Amendment #1 - Q&A - RFP PMAA 2027_0004.pdf

Amendment #1 - Questions & Answers (Q&A)

RFP PMAA 2027*0004

CPW Trust Workshops

A. The following questions, and the answer to each, were received:

1. Section 3.3 requires similar government partnership/trust workshop experience. May this minimum be met through a combination of proposed key personnel/subcontractors, or must the prime Offeror itself have this experience?

i. Yes, this minimum can be met through a combination of proposed key personnel/subcontractors.

2. Section 2.5 allows work outside Colorado/U.S. with notice, while the

Submission Form asks if 100% of work will be in Colorado. Can an Offeror answer No and remain responsive if it complies with Section 2.5?

i. Offerors can answer “no” to the submission form item pertaining to

“100% of the work being in Colorado” and still be responsive to the

RFP. Contractors from outside of Colorado that will complete work for Colorado outside of the State are eligible for award and will receive fair and equitable treatment with regard to evaluation. If a contractor is awarded and will be performing work outside of

Colorado or the U.S., it must be disclosed to the Department of

Personnel Administration, so the submission form response helps expedite that process.

3. Are you open to out of state vendors?

i. See response to question 2.

4. Regarding Section 3.3, does experience developing and facilitating similar partnership and trust workshops for government agencies need to be specifically with governmental natural resource agencies, or may comparable experience with other government agencies meet the minimum requirement?

i. Experience with governmental natural resource agencies is preferred.

5. Is prior experience facilitating workshops using the Stern and Baird Trust

Ecology Framework required, or is demonstrated understanding and proposed utilization of the framework sufficient? Who are the anticipated audiences for the workshops, including the types of CPW staff and external partners expected to participate?

i. A demonstrated understanding and proposed utilization of the framework is sufficient. The CPW staff audience will include individuals who represent a diverse array of programs, regions and positions, and will be prioritized based on who interacts with external partners and is most closely responsible for upholding trust with those partners. This includes, but is not limited to, staff who work in partnerships, policy and planning, marketing and communications, State Parks, private landowner relationships, wildlife management, and more. The types of external partners expected to participate are similar and will represent CPW’s core constituencies, which may include sportspersons, landowners, conservation and recreation organizations, outdoor equity representatives, and others.

6. Do you have a past vendor for these services?

i. Yes, CPW hired Lacy Consulting Services to facilitate a similar workshop for the Partners in the Outdoors Conference Planning

Committee in 2023. This is the first time we are hosting these workshops specifically for staff and partners.

7. Approximately how many participants are anticipated for each workshop?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. Follow the link to Exhibit A, Scope of Work included in section 1.8

Additional Attachments/Links. The minimum is 40 participants per workshop, but CPW is interested in having more if the facilitator can meaningfully engage a larger group.

8. What is the anticipated length of the in-person and virtual workshop?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. Follow the link to Exhibit A, Scope of Work included in section 1.8

Additional Attachments/Links.

9. What is the anticipated budget or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. Follow the link to Exhibit A, Scope of Work included in section 1.8

Additional Attachments/Links.

10.Does CPW expect the selected Offeror to demonstrate prior experience directly facilitating public or community engagement involving external natural-resource stakeholders, or will experience designing and facilitating trust, collaboration, and partnership development for government and natural-resource organizations satisfy the minimum requirement?

i. Experience designing and facilitating trust, collaboration, and partnership development for government and natural-resource organizations will satisfy the minimum requirement.

11.The Scope of Work states that each workshop should meaningfully engage at least 40 participants. What participant range does CPW anticipate for the in-person and virtual workshops, and does CPW expect to establish a registration cap for each session?

i. CPW would like as many individuals as possible to participate in the workshops, but also wants to ensure that participants are meaningfully engaged and have plentiful opportunities for questions and small group discussion. We are open to having conversations with the vendor about audience size and what feels like it will be the most impactful. CPW does expect to establish a registration cap for each session.

12.Does CPW expect each virtual workshop to be delivered as one continuous seven- to eight-hour session, or may Offerors propose dividing the workshop into two shorter sessions for the same participant group?

i. Offerers may propose dividing the workshop into two shorter sessions.

13.The Scope of Work states that each workshop will be slightly customized.

Does CPW envision a consistent core curriculum with audience-specific examples, scenarios, and priorities, or does CPW expect substantially different content for each region and audience?

i. CPW envisions a consistent core curriculum with audience-specific examples, scenarios, and priorities.

14.Approximately how many planning meetings does CPW anticipate during the engagement? Does CPW envision one central planning team, separate planning conversations with each region and partner audience, or a combination of both?

i. CPW anticipates biweekly meetings during the planning period

(approximately Nov-Jan). Meeting cadence will likely decrease to occuring on an as-needed basis following the planning period.

Meetings could occur more or less frequently as is necessary throughout the project and meeting frequency will be determined with the awarded contractor. CPW envisions a central planning team, who will invite regional staff to participate in certain meetings.

15.Would CPW please clarify the expected scope of the recap resources developed after each workshop? Is CPW seeking a participant reference and action-planning resource customized with session-specific insights, or a separate written findings and recommendations report following each workshop?

i. CPW is open to vendor proposals on how best to capture workshop outcomes and next steps, but would like recap resources that are available to CPW staff who were unable to attend the workshops, and that captures actionable items to continue to utilize the learnings from the workshops. A participant reference and action-planning resource customized with session-specific insights could meet these expectations, a written report with findings and recommendations, or both.

16.What delivery window and general cadence does CPW anticipate for the eight workshops between the expected project start date and June 30, 2027? Would CPW consider scheduling regional workshops consecutively when feasible to reduce travel costs?

i. CPW anticipates that the eight workshops will occur between

Jan-Jun 2027. CPW will consider scheduling regional workshops consecutively to reduce travel costs. Potential weather and road conditions will also be considered when scheduling the in person workshops, so it’s likely (although not guaranteed) that the in person workshops will occur between March and June.

17.When does CPW anticipate deciding whether the fourth partner workshop will be virtual or in person? For the required overall total, should Offerors use one format as the pricing assumption or provide alternative totals for both scenarios?

i. CPW will gauge demand and make that decision either in early

2027 or following the first virtual partner workshop. Given that workshops will have capped attendance, we will offer an additional workshop if partner workshop capacity does not meet demand. For the total, please provide alternative totals for both scenarios.

18.Because final in-person locations have not yet been confirmed, may

Offerors state reasonable travel assumptions in their pricing? If CPW changes a workshop location after award in a way that materially changes travel costs, would the Purchase Order permit a corresponding adjustment?

i. Yes, CPW desires to see the reasonable travel assumption in

Offeror pricing based on the anticipated locations outlined in Exhibit

A, Scope of Work. If material changes to travel costs occur due to any workshop location changes, then the Purchase Order can be modified to reflect the pricing adjustment needed for the travel cost change.

19.Will CPW provide the anticipated relative weighting or point allocation for

Qualifications and Experience, Project Approach, and Price?

i. The items are not anticipated to be weighted or allocated a specific point total. A numerical evaluation method is anticipated to be used as an aid to evaluation of proposals. While numerical scoring may be used as an aid to evaluation, the selection ultimately is a business judgment that will reflect an integrated assessment of the relative merits of proposals and presentations (if applicable) using the factors identified in section 4.0 of the RFP, and the numerical scores do not determine the awarded Offeror. Offerors should ensure that their submission is complete, and are encouraged to submit their best possible proposal, including pricing.

20.Section 5.21 states that products developed under the resulting contract will become the property of the State. Please confirm whether Offerors may identify pre-existing frameworks, facilitation methods, activities, templates, and other background intellectual property that will remain the property of the Offeror while granting CPW the rights needed to use the final CPW-specific materials developed under the contract.

i. This is the correct assumption. The resulting materials delivered as part of the agreed upon Statement of Work for the workshops will be the property of CPW.

21.Can DNR share Exhibit A (Scope of Work) directly, or confirm the specific topics/objectives expected across the 4 in-person and 3 virtual sessions?

Are they meant to build sequentially, or are they standalone sessions?

i. Exhibit A, Scope of Work is accessible through the posted RFP document titled “RFP PMAA 2027*0004 - CPW Trust Workshops.”

In section 1.4 of the mentioned RFP document, Exhibit A, Scope of

Work is linked. Select the link and it will open a folder where Exhibit

A, Scope of Work is viewable or downloadable.

ii.

22.What is the expected audience mix per session (CPW internal staff only, external partners only, or mixed in the same session)?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work.

23.What is the approximate group size per workshop?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work.

24.Are the in-person workshops in one general location, or distributed across

CPW’s regions/field offices?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work.

25.Should the per-session in-person price be a flat rate regardless of location, or should travel costs be itemized separately by session location?

i. The vendor may provide your fees and travel costs in your preferred format, as long as everything is included.

26.Is there a not-to-exceed budget range for this engagement, to help ensure proposals are appropriately scoped?

i. This information can be found in Exhibit A, Scope of Work.

27.For workshop customization, what aspects do you anticipate varying most by audience: content emphasis and examples, actual exercise/activity design, framing/language, or something else?

i. CPW anticipates that content emphasis and examples will vary the most by audience. There may be some variation in framing and language as well.

28.Exhibit A lists a broad range of partners (ranchers, conservationists, recreationists, underrepresented communities, etc.); will a given partner session draw from a narrower subset, or should we plan for a broad mix in the same room?

i. Plan for a broad mix in the same room.

29.For the post-workshop recap resources, do you have a format or level of customization in mind (e.g., a single adaptable template vs.

workshop-specific materials), and are these meant primarily for individual participant use or for wider distribution within CPW/partner organizations?

i. See response to question 15.

30.Beyond facilitator travel to the four regional locations, should vendor travel costs account for anything else (e.g., shipping printed materials, in-person visits during planning, etc.)?

i. Per section 3.6 Price in the RFP where it states: “The overall total should be inclusive of all expected costs such as planning, travel and administrative costs.”

31.Is CPW interested in the vendor incorporating participant feedback or outcome tracking (e.g., a short post-workshop evaluation) to help demonstrate progress against the Partnership Objective metric, or is CPW handling that separately?

i. Yes, CPW is interested in the vendor incorporating participant feedback or outcome tracking. This is not required but it would be welcomed.

32.Will the State approve a named subcontractor as part of the award, or is a separate written approval required after award under Section 2.1?

i. The State can approve the named subcontractors as part of the award. If a change in subcontractors occurs during the project, CPW will need to be notified of any such changes.

33.Is the $77,000 budget in Exhibit A a firm ceiling for evaluation purposes?

i. Per Exhibit A, Scope of Work, the budget is up to $77,000 total.

34.Has CPW engaged Marc Stern or Timothy Baird in any capacity for this project, and does CPW hold permissions for use of the paper in vendor-developed workshop materials?

i. No, CPW has not engaged Marc Stern or Timothy Baird and does not hold any special permissions. CPW intends for the published paper by Marc Stern and Timothy Baird to inform and inspire the content of the workshops with the appropriate referencing where appropriate.

35.Does answering "No" to the 100%-work-in-Colorado certification affect responsiveness or scoring, and does proposal and workshop development count as "work" for that certification?

i. See response to question 2 for pt.1 of this question. For pt. 2, any work completed with regard to developing a proposal in response to this RFP would not count towards any work completed if awarded and completing these services for CPW resulting from issuance of

Purchase Order. The State of Colorado is not liable for any cost incurred by Offerors prior to issuance of a legally executed contract or procurement document. Any work completed following award and issuance of a purchase order will count. If any work tasks are being completed outside of the State, including workshop development, then “No” must be input in response to 100% of the work being completed in Colorado.

36.Does CPW have target months for each workshop, and are there periods when staff cannot attend?

i. See response to question 16.

37.Does experience held by a proposed subcontractor satisfy the Section 3.3 minimum requirement for experience developing and facilitating similar partnership and trust workshops for government agencies, or must the prime vendor hold that experience?

i. See response to question 1.

38.Will CPW decide the format of the eighth workshop before award, or should vendors price both options?

i. See response to question 17.

39.Will CPW consider a development or mobilization milestone payment before the first workshop, given that development precedes any workshop completion?

i. Yes.

40.The Submission Form references "Section 2.6" for out-of-state reporting, but the RFPs reporting provision is Section 2.5. Which governs?

i. Section 2.5. The submission form should reference section 2.5.

Correction has been applied to attachment titled “Amendment #1

RFP PMAA 2027_0004 - CPW Trust Workshops Development” which has been posted with this amendment #1 Q&A.

41.May a vendor or its subcontractor retain ownership of pre-existing intellectual property and license it to the State, rather than transferring all materials under Section 5.21?

i. See response to question 20.

42.Does the 15-page limit exclude a cover page, table of contents, and section dividers?

i. Yes, the 15-page limit excludes a cover page, table of contents, and section dividers.

43.For purposes of the requirement for “similar partnership and trust workshops,” would CPW consider comparable work involving partnership development, trust-building, organizational learning, stakeholder engagement, or facilitated collaboration for governmental natural-resource entities, even if the engagement was not formally titled a “trust workshop”?

i. Yes.

44.Does this award involve federal funds?

i. No.

45.Will the State accept a scheduled list of pre-existing vendor IP under

5.21?

i. See response to question 20.

B. All other terms and conditions of RFP PMAA 2027*0004 - CPW Trust Workshops remain the same.