Addendum 1 Real Estate Consulting Services RFP 04.2026.pdf

ADDENDA NO. 1 April 10, 2026

RFP # S-Q10054-00016452

REAL ESTATE RESEARCH, CONSULTING & RELATED 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:

1. Pre-Proposal Conference Information

a. District: The presentation slideshow has been uploaded to OregonBuys for viewing.

2. Pre-Proposal Conference Attendance

a. District: The list of pre-proposal conference attendees on April 7, 2026:

Name Company Phone Email

Megan Kellenberger

Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

(310) 986- 2263 Mkellenberger@epicland.com

Dave Nickerson Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

(503) 213- 3974 Dnickerson@epicland.com

Shawn Mitchell Clark Land Resources

(971) 269- 8783 Shawn.mitchell@clarklandresources.com

3. QUESTIONS:

a. Question #1: Do you anticipate using eminent domain, or only in some cases?

District Response: The District recognizes eminent domain as a legal tool available if necessary;

however, it is not the preferred approach. Our intent is to pursue voluntary acquisition strategies wherever possible, including negotiation, coordination, and partnership with property owners.

We have legal counsel in place to advise on real estate actions and would evaluate the use of eminent domain only on a case-by-case basis, and only after all reasonable alternatives have been explored.

b. Question #2: In the past, when working on right of way and easements, did you work with a consultant or partners? What is the general history?

District Response: The District has used a combination of internal staff and external support over time.

Historically, our team has worked directly with property owners on easement and right of way needs, particularly for smaller or more straightforward efforts.

Addenda #1

RFP #S-Q10054-00016452

In recent years, as projects have increased in scale and complexity, particularly with the Portland Metro Levee System (PMLS) and other capital efforts, we have relied more heavily on on-call consultants to provide specialized right of way, acquisition, and negotiation support. These consultants have helped augment staff capacity and bring additional expertise in areas such as appraisal coordination, negotiations, and documentation.

For this effort, given the anticipated scale and complexity, we expect to rely heavily on our on-call consultant support to help facilitate all aspects of the work, while District staff remain actively involved in coordination, oversight, and decision-making.

c. Question #3: It seems that you are looking for one consultant, is there an opportunity for more that one contract to be awarded?

District Response: At this time, the District anticipates selecting a single prime consultant for this work.

Given the level of onboarding required and the need for consistency across our larger, ongoing projects, we believe a single consultant will allow for more efficient coordination, communication, and overall program delivery.

That said, we recognize the value of diverse expertise and encourage proposers to assemble teams that include subconsultants or specialized partners as part of a comprehensive proposal. This approach allows us to access a broad range of skills and capabilities while maintaining a streamlined contract structure and clear point of accountability.

d. Question #4: Does the District know roughly how many parcels are anticipated to be impacted for the PMLS project?

District Response: The District is still refining the full extent of real estate impacts as we continue evaluating legacy rights, title records, and existing property interests. However, based on preliminary analysis, we estimate that approximately 150 properties may be impacted in some way by the PMLS project footprint.

These impacts are expected to vary and may include a mix of temporary and permanent easements, as well as coordination related to utility relocations. The properties span a wide range of land uses, including commercial, residential, and industrial, each of which may present unique considerations for acquisition, access, and coordination.

It is important to note that this estimate does not yet fully account for potential right of way needs or the broader range of utility coordination that may be required as design progresses.

As the project continues to advance and our understanding of both existing rights and design needs becomes more refined, these numbers may reduce.

e. Question #5: May the District please clarify if sample appraisal, acquisition, and/or relocation reports, redacted and in full, are required to be included in the proposal?

District Response: The District does not require proposers to include full appraisal, acquisition, or relocation reports as part of their proposal.

However, proposers are encouraged to provide representative examples of past work that demonstrate relevant experience and technical capability. These materials may be submitted in a redacted format as appropriate to protect confidential or sensitive information. The intent is to understand the proposer’s approach, quality of work, and experience with similar efforts, rather than to review complete, unredacted deliverables.

f. Question #6: In reference to Attachment B Proposer Certifications and Representations, may the District please clarify which registration Number they are looking for? (ie Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), tax Registration Number (FEIN), SAM Registration, Oregon Business Identification Number (BIN), or something else?)

District Response: For Attachment B, we are asking for your Oregon Business Registry Number. An Oregon Business License is acceptable as well.

g. Question #7: Is a signature required on all attachments even if a signature line is not provided, such as for Attachment H References?

District Response: A signature is not required if there is no signature line. Though all required forms should be completed if applicable.

h. Question #8: In reference to Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 2 Time is of the Essence, will the District consider more felxible language that allows for reasonable delays and mutual agreement? Suggested language can be provided within our proposal submittal should the District prefer to see it ahead of contract negotiations; please confirm if that is preferred.

District Response: Proposers are encouraged to include any requested modifications, exceptions, or preferred language related to the sample contract as part of their submission. These materials will not count toward the overall page limit. Please note that the inclusion of requested language does not constitute acceptance of those terms. During the contract negotiation phase, we will review all submitted requests and work collaboratively with the selected proposer to reach mutually agreeable terms.

i. Question #9: In reference to Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3 Subcontracts and

Assignment, will the District add a reasonable standard for consent to subcontracting assignment?

District Response: Proposers are encouraged to include any requested modifications, exceptions, or preferred language related to the sample contract as part of their submission. These materials will not count toward the overall page limit. Please note that the inclusion of requested language does not constitute acceptance of those terms. During the contract negotiation phase, we will review all submitted

j. Question #10: In reference to Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 27 Indemnity and Hold

Harmless, will the District add a provision excluding the comparative negligence or willful misconduct of the District from Indemnity obligations of the Contractor? Suggested language can be provided within our proposal submittal should the District prefer to see it ahead of contract negotiations; please confirm if that is preferred.

District Response: Proposers are encouraged to include any requested modifications, exceptions, or preferred language related to the sample contract as part of their submission. These materials will not count toward the overall page limit. Please note that the inclusion of requested language does not constitute acceptance of those terms. During the contract negotiation phase, we will review all submitted

k. Question #11: In reference to Attachment E Insurance Requirements, Section 5 Professional Liability, may the District please confirm if a $25,000 deductible for Professional Liability is acceptable?

District Response: Proposers should include their insurance limits if different from the required amounts.

Final terms will be discussed during contract negotiations. Deductibles exceeding our standard requirements may be subject to internal review and approval.

l. Question #12: In reference to Attachment E Insurance Requirements, Section 5 Professional Liability, please note that our CG 2010 and CG 2037 are 12/19, not 11/85 or 07/04. May the District please confirm that is acceptable?

District Response: Proposers should include their insurance limits if different from the required amounts.

Final terms and acceptable forms will be discussed during contract negotiations.

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