RCC_CMT_RFQ_Addendum 02.pdf

City of Raleigh

Request for Qualifications # 274-2026-RCPAC-17

Title: Request for Qualification for Capital Improvement Project; Construction Material Testing and Environmental Support Services for the Raleigh Convention Center Expansion

Submittal Due Date and Time: August 24, 2026, not later than 4:00 PM EST

*LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED*

ADDENDUM NO. 2

Issue Date: August 17, 2026

Issuing Department: Raleigh Convention Center and Performing Arts Complex

Direct all inquiries concerning this RFQ to:

Rachel Rice Special Events Planner Email: rachel.rice@raleighnc.gov mailto:rachel.rice@raleighnc.gov

Addendum 2 to RFQ # 274-2026-RCPAC-17 Request for Qualification for Capital Improvement Project; Construction Material Testing and Environmental Support Services for the Raleigh Convention Center Expansion

Issue Date: August 17, 2026

To: All Proposers

This Addendum, containing the following additions, clarifications, and/or changes, is issued prior to receipt of qualification packages and does hereby become part of the original RFQ documents and supersedes the original RFQ documents in case of conflict.

Receipt of this addendum must be acknowledged by signing in the area indicated below. Please make the following additions, clarifications, and/or changes to the RFQ as listed below and sign page 4 below and return this addendum with your submittal package.

The following is included within this addendum: 1) Written questions received per the 1.3 Request for Qualification (RFQ) Timeline.

1. Written Questions received [grouped] with Responses provided:

• Please see questions with respective responses, listed in red text, attached to this Addendum

No. 2 outlined in Appendix I attached hereto. All questions are grouped; duplicate and related questions are answered once.

2. The revised Appendix III below, which replaces Appendix III of the original RFQ 274-2026-

RCPAC-17 public advertisement and is included as pages 10-12 of this Addendum 2 below. This revised Appendix III should be used instead of the Appendix III that was included in the original RFQ public advertisement. However, if references have already been submitted using the Appendix III forms of the original advertisement, resubmission is not required, and those references received prior to this Addendum 2 issuance date will be considered valid.

3. List of participants at the virtual pre-submittal conference held on Friday, 08/07/2026 is included as page 13 of this Addendum 2 below.

1.3 RFQ Timeline:

Provided below is a list of the anticipated schedule of events related to this solicitation. The City of Raleigh reserves the right to modify and/or adjust the following schedule to meet the needs of the project.

All times shown are Eastern Time (ET):

RFQ Process Date and time

RFQ Date July 20, 2026

Pre-submittal Conference August 07, 2026, at 3:00 PM EST

Deadline for written questions

August 11, 2026, at 4:00 PM EST

City Response to Questions (anticipated) August 14, 2026

Submittal Due Date and Time

August 24, 2026, at 4:00 PM EST

Interview and/or Award Notification Allow two weeks post due date. The project contact will contact firms selected for interviewing and/or with the award notification.

Evaluation Meeting (anticipated) Week of September 07, 2026

Selection Announcement (tentative) On or before September 18, 2026

Rachel Rice Special Events Planner Email: rachel.rice@raleighnc.gov

Sign below and return this addendum with your submittal response.

Proposer Name & Company: ___________________________ Date: ____________

Signature: ______________________________ Title: _________________________

APPENDIX I

Questions for RFQ 274-2026-RCPAC-17 Request for Qualification for Construction Material Testing and Environmental Support Services for the Raleigh

Convention Center Expansion Written Questions Received [grouped] with Responses Provided

1. Could the City please share a copy of the Phase I report?

2. Will any of the pre-construction assessment reports be available for review?

3. Is it possible to get the previous environmental assessment(s) for the project site? For review and to scope accurately.

4. Is the Phase I ESA going to be made public to the bidders for this RFP? Or is it already posted and I have just been unable to locate it?

All project testing reports will be furnished to the selected proposer upon award.

5. Despite #2, has any invasive sampling been completed to date that identifies the nature of the contamination, or is the presence of contamination purely suspect?

6. Is there a current EMP prepared for the site?

Yes, an EMP and supplemental borings exist for the project site. To date, invasive sampling has been completed and has identified the nature of the contamination. The existing EMP does not relieve the selected firm of the requirement in Section 4.B.2 to prepare a project-specific Materials Management Plan governing the handling, segregation, reuse, and off-site disposal of impacted materials encountered during construction.

7. Who is the previous environmental consultant?

Information pertaining to the previous environmental consultant will be provided to the selected proposer upon award.

8. On the call, the Phase II ESA was referenced as something to be completed under this RFP, but the RFP clearly says that would be a separate contract.

9. It was mentioned in the RFP about a Phase II ESA; will that be a part of the scope B or a separate contract?

The Phase II ESA is a separate contract and is not part of the scope of this RFQ.

10. During the Pre-Submittal Conference, it was mentioned that a separate consultant is already contracted to perform the design-phase environmental scope of services. However, the scope of services listed in the RFQ mentions “provide design-phase recommendations for vapor intrusion measures.” Will a vapor intrusion mitigation system design be part of the scope of services?

Section 4.B.4 requires the selected firm to provide design-phase recommendations for vapor mitigation measures, and to provide construction-phase verification, smoke and pressure testing, and post-installation performance confirmation. Engineered design of a vapor mitigation system is not included in this scope and remains with the design team and the design-phase environmental consultant. The selected firm’s recommendations are advisory inputs to that design.

11. Is their any more details on the Dewatering that would be required with the environmental scope of work or is that something that would be determined post Phase II ESA?

The extent of dewatering will be determined by the Phase II ESA results and field conditions. The construction-phase scope is defined in Section 4.B.3 and includes characterization of dewatering discharge to support permitting under City of Raleigh Public Utilities sanitary sewer discharge authorization and/or NCDEQ NPDES requirements as applicable; routine compliance sampling and reporting during active dewatering; oversight of any required treatment system, including influent and effluent verification sampling; and preparation of required regulatory notifications and discharge monitoring reports. Design of a dewatering or treatment system is not included in this scope.

12. Can a firm Prime the pursuit and also serve as a subconsultant on another team?

Yes, a firm can prime the pursuit and also serve as a subconsultant on another team.

13. Does the City impose any project-specific eligibility or independence restrictions on a proposed prime consultant or subconsultant based on that firm’s current or prior involvement with the project? If so, please identify the affected role combinations or required safeguards.

The City does not impose any project-specific eligibility or independence restrictions solely because of a firm's current or prior involvement with the project. However, to preserve the integrity of the procurement process and avoid potential conflicts of interest, firms shall not rely on work previously performed for this project as part of their qualifications, and such prior involvement will not be considered in the evaluation or award of this RFQ..

14. Could you please clarify the desired format of the qualifications package? The tabs included on the Submittal Requirements slide during the Pre-Submittal Conference differed from the tabs that were outlined in the Request for Qualifications package that was originally released.

15. We noticed a discrepancy between the RFQ and the Pre-Submittal Conference slides regarding the Submittal Requirements. Specifically, the RFQ does not request information regarding

Legal or Technical Problems and Resolutions, and it identifies Financial Information as Tab 3.

However, the Pre-Submittal Conference slides identify Financial Information as Tab 6 and include Legal or Technical Problems and Resolutions under Tab 5. Could you please clarify which set of Submittal Requirements we should follow when preparing our response?

16. Should the financial information be included in Tab 6 with the submission or only shared separately?

Please submit the qualifications package per the format outlined in the original RFQ.

Financial information is submitted in Tab 3.

17. In Section 2.1, Tab 2 (Corporate Background and Experience), the second sentence reads:

“Provide a list of all similar contracts performed in the past five to seven (5 to 7) years, accompanied by a list of three (3) references”. Please provide a little more clarity on what is meant by “all similar projects”. Do you mean projects performed for the City of Raleigh, other municipalities of comparable size, convention centers, or projects providing these specific types of services?

18. The RFQ requests all similar contracts completed during the past five to seven years, while Appendix II requests references for comparable work performed during the past three years.

Please confirm the intended periods and whether the contract list should include all firmwide comparable assignments or a representative selection of the most relevant assignments.

“Similar contracts” means contracts for services comparable to those described in Section 4.A or Section 4.B, as applicable to the scope(s) the proposer is responding to, on projects of comparable size and complexity. The requirement is not limited to work performed for the City of Raleigh, for other municipalities, or on convention center facilities. Both stated periods are correct and apply to different requirements. Tab 2 requires the list of all similar contracts performed in the past five to seven (5 to 7) years, together with the total amount invoiced for each project, the length of each project, and the personnel involved who are also proposed for this Project. Appendix II requires at least three business references for services of the same scope and size provided in the past three (3) years.

