Add 1 QA - RFSOQ 2027002.pdf
PDF 270 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFSQ-16422
- Issued by
- Leon County, Florida
About this file
This Addendum No. 1 document issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on August 4, 2026, provides clarifications and modifications to DEP Solicitation No. 2027002 for Professional Services for the Pensacola Unpaved Roads Project. The project encompasses development of 100% design plans, construction documents, opinions of probable construction costs, and all required local, state, and federal permits for roadway and drainage improvements at fifteen unpaved road-stream crossings across Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties, portions of Eglin Air Force Base, and Blackwater State Forest. Responses are due August 18, 2026, at 3:00 PM at the DEP Procurement Section in Tallahassee, Florida, with a public opening scheduled for August 19, 2026. The initial contract term is eighteen months with up to three renewal options contingent upon satisfactory performance and fund availability. References will be contacted between August 28 and September 1, 2026, with the list of highest-ranking firms qualified for discussions to be published at a date to be determined. Discussions and negotiation of rates are anticipated to occur on dates to be determined, with the award date anticipated but not yet specified.
The addendum addresses twenty-two questions posed by prospective vendors regarding qualification criteria, personnel and office location requirements, client reference submission protocols, project scheduling, contract terms, and technical scope specifications. Key clarifications include confirmation that Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) is not part of the scope; that stormwater management experience gained through Water Management Districts may satisfy qualification requirements despite the advertisement's specific reference to DEP permitting experience; that remote staff will not be considered part of a presenting office's qualifications for Tab C purposes; that exactly three client references must be submitted with no additional references scored; and that the Department will not modify standard State of Florida contract terms or indemnification language as these are required by Rule 60A-1.002. The Department also clarified that respondents should use professional judgment and applicable regulatory requirements to determine appropriate spatial limits for the Natural Resource Survey at each stream-crossing site. No pricing information is specified in this addendum, as rates will be negotiated following the oral evaluation phase with the three highest-ranking firms.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFSOQ 2027002 Final.pdf | ||
| 1.Standard T & C Prof Svcs - REV ADD NO. 1.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Draft Contract for RFSOQ 2027002.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DEP Solicitation No. 2027002 Addendum No. 1 Page 1 of 6
ADDENDUM No. 1
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DEP Procurement Section
3800 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS#93 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
August 4, 2026
Addendum To: DEP Solicitation No. 2027002, entitled “Professional Services for Pensacola Unpaved Roads Project”
The Department hereby answers questions posed by prospective Vendors. This addendum does not need to be returned with the response.
Question Number
Solicitation Section
Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer
1.
Section 4.1 21
Is CEI (Construction Engineering and Inspection) part of the scope of this project?
No.
2. Section 1.3(c) 5 Section 1.3(c) requires "skill or ability... with... stormwater management system design." Stormwater management systems are permitted under the statewide Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rule (Ch. 62-330, F.A.C.), administered by both DEP and the five Water Management Districts under the same rule. Will the Department accept a Respondent's ERP-related stormwater design experience gained through a Water Management District (e.g., SJRWMD, SFWMD) as satisfying this qualification criterion, given that the regulatory standards are the same statewide, even though the advertisement specifically requests DEP permitting experience?
See Section 1.3 (c).
3. Section 3.3.5 (Tab C) 17 Tab C limits qualifying experience to "the Respondent's office (branch office) that will be directly managing the Project." For firms with remote staff who are administratively assigned to a presenting office but do not work from a single fixed physical location, would that staff's experience count toward the presenting/managing office for Tab C purposes?
As stated in Section 3.3.5, Tab C, qualifying experience is limited to the Respondent's office (branch office) that will be directly managing the Project. Personnel from other branch offices, including remote staff administratively assigned to those offices, should be identified in the appropriate Standard Form 330 for their respective branch office but will not be considered part of the presenting/managing office's qualifications for Tab C purposes.
Addendum No. 1 Page 2 of 6
Question Number
Solicitation Section
Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer
4. Section 3.3.6 (Tab D) 18 Section 3.3.6(a) requires that office locations be identified for key personnel. For remote key personnel, may the Respondent list their assigned/administrative office (i.e., the presenting office managing this Project) rather than a personal or alternate work location?
See response to question no. 3.
5. Section 2.3.3.4 11 The Oral Evaluation Committee considers "location" as an evaluation factor during discussions. Please clarify whether this refers to the firm's registered/mailing address as listed on Form A, physical proximity of any firm office to the project area, or the location of assigned key personnel.
This refers to office location of the project’s assigned key personnel.
6. Section 3.3.1.2 (Tab B, Form C) page 16 Form C requires three (3) Client References for services "the Respondent has provided." May a Respondent submit a reference for a project where the relevant scope of work (e.g., biological/ecological services, geotechnical, or survey) was performed by a proposed subconsultant rather than the prime, or must all three references reflect work performed directly by the Respondent?
See Section 3.3.1.2 - Tab B Required Forms.
7. Section 5.3 / 3.3.1.2 Page 33 /
The RFSOQ and Form C reference three (3) Client References. May a Respondent submit more than three references, or is submission limited to exactly three, with any additional references considered non-responsive or unscored?
See Section 3.3.1.2, the Respondent must complete Form C Client Reference form for three (3) clients. Please do not provide additional references as they will not be scored.
8.
Will all 15 projects be scheduled for completion at the same time with the same schedule?
See Section 4.4 – Consultant Responsibilities, Proposed Project Timeline.
9.
What is the last date of the expected 18-month completion?
See Section 1.4 Anticipated Contract Term & Renewals.
10.
Can a single bound original contain both Volume I and Volume II as long as it’s clearly indicated by tabs? Or must it be two separate bound documents?
See Section 3.3 Response Content Requirements.
11. - - Can a single electronic copy of the response (PDF) contain both Volume I and Volume II? Or must it be two separate PDF documents?
Addendum No. 1 Page 3 of 6
Question Number
Solicitation Section
Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer
See Section 3.3 Response Content Requirements.
12. - - Would the DEP please remove subsection 3 from section 5 of the sample agreement? As design professionals, we do not supply equipment, products or materials like a contractor and this does not apply to our services.
No, this is DEP’s Standard Document, as such it is not subject to change.
13. - - Would the DEP please remove subsection b from section 8 of the sample agreement? The design professional has no control over agencies having jurisdiction and approval of permits may be delayed for reasons beyond the design professional’s control. The design professional should not be liable for damages in these cases.
No, the terms will remain as issued. Please refer to the Draft Contract, Attachment 1 - Standard Terms and Conditions, #19 Remedies.
14. - - Would the DEP please remove subsection a of section 11 in the sample agreement? Retainage applies to contractors and not design professionals.
Please refer to the Draft Contract, Attachment 2 – Special Terms and Conditions, #4 Retainage.
15. - - Would the DEP address problematic language in section 17 of the sample agreement? The indemnity in section 17 does not comply with Florida Statute 725.08 by requiring a defense. Please consider rewording same to conform with the statute and deleting the requirement to “defend”.
See Revised Draft Contract Attachment 1 - Standard Terms and Conditions for Professional Services.
16. - - Would the DEP please redefine the term “Contractor” within Exhibit A -PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions? As design professionals, we provide professional engineering services and not “Products”. Suggested language is as follows: “Contractor” means the person or entity that is a party to the Contract and is providing professional engineering services.”
No, the PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions are standard State of Florida contract terms required by Rule 60A-1.002.
17. - - Within Exhibit A – PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions, section 4 (c) (ii) would the DEP rephrase the last sentence as follows? “The Contractor shall continue to work on any work not terminated, provided Contractor is being paid undisputed amounts due.”
No, the PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions are standard State of Florida contract terms required by Rule 60A-1.002.
Addendum No. 1 Page 4 of 6
Question Number
Solicitation Section
Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer
18. - - Within Exhibit A – PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions, would the DEP please remove the following subsections?
Section 5 (e), 5(f), 5 (g), 5 (h), 5 (i), 5 (j), 5 (k) and 5 (l). These sections all apply to contractors and not design professionals.
No, the PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions are standard State of Florida contract terms required by Rule 60A-1.002.
19. - - Within Exhibit A – PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions, section 8(a) (ii), would the DEP modify the first sentence to read as follows? “Provided Contractor is being paid for undisputed amounts due, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance under the Contract pending the final resolution of any dispute or request for relief, claim, appeal, or action arising under the Contract and shall comply with directions to perform from the Customer.”
No, the PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions are standard State of Florida contract terms required by Rule 60A-1.002.
20. - - Within Exhibit A – PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions, section 8(f) we believe that the indemnity provision is not in compliance with FL Statute 725.08 and is unenforceable.
Would DEP please consider rewording same to conform with the statute? Suggested language per FL Statutes 725.08: “The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Customer, and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Contractor and other persons employed or utilized by the Contractor in the performance of the contract.”
No, the PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions are standard State of Florida contract terms required by Rule 60A-1.002 and will remain unchanged.
21. - - Would the DEP please remove and replace all references to “deficiencies” with “Contractor’s errors and omissions” throughout the sample contract? As design professionals we do not provide materials or supplies like a vendor, instead we provide professional services. To require a warranty that there will be no defects related to professional services is requiring perfection, which no one can achieve. We can however warranty that our services will be per the standard of care.
No, the terms will remain as issued.
22. Section 4, Task 2, Subtask 2.2
24 Please clarify the required spatial limits of the Natural Resource Survey at each stream-crossing site. Should the
Addendum No. 1 Page 5 of 6
Question Number
Solicitation Section
Solicitation Page Number Question / Answer survey follow the same “hilltop to hilltop” limits specified for the boundary and topographic survey or be more focused around road-stream crossing? Similarly, what lateral distance beyond the roadway, right-of-way, or proposed construction limits must be evaluated?
The Department has not established specific spatial limits for the Natural Resource Survey (NRS) at each stream-crossing site. The Respondent should use professional judgment and applicable regulatory requirements to determine the appropriate survey limits necessary to complete the required NRS. Further details may be discussed during the negotiation phase of the solicitation.
– Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank –
Addendum No. 1 Page 6 of 6
In accordance with Section 2.6, Addenda/Amendments to the RFP, the Department hereby formally amends the Solicitation and the document listed below. Revisions are indicated in blue with strikethrough for deletions and underlines for additions.
• The following document has been revised and attached separately within the Vendor Information Portal:
Attachment 1 – Standard Terms and Conditions of Attachment 1 – Draft Contract for RFSOQ 2027002
1.9. Timeline of Events
The following schedule will be strictly adhered to in all actions relative to this Solicitation. The Department reserves the right to modify this schedule and will notify participants in the Solicitation by posting an addendum to this Solicitation on VIP. It is the responsibility of the Respondent to check VIP on a regular basis for such updates.
Event Date Time* Location/Method
RFSOQ Advertised 7/7/26 N/A Vendor Information Portal
Questions Due 7/21/26 5:00 PM Email to Procurement Officer
Answers Posted (Anticipated) On or about:
7/28/26 08/04/26
Vendor Information Portal
Responses Due 8/11/26 08/18/26
3:00 PM
Department of Environmental Protection DEP Procurement Section, Room 215 3800 Commonwealth Blvd, MS93 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Public Opening 8/12/26
08/19/26 10:00 AM
Teleconference by calling +1 850-629-7330
Phone Conference ID: 944 268 41#
The number will be active 5 minutes before the meeting.
References Contacted Between:
Telephone and/or Email 8/24/26 8/26/26
8/28/26 9/01/26
Publish List of Highest- Ranking Firms Qualified to Participate in Discussions (Short List) and Discussion Information (Anticipated)
On or about:
TBD Vendor Information Portal
Discussions (Anticipated) Between:
Microsoft Teams
TBD TBD
Publish List of Firms Selected to Proceed with Negotiation of Rates (Short List) (Anticipated)
Between:
Vendor Information Portal
TBD TBD
Negotiation of Rates (Anticipated)
Between:
Insert location TBD TBD
Award Date (Anticipated) On or about:
TBD
Vendor Information Portal
| ADDENDUM No. 1 |
| Addendum To: DEP Solicitation No. 2027002, entitled |
| “Professional Services for Pensacola Unpaved Roads Project” |
| 1.9. Timeline of Events |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .