where should recurring costs such as annual support, subscriptions, licensing, and extended warranties be shown, and what evaluation term should be used for total cost of ownership?

Answer: Clearly identify all recurring costs, including annual support, software/service subscriptions, licensing, and extended warranties as applicable. Proposers may add rows to the pricing matrix or provide a supplemental pricing schedule. The City is primarily interested in the annual recurring cost. No separate five- or ten-year total-cost calculation is required. Identify the amount, what it covers, when it begins, and whether it is required or optional.

Question 9: The Compliance Matrix must identify each numbered section and subsection of the RFP. Please provide a numbered version or confirm how sections should be referenced.

Answer: The issued RFP includes numbered sections and subsections. Proposers shall use the section and subsection numbers shown in the RFP for the Requirements Compliance Matrix. No separately renumbered version will be issued.

Question 10: Please confirm how addenda, written questions and answers, and other bid documentation will be distributed, and whether a letter of intent or other registration is required.

Answer: The City's bid posting is the official location for RFP documents, addenda, written questions and answers, and other bid documentation. The project bid posting is available at www.kaysville.gov/AVproject. Proposers are responsible for reviewing the City posting for current documents and addenda. Site-walk attendance remains optional as provided by Addendum No. 1. No additional registration is required at this stage to remain eligible to submit a proposal.

Question 11: Please provide available floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, as-built drawings, rack elevations, cable schedules, or conduit/pathway drawings.

Answer: The City will provide available City Hall and Police Department building plans as separate supplemental files on the City's bid posting. The City is not representing that the plan sets contain AV as-builts, rack elevations, cable schedules, or complete conduit/pathway documentation. The plans are provided for reference only. Proposers remain https://www.kaysville.gov/AVproject responsible for verifying existing conditions, dimensions, pathways, and AV infrastructure and identifying assumptions as necessary.

Question 12: Please provide additional site-walk notes, measurements, photographs, and existing-equipment information.

Answer: The City has issued the Pre-Proposal Site Walk Minutes and is providing additional existing-condition photographs and measurements with Addendum No. 3. The City has provided the existing equipment information reasonably available in the RFP, appendices, issued addenda, and supplemental photographs. Complete manufacturer and model information is not available for all existing equipment. Proposers should use the information provided, verify existing conditions, and identify any necessary assumptions in their proposal.

Question 13: Please provide available information regarding the existing Council Conference Room and Staff

Conference Room AV systems.

Answer: The Council Conference Room and Staff Conference Room use substantially similar existing AV configurations. The Staff Conference Room includes an approximately 86-inch NEC display, Panasonic PTZ camera, Shure ceiling microphone, ceiling speakers, Crestron touch-panel control interface, table connections, a Crestron DM-

TX-4KZ-202-C, a Vaddio AV Bridge Mini, and associated under-table AV equipment. A fixed wide-angle replacement camera is acceptable as provided by the RFP. Supplemental photographs and available building plans are being provided. The City is not providing a separate detailed cable inventory. Proposers remain responsible for verifying existing conditions.

Question 14: Please identify which existing cabling and pathways are expected to be reused and describe presentation-input and wall-plate locations.

Answer: Proposers shall evaluate existing cabling and pathways and determine what can appropriately be reused as part of their proposed solution. In the Council Chambers, existing connection locations include the dais and staff positions identified in the RFP, an east-side wall microphone input and HDMI input, and each of the two room pillars, which have a microphone input and HDMI video output. In the EOC, existing locations include the wall connection/control area and floor boxes 1 through 5. The recently installed Cat 6A cabling serving the EOC floor boxes should be reused where appropriate.

Question 15: Please clarify responsibility for conduit, pathways, electrical work, lift/scaffold access, penetrations, patching, painting, and other associated work.

Answer: Existing conduit and pathways should be reused where appropriate. Existing electrical service is expected to be adequate, and the City does not anticipate additional circuits. Proposers are responsible for including any lift, scaffold, or other access equipment necessary to perform their work. If the proposed AV design requires additional conduit, pathways, or penetrations, those items shall be included in the proposal. Minor patching, repair, and paint matching resulting from the AV installation are the AV contractor's responsibility. Any significant electrical, architectural, or other non-AV work believed necessary but not specifically included in the RFP shall be clearly identified as an assumption or exclusion.

Question 16: Please provide ceiling information and confirm whether existing speakers may be retained, relocated, re-aimed, or replaced.

Answer: The Council Chambers has a hard ceiling. The other project spaces generally have suspended grid ceilings.

Available building plans are being provided for reference regarding dimensions and existing conditions. Proposers are responsible for verifying ceiling heights, above-ceiling access, and other field conditions applicable to their proposed work.

The existing Council Chambers speaker configuration shall be evaluated as part of the proposed audio-system design. The City is particularly interested in whether the existing elevated speaker locations and configuration are appropriate for achieving the speech-intelligibility and performance requirements of the RFP. Proposers should recommend retaining, relocating, re-aiming, or replacing existing speakers as appropriate and shall clearly explain the basis for their proposed approach.

Question 17: Please clarify the required approach to Council Chambers acoustic treatment.

Answer: Architectural acoustic treatment is not included for installation under the base scope of this project. However, as required by the RFP, the proposer shall evaluate the Council Chambers acoustics and provide recommendations for future acoustic treatment, including the type, general location, and extent of treatment recommended. The proposed AV system must meet the RFP's speech-intelligibility requirements under the room's current acoustic conditions and shall not rely on future acoustic treatment. The AV design should also remain appropriate if the recommended acoustic treatment is implemented in the future.

Question 18: Please identify the manufacturer/model of the existing Council Chambers lighting-control system and clarify the AV integration requirement.

Answer: As identified in Addendum No. 2, the existing Council Chambers lighting-control system is a Hubbell Control

Solutions NX Distributed Intelligence system. Existing equipment identified by the City includes an NX Area Controller, model NXAC-120-001, and a 24-relay lighting control panel, model NXP24-2-243L-S. The City has not specified a control protocol or AV integration interface. Proposers are responsible for determining the appropriate method of integration.

Question 19: Please clarify the required assistive-listening system technology for the Council Chambers.

Answer: The City is not specifying a required assistive-listening technology such as FM or IR. Proposers should recommend an appropriate solution that meets Section 3.1.11, maintains or improves the City's existing hearing-assistance capability, meets applicable accessibility requirements, and is consistent with the project's reliability and long-term supportability objectives. Existing equipment may be retained if adequate.

Question 20: Please clarify the intended disposition and lifecycle approach for the existing eight Shure MXW6/C tabletop microphones and associated equipment.

Answer: Proposers should evaluate the existing eight Shure MXW6/C microphones and associated equipment using the lifecycle-value approach established in the RFP and Addendum No. 2. If the existing equipment can reasonably support the City's design-life objective without compromising reliability, compatibility, or supportability, replacement is not required. If replacement is recommended, it shall be included in the proposal. Proposals shall clearly identify retained and new equipment and applicable warranty/support. The design should allow routine future microphone replacement without substantial reprogramming or redesign where practical.

Question 21: Please confirm the required EOC wireless-microphone quantity and disposition of the existing wireless microphones.

Answer: The replacement EOC system shall provide two wireless channels and two rechargeable wireless handheld microphones. The six existing Audio-Technica wireless microphones and associated receivers shall be removed from service. No permanently installed wired microphones are required for normal EOC operation; existing wired microphone input locations shall remain available and functional.

Question 22: Please identify owner-furnished computers, conferencing devices, network storage, conferencing/streaming accounts, City services, and the role of the existing Council Chambers Lenovo PC.

Answer: The City will provide the network/Wi-Fi infrastructure, network storage, and applicable City-managed conferencing and streaming accounts and services. Existing City-furnished service sources, including Comcast service/equipment, will remain City-furnished. Presenters and meeting participants will provide the laptops or other devices used for presentations and conferencing.

The AV contractor shall provide all AV equipment, connectivity, interfaces, switching, control, and integration necessary for the proposed systems to support these City resources and user-provided devices.

The City will not furnish a dedicated AV, presentation, or conferencing computer. The existing Lenovo PC in the

Council Chambers was installed for AV service/configuration purposes and should not be considered an owner-furnished component of the replacement system. It does not need to be retained or replaced.

If a proposer's solution requires a dedicated computer or other computing device for system operation, conferencing, streaming, recording, control, or management, that equipment shall be identified and included in the proposal. Any requirements for City network access, domain membership, accounts, storage, or other City IT resources shall also be clearly identified and coordinated with City IT.

Question 23: Please clarify network-switching responsibilities, PoE/port requirements, and City IT network-configuration responsibilities.

Answer: Proposers shall provide any networking hardware required for their proposed AV solution and identify the required network architecture, port capacity, PoE requirements, VLANs, addressing, and other connectivity requirements. City IT will configure and provision the networking hardware and integrate it into the City network. Final network architecture and hardware selections shall be coordinated with City IT.

Question 24: Please confirm whether the recently replaced APC lithium UPS units are to be retained.

Answer: The City does not expect the recently replaced APC lithium UPS units to be replaced solely to satisfy the ten-year design-life objective. Proposers shall evaluate capacity, condition, and compatibility with the proposed systems. Retain the existing UPS where suitable; replace it if the proposed design requires a different capacity or configuration. Retained UPS equipment shall be included in power-recovery and acceptance testing. The proposer is not required to provide a new-equipment warranty on an existing UPS.

Question 25: Please provide Council Chambers projection-screen information and approximate projector lens-to-screen distance.

