LaFayette_Grant_Administration_Addendum_Revie.docx

DRAFT FOR CITY AND COUNSEL REVIEW — NOT ISSUED

City of LaFayette Grant Administration Addendum Addendum No. 1 Issue date: 10-14-26 Review draft dated October 14, 2026 The dates, insurance limits, qualification clarification, and single-prime selection stated below are proposed for City approval. This draft does not extend any deadline or amend the solicitation until the City issues it. Remove this paragraph and the draft header only after the release checks in the separate Review Note are completed.

Purpose and effect This addendum answers questions concerning the City’s on-call grant-administration solicitation. The immediate priority is the Villanow Street RAISE grant, but the agreement may support other City grants within the competed scope through written task orders. It is separate from the engineering solicitation and the prior grant-writing procurement. Bidder questions are numbered consecutively for reference.

The proposed proposal deadline is October 26, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, effective upon City issuance of this addendum. The question period closed October 9, 2026 and is not reopened by this addendum.

Questions and City responses

1. May an out-of-state sole proprietor/principal-led firm submit as prime, and may the work be performed primarily remotely except for specifically required meetings or project activities?

Response: Yes. Out-of-state sole proprietors and firms may submit as prime consultants. Remote performance is acceptable when consistent with the task order, secure access to records, and required meetings or on-site activities. Proposals must identify the responsible principal, available staffing, location of performance, and ability to attend required activities. All required business authorizations and professional credentials must be in place when legally required.

2. For the required three case studies and the 30-point Firm Experience & Track Record factor, may the City consider directly relevant experience of a committed subcontractor and/or proposed key personnel, provided the proposal clearly identifies whose experience it is?

Response: Yes. Identify whether each project was performed by the prime firm, a proposed team member at a prior employer, or a committed subconsultant, and state the individual role, dates, funding source, work performed, and verifiable results. The City will evaluate the relevance and quality of that experience, the proposed personnel’s actual participation, and their availability for this contract under the published criteria. Experience shall not be attributed to the prime firm if it belongs to another entity. There is no automatic deduction solely because a firm is new, uses subconsultants, or lawfully has no employees.

3. For a contractor with no employees and no intent to hire employees for the contract, will the City accept the legally permitted no-employee alternative to the O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 contractor affidavit? If so, please confirm the specific identification/documentation the City wants included with the proposal.

Response: Yes. An eligible contractor with no employees and no intent to hire employees to perform the contract may use the alternative in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b)(5). Submit Form F and a copy of the qualifying state-issued driver’s license or identification card of the contracting individual, together with the required qualifying identification for each independent contractor used to perform the contract. The issuing state must meet the statute’s immigration-verification requirement. A passport alone is not the identification specified by this alternative. If the contractor later needs employees to perform the contract, it must first comply with the statutory registration and affidavit requirements.

Place identity-document copies in a separate sealed inner envelope marked “Statutory identification—restricted handling” within the proposal package; omit those copies from the review duplicates and USB. Include the signed declaration in all proposal copies. The City will handle and redact identifying information as required by law. The lawful use of this alternative will not itself reduce a proposal’s score. It does not excuse compliance by subcontractors or establish their eligibility.

4. For the three sealed hard copies, should each copy be sealed separately, or may all three bound copies and the USB be enclosed in one sealed outer package labeled “Grant Administration RFP – Do Not Open”?

Response: All three bound hard copies and the USB may be enclosed in one sealed outer package marked “Grant Administration RFP – Do Not Open.” Separate sealing of each review copy is unnecessary. The separate handling instruction for statutory identity-document copies is stated above.

5. For the USB submission, does the City prefer one combined PDF containing the proposal and certifications, or separate PDF files?

Response: Either one combined, searchable PDF or clearly named separate PDFs is acceptable. Include the proposal and executed certifications, with the exception of identity-document copies handled as stated above. The electronic version must match the hard-copy submission. A single combined PDF with bookmarks is preferred for ease of review, but is not an evaluation preference.

6. GDOT prequalification timing: Must the prime consultant hold applicable GDOT prequalifications at proposal submission, master-agreement award, or before an applicable task order? Are any specific area classes required to be held by the prime itself, rather than covered by qualified subconsultants?

