Responses to Submitted Questions Opportunity 21260922161045.pdf

Responses to Submitted Questions Regarding City of Philadelphia

Request for Proposals for Consulting Services Related to Office of Property

Assessment Mass Appraisal (Opportunity 21260922161045)

1. Question: The scope covers data quality, assessment quality, modeling, equity, a

Less Discriminatory Alternative (LDA) analysis, First Level Review and an operations review. Given the $100,000 maximum, does the City have a priority order among these components? If a respondent proposes greater depth on some components and a lighter review of others, would that be considered responsive?

Answer: Applicants should address all components identified in the RFP and propose an approach that can be completed within the $100,000 maximum budget. Applicants may recommend varying levels of effort across components, provided that the proposal addresses the full scope of work and clearly explains the proposed methodology, priorities, and any limitations.

2. Question: The RFP allows up to four additional one-year terms. Would the City consider a proposal that completes core components by June 30, 2027 and proposes other components for a later term?

Answer: The scope of work should be completed by or before June 30, 2027.

3. Question: Which tax years are in scope: TY2027 only, or earlier reassessment cycles for trend analysis?

Answer: The primary focus of the evaluation is the TY2027 revaluation. Relevant data from prior revaluation cycles may be considered, as appropriate, to support trend analysis and evaluate assessment practices. Please note that First Level Review decisions for TY2027 may not be available for inclusion, as the final report must be completed by June 30, 2027.

4. Question: Which property types are in scope: residential 1–4 unit only, or also condominiums, larger multifamily, commercial and vacant land?

Answer: The evaluation should consider the property types relevant to the City's revaluation process, including residential, multifamily, commercial, and vacant land properties, as applicable to the scope and available data. Applicants should clearly identify their proposed approach to evaluating different property types.

5. Question: "Overall operations" appears in the outcome goals. Does the City expect a review of staffing, workflow and organizational structure, or only operations directly tied to valuation and appeals?

Answer: The operations review should address OPA's processes and procedures relevant to property valuation, assessment quality, and appeals, including related workflows and organizational practices as appropriate to the scope of work.

6. Question: Does the City expect the selected firm to re-estimate OPA's valuation models, or build alternative models, to test less discriminatory alternatives? Or, would an assessment of alternatives at the level of methods and specifications meet the requirement?

Answer: Applicants should propose an appropriate methodology for evaluating OPA's valuation models and assessing potential less discriminatory alternatives (LDAs). Proposals should clearly identify whether the recommended approach includes re-estimating existing models, developing alternative models, evaluating alternative specifications, or a combination of methods.

7. Question: Is OPA's valuation software platform, or the role of any software vendor, within the scope of the evaluation?

Answer: The evaluation may consider OPA's valuation software and related vendor processes to the extent they are relevant to assessing valuation methods, data quality, model performance, and operational practices. Applicants should identify any anticipated data or access requirements.

8. Question: For the equity and LDA analyses, which population characteristics should be considered (race, ethnicity, income, others)? Will the City provide owner or appellant demographic data, or should the firm estimate them?

Answer: Applicants should describe their proposed methodology for evaluating assessment equity and potential less discriminatory alternatives, including the population characteristics and data necessary to conduct the analysis. The Office of the Director of Finance will coordinate providing the relevant demographic data to support assessment equity analysis, subject to applicable data availability and privacy requirements. Applicants should identify how they propose to obtain, develop, or estimate any demographic data needed to support their analyses, including any assumptions or limitations.

9. Question: Will the City provide an established database of the demographic data and other data used in the valuation process? If so, what does it contain, and in what format will it be shared?

Answer: The Office of the Director of Finance will coordinate providing the relevant demographic data to support assessment equity analysis, subject to applicable data availability and privacy requirements. The Office of Property Assessment (OPA) will be able to provide relevant data used in the valuation process, but OPA will not be able to provide demographic data. Applicants should identify how they propose to obtain, develop, or estimate any demographic data needed to support their analyses, including any assumptions or limitations.

10. Question: Which of the following will OPA provide, and on what timeline after contract execution?

• Sales data with OPA's sales screening codes

• Model specifications and code

• The full property characteristics file, including condition data

• Historical assessed values

• First Level Review records

• Procedure manuals

Answer: The Office of the Director of Finance will coordinate with OPA regarding access to relevant available records and documentation needed for the evaluation, subject to availability and applicable restrictions. Applicants should identify their anticipated data requirements and account for the time needed for data acquisition and review in their proposed work plan.

11. Question: Will Board of Revision of Taxes appeal data be available, or is the review limited to First Level Review?

Answer: The availability of Board of Revision of Taxes appeal data will be coordinated with the relevant City departments. Applicants should identify any appeal data needed to support their proposed analysis and explain how its availability may affect the methodology.

12. Question: If a respondent recommends third-party data (aerial imagery or commercial property data, for example), should the cost of acquiring it be included within the $100,000 maximum?

Answer: The cost proposal should be inclusive of all costs associated with the proposed services, including any anticipated third-party data acquisition costs.

Applicants should identify any proposed third-party data sources and associated costs separately in their cost proposals. Total proposed costs must not exceed the $100,000 maximum.

13. Question: What scale of field inspections does the City anticipate, for example a number of properties or areas? Will the City arrange access or identification for field staff?

Answer: Applicants shall be responsible for conducting any proposed field inspections as part of their evaluation, including coordinating with property owners, securing necessary property access, and completing all associated field work. Applicants should describe their proposed field inspection methodology, including all anticipated number or scale of inspections, selection, criteria, and resource requirements. The proposed approach should account for the project timeline and budget.

14. Question: Which stakeholders does the City expect to be interviewed beyond OPA staff (Finance, Board of Revision of Taxes, Council staff, community organizations, property owners)? Will the City help schedule interviews? Will these interviews be in person or virtual? Does the City expect interview incentives to be provided for community organizations and property owners?

Answer: Potential stakeholders may include OPA staff and other relevant City departments, agencies, and external stakeholders, as appropriate to the scope of work. Applicants should identify anticipated scheduling, format, and logistical requirements with potential stakeholders in submitted proposals.

15. Question: How does this evaluation relate to the outside review of the TY2027 reassessment announced this summer and to the City Controller's current performance audit of OPA? Will findings or data from either be shared with the selected firm?

Answer: The selected Applicant will be performing the referenced outside review of the TY2027 revaluation. Any findings or data from the City Controller’s performance audit of OPA, once published, will be available to the selected

Applicant.

16. Question: Would a firm that participated in that outside review, or has a current contract with OPA or Finance, be considered to have a conflict of interest?

Answer: Applicants with a current contract with the Office of Property Assessment

(OPA) as the primary vendor will be considered to have a conflict of interest for this engagement.

17. Question: Please confirm the full intended schedule:

Answer: The Office of the Director of Finance anticipates the work for this project will be organized into the following milestones (at a minimum), i.e., group of tasks, services, and/or work products, listed below:

• Contract execution by December 23, 2026.

• Kick off meeting with Office of the Director of Finance and other stakeholders in January 2027.

• Conduct interim project status check-ins with Office of the Director of Finance and relevant stakeholders in late January 2027, February 2027, and March

2027 to review progress, discuss preliminary findings, and address any emerging issues.

• Deliver complete first draft report, including an executive summary, for review before the last business day in April 2027.

• Deliver complete second draft report, including an executive summary, reflecting edits provided by Office of the Director of Finance, for final review before the last business day of May 2027.

• Deliver final written report approved by Office of the Director of Finance for release on or before June 30, 2027. Completion and submission of the report by the end of May is strongly preferred, if feasible. The selected Applicant should also be prepared to provide an oral presentation by or before June 30, 2027.

18. Question: If contract execution or data delivery occurs later than planned, will the milestone dates shift accordingly, or is June 30, 2027 a fixed completion date?

Answer: The anticipated project completion date is by or before June 30, 2027.

Applicants should account for the anticipated projection completion in their proposals, and any adjustments to milestone dates will be subject to City review and approval.

19. Question: Payment is in two installments, the first on acceptance of the first draft in

April 2027. In support of a small business, would the City consider additional milestone payments, for example after kickoff, data acquisition or the interim check-ins?

Answer: The payment schedule outlined in the RFP is the anticipated payment structure. Applicants may propose alternative payment milestones for the City’s consideration with the understanding that any alternative payment structure would be subject to the City’s review and approval.

20. Question: Is the oral presentation to the Mayor, City Council and Board of Education one presentation or several? Should costs for multiple presentations be included in the fixed price?

Answer: The selected Applicant should be prepared to provide an oral presentation to the Mayor, followed by an oral presentation to several stakeholders. The cost proposal should be inclusive of all costs associated with the proposed services, including any anticipated oral presentation.

21. Question: Does the City have a preferred allocation of the budget across components? Or, would it like respondents to propose one, with any trade-offs explained?

Answer: Applicants should propose a budget allocation across the project components based on their proposed approach, methodology, and anticipated level of effort. Proposals should clearly identify costs by component and explain any assumptions or recommended prioritization of resources.

22. Question: What are the small and local business participation ranges for this contract? Is an out-of-state prime with Philadelphia-based team members eligible for local impact consideration?

Answer: The small and local business participation ranges for this contract were provided in the opportunity details on the eContract site. Please refer to the opportunity listing for the applicable ranges and eligibility requirements for local impact consideration.