Addendum 1 RFP 2025-023 Uniforms and Products Rental Service.pdf

Request for Proposals 2025-023

Uniforms and Products Rental Service

ADDENDUM No. 1

ISSUE DATE: February 18, 2025

Responding Offerors on this project are hereby notified that this Addendum shall be made a part of the above named RFP document.

The following items add to, modify, and/or clarify the RFP documents and shall have the full force and effect of the original Documents. This Addendum shall be acknowledged by the Offeror in the RFP document.

Union County, North Carolina Addendum No. 1, RFP 2025-023 Uniforms and Products Rental Service

Questions/Answers Section

1. Clarification on the “Note” at bottom of page 18 – this applies only to items that were turned in and not returned as far as not being billable, correct?

Answer: Yes.

2. There is language that some garments may require direct embroidery and also language that no buy back language will be considered, given this can the direct embroidery only be for direct purchase items and not rental items due to direct embroidery garments cannot be used anymore after turned in? This would be cost beneficial for the county due to causing higher rates if not.

Answer: Yes.

3. There is 7 calendar day period for new employees to get new uniforms, this is very restrictive and there will probably be times this cannot be met, can this be changed to 14 days?

Answer: Delivery within 7 business days or next delivery date, whichever is later.

4. Can you add verbiage for additional charges not related to uniforms, such as equipment needed i.e. lockers that we would need to charge for?

Answer: Any additional costs deemed necessary by the vendor to comply with the RFP should be added to the cost proposal, as appropriate, to deliver an all-inclusive rental product.

5. Throughout the RFP there is language that all new employees, all size changes, all upgrades, and all damage garments will be done with “new” garments. This is outside normal industry standards and would be more costly for the county. Normal industry practices include providing “similar in condition” uniforms that are similar in condition to the rest of the employees currently in uniform. This allows us to reuse garments that, for example, were ordered and an individual quit or had to change size or for any other reason garments that are in good condition could be used to replace someone with the same size. By only being able to use new garments, costs increase significantly and would have to increase weekly costs per person. Would the county consider changing “new” garment replacement language to “similar in condition” garments to reduce costs?

Answer: The County may consider “similar in condition” garments in this case, however the County reserves the right to refuse any garment deemed non-acceptable due to condition and must be replaced with “new” garment immediately upon refusal.

6. There are several references to no additional cost and no additional fulfillment times permitted, such as oversize uniforms. This seems to be in the same vein as Alan’s concern about “new” uniforms within 7 days. We would need and want some clarity about our ability to charge more and have more time for certain items.

Answer: No additional charges will be assessed to the County as stated in the RFP under these conditions. However, consideration has been given towards fulfillment times as addressed in Addendum Question #3, regarding new employee uniforms only.

Addendum No. 1, RFP 2025-023 Uniforms and Products Rental Service

7. Section 5.30 requests audited financial information for the last 5 years as well as related financial information. We do not provide our financial information. We often include language about the fact that we are a large privately held company that routinely and consistently performs on large contracts. Would this be acceptable?

Answer: The awarded vendor may be requested to provide this information.

8. Section 6.2.2 requests extensive information about our organization and structure, subsidiaries, officers, etc. Given the size and scope of our operations in North America and internationally we do not provide that level of detailed information. We have typically provided branch level or regional level information to satisfy these kinds of RFPs. It seems like the prospective customer wants assurance more at the local level that key folks will assist them. Would providing this information for the branch level be acceptable?

Answer: Respond as necessary to comply with the RFP as it pertains to any branches, offices, districts that will be directly associated with this contract.

9. Note that Section 6.2.2 has a similar statement about audited financial statements being available upon request. We would need and want to delete that requirement.

Answer: The awarded vendor may be requested to provide this information.

10. Section 8.12 lists insurance requirements as does Exhibit A. There are some inconsistent references to professional liability and pollution liability insurance coverages. There should be no reason these coverages should be needed, and we do not carry them for these kinds of contracts.

We would want and need clarity that those two insurance coverages are not required. Also, there is reference to waiver of subrogation. We would need and want to delete this waiver of subrogation.

Answer: The first paragraph in Section 8.12 states: “One or more of the following insurance limits may be required if it is applicable to the project. The County reserves the right to require additional insurance depending on the nature of the agreement.” A Certificate of Insurance is not required as part of the submission. The actual requirements will be determined and relayed to the awarded vendor.

11. Section 8.13 indemnification. We would prefer to not have to provide an indemnification and, alternatively, limit it further and carve-out, for example, contributory or comparative negligence on the part of Union County. This is a business call, and the indemnity is not as broad as others we have encountered.

Answer: The indemnification requirement will not be waived.

12. Template Contract. Section 3 –There is also a one-sided termination for convenience clause on 10 days’ notice by Union County. We would want that deleted, or, at a minimum, extended to a longer period such as 90 days.

Answer: The awarded vendor may negotiate this term.

13. On Page 6 the scope of work requires pressing. Would steaming be acceptable for garments that are not high image and unavailable to be pressed?

Addendum No. 1, RFP 2025-023 Uniforms and Products Rental Service

Answer: Yes. To clarify, all garments shall be returned clean, in good repair, and professionally prepared (wrinkle-free).

14. On Page 12 the delivery schedule is required to be Tuesday - Thursday. Given the contract is county wide and Monday-Friday is standard work week for our routes, would it be acceptable to deliver Monday-Friday with proper communication for any adjusting holiday schedule?

Answer: Yes, however, the vendor must maintain consistent & specific delivery days/times for the various sites as approved by the County.

15. It is noted that logo embroidery, size change, size premium, and replacements are to be provided at no additional cost, and pricing should only be reflected in the single line item. System processes may require insurance programs to be added to achieve this without later errors of billing or monitoring. If cost were included clearly on each invoice, totaled by the amount of garments billing each week, along with unit price and total price matching, would this be acceptable method of billing and achieving the requirements of no additional charges? Example provided below.

Answer: The awarded vendor may negotiate this term.

16. One page 17 the proposal limit is 25 pages. Are the required forms with submission included in the 25-page count?

Answer: No.

17. It states “Union may terminate this Agreement at any time, without cause, upon provision of ten

(10) days’ written notice to Contractor.” Is Union County will to negotiate more amicable terms for both parties? Or, would Union County be willing to piggyback of the terms on another existing agreement with the government?

Answer: Please see answer to question no.12. Union County is not interested in piggybacking.

End of Questions/Answers Section

Attachments

• Attachment 1 – Pre-Proposal Sign-In Sheet

End of Addendum No. 1