ESBD_366129_1722954389775_802-25-48848_Addendum 1.pdf

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

4200 Smith School Road

Austin, Texas 78744

ADDENDUM

Addendum Number: 1 Dated: August 6, 2024

Solicitation Number: 802-25-48848

Solicitation Title: Rock Imagery Survey at Hueco Tanks State Park and Historic Site

Due Date/Deadline: NEW: August 22, 2024 2:00pm CT

PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM: EXTENSION OF DUE DATE, REVISIONS and CLARIFICATIONS

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced herein, remain unchanged and in full force and effect. The following are specifications to this solicitation. This Addendum may be attached to and form a part of the referenced solicitation document and any resulting awarded contract and may be considered in the response.

Extension of Due Date

The due date for RFP 802-25-48848 is being extended as follows:

FROM: Wednesday, August 14, 2024; 2:00 PM C.T.

TO: Thursday, August 22, 2024; 2:00 PM C.T.

Revisions

Strike RFP Section I, Subsection 14. HUB Subcontracting Plan. A HUB Subcontracting Plan is not required.

RFP Section II, Subsection 2. Optional Pre-Proposal Site Inspection is revised and replaced with the following date change:

Site Visit Dates: Schedule a site visit with Park Superintendent, Cassie Cox between the dates of July 24, 2024 – August 21, 2024 at Cassie.Cox@tpwd.texas.gov or 915-857-1135 x 2263. Site visits will be limited to the hours of Monday – Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM MDT.

Questions and Answers

Question 1: Would a request for a one-week extension to adequately respond to the RFP be considered? If so, could we please request a one-week extension?

Answer: TPWD has extended the due date with Addendum 1 to August 22, 2024 at 2:00 PM Central Time.

Question 2: Is it a correct understanding that proposal submittal is electronic?

Answer: See RFP Section I, Subsection 6 for Delivery of Proposal methods. Electronic is acceptable and preferred, via email or Kiteworks if Respondent intends to submit large files.

Question 3: Exhibit G – Response Submission Checklist (page 44 of the RFP) identifies that required submittal of hard copies (1 original signed and 1 copy with pricing excluded). However, Section 6.1 states that email submittals are preferred for this solicitation. Please clarify if submittal is hard copy and electronic. Follow up question: If electronic, please clarify the submittal format of the files and the “original” and “copy” requirement?

Answer: Respondent may submit hard copy or electronic, not both. If Respondent submits files altogether

RFP 802-25-48848

Addendum 1 as one attachment, Respondent should also provide a copy that excludes the pricing exhibit. If Respondent submits each exhibit as an individual attachment, a ‘copy’ is not required.

Question 4: Is it a correct understanding that electronic submittal will consist of 7 files each submitted as unique files (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, and Addenda?

Answer: Yes, Respondent’s submission should include all response content in RFP Section I, Subsections

4.2. and 4.3.

Question 5: Is it a correct understanding as submittal will be electronic, there is no “original” and no “copy” requirement which is discussed in 4.1 General Response Format?

Answer: See Answer to Question 3.

Question 6: Is it a correct understanding that as each of the 7 files will be submitted as unique files that this in compliance with “Pricing should not be included in the submitted copies” requirement under 4.2.2?

Answer: Yes.

Question 7: Would an electronic signature be considered as “original signed”?

Answer: Yes, TPWD can accept electronic signature.

Question 8: Page 11 of 45, references that a HUB Subcontracting Plan must be completed. The HUB Subcontracting Plan is referenced as Exhibit B, however Exhibit B, is the Price Sheet. Could the HUB Subcontracting Plan be provided.

Answer: This is due to an administrative error; a HUB Subcontracting Plan is not required. Strike RFP Section I, Subsection 14.

Question 9: Page 13 of 45, Section 14.4, identifies a list of HUB subcontractors that may be able to perform the work identified as areas with potential subcontracting opportunities is attached the HUB subcontracting forms? This list and the HUB Subcontracting Plan were not included in the RFP document. Could they both be provided?

Answer: See Answer to Question 8.

Question 10: In follow up to question related to a one-week extension request, an extension would also allow time to reach out to the list of HUB subcontractors that have been identified as referenced in Section 14.4?

Answer: See Answer to Question 8.

Question 11: In what Exhibit should the HUB Subcontracting Plan be included with upon proposal submission? Should it follow the Price Sheet, in Exhibit B?