Answer: The existing motorized screen is a Da-Lite screen. The City has not identified the model number. The visible screen area is approximately 117 inches wide by 72 inches high, approximately 135 inches diagonal. The approximate projector lens-to-screen distance is 102 inches. The screen is functioning and the City does not expect replacement unless the proposer identifies a technical, compatibility, or lifecycle reason for replacement. The screen has an independent Da-Lite up/down/stop wall control and is also integrated with the existing AV control system, with screen operation occurring automatically based on selected system functions and inputs. The replacement system should provide similar integrated screen-control functionality.

Question 26: Is the Fish Bowl Conference Room included in the scope of this AV replacement project?

Answer: No. The Fish Bowl Conference Room is not included in the scope of this AV replacement project. It was shown during the site walk only as an example of another existing conference-room configuration. No AV replacement or modifications are requested for this room under the RFP.

Question 27: Please confirm ownership of existing equipment removed from service and clarify the current EOC video-wall condition.

Answer: All existing equipment removed from service remains City property unless otherwise agreed to by the City.

Proposers may identify equipment for which they can provide a trade-in, salvage, or other recovery credit to the City.

Any such credit shall be clearly identified in the proposal, including the equipment involved and the value credited to the project. The City may elect to accept the credit and transfer ownership of the identified equipment to the selected contractor if doing so is determined to be financially beneficial to the City.

The EOC video-wall displays are functional; a recent connectivity issue was related to cabling and is being addressed separately. Proposers shall evaluate the existing displays for reuse in accordance with the RFP and provide a fully functional video-wall solution.

Question 28: Please provide the desired size and requirements for the EOC side display.

Answer: The City is not specifying a particular manufacturer, model, or exact size. Proposers should evaluate the existing display and mounting arrangement and recommend an appropriate solution.

Question 29: Please confirm the requirements for ClickShare or other wireless-presentation systems in the EOC and

Council Chambers.

Answer: Proposers may provide ClickShare or an equivalent or better wireless presentation solution. The proposed solution shall include an appropriate number of wireless presentation buttons/pucks to support practical day-to-day use of the room, including simultaneous availability at the primary presentation locations. The solution should provide simple guest/BYOD operation without requiring users to join the City's internal network.

Question 30: If a proposer believes additional work outside the identified AV scope is necessary to complete its proposed solution, should that work be included in the base proposal?

Answer: Proposers shall include the work necessary to provide their proposed AV solution as required by the RFP and issued addenda. If a proposer identifies significant work outside the stated scope that it believes is necessary, it should clearly identify that work and any associated assumptions or exclusions in its proposal. The City does not expect proposers to include unrelated or unspecified building, electrical, network, or architectural improvements unless they are necessary for the proposed AV solution.

2. SUPPLEMENTAL EXISTING-CONDITION INFORMATION

Council Chambers projection screen: Da-Lite motorized screen; visible area approximately 117 inches wide by 72 inches high, approximately 135 inches diagonal. Approximate projector lens-to-screen distance is 102 inches.

Council Chambers existing speakers: The supplemental field review observed eight speakers in the elevated main ceiling area and four speakers above the dais. Proposers shall verify exact locations and elevations.

Council Chambers wall/column connections: An east-side wall location includes a microphone input and HDMI input. Each of the two room pillars includes a microphone input and HDMI video output.

Police EOC floor boxes: Floor boxes 1 through 5 include AV/network connectivity. The recent Cat 6A cabling should be reused where appropriate. Existing HDMI cabling may be replaced or adapted as necessary for compatibility with the proposed system.

Police EOC east-wall connection area: Existing wall connections include control, Bluetooth, network connections, and the HDMI input addressed in Addendum No. 2. Existing conduit/pathways may be reused where appropriate.

3. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Available City Hall and Police Department building plans will be posted as separate supplemental files on the City's bid posting due to file size. The photographs below are provided as supplemental reference information and do not replace the proposer's responsibility to verify field conditions.

Figure 1. Staff Conference Room - overall existing room configuration.

Figure 2. Council Conference Room - existing display and camera (representative)

Figure 3. Staff Conference Room - existing Crestron touch-panel interface.

Figure 4. Staff Conference Room - table connection box (representative).

Figure 5. Staff Conference Room - existing Panasonic PTZ camera.

Figure 6. Staff Conference Room - existing ceiling microphone/speaker area.

Figure 7. Staff Conference Room - representative under-table AV interface equipment.

Figure 8. Staff Conference Room - representative under-table AV equipment and cabling.

Figure 9. Council Chambers - elevated ceiling, existing speakers, lighting, and structural conditions.

Figure 10. Council Chambers - existing motorized projection screen and projector.

Figure 11. Police EOC - existing wall control and connection area.

Figure 12. Police EOC - representative floor box showing AV/network connections.

Figure 13. Police EOC – EOC East-Wall Media/Press Connection – Existing network jack and conduit for use with the required media/press feed.

Figure 14. Police EOC - representative wall network connection.

4. PROPOSAL DEADLINE

The proposal due date remains September 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time, unless changed by a subsequent written addendum.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 3