Addenda Number 7 (002).pdf

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT Contracts Office

770 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017

RFP Number: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 25-05

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Addendum Number: 7 — RESPONSE(S) TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Date: March 28, 2025

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS: THIS ADDENDUM SHALL BECOME PART OF THE RFQ, AND PROPOSERS SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE, IN WRITING, RECEIPT AND INCORPORATION OF ALL ADDENDA AND CLARIFICATIONS IN THEIR RESPONSE. FAILURE OF THE BIDDER TO RECEIVE ADDENDA SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE BIDDER/PROPOSER FROM ANY OBLIGATION UNDER ITS BID AS SUBMITTED. THE BIDDER/PROPOSER SHALL IDENTIFY AND LIST IN ITS BID/PROPOSAL ALL ADDENDA RECEIVED AND INCLUDED IN ITS BID/PROPOSAL;

FAILURE TO DO SO MAY BE ASSERTED BY THE DISTRICT AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE BID NON-

RESPONSIVE.

CLARIFICATION(S) REQUESTED BY POTENTIAL PROPOSERS:

NUMBER QUESTION EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER RESPONSE

1. Corrections to RFP

Article 4.2.1, “RFP Schedule.”

Interviews will be held on Tuesday, May 13, and Wednesday, May 14, between 8am and 1pm, PST. Please hold these two dates and times. Interviews will not be held on May 15 or May 16.

2. Is the intent of the Strike Team Leaders and team to be full-time or part-time as needed?

The intent of the Strike Team is to implement the initiatives that the District is prioritizing with a sense of urgency. The Strike Team Leader should have a specific set of skills and abilities aligned with that initiative that meet at least the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP. The District is seeking Strike Team Leaders that will focus on implementing the initiative in the shortest amount of time possible, within the governance, procurement and administrative guidelines of the District (Program Management Agreement (PMA) Exhibit D, 4.0.1.A).

Given the sense of urgency required to move these initiatives forward, the PMO should make a careful determination based on the experience, skills and abilities of the proposed Strike Team Leader to determine whether that person is capable of performing to the satisfaction of the District in anything less than full time role.

The District is open to considering all options (part or full time) that meet the minimum requirements established in the RFP and Program Management Agreement, but will hold the PMO and Strike Team leader accountable for carrying out the task in a manner and timeframe suitable to the District.

3. My question is related to strike teams. Where are they expected to work and report?

Please see the response to Question 1, above.

Can they work from home?

4. Can CPLT/BTOC members be used as Strike Team members for a limited time and not be conflicted out of their current contract?

CPLT or BTOC members may be utilized in Strike Team leadership roles as a subconsultant to a proposer without being conflicted out of their current contract(s) insofar as the additional responsibility does not hinder that person’s ability to perform the job that they already have (see expectations of Strike Team Leaders described in the answer to Question 1, above). The District reserves the right to evaluate on a case by case basis whether a proposal creates a practical potential conflict of duties that may ultimately overlap and create a potential conflict that requires relinquishment of an existing role/contract.

Because the Strike Team leader reports to the CFE (PMA, Exhibit D, 4.1.B), they function somewhat independently of the PMO and CPLT, though coordination of the implementation work is expected at all nine (9) campuses.

Moreover, the District expects that the CPTs and Strike Team leaders reporting to the PMO work collaboratively as a single team, regardless of reporting structure.

5. Can the same individual be one of the six Key Personnel and a Strike Team Leader for cost savings?

The District’s position is that the four (4) Strike Team Leaders are not an additional cost to the program. Instead, the strike team concept is a way of emphasizing existing project areas requiring focused implementation. The four (4) initiatives are not additional scopes of work.

Ideally, the ten (10) individuals identified as “key personnel” (PMA, Exhibit B, .1 through .10) must meet all of the applicable minimum background and experience requirements described in the RFP. However, the District is willing to consider alternative staffing plans so long as the schedule requirements (PMA, Exhibit D, 4.1.D) and the expected implementation outcomes are met.

6. Are there any preferences for local vendors?

For staff associated with the program (including key personnel), the District favors local talent, though specific subject matter experts may be brought in to provide their expertise. LACCD’s vision statement reads in part that it will provide “high quality, accessible, educational opportunities across the greater Los Angeles area that improve students’ live, Enright the area’s many diverse cultures, and strengthen the regional economy” (See https://www.laccd.edu/about).

7. Are there any related requirements or considerations we should be aware of?

The District reserves the right to interview and approve key personnel (Exhibit B) and remove those leaders if the expectations of the District are not being met (PMA Articles 1.6.5.2 and 1.6.5.3)

8. Can you confirm the standard size of the project?

There is no standard size of any individual construction project for LACCD’s bond program. The size of a construction project varies from several thousand dollars to over $200 million dollars.

Please refer to RFP Article 2:

• Section 2.1 ”About the District;”

• Section 2.2 “The Bond Program;” and

• Section 2.3.7 “Maximum Compensation and Annual Budgeted Amounts.”

9. With the Levine Act, will only the prime firms be required to sign that form, or will subconsultants also be required to sign the “Levine Act Acknowledgement?”

See Attachment #12 for the “Levine Act Acknowledgement.”

All sub-tier consultants are required to sign the Levine Act acknowledgement form.

https://www.laccd.edu/about

10. Is the interview score the driving score that will decide/determine who wins? Are they both added up together? Is it the total score or is it the interview score that will determine who wins?

As described in detail in the RFP, the Technical score and Interview scores are added together and the sum of the two scores will determine the order of finish for the proposers. See PMA Attachment No. 4, part 4, “Interview Evaluation Criteria and Scoring.”

11. I have a question about the interns.

Looks like there's a requirement for interns for the duration of the program. And the cost should be included.

Please see the PMA, Section 1.15 and Exhibit G, “Internship Conditions” for a description of requirements related to Interns. The cost should be included in the proposal.

12. Can a District reference be utilized for the key personnel, firm, and subconsultant’s reference sections?

1.2.1.4.(4) on Page 11 of 24 in Attachment No. 4 “Project References for at least three (3) building projects or programs on which the individual has performed services within the past ten (10) years comparable to the Services that he/she is being proposed to provide for the Bond Program…”

1.2.2.3 on page 11 of 24 “References for at least three (3) building projects or programs…”

1.8.1 on page 18 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

“Each Proposer shall list in its Technical Proposal three (3) References of a public agency, department, district, or other political subdivision…”

Proposers are encouraged to provide references other than District projects/personnel. As described in the RFP, proposers should be aware that Key Personnel and Firm submissions, including references, will be evaluated on the overall strength of the submissions and the demonstrated qualifications, experience, and capabilities of the proposed teams.

https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/dTcHCNkEJmtwnD85hmfvUyT8YY?domain=1.2.2.3

13. Can we reference the project featured in Section 1.3 (and the specific page number) on the key personnel resume instead of fully duplicating the project description to be compliant with item 1.2.1.3.4(4) to accommodate the 100-page count?

1.2.1.3.4(4) on page 11 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 How a proposer answers a question or organizes the material on a page is left to the proposing team, and the exceptions to the page count are clearly articulated in section 1.0.4. In general, it is in a proposer’s best interest to ensure that the information sought by the District is easy to find, legible, and clear as well as demonstrates full compliance with the requirements of the

RFP.

14. If using a Proposer firm project as a reference for the subconsultant, can we reference the project featured in Section 1.3 (and the specific page number) for the subconsultant firm if they worked on that project with the Proposer firm instead of fully duplicating the project description to be compliant with item 1.2.2.3 to accommodate the 100-page count?

1.2.2.3 on page 11 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 How a proposer answers a question or organizes the material on a page is left to the proposing team, and the exceptions to the page count are clearly articulated in section 1.0.4 of Attachment No. 4. In general, it is in a proposer’s best interest to ensure that the information sought by the District is easy to find, legible, and clear as well as demonstrates full compliance with the requirements of the RFP.

15. If the entire project description to answer 1.2.1.3.4 for the key personnel references on the resumes and

1.2.2.3 for the subconsultant firms’ references is required to be duplicated, please confirm they will not be included in page count.

1.0.4 on page 3 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 1.2.1.4(4) on page 11 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

1.2.2.3 on page 11 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

How a proposer answers a question or organizes the material on a page is left to the proposing team, and the exceptions to the page count are clearly articulated in section 1.0.4 of Attachment No. 4. In general, it is in a proposer’s best interest to ensure that the information sought by the District is easy to find, legible, and clear as well as demonstrates full compliance with the requirements of the RFP.

16. Please confirm if the District would like one (1) separately sealed financial package including Attachment No. 6 and all financial information requested within the Technical Proposal boxed package OR eight

(8) total separately sealed financial packages within each Technical Proposal binder provided within the boxed package.

1.4.1 on page 13 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 5.1.3.1(3) on page 21 of 26 of ARTICLE 5 Proposals

The District will require one

(1) completed financial package, encased in its own separately sealed envelope, to be placed within the same sealed box that contains the eight (8) technical proposal packages.

17. Please confirm the complete table of contents and the back side to the TOC page is not included in the 100-page limit.

1.0.4 on page 3 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 Table of Contents are not listed as being excluded from the 100 page count in section 1.0.4 on page 3 of 24 in Attachment No. 4.

18. Please confirm the page for 1.4 Proposer’s Financial Capacity to direct the District to the separately sealed envelope within our Technical Proposal and the back side to the page is not included in the 100-page limit.

1.0.4 on page 3 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

1.4.1 on page 13 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

The financial package is listed as an exemption to the 100 page count, as described in section 1.0.4 on page 3 of Attachment No. 4. In the same section the instructions also state that “District forms attached to the RFP Instruction that are required to be signed and submitted by the Proposer…” are also exempted from the 100 page limitation.

19. Now that there are twelve (12) required elements of the Program Management Plan, can you please confirm the scoring of the technical approach to meet the 300 points?

2.1.2 on page 19 of 24 of Attachment No. 4

Program Management Plans will be evaluated and scored based on the overall strength of each proposer’s complete plan inclusive of all twelve (12) required elements. Individual elements will not be broken out or weighted within the overall maximum possible points available for the strength of each proposer’s complete plan.

20. Are we allowed to bring an interactive PowerPoint or some form of technology/visual for the 15-minute opening presentation and 10-minute closing statement in addition to the 11x17 single-sided placemat for the interview?

3.0.2 on pages 20-21 of 24 of Attachment No. 4 “Proposers may not bring/submit any additional visuals, technology, handouts, and/or any other materials to the interview except for one single sheet, single sided placemat to provide to the Evaluation Panel that does not exceed 11’ X 17’ in size.”

Proposers will be allowed to bring a PowerPoint presentation for the two presentation periods in the interview. Proposers are further advised that at the time the short listed proposers are notified of their interviews, the District will also issue final interview instructions and reserves the right to adjust interview timing, technology or other requirements in such final interview instructions.

21. Will the strike team leaders report to the CFE?

Exhibit D, 4.0, B on page 92 of 122 of the Program Management Agreement

Strike Team Leaders will report to the CFE (or delegate, if it serves in the best interest of the District).

22. Must subconsultants be exclusive to one proposer?

Item 4.4.14 Interested Parties on page 17 of 26 of the RFP

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Subconsultant may be proposed as a Subconsultant(s) to more than one Proposer.”

