Glen Helen Amphitheater Redevelopment - Addendum No. 2 - Narrative - Final.pdf

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504 Page 1 of 5

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504

ADDENDUM NO. 2

TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

GLEN HELEN AMPHITHEATER REDEVELOPMENT

The following changes and/or additions shall be made to the Request for Proposals (RFP). All other requirements of the RFP documents shall remain the same. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to review all RFP documents.

1. Request for Information Questions and Answers:

Q1: Please clarify how the selected Advisor is expected to use the August 2026

Briefing Document in performing Tasks 1 through 5. Should proposers price a full independent reassessment of the existing conditions, market, improvement concepts, and financial analysis, or primarily validation and refinement of the prior work for purposes of developing the procurement strategy? Please also confirm whether a new round of market sounding is expected.

A1: The August 2026 Briefing Document is provided for background and reference. The selected Advisor is expected to build upon the prior work, validate and refine relevant assumptions as needed, and perform any additional analysis necessary to develop the procurement and transaction strategy. A full re-creation of the prior feasibility study is not anticipated.

Yes, a new round of market sounding is expected to obtain current industry input and inform the recommended partner procurement approach (see RFP Section V.B.3 Task 3).

Q2: Will the County provide the selected Advisor with the editable financial models, cost estimates, assumptions, market research, interview documentation, benchmarking data, current operating agreement and amendments, facility information, and other supporting materials underlying the Briefing Document?

Please identify any material supporting information that will not be available.

Additionally, for the base scope, should proposers use the capital cost estimates and concepts from the prior feasibility study, cost inputs provided by the County, or their own planning-level assumptions? Does the County plan to procure a facility condition assessment separately?

A2: The County will not provide the underlying financial models or supporting analyses used to develop the Briefing Document. Proposers should be prepared to develop their own assumptions, analyses, and planning-level models necessary to perform the scope of work.

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504 Page 2 of 5

The concepts, scopes, and cost estimates contained in the prior feasibility study are provided for reference only and should not be relied upon as establishing anticipated scope or cost.

The County is not currently planning to procure a separate facility condition assessment.

Q3: For purposes of establishing a comparable fee and level of effort, please provide the County’s anticipated quantities or assumptions for stakeholder and market-sounding meetings, County review cycles, proposer submissions, proposer conferences or site visits, interviews, negotiation sessions, presentations, and other activities required under Tasks 6 through 11.

A3: The County has not established fixed quantities for the activities identified under Tasks

6 through 11. Proposers should use their professional judgment to propose an appropriate level of effort based on their recommended approach and clearly identify the assumptions used in developing their fee.

The selected Advisor should anticipate reasonable stakeholder and market engagement, County review and coordination, proposer communications, interviews, negotiations, and presentations necessary to successfully complete the procurement and transaction process. The actual number of activities may vary based on the procurement approach, market response, and negotiations.

Q4: Please clarify the anticipated contracting structure. Does the County intend to award the complete base Scope of Work to one multidisciplinary Advisor (as appears contemplated in the Scope of Work), make multiple awards by discipline or task (as appears in the Introduction), or establish an on-call or task-order arrangement with no guaranteed authorization of individual tasks (as appears in Section X.A.3)? If multiple awards are contemplated, how will scope, responsibility, coordination, and pricing be allocated?

A4: The County intends to award the complete base Scope of Work to one lead Advisor responsible for overall coordination and delivery of all tasks. The Advisor may include subconsultants or other team members as necessary to provide the required expertise.

Q5: Please confirm whether Attachment J is required only from the prime Proposer or separately from each proposed subconsultant. Attachment J also identifies Cyber Liability, Pollution Liability, and Sexual Abuse Liability, although Section X does not specify limits or clearly require these coverages. Please confirm the coverage types and limits applicable to the prime Proposer and its subconsultants.

A5: Attachment J is required from the prime Proposer only. The prime Proposer will be responsible for ensuring that its subconsultants maintain insurance appropriate to the services they perform.

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504 Page 3 of 5

The insurance requirements identified in Section X.B.1 govern this procurement. Cyber Liability, Pollution Liability, and Sexual Abuse Liability are not required unless specifically identified as applicable in Section X.B.1. No additional limits beyond those stated in Section X.B.1 are being established through Attachment J.

Q6: Please identify the County’s available budget or anticipated not-to-exceed amount for the Advisor engagement and clarify how the fee proposal will be considered during negotiations, given that qualifications rankings will not be altered after fee proposals are opened.

A6: The County is not providing an anticipated budget or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement. Proposers should submit a fee that reflects their recommended approach and anticipated level of effort.

Fee proposals will not alter the qualifications ranking. The fee proposal will be considered during negotiations with the highest-ranked Proposer to establish a fair and reasonable final scope and compensation. If an agreement cannot be reached, the County may proceed to negotiations with the next highest-ranked Proposer.

Q7: Are the terms of the contract, including indemnification, negotiable?

A7: Proposers should identify any requested exceptions or proposed modification to the

County’s standard contract terms in their proposal using Attachment H. Any requested changes are subject to County review, negotiations, and are not guaranteed to be accepted. If an agreement cannot be reached with the highest-ranked Proposer, the County may proceed to negotiations with the next highest-ranked Proposer.

Q8: Has a not to exceed fee has been established?

A8: Please refer to the County’s response to Question 6.

Q9: Do we need a signature copy on each of the printed materials to be sent, including the wet signature on one copy?

A9: Only one original copy is required to contain wet signatures. The remaining printed copies may include reproduced copies of the signed pages.

Q10: Was the December 31, 2027 target date derived from assumptions in the prior feasibility study, or is it an independent administrative target?

A10: The December 31, 2027 date is a County administrative target. Proposers should develop their recommended approach and schedule with this target in mind.

Proposals recommending a schedule beyond this date will not be disqualified; however, proposers should clearly explain the basis for the extended schedule and why it is in the County’s best interest.

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504 Page 4 of 5

Q11: Is there a separate tourism, destination-marketing, or economic-development entity with independent funding or approval authority over the venue’s objectives?

A11: No. The County may coordinate with relevant departments, agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate, but final direction and approvals will remain with the County and the Board of Supervisors.

Q12: Does the “funding set aside to support advancement of the project” cover the

Advisor contract specifically, and is there an existing budget ceiling we should be aware of separate from what we propose in Attachment E?

A12: Yes. The funding set aside to support advancement of the project is intended to support both the Advisor engagement and future redevelopment efforts. The County is not establishing or disclosing a separate budget ceiling for the Advisor contract. Proposers should submit their proposed fee in Attachment E based on their recommended approach and anticipated level of effort.

Q13: During County-only review windows where the Advisor has no active deliverable due (e.g., the Weeks 14-20 County review period before partner-procurement release), does the County expect the Advisor to remain on standby under retainer, or is that time unbilled until the next task resumes?

A13: Proposers should anticipate reasonable availability during these periods to respond to questions, provide clarification, and support County review as needed. Fees should reflect the proposer’s recommended approach and the actual level of effort anticipated throughout the engagement.

Q14: For the five required comparable engagements, does the County expect each to demonstrate the full proposed team working together previously, or may they individually reflect the relevant specialty function even where delivered under different team compositions?

A14: Proposers should present the engagements in the manner they believe best demonstrates the qualifications, experience, and strengths of their proposed team.

Q15: Does the County intend the editable financial model deliverable itself to become a public record following contract award, or only the resulting analysis and findings?

A15: The County must comply with the California Public Records Act. If a request is made for any deliverables, including financial models provided under a potential agreement, the County will review the records request and comply with state law, which may or may not require the disclosure of deliverables. Proposers should not assume that any

Project No. ANE127-AE-6504 Page 5 of 5 deliverables are confidential, however deliverables may be marked confidential if requested by the County.

Q16: To what depth does the County expect the Advisor to evaluate the amphitheater’s redevelopment potential in relation to the surrounding site/district referenced in the Background section, and should analysis of that broader context be priced within core scope or treated as an Optional Service?

A16: The County’s core focus is the amphitheater itself. The extent to which the surrounding site or district is evaluated should be reflective of the proposer’s recommended approach and what they believe is necessary to support the amphitheater redevelopment strategy.

End of Addendum No. 2

Moe Yousif, Interim Director Project and Facilities Management Department

MY:ll

San Bernardino County Project and Facilities Management Department 620 South E Street San Bernardino, CA 92415-0184 https://pfm.sbcounty.gov/

DATE: September 21, 2026

Moe Yousif (Sep 22, 2026 10:05:05 PDT) Moe Yousif https://pfm.sbcounty.gov/ https://pfm.sbcounty.gov/

Glen Helen Amphitheater Redevelopment - Addendum No. 2 - Narrative - Approved by CC Final Audit Report 2026-09-22

Created: 2026-09-22

By: Vannessa Ramos (vannessa.ramos@pfm.sbcounty.gov)

Status: Signed

Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAwWhCGfCjC4-Wg195aNKN_hX88qbpn0G9

"Glen Helen Amphitheater Redevelopment - Addendum No. 2 - Narrative - Approved by CC" History

Document created by Vannessa Ramos (vannessa.ramos@pfm.sbcounty.gov)

2026-09-22 - 4:43:40 PM GMT

Document emailed to Moe Yousif (moe.yousif@cao.sbcounty.gov) for signature

2026-09-22 - 4:43:44 PM GMT

Email viewed by Moe Yousif (moe.yousif@cao.sbcounty.gov)

2026-09-22 - 5:04:20 PM GMT

Document e-signed by Moe Yousif (moe.yousif@cao.sbcounty.gov) Signature Date: 2026-09-22 - 5:05:05 PM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: MOBILE_TYPE

Agreement completed.

2026-09-22 - 5:05:05 PM GMT