Addendum 2 ED-26-783_final~4.pdf

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

Long Beach, CA 90802

(562) 570-6425

September 30, 2026

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

ADDENDUM NO. 2: Q & A

RFP ED-26-783

Sports Team and Facility Development Feasibility Study

This addendum changes and supersedes the language in the original RFP.

Please acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing and submitting with your proposals. Any proposer who fails to submit this addendum may be disqualified.

The City would like to remind Proposers that pursuant to Section 5.2.27 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. Q: Could you please confirm whether an international research/advisory firm can participate directly or as part of a consultant team for this RFP?

A: Yes, an international research/advisory firm can participate directly or as part of a consultant team for this RFP.

2. Q: Has the City established an anticipated budget or not-to-exceed amount for the feasibility study? If so, could you please provide the anticipated budget or budget range?

A: The City has an anticipated budget of $80,000, but it is open to considering proposals that exceed this amount.

3. Q: The Scope of Work asks the Consultant to identify realistic expansion and relocation opportunities across relevant professional sports leagues. Does the City anticipate an initial screening across the full professional sports landscape, including major and minor professional leagues, or has the City identified specific leagues, sports, or franchise opportunities that should be prioritized for evaluation?

A: The City is primarily interested in assessing the feasibility of attracting a sports team in one of the following leagues, but it is open to exploring other opportunities:

• National Football League

• Major League Baseball

• National Basketball Association

• National Hockey League

• Major League Soccer

• Women’s National Basketball Association

• National Women’s Soccer League

4. Q: Has the City had any preliminary discussions with professional sports leagues, teams, ownership groups, developers, or other parties regarding potential franchise expansion or relocation to Long Beach that would help inform the Consultant’s evaluation?

A: The City previously engaged in discussions with the Los Angeles Angels between 2018 and 2019 to explore the feasibility of relocating the team to

Long Beach.

5. Q: Are you going to be releasing the presentation you just gave and then also a list of the attendees for this meeting?

A: The presentation has been posted to Long Beach Buys via Addendum 1. A list of attendees for optional meetings is not maintained and cannot be shared.

6. Q: Is there an expectation that there would be essentially concepts for venues or concepts for developments that would then be the anchor of the cost estimates? Do you have more clarity on what the cost estimates might be referencing?

A: No, there is no expectation for the consultant to develop design concepts or schematics for venues, facilities, or developments. However, if possible, the City would like to receive high-level cost estimates that provide a general range to help gauge the potential cost of developing a venue or facility.

7. Q: Is there a bank of information from past studies or development of the

Elephant Lot that a vendor would have access to or is it essentially much more just pure high level? Would there be any way of sharing any data?

A: The selected consultant will be able to develop a list of data requirements to support their research and analysis, and the City will work to provide the requested information.

8. Q: Could you share more about Shoreline Drive, Marina Green, and the parking lots adjacent to Marina Green Park? Is that a part of the consideration or how are you looking at adjacent properties as potential developments under this public private partnership?

A: The City is primarily focused on the 13-acre site commonly referred to as the “Elephant Lot.” However, the consultant’s analysis of facility requirements across sports leagues may help inform recommendations on the acreage needed for such a development, as well as whether the City should consider leveraging additional City-owned property to support it.

9. Q: Are you focused on the big four sports only? Or are you considering other types of sports anchors and entertainment anchors other than the big four?

• National Basketball Association

• National Hockey League

• Major League Soccer

10. Q: Can you provide clarity around the stakeholder engagement scope? Are we identifying the stakeholders and then is the next step to engage them?

A: The City would like consultants to provide examples of any stakeholder engagement they typically conduct for similar feasibility studies. This will help the City understand the types of stakeholders involved and the level of engagement that may be needed for this project.

11. Q: Are you interested only in staying within the existing entitlement specially specific to the Coastal Commission or are you willing to revisit that if it’s appropriate from a cost benefit perspective?

A: The City is primarily focused on the 13-acre site commonly referred to as the “Elephant Lot.” However, the consultant’s analysis of facility requirements across sports leagues may help inform recommendations on the acreage needed for such a development, as well as whether the City should consider leveraging additional City-owned property to support it.

