MSU-27-003 - solicitation amendment 1.docx

State of North Dakota Minot State University 500 University Ave. West Minot, ND 58707

Solicitation Amendment #1

October 29, 2026 Solicitation Number: SRC000471 Title: Master Planning Services – Campus Facilities – MSU-27-003 Deadline for Receipt of Qualifications: November 6, 2026, 3:00 P.M., CT Solicitation Issued: October 2, 2026

This solicitation is amended as follows:

Section 1.4 RFQ Schedule is amended as follows:

Events, Dates, and Times not listed above shall remain unchanged.

Deadline for receipt of proposals (Solicitation End) is November 6, 2026, 3:00 PM, CT.

Section 1.10 established a Deadline for Submission of Questions and Requests for Clarification. The responses, including any necessary amendments, are as follows:

Questions related to Section 1.4 RFQ Schedule and Section 4.4 Technical Proposal Section 1 – Cover Letter.

1. Question: Section 1.4 references Section 5.10 regarding contract negotiations, and Section 4.4 references Conflict of Interest provisions in Section 1. We were unable to locate these sections. Please confirm the intended references.

Response: Yes, after review of both Section 1.4 and Section 4.4, the RFQ will be amended to include a Contract of Interest provision.

Amendment: Section 1 Instructions is amended by adding subsection 1.21. Conflict of Interest, which shall read as follows:

1.21. Conflict of Interest

Under state laws and rules, a state employee or official shall not participate directly or indirectly in a procurement when the state employee or official knows of a conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest include state employees or their immediate family members employed by the firm, seeking employment with the firm, or with a financial interest in the firm. Potential conflicts of interest will be addressed in accordance with N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04. (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-13-03) Persons employed by the State of North Dakota, or within one year thereafter, may be prohibited from acquiring a pecuniary interest in a public contract or transaction. Offerors should review N.D.C.C. § 12.1-13-02 to ensure compliance and avoid such conflict(s) of interest.

Questions related to Section 3.1 Scope of Work.

2. Question: Has Minot State University established a budget or identified a funding source for this engagement? An approximate range would help offerors align the depth of each workstream with the University's expectations.

Response: Minot State University has not established a project budget or identified a dedicated funding source for this engagement at this time. The purpose of this procurement is, in part, to explore the feasibility, scope, and potential costs associated with the various planning initiatives under consideration.

No amendment necessary.

3. Question: Could you please confirm whether a budget or fee range has been established for the master planning phase, and whether funding has already been allocated for this portion of the project?

Response: Minot State University has not established a project budget or identified a dedicated funding source for this engagement at this time. The purpose of this procurement is, in part, to explore the feasibility, scope, and potential costs associated with the various planning initiatives under consideration.

No amendment necessary.

4. Question: What is the University's desired schedule for completion of the master plan?

Response: The University would like the campus master plan completed by Spring 2028 to support planning and preparation for the 2029 legislative session and future capital funding discussions. The University anticipates completion of the master plan well within the 24-month contract term; however, the specific project schedule will be developed collaboratively with the selected consultant during project initiation.

No amendment necessary.

5. Question: What level of stakeholder engagement is anticipated, including involvement of students, faculty, staff, administration, and external stakeholders?

Response: The University anticipates a robust and inclusive stakeholder engagement process as a key component of the master planning effort. Respondents should expect to engage a broad range of stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, community members, and other external partners, as appropriate.

The University expects the selected consultant to propose an engagement strategy that encourages meaningful participation, gathers diverse perspectives, and helps build consensus around the future vision, goals, and priorities for the campus.

The University is not prescribing a specific number of meetings, workshops, or engagement activities; however, respondents should include a recommended approach and level of stakeholder engagement that they believe is necessary to develop a successful and actionable campus master plan. The final engagement plan will be refined collaboratively with the selected consultant during project initiation.

No amendment necessary.

Questions related to Section 3.2 Requirements.

6. Question: Is the University seeking a system-level assessment or a component-level assessment of the 26 buildings? Is there existing facility condition data, from prior campus studies or North Dakota University System capital planning, that the selected firm would be expected to build upon?

Response: The University is seeking a system-level facility condition assessment of the 26 campus buildings. The intent is to evaluate the overall condition, performance, and remaining useful life of major building systems and infrastructure to inform strategic planning, capital investment priorities, deferred maintenance planning, and long-term campus development. A detailed component-by-component inventory is not anticipated as part of this engagement.

The University will provide any existing facility condition information currently available.

No amendment necessary.

7. Question: What level of facility assessment is anticipated as part of the master planning effort? Is the expectation limited to planning-level assessments, or are more detailed building condition evaluations desired?

Response: The University expects facility assessments performed as part of the master planning effort to be conducted at a planning level and to be sufficient to inform strategic decision-making, capital planning, and future campus development. The assessment should identify general building conditions, space utilization considerations, deferred maintenance needs, functional deficiencies, and opportunities for renovation, replacement, or repurposing.

No amendment necessary.

8. Question: What level of investigation is expected for the facility and infrastructure condition assessments? Should respondents anticipate visual, noninvasive assessments supported by existing records, or testing, surveying, utility locating, and detailed system modeling?

Response: The University anticipates that the facility and infrastructure condition assessments will be primarily visual and noninvasive in nature and supported by available campus records, plans, reports, and stakeholder input.

The assessment should be sufficient to identify general facility conditions, infrastructure needs, deferred maintenance considerations, capacity constraints, and planning opportunities necessary to support the master planning process. Offerors may recommend additional investigative services if they believe such work would add value; however, any proposed supplemental services should be clearly identified and separately scoped.

No amendment necessary.

9. Question: Please indicate which of the following are available to the selected firm: space inventory data, course and room scheduling data, CAD floor plans, GIS or utility mapping, and recent facility, housing, or enrollment studies.

Response: The University will work with the selected firm to provide available data relevant to the engagement. This may include items such as space inventory data, course and room scheduling information, CAD floor plans, utility mapping, enrollment data, and prior studies, to the extent such information exists and is available. The selected firm should identify any specific data needs during project initiation, and the University will make reasonable efforts to provide applicable information.

No amendment necessary.

10. Question: Does MSU maintain campus GIS data, and is there a desire to have the Master Planning work aligned with GIS?

Response: Minot State University does not currently maintain a campus GIS database. Therefore, GIS data will not be available as part of this project. The University does not require the master planning effort to be GIS-based; however, respondents may describe any GIS tools or mapping approaches they propose to utilize in support of the planning process.

No amendment necessary.

11. Question: What existing studies, facility data, reports, campus planning documents, and other relevant information will be made available to the selected consultant?

Response: The University will provide available existing information and documentation relevant to the master planning process to the selected consultant following contract award. Available materials may include, but are not limited to, previous campus planning documents, facility and infrastructure reports, deferred maintenance information, building and utility drawings, space inventory and utilization data, enrollment trends and projections, capital planning documents, and other records deemed relevant to the project.

The availability, completeness, and accuracy of existing information may vary. Respondents should base their qualifications submittals on the information provided in the RFQ and should not assume that any specific study, report, or dataset will be available unless identified by the University. The selected consultant will be expected to review available information and identify any additional data needs as part of the master planning process.

No amendment necessary.

12. Question: What existing information will the University provide, including the previous master plan, facility assessments, building and utility drawings, deferred maintenance records, space inventories and utilizations, classroom scheduling data, and enrollment projections? Will these materials be available to shortlisted firms?

Response: The University will work with the selected firm to provide available data relevant to the engagement. This may include items such as space inventory data, course and room scheduling information, CAD floor plans, utility mapping, enrollment data, and prior studies, to the extent such information exists and is available. The selected firm should identify any specific data needs during project initiation, and the University will make reasonable efforts to provide applicable information.

No amendment necessary.

13. Question: Does the University anticipate that the housing and athletics assessments will include market or demand studies, such as student surveys, or will they focus on capacity and condition of existing facilities?

Response: The University anticipates that the housing and athletics assessments will primarily focus on the capacity, utilization, functionality, and condition of existing facilities. The intent is to evaluate how well current facilities meet present and projected campus needs and to identify opportunities for improvement, renovation, repurposing, or future investment.

Comprehensive market or demand studies, such as extensive student surveys or third-party market analyses, are not anticipated as a core component of this engagement. However, firms may recommend limited stakeholder engagement activities if they believe such input would meaningfully inform their assessment and resulting recommendations.

No amendment necessary.

14. Question: For housing, athletics and recreation, parking and transportation, information technology, and sustainability, does the University expect planning-level assessments, or standalone technical or market studies requiring specialized consultants?

Response: The University expects these topics to be evaluated at a planning level as part of the overall campus master planning process. Respondents should anticipate assessing housing, athletics and recreation, parking and transportation, information technology, and sustainability to the extent necessary to inform strategic planning recommendations and future capital investment priorities.

The University is not currently seeking standalone technical, engineering, market, or feasibility studies for these areas as part of the base scope. However, respondents may identify where specialized expertise would enhance the planning process and may recommend additional services if warranted. Any such services should be clearly identified and separately scoped.

No amendment necessary.

15. Question: Should any facilities currently in acquisition or planning, including the proposed regional health sciences facility, be included within the scope of the plan?

Response: Yes.

16. Question: Are there any buildings or spaces located off of the main Minot campus that should be included in the Existing Conditions Assessment?

Response: All existing Minot State University facilities are located on the main campus and should be included in the Existing Conditions Assessment. The University is currently in the process of acquiring a building located within the City of Minot but outside the main campus boundaries. Once acquired, the building should be incorporated into the master planning process and considered as part of the University's future campus and facility planning efforts.

No amendment necessary.

17. Question: Will the campus provide the five-year enrollment projections, or is the consultant expected to develop enrollment projections as part of their scope of work?

Response: The University will provide available enrollment data and projections to the selected consultant. The consultant is expected to review and incorporate this information into the master planning process and may provide observations regarding the implications of enrollment trends on campus facilities, space needs, and future development. The University is not seeking the development of independent enrollment projections as part of the base scope of work.

No amendment necessary.

Question: Are there any expectations for final deliverables beyond those identified in Section 3.2? Specifically, is the University seeking conceptual planning documents and graphics, or more extensive presentation materials such as renderings, visualization tools, interactive content, or other formats?

Response: The University's primary expectation is to receive a comprehensive and actionable campus master plan supported by clear planning documents, maps, graphics, and presentation materials sufficient to communicate the vision, recommendations, and priorities identified through the planning process.

The University anticipates deliverables that may include existing conditions analyses, planning frameworks, conceptual land use plans, campus development concepts, infrastructure and facility recommendations, implementation strategies, phasing plans, and supporting graphics.

18. Question: Within the 24-month contract term, what duration does the University anticipate for completion of the master plan? Are there State Board of Higher Education or legislative milestones the schedule should support?

Response: The University anticipates completion of the campus master plan well within the 24-month contract term, although the specific project schedule will be developed collaboratively with the selected firm during project initiation. The 24-month term is intended to provide flexibility for planning, stakeholder engagement, review, and implementation discussions as needed.

At this time, the University has not identified any specific State Board of Higher Education or legislative milestones that must be met. However, the selected firm should propose a reasonable schedule that allows for stakeholder engagement, campus review, and presentation of recommendations to University leadership and governing bodies as appropriate.

No amendment necessary.

19. Question: Does the 24-month contract term represent the intended timeframe for completing the initial master plan? What services are anticipated under the eight annual renewal options—periodic plan updates, implementation support, or additional planning assignments?

Response: The University anticipates completing the initial campus master plan within the base contract term. The 24-month term is intended to provide sufficient time for data collection, stakeholder engagement, analysis, plan development, review, and final adoption.

The annual renewal options are included to provide flexibility for future planning-related services as needs arise. Such services may include implementation support, updates to the master plan, evaluation of specific campus development initiatives, capital project planning, space utilization studies, infrastructure planning, or other related consulting services. Exercise of any renewal option will be at the University's sole discretion and based on institutional needs and available funding.

No amendment necessary.

20. Question: Does MSU have a target completion date for the master plan, or a State Board of Higher Education meeting or capital request cycle the plan should align with? How many SBHE/NDUS presentations are anticipated?

Response: The University would like the campus master plan completed by Spring 2028 to support planning and preparation for the 2029 legislative session and future capital funding discussions. The University anticipates completion of the master plan well within the 24-month contract term; however, the specific project schedule will be developed collaboratively with the selected consultant during project initiation. The 24-month term is intended to provide flexibility for planning, stakeholder engagement, review, refinement, and implementation discussions as needed.

No presentations to the State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) are currently anticipated as part of the project scope. Should circumstances change during the course of the project, any requested presentations will be coordinated with the selected consultant.

No amendment necessary.

Questions related to Section 3.4 Experience and Qualifications.

Question: We do not have an office in North Dakota. Does the University prefer or require that out-of-state firms partner with a local Architect?

Response: There is no requirement to have an office in North Dakota. Proposals will be scored as outlined in Attachment 1.

No amendment necessary.

Questions related to Section 4.4 Technical Proposal.

“The Offeror must meet the following experience requirements to be considered for contract award. A proposal from the Offeror that does not meet minimum experience requirements will be rejected. The Offeror must have a minimum of 10 years prior experience providing similar master planning for universities”.

Question: If the submitting Offeror doesn’t have 10 years of university master planning experience but teams up with a national design firm that does have 10 years of university master planning experience, would that qualify?

Response: Yes. The University will consider the qualifications and experience of the entire proposed team when evaluating whether the minimum experience requirements are met. If the submitting Offeror partners with a firm that possesses the required minimum of 10 years of university master planning experience and that firm will have a meaningful role in the project, the team may satisfy the experience requirement. The proposal should clearly identify the partnering firm, describe its role and responsibilities, and document the relevant university master planning experience being provided by that firm.

No amendment necessary.

21. Question: When evaluating “Location” and “Recent and Current Work for Minot State University,” will the University consider the qualifications of the entire proposed team, including subconsultants, or only those of the prime firm?

Response: The University will consider the qualifications of the entire proposed team, including subconsultants, when evaluating the “Location” and “Recent and Current Work for Minot State University” criteria. Offerors should clearly identify the role of each team member and demonstrate how their collective experience, local presence, and institutional knowledge will contribute to the success of the project. The University may also consider which firm will serve as the primary point of contact and lead the delivery of services.

No amendment necessary.

22. Question: Are there page limits for the Technical Proposal?

Response: No, there is no page limit. There is a maximum file size allowed, 56MB or 56,120 KB per file.

No amendment necessary.

23. Question: Should offerors provide both Part I and Part II of the SF 330?

Response: Only Part II of the SF 330 is required. Offerors are welcome to submit both Part I and Part II of the SF 330.

No amendment necessary.

24. Question: Under 4.4 Technical Proposal, Section 3 – Experience and Qualifications on page 17, number 11 mentions providing a completed SF 330. Is MSU expecting a completed SF 330 as the proposal submission or is the completed SF 330 in addition to our qualifications in a format of our choosing? Are all parts of the SF 330 to be completed?

Response: Minot State University would prefer the SF 330 to be an addition to the Offeror’s qualifications. Only Part II of the SF 330 is required.

No amendment necessary.

25. Question: Please clarify how the completed SF 330 should be incorporated into the Technical Proposal. Should respondents follow the five-section proposal format and include the SF 330 within Section 3—Experience and Qualifications, or organize the entire response using the SF 330 format, with supplemental information in Section H? If the SF 330 format is intended, should items 1–11 under “Experience and Qualifications of the Firm” be addressed within the applicable SF 330 sections rather than in the order listed?