19. Our financial statements are over 100 pages long. To keep the submittal manageable, would it be permissible to include only the balance sheet in the proposal, and include a separate printout and PDF of the full financial document?

Proposers are encouraged to submit any documents they believe demonstrate financial viability, with the understanding that, while not disqualifying, it may be weighed accordingly against those proposers who fulfill the requirements.

20. The Reference Questionnaire Form states that they are to be submitted to the City by 4:00 PM on August 13th, that is 11 days before the submittal is due. Is this due date accurate?

21. The Reference Questionnaire Form states that they are to be submitted to the City by 4:00 PM on August 13th, that is 11 days before the submittal is due. Is this due date accurate?

Please see the revised Appendix III below, which replaces Appendix III of the original RFQ 274-2026-RCPAC-17 public advertisement and is included as pages 10-12 of this Addendum 2 below. This revised Appendix III should be used instead of the Appendix III that was included in the original RFQ public advertisement. However, if references have already been submitted using the Appendix III forms of the original advertisement, resubmission is not required, and those references received prior to this Addendum 2 issuance date will be considered valid.

22. For a firm responding to both Scope 4.A and Scope 4.B in one submission, does the minimum requirement of three references apply to the submission as a whole or separately to each scope?

Section 4.C of the original RFQ states that each scope is evaluated separately against its own qualifications criteria and that a firm’s qualifications under one scope will not be used to compensate for deficiencies under the other. Therefore, proposers responding to both scopes will need to provide a minimum of three (3) separate references for each scope. A single reference may be counted toward both scopes only where that reference can speak to the firm’s performance of both types of service on the referenced project.

23. Does each scope in this RFQ require a separate submission, or may both scopes be included in a single submittal?

Both scopes may be included in a single submittal that meets all submission and format requirements of the RFQ. Per Section 4.D, proposers responding to both scopes shall provide one submission addressing each scope in clearly delineated sections, with separate project experience, key personnel, and capability narratives for each, and shall identify on the cover of the submission which scope(s) they are responding to: Scope 4.A only, Scope 4.B only, or both.

24. For a response covering both scopes, should the proposer provide one sealed hourly rate schedule containing all proposed personnel or separate rate schedules for Scope 4.A and Scope 4.B?

Please provide one sealed hourly rate schedule. Proposers responding to both scopes shall identify on that single schedule which scope each position supports.

25. Could the City please provide clarity on how to attend the pre-submittal meeting on August 3?

Will this be a virtual or on-site meeting?

Addendum 1 was distributed on 07/31/2026 with information for the virtual pre-submittal conference.

26. Will a (virtual) sign-in sheet be available from the meeting on Friday?

The list of participants at the virtual pre-submittal conference held on Friday, 08/07/2026 is included on page 13 of this Addendum 2 below.

APPENDIX III

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(Instructions)

274-2026-RCPAC-17 Request for Qualification for Capital Improvement Project;

The City of Raleigh, as a part of the RFQ, requires proposing companies to submit a minimum of three (3) business references as required within this document. The purpose of the references is to document the experience of the proposer relevant to the scope of services and assist in the evaluation process.

• The Proposer is required to send the reference form (the following two pages) to each business reference listed on Proposer Questionnaire.

• The business reference, in turn, is requested to submit the Reference Form directly to the City of Raleigh Point of Contact identified on the Reference Questionnaire form for inclusion in the evaluation process.

• The form and information provided will become a part of the submitted proposal.

The business reference may be contacted for validation of the response.

• It is the Proposer’s responsibility to verify their references have been received by the City of Raleigh Point of Contact by the date indicated on the reference form.

APPENDIX III

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

274-2026-RCPAC-17 Request for Qualification for Capital Improvement Project;

(Name of Business Requesting Reference)

This form is being submitted to your company for completion as a business reference for the company listed above.

This form is to be returned to the City of Raleigh, Rachel Rice, via email to rachel.rice@raleighnc.gov no later than 4:00 p.m. ET, August 24, 2026 and MUST NOT be returned to the company requesting the reference.

For questions or concerns regarding this form, please contact the City of Raleigh, Point of Contact above.

Company Providing Reference

Contact Name and Title/Position

Contact Telephone Number

Contact Email Address

Questions:

1. In what capacity have you worked with this company in the past? If the company was under a contract, please acknowledge and explain briefly whether or not the contract was successful.

Comments:

2. How would you rate this company’s knowledge and expertise?

3= Excellent 2= Satisfactory 1= Unsatisfactory 0= Unacceptable

3. How would you rate the company’s flexibility relative to changes in the scope and timelines?

4. What is your level of satisfaction with hard-copy materials, e.g. reports, logs, etc. produced by the company?

5. How would you rate the dynamics/interaction between the company and your staff?

6. Who were the company’s principle representatives involved in providing your service and how would you rate them individually? Would you comment on the skills, knowledge, behaviors or other factors on which you based the rating?

(3= Excellent; 2= Satisfactory; 1= Unsatisfactory; 0= Unacceptable)

Name: Rating:

7. With which aspect(s) of this company’s services are you most satisfied?

8. With which aspect(s) of this company’s services are you least satisfied?

9. Would you recommend this company’s services to your organization again?

List of participants at the virtual pre-submittal conference held on Friday, 08/07/2026

• Matthew James - Piedmont Geologic mjames@piedmontgeologic.com

• Fiona Matthews - Geo-Hydro Engineers fiona.matthews@geohydro.com

• Kim Fowler - Falcon Engineering kfowler@falconengineers.com

• Brianna Crews - Geo-Hydro Engineers brianna.crews@geohydro.com

• Andrew Rodak. TRC Engineers, arodak@trccompanies.com

• Santhosh Mahavadi, Maha Engineering, PLLC; santhosh@mahaeng.com

• Chase Farnsworth, Timmons Group, chase.farnsworth@timmons.com

• Alex Bullard - Terracon Consultants alex.bullard@terracon.com

• Chris Ward, ESP Associates, Inc., cward@espassociates.com

• Melissa Magno, Colliers Engineering & Design melissa.magno@collierseng.com

• Matthew B. Barragan SM&E mbarragan@smeinc.com

• Kyle Zigler, Colliers Engineering & Design. Kyle.Zigler@collierseng.com

• Norma Salter - Terracon Consultants norma.salter@terracon.com

• Greg Hans, CES Group Engineers ghans@ces-group.net

• Emma Lemons - Summit Design and Engineering emma.lemons@summitde.com

• Jon Murphrey - Piedmont Geologic jmurphrey@piedmontgeologic.com

• Brianna Crews, Geo-Hydro Engineers brianna.crews@geohydro.com

• Ethan Dinwiddie - Terracon Consultants ethan.dinwiddie@terracon.com

• Jonthan Gerstl, Colliers Engineering & Design jonathan.gerstl@collierseng.com

• Trevor Ferrell-Lowe, Field & Technical Services tlowe@f-ts.com

• Elias Ruhl - F&R eruhl@fandr.com

• Derek Rider – IMEG derek.s.rider@imegcorp.com

• Ashley Jeanne - Terracon Consultants ashley.jeanne@terracon.com

• Ben Long - ESP Associates blong@espassociates.com

• Greg Kanellis - Hart & Hickman gkanellis@harthickman.com

• Marty Smith - ESP Associates, Inc. mjsmith@espassociates.com

• Tracey Turner - ESP Associates, Inc. tturner@espassociates.com mailto:mjames@piedmontgeologic.com mailto:fiona.matthews@geohydro.com mailto:kfowler@falconengineers.com mailto:brianna.crews@geohydro.com mailto:arodak@trccompanies.com mailto:santhosh@mahaeng.com mailto:chase.farnsworth@timmons.com mailto:alex.bullard@terracon.com mailto:cward@espassociates.com mailto:melissa.magno@collierseng.com mailto:mbarragan@smeinc.com mailto:Kyle.Zigler@collierseng.com mailto:norma.salter@terracon.com mailto:ghans@ces-group.net mailto:emma.lemons@summitde.com mailto:jmurphrey@piedmontgeologic.com mailto:brianna.crews@geohydro.com mailto:ethan.dinwiddie@terracon.com mailto:jonathan.gerstl@collierseng.com mailto:tlowe@f-ts.com mailto:eruhl@fandr.com mailto:derek.s.rider@imegcorp.com mailto:ashley.jeanne@terracon.com mailto:blong@espassociates.com mailto:gkanellis@harthickman.com mailto:mjsmith@espassociates.com mailto:tturner@espassociates.com

1.3 RFQ Timeline: