P-4-25-04_Addendum_2.pdf

Purchasing Services 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building C, Room 303 Viera, Florida 32940

NON-MOTORIZED ECO TOURS – RESTRICTED USE PERMITS

RFP-4-25-04

MARCH 27, 2025

ADDENDUM 2

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS

This is an Addendum to and shall be considered as part of the original Proposal package for the above-mentioned Proposal. Contractors are requested to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum with their Proposal.

CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS ASKED RECEIVED:

Question 1: Would rafts that can accommodate groups of eight or more be permitted?

Answer 1: There are several reasons why large whitewater rafts will not be allowed under the eco-tour contract:

1. Environmental Impact: Large rafts cause disturbances to the water ecosystem. They might damage aquatic habitats or disturb wildlife, including fish and birds, that rely on undisturbed environments.

2. Erosion: Rafting can contribute to erosion along shorelines and riverbanks. The movement of rafts and people can disturb soil, leading to increased sedimentation in the water, which negatively affects water quality and aquatic life. A whitewater raft with 8-people is heavy and will have an impact in shallow water areas.

3. Wildlife Disturbance: Rafting activities can disturb sensitive wildlife species, particularly those that are nesting, migrating, or living in nearby areas. The noise and human presence can stress animals, making them more vulnerable to predators or interrupting their natural behaviors.

4. Overcrowding: Eco-tourism areas are often sensitive and need to be carefully managed to prevent overcrowding. Allowing rafts could encourage large groups of people in these areas, which might overwhelm the natural environment and reduce the quality of the experience for others.

5. Safety Concerns: In certain eco-tourism areas, especially those with unpredictable weather or dangerous currents, rafting might pose safety risks. Limiting certain activities can help ensure the safety of both visitors and the environment.

6. Preservation of the Area’s Integrity: By limiting certain activities like rafting, we are trying to prioritize conservation and preservation, promote sustainable visitation, and ensure that the environment remains intact for future generations.

Question 2: In the RFP Evaluation Criteria, Tab 3, The County requested five (5) references from current clients/companies who utilize proposer’s services. Would Google reviews be permitted instead, in order to maintain guest’s private information?

Answer 2: The County is seeking references from known contacts who can speak specifically to the Proposer’s performance and capacity. The Reference Form identifies that “Contact person must have been informed that they are being used as a reference and that the County may be calling them.”

**NOTE** Page 21 of the RFP provides an example of the Pricing Evaluation and explains how the weighted score is determined based on the lowest acceptable proposal (low bid). This is an error, and instead should say “highest” acceptable proposal. In short, the highest acceptable bid would be awarded twenty (20) points, and all other proposals receive a percentage of the points available based on their cost relationship to the highest cost proposal.

Please note that the proposal opening date and time remains Wednesday, April 9, 2025 @ 10:00 AM

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Sincerely, Mary Bowers Purchasing Manager

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2