Response: This solicitation is for grant-administration and administrative compliance support. It does not select a consultant to perform engineering, design, construction management, inspection, or other services requiring a separate qualifications-based procurement. GDOT prequalification is not a blanket eligibility requirement for purely administrative services under this RFP. Disclose any relevant qualifications held by the prime and proposed subconsultants on Form G. Where a particular authorized assignment lawfully requires a license, certification, or GDOT area-class qualification, the entity actually performing that work must hold it before assignment and throughout performance. This provision does not authorize use of a task order to bypass a required separate procurement or grantor approval.

7. Key personnel experience: May a newly established firm satisfy the three federal transportation case studies and three client reference requirements through its proposed key personnel’s experience with previous employers and/or proposed subconsultants? We would clearly identify the employer, individual role, funding source, and project reference.

Response: Yes. The experience-identification and evaluation requirements in Response 2 apply.

The three case studies must be relevant to the services being offered. This grant-administration procurement does not impose a separate requirement that all three be federal transportation projects. Relevant transportation-grant experience may be described and evaluated within the published criteria. Three client references are required as clarified below.

8. Subconsultant identification: Must all specialty subconsultants be identified at submission, or may additional firms be proposed for City approval as specific task-order needs arise? Are teaming letters or other commitments required with the proposal?

Response: Identify every subconsultant and key person whose qualifications or experience the proposal relies upon, describe the proposed role, and include written confirmation of that person’s or firm’s availability and willingness to participate. Additional specialty firms may be proposed for prior written City approval when specific task-order needs arise. Approval may not be used to substitute away the qualifications on which selection was based or circumvent a separate procurement requirement. The prime remains responsible for the services of its approved subconsultants.

9. Required forms: Could you provide the required certification forms and attachments referenced in Section 9, including the GDOT Prequalification Disclosure?

Response: Yes. The accompanying Proposed Solicitation Forms packet provides addendum acknowledgment, debarment/suspension certification, lobbying certification when applicable, non-collusion affidavit, Georgia contractor affidavit, no-employee declaration, and team/qualification disclosure. These are City solicitation forms, not a representation that every grantor uses identical forms. Any required grantor-prescribed form controls for the particular award. The draft RFP places proposal certifications in Section 8 and evaluation in Section 9; the document headings control over an erroneous section reference. See the GDOT clarification above.

10. Are electronic copies required in addition to the mailed proposal? If so, what format and delivery method are required?

Response: Yes. Submit one USB flash drive containing the PDF version with the three sealed hard copies, subject to the restricted-handling exception for identity documents. Email submission of the proposal is not authorized.

11. What insurance coverage and minimum limits must the selected contractor maintain?

Response: Before performance, the selected consultant shall provide commercial general liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate; professional liability/errors and omissions coverage of at least $5,000,000 per claim and aggregate covering the contracted grant-administration services; automobile liability of at least $1,000,000 combined single limit for owned, hired, and nonowned vehicles used in performance; workers’ compensation as required by applicable law and employers’ liability of $1,000,000 where applicable; and cyber/privacy liability of at least $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate for handling City data. A consultant with no exposure requiring a particular coverage shall identify that fact and the legal or factual basis in its proposal. The professional-liability requirement may be met by primary and excess professional-liability policies that cover the same services; a general umbrella policy is not a substitute unless its terms actually provide that coverage.

Include required insurance costs in the rate proposal and identify any requested exception expressly. The City will evaluate any exception consistently with the solicitation and applicable procurement requirements; no exception is approved by silence. The agreement will require certificates and applicable endorsements before work begins, City additional-insured status for general and automobile liability where applicable, and primary/noncontributory terms and waivers of subrogation where available and lawful. Claims-made professional and cyber coverage must have a retroactive date no later than the start of services and remain in effect, or have an extended reporting period, for at least three years after completion. Required insurance is not a limitation of the consultant’s contractual liability.

12. Are bid, performance, or payment bonds required?

Response: No bid, performance, or payment bond is required for this grant-administration services procurement. This answer does not waive any bond required for a separately procured construction or facility-improvement contract or another covered transaction. Those requirements must be determined under the law and funding conditions applicable to that separate procurement.

13. May relevant grant-administration experience performed by proposed personnel or teaming partners satisfy the municipal past-performance criterion, or must the prime offeror itself possess that experience?

Response: Yes. Relevant experience may be supplied through the proposed team as explained in Response 2. Identify the actual performer and proposed role, and provide the required verification.

14. For the three required case studies from the past three years, may a proposer include relevant experience performed by proposed key personnel while working for prior employers, provided the prior employer or lead firm is clearly identified?

Response: Yes. Prior-employer experience may be described as explained in Response 2. Attribute it accurately and identify the proposed individual’s actual participation; do not present it as the prime firm’s own work.

15. May relevant experience and past performance of proposed subconsultants be included as part of the team’s demonstrated track record and qualifications?

Response: Yes. Committed subconsultant experience may be considered as explained in Response 2. Identify the work, the subconsultant’s actual role, and its commitment to the proposed team.

16. For the requirement to describe experience in Georgia local government grants, is prior direct Georgia municipal grant experience required, or may comparable federal, state, and local government grant-administration experience from other jurisdictions be considered?

Response: Comparable federal, state, and local public-sector grant-administration experience from other jurisdictions will be considered. Respondents should explain how that experience and their proposed personnel demonstrate the ability to administer Georgia municipal grants and comply with Georgia requirements. Lack of a prior Georgia municipal client is not an automatic zero or disqualification. The City will apply the published point allocations and assess relevant experience and demonstrated competence, rather than the respondent’s location or business form. This clarification applies to the geographic wording in the Firm Experience and Track Record factor.

17. If a proposed team includes specialized subconsultants for areas such as Davis-Bacon, Section 3, environmental compliance, or grant financial administration, should those individuals be included within the three case studies, or only within the Key Personnel & Team Qualifications section?

Response: Identify specialized personnel and their responsibilities in the Key Personnel and Team Qualifications section. Where a case study relies on their work, also identify their contribution there or provide a clear cross-reference. The prime must distinguish its own work from work performed by others.

18. The RFP was issued September 16, 2026, but states that questions were due September 9, 2026. Will the City issue an addendum establishing a corrected deadline for questions and, if necessary, extending the proposal deadline?

Response: The reference to September 9, 2026 was a typographical error. The corrected deadline for questions was October 9, 2026. The question period has closed and is not reopened by this addendum. The proposal deadline is extended to October 26, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. These dates supersede inconsistent solicitation dates.

Timely submissions already delivered will remain sealed until the extended deadline. A respondent may replace or withdraw its submission by written notice and, for a replacement, timely delivery of a complete sealed replacement package. The City will issue any further material clarification in writing to all prospective respondents and extend the deadline again if necessary to permit a reasonable response.

19. Does this RFP supersede or replace the Grant Writing Services RFQ issued in February 2026? If so, what was the formal disposition of the proposals submitted and evaluated under the February procurement?

Response: No. This procurement does not cancel, replace, or reopen the earlier grant-writing procurement or any resulting agreement. The City selected Skye Strategies under that process and anticipates continuing that relationship subject to its existing agreement. This solicitation is a separate competition for grant administration and related services. No firm is assured selection under this RFP because of an existing City engagement.

20. The scope includes grant development and pre-award strategy in addition to post-award administration. Is the City seeking to procure both grant-writing and grant-administration services through this RFP, including the services previously solicited in February?

Response: The RFP includes pre-award services in Task 1, but the immediate need is post-award administration. Task 1 remains available for specifically authorized assignments within this solicitation’s scope; no task order is guaranteed. The City will coordinate assignments with existing engagements, avoid duplicative compensation, and follow applicable procurement and conflict-of-interest requirements.

21. The RFP describes the services as “on-call,” but does not define the associated availability requirements.

Response: “On-call” means services are requested as needed through written task orders. It does not require continuous standby, an exclusive assignment, or reserved dedicated staffing without an express written task-order provision.

22. What hours of availability, response times, meeting attendance, and after-hours or emergency support does the City expect? Does “on-call” contemplate 24-hour availability or the reservation of dedicated staff capacity?

Response: The consultant must provide a reliable point of contact during normal City business hours and sufficient staff to meet agreed deadlines. Each task order will identify required meetings, site visits, response expectations, and any approved after-hours work. The expected services include scheduled grant reports, reimbursement requests, compliance review of procurement documents and contracts, and audit support. The RFP does not impose general 24-hour availability.

23. Given that the agreement is nonexclusive and guarantees no minimum amount of work, how will the City compensate a Consultant if it expects staff capacity to be reserved for on-call or expedited assignments?

Response: No unpaid reservation of dedicated capacity is required. Proposals should identify ordinary response capabilities, rates, and any expedited-service or standby charges. Such charges are payable only if expressly authorized in a written task order or amendment, within its budget; merely submitting a rate does not authorize the charge.

24. Is this procurement intended to establish a master professional-services agreement under which the scope, staffing, schedule, deliverables, and price of each assignment will be negotiated separately through a task order? Or must respondents commit through this proposal to perform every service described in Tasks 1 through 4?

Response: Yes. The City intends a master professional-services agreement with individual written task orders establishing the scope, staffing, schedule, deliverables, compensation, and maximum authorized amount. Respondents must explain their capability and proposed approach for each of Tasks 1 through 4 and identify exceptions or reliance on subconsultants. The proposal does not commit a respondent to perform every listed service for an undefined price, and no services are authorized until a task order or notice to proceed is issued.

25. May a respondent propose to lead certain service areas while providing advisory or coordination support in others? If so, how will the evaluation criteria be applied to a firm that does not propose to directly perform every technical or project-management function listed in the RFP?

Response: A respondent may describe lead, advisory, and coordination roles, but must clearly identify any scope it cannot perform and the qualified resources proposed for the balance. The City will evaluate the proposal’s responsiveness and demonstrated ability to deliver the competed services under the published criteria, as clarified here. Engineering and construction management are excluded as explained below; breadth outside the actual administrative scope will not receive an undisclosed preference.

26. The RFP uses both “serve as project manager” and “provide project management support.”

Response: For this grant-administration RFP, “serve as project manager” means managing the assigned grant-administration work and supporting the City’s designated project manager. It does not delegate technical project management or general owner-representative authority.

27. Please distinguish between these roles.

Response: The consultant will track administrative milestones, review grant-related documentation, identify compliance issues, and advise the City about the grant implications of proposed actions, including project phasing or procurement changes. City staff or separately retained technical professionals will manage design and construction. The consultant must not direct artificial project splitting or other actions to avoid procurement requirements.

28. Does the City expect the Consultant to assume full responsibility as the City’s project manager or owner’s representative, or to provide grant-related administrative support to a project manager retained or designated by the City?

Response: The consultant will provide grant-related administrative support to the project manager designated or separately retained by the City. It will not assume general authority to bind the City or direct construction.

29. Does the City expect the selected Consultant to provide a licensed engineer, construction manager, or other technical professional to oversee capital projects?

Response: No. This procurement does not require the consultant to supply a licensed engineer, construction manager, or construction inspector to oversee capital work. Any separately required technical professional services must be obtained through the applicable procurement process.

30. If so, please identify the required professional qualifications, licenses, anticipated level of effort, and types of projects involved.

Response: Not applicable to the administrative scope of this solicitation. The consultant must nevertheless use personnel qualified to perform the specific administrative and compliance services it undertakes and must refer tasks requiring a professional license to an appropriately licensed professional.

31. For project-management assignments, will the Consultant have contractual authority to direct engineers, architects, contractors, and vendors; approve or recommend change orders; manage construction schedules; evaluate contractor performance; or authorize corrective action?

Response: The consultant has no authority to direct engineers, architects, construction contractors, or vendors; approve changes, expenditures, or schedules; certify technical performance; or bind the City. It may track documentation and milestones, identify apparent noncompliance, and recommend administrative corrective action to the City. The City and its separately retained technical professionals retain approval and direction authority.

32. If not, should these portions of the scope be interpreted as advisory monitoring and coordination only?

Response: Yes. Interpret these portions of the scope as administrative monitoring, advice, and coordination concerning grant compliance. Recommendations require action by the authorized City official or other responsible party before implementation.

33. What access will the Consultant receive to City accounting records, purchase orders, contracts, contractor schedules, invoices, change orders, procurement files, and other internal records necessary to perform the project-management functions described in Task 3?

Response: The City will provide reasonably necessary grant and project records, subject to legal restrictions, confidentiality, privilege, and appropriate security controls. The consultant must identify needed information promptly, limit access to authorized personnel, safeguard City data, and return City records at completion. Access does not authorize alteration of official financial records or legal disclosure of protected information.

34. Please provide examples of the “direct implementation assistance” and “operational execution” anticipated under Task 4.

Response: Examples include maintaining reporting calendars and compliance logs, assembling reimbursement and closeout packages, coordinating supporting documentation, assisting with required notices and submissions, and tracking resolution of grant-administration issues.

35. Does this contemplate administrative coordination of funded activities, direct delivery of grant-funded programs, technical project management, construction management, or some combination of these functions?

Response: Task 4 concerns administrative coordination and execution of authorized grant-administration activities. It does not procure construction, engineering, technical construction management, or independent delivery of a grant-funded public-service program. Any materially different services require an appropriate separate procurement or other lawful authorization.

36. Does the City expect the selected Consultant to directly perform Davis-Bacon monitoring, certified payroll review, Section 3 administration, Title VI compliance, environmental review, NEPA documentation, engineering certifications, construction inspection, or legal determinations?

Response: For each task order, the City and consultant will identify which labor, civil-rights, financial, and environmental requirements actually apply and who will perform each activity. The consultant may perform assigned administrative functions such as maintaining labor-compliance files, reviewing certified payroll documentation, organizing civil-rights records, and assembling required submissions, using qualified personnel and in coordination with City staff and separately retained specialists. Section 3 is not automatically applicable to every grant. Legal opinions, engineering certifications, technical inspections, and professional environmental determinations remain with authorized officials or appropriately qualified professionals; they are not silently transferred by this RFP.

37. Alternatively, may the Consultant coordinate, document, and advise on these activities in collaboration with City personnel and appropriately qualified specialists?

Response: Yes, where that allocation is stated in the task order. The consultant must still perform the reviews, tracking, notifications, and other services specifically assigned to it. Coordination language does not excuse a missed responsibility.

38. When the RFP states that the Consultant will “ensure” or manage regulatory compliance, does the City intend for the Consultant to advise, monitor, document, and report potential compliance concerns, while the City and its contractors retain responsibility for their decisions and conduct?

Response: Yes, with the following qualification: the consultant must perform its agreed services with the professional skill, care, and diligence ordinarily exercised by qualified grant administrators on comparable assignments; identify and communicate reasonably discoverable compliance deficiencies within its scope; and recommend timely corrective action. It is not an insurer of every City or third-party act. The City and other contractors remain responsible for their own decisions and conduct.

39. Please identify which party will hold final responsibility for compliance determinations and corrective action.

Response: The City retains its obligations as grant recipient, its approval authority, and responsibility for official certifications and corrective action, subject to grantor oversight. The consultant remains responsible for its own breach, negligence, errors, omissions, and subconsultant performance. The agreement shall preserve lawful City recovery for losses proximately caused by those failures, including disallowed costs or required repayment where recoverable; it shall not impose automatic liability for the entire grant or excuse the consultant simply because the City signed a document. No City immunity is waived, and insurance limits do not cap liability.

40. For procurement assistance, does the City expect the Consultant to draft and review procurement documents and advise on applicable grant requirements, or to conduct the City’s procurement process?

Response: The consultant will draft or assist with procurement documents, review applicable grant requirements, maintain assigned procurement records, and advise City staff. The consultant does not control the solicitation, select the awardee, or make binding procurement determinations. Any assistance with evaluation must be expressly authorized and subject to conflict-of-interest safeguards.

41. Which City official will retain responsibility for solicitation approval, bid receipt, evaluation, contractor selection, award, and certification of compliance?

Response: The City Manager and Mayor and Council, or other City officials acting within their lawful delegated authority, retain the applicable approval, receipt, evaluation oversight, selection, award, and certification responsibilities. The consultant may assist but has no independent authority to exercise those powers.

42. For financial administration and reimbursement support, does the City expect the Consultant to organize reimbursement packages using City-provided accounting records, or to maintain official accounting records and certify financial information?

Response: The consultant will organize and review reimbursement packages using City-provided accounting records, flag apparent inconsistencies and unsupported costs, and prepare the assigned submission materials. It will not replace the City’s official accounting system or independently certify the City’s financial information.

43. Which City official will remain responsible for authorizing expenditures, maintaining the general ledger, determining cost allowability, certifying costs, and approving draw requests?

Response: The Finance Director and City Manager, with other approvals required by law or City policy, retain responsibility for authorizing expenditures, maintaining the general ledger, reviewing cost eligibility, certifying financial information, and approving draw requests. The consultant must advise and document apparent allowability issues within its scope; the grantor retains authority over reimbursement eligibility.

