Request For Proposal (RFP 26-06) - PROMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTER

Addendum No. 3

Procurement Department I 4715 Frederick Dr SW, Atlanta, GA 30336

ADDENDUM NO. 3

Solicitation No.: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 26-06

Solicitation Title: PROMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTER

ATTENTION ALL POTENTIAL PROPOSERS:

MUST ADDENDUM. READ CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS.

This Addendum forms a part of the contract documents, modifies the original Proposing documents, and shall be as binding as if contained therein.

Return Addendum with Proposal Submittal. Failure to do so may subject the

Proposer to disqualification.

Return Completed Revised Proposal Pricing Sheets with Proposal Submittal.

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS, PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING

DOCUMENTATION.

Responses to each solicitation question are provided and numbered below;

Question 1: Eligible Candidates. Please provide the number of eligible candidates for the testing ranks. If the number eligible to test is not available, please provide the number of candidates who tested for each rank during the most recent test administration and the year of this testing.

Answer 1. The City will confirm final eligible candidate counts by rank after eligibility is finalized.

Proposers should price using a scalable per-candidate model or clearly stated assumptions.

Question 2: Previous Consultant. Please provide the name of the consultant/vendor who conducted the most recent testing services.

Answer 2. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records where applicable.

Question 3: Previous Contract Amount. Please provide the dollar amount of the most recent contract for these services.

Answer 3. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records, where applicable.

X

X

Question 4: Candidate Volume. Can the City provide an estimated number of candidates expected for the

Sergeant and Lieutenant promotional processes?

Answer 4. The City will provide estimated ranges by rank when available. Proposers should include pricing that flexes up or down based on actual eligible candidate counts.

Question 5: Secure Digital Access. Does the City have a preferred method or platform for the secure exchange of assessment materials, scoring data, and candidate information, or may proposers utilize secure, access-controlled portals to support confidentiality and audit requirements?

Answer 5. The City has no mandated platform. Proposers may use secure access-controlled portals, and encryption in transit and at rest is required for confidential data.

Question 6: Audit & Records Retention. Are there specific audit, records retention, or access-logging requirements the City expects vendors to support beyond those stated in the RFP?

Answer 6. No additional requirements beyond the RFP and applicable law, Vendor must maintain adequate audit trails, version control, and retention sufficient for defensibility and public sector recordkeeping.

Question 7: Data Segmentation & Access Control. Does the City anticipate the need to restrict access to assessment materials and scoring data by role (e.g., assessors, command staff, HR), and should proposers address role-based access controls in their approach?

Answer 7. Yes, Proposers should include role-based access controls and least privilege access for

City stakeholders and assessors.

Question 8: Electronic Deliverables. Will the City accept electronic delivery of assessment materials, scoring documentation, and final reports through secure digital platforms in lieu of physical or email-based transmission?

Answer 8. Yes, secure electronic delivery is acceptable and preferred. Email-based transmission of confidential materials is discouraged unless encrypted and approved.

Question 9: Defensibility Documentation. Does the City prefer vendors to provide structured documentation supporting legal defensibility, including validation summaries, scoring audit trails, and process documentation, as part of final deliverables?

Answer 9. Yes, the City expects validation documentation, scoring audit trails, and process documentation as standard deliverables.

Question 10: Appeals & Traceability. For appeals support, does the City expect vendors to maintain traceable records of scoring decisions, assessor inputs, and response documentation to support transparency and consistency?

Answer 10. Yes, the vendor must maintain traceable records of scoring decisions, assessor notes, and rationale to support appeal review.

Question 11: Ongoing Access Post-Project. Following completion of the assessment process, does the

City anticipate requiring continued secure access to materials and records for internal review, audits, or future promotional cycles?

Answer 11. Yes, the City anticipates needing continued access to records for audit, litigation hold, or internal review. The retention period and access method will be defined in the contract.

Question 12: Standardization Across Cycles. Does the City value standardized digital workflows and documentation formats that can be reused or adapted for future promotional cycles?

Answer 12. Yes, standardized workflows and reusable documentation formats are valued

Question 13: Confidential Communications. Are proposers expected to address how confidential communications with assessors and City stakeholders will be managed securely throughout the project lifecycle?

Answer 13. Yes, Proposers must address secure communications with assessors and City stakeholders.

Question 14: Technology-Enabled Project Management. Would the City consider the use of secure, centralized project management and documentation tools to support scheduling, approvals, version control, and transparency during the assessment process?

Answer 14. Yes, secure centralized project management tools are acceptable; all tools must meet confidentiality and security expectations.

Question15: Candidate volume. Can the City provide an estimated or historical range of candidates for

Sergeant and Lieutenant promotional cycles?

Answer 15. Not available at this time, Proposers should propose flexible pricing and staffing assumptions.

Question 16: Separate or combined cycles. Does the City anticipate Sergeant and Lieutenant assessments being conducted concurrently or as separate cycles?

Answer16 The City anticipates separate cycles by rank; the final schedule will be coordinated with the selected vendor.

Question17: Appeals frequency. Based on prior promotional cycles, does the City anticipate a typical volume of appeals requiring support?

Answer 17. Not available at this time, Proposers should price and staff for reasonable appeal activity with clear assumptions.

Question 18: Future cycle expectations. Does the City anticipate conducting additional promotional cycles during the initial contract term if performance is satisfactory?

Answer 18. The City may exercise options for additional cycles during the contract term based on performance, funding, and operational need.

Question 19: Assessor days. Does the City anticipate a standard number of assessment days per cycle, or will this vary based on candidate volume?

Answer 19. The number of days will vary by candidate volume and exercise design. Proposers should propose an efficient schedule with contingency planning.

Question 20: Scope Clarification. Does the City expect vendors to support continuity of assessment materials, scoring documentation, and validation records across promotional cycles to ensure consistency, legal defensibility, and institutional knowledge retention?

Answer 20. Yes, the City expects continuity of documentation and validation records to support consistency and defensibility.

Question 21: Number of candidates. Would the City please specify the number of candidates for each rank of (1) Lieutenant or (2) Sergeant on which the Proposer should base its pricing or other aspects of this procurement?

Answer 21. Proposers should submit pricing that can be adjusted based on actual candidate counts by rank. Final counts will be provided after eligibility is finalized.

Question 22: Business licenses. Regarding paragraph 5, Business Licenses on page 4, would the City kindly agree to have the Proposer obtain the required State of Georgia and City of South Fulton business licenses upon notification of award? This is standard practice in local governments and states across the

United States for this kind of procurement.

Answer 22. The City will allow required State of Georgia and City business licenses to be obtained after notice of award and prior to contract execution or prior to start of services, as applicable.

Question 23: Encryption paragraph 20. Regarding paragraph 20, Confidentiality on page 70, would the

City agree to remove the word “encrypted” on the fourth line? After more than 40 years in this same business, we have never seen a requirement for encryption in any of the hundreds of promotional examinations. Confidentiality can be assured in other ways.

Answer 23. No, the encryption requirement remains, confidential and law enforcement-related data must be protected using encryption in transit and at rest.

Question 24: Encryption paragraph 21. Regarding paragraph 21, Data Security and Breach Notifications on page 70, would the City agree to waive the first sentence regarding encryption? After more than 40 years in this same business, we have never seen a requirement for encryption in any of the hundreds of promotional examinations. Test security can be assured in other ways.

Answer 24. No, the encryption requirement remains; the vendor must comply with the RFP data security and breach notification requirements.

Question 25: Sequestering candidates. As a matter of test security, will the City agree to have all candidates involved in a given exercise sequestered for the duration of that exercise?

Answer 25. The City will follow vendor-recommended best practices for test security; sequestration may be required depending on exercise design and scheduling.

Question 26: Consent and reuse. Will the City agree to remove: (1) the second paragraph of Section 9.

Proprietary Information on page 68; (2) subparagraph 13.a. Governing Law and Consent to Jurisdiction on page 69; and (3) the second paragraph of Section 20 Confidentiality on page 70? Frankly, the notion that an established consultant would need to obtain the City’s written consent in order to “…reuse, resell, or repurpose any scenario, exercise, rubric, script of scoring methodology…” is utterly impractical.

Established firms in this business typically do several dozen police promotional processes every year. To put this another way, South Fulton benefits in this Promotional Assessment center from having vendors who bring to South Fulton exercises and scenarios which are well proven through this same kind of experience.

Answer 26. The City will not remove these provisions. Proposers may propose narrowly tailored revisions as exceptions. The City's intent is to protect the City's confidential information and assessment content specific to the City.

