Addendum 3 Gary Roberts WTP RFP Questions.pdf
PDF 76 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2024-003
- Issued by
- Sedgwick County, Colorado
About this file
This document is Addendum #3 for the Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation project issued by the Town of Breckenridge Public Works department, addressing Request for Proposal (RFP) questions related to the project. The addendum provides clarifying responses to four key inquiries from potential consultants, covering topics such as project management, financial information submission, plant capacity, and the availability of a second plant feasibility study. The Town indicates they will not use an owner's representative and that financial information will be requested only from the awarded consultant.
The addendum reveals that the Town has already completed a second plant feasibility study, which determined the existing Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant (5 MGD) and North Water Treatment Plant (4.5 MGD) can meet future service area demands. Alternative financial submissions will be accepted, and the second plant feasibility study, which includes information about wildfire improvements, is attached to this addendum. The project appears focused on rehabilitation, optimization, and increasing production efficiencies at the Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant, with potential phased improvements based on the feasibility study's recommendations.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Town of Breckenridge
Addendum #3
RFP Questions
Failure to acknowledge receipt of this addendum will result in your proposal not being read. Receipt of all addenda shall be acknowledged in Section III of the RFP.
Q1: Will an owner’s representative be used for the project?
A1: The Town of Breckenridge does not plan to use an owner’s representative for the project.
Q2: On pages 6 and 7 of the RFP it states that the Town may ask for certain financial information, and then in the RFP form it states to attach financial information. Can the Town clarify if that should be included with the RFP submission or at a later date upon request? Furthermore, would alternative financial submission be accepted in lieu of an audited or sealed letter?
A2: Any requested financial information will be requested from the consultant that gets awarded the project and does not need to be included in the proposal. Alternative financial submissions will be accepted and can be discussed with the consultant that gets awarded the project.
Q3: Along with optimization and increasing production efficiencies, should Phase 1 address or evaluate the current plant capacity and future plant capacity plans (if any) to meet projected demands for the service area?
A3: The second plant feasibility study already looked at future plant capacity and it was determined that with the Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant at full capacity (5MGD) and the North Water Treatment Plant (4.5 MGD), The Town of Breckenridge can meet future demand.
Q4: Page 14 mentions the Second Plant Feasibility Study has information pertaining to wildfire improvements on-site. Can the Town provide the Second Plant Feasibility Study for review?
A4: The second plant feasibility study is included as an attachment to this addendum.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .