Addendum One_Municipal Audit Preparation Prog.pdf

ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE

Municipal Audit Preparation Program

GEFA RFQC # 928-WRD26-MAPP

Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (“GEFA”)

3/18/26

From: Richard Sawyer, GEFA

To: Potential Respondents to RFQC

This Addendum forms a part of the (RFQC) No. 928-WRD26-MAPP and modifies the RFQC as described below. Changed sections, answers, and GEFA answers and clarifications are underlined.

This Addendum consists of six-(6) pages.

A. GEFA RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED

1. Can GEFA advise the offeror how many municipalities need audit preparation assistance? On average, 7–10% of Georgia's 701 local governments remain in noncompliance with state audit requirements for one or more consecutive years.

2. Can GEFA advise the offeror how many total years are delinquent? 4 consecutive years or less.

3. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether there is a minimum percentage of total program work required to be performed directly by the prime contractor, and if so, what that threshold is?

Considering this is our first year of offering these services, it is not known how much program work will be performed directly by the prime contractor.

4. Can GEFA advise the offeror of the expected timeline for contractor mobilization and commencement of services following final award and agreement execution? GEFA estimates

2–4 weeks following agreement execution for contractor mobilization.

5. Can GEFA advise the offeror if a prime contractor enters into an engagement with a municipality where one of its subcontractors is currently engaged to perform assurance work, would that affect the subcontractor's independence as defined by professional standards through the

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)? GEFA prohibits a contractor from providing preparation services and then performing the assurance work.

6. If selected as a finalist, will the contractor have any agency in selecting which municipalities it enters into an engagement with? Or will GEFA determine which selected finalist will perform work on individual municipalities? GEFA will determine which local government will work with the selected contractor.

7. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether all three phases (Assessment, Implementation, and Pre-

Audit Readiness) will be required for every municipality, or whether some entities will require only partial support? Some municipalities may require all three phases, while others may only require partial support. An initial assessment will need to be completed by the contractor.

8. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA will facilitate initial introductions and data access permissions with each participating municipality? Yes. GEFA will facilitate initial introductions for each participating municipality.

9. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA will provide a baseline internal control framework

(e.g., COSO-based), or whether the contractor is expected to develop one? GEFA will likely define the standards in subsequent phase, what must be achieved, and finalists are is expected to provide the framework, how it is achieved, as part of their technical proposal.

10. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA will provide prior audit findings or compliance reports for municipalities subject to Single Audit requirements to support risk assessment? GEFA may provide the most recent audit findings or compliance reports, if available, in subsequent phase of the procurement.

11. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether the contractor should anticipate supporting municipalities with federal award documentation beyond the SF-SAC, such as SEFA preparation or grant compliance testing? Yes. GEFA expects the contractor to provide support that extends significantly beyond the SF-SAC, including SEFA preparation and grant compliance testing, as applicable.

12. Can GEFA advise the offeror what level of involvement GEFA expects from municipal staff during each phase of the engagement? GEFA expects consistent and meaningful involvement from municipal staff throughout all phases of the engagement. This should not be viewed simply as a consulting exercise — it is an opportunity to build lasting knowledge and capacity that will serve the community well beyond the life of this project.

13. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA will issue individual task orders for each municipality or whether the contractor will manage the entire program under a single master agreement?

It is envisioned the contractor will manage the project under a single master agreement in conjunction with GEFA. The contractor would provide milestones and progress updates to

GEFA.

14. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether there are any anticipated data security, confidentiality, or cybersecurity requirements beyond standard state guidelines? GEFA does not anticipate any such requirements.

15. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA anticipates a phased rollout of municipalities or simultaneous onboarding? GEFA anticipates a phased rollout of municipalities.

16. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA will provide a dedicated program manager or liaison to coordinate scheduling and communication across participating municipalities? GEFA anticipates providing a dedicated program manager/liaison.

17. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA is developing a standardized step-by-step process it expects the contractor to follow, or if selected as a finalist, can the offeror propose its own methodology and operational design framework? Selected finalist firms may propose their firms’ own methodology and operational design framework for GEFA's review.

18. Can GEFA advise the offeror what level of financial record completion is expected — specifically whether the scope includes preparation of an adjusted trial balance with proper year-end accruals, or extends to preparation of a complete set of GASB-compliant financial statements with full note disclosures? This will likely be determined by each municipality in accordance with its financial policies and procedures, as well as the statutory requirements of the State of

Georgia applicable to each engagement.

19. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether the contractor will be expected to prepare other financial information and related reports beyond the core audit preparation scope, including DCA Annual

Report of Local Government Finances, E-911 Report, Hotel/Motel Report, specialized grant-required reports, and other statutory or regulatory reports? A key goal of MAPP is to achieve audit readiness, GEFA understands that for some municipalities audit readiness is inextricably linked to state-mandated reporting.

20. Can GEFA advise the offeror whether GEFA acknowledges that each participating government's financial condition and readiness level will be unique, and that the time and resources required to bring each entity to audit readiness may vary significantly? GEFA does acknowledge and anticipate that each municipality’s financial condition and audit readiness will be different.

21. Can GEFA advise the offeror what the anticipated period of performance is for the resulting contract and its expected duration? GEFA anticipates executing a one-year agreement.

22. Can GEFA advise the offeror how many fiscal years back the contractor is expected to address during audit preparation — specifically whether the scope is limited to the most recent year or may extend to multiple prior years? 4 consecutive years or less.

23. Can GEFA advise the offeror what role the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts (DOAA) will play in this program, including whether the contractor will be required to coordinate directly with DOAA and what decision-making authority, if any, DOAA will have over contract execution and performance? GEFA does not anticipate direct involvement from DOAA, but limited coordination is possible.

24. Regarding the rollout of the program, will there be opportunities for firms to decline specific municipal projects if potential independence concerns arise? Yes. It is possible firms may have the opportunity to decline projects where engagement may impair their independence.

25. Has GEFA performed a risk assessment or similar evaluation of the municipalities currently planned for inclusion in the program? GEFA has not performed a formal risk assessment.

26. How many agencies or municipalities does GEFA envision will require these services on an annual basis? To be determined (TBD).

27. If a firm has been selected for the MAPP, will the contract for services be between the firm and

GEFA? Yes. The contract would be executed directly with GEFA.

28. For participating agencies, will GEFA require specific levels of effort to assist the selected firms, such as: (a) participation in Phase 1 meetings, (b) providing remote access to streamline Phase 2 assessments, and (c) timely responsiveness to facilitate the external audit process? Yes.

GEFA will require specific levels of effort from participating municipal agencies throughout each phase of the engagement. Active participation is essential to the success of this process.

29. If there is a contract or agreement template for the participating agencies, can that be provided for review to understand the expected level of participation? A contract or agreement template for municipalities has not yet been developed.

30. Do you envision that Phase 1 would be completed for a municipality without Phase 2 or Phase 3 being completed? Yes. Some municipalities may require all three phases, while others may only require partial support. An initial assessment completed by the contractor will determine the appropriate scope for each engagement.

31. Is it permissible for a collective group of corporations, firms, or persons to participate as one entity and if so, would each need to submit an individual statement of qualifications, or can a prime contractor include subcontractors under a single submittal? While we are seeking just one statement of qualifications of the "prime" respondent in this phase, within it you can provide limited qualifications information on other outside resources (subs) which you are certain you will be utilizing, though you should clearly indicate whose qualifications they are. If you are submitting as a joint venture, such qualifications of other entity(s) would be appropriate to submit together as combined qualifications, again, indicating whose quals are relevant to the deliverable.

32. The RFQC states that GEFA will select finalist firms 'to propose a solution and services.' Can

GEFA confirm whether an award will be made as a result of this RFQC, or whether GEFA intends to issue a subsequent RFP following this qualifications-based selection phase? GEFA may select one or more finalists from this qualifications phase for further consideration, including possible solicitation of proposals in a more detailed Finalist Notification (or RFP). Any single firm selected as a part of these process phases will only be “Apparent Awardee” until an acceptable contract is executed, negotiations are formerly suspended with apparent awardee, or procurement is cancelled.

33. Do staff resumes count toward the 20-page response limit, or may resumes be submitted separately as an appendix that does not count against the page limit? Resumes may be submitted separately and not count toward the page limit.

34. How many local governments would likely be participating in the MAPP? To be determined (TBD).

35. Please define the type of entity that is a 'related stakeholder.' Any entity that is impacted by this scope of services and where such impact affects the best interest of GEFA, DOAA and the citizens of the State of GA.

36. What are the most common audit findings or recurring pain points GEFA sees across municipal participants in the MAPP program today? As this is the first time the Municipal Audit

Preparation Program (MAPP) is being offered to municipalities, GEFA is actively establishing the baseline for recurring pain points.

37. How does GEFA define a successful audit preparation engagement beyond receiving a clean audit opinion? Since this is the first time the program is offered to municipalities, GEFA’s definition of success centers on moving local governments from a "reactive" state to a

"proactive" operational model. GEFA will also define success by the feedback loop created during the engagement. Success is not defined by an auditee receiving a “clean audit opinion” but more by the ability for an auditee to have its audit efficiently completed.

38. Are there differences in expectations or scope based on municipality size, complexity, or funding mix (e.g., Single Audit vs. non-Single Audit entities)? Yes. GEFA expects the contractor to tailor its audit program based on the relevant factors of each auditee. The audit framework and deliverables should account for applicable local, state, and federal requirements necessary to fulfill the purpose of the engagement.

39. What role does GEFA expect the contractor to play relative to external auditors — supportive, coordinative, or advisory only? The role played by the contractor may be wholly dependent upon expectations from the auditee and should be determined by an initial assessment with anticipated clients. It’s anticipated that the level of engagement may be determined by the skill level and availability of personnel and may vary from client to client.

40. Are there preferred tools, templates, or reporting formats GEFA currently uses, or is standardization across municipalities a program goal? GEFA anticipates that each client will be different, therefore the approach to an engagement should be commensurate with the data points of each client. Standardization may be achieved, when possible, but there may likely be differences experienced locally.

41. How does GEFA envision quarterly training sessions being delivered (centralized, regional, virtual, or municipality-specific)? Training sessions can be delivered virtually.

42. What level of change management or staff adoption challenges has GEFA experienced in prior or similar programs? This is a first-time offering for municipalities.

43. How will GEFA evaluate suitability when balancing standardization versus flexibility across firms?

Qualifications communicated appropriately in firms’ SOQs should guide evaluators as to the level of suitability of the firms, and if firms feel an area such as flexibility vs. standardization is of importance, firms should address this or other important areas in a statement of suitability.

GEFA, with possible coordination from DOAA will be the ultimate judge of suitability of submittals reviewed.

44. Are there anticipated state or federal audit requirement changes GEFA expects the MAPP program to help municipalities prepare for? Not specifically. The intent is to assist the local government return to the overall state audit compliance.

45. Approximately how many municipalities GEFA expect to support annually through MAPP?

To be determined (TBD).

46. Will contracts be executed directly with GEFA or with individual municipalities? The contract will be executed directly with GEFA.

47. Is the intent primarily one-time pre-audit/project-based support, or ongoing monthly or quarterly involvement? If ongoing, what will be the initial contract timeline? TBD. The intent is to assist the local government with returning to overall state audit compliance.

48. Does GEFA have an estimated budget (dollars or hours) for each phase? No. GEFA does not have an established budget estimate for individual phases.

49. Will contractors be expected to prepare financial statements, or support client-prepared statements only? Based on the current status of noncompliance, it may be necessary to prepare financial statements in cases. However, this expectation may be different by each client and determined by federal and state requirements because financial statements may not be required for each engagement.

50. What percentage of participating entities typically require Single Audits (expend $1 million or more in federal funds)? To be determined (TBD).

51. Are firms expected to provide standardized tools/systems, or are there preferred client systems

(e.g., ERP, Grant Management System, Workpaper Repositories)? TBD, but likely to utilize the system the local government has in place.

52. Have there been any known specific project management risks, frauds, or material control breakdowns with GEFA that would impact an offeror's approach? GEFA does not know if any specific project management risks, frauds or material control that would impact an approach.

53. Is there a preference for on-site versus remote work? Initially, support will be provided onsite, as the municipality will require hands-on assistance with the coordination of documents and tasks. This can possibly be negotiated based on the municipalities’ needs.

54. Approximately how many municipalities does GEFA expect to support annually through MAPP?

To be determined (TBD).

55. Can the buyer advise the offeror if a mistake was made on page 9 paragraph C 1? referring to the selection of the Engineering consultant? Yes, “Engineering consultant” was in error.

Disregard any reference to Engineering or Engineering Consultant. In this procurement, “Contractor” for this selection was intended.

56. MAPP Exhibit I, Statement of Qualifications Certification Form, pg. 10 Exhibit I appears to be misformatted in the RFQC PDF, with the top portion of the form beginning at the bottom of page 10. Can the State issue a corrected version of Exhibit I that is formatted as a single-page form? GEFA will accept two-page submittal of this (or an edited/separated version of the respondent).

57. MAPP III. Evaluation and Selection Process, A. Overview, pg. 4 This section references a “lending solution”; however, the RFQC appears to be focused on municipal audit preparation services.

Can GEFA clarify how the reference to a lending solution applies to the scope of this procurement? “Lending solution” was in error- please supplant “lending solution provision” with

“audit preparation service provision”.

58. MAPP V. Deliverables for Statement of Qualifications, B. Experience and Qualifications, pg. 7 The

RFQC requests that the 3–5 project descriptions include “dollar amounts of lending assistance.”

Given that the scope of services does not appear to involve lending activities, can GEFA clarify the intent of this requirement and how respondents should address it? This was an error but is still intended to grasp volume of services performed for Clients. Therefore, for Deliverable

B.3.(b), please provide “number of audit preparations or related number of municipalities serviced for Client”.

END OF ADDENDUM #1