Answer: See Answer to Question 8.

Question 12: Exhibit F requirements, page 43 require a “tabbed Exhibit F”, as the preferred submittal is electronic, would section headings following the 1 through 5 outline be acceptable and be considered “tabbed”?

Answer: Yes.

Question 13: Exhibit B, page 38 states “Respondent is responsible for all costs and will not be reimbursed for any travel expenses, incidentals, or any other expenses incurred.” Is it correct to assume that travel costs related to the field investigations may be included in the lump sum unit prices for each line item and upon a successful contract award would be paid through the invoicing process?

Answer: Travel cannot be billed separately or reimbursed. The price sheet should include one lump sum cost per line item to include all expenses.

Question 14: Exhibit B, pricing sheet, has a lump sum unit price for line items. Is there a requirement for backup pricing for the lump sum units? If so, can this be submitted following the pricing sheet?

Answer: No, there is not a requirement for itemized pricing other than what is outlined in Exhibit B.

Question 15: Is there a page limit on Exhibit F?

Answer: No, but if Respondent intends to submit large files, follow the instructions for Kiteworks submission in RFP Section II, Subsection 6.

Question 16: RFP Section I, Subsection 5.1.1.: Does this statement stipulate that the bidder must be continually engaged in rock art services for the past five years?

Answer: No, but TPWD wants to see that the bidder has engaged in rock art services within the past five years. All rock art services conducted within the past five years should be noted in Response.

Question 17: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.2.: It is difficult to estimate the numbers of such locations for each of the four survey areas to develop realistic time and cost estimates. Can TPWD provide general estimates of the numbers of locations they anticipate being surveyed?

Answer: This number is unknown, but minimally the total number is likely to be 300-400 locations and possibly more. It is highly recommended that potential bidders visit the site to get a better idea of the topography before submitting Response.

Question 18: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.3.9. Consolidate Geographic Information System (GIS) data with that of the 2016 rock imagery inventory GIS database, which in turn incorporated the 1999/2000 rock imagery GIS data.

Would it be possible to obtain the GIS data in advance for preparation of the proposal and cost estimate?

Answer: Yes, TPWD is providing a compressed folder of shapefiles showing known rock art locations with this Addendum 1.

Question 19: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.4: Will it be required that non-rock art archaeological features or sites be recorded, or is the focus of the project solely on rock art?

Answer: The focus of this project is entirely on rock art.

Question 20: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.4: Will rock art panel drawings be required? If so, will drawings be required for all newly discovered panels or a selection of outstanding panels?

Answer: No drawings of the rock art are required as part of this project.

Question 21: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.4. (see Figures 1-2 for locations of previously recorded rock imagery): Figures 1 and 2 provide a topographic map and aerial image of HT, but no locations of previously recorded rock art imagery are indicated on the maps.

Answer: TPWD is providing a map showing the locations of known rock art with this Addendum 1.

Question 22: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.3.6.: This requirement is unclear. Does it require that representative photographs of each site be linked to ArcGIS coordinates and/or the ArcGIS database? Do representative images have to be selected for every site/location, or a judgmental representative sample of outstanding images?

Answer: All newly discovered rock art sites should include at least one photograph that is linked to the ArcGIS database.

Question 23: RFP Section I, Subsection 6.4.5.: By January 31, 2025, the Contractor shall submit a substantially completed draft report detailing the work accomplished to that point.

Does this imply it can be an “in progress” draft report in the case that fieldwork has not been completed in the rather short time period between developing a research design and obtaining a Texas Antiquities Permit in August and September of 2024 and January 1, 2025? In the following Section 6.4.6, it is stated that “It is expected that all fieldwork and the final report will be completed by August 1, 2025.” This seems to imply that TPWD acknowledges that fieldwork may not be completed within the two or three months between obtaining an Antiquities permit and Jan 1. It is also noted that each of the three subsequent phases have timelines of a full year for fieldwork and the draft report.

Answer: Yes, it is acknowledged that not all fieldwork may be completed by January 31, 2025, but a progress report will be required on January 31,2025 that is of sufficient quality and detail to be reviewed by members of the Texas Legislature during the next legislative session and allow them to know the status of the project as of that date.

Respondents are to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by returning a signed copy with proposal submission.

I acknowledge receipt of this Addendum:

Respondent’s Authorized Signature Date

Company Name