The City of Santa Fe, Central Purchasing Division (CPD)

AND

Buckman Direct Diversion Project

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE

BROKER/AGENT OF RECORD

RFP#

25186

Proposals are due on: September 5, 2025<Insert Release Date>

CoSF Best Value Approach Version 12 04.08.2025 iii iv

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

The purpose of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit sealed proposals to establish a contract through competitive negotiations for the procurement of an insurance Broker/Agent of Record (Broker). The City of Santa Fe acting on behalf of the Buckman Direct Diversion Board (BDDB), is seeking to obtain and maintain public liability insurance, fire, and extended coverage for all Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD) project buildings and structures. This procurement is conducted in compliance with Section 23 of the Joint Powers Agreement governing the BDD. All references to the “City” within this document shall be understood to mean the City of Santa Fe in its capacity as fiscal agent and administrative support for BDDB.

B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The BDDB is an entity organized and existing under that certain Joint Powers Agreement by and between the City and Santa Fe County (County) dated March 7, 2005. The Board oversees the Buckman Direct Diversion Project which diverts water from the Rio Grande for delivery to the City, County and the Las Campanas development.

The BDDB maintains several facilities for the delivery of water service. The service area diverts water from the Rio Grande for a distance of 13 miles to the BDD Plant. The Plant capacity is 18.3 million gallons per day (MGD) at peak, 8 million gallons of pre-sedimentation, 15 million gallons at water treatment, 4 million gallons of water storage, and up to 10 million gallons of treated water at the pump stations. The BDD Project facilities include, but are not limited to, screened river intake, raw and treated water pipelines, low lift pump station, sediment removal facility, booster stations, 13 total acres with solar facilities and 32 acres of habitat restoration. The BDDB employs approximately 33 employees in operations, administration, safety, regulatory and maintenance.

Operations of the facility began May 2, 2011. Operations are fully funded by the City, County, and Las Campanas entities who are billed pursuant to the Facility Operations and Procedures Agreement (FOPA) dated October 16, 2006. Specified insurance is required in Section 23 of the JPA Agreement which will be designed, placed and serviced by the selected broker.

The BDDB is a joint entity formed under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) dated March 7, 2005, between the City and County. The Board oversees the BDD Project, a critical infrastructure system that diverts water from the Rio Grande for use by the City, County, and the Las Campanas development.

The BDD Project includes:

· A 13-mile water conveyance system from the Rio Grande to the BDD Plant.

· Treatment and storage facilities with capacities of:

· 18.3 MGD (peak capacity),

· 8 MGD (pre-sedimentation),

· 15 MGD (treatment),

· 4 MGD (storage),

· Up to 10 MGD (treated water at pump stations).

· Key infrastructure components: river intake, raw/treated water pipelines, pump stations, sediment removal facilities, booster stations, solar facilities (13 acres), and habitat restoration areas (32 acres).

· A workforce of approximately 33 employees across operations, maintenance, safety, administration, and regulatory compliance.

Operations commenced on May 2, 2011, and are fully funded by the City, County, and Las Campanas, under the Facility Operations and Procedures Agreement (FOPA) dated October 16, 2006.

C. SCOPE OF PROCUREMENT

In accordance with Section 23 of the JPA, the BBDB is procuring Broker Services for professional liability, property insurance, general liability, fire and extended insurance coverage. This RFP is designed to provide basic information sufficient to solicit proposals from qualified insurance Brokers/Agent of Records (Broker), but is not intended to limit a proposal’s content or exclude any other relevant or essential information.

The selected Broker shall provide comprehensive brokerage, advisory, and risk management services to the BDDB. The Broker will act as the BDDB’s representative in the insurance marketplace, responsible for designing, marketing, and placing a complete insurance program that adequately protects BDDB’s assets, staff, and operations. The Broker will be expected to solicit and evaluate competitive proposals from qualified insurers, negotiate renewals and placements, and ensure that the BDDB receives the best possible coverage, terms, pricing and will have the following service responsibilities:

1. Insurance Brokerage Services

A. It is expected that the Broker will procure property and casualty coverage for the BDDB to be effective July 1, 2026, and each subsequent renewal, consisting of:

· Property Coverage

· Inland Marine Coverage

· Machinery & Equipment Breakdown Coverage

· Computer Coverage/Cyber

· Commercial Automobile Coverage

· General Liability Coverage

· Public Officials Errors & Omissions Liability Coverage

· Public Officials Bond Coverage

· Crime Coverage

· Umbrella/Excess Liability Coverage

· Liability Insurance

· Fire

· Extended Coverage

· Environmental

· Worker’s compensation

· Automobile

· Any other specialized insurance needs that may arise

· Offer employee training or guidance on insurance-related matters, if requested.

B. The work to be performed on an annual basis shall be as follows: (The services listed below contemplate the Broker will be responsible for all costs)

1. Review and assess BDDB’s current insurance program, operations, exposures, and assets.

2. Design a comprehensive insurance package tailored to the unique risks of the BDD Project.

3. Provide consulting services to the BDDB upon request.

4. Gather underwriting Data.

5. Obtain loss information.

6. Analyze loss experience and provide the BDDB with a proposed self-insured retention or deductible.

7. Prepare underwriting submission that not only includes typical underwriting data but includes coverage specifications for each carrier to provide quotations.

8. Market insurance program to all interested & qualified carriers.

9. Once received, analyze coverage forms, retentions, limits, premium terms, etc., for each program, summarize data & make recommendations most advantageous to the BDDB.

10. Discuss and meet with underwriters, and the BDDB risk management staff and or the City.

11. Present final program to the BDDB. Broker will select insurance companies with sound financial ratings which shall not be rated lower than A-VII by Best’s Rating Guide and Standard & Poor’s Insurance Ratings; Public entity insurance pools are accepted from the A-VII minimum rating.

12. Once approved, bind coverage with selected carriers.

13. Issue certificates of insurance.

14. Attend meetings of the Board or other entities when insurance matters are discussed.

15. Issue and maintain a summary of insurance to the BDDB.

16. When policies are received, Broker will audit each policy form for compliance with proposals and specifications, and if necessary, order endorsements for correction.

17. As requested, be available to prepare a written and/or oral summary of coverages, program description, loss history, etc.

18. Answer the BDDB’s auditor’s request for year-end premium and loss information.

19. Answer the BDDB’s request to breakdown rates by line of coverage for budget purposes.

20. Obtain ad hoc reports for members relative to loss history, in total or by a particular coverage line.

21. Assist in annual BDDB-wide budget packet development that contains each projected renewal premium.

22. Place individual bonds, as needed (such as notary bonds, maintenance bonds, permit bonds, etc.). Comment by SANCHEZ, KATHY S.: What do these have to do with insurance?

23. Keep the BDDB informed of insurance market conditions.

24. Documentation of compliance with JPA requirements.

2. RISK CONTROL SERVICES

1. Answer coverage, claims and loss prevention questions. Many questions are required to be answered in writing.

2. Provide advice and recommend any risk mitigation strategies.

3. Review & be familiar with the BDDB’s Joint Powers Agreement, project Management and Fiscal Services Agreement, Facilities Operation and Financial Services Agreement and other documents affecting the risk and liability of the BDDB.

4. Suggest the availability of and initiation of coverage for special situations and special risks and exposure.

5. Assist the BDDB and its consultants in the construction and interpretation of insurance and indemnity agreements.

6. Monitor reserves, rates, claim trends, loss control efforts, claim service and cash flow.

7. When requested, assist in developing risk related material for BDDB meetings.

8. Review current insurance/self-insurance structure and assist in evaluating benefits, costs and risk of alternative programs and recommend alternative risk financing methods.

9. When requested, assist in formulation or amendment of the BDDB rules or regulations.

10. Respond to questions from the BDDB’s contracted legal advisors.

11. Attend meetings as reasonable or necessary or requested.

3. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

A. It is anticipated that the Broker will provide administrative services to the BDDB.

B. The work expected is as follows (The services listed below contemplates the Broker will be responsible for all costs.):

1. Process all requests which are outlined in the Brokerage and Consulting Services and maintain copies of all data for a minimum of seven (7) years after this contract terminates.

2. Establish and monitor “suspense” files for each line of coverage to track the handling requests.

3. Initiate, prepare and mail all billings.

4. Answer questions from the BDDB, attorneys, third party administrators, etc.

5. Abide by the New Mexico State Statute, all applicable rules and regulations adopted by the BDDB, and any agency or department of the State of New Mexico.

6. Assist with the preparation, filing, and monitoring of claims.

7. Provide support and advocacy throughout the claims process.

8. Coordinate with adjusters and legal representatives when needed.

9. Assist the BDDB with analyzing contracts and provide such services as suggestions for modifications, hold harmless clauses, suggested limits of liability for contractors, and other loss avoidance techniques.

The resulting contract will be a single, multi-term award for four (4) years. In accordance with Section 13-1-150 NMSA 1978, no contract term for a professional services contract, including extensions and renewals shall exceed four years. This procurement will result in a Contract between two parties; the procurement may ONLY be used by those two parties exclusively.

D. PROCUREMENT MANAGER

The BDDB has assigned a Procurement Manager who is responsible for the conduct of this procurement whose name, address, telephone number, and email address are listed below:

1. Any inquiries or requests regarding this procurement should be submitted, in writing, to the Procurement Manager AND the CPD through the following emails:

Procurement Manager: Samantha Secrist CPD: purchasing_RFP@santafenm.gov

Offerors may contact ONLY the Procurement Manager and the CPD regarding this procurement. Other city employees or Evaluation Committee members do not have the authority to respond on behalf of the Procurement Manager. Do not contact the Procurement Manager after the Proposals’ due date.

2. Protests of the solicitation or award must be submitted in writing to the Protest Manager. As a Protest Manager has been named in this RFP, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-172 and Procurement Manual Section Y, ONLY protests delivered directly to the Protest Manager in writing and in a timely fashion will be considered to have been submitted properly and in accordance with statute, rule, and this RFP Protests submitted or delivered to the Procurement Manager will NOT be considered properly submitted.

E. DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY

This section contains definitions of terms used throughout this procurement document, including appropriate abbreviations:

F. PROCUREMENT LIBRARY

A procurement library has been established. Offerors are encouraged to review the material contained in the Procurement Library by selecting the link provided in the electronic version of this document through your own internet connection. The library contains information listed below:

Electronic version of RFP, Questions & Answers, RFP Amendments, etc.

https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/santafenm

Other relevant links:

https://bddproject.org/

II. CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE PROCUREMENT

This section of the RFP contains the sequence of events, the descriptions of each event, and the conditions governing this procurement.

A. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

The City’s CPD and the Procurement Manager will make every effort to adhere to the following schedule:

Times (in Mountain)

02/25/2026

*Dates indicated after “Proposals Due Date” through “Contract award” are estimates only and may be subject to change without necessitating an amendment to the RFP.

B. EXPLANATION OF EVENTS

The following paragraphs describe the activities listed in the Sequence of Events.

The City reserves the right to:

1. Change or extend the Proposals Due Date.

2. Revise the RFP document prior to the due date.

The city will process addenda if it is determined that modifications, clarifications, or additions to the RFP are necessary. Addenda will be announced via email to registered Potential Offerors that have selected the corresponding commodity codes used for this event.

1. Issue RFP This RFP is being issued on behalf of The City Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD) on the date indicated in the Sequence of Events.

2. Pre-Proposal Meeting Comment by SANCHEZ, KATHY S.: This will be scheduled when the dates are complete. Comment by AYANA, GUTEMA X. Contractor: Sure, I don't have the Zoom/MS Teams, to create. I need help on this.

A Pre-Proposal Meeting will be held as indicated in the Sequence of Events, beginning at 10:00AM MST/MDT via Teams. <Insert electronic meeting instructions/information> Potential Offerors are encouraged to submit written questions in advance of the conference to the CPD and the Procurement Manager. The identity of the organization submitting the question(s) will not be revealed. Additional written questions may be submitted at the Meeting. All questions answered during the Pre-Proposal Meeting will be considered unofficial until they are posed in writing. All written questions will be addressed in writing on the date listed in the Sequence of Events. A public log will be kept of the names of potential Offerors that attended the Pre-Proposal Meeting.

Attendance at this meeting is highly recommended, but not a prerequisite for submission of a proposal.

3. Deadline for Written Questions Potential Offerors may submit written questions through the City of Santa Fe, NM Procurement Portal. Questions shall be clearly labeled and shall cite the Section(s) in the RFP or other document which form the basis of the question.

4. Responses to Written Questions Responses to the written questions will be provided on City of Santa Fe, NM Procurement Portal, on or before the date indicated in the Sequence of Events, and is available for all potential Offerors.

5. Proposals Due Date Proposals must be uploaded and submitted in City of Santa Fe, NM Procurement Portal before the deadline indicated in the Sequence of Events to be considered for review and evaluation.

All proposals must be submitted electronically through the designated upload link provided in the Response Format and Organization section. Proposals submitted by any other method will not be accepted.

Open Gov will maintain a log of all submitting organizations. In accordance with NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-116, the contents of proposals remain confidential and will not be disclosed to competing Offerors during the negotiation process.

The negotiation process remains in effect until the contract is awarded.

For the purposes of this RFP, awarded means the contract has been approved and subsequently signed by the BDDB.

6. Blind Evaluation The City will establish an Evaluation Committee (EC) to evaluate proposals in accordance with the timeline outlined in the Sequence of Events or as soon as feasible. The EC will evaluate proposals based on the criteria specified in the Evaluation section of this RFP, using the metrics presented in each proposal and aligning them with the BDDB’s needs, as detailed in the City Sample columns of the G Attachments.

To ensure impartiality, the CPD will anonymize proposals by assigning each proposal a letter before forwarding them to the Procurement Manager and EC. Each Evaluation Factor will be scored on a scale of 1, 5, or 10. The scores will then be averaged and converted according to the assigned values for each Evaluation Factor.

7. Interviews Offerors may be required to participate in an interview to evaluate expertise. A notification will be sent to Offerors with meeting details once the Evaluation Committee has conducted their initial review. This is not a presentation. The Evaluation Committee will interview the Key Personnel Lead. A second individual may be present (standby) to clarify Pricing Proposal if requested.

8. Identification of Potential Best-Valued Offeror(s) At this point, proposals have been evaluated for compliance and scored based on the criteria outlined in this RFP. Following this evaluation, the highest-ranked Offerors were invited to participate in interviews.

After the interview process, the Evaluation Committee, Procurement Manager, and Assigned CPD Buyer will continue to verify the validity of proposals based on information provided during interviews and by conducting reference checks. The Procurement Manager will contact references to assess Offerors past performance, reliability, and ability to meet contract requirements. Finalist Offerors may also be contacted for further clarification as needed.

In accordance with NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-117, the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are determined to be most advantageous to the BDDB—considering the Evaluation Factors in this RFP—will be recommended for award. However, a serious deficiency in any evaluation factor may result in disqualification, regardless of the overall score.

9. First Clarification Meeting The City may require that the Offeror attend a First Clarification Meeting to present its proposal and to identify additional issues or concerns that the City may have. It is also an opportunity to meet all participants who may be a stakeholder in the project.

10. Final Clarification Meeting The Final Clarification Meeting is held at the end of the Clarification Phase and is used to present a summary of what was developed and agreed upon during the Clarification Phase. The final Clarification meeting is not a question-and-answer session. The Offeror and BDDB stakeholders can start to ask questions before the meeting. All coordination and planning with the BDDB should be completed prior to the Clarification Phase Summary Presentation meeting on the Sequence of Events.

11. Best and Final Offers This RFP process will allow for Best and Final Offers (BAFO) from finalist Offerors. Specifically, Offerors should provide their strongest possible pricing in initial proposals, as we expect competitive submissions upfront. However, we reserve the right to re-open negotiation by requesting BAFO under the schedule outlined in the Sequence of Events, or on an accelerated timeline from finalists. The purpose would be to elicit revised pricing or other updated proposal elements that facilitate selection of the optimal offer. Finalist Offerors may also amend or clarify their proposal during the Clarification Meeting.

12. Finalize Contract After approval of the Evaluation Committee Report, the BBDB will make every effort to award contract(s) by the deadline set forth in the Sequence of Events. Any contract(s) resulting from this RFP will be finalized with the most advantageous Offeror(s), considering the evaluation factors outlined in this RFP and the best interests of the BDDB, as defined in the Scope of Procurement section. The most advantageous proposal may or may not have received the highest point total. If mutually agreeable terms cannot be reached with the apparent most advantageous Offeror within the specified timeframe, the BDDB reserves the right to finalize a contract with the next most advantageous Offeror(s) without initiating a new procurement process.

13. Contract Award(s) The award is subject to the CPD, and BDDB approval. The Contractor must not commence work until the Department issues a Purchase Order.

14. Protest Deadline Any protest by an Offeror pertaining to the solicitation or award must be submitted within 15 days from the notice of solicitation or award and in conformance with NMSA 1978, Sections 13-1-172 and applicable procurement regulations. As a Protest Manager has been named in this RFP, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-172 and Procurement Manual Section Y, ONLY protests delivered directly to the Protest Manager in writing and in a timely fashion will be considered to have been submitted properly and in accordance with statute, rule, and this Request for Proposals. The 15-calendar day protest period shall begin on the day following the notice of award of contract(s) and will end at 5:00 pm MST/MDT on the 15th day. Protests must be written and must include the name and address of the protestor and the RFP number. It must also contain a statement of the grounds for protest including appropriate supporting exhibits and it must specify the ruling requested from the party listed below. The protest must be delivered to:

Travis Dutton-Leyda Chief Procurement Officer City of Santa Fe tkduttonleyda@santafenm.gov

PROTESTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

15. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

III. RESPONSE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION

A. NUMBER OF RESPONSES

Offerors shall submit only one proposal in response to this RFP.

B. NUMBER OF COPIES

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION ONLY

Offerors must submit proposals in response to this RFP through the Open Gov link. Only one electronic copy of each part of the proposal (Main and Cost) should be submitted, as outlined below.

Offerors' proposals should be submitted as separate uploads, as outlined in this section. Each upload should be clearly labeled on the front page as “Public Proposal,” “Confidential Proposal,” or “Cost Proposal.” If an Offeror proposes additions or modifications to the BDDB’s draft contract, a third document titled “Contract Edits” may be submitted. These proposed changes should align with the guidelines in the General Requirements section and be summarized in the draft contract attachment reference.

ELECTRONIC proposal submissions must be fully uploaded via Bid Central before the submission deadline. Files cannot be password-protected and should be submitted in PDF format, unless an Excel spreadsheet or another format is specifically requested. Offerors should allow ample time to upload large files to ensure a complete and on-time submission.

As soon as you see this notice, verify that you can log in and access the RFP in City of Santa Fe, NM Procurement Portal. Do not wait until the last minute to check your login credentials or ensure you can interact with the system. If you encounter login issues, click on the “Visit the Help Center”.

Issues reported within the final two hours may not be resolved in time. While the City will assist, timely resolution cannot be guaranteed if problems arise close to the deadline.

Submissions will be deemed late if not both:

1. Fully complete before the deadline.

2. Received via the submission link before the deadline.

Additionally, if submissions are not received on time due to being captured, blocked, filtered, quarantined, or otherwise prevented from reaching the City’s system by security or anti-virus software, it will still be considered late and will not be accepted.

If you are working on your submission close to the deadline and the clock strikes 3:00 PM, the system will not accept your submission and may even log you out. This is not a system error—it is the result of waiting too long to submit. Offerors are responsible for planning accordingly and ensuring timely submission.

⚠ REMEMBER TO CLICK THE SUBMIT BUTTON! ⚠

⚠ LATE PROPOSALS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED ⚠

Any proposal that does not adhere to the requirements of the Response Format and Organization section may be deemed non-responsive and rejected on that basis.

C. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Offerors should accurately complete all required forms, adhering to the provided format and any specific instructions within each form. Failure to comply may result in disqualification.

The City requires the following documents to ensure a comprehensive and equitable evaluation process. Mandatory documents must be included in every proposal. Desirable documents should also be provided; if any are missing, Purchasing may request them prior to evaluation. Proposals lacking rated documents will receive a score of zero for the corresponding evaluation criteria. If the offeror has proposed edits to the draft contract, they must be submitted as a separate attachment.

IV. EVALUATION

The Evaluation Committee will evaluate and score proposals based on the information provided in this document and the Offerors’ demonstrated understanding of the RFP’s objectives. Attendance at the Pre-Proposal Meeting is strongly recommended, as it will help Offerors understand the key information required in their proposals and provide a detailed explanation of the evaluation process.

Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria listed below, which have been identified as critical to the success of the projects.

*See local preference requirements below

A. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION

To ensure that proposals are complete and address all key RFP issues, proposals should adhere to the following format. Proposals shall be organized into the following sections, in the order listed, and inclusive of all requested information:

a) Proposal Cover Page, Declaration, and Checklist: Offerors will prepare and submit the Proposal Cover Page, Declaration, and Checklist (Attachment A).

b) Key Offeror Project Lead. Using Attachment E, complete the Key Personnel Lead Proposal Form. Offerors should provide the name of their Primary Project Lead (the personnel should be the person who will be interviewed if shortlisted) that offerors propose to execute the project pursuant to a resultant contract.

c) Project Cost Proposal Form. Offerors should prepare and submit cost proposals and breakout (see Attachment F). Attachment F should be submitted in a separate electronic document from the rest of the proposal. The rest of the proposal shall not include any financial information. Any financial information associated with a Value Add (Attachment G2) can be included in that section.

d) Project Capability (PC) Submittal. The Project Capability Submittal has two components: Scope/Level of Expertise Plan (SC/LE), and Value-Added Plan (VA). (See Attachments G, G1 and G2).

i. Purpose of PC Submittal

i. Assist City in prioritizing Offerors’ submittals based on their scope, expertise, and ability to understand intent of this RFP and the resultant contract.

ii. Provide high performing offerors with the opportunity to differentiate themselves from their competitors due to their experience and expertise by using verifiable performance metrics and previous relative project performance results.

ii. PC Submittal Format Requirements

i. PC submittals should NOT contain any names that can be used to identify who the offerors are (such as firm names, personnel names, Project names, or product names).

ii. A PC proposal template is included in this RFP. This document should be used by all offerors. Offerors should NOT re-create, re-format, or modify the template in any manner. Offerors should type their responses on the Word template provided.

iii. Failure to comply with any of the PC format requirements may result in disqualification.

iv. The PC submittal should not contain any marketing information. The submittal should be used to prove to the BDDB that the offeror has expertise for the specific project being proposed on.

v. References used in the PC submittal should be listed in the Attachment H Reference List. The Reference List will be used by CPD, the Evaluation Committee, and Procurement Manager after PC submittals are evaluated.

iii. Overview of the Scope/Level of Expertise Plan - The Scope/Level of Expertise Plan is to allow Offerors to differentiate themselves based on their technical capabilities and understanding of the BDDB’s specific needs. It should summarize the metrics that show the Offeror can accomplish the subject project with the Scope defined by past experiences on similar projects. In addition to completing the Performance Metrics table on Attachment G (1), offerors should provide a narrative explaining their proposed performance metrics. This narrative should describe how their capabilities and proven track record—which the Procurement Manager will verify through references—align with or exceed the BDDB's sample benchmarks. Offerors should justify any significant differences, highlight unique strengths or advantages, and provide a high-level summary of their proposal to ensure the selection committee can quickly grasp the key aspects of their approach and qualifications. Offerors should identify scope claims based on their expertise and experience supported by verifiable performance metrics that show the capability to this specific project environment and requirement. All cost associated with technical capabilities listed in the SC/LE plan should be included in the proposed base project cost (see Attachments F and G1).

iv. Overview of the Value-Added Section – This section allows Offerors to present industry standards, innovative solutions, or unique services that the BDDB may not have included in the RFP but could enhance the project. The Value-Added Plan provides an opportunity to propose additional options or ideas that may benefit the BDDB, with or without changes to cost or revenue.

Offerors should clearly identify:

i. Any elements the BDDB may have omitted from the scope of work.

ii. How these value-added options have been successfully implemented in previous projects, supported by verifiable performance data.

Offerors should also specify any cost or time impacts associated with these options. Any financial or revenue-related impacts outlined in the Value-Added Section (Attachment G2) should NOT be included in the proposed base cost (see Attachment F).

v. Reference List - There will be a designated area on both the Scope/Level of Expertise Plan and Value-Added Plan where performance claims are supported by an indicated reference. As the PC submittals are anonymous, the reference will be indicated only by a reference number which corresponds to the matching number on the Reference List (Attachment H).

e) Interviews - The Offerors will be required to participate in interviews to confirm/evaluate expertise. This is not a presentation. The Evaluation Committee will interview the Key Personnel Lead on the Interview date specified in the Project Procurement Schedule (or as soon as possible). The individual is required to attend in person or virtual for the interview. A second individual may be present (standby) to clarify their Cost Proposal if needed and/or requested. If interviews are not conducted, then offerors will all receive the full points for the selection criteria.

f) Local Preferences

Purpose:

The BDDB recognizes the economic value of supporting local businesses. Local preferences are intended to enhance the competitiveness of local businesses in the procurement process, in alignment with the City’s Procurement Manual and applicable ordinances. These preferences are applied to promote local economic growth while adhering to the governing laws and regulations.

Usage:

Local preferences are applied in the evaluation of proposals received in response to the City’s RFPs. These preferences are granted to businesses that meet specific qualifications, as outlined below, and can only be applied to procurements funded by the City. They are not applicable to purchases using state, federal, or grant funds.

Application:

1. Local Preference Qualification

· To qualify, an Offeror must attach a Resident Business certification issued by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department to their proposal. This certificate must verify that the business is located within Santa Fe municipal limits.

· Proposals without a valid certification will not be eligible for local preference consideration.

2. Evaluation in the Formal RFP Process

· Point-Based System:

· Local resident businesses are awarded additional points equivalent to 3% of the total possible points.

· Businesses with all local resident business subcontractors receive an additional 3% of the total possible points.

· Maximum local preference: 6%.

3. Solicitations Above $1,000,000

· Proposals from resident businesses are deemed 6% lower than their submitted bid, provided at least 50% of subcontracted services are performed by resident businesses.

