IFB_7500_ALD1021_ADD_1_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: IFB 7500 ALD1021 Addendum No: 1 Date: May 8, 2026

This addendum is to incorporate the following changes to the above referenced solicitation:

1.0 Additional Information: Attendance Sheet for the Pre-Offer meeting held on April 24, 2026, is attached.

2.0 Clarifications: The bid sheet published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, labeled Bid Sheet Version 1.

3.0 Clarifications: The bid package published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, labeled Bid Package Version 1

4.0 Questions:

Q1 Question:

Is the retro-commissioning request a part of the Standard FCA services line item?

Q1 Answer:

No, the retro-commissioning request is not a part of the Standard FCA services line item.

Q2 Question:

Will all facilities require a retro-commissioning task?

Q2 Answer:

No, all facilities will not require a retro-commissioning task.

Q3 Question:

Are all tasks and all buildings to be considered “as needed" with no guarantee of quantity or scope?

Q3 Answer:

There is no guarantee on actual quantity of buildings each year to have the FCA performed. The purpose of this contract is that we have an ongoing FCA for facilities every 3 to 5 years, depending on available budget and department needs.

Q4 Question:

Can you confirm which forms are required with the submittal? The online portal only mentions the Price Offer and The Offer and Certifications (which we assume is the Offer and Acceptance) form. Which others should be included at this time?

Q4 Answer:

The forms that should be included are the forms listed on the Solicitation Details page by the offer submittals.

Q5 Question:

Did you want the list of our Key Personnel to be added to the Key Personnel form? Currently, the form only has room for Austin personnel.

Q5 Answer:

Yes, provide the information for your contract manager.

Q6 Question:

When is the last time these buildings have been audited?

Q6 Answer:

Not all facilities have had an FCA performed in the past. This is why we need a contract. About 3 million sq ft was assessed in 2024 by Alpha.

Q7 Question:

Who was responsible for the FCAs in the past?

Q7 Answer:

Alpha has performed FCA's in the past on some of the facilities for AFM. Austin Energy, PARD and Library have had FCA's performed in the past, but we do not know which vendor was used for those.

Q8 Question:

Do you have a more detailed list of buildings this contract would include?

Q8 Answer:

No, the list of buildings attached to the solicitations is the only list currently.

Q9 Question:

On the bid form, the Standard FCA Services line item only includes 2,987,762 square feet. The IFB mentions 4,745,052 SF and the List of Buildings attachment includes 10,083,297 SF. What is the correct square footage we should be pricing?

Q9 Answer:

6 million sq ft for AFM. But this is going to be open to other department - so most likely it will be closer to the 10 mil sq ft plus. There should also be language that the city can add and remove sites as needed.

Q10 Question:

Do you have a timeline for completion and/or a priority list of facilities?

Q10 Answer:

This will be communicated to the vendor each year with a group of facilities to be assessed and the timeline for completion with each. Priority will be managed internally and sent to the vendor with authorization to proceed.

Q11 Question:

We have created an account on the financeonline.austintexas.gov website, subscribed to the solicitation, however when I click the “Continue Registration” under My eResponse tab, nothing happens and the “Create Response” tab is not visible. Please advise.

Q11 Answer:

If you are not the primary contact of your account, the Create Response button will not appear after you have logged in. Please contact Vendor Registration for assistance at vendor@austintexas.gov and inform them that you are unable to submit an eResponse. Vendor Help Phone: 512-974-2467.

Q12 Question:

RFP Section 3.6 mentions “Site Visits”. Due to no mention in the Solicitation Cover Sheet, is it safe to assume a site visit will not be held for this solicitation?

Q12 Answer:

A Site Visit will be held per facility that is being asked to be assessed. This will be coordinated each time we are asking for an assessment.

Q13 Question:

Can we assume that the Solicitation Price Sheet outlined in Category 1 – Rates; 1.1-1.5 would be the basis for the award? As a follow-up, is there any intent for The City to award partial scopes of services to more than one vendor?

Q13 Answer:

The City reserves the right to award a single contract based on overall low cost or multiple awards based on individual or categories/groups of specific line items, cost, or any criteria or combination deemed most advantageous to the City.

Q14 Question:

The City has not delineated SaaS licensing terms within the RFP, however it is mentioned in 1.10 Definitions. A best-in-class cloud based FCA proprietary software is available thru licensing agreement should the city wish to enter into such an agreement. There are multiple ways to procure a one to multi-year subscription to our platform. Would the City prefer to have a separate submission under 4.2 Alternate Offers, or include the software in our base fee for a 1-Year period?

Q14 Answer:

Would like to see this offered in the Other Services section on bid sheet.

Q15 Question:

4.1.1.2.10.1 Is there a desired standard that the city wishes to use for the visual Pavement Condition Assessment?

Q15 Answer:

AFM does not have a template. We are dependent on the vendors SME for this. We do not have a standard.

Q16 Question:

4.1.1.2.11 Fencing, external utilities, landscape sprinkler systems: Can you give further clarification as to the desired scope? For example; does the scope for landscape sprinkler systems include the testing of each sprinkler zone at each facility?

Q16 Answer:

Not a detailed inspection. We are looking more for what condition or rating: good/ fair/ poor/ obsolete?

Q17 Question:

Under 4.0 Tasks / Requirements: Does the assessment need to include trees, shrubs, and turf?

Q17 Answer:

No, the assessment does not need to include trees, shrubs, and turf.

Q18 Question:

Under 4.0 Tasks / Requirements: For Drainage and flood hazards, what type of assessment information is desired?

Q18 Answer:

The requested assessment information includes whether the facility is located in a floodplain or otherwise at risk of flooding, as well as identifying any on-site drainage blockages that may need to be cleared. The assessment should also note any potential flooding concerns or areas where standing water may accumulate on the premises.

Q19 Question:

Under 4.1.4 Review and Calculate Current Replacement Value (CRV) - On an annual or semi-annual basis, review, update, and determine an appropriate facility, asset, and/or component CRV value(s) to reflect local market conditions and to provide greater FCA accuracy. – How many cycles/years should we include for this update?

Q19 Answer:

This should be recalculated each year.

Q20 Question:

4.1.6.2 Determine approximate replacement cost of each building component where cumulating components will equal the replacement value of the building. This statement leads us to conclude that a component-level assessment is required and must equal the sum-of-the-parts for the calculation of the CRV. Please elaborate if this is not the desired methodology.

Q20 Answer:

This is not the method we are looking for. We are looking at the cost of constructing this exact facility with current cost estimates.

Q21 Question:

4.1.7 Asset Inventory- Should we assume pricing the necessary scope shall be limited to 2,987,762 building gross square feet as stated in the “QR Code Tag Services” within the pricing sheet? As a follow-up question, some of the listed items for inventory include “hidden systems” such as “distribution systems”.

What level of detail is desired for non-visual systems that cannot be “tagged”?

Q21 Answer:

Square footage is an estimate and can increase if other departments join this contract. For the non-visual systems- we are looking for basic description, estimated age, useful life of the system, and any other information of the system that is available from site visit or provided plans.

Q22 Question:

4.1.10 Abbreviated Accessibility Survey- “Upon request” seems to indicate that this scope of service may or may not be requested by the City, but if it is requested, would it be limited to building gross square footage of 928,069 per 1.5 of the Pricing Sheet?

Q22 Answer:

We may not need an Abbreviated Accessibility Survey for each site- hence "as needed". This would be more for the public facing facilities and cost should be based on building square footage.

Q23 Question:

Scope section 4.1.7 Asset Inventory- When needed an asset inventory survey will be conducted for COA Department facilities without an inventory.” Is there an estimate of the number of buildings and/or pieces of equipment which will need to be inventoried?

Q23 Answer:

No, we are asking for the vendor to provide the asset inventory after the FCA is completed to be uploaded to our asset management system (CMMS). We can provide a list of assets for the facilities that have had an FCA conducted in the past.

Q24 Question:

Is there a history of equipment which has been added to or deleted from the equipment inventory over the past 3 years?

Q24 Answer:

Yes, partially. We would like to confirm this data is correct when performing the FCA.

Q25 Question:

Is a current inventory available for review prior to proposal submission?

Q25 Answer:

We can provide a list of current assets, but this will not be a complete list.

Q26 Question:

Section 4.1.7.3 Commercial appliances include all commercial food and laundry equipment. Are any of these functions currently outsourced to a third-party service vendor?

Q26 Answer:

It is the City's responsibility to maintain these assets, if present.

Q27 Question:

Section 4.1.8.2.11 Assess Criticality – Is there a current City of Austin defined policy for the definition of criticality?

Q27 Answer:

Yes. When we provide the list of assets, it will have the criticality. Some groups of similar assets’ criticality will depend on the type of facility - example: overhead doors at fire and EMS stations are higher criticality than overhead doors at a standard office building.

Q28 Question:

4.1.9 Preventive Maintenance Schedules indicate the use of IFMA standards for equipment classification.

IFMA recognizes ASTM Uniformat, Omniclass, and ISO standards for equipment classification. Will Austin accept the use of Uniformat classification for all equipment and building elements?

Q28 Answer:

No, we won't accept ASTM Uniformat classification. We use ISO standards, and when we send the list of assets, it will show how they are classified.

Q29 Question:

Please confirm proponents do not need to provide Insurance Certificate with proposal submission.

Q29 Answer:

The Certificate of Insurance is not required with the bid submission. The Certificate of Insurance will be required from the awarded vendor(s).

Q30 Question:

Does the City currently employ a work order CMMS system? If so, which one?

Q30 Answer:

Yes. Austin Facilities Management uses Asset Essentials through Brightly. Other departments use Maximo.

There may be others as well.

Q31 Question:

Can the City provide a building list with the individual square footage and address of each property to be included in the assessment?

Q31 Answer:

Yes. We will be providing a list of facilities with addresses and estimated square feet with current assets as well prior to scheduling the FCA.

Q32 Question:

Under 4.0 Tasks / Requirements:

For Drainage and flood hazards, what type of assessment information is desired?

Q32 Answer:

The requested assessment information includes whether the facility is in a floodplain or otherwise at risk of flooding, as well as identifying any on-site drainage blockages that may need to be cleared. The assessment should also note any potential flooding concerns or areas where standing water may accumulate on the premises.

Q33 Question:

What are the specific sections that are to be included in the Proposal submittal?

Q33 Answer:

Section 4 of the solicitation package covers offer contents, preparation.

Q34 Question:

What are the specific evaluation criteria for the submittals, and will they be scored by an evaluation committee? If scored, what are the scoring targets for each evaluation criterion?

Q34 Answer:

Section 6 of the solicitation package covers bid evaluation, award.

Q35 Question:

Section 3.1, A of the Contracts section of the RFP states that “Contract is fixed price, unit price(s).” As such, direct project related expenses will be included in our lump sum fee. Section 3.2, Travel Expenses states “Prior to incurring any reimbursable expenses, Contractor shall first request and obtain the City’s written approval, including a not-to-exceed limit, on any expenses they will later seek reimbursement of.

Contractor shall submit any requests for reimbursement within 30 days of incurring the expense. All reimbursement requests shall include copies of detailed and itemized receipts (e.g., hotel bills, airline tickets). Are expenses to be billed as actual costs with markup, or are they to be included in the lump sum for the project?

Q35 Answer:

Prices offered should be inclusive of fees, no separate charges for administrative, overhead, per diem, and shipping or transportation costs (travel time, fuel surcharges, mileage, stop-fee, etc.) to deliver services or items to the Austin, Texas area.

Q36 Question:

Section 4.3, C, Invoices, under the Contracts section, states “Invoices for labor shall include a tabulation of work-hours at the appropriate rates and grouped by work Order number. Time billed for labor shall be limited to hours actually worked.“ This seems to contradict the concept of a lump sum contract. Are our monthly bills to be generated a percentage of work completed each month from a lump sum total, or is this a Time and Materials contract?

Q36 Answer:

The contract will be an IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity) contract, delivery orders will be created when needed.

Q37 Question:

Section 4.3, D, under the Contracts section, states “Unless otherwise expressly authorized in the Contract, the Contractor shall pass through all Subcontracting and other authorized expenses at actual cost without markup”. Please confirm that this is accurate or not.

Q37 Answer:

Section 4.3,D is correct.

Q38 Question:

What is the anticipated date for Vendor selection?

Q38 Answer:

The tentative date for award recommendation is the week June 15, 2026.

Q39 Question:

What is the anticipated date for Contract Execution/Notice to Proceed?

Q39 Answer:

The tentative contract execution is September 2026.

Q41 Question:

Section 4.1.7 of the Scope of Work for Asset Inventory starts with the words “When needed…..”. Please clarify since we understand that the inventory of components is part of the base scope of work.

Q41 Answer:

On locations that have been previously assessed, and the assets have been inventoried, we may not need the inventory. Just confirm asset inventory is correct and reassess assets.

Q42 Question:

Item 1.4 of the Price Sheet breaks out Security System Assessment (includes tagging). The square footage of facilities associated with this item is less than the square footage associated with the Standard FCA Services listed in line item 1.1. Since security systems are part of the Standard FCA scope (section 4.1.7.11), please clarify the distinction between the two line items. If security system equipment is included in the Standard FCA, can we indicate on the Price form that fees for line item 1.4 are included in line item 1.1?

Q42 Answer:

Altering the pricing submittal sheet may jeopardize acceptance of your offer.

Q43 Question:

In section 4.1.8, Asset Tagging and Reporting, what specific type of label (material type) do you want us to use?

Q43 Answer:

The City currently uses highly durable metal tags with double sided tape and holes to hang from wire when sticking isn't an option.

Q44 Question:

In section 4.1.8, Asset Tagging and Reporting, are you asking that the data elements in 4.1.8.2 be included in the inventory record for each equipment component, or are you asking that this data be embedded into a “smart” QR code?

Q44 Answer:

No, the QR code is linked to an asset in the CMMS, in a URL field.

Q45 Question:

Key Personnel Form- Are you asking each vendor to add line items to this form describing the same data as indicated for the City? Is this to include only management staff assigned to the project?

Q45 Answer:

The City is only requesting the information for the contractor's contract manager.

Q46 Question:

The SOW work RFP document in section 4.1.11 captures ‘upon request’ scope for retro-commissioning and energy audit services; the bid sheet does not have a line item for this service. How would the City prefer to see the associated costs or the bidder’s capacity to perform services communicated in the RFP response?

Q46 Answer:

The updated bid sheet has a line item for the service.

5.0 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Offeror Name Offeror Authorized Signature Date

RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE SOLICITATION CLOSING

DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

IFB 7500 ALD1021 Facility Condition Assessments Pre-Offer Meeting

Start time 4/24/2026 End time 4/24/2026

Name Firm Email Phone Drayton, Alfonso City of Austin Alfonso.Drayton@austintexas.gov 512-974-2298 Ame Vargas AUTOARCH Architects ame@autoarch.net 713-952-3366 Salas, Daniel Terracon Daniel.Salas@terracon.com 512-840-7532 Lisa Murray CGL Companies lmurray@cglcompanies.com 470-561-1902 Maines, Kayla C Terracon Kayla.Maines@terracon.com 512-965-9940 Rachel Appel Facility Optimization Solutions, LLC rappel@foscd.com Tatsch, Megan LAN MLTatsch@lan-inc.com 832-410-4959 Sydney Hamilton FOS shamilton@foscd.com Jeff Fox Bureau Veritas jeff.fox@bureauveritas.com 443.413.4293 Rachael Reed ALPHA Facilities Solutions rachael.reed@alphafacilities.com 843-708-4855 David Auton/USA David.Auton@cwservices.com LeBlanc, Kyle LAN KJLeBlanc@lan-inc.com 979.776.1000 Kay McLaurin CGL Companies kmclaurin@cglcompanies.com 650-457-9334 Strickland, Julie City of Austin Julie.Strickland@austintexas.gov 512-974-3980 Jordan Knudsen Facility Optimization Solutions, LLC jknudsen@foscd.com Leonard, Sam City of Austin Sam.Leonard@austintexas.gov 512-974-3982 James D'Arcy/USA C&W Services James.Darcy@cwservices.com 502-599-0571 Mark Schrock Roth IAMS mark.schrock@rothiams.com 214-970-9863 Diego F. Mora BBG Inc dmora@bbgres.com 571-279-2292 Scott Newell scott.newell@alphafacilities.com Lina Sabouni AIA AUTOARCH Architects lina@autoarch.net 832-326-8321 Grom, JP JPGrom@lan-inc.com Keith Jones keith.jones@alphafacilities.com Farrah Sabouni farrah@autoarch.net Goode, Robert RDGoode@lan-inc.com