12. Q: Are there any professional leagues (men's and women's) that the City of

Long Beach explicitly doesn't want consultants to research as part of this process?

A: No.

13. Q: Does the City of Long Beach expect consultants to develop preliminary site plans and/or conceptual stadium designs as part of this process?

A: No.

14. Q: Are bidders required to submit using the exact Narrative Proposal

Tempate format or is this simply intended to show required information?

A: No, bidders may use a different template or format, but they must respond to all questions and provide all information required in the narrative proposal.

15. Q: For the minimum qualification requiring a “proven track record completing similar studies for municipal entities,” may a proposer demonstrate relevant experience through the documented prior experience of its proposed principal/key personnel when that work was performed while employed by another organization, provided the individual’s role and prior employer are clearly disclosed?

A: Yes.

16. Q: May the experience of identified subcontractors and key team members be considered in determining whether a proposer satisfies the minimum qualification requiring a proven track record completing similar studies for municipal entities?

17. Q: For purposes of the minimum qualification, how does the City define a

“similar study”? Must qualifying municipal engagements include professional-franchise expansion/relocation and sports-facility development specifically, or may comparable municipal sports, venue, economic-development, commercialization, feasibility, financing/P3, or strategic-planning engagements satisfy the requirement?

A: Comparable municipal sports, venue, feasibility, financing/P3, or strategic planning engagements will be considered relevant experience.

18. Q: The addendum document currently available in Long Beach Buys is internally titled “ADDENDUM NO. 2.” Please confirm whether Addendum

No. 1 was separately issued and, if so, where it may be retrieved, or whether the Addendum No. 2 designation is a numbering error.

A: The Addendum No.2 designation within Addendum 1 was an error and has been updated to state “ADDENDUM NO. 1” within the document.

19. Q: Please confirm whether the Local Preference Program described in

Section 3.3 applies to RFP ED-26-783.

A: Local Preference applies to RFP ED-26-783.

20. Q: Can you provide any insight on the process and/or outcomes of the

Entertainment Strategic Plan that might be of importance to the Elephant

Site and this study?

A: The Entertainment Strategic Plan project will officially begin in Fall 2026.

The results of this effort will outline the policies, programs, public realm improvements, and partnerships the City will prioritize to continue positioning Long Beach as a destination for music, entertainment, and tourism. At this time, sports is not expected to be a major component of the plan.

21. Q: What is the budget identified by the City for this study effort?

22. Q: Has the City established an anticipated budget, funding allocation, or not-to-exceed amount for this study that can be shared with proposers?

23. Q: Will local preference scoring apply to this project (i.e., Is this project funded in full or in part by tidelands funds, or in full or in part by certain grant, federal or State of California funds, that would preclude application of the local preference program)?

A: Local Preference applies to RFP ED-26-783.

24. Q: Budget (Section 4.2): Can the City share an estimated budget or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement?

25. Q: Leagues in Scope (Sections 1.3 and 2.1): The Scope of Work refers to

"select" and "relevant" professional sports leagues. Does the City have specific leagues in mind (e.g., MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, WNBA, NWSL), or should the consultant recommend which leagues to evaluate as part of the study?

• National Basketball Association

• National Hockey League

• Major League Soccer

26. Q: Prevailing Wage and DIR Requirements (Section 5.3, Items 12–20; Section

4.3): Because this engagement is an advisory feasibility study with no construction or public works component, can the City confirm that the prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon, DIR registration, and certified payroll provisions do not apply to the prime consultant or its subconsultants, and that the DIR registration question in the subcontractor section of the

Narrative Proposal Template may be answered "Not Applicable"?

A: Prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon, DIR registration, and certified payroll provisions do not apply to this RFP. Proposers may enter “Not Applicable” for the DIR registration question.

27. Q: Attachment Labeling (Sections 3.3, 4.2, and 5.2 Item 34): Section 3.3 references Attachment C for the local preference request, while Section 4.2 lists Attachment B as the Local Preference Program and Attachment C as the

W-9, and Section 5.2 Item 34 references Attachment B for the Equal Benefits

Ordinance Compliance form. Can the City clarify which attachments are required at submission and how they are labeled in LongBeachBuys?

A: Attachment A – Authorization & Certification and Attachment B – Local

Preference Program in Long Beach Buys are mandatory attachments required at time of proposal submission.

28. Q: Financial Stability (Section 4.2): Will a copy of or link to our most recent audited Annual Report satisfy the Financial Stability requirement?

29. Q: Proposal Length (Section 4.3): Are there page limits for the Narrative

Proposal or for attachments such as key staff resumes, and may resumes be provided as a separate attachment rather than within the template?

A: There are no page limits. Resumes may be provided as a separate attachment.

30. Q: Contract Exceptions (Section 5.2, Item 12 and Pro-Forma Agreement: Non-

Design): Should proposers submit any exceptions or proposed modifications to the Pro-Forma Agreement with their proposal, and if so, in what format?

A: Yes, proposers should submit any exceptions or proposed modifications to the Pro-Forma Agreement as part of their proposal. They may include exceptions in Attachment A under the section titled “Exceptions to Terms and

Conditions.” If the proposed exceptions exceed the space provided in

Attachment A, proposers may attach a separate Word document detailing their requested changes.

31. Q: In the document with the filename containing “Addendum 1,” the title within the document itself states that this is Addendum #2. Similarly for the document with the filename containing “Attachment B,” the title within the document states it is Attachment C. Could you please confirm if other attachments/addendums exist and if so, please share the relevant documentation.

A: Existing attachments, including addenda, are located on Long Beach Buys.

At the time of this addendum posting, the only attachments are Addendum 1, Addendum 2, Attachment A – Authorization & Certification, and Attachment B –

Local Preference Program.

32. Q: The RFP overview, project summary, and pre-proposal meeting discussion reference economic and fiscal impacts; however, a dedicated economic or fiscal impact task is not identified in Section 2.1. Can the City confirm whether proposers should include a formal economic and fiscal impact assessment within the scope of services? If so, please provide guidance regarding expected scope, level of rigor, or preferred methodologies.

A: The City would like the study to include preliminary operating economics and a development pro forma analysis for the facility, along with an assessment of potential public funding tools that could support the project.

33. Q: Can the City provide a list of existing background materials and data sources that may be made available to the selected consultant (e.g., prior site studies, planning documents, infrastructure information, event data, market studies, or materials from prior development efforts related to the Elephant

Lot)?

A: The selected consultant will be able to develop a list of data and information requirements to support their research and analysis, and the

City will work to provide the requested information.

34. Q: Beyond high-level capital cost ranges, does the City expect the study to include preliminary operating economics / development pro forma analysis for the facility and/or an assessment of potential public funding tools that will support development?

35. Q: Can the City provide an expected timeline for completion of the study and any target dates for draft and final deliverables?

A: The City prefers the project to be completed within six months of contract execution, but it is open to considering alternative timelines and will work with the selected consultant to establish a final schedule.

36. Q: In addition to the final report, does the City anticipate presentations, workshops, executive briefings, City Council presentations, or other stakeholder-facing deliverables?

A: Yes, the City anticipates executive briefings and potential presentations to the City Council.

37. Q: Does the City have an anticipated budget range for this engagement that may assist proposers in calibrating their approach and level of effort?

38. Q: Should proposers assume the City expects a fixed-fee proposal structure, or are alternative fee structures acceptable provided a total cost for the full scope is identified?

A: The City is open to considering alternative fee structures.

39. Q: Would participating in the Sports Team and Facility Development

Feasibility Study (RFP - ED-26-783) preclude us from pursuing future planning, design or implementation work that results from the study?

A: No, it won't preclude vendors from pursuing future planning, design, or implementation work that results from the study.

PREPARED BY:

Rachel Yos

Rachel Yos, Assistant Administrative Analyst I

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Company Name

Print Name Title

Signature Date