· Proposals from non-local resident businesses are deemed 3% lower, provided at least 50% of subcontracted services are performed by resident businesses.

4. Restrictions

· Local preferences are not applicable when federal funds are part of the expenditure or anticipated to be used for the contract.

· If multiple preference certificates are submitted by a vendor, only one preference will be applied per solicitation, as determined by the City.

Additional Information: Applications for Resident Business certification can be downloaded at: http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/Businesses/in-state-veteran-preference-certification.aspx.

B. PROJECT REVENUE CONTROLS OF THE BEST VALUE APPROACH (BVA)

There are two revenue controls in the BVA including:

a) Best Value Check: After the prioritization of offerors, if the best value Offeror is within 15% of the next best value cost proposal, the best value Offeror will be prioritized first. If not within the range, the best value Offeror will attempt to justify why they should be awarded the contract. If the justification is clear to the Evaluation Committee, they will move into the clarification period.

b) Selection Check: Before the contract is awarded, an evaluation committee report should be completed and suggest award to the best value Offeror. If the justification is not sufficient, the award may go to the next best valued offeror who has met all the requirements of the BV approach. The Selection Check will provide the justification for hiring the highest prioritized Offeror. Selected proposal should be a proposal that is responsive, responsible, and is the most advantageous to BDDB, as determined by the BDDB in its sole discretion.

C. CLARIFICATION

Following the initial evaluation, the potential best value Offeror may be asked to enter into a Clarification Phase. This crucial phase, guided by Attachment I (Clarification Phase Guide), serves as a 'setting expectations' process to ensure mutual understanding between the BDDB and the Offeror. It provides an opportunity for both parties to clarify any aspects of the proposal and RFP, address identified issues, mitigate risks, and develop a comprehensive Weekly Risk Report (Attachment J). Depending on the outcome of the initial evaluation or the Clarification Phase, the BDDB may request a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). The Offeror will conclude the Clarification Phase with a presentation at the Clarification Meeting, demonstrating a clear and aligned understanding of the project's requirements and expectations.

D. AWARD

The BDDB will notify each offeror in writing of the BDDB’s decision.

a) The BDDB reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to award more than one offeror and to a offeror other than the lowest-priced offeror. The decision of the RFP award by the BDDB is final.

b) The BDDB at its sole discretion may decide to take no procurement action as a result of the RFP and/or may re-issue all or portions of the RFP.

c) The BDDB reserves the right to accept or reject without consideration proposals that do not address the full requirements of the RFP or that do not reach the designated address and contact before the proposal due date and time identified.

The final award is dependent upon the Offeror’s Scope of Work (SOW) being acceptable to the BDDB. Proposals and contents provided by the Offeror will be considered contractual obligations. Any new or unique requirements included in the proposal can be added or amended, at the BDDB’s sole option, to the final contract. Obligations of confidentiality will be an important condition of resulting contracts. The selected Offeror and all employees performing duties on this project will be required to keep all aspects of this project in confidence unless otherwise allowed by the BDDB.

All Offeror’s performance may be tracked by the Department POC through the Weekly Risk Report System (See Attachment J).

ATTACHMENT LIST – List of all attachments included in the RFP

ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSAL COVER PAGE, DECLARATION, AND CHECKLIST

The Offeror should complete and submit this Attachment. The following documents are required for this RFP (please mark off each document to acknowledge that you have completed and submitted the document in the proper format):

RFP # 25186

Phone Number Company Name

Mailing Address FEIN

City and Country NMBTIN (fka CRS)

2. Identify the individual(s) authorized by the organization to (A) contractually obligate, (B) negotiate, and/or (C) clarify/respond to queries on behalf of this Offeror:

A Contractually Obligate B Negotiate* C Clarify/Respond to Queries*

Name

Title

Email

Telephone

* If the individual identified in Column A also performs the functions identified in Columns B & C, then no response is required for those Columns. If separate individuals perform the functions in Columns B and/or C, they should be identified.

3. Use of subcontractors (Select one):

____ No subcontractors will be used in the performance of any resultant contract, OR ____ The following subcontractors will be used in the performance of any resultant contract:

(Attach extra sheets, as needed)

4. Describe any relationship with any entity (such as the City of Santa Fe, State Agency, reseller, etc. that is not a subcontractor(s) listed in #3 above), if any, which will be used in the performance of any resultant contract. (N/A, None, Does not apply, etc. are acceptable responses to this item.)

(Attach extra sheets, as needed)

By signing the form below, the Authorized Signatory attests to the accuracy and veracity of the information provided on this form, and explicitly acknowledges the following:

· On behalf of the submitting-organization identified in item #1, above, I accept the Conditions Governing this RFP;

· I concur that submission of our proposal constitutes acceptance of the Evaluation Factors and Draft Contract contained in this RFP; and

· I acknowledge receipt of all amendments to this RFP, if any.

________________________________________________ _____________________, 20______ Authorized Signature and Date (Should be signed by the individual identified in item #2.A, above.)

ATTACHMENT B - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Sections 13-1-28, and 13-1-191.1, a prospective contractor subject to this section shall disclose all campaign contributions given by the prospective contractor or a family member or representative of the prospective contractor to an applicable public official of the state or a local public body during the two years prior to the date on which a proposal is submitted or, in the case of a sole source or small purchase contract, the two years prior to the date on which the contractor signs the contract, if the aggregate total of contributions given by the prospective contractor or a family member or representative of the prospective contractor to the public official exceeds two hundred fifty dollars ($250) over the two-year period. A prospective contractor submitting a disclosure statement pursuant to this section who has not contributed to an applicable public official, whose family members have not contributed to an applicable public official or whose representatives have not contributed to an applicable public official shall make a statement that no contribution was made.

A prospective contractor or a family member or representative of the prospective contractor shall not give a campaign contribution or other thing of value to an applicable public official or the applicable public official's employees during the pendency of the procurement process or during the pendency of negotiations for a sole source or small purchase contract.

Furthermore, a solicitation or proposed award for a proposed contract may be canceled pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-181 or a contract that is executed may be ratified or terminated pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 13-1-182 if a prospective contractor fails to submit a fully completed disclosure statement pursuant to this section; or a prospective contractor or family member or representative of the prospective contractor gives a campaign contribution or other thing of value to an applicable public official or the applicable public official's employees during the pendency of the procurement process.

The state agency or local public body that procures the services or items of tangible personal property shall indicate on the form the name or names of every applicable public official, if any, for which disclosure is required by a prospective contractor.

THIS FORM MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE RFP AND MUST BE SUBMITTED BY ANY OFFEROR WHETHER OR NOT THEY, THEIR FAMILY MEMBER, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

The following definitions apply:

“Applicable public official” means a person elected to an office or a person appointed to complete a term of an elected office, who has the authority to award or influence the award of the contract for which the prospective contractor is submitting a competitive sealed proposal or who has the authority to negotiate a sole source or small purchase contract that may be awarded without submission of a sealed competitive proposal.

“Campaign Contribution” means a gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money.

or other thing of value, including the estimated value of an in-kind contribution, that is made to or received by an applicable public official, or any person authorized to raise, collect, or expend contributions on that official’s behalf for the purpose of electing the official to statewide or local office. “Campaign Contribution” includes the payment of a debt incurred in an election campaign but does not include the value of services provided without compensation or unreimbursed travel or other personal expenses of individuals who volunteer a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate or political committee, nor does it include the administrative or solicitation expenses of a political committee that are paid by an organization that sponsors the committee.

“Family member” means a spouse, father, mother, child, father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law or son-in-law of (a) a prospective contractor, if the prospective contractor is a natural person; or (b) an owner of a prospective contractor.

“Pendency of the procurement process” means the time between the public notice of the RFP and ending with the award of the contract or the cancellation of the RFP.

“Prospective contractor” means a person or business that is subject to the competitive sealed proposal process set forth in NMSA 1978, Sections 13-1-28 through 13-1-199.

“Representative of a prospective contractor” means an officer or director of a corporation, a member or manager of a limited liability corporation, a partner of a partnership or a trustee of a trust of the prospective contractor.

Name(s) of Applicable Public Official(s) if any: _________________________ Comment by SANCHEZ, KATHY S.: Who are the Public Officials on the BDDB? They need to be listed here also.

Alan Webber, Mayor Councilor Signe I. Lindell, District 1, Pro Tem Councilor Alma Castro, District 1 Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, District 2 Councilor Michael Garcia, District 2 Councilor Lee Garcia, District 3 Councilor Pilar F.H. Faulkner, District 3 Councilor Amanda Chavez, District 4 Councilor Jamie Cassutt, District 4

DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR:

Contribution Made By: __________________________________________

Relation to Prospective Contractor: __________________________________________

(Attach extra pages if necessary)

Title (position)

--OR—

NO CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OVER TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) WERE MADE to an applicable public official by me, a family member or representative.

Title (Position)

ATTACHMENT C - CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Complete, sign, and return with your proposal.

The City of Santa Fe policy is to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of…