Proposers are reminded that the six (6) key personnel listed in Section

1.2.1.2 of Attachment No. 4 to the RFP must be employees of the prime, while the Strike Team leaders are not obligated to be employees of the prime. As explicitly stated in Section 4.4.14, sub-consultants such as the Strike Team Leaders, may propose to more than one prime proposer and be included in more than one proposal.

23. Did the District intend to reference BTOC Staff and

CPLT?

RFP Section 2.2, (Program Management Contract page 33 of 122) - 2.1.11 MATOC Staff and Infrastructure Contracts & Exhibit “D” to Program Management Contract

As described in Section 2.2 of the RFP and the Program Management Agreement, the Program Manager is expected to manage and provide Bond Program Leadership for all members of the College Project Teams including, but not limited to, MATOC, BTOC, and CPLT contracts as an agent of the District.

Specific obligations of the Program Manager for such leadership services are further described in the Program Management Agreement and proposers are encouraged to address their implementation plans for their role as part of their submitted Program Management Plans.

24. Is the Director of Quality Assurance/Quality Control/Risk Management required to be an employee of the Program Manager (and not a subconsultant)?

Section 1.2.1.2 of Attachment #4 to the RFP, the following Key Personnel positions shall be performed only by employees of Program Manager (and not by Subconsultants or independent contractors retained by Program Manager): (1) Program Director; (2) BOT Communications Director; (3) Deputy Program Director; (4) Director of Construction, (5) Director of Design and (6) Director of Quality Assurance/Quality Control/Risk Management

Yes, as described in Attachment No. 4 to the RFP Section 1.2.1.2, the Director of Quality Assurance/Quality Control/Risk Management must be an employee of the Program Manager and may not be a sub-consultant to the Prime.

25. Exhibit G of the contract states interns shall be paid $2 hours above minimum wage and the PMP asks us to propose hourly wage. Please clarify which is correct?

Exhibit G Internship Conditions (Program Management Agreement, page 121 of 122) ii. An intern shall be paid a minimum hourly rate that is equal to the greater of the following minimum legal wage rates (as applicable on the effective date that wages are earned and due to the employee) plus an additional $2 per hour …

1.6.3 Paid Internships (Attachment 4, page 15 of

24). Each Proposer shall separately describe as part of its Technical Approach and Program Management Plan a proposed plan for meeting the District’s requirements in the Program Management Agreement for providing paid internship opportunities to currently-enrolled and qualified students of the Colleges, including, without limitation, proposed hourly intern compensation rates.

Interns shall be paid $2 per hour above the minimum wage.

26. Please clarify how you are weighting final scores? How do you intend to score considering these two discrepancies?

2.3.10.2 Three-Phase Procurement (Second Phase)

(RFP Page 7 of 26) references 1000 points for Technical Proposal and 1000 points for interviews and those scores will be combined into a single score.

However, in Part 5 - Calculating Total First Phase and Second Phase Scores (Attachment 4 page 21 of 24), you are using a 60/40 weighting per phase.

When combining the scores for the Technical Proposal and Interviews, they will be weighted as described in the RFP (Attachment No. 4, PART 5). In other words, the technical proposal scores will count for slightly more than the interview scores when combined into a single score.

Please be reminded: UNAUTHORIZED COMMUNICATIONS

Proposers shall not, prior to Award, contact or communicate, either verbally or in writing, with any of the following persons (other than the person named above) for the purpose of discussing the requirements of the RFP Documents or the RFP process: (1) any trustee, officer, employee, or representative of the District; or (2) any consultant, or employee of a consultant, providing the District with assistance, advice, or professional services relating to the matters covered by the RFP Documents or who is involved in any aspect of the RFP evaluation or scoring processes.

Unauthorized communication by a Proposer in violation of the foregoing may result in disqualification.

CONTACT FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS IS:

Ms. Dorothea Mc Farline District Procurement Manager mcfarld@laccd.edu https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/8SqnCOYEKnuEPzjrcvhgUGPZu4?domain=2.3.10.2