Addenda 1_Water Resources Engineering_00014244.pdf
PDF 177 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Water Resources Engineering On Call Services State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- S-Q10054-00014244
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Gladstone City, Oregon
About this file
This document is Addenda No. 1 for the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District for Water Resources Engineering On Call Services, dated July 31, 2025. The addendum addresses eleven specific questions submitted by potential bidders, providing clarifications on various aspects of the RFP, including project example requirements, page count limitations, proposal attachments, and evaluation criteria. Key clarifications include: proposals must provide a minimum of three project examples from the prime contractor, attachments B, D, F, G, and H will not count toward the page limit, and the prime contractor must be authorized to do business in Oregon before contract signing. The $600,000 shared compensation cap applies to the entire contract term, and no ongoing water quality sampling is required.
The addendum further clarifies evaluation criteria, noting that the 20 points for criterion 4 are roughly weighted at 5 points each for the prime contractor and subcontractors' COBID certification status. Resumes in the appendix do not need to be limited to two pages, and subcontractors are not restricted to data collection roles. The proposal due date remains unchanged, and bidders are instructed to acknowledge the addendum by entering the addendum number on the bid form. The document emphasizes that while proposers may provide ideas for "Other services as requested," this is not a requirement, and the district maintains flexibility in the potential scope of work.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Water Resources Engineering On Call Services RFP - Final.pdf | ||
| Procurement Information~55.docx | DOCX document | |
| Notice to Award_Water Resources Eng RFP~1.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDENDA NO. 1 July 31, 2025
RFP # S-Q10054-00014244
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING ON CALL SERVICES
This addendum modifies the solicitation document(s) only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not specifically mentioned or affected by this addendum shall remain in full force. This addendum shall be added as a part of the original solicitation document and shall become part of the work required.
Description of Change(s) and Clarifications:
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED
1. Question #1: Page 7 of the RFP specifies to provide three project examples of similar scope and size. Is that three examples, maximum, or is that mean to be a "minimum" of three examples? If it is three examples, maximum, then should examples of projects of subconsultants be included in that number, or are they in addition to those three?
a. District Response: Provide a minimum of three project examples of similar scope and size.
2. Question #2: I want to confirm that attachments B, D, F, G, and H will not be counted in the total page limit. Is that correct? 3.1.d. states, “…and like attachments.” Want to be sure 3.1.d. is referring to the required attachments. Would our firm’s branded proposal cover be counted in the page count?
a. District Response: Attachments B, D, F G, and H will not be counted in the page count. Section 3.1.d is intended to reference attachments related to reports from previous work or resumes. Your firm's branded cover letter would not count toward the page count.
3. Question #3: Regarding Exhibit 3, is it required that the prime consultant be a corporation, LLC, or partnership be registered in the State of Oregon at the time the proposal is submitted, or are we allowed to register if/when we are awarded a contract?
We are incorporated in California with licensed engineers in OR.
a. District Response: Exhibit 3 of the Sample Contract requires that the primary Contractor is authorized to do business in Oregon before the Contract can be signed.
4. Question #4: Does the shared $600,000 apply to the first five (5) years with additional funding available for the optional three (3) additional years?
a. District Response: The $600,000 shared compensation cap is for the entire Contract Term. If the Contract is extended, additional funding may be added at that time, subject to approval and available budget.
5. Question #5: Is a licensed PLS (Professional Land Surveyor) required to perform "field surveys" mentioned in the Scope of Work activities?
a. District Response: No, a Professional Land Surveyor is not required for this contract.
6. Question #6: Are the parameters for water quality sampling known at this time?
a. District Response: The District has no obligations for ongoing water quality sampling. Sampling that may occur under this contract would be identified to support design and permitting of water resources projects.
7. Question #7: May we provide ideas for "Other services as requested"?
a. District Response: Yes, you may provide ideas for other services, but it is not required.
8. Question #8: Should resumes in an appendix be limited to say 2 pages?
a. District Response: Resumes included in an appendix do not need to be limited to 2 pages. However, we encourage keeping them concise and relevant to the scope of work.
9. Question #9: Should the three project examples for evaluation criterion 2. all be from the prime (with subcontractor projects mentioned in item 2.c) ?
a. District Response: Yes.
10. Question #10: Would you clarify the statement in Item 2.c "If utilizing subcontractors, provide details on their relevant experience and process for verifying and validating collected data..."? This seems to limit the subs role to data collection, but we will describe their actual roles.
a. District Response: Subcontractors do not need to be limited to data collection roles. That statement refers to the quality control process when integrating work into final deliverables.
11. Question #11: How much of the 20 points for evaluation criterion 4 is related to the prime vs subs being COBID certified?
a. District Response: Each of the subcategories in Criteria 4 are roughly weighted at 5 points each, for a total maximum value of 20 points. Specifically, the certification status of the prime contractor will be evaluated for up to 5 points, and the certification status of the subcontractor(s) will also be evaluated for up to 5 points.
PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: Proposal due date and time remains unchanged.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM BY THE BIDDER IS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY
ENTERING THE ADDENDUM NUMBER IN THE APPROPRIATE AREA ON THE BID FORM.
Addendum prepared by:
Nicole Handley, Procurement and Contract Administrator
URBAN FLOOD SAFETY & WATER QUALITY DISTRICT
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .