ADD 1 RFP-11EAL-220.pdf

RFP-11EAL-220 / Addendum #1 Insurance Broker Services for the Office of Finance and Management

ADDENDUM NUMBER: 1

TO: All Interested Vendors

FROM: Adrienne Hines, Buyer, City of Indianapolis

Purchasing Division

DATE: July 9, 2026

RE: RFP-11EAL-220 Insurance Broker Services for the Office of Finance and Management

The following are the City’s responses to questions submitted by the vendor community in reference to the above-listed Request for Proposal.

Vendors shall note that only these written statements will be binding on the City. These written statements represent the City’s official position and supersede any previous oral statements made during any Conference or at any time by City staff.

Q1. When was the last time when the City's property portfolio was last professionally appraised or replacement cost valued? Please provide documentation including the valuation methodology used, if possible.

A1. The City/County has no recent professional appraisals or replacement cost assessments.

The Statement of Values is reviewed annually and updated with department input.

Value updates are based on any property improvements or new constructions inclusive of furniture, fixtures and equipment on new construction.

Q2. At this time, is the City able to provide a provide a list of properties the City anticipates requiring COPE (Construction, Occupancy, Protection, and Exposure) inspections, along with any priority locations that should be evaluated first?

A2. Not at this time. The City would prefer to address occupied, government use facilities first, but would prefer to gauge that with assistance from the awarded broker.

Q3. At this time, is the City able to provide copies of the expiring property insurance policies, engineering reports, schedules of locations, and any other underwriting information currently provided to insurers? Please also include the current premiums for each line of coverage if so.

A3. The City will share the current policy. See ADD 1 ATT 1.

Q4. What is the City’s current certificate of insurance tracking system and OSHA/safety management platform?

A4. The City would consider options for alternative solutions to insurance certificate and OSHA 300 log tracking. These would be considered outside of the standard broker services and optional to the City to accept and implement.

Q5. Regarding question 4, is the City interested in evaluating alternative technology solutions

A5. The City is seeking brokerage services related to property coverage. If alternative technology or software solutions for viewing, distributing, or tracking parcels are part of a proposal, the City will consider those delivery solutions in comparison to all other criteria.

Q6. Who is the current broker providing these services for the City?

A6. The incumbent provider is Gregory & Appel Insurance, Inc.

Q7. At this time, is the City able to share the current policy or policies for review, including premiums paid?

A7. The City will share the current policy. See ADD 1 ATT 2 and ADD 1 ATT 3.

Q8. Please share five years of currently valued loss runs to help evaluate the risk.

A8. The City will share a 5-year loss run. See ADD 1 ATT 4.

Q9. Please share a copy of the current Statement of Values that Chubb uses to underwrite this risk today.

A9. This is being provided. See ADD 1 ATT 5.

Q10. This RFP discusses building inspections to be conducted over the course of a calendar year. What is the goal of these building inspections? Is this to generate ideas for visitor safety, strategies for improving the structures and their insurability or to satisfy other goals?

A10. The City desires standard Construction, Occupancy, Protection, and Exposure (COPE) inspections. This is to better align our occupied structures with our safety policies, while identifying new or previously unrecognized exposures/risks.

Q11. This RFP also discusses completing a Statement of Values over the course of the term of this agreement. Is the city looking for a firm that will comprehensively review and update all COPE information for all buildings currently insured by the city?

A11. Yes. The City has collected COPE information for many, but not all structures currently insured. The priority would be to collect information for the outstanding properties.

Q12. This RFP contains several references to “marketing polices with other entities”. In addition, the Extended Price Sheet asks about extended pricing to other political subdivisions and city agencies. Can you provide more clarity on what other political sub divisions and city agencies purchase separate property policies and might be interested broker services from the successful broker?

A12. This is a standard term in City solicitations. If plausible, the City aims to extend opportunities to other municipalities. The City understands that risk analysis and loss history may not allow for pricing to other communities.

Q13. Are you asking that a proposed fee be fixed, regardless of other political subdivisions that might desire services from the successful broker?

A13. The City desires a fixed broker fee, non-commission based on its property policy. If extending to another municipality, the City understands that risk factors would most likely not allow for rates to be transferable.

Q14. When developing our pricing proposal, would you prefer a single fee or something itemized. For example: 1. Coverage placement; 2. Building Inspections; 3. Updating the SOV; 4. Risk Management Consulting?

A14. The City desires a fixed brokerage fee. Additional services could be proposed on an ad-hoc and commission-based fees.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing below and submitting with your proposal.

Failure to do so may result in your proposal being found non-responsive.

Signature Printed Name

Company Name Date