Question 27: Project budget. What is the City’s budget for this project, either (1) in total or (2) for each rank of Sergeant or Lieutenant? While this is sometimes considered sensitive information, it is public record and of significant interest to the consulting community.

Answer 27. The City will not remove these provisions. Proposers may propose narrowly tailored revisions as exceptions, City's intent is to protect the City's confidential information and assessment content specific to the City.

Question 28: Consultant history. What firms have provided promotional services to the South Fulton

Police Department since January 1, 2020?

Answer 28. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records, where applicable.

Question 29: Written exercise. Would the City please clarify exactly what is intended for the “written exercise” in the second bullet under Section 2.1 on page 16 and again in Section 3.1 on page 22? Is this, for example, (1) an essay or (2) a set of written, multiple-choice items? Please note also on page 55, Appendix B Cost Proposal Sheet, Promotional Assessment Services, the language under 2. Base Scope

Pricing-Firm Price regarding Written Examination: “Exam development, review administration materials, scoring methodology.” This is language one would normally see where a city is seeking to have, for example, a100-item multiple choice examination.

Answer 29. The written exercise is intended as a job-related written response to a scenario or prompt, not a multiple-choice test, unless the RFP addenda expressly adds a written exam component.

Question 30: IT Support. Will the City provide at no cost the information technology (“IT”) required for the assessment center to include a laptop for each candidate, a networked color-laser printer, unfiltered access to Microsoft Office and the internet, and the presence of a technical-support person from the City’s

Information Technology Department?

Answer 30. The vendor should assume responsibility for providing all specialized testing technology and materials needed for delivery and scoring. The City will coordinate facility access and basic onsite support as available.

Question 31: Assessors' costs. Will the City pay all or any part of the cost of assessors’ (1) professional services or (2) travel and subsistence? Please see paragraph 4 Pricing Assumptions on page 56. Also, please see paragraph 8 Pricing Structure on page 23, which refers to “…pass-through expenses such as travel or materials.”

Answer 31. Proposers should include assessor professional fees and related expenses in their pricing; any pass-through expenses must be pre-approved and supported by documentation.

Question 32: Travel and subsistence costs. Will the City accept a proposal which (1) fixes the price of the

Proposer’s professional services while (2) having the City reimburse the Proposer’s travel and subsistence expenses at cost? Please see paragraph 4 Pricing Assumptions on page 56. Also, please see paragraph 8

Pricing Structure on page 23, which refers to “…pass-through expenses such as travel or materials.”

Answer 32. Proposers may propose travel as a pass-through at cost with a not-to-exceed cap and pre approval; the City prefers predictable pricing.

Question 33: Job analysis. Regarding Section 2.1 Assessment Center Development on page 16 and Section

3.1 on page 22, does the City wish to have the job analysis (1) based on interviews with various personnel in the Police Department or (2) be executed on a statistical basis?

Answer 33. Proposers should recommend an approach that is defensible, typically including SME interviews and surveys, and any additional methods proposed must be justified.

Question 34: Evaluation Committee. Regarding paragraph 12 on page 18, who are the members of the

Evaluation Committee by position classification, not name?

Answer 34. The evaluation committee will include representatives from Human Resources, Procurement, and Police Department leadership, and may include additional City stakeholders as needed.

Question 35: Appeal Support Cost Cap. Regarding paragraph 11 Appeal Support Cost Cap on page 24, would the City please specify the numbers which are now blank and underlined for (1) hours and (2) dollars? Also, please see page 65, Section 2.c. Appeal Support Cost Cap.

Answer 35. The City will issue an addendum to clarify the appeal support cap hours and dollars prior to award or during negotiations. Proposers should state assumptions and proposed caps.

Question 36: Captain included. Regarding paragraph 2.1.a. on page 26, is it correct to assume that the inclusion of Captain here is in error?

Answer 36. The scope is Sergeant and Lieutenant; any reference to Captain is not intended unless clarified by addendum.

Question 37: Rater Training. Where Section 9. Timeline Requirements under subsection c. Rater Training on page 29 now states that this would be “Conducted 1 week prior to assessment.” Will the City accept having the Rater Training conducted the day before the assessment? This has two significant benefits to the Promotional Assessment Center: (1) it keeps the Rater Training immediately fresh in the assessors’ minds, enhancing their performance; and (2) it minimizes the cost of travel and subsistence for the services of both the assessors and the Proposer, also benefiting the cost to the City.

