Proposer Question and Response 01 _ 04042024 .pdf

*** PROPOSERS’ QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES ***

RFP #2024-022

April 4, 2024

Q&A Response #1

Progressive Design-Build Services for 2024 Sewer Implementation for Spalding County Water & Sewerage Facilities Authority (SCWSFA), Georgia

Proposals due April 12, 2024 at 12:00 PM (Noon).

Responses to proposers’ questions are intended to clarify, not to change, the content of the RFP (inclusive of all attachments) and are provided for the proposers’ convenience.

Question #1: The RFP file named Cert “F” Regarding EEO is entitled Certification “D” within the certification template. Should “D” be replaced with “F”?

Response #1: Yes. The EEO Certification template provided with the RFP was entitled Certification “D” but named and referenced as Certification “F”. The correction has been made under Addendum #1. However, SCWSFA will accept this certification, if properly executed, regardless of the reference letter used.

Question #2: Do the front cover and back cover count toward the page count?

Response #2: No. Cover pages, as with simple divider tabs (if used) are excluded from the page count and should not contain page numbers. Content on cover pages, as with divider tabs, will not be included in evaluation scoring.

Question #3: Please confirm location to new WWTP in relation to the Phase 1 (base scope) drawing in Attachment 6.

Response #3: The specific location for the new WRF has not been confirmed; SCWSFA is actively working towards site acquisition, consisting of an estimated 20-30 acres with access to Cabin Creek. Proposers are encouraged to identify, in their proposals, any specific thoughts or concerns related to the location of that site that the Proposer desires SCWSFA to consider.

Question #4: Will SCWSFA consider giving a one-week extension?

Response #4: No extension is granted; SCWSFA appreciates the efforts of all proposers in facilitating the schedule commitments of this RFP and Work.

Question #5: The RFP requires that the font be a minimum of 12 point. Is this inclusive of graphics/charts/ and other items that aren’t intended to be text content in nature?

Response #5: The body text of the proposal is requested to be minimum 12-point font to enhance readability for the old and page-weary eyes of the Evaluation Committee.

Proposers may elect to deviate from this minimum within graphics and similar non-body content at Proposers' own risk that Evaluation Committee members may not strain to read it.

Question #6: Can you please verify which forms the sub-contractor (engineers) are supposed to execute? File “Aff B Non Collusion Affidavit” and file “Exhibit I Subcontractor Affidavit” seem to be the same type of form but are different. Same with File “Cert F Regarding EEO” and File “Exhibit N EEO Certification”.

Response #6: “Exhibits” have been provided as part of the Draft Contract (under RFP Attachment 2) and will be finalized with the successful Proposer as part of contract execution for Phase 1 and (if extended under future award) Phase 2, to applicable subcontractors. “Affidavits” and “Certifications” should be provided, fully executed, by the Prime Proposer as part of proposal submittal. Reference “Non-Collusion Affidavit” instructions on RFP page 12, which specifies submittal of this executed affidavit for Prime and major subcontractors/subconsultants as part of Proposal; also reference page 13 itemization of Attachment 1 “required” submittals. Unless otherwise identified (such as for Affidavit “D”, E-Verify, which is clearly labeled for subcontractors), affidavits/certifications apply to Prime Proposer.

Question #7: Just want to clarify that as long as the pricing proposal is sealed separately in an envelope and the Technical Proposal is in a separate envelope, all items including both sealed envelopes and flash drives can be delivered in one single box/package?

Response #7: Correct. As specified in the RFP, please clearly label contents within the box/package. This requirement is intended to prevent accidental early opening of the pricing proposal.

Question #7: In the RFP document on page 8. Item 5., are letters a. and b. the same form?

Is this an error in the RFP? Note that at the top of page 13. The check list does not include the items lettered a. on page 8 Response #7: Correct. There is only one Affidavit “A” Proposal Certification Form.

Reference Addendum #1 removing the duplicate reference.

Question #8: On page 14 of the RFP in the Attachment 2 Contents it lists #’s 13 and 15 which appear to be forms and certifications requiring the proposer to fill them out. Yet they are not listed in the previous check list. Are these required in the Appendices as well?

Response #8: No. Reference Response #6 herein. Furthermore, note that Exhibit “M” (item #13 in referenced list) is specifically identified as applying to Phase 2.

Question #9: Paragraph 1(c) requires $5,000,000 Professional Liability coverage. Can this be reduced to $2,000,000.00.

Response #9: No.

Question #10: Paragraph 2(f) of the insurance requirements require $20,000,000 of excess liability coverage for the Design-Builder and Subcontractors. This requirement seems excessive based on the size of this project. Can the requirement be reduced to $10,000,000 for the Design-Builder.

Response #10: No. This item may be negotiated for Phase 2, but at this time, the value of Phase 2 is not known. Proposers are therefore asked to base their proposals on the insurance levels cited in the RFP.

[end]