Revised_Addendum_4.pdf

Purchasing Services 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building C, Room 303 Viera, Florida 32940

Professional Engineering Continuing Consultant Services for Stormwater Master Planning & Analysis and Pollution and Flood Reduction Design Projects

RFQ-8-25-07

January 24, 2025

Revised Addendum 4

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS

This is Addendum 4 and shall be considered as part of the original advertisement package for the above-mentioned Request for Qualifications. Consultants are requested to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum with their submission.

CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS ASKED RECEIVED:

1. Question: Since Proposers are responding to multiple services, would the County consider increasing the one-page of additional projects requested as part of Tab 5 to two pages, i.e., one for each service area?

Response: Each project can have two pages. Either on double-sided or two single sided.

2. Question: Please advise that the page count for Tab 5 has at least doubled for Proposers who are submitting on two service categories because that would entail submitting six projects at two pages each (12 pages total) times two for each service category, resulting in 24 pages (not including the additional page(s) that contains a list of other relevant projects)?

Response: There are two different services, and the proposer can submit six projects per service.

3. Question: We are looking for clarification on the actual due date/time of this RFQ. Is the new due/date and time now February 7th by 10am?

Response: Yes. Submittals are due no later than February 7th at 10am.

4. Question: Based on the County’s response to Question 2. In Addendum 1 and Question 12. in Addendum 1, we understand that in in our response to Tab 5 we can provide up to 6 projects per service line (for a total of 12 pages). Question 2. Mentions that we can also provide a one-page list of other projects if applicable. Will the County please confirm if this is a one-page list that is allowed for each of the service lines we are submitting qualifications for? In other words, if we are pursuing both service lines, can we include two separate additional pages listing other projects (one additional page for each service line)?

Response: There are two different services, and the proposer can submit six projects per service. Each project can have two pages. Either on double-sided or two single sided.

5. Question: Page 9 of the RFQ mentions that “priority shall be given to the Contractor certifying that he/she is a Drug-Free Workplace as defined within Section 287.087, Florida Statutes.” Will the County please provide a Drug-Free Workplace form that we can fill out or is it the County’s desire that we should provide evidence of this using our own documentation from our company to demonstrate our compliance as Drug-Free Workplace within the Tab 7 Required Proposal Forms section?

Engineering Continuing Consultant Services

RFQ-8-25-07

January 24, 2025 Revised Addendum 4 – Page Two

Response: Only applies to tie bids and not applicable to this RFQ.

6. Question: Attachment B – ARPA Documents appear to be more appropriate for a construction contractor. As an engineering consulting firm many of these job categories do not apply to our workforce. Will the County please consider removing this ARPA Documents attachment and associated forms from the RFQ procurement process associated with RFQ-8-25-07?

If the County requires that we complete these forms, can the County please provide clarification regarding the ARPA Project Worksheet contained on PDF page 8 on how are major and minor subtractors/s defined? Is it the County’s preference and recommendation that we should we have all subconsultants fill out this form? Also, can the County please confirm that the ARPA Project Worksheet (Employee Data matrix) on PDF page 9 only needs to be completed by the Prime firm?

Response: ARPA documents are only to be completed when there is an ARPA project. If there is an ARPA project, the forms will need to be completed by the Contractor or Subcontractor.

7. Question: Would the County please remove Section 22 paragraph 2, located on page 16 of the Draft Contract, “Conflict of interest of Commissioners, Consultants and Others”? We believe that this provision is extremely difficult to comply with given how much work we do with private entities in the area. Additionally, this will be nearly impossible for us to enforce when it comes to our subconsultants. If the County will not remove the provision, will it agree to limit the provision to be for direct and apparent conflicts only, as well as limited to only the employees working on this specific project and for the duration of the project? currently worded, we believe that the indemnity provision, Section 24 (1) and

(2) of the Draft Contract is not in compliance with FL Statute 725.08 and is unenforceable. Would the County consider rewording same to conform with the statute? Suggested language per FL Statutes 725.08: “The design professional shall indemnify and hold harmless the County , and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the design professional and other persons employed or utilized by the design professional in the performance of the contract.”

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

8. Question: As currently worded, we believe that the indemnity provision, Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Draft Contract is not in compliance with FL Statute 725.08 and is unenforceable. Would the County consider rewording same to conform with the statute? Suggested language per FL Statutes 725.08:

“The design professional shall indemnify and hold harmless the County , and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the design professional and other persons employed or utilized by the design professional in the performance of the contract.”

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

9. Question: As currently worded in Section 15 Article of the RFQ, the County is asking Kimley-Horn to assume the highest professional standards in performing its work. While Kimley-Horn is committed to serving its clients, we are only required to do so in accordance with the professional standard of care, which is the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by consultants performing the same or similar services in the same locality at the time the services are provided. The relationship currently described

January 24, 2025 Revised Addendum 4 – Page Three in the proposal exceeds the Standard of Care to be provided by Design Professionals. Would the County consider modifying this language to comply with the foregoing language?

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

10. Question: As currently worded, we believe that the indemnity provision, Section 17 located on page 4 and 5 of the RFQ and the indemnity provision located on page 23 of the RFQ, is not in compliance with FL Statute 725.08 and is unenforceable. Would the County consider rewording same to conform with the statute? Suggested language per FL Statutes 725.08: “The design professional shall indemnify and hold harmless the County , and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the design professional and other persons employed or utilized by the design professional in the performance of the contract.”

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

11. Question: Could the County please clarify whether the "completed" projects requested in Tab 5

(Related Experience) need to have had construction completed, or if it is sufficient for the design or study phase to be completed?

Response: They do not have to be completed.

12. Question: Certification, Page 1. Will the County agree to the following change to the certification statement allowing for negotiation at the time of contract award?

The Contractor has reviewed and agrees to all of the General Conditions, Terms, and Provisions attached hereto (unless modified at the time of contract negotiation), acknowledges that all information provided in this RFQ and any attachments hereto is true and correct, and further agrees to provide any required certification under F.S. 287.135(5) as amended, upon entering into a contract with the County.

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

13. Question: Article 57, FEMA Contract Requirements. Will the County clarify which FEMA provision governs the 1-2 hour response requirements? We do not see this requirement in the FEMA requirements attached to the contract.

Response: Attachment C – FEMA Contract Requirements. This form does not need to be completed as part of the submission.

14. Question: Professional Engineering Continuing Consulting Services Contract Section 4 – Consultant Responsibilities. Is the County willing to change the word “warrants” to “represents that” in second sentence of Section 4? Professional liability insurance covers professional services performed according to the standard of care (set forth in Section 17); however, professional liability insurance will not cover breach of warranty. Agreeing to warrant services elevates the standard of care and jeopardizes professional liability insurance coverage. Choosing language to maintain liability coverage is clearly in the best interest of both parties.

Section 4 – Consultant Responsibilities, Item (5). Is the County willing to change the word “ensure” to “represents” for the same reason set forth in Comment 3?

January 24, 2025 Revised Addendum 4 – Page Four

Section 17 – Quality Control. Is the County willing to delete the first sentence of this section which states, “The Consultant warrants a high level of quality control and accuracy,” for the same reason set forth in Comment 3?

Section 24 – Indemnification and Insurance, Item (2). Will the County add “To the extent allowed by Section 725.08, Florida Statutes” to the beginning of this item? Section 725.08 governs the allowable indemnification provisions in contracts between public entities and design professionals.

Response: Contract terms may be negotiated after the firms are ranked and selected.

15. Question: Under Tab 5: Related Experience, are we allowed to also include a 1-page narrative that leads up to the required project profiles, or should this section ONLY include project profiles, the 1-page project list and that's it?

Response: There are two different services, and the proposer can submit six projects per service, each project can have two pages, either one double sided or two single sided.

16. Question: Addendum 3 for this project stated that the deadline was moved to February 7, but MyVendorLink is still showing January 31 as the deadline. Could you confirm that February 7 is the correct deadline?

Response: VendorLink has been updated. Submittals are due no later than February 7th at 10am.

ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT:

Attachment C – FEMA Contract Requirements

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The deadline for Final Questions on Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 5:00 pm holds. No further questions considered after this date and time.

Please note that the proposal opening date and time has changed to Friday, February 7, 2025 @ 10:00 am.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Sincerely, Mary Bowers Purchasing Manager

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 4 REVISED

Sherry.Collett Highlight