Department of Financial Management 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

(562) 570-6425

July 3rd, 2024

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

ADDENDUM NO. 1: Q&A

RFP No. DV-23-278

Geotechnical Engineering & Peer Review Oil Well Services

This addendum changes and supersedes the language in the original RFP. Please acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing and submitting with your proposal. Any proposer who fails to submit this addendum may be disqualified.

The City would like to remind Proposers that pursuant to Section 5.2.25 of the RFP, the City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.

The Questions and Answers are as follows:

1. What is the contract value?

A: The projects issued under this contract will be assigned on an as-needed basis;

the City anticipates that the value of each awarded contract to be between

$25,000 and $100,000.

2. How many contracts will be awarded?

A: There is not a predetermined number of contracts to be awarded.

3. Who is the incumbent/current contract holder(s)?

A: Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. and Interact PMTI, Inc.

4. Does the geotechnical peer review experience need to be consecutive within the previous 3 years?

A: No. As long as the firm can demonstrate that it meets the minimum qualification, the experience does not have to be consecutive.

5. Does the editable template need to be uploaded as an editable Word document or can it be submitted as a pdf?

A: Submissions may be in either Word or PDF.

Addendum # 1 RFP DV-23-278 Pg. 2

6. Are we allowed to customize the editable template?

A: The City strongly recommends the use of the template, because it is provided to streamline the drafting of proposals and their evaluation. Proposers may opt to use their own format as long as the format responds to all questions posed in the template.

7. Should resumes and licenses be presented in an appendix or as a stand-alone attachment?

A: Either is fine as long as evaluators can clearly and readily find the information.

8. Is this a new contract?

A: This RFP will result in new contract(s).

9. If this is not a new contract, who is the current incumbent?

A: See answer to Question 3.

10. If this is an existing contract, historically, how many task orders has the City issued annually for this type of peer review process?

A: The Department of Community Development has historically required these services for 3-5 peer reviews per year.

11. How many contract awards does the City of Long Beach anticipate from this solicitation?

A: See answer to Question 2.

12. How will task orders (TO) be awarded? On a rotational basis, by firm, or will each

TO be competitively bid for each task?

A: Work will be awarded using purchase orders that will be issued based on the specific peer review scope, specific expertise of each firm, availability and timing, as well as cost. Firms should expect to be asked to submit a scope of work providing this information when requested by the Community Development

Department.

13. Could you please provide an example of a task order for this contract?

A: Once a firm is chosen to perform peer review, plans/reports and supporting documents will be provided by the developer’s geotechnical consultant to peer review panelist(s). Typical tasks include but are not limited to: meeting with the

Pg. 3 developer’s geotechnical consultant and/or City staff, coordination and communication with the developer’s geotechnical consultant to seek clarification and/or additional supporting documents, and consultation with City staff to prepare an approval letter with conditions.

14. Does the City have an approximate budget for the services solicited under this

RFP?

A: See answer to Question 1.

15. Given the schedule for posting Q&A answers and the pending submission deadline thereafter, would the City please consider granting a one—or two-week proposal deadline extension so firms have ample time to respond?

A: The submission deadline was set with consideration for the timing for posting this answers to submitted questions and will remain August 1, 2024 at 11 AM.

16. Question #3: Under Method of Approach, states: “Provide work product examples that demonstrate the ability to provide geotechnical review.” Should proposers include project descriptions from previous work OR provide examples of actual reports prepared for their clients?

A: Proposers should provide adequate information to demonstrate the ability to provide geotechnical review such as: list of projects (in California) they performed peer review on, project description, address, approval letter if any and standards/guidelines used.

17. We may be interested in this but can you please clarify if our firm was selected for the recent On-Call Geotechnical Engineering Support Services – 2024? If so, is this part of that On-Call or would being on the On-Call list conflict us out of proposing on this?

A: This award will be separate from any other RFP, including the On-Call

Geotechnical Engineering Support Services.

PREPARED BY: Abraham Torres, Asst. Administrative Analyst II

ACKNOWLEDGED BY: ________________________________________________

Company Name

Print Name Title

Pg. 4

Signature Date