Response: Minot State University would prefer Offerors to submit their proposal using the five-section proposal format, listed in Section 4.4 Technical Proposal. Only Part II of the SF 330 is required. Part II of the SF 330 could be included in the appendix or as an attachment; though the decision of what is included in the appendix or as an attachment is ultimately up to each Offeror.

No amendment necessary.

26. Question: Please clarify how the SF 330 requirement relates to the five-section proposal format; Should only the resumes be in SF330 format, or should the entire proposal be in SF330 format?

Response: Minot State University would prefer Offerors to submit their proposals using the five-section proposal format, listed in Section 4.4 Technical Proposal. Only Part II of the SF 330 is required. The decision of what is included and how the proposal is presented is ultimately up to each Offeror.

No amendment necessary.

27. Question: Please confirm that offerors should provide estimated hours for key team members only, without rates or fee information, consistent with the requirement that costs not be included in the Technical Proposal.

Response: Yes, offerors should provide only estimate hours for key team members. Please do not include rates or fee information in the Technical Proposal.

No amendment necessary.

28. Question: Can you confirm whether we are to submit printed copies or submit through NDBuys?

Response: Minot State University would prefer proposals to be submitted through NDBuys. Proposals sent by mail or delivered in person will also be accepted.

Please note, Offerors must be registered with NDBuys prior to submitting a proposal either: on NDBuys, through the mail, or delivered in person.

No amendment necessary.

29. Question: Does the University prefer electronic submission through NDBuys or physical submission by mail or delivery? If submitted electronically on NDBuys, are the six printed copies and USB flash drive still required?

Response: Minot State University would prefer proposals to be submitted through NDBuys. Proposals sent by mail or delivered in person will also be accepted.

Six printed copies and a USB flash drive are not required if proposals are electronically submitted through NDBuys.

Six printed copies and a USB flash drive are required for proposals delivered by mail or delivered in person.

No amendment necessary.

30. Question: Please confirm if physical copies (six printed copies and a USB flash drive) are required, regardless of digital submission through ND Buys.

Response: Physical copies are not required for proposals electronically submitted through NDBuys.

Physical copies are required for proposals delivered by mail or delivered in person.

No amendment necessary.

Questions related to Section 6.1 Contract Provisions.

31. Question: Since this is an RFQ, but the draft contract identifies a Firm Fixed Price agreement, when will fees be requested and negotiated as part of the selection process?

Response: Fees will not be requested as part of the RFQ submittal process. Consistent with North Dakota Century Code Chapter 54-44.7, architect, engineer, and related professional service contracts are procured on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the services required, rather than price-based competition. The RFQ process is intended to evaluate the qualifications, experience, and capabilities of responding firms.

Following the evaluation of qualifications and selection of the most qualified firm, the University will negotiate the final scope of services, project schedule, and compensation with the selected consultant. The resulting agreement is anticipated to be a firm fixed-price contract based on the mutually agreed-upon scope of work. If the University and the selected firm are unable to successfully negotiate a contract, the University reserves the right to terminate negotiations and enter into negotiations with another qualified respondent.

No amendment necessary.

Bidders are instructed to acknowledge receipt of and compliance with this amendment by signing below and returning the Solicitation Amendment Acknowledgement page with your solicitation response.

Note: If a supplier has already submitted a response to the solicitation before this amendment was posted, the same response or a revised response needs to be submitted again in order to be considered in evaluation for the solicitation.

Questions regarding this amendment must be submitted in writing to the Procurement Officer.

Jessica Jastrzebski Procurement Officer E-mail: jessica.jastrzebski@minotstateu.edu Telephone: 701-858-4153

Amendment Acknowledgement Solicitation Number: SRC000471 Title: Master Planning Services – Campus Facilities – MSU-27-003 Solicitation Amendment Number: 1 By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of and compliance with this amendment.

Company Name:

Signature:

Printed Name:

Title:

Date: