ESBD_489761_1771978045618_Addendum NO. 2 - RFQ NO. 26-11 Martin Luther King Drive Street Improvement DRRP-190-1199.pdf
PDF 160 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NO.26-11
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This is Addendum #2 to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued by the City of Huntsville, Texas, for engineering design services related to the Martin Luther King Drive Street Improvement project (DRRP-190-1199). The City is seeking a qualified firm to perform all necessary engineering design tasks to produce biddable construction plans and specifications for culvert replacement and to assist in meeting General Land Office (GLO) grant requirements. The project scope includes delivering draft and final design packages with plans, specifications, and cost estimates in both hard copy and electronic formats suitable for bid advertisement. Optional support services may include grant management, compliance coordination with the GLO, bid-phase services such as preparing bid documents and attending pre-bid meetings, and limited construction-phase services. The RFQ deadline is March 3, 2026, at 2:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, with the addendum issued on February 24, 2026. Respondents must submit five bound copies of their Statement of Qualifications, one unbound copy labeled "Original," and one PDF version on a USB drive, with the SOQ not exceeding 10 pages plus appendices containing required forms and certifications.
This addendum clarifies submittal requirements and addresses 15 questions posed by prospective respondents. Key clarifications include confirmation that the 10-page SOQ limit excludes appendices, that all copies must include an initialed RFQ packet, and that resumes are limited to 3 pages total. The addendum confirms there is no defined Minority/Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) goal at this time and that respondents must provide their own third-party consultant to ensure GLO grant compliance, as the City is not using an external firm for this purpose. Funding is through a GLO grant with a required schedule for compliance, though the specific allocation between design and construction costs is not defined. No provisions exist for additional services if the grant does not cover full project costs. Questions regarding the project's relationship to disaster risk mitigation were revised to focus on drainage scope design considerations. All respondents must acknowledge receipt of this addendum and submit a signed copy with their application, with failure to do so potentially resulting in the response being deemed non-responsive.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDENDUM #2
Title Bid Number Closing Date Issued Date
Martin Luther King Drive
Street Improvement DRRP-
190-1199
26-11
March 3, 2026, at 2:00 P.M.
Central Standard Time
February 24, 2026
TO ALL PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENTS:
The information contained in this Addendum supersedes information contained in the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to the extent indicated. All other information and requirements of the RFQ remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified herein.
All Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided and submit a signed copy with their Statement of Qualifications. Failure to acknowledge this Addendum may result in the response being considered non-responsive.
The attention of all prospective Respondents is directed to the following additions and modifications:
Clarification Name Update:
“RFQ NO. 26-11Martin Luther King Drive Street Improvement DRRP-190-1199” formally known as
“RFQ NO. 26-11 Martin Luther Kind Drive Shared-Use Path and Roadway”.
NOTE: Applicant need to compliance with Regulations contained in 2 CFR$ 200.318-327 as well as the GLO
Implementation Manual.
Scope of Work Services Required: The City is seeking engineering design services for the above-described roadway project.
The firm selected will be expected to perform all tasks necessary to produce biddable construction plans and specifications for the culvert replacement and to assist the City in meeting all GLO grant requirements
Deliverables
Provide draft and final design packages including plans, specifications, and cost estimates. All documents must be delivered in both hard copy and electronic formats, with final versions suitable for bid advertisement. Optional support will also include grant management, compliance coordination with the GLO.
Optional Support
If requested, assist with bid-phase services such as preparing bid documents, attending pre-bid meetings, and responding to contractor inquiries. Limited construction-phase services may also be requested.
City of Huntsville
448 State Highway 75 N
Huntsville, TX 77320
Lucy Gonzalez, CTCD
Procurement Manager
Telephone: (936) 291-5495
Email: purchasing@huntsvilletx.gov mailto:purchasing@huntsvilletx.gov
Questions and Answers Question No. 1: Can you please confirm that our submittal should follow the format outlined in “Submittal
Requirements – 1–7” on pages 6–7 of the RFQ?
Answer: Yes. Also, you are requited to include the 31 page solicitation documents and all addendums.
Question No. 2: Can you please confirm that the page limit for our submittal is 10 pages and that the appendix is excluded from this 10-page limit?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. 3: Which documents and/or forms are required to be included in the appendix with our response?
Answer: See Page 7.
Question No. 4: If each page of the RFQ is required to be initialed, where should the initialed RFQ be included in the submittal (e.g., within the appendix)? Additionally, must the initialed RFQ be included in each hard copy and on the USB submission, or is a single copy sufficient?
Answer: Yes, the RFQ packet must be initialed and included. Yes, it must be included in all copies.
Question No. 5: Please confirm that you require five (5) bound copies of the SOQ, one (1) unbound copy labeled “Original”, and one (1) PDF version submitted on a USB drive.
Answer: Yes.
Question No. 6: Is there a defined MWBE goal for this project?
Answer: No at this time.
Question No. 7: For the resume portion, it says that there is a 3-page limit. Is this for the resume section in total or is it 3 pages per resume. Please advise.
Answer: Total.
Question No. 8: Does the responding firm need to initial and sign each page of the RFQ and include it in our submittal?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. 9: Page 8 states, “the SOQ should not exceed 10 pages”, however on page 10 it states, “Tabs A through D shall not exceed 25 pages”. Can you please clarify what the page limit is?
Answer: Should not exceed 10 pages.
Question No. 10: Can you please clarify what forms are required in our submittal?
Answer: Submit entire solicitation. Please also refer to page 7 under Compliance and Certifications.
Question No. 11: In the “Related Work Experience and References” section it is limited to 3 pages. Do you want us to also include the references form on page 23? Does that form count in the 3-page limit?
Answer: Yes include form on page 23. No, it does not count in the 3-page limit.
Question No. 12: Is there a third-party consultant that the city is using to ensure all the Grant requirements are being complied with? If so, can the city make the firm public knowledge? If not, should we have someone on our team for that?
Answer: No. No firm. Yes.
Question No. 13: Regarding the GLO grant, do we understand how much of this is allocated for design and allocated for construction? Does the GLO Grant have a required schedule to comply with?
Answer: No. Yes.
Question No. 14: Is it provisioned for additional services if the grant does not cover full design and construction cost?
Answer: No.
Question No. 15: To better understand the project objectives, we would like to ask how the project and scope relate to the grant objective of mitigating disaster risks -- Could you clarify how the project objectives and scope directly support the grant objective of mitigating disaster risks? For example, are there specific elements within the proposed scope that address disaster risk reduction, or are there areas that may not contribute to this goal? -- My apologies, I need to revise the question as our technical staff meant to ask was pertaining to how to intuit drainage scope, not so much how this scope meets grant objectives as these are clear.
Answer: Depended on design.
Please include signed copy of Addendum with submitted Solicitation Packet.
Responder Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number: ________________________ ________________________________
Printed Name of Contact
Fax Number: _____________________________
Email Address: ____________________________ ________________________________
Authorized Signature
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .