Addendum 4.pdf

C O U N T Y O F U L S T E R

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

100 DEVELOPMENT COURT

JEN METZGER KINGSTON, NEW YORK 12401 EDWARD M. JORDAN

Ulster County Executive (845) 340-3400/FAX (845) 340-3434 Director of General Services

PETER J. ESPOSITO

Deputy Director of Purchasing

RFP-UC26-031

Contract Process Improvement Consulting

ADDENDUM #4

August 18, 2026

The purpose of this Addendum is to answer vendor questions.

Q: Section II (Qualifications and Experience) requires a minimum of three references for “similar projects.”

Given that this engagement focuses on process mapping, workflow governance, and SOP/documentation redesign rather than software implementation, would the County accept process-improvement, workflow-documentation, or business-rules engagements performed for non-municipal institutional clients (e.g., federal agencies) as

“similar,” provided the methodology and deliverables are comparable? Or is the County strictly seeking county/municipal government references?

A: The County will accept references for similar projects performed for other public institutional clients, including federal agencies, provided the methodology and deliverables are comparable to the services requested in this RFP.

Q: Some of our most relevant engagements were performed under federal relationships where confidentiality constraints limit our ability to arrange live reference calls on short notice.

Would the County accept a written reference-verification letter or an alternate point of contact in place of a live call where these constraints apply?

A: The County will accept a written reference-verification letter on approved official letterhead.

Q: Could the County confirm whether the Living Wage Acknowledgement and Acceptance Declaration applies to a solo-principal firm with no W-2 employees, or if an exemption applies in this circumstance?

A: The Living Wage Acknowledgement and Acceptance Declaration should be completed and submitted as required by the RFP. The Living Wage requirement applies to Covered Employees employed by a Covered

Employer. If the firm has no employees performing services under the resulting contract, there would be no

Covered Employees to whom the Living Wage requirement would apply.

Q: Addendum #1 states that the County retains exclusive ownership of all work product, with no carve-out for a firm's pre-existing proprietary methods or templates.

Can a responder reserve its own pre-existing methodologies or frameworks as “Background IP” excluded from the County's ownership, provided the specific analysis and deliverables produced for this engagement remain the

County's property?

A: The County will accept a carve-out allowing the Proposer to retain ownership of its pre-existing methodologies, frameworks, templates, or other pre-existing intellectual property. Work product and deliverables specifically developed for this engagement shall remain the property of the County.

Q: In response to our original question regarding Mandatory Deliverables, Item #6 Updated Contract

Documentation Package, you noted, “As the quantity of items under these bullets are dependent on the recommended plan created by the consultant, the County cannot provide estimates.”

If the County cannot provide estimates, how does the County expect the respondent to provide an estimate without having first completed the assessment of the processes involved and the documentation to be updated?

Our concern is that the County is asking respondents to provide firm fixed pricing for deliverables that are undefined and for which we have no level of understanding as to: (1) the quantity of the items in question; (2) the current quality of those items; and (3) the level of effort that will be required to update them per the recommended plan?

With this in mind, would the County consider either: (1) removing the requirement to complete this work as part of the scope and pricing; or (2) allowing for an alternative pricing model that assumes the work will be completed by the respondent but acknowledges that the level of effort involved is currently unknown and will only be known once the recommended plan is developed and agreed to with the County? If you are open to #2, please detail the specific pricing requirements for this element of the work in your response.

A: It is the responsibility of the respondent to propose a plan for the project and develop its budget based on the plan proposed. If a respondent requires a defined number of deliverables in order to develop its pricing, the proposed plan should identify the number of deliverables included and base the proposed cost on that quantity.

The respondent may also identify any additional costs that would apply if the number of deliverables exceeds the quantity included in its proposal.

END OF ADDENDUM 4

Please acknowledge receipt of Addendum #4 on the form provided in the response documents.

Edward M. Jordan

Director of General Services