44. What specific grants or funded projects does the City anticipate assigning under the agreement?

Response: The agreement is intended to support grant administration for City projects generally. The City’s immediate priority is its $6,273,803 RAISE award for Villanow Street; other assignments may include a potential SS4A construction grant and other existing or future City grants. These examples do not guarantee funding, a task order, or a minimum volume of work. Each assignment is subject to the scope competed under this RFP, a written task order, available funding, and the requirements of the particular award.

45. In particular, what services does the City anticipate needing in connection with its $6,273,803 RAISE award?

Response: Anticipated services include an initial award-condition and reporting-calendar review; a responsibility matrix; review of grant requirements in solicitations and contracts; documentation of applicable labor, civil-rights, environmental, and procurement requirements; preparation of reports and reimbursement packages; maintenance of audit-ready administrative files; and grant closeout support. The first task order must identify current deadlines, existing work products, responsible City and technical personnel, and the consultant’s precise duties.

46. If the City authorizes work but an application or project cannot proceed because of an overdue audit, unavailable match, missing registration, incomplete survey or engineering work, delayed approval, incomplete documentation, or another prerequisite within the City’s control, will the Consultant be compensated for all authorized services performed before the matter was identified or the project was discontinued?

Response: The consultant will be paid for properly authorized, satisfactorily performed services under the applicable compensation terms, up to the authorized amount, even if the City later suspends or discontinues the project. The consultant must promptly report known prerequisites or impediments and seek instructions before incurring avoidable costs. Payment is subject to the City’s rights concerning defective work, breach, negligence, offsets, and termination; unauthorized work, unearned fees, and lost anticipated profits are not payable merely because a project stops.

47. Will each task order identify the City’s designated project representative, required City-provided records, approval authorities, information deadlines, Consultant deliverables, project dependencies, compensation method, and not-to-exceed amount?

Response: Yes. Each task order will identify those matters, the funding source and applicable award requirements, reporting and record-retention duties, allocation of approval authority, and any required specialist or grantor involvement. A responsibility matrix may be attached. Changes affecting scope, compensation, or schedule require written authorization.

48. What minimum lead times does the City anticipate providing for grant applications, reimbursement requests, reports, procurement documents, and other time-sensitive assignments?

Response: The City ordinarily anticipates providing at least one week’s lead time and more when practicable. This is a planning expectation, not a promise that every assignment will permit that period. The consultant must review known reporting and reimbursement schedules at the start of each task order and identify information needs early. Short-notice assignments require agreement on feasibility, scope, price, and schedule.

49. May the Consultant establish required lead times and staff-availability conditions in its proposal and individual task orders?

Response: Yes. Respondents should state realistic lead times and availability assumptions. They become binding only when accepted in the agreement or applicable task order; no proposal term overrides a grantor deadline.

50. If City records, decisions, approvals, or third-party deliverables are not provided according to the task-order schedule, will the Consultant’s deadlines be extended accordingly?

Response: The consultant must promptly give written notice identifying missing information, the likely schedule impact, mitigation steps, and any requested change. The City will reasonably adjust affected contractual milestones through written authorization for delay not caused by the consultant. A City-approved adjustment does not extend a statutory, grantor, or third-party deadline or excuse a failure to give timely notice. Any additional compensation requires separate written approval.

51. How should respondents price services when the number, size, complexity, and timing of future task orders are unknown?

Response: Submit fully burdened hourly rates by personnel category and describe fixed-fee structures, travel, reimbursables, and any separately priced expedited services. Explain assumptions and exclusions. Do not estimate a guaranteed volume of work. Include the costs of ordinary overhead and the insurance required by the solicitation, and avoid duplicate charges.

52. Will the City evaluate a fully burdened rate schedule at this stage and negotiate fixed fees or not-to-exceed budgets when individual task orders are developed?

Response: Yes. The City will evaluate the rate and fee structure under the published Fee Structure Reasonableness factor and negotiate assignment-specific fixed fees or not-to-exceed budgets before authorizing work. Hourly or time-and-materials arrangements remain subject to applicable funding rules and approval. Percentage-of-grant, percentage-of-construction-cost, and cost-plus-percentage-of-cost compensation are not authorized.

53. The evaluation table refers to the proposed strategy across “Modules A through D,” while the Scope of Services identifies Tasks 1 through 4. Should respondents interpret these as the same four service areas?

Response: Yes. “Modules A through D” in the evaluation table means Tasks 1 through 4 in order: grant development/pre-award strategy; post-award administration/compliance; grant-related administrative project support; and administrative implementation/coordination. Read all four in light of the scope clarifications in this addendum.

54. Please clarify whether respondents must submit three client references in addition to the three required case studies. If references are required, please specify the required number, information, and whether they must correspond to the case studies.

Response: Provide three client references in addition to the three case-study narratives. The same three projects may supply both, but the references need not correspond to the case studies. For each, provide the client/entity name, contact name and title, current email and telephone number, project and dates, services provided, and whether the experience belongs to the prime, a prior employer, or a proposed subconsultant. Identify the proposed personnel involved and secure permission for the City to contact the reference.

55. Must each of the three required case studies involve a Georgia municipality, or may respondents include other public-sector clients and municipal clients outside Georgia when the work is relevant to the requested scope?

Response: Relevant work for public-sector and municipal clients outside Georgia is acceptable. The City will assess comparability to the proposed services and demonstrated ability to comply with Georgia municipal and applicable funding requirements under the published criteria.

56. May the City of LaFayette serve as one of the three case studies and/or references based on Skye Strategies’ successful development of the City’s $6,273,803 RAISE application and current award-management services?

Response: Yes. A respondent may accurately describe relevant City work and name the City as a reference, subject to verification and applicable conflict-of-interest rules. It must distinguish grant-application work from post-award administration and identify who performed each. An incumbent relationship does not establish preference, guarantee selection, or cure an organizational conflict, including participation in preparing the competing solicitation where prohibited.

57. For evaluation purposes, how will the City distinguish between experience securing grants, experience administering grants, and experience providing technical project management for Georgia municipalities? Must each case study demonstrate all three functions?

Response: Describe the functions actually performed and the resulting administrative outcomes. Each case study need not demonstrate all three functions. The City will distinguish grant-writing results from post-award administration and from technical work performed by engineers or others. The published weights remain 30 points for Firm Experience and Track Record, 25 for Qualifications of Key Personnel, 20 for Methodology and Implementation Plan, 15 for Project Execution Capability, and 10 for Fee Structure Reasonableness. No additional or hidden weighting is adopted. Project execution is evaluated as administrative execution within the clarified scope.

58. Please provide the insurance types and minimum coverage limits that will apply to the resulting agreement.

Response: The insurance types, limits, and related conditions stated in the earlier insurance response apply to the resulting agreement. Include their cost in the proposal and expressly identify any requested exception.

59. Will the City provide prescribed forms for the debarment and suspension certification, Byrd Anti-Lobbying certification, non-collusion affidavit, and Georgia contractor affidavit?

Response: Yes. Use the accompanying forms as applicable. An equivalent form containing all required statements and execution requirements is acceptable unless a governing agency requires its prescribed form. Complete Form E or, if eligible, Form F with the required identity documents; Form F does not replace any required identity-document copy. Form C includes instructions for a required SF-LLL disclosure. Subcontractor and lower-tier compliance documents must also be obtained when applicable before those parties begin work.

60. Does the City anticipate awarding one agreement or multiple agreements to firms with complementary grant-development, grant-administration, engineering, compliance, and project-management capabilities?

Response: The City presently anticipates selecting one prime grant-administration consultant, which may propose a qualified team. The agreement will be nonexclusive, and the City retains the right to procure other services separately in accordance with applicable law. Engineering services are the subject of a separate solicitation. The City will not use this answer to create an undisclosed multiple-award selection process.

61. Will written answers to these questions be issued by addendum and incorporated into the resulting agreement and individual task orders?

Response: Yes. Once approved and issued by the City, this addendum and its accompanying solicitation forms become part of the RFP. Express amendments control over inconsistent RFP terms; otherwise the RFP remains unchanged. The final agreement shall incorporate the RFP and issued addenda, and task orders must be consistent with that agreement and applicable funding requirements. A task order may not expand services beyond the lawfully procured scope.

Acknowledgment and delivery Return executed Form A acknowledging this addendum with the proposal. Deliver the sealed package to Office of the City Manager, City Hall, 207 South Duke Street, LaFayette, Georgia 30728. For U.S. Mail use Office of the City Manager, P.O. Box 89, LaFayette, Georgia 30728. Receipt by the deadline, rather than mailing, controls. All other RFP requirements remain in effect except as expressly amended here.

Accompanying document: City of LaFayette Grant Administration Solicitation Forms, Forms A through G. Supplemental lower-tier affidavit forms are included for use when applicable.