Answer 37. The City will accept rater training the day before the assessment if it meets quality and readiness requirements; final timing will be coordinated with the selected vendor.

Question 38: Sub-Contractor Form. Where the specific identity of the sub-contractors who will be serving as assessors is not able to be known at this time, will the City agree to waive Form F6.8 Sub-Contractor

Information Form on page 46?

Answer 38. The City will not waive the requirement. Proposers may indicate assessors are to be determined and provide the selection process and minimum qualifications, final assessor roster is due prior to delivery for City review.

Question 39: Oral component. Would the City please clarify exactly what is intended to be incorporated in the Promotional Assessment Center with respect to an oral component? The RFP mentions “oral” in three places. First, Section 3.1.a. on page 27 mentions “…structured oral interviews.” Second, page 55, Appendix B Cost Proposal Sheet, Promotional Assessment Services identifies “Oral Panel Assessment” in subsection 2.3. with the accompanying description of “Structured interview questions, scoring matrices, panel orientation.” Third, page 56 under Section 5. Payment Milestones has a row which states

“Completion of Oral or Assessment Center.” This third description also raises the question of whether the oral component is intended to be one of the minimum of three exercises in the assessment center, or whether it is intended to be a separate component. Again, the separate line for Oral Panel Assessment is addressed here as the second mention of oral.

Answer 39. Structured oral interviews are included within the assessment approach and may serve as one exercise within the assessment center. Proposers should clearly describe how the oral component fits the full process.

Question 40: Legal and Defensibility Support. Regarding Subsection 2.8. Legal and Defensibility Support on page 55, Appendix B Cost Proposal Sheet Promotional Assessment Services, how many hours of services should be used as the basis for pricing here? In this connection, how many site visits to South

Fulton should be included here?

Answer 40. Proposers should include sufficient hours and site visits to ensure defensibility and stakeholder support, and clearly state assumptions, at minimum, include necessary onsite presence for key milestones.

Question 41: Scheduling assessment centers. Does South Fulton wish to have the respective assessment centers for Sergeant and Lieutenant occur at the same time, e.g., during the same week, or at separate times? If at separate times, how many months apart would they occur?

Answer 41. Proposers should include sufficient hours and site visits to ensure defensibility and stakeholder support, and clearly state assumptions, at a minimum, include necessary onsite presence for key milestones

Question 42: Candidate orientations. Does the City wish to have the Proposer provide a separate orientation for candidates for each rank of Sergeant and Lieutenant? While this has been established best practice for many years, the City's RFP makes no mention of orientations.

Answer 42. Yes, provide candidate orientations by rank, virtual delivery is acceptable if secure and accessible.

Question 43: How much did the City pay for the last contract for all of the services requested in the RFP?

a. If the services in the RFP were paid separately, and not as a lump sum, how much did the City pay, for each rank, for the following: i. Job Analysis? ii. Promotional assessments?

Answer 43. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records, where applicable.

Question 44: Who was the last company to provide the City with the services proposed in the RFP and what is their location?

Answer 44. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records where applicable.

Question 45: What key factor(s) is the City looking to enhance within the existing promotional testing process for police?

Answer 45. The City seeks improved defensibility, consistency, transparency, job relatedness, and operational efficiency in the promotional process.

Question 46: What are the key internal and external drivers and/or challenges behind this RFP (e.g., budgetary, performance shortfalls, culture challenges)?

Answer 46. Key drivers include ensuring a fair defensible process, reducing administrative burden, strengthening documentation and auditability, and maintaining test security.

Question 47: For which police ranks will the job analysis be conducted?

Answer 47. Job analysis will be conducted for the Sergeant and the Lieutenant.

Question 48: Does the City have a previous job analysis for each police rank that can be utilized during the job analysis process?

Answer 48. The City may share any available prior materials with the selected vendor for reference, vendor remains responsible for completing a current job analysis.

Question 49: Does the City wish for the testing vendor/contractor to conduct focus groups and/or on-site ride-alongs as part of the comprehensive job analysis?

Answer 49. The City is open to focus groups and onsite observations if justified and coordinated;

all onsite activity must be pre-approved and comply with safety and operational constraints

Question 50: Will a multiple-choice written exam be a deliverable for the ranks of Sergeant and

Lieutenant? If yes: a. How many questions will each written exam consist of? b. Does the City want the vendor present for the administration of the written exams? c. Is there a protest period/item review that candidates are allowed to participate in for the written exam?

Answer 50. A multiple-choice written exam is not required unless clarified by an addendum; the written exercise is scenario-based. If a written exam is proposed, it must include details on length, administration, and review procedures.

Question 51: What types and how many exercises were used in the previous promotional process, by rank?

Answer 51. Not available at this time.

Question 52: How many candidates participated in the previous promotional process, by rank?

Answer 52. Not available at this time.

Question 53: How many candidates are eligible for the upcoming promotional process, by rank?

Answer 53. Not available at this time, will be confirmed after eligibility is finalized

Question 54: Over how many days was the previous promotional process conducted, by rank? Were they held concurrently?

Answer 54. Not available at this time, the vendor should propose an efficient schedule

Question 55: Does the City want the Sergeant and Lieutenant promotional process to run concurrently?

During the same week?

Answer 55. The City anticipates separate processes by rank, final decision depends on logistics and staffing.

Question 56: Does the City have any security concerns that would require all candidates to go through the assessment center exercises in one day?

Answer 56. The vendor should propose best practice test security controls; the City may require same-day completion of exercises per candidate, where needed to protect integrity.

Question 57: How many assessors/raters would the City like in order to assess candidates during each assessment center exercise, by rank?

Answer 57. The vendor should propose a defensible model, typically multiple independent raters per exercise, and the City will review for quality and cost effectiveness.

Question 58: Do assessment center assessors/raters have to be from out of state? Or can they be from the local area?

Answer 58. Out-of-state assessors are not required; assessors must be qualified and free of conflicts of interest. Local assessors are acceptable if independence is ensured.

Question 59: Is the City willing to conduct development meetings for the promotional exams via webinar/phone conference?

Answer 59. Yes, virtual development meetings are acceptable.

Question 60: Does any part of the testing process function as a hurdle, in that only those that pass continue on to the next portion of the testing process?

Answer 60. No specific hurdle is mandated at this time. Proposers may recommend a structure if it improves defensibility and workflow.

Question 61: Would the City accept a virtual candidate orientation training?

Answer 61. Yes, virtual orientation is acceptable.

Question 62: How many candidate orientation sessions does the City want for each rank?

Answer 62. At least one per rank is expected. Proposers may recommend more based on candidate volume and logistics.

Question 63: When does the City want the promotional process completed by, by rank?

Answer 63. The City will finalize the schedule with the selected vendor. Proposers should propose a schedule that completes both ranks as efficiently as possible after notice to proceed.

Question 64: Does the City want the testing contractor/vendor to be on-site or virtually when participating in any appeal hearings?

Answer 64. Virtual participation is acceptable; the City reserves the right to require onsite participation for formal hearings if needed

Question 65: Who will be responsible for compensating assessors for accommodations and travel to the assessment center?

Answer 65. Vendor is responsible to arrange and pay assessor expenses as part of its pricing, unless a specific pre-approved pass-through structure is agreed in the contract.

Question 66: What is the appeals process that the City has used in the past for the assessment centers, by rank?

Answer 66. Not available at this time, the contract will require a documented appeal support process with clear timelines, recordkeeping, and City decision authority.

Question 67: Page 57 Text: Will the City please agree to remove all text on page 57 above the yellow ***

INSERT *** and the yellow text itself? It appears that this page actually should begin with the line below the yellow text regarding Certification of Non-collusion.

Answer 67. The City will review and issue an addendum correcting any template or formatting artifacts as appropriate.

Question 68: Custom Competency Revision. Would the City please describe in detail exactly what is included in "Custom Competency Revision" on page 56 of Appendix B, Cost Proposal Sheet?

Answer 68. This refers to updating the competency framework based on job analysis findings, including competency definitions, behavioral indicators, weighting, and mapping to exercises and scoring guides.

Question 69: Can you provide a copy of your policies and procedures regarding promotional assessments?

•Who makes the final decision on whether to uphold or deny appeals submitted by candidates? •What is the required format and method for candidates to submit appeals to the vendor? •How much did the City pay for the last contract for all of the services requested in the RFP? •Who was the last company to provide the City with the services proposed in the RFP? •Does the City have a previous job analysis for each rank that can be utilized during the job analysis process? •What exercises did the previous Assessment Center consist of for each rank? •Does the City have any security concerns that would require all candidates to go through the assessment center exercises in one day? Or does each candidate have to do all of his/her assessment center exercises in one day? •Who is responsible for recruiting the Assessors? •Do you require the use of out-of-town assessors? •For vendors who have been awarded a contract to do business with the state of Georgia, how has the city dealt with other state laws of those entities from out of state? •How to register to do business in the state of Georgia and what is the time to comply? Is it necessary at the time of responding to the RFP or after? If it is after, what is the time frame? •As a public educational institution and political sub-division of the State of Florida, our insurance guidelines and limitations are stipulated under the laws of Florida. Please let us know how to submit those limitations for approval.

Answer 69. Responses are addressed in Questions 70 through 83 below.

Question 70: Can you provide a copy of your policies and procedures regarding promotional assessments?

Answer 70. The City will provide relevant internal guidance to the selected vendor after award, as appropriate. Public records requests remain the formal channel for external disclosure.

Question 71: Who makes the final decision on whether to uphold or deny appeals submitted by candidates?

Answer 71. The City retains final authority on appeal decisions, vendor provides technical review, documentation, and recommendations.

Question 72: What is the required format and method for candidates to submit appeals to the vendor?

Answer 72. Appeals will be submitted in writing in the format and timeframe established with the selected vendor. The vendor must maintain a secure submission channel and tracking log.

Question 73: How much did the City pay for the last contract for all of the services requested in the RFP?

Answer 73. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records, where applicable.

Question 74: Who was the last company to provide the City with the services proposed in the RFP?

Answer 74. Not available at this time, can be requested via open records where applicable.

Question 75: Does the City have a previous job analysis for each rank that can be utilized during the job

Answer 75. The City may share any existing materials if available, vendor remains responsible for the current job analysis.

Question 76: Does the City have a previous job analysis for each rank that can be utilized during the job analysis process?

Answer 76. Same response as 75, existing materials may be referenced only.

Question 77: What exercises did the previous Assessment Center consist of for each rank?

Answer 77. Same response as 75, existing materials may be referenced only.

Question 78: Does the City have any security concerns that would require all candidates to go through the assessment center exercises in one day? Or does each candidate have to do all of his/her assessment center exercises in one day?

Answer 78. The vendor should propose security controls, the City may require same day completion per candidate and may require sequestration depending on design.

Question 79: Who is responsible for recruiting the Assessors?

Answer 79. Vendor is responsible for recruiting and managing assessors, subject to City review and approval for conflicts and minimum qualifications.

Question 80: Do you require the use of out-of-town assessors?

Answer 80. Not required, independence and qualification standards drive assessor selection.

Question 81: For vendors who have been awarded a contract to do business with the state of Georgia, how has the city dealt with other state laws of those entities from out of state?

Answer 81. Contract performance is governed by Georgia law and the RFP requirements; vendors must identify any conflicts as formal exceptions in their proposal.

Question 82: How to register to do business in the state of Georgia, and what is the time to comply? Is it necessary at the time of responding to the RFP or after? If it is after, what is the time frame?

Answer 83. Registration and required licenses may be completed after notice of award, and prior to contract execution or start of services, proposers must confirm their ability to comply within the

City timeline.

Question 83: As a public educational institution and political sub-division of the State of Florida, our insurance guidelines and limitations are stipulated under the laws of Florida. How do we submit those limitations for approval?

Submit any insurance limitations and requested exceptions with the proposal as a formal exception.

The City will evaluate but will not guarantee acceptance; minimum coverage requirements remain unless modified by a written addendum or negotiated contract terms.

CLARIFICATIONS / MODIFICATIONS / QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The City of South Fulton website is the official location for the posting of all solicitation Addenda and contract award results. It is the obligation of each Prospective Provider to frequently monitor the City website in order to obtain complete and timely information. The City’s website is located at:

https://www.cityofsouthfultonga.gov and the Georgia Procurement Registry website:

https://ssl.doas.state.ga.us/PRSapp/PR_index.jsp . All other terms, conditions, and specifications of the solicitation remain unchanged.

Name of Company / Firm / Organization Date

Printed Name of Authorized Rep. / Title Signature of Authorized Representative https://www.cityofsouthfultonga.gov/ https://ssl.doas.state.ga.us/PRSapp/PR_index.jsp