AMENDMENT #2_Responses to Further Inquiries Received by October 14th_10-19-2026.docx

AMENDMENT #2:

DIVISION OF Local Government Disaster Resilience Rebuilding Program

RFQ: NLAA-2027000003

PRE-DISASTER REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

Responses to Further Inquiries Received by October 14th, 2026 Deadline Submission Deadlines and General BidNet Questions

Q1: Controlling submission deadline and method Version 2 contains multiple submission dates, including the October 6 date in the introductory submittal guidelines and the October 22, 2026, 2:00 p.m. MST date in the revised Schedule of Activities. Please confirm the controlling SOQ submission deadline and confirm whether a responsive submission must be submitted both by email to Brenda Lujan and through Rocky Mountain BidNet.

A1: The revised Schedule of Activities on page 5 contains the revised and current dates. Responsive submissions still must be submitted both via email and through BidNet.

Q2: We would appreciate your confirmation of the Statement of Qualifications due date. The documents currently list three different dates:

1. Version 2, Section I.C (Schedule of Activities): October 22, 2026, 2:00 p.m. (MST)

2. Q&A Response A90: October 16, 2026, 5:00 p.m. (MT)

3. Version 2, page 1 (Submittal Guidelines): October 6, 2026, 2:00 p.m. (MST)

We are proceeding on the understanding that the governing deadline is October 22, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time, as stated in the Schedule of Activities. Could you please confirm this date and time, or let us know if a different deadline applies?

A2: Confirmed.

Q3: Requesting additional clarification regarding BidNet Direct and the requirement to submit a “Total Bid Price” and a cost proposal per scenario. The revised RFQ, Section 4. Qualifications Narrative – Program Areas, b. Program Management and Approach, states the following: “Include your cost proposal at the Task level based on your approach. However, BidNet Direct only allows for one “Total Bid Price” to be submitted for this RFQ in its current configuration. Will the system be updated to allow for a Total Bid Price to be submitted for each Task Order Program Area and associated scenario? Otherwise, a vendor who is responding to all program areas would likely quote a higher Total Bid Price than a vendor who is responding to only one program area, but that would not provide a meaningful comparison of their relative cost for a given task area or individual scenario.

A3: A total does not have to be entered into the field in Bidnet. The amount entered will not be part of the evaluation.

Q4: We noted a section of the BidNet Solicitation portal that requires a lump sum amount. Considering some Respondents may only be bidding on specific program areas, please clarify what makes up the lump sum amount.

A4: This field does not need to be filled in on Bidnet. Leave it blank for this MTOC need.

Forms and Other Submittals

Q6: ACORD timing. Section II.E.1.f describes submitting the ACORD with the proposal as mandatory, while Section II.F.4 states it is not required with the proposal and is due 7 days after contract execution. Which governs?

A6: See A5.

Q7: According to version 2 of the RFQ, Section II.F.2. Completed Preferred Payment method and submission of related forms, Respondents must complete and submit the authorization form included as Exhibit C if they prefer EFT. As Exhibit C requires the inclusion of sensitive financial information, what procedures should Respondents choosing to submit this form follow in order to keep the information out of public record?

A7: The information provided in this document is not shared under FOIA/CORA requests. Entities can submit as part of their email package and omit on Bidnet.

Q8: Page 15 – Additional Required Documents, Item #2: Regarding the requirement to provide a W-9, the RFQ specifies that it must be submitted using the December 2022 version of the form. That version is not currently available on the IRS website. The available IRS-issued versions are the 2018 version and the current 2024 version. Because we can only submit official IRS forms, will submission of the current IRS-issued Form W-9 satisfy this requirement?

A8: The IRS form 2024 is acceptable.

Q9: Page 7 Q&A #27 Please confirm that the Qualifications Google form is no longer required with proposal submissions. Q27: Page 15. Please confirm whether the Pre-qualification Google Form is required for this Solicitation; it refers to the Colorado Main Street Program. A27: See A21. A21: Main Street language does not apply to this RFQ and will be removed.

A9: The Qualifications Google form is not required. This was a remnant from the Main Street Contract and is not required for this program.

Page Limits

Q10: Five-page Program Area limit – Please confirm whether all content required within each Program Area response, including personnel, Program Management and Approach, experience, scenario pricing, cost tables, and cost assumptions, must fit within the five-page limit, or whether detailed pricing/rate schedules may be provided as an attachment.

A10: Each task area must fit within 5 pages. If you have pricing that applies to multiple task areas, we recommend you include that within the 5 pages allowable for the general requirements.

Q11: Regarding version 2 of the RFQ, Section II.E.4.b. Program Management and Approach, please confirm cost proposals are excluded from the page limit for each program area’s Qualifications Narrative?

A11: Cost proposals are within the 5 page limit. See A10 above.

General Contract Terms

Q12: Bonding. Section II.A.2, item 12.g requires the provider to "provide all necessary bonding," and the answer to Q78 states that bonding language and dollar amounts can be found in the sample Master Task Order Contract. We could not find bonding provisions in Exhibit A (version 09.2025). Please state the bond types and amounts expected for Program Area 2, and whether bonds are required at the Master Task Order Contract level or per task order.

A12: Bonds are required per Task Order. Bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds for non-construction Master task order contracts, such as for consulting, IT, or professional services typically do not have a statutory mandate, though a public entity (such as DOLA) may choose to include them contractually for risk management.

Q13: Insurance. Are the Protected Information and Crime coverages in Exhibit A, Section 10.D and 10.F required of every Program Area 2 provider at contract execution, or will they be set at the task-order level based on scope? For a firm with no owned vehicles, does hired and non-owned automobile coverage satisfy Section 10.C?

A13: Crime and PII are required under every Colorado State Contract. If a firm does not own a vehicle, hired and non-owned auto coverage does satisfy Section 10.C.

Costs and Pricing Q14: Travel-cost treatment Q&A A115 states that travel for out-of-state personnel traveling to Colorado will not be reimbursed, while A116 states that rates may be blended or separate. Please clarify whether airfare, lodging, per diem, rental vehicles, mileage, or other travel costs for out-of-state personnel performing required work in Colorado may be proposed as separate direct costs at the task-order level, or whether any or all of those costs must be absorbed by the contractor.

A14: Travel costs for out-of-state personnel performing required work in Colorado can typically be proposed as separate direct costs at the task-order level, provided they comply with the specific Master Contract terms and state regulations. However, the contractor must closely adhere to Colorado State Fiscal Rule 5-1, which defines the strict baseline allowances and parameters for traveler reimbursement. If a specific task order or master agreement explicitly mandates that all travel expenses must be "fully burdened" or "absorbed by the contractor," those terms override general allowances.

Q15: The revised RFQ, Section 4. Qualifications Narrative – Program Areas, b. Program Management and Approach, states the following: “Include your cost proposal at the Task level based on your approach. Only include costs that will be billed by you to the State; do not include costs that would be covered by grant funds. In order to provide consistency across cost proposals for evaluative purposes, please utilize the following scenarios when estimating costs:” There are many scenarios in which a vendor’s costs, despite being billed to the state, would be covered by grant funds, so these two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. . If a vendor believes that their costs for a given scenario “would be covered by grant funds,” should they answer $0 for that task and scenario? Or, alternatively, should the distinction between the amount billed to the state and the amount covered by grant funds be disregarded by respondents, prompting them to propose their total cost for a given scenario irrespective of the funding source?

A15: The important thing is that assumptions are clearly stated and we can distinguish administrative costs from direct costs. You may also propose a unit cost approach provided the assumptions are clearly stated. For example, you could arrive at a unit cost per buyout property that covers administrative and overhead costs if that is your preferred model.

Q16: DOLA has provided scenarios under each Task for which it has requested pricing. These scenarios do not include the amount of grant funding available, though. Can you please clarify whether the theoretical costs proposed for each scenario will be formally scored, and, if so, how that will be done given the potential for varied interpretations among respondents about the level of funding available for a given program? For example, if one respondent assumes a larger grant amount to the state than another and proposes a higher administration fee as a result, not as a percentage but in overall dollars, will their cost score be lower than a respondent that charges a higher percentage of delivery costs but assumes a lower theoretical grant amount?

A16: The scenarios are intended to create some consistency across proposals but are not expected to eliminate all variance. We acknowledge that different vendors will approach the scenarios with different assumptions. We recommend that proposals clearly state the assumptions so we can evaluate based on approach and cost reasonableness. Evaluators will need to use some professional judgement as cost estimates will not be based solely on the final dollar amount.

Q17: Please confirm that RFQ version 2 does not request a "lump sum." The answers to the prior questions implied a lump sum was a component, however there is no scope of work to provide a lump sum cost for. Document Section: Full List of Submitted Questions with Answers, pages 16, 20.

A17: The purpose of the scenarios added to Version 2 was to provide consistency across cost proposals. Use those scenarios in estimating total costs for a given program area.

Q18: DOLA’s response to question 98 of Amendment 1 confirms Respondents may include rates by labor category for positions rather than tied to a named key individual; however, version 2 of the RFQ, Section II.E.4.a. Management, Staff, Personnel Summary continues to ask for a billable (loaded) hourly rate for key individuals. Please confirm Respondents may include rates associated with labor categories in lieu of rates tied to key members of personnel?

A18: Yes, rates may be tied to labor categories and key individuals may be referred to by their position rather than their name.

Program Area 1

A20: There is no minimum in-state time requirement. The need for in-state versus remote assistance will be driven by the specifics of the task order.

Program Area 2 Q21: Program Area 2 scenario cost. The Program Area 2 scenario asks respondents to "estimate the cost to administer this program" and Section II.E.4.b says to include only costs billed by the respondent to the State. Should the scenario cost cover only administration services (floor plans, assessments, cost-of-repair estimates, inspections, construction oversight, and closeout), with construction priced at the task-order level through unit costs as described in A104? Or should it also include the provider's construction fee and general conditions?

A21: The intent is to allow an apples-to-apples comparison of the cost to administer the program with the assumption that grant dollars will pay for actual construction. If your proposal is based strictly on a cost/unit rather than billing the state for administrative costs, you may state so in your proposal.

Q22: Inspection standard. Section II.A.2, item 7.a references HUD Housing Quality Standards. For CDBG-DR- and DRR-funded work, will DOLA apply HQS or HUD's NSPIRE standards for Program Area 2 inspections?

A22: Standards will be driven by the specific task order and will be determined based on whether it is rehabilitation or new construction, local building codes and funding source requirements.

Q23: Structural warranty scope. Section II.A.2, item 12.h requires a third-party ten-year structural warranty. Does this apply to rehabilitation and repair work as well as full reconstruction? May the warranty enrollment fee be carried as a per-home cost in the task order?

A23: The type of rehabilitation and repair work will determine if a structural warranty is appropriate. Yes, the enrollment fee can be carried as a per-home cost.

Q24: Page 2 – Responses to Questions Grouped by Topic Area (Questions 4 and 5): The Q&A indicates that the selected contractor may perform repair and reconstruction work; however, Program Area 2 Scenario references a production builder utilizing standard housing designs. Can DOLA clarify whether the selected contractor is expected to directly perform reconstruction activities (e.g., build the home), provide program and construction management oversight of third-party builders, or both? The current language appears to describe different delivery models.

A24: The respondent may perform reconstruction activities directly or through a subcontractor. In either situation, the respondent is responsible for both construction management and ensuring the construction is completed.

Program Area 3

Q25: Program Area 3 – Grant and Loan Administration: Program Area 3 references DOLA Housing Recovery Program policies and guidelines and specifically identifies housing assistance eligibility, awards, and distribution. However, the Project Overview notes that DRR financial assistance may include grants or loans to homeowners, rental property owners, businesses, governmental entities, and other organizations. For the purposes of demonstrating qualifications under Program Area 3, should respondents focus specifically on housing grant and loan administration, or should the qualifications narrative also address broader grant and loan administration capabilities for non-housing programs and recipient types?

A25: Respondents should focus specifically on housing grant and loan administration.

Q26: Pages 8-9 Section II.A.3 – Grant and Loan Administration

1. Please clarify the types of loan products DOLA anticipates may be offered under the Housing Recovery Program.

2. For purposes of developing a comparable staffing approach and cost proposal, should respondents assume loans may include forgivable loans, deferred-payment loans, amortizing/repayment loans, or other loan structures?

3. Please also identify any anticipated assumptions regarding interest rates, repayment terms, maturity periods, security instruments or liens, servicing periods, and circumstances that may trigger forgiveness, repayment, delinquency, or default.

4. If these terms have not yet been established, may respondents develop and clearly state reasonable assumptions for purposes of the Program Area 3 pricing scenario?

A26: Please review the Housing Recovery Program Policies.

1. Forgivable and traditional loans.

2. Assume forgivable and amortizing/repayment loans. Deferred payment loans may be an option, but would function similarly to a traditional loan.

3. Please refer to the guidelines. Terms are subject to change.

4. Yes, you should clearly state reasonable assumptions.

Other Program Area Questions

Q27: Pages 9 & 14 Revised RFQ II.A.4 Buyout Program and E.4.b Program Area 4 Cost Scenario The Buyout Program scope is written primarily around residential properties, but the Program Area 4 pricing scenario includes 20 homes and one business.

1. Please confirm whether Program Area 4 qualification and the scenario cost proposal are intended to include acquisition/relocation of non-residential business property.

2. If so, please identify any specific business-relocation, reestablishment, appraisal, or acquisition requirements respondents should assume for pricing purposes beyond the residential URA/HUD requirements identified in the Q&A.

A27: Regarding the buyout program:

1. Yes, this scenario envisions the ability to buy out a business property.

2. Refer to 49 CFR Part 24 for guidance on residential and business relocation.

Q28: Pages 9 & 14 Revised RFQ II.A.6 Transitional and Intermediate Housing Services and E.4.b Program Area 6 Cost Scenario

1. For the Program Area 6 scenario, please clarify the scope of costs DOLA expects in the estimate to “develop and administer” transitional and intermediate housing for approximately 100 households.

2. Should respondents price only program development/administration and case management activities, or also include contractor-billed costs associated with procuring, installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or demobilizing temporary units and related site/utility work?

A28: For the purpose of our cost comparison we will be focusing on the administrative costs. However, defining your approach and assumptions, including direct implementation costs is an important context for evaluating your proposal.

Q29: Please confirm whether each proposed Program Area will receive a separate score using the evaluation criteria identified in Section III.B.

A29: Confirmed.

Q30: Will the separate General Requirements narrative be considered together with each Program Area, so respondents do not need to duplicate that material?

A30: Yes.