RFP 2026-2 Clarifying Questions 1.pdf
PDF 274 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-C01010-00017518
- Issued by
- Oregon
About this file
This document is a clarifying questions response issued by Clackamas County Health, Housing & Human Services (H3S) in Oregon for RFP 2026-25, an on-call organizational development strategic consulting services solicitation. The RFP seeks to establish a pool of multiple qualified on-call consultants to provide organizational development and strategic consulting services on an as-needed basis. Task Orders will be issued based on departmental priorities, project requirements, and available funding. The County has not predetermined the number of contract awards, the anticipated annual budget, or the frequency and volume of Task Orders in the first contract year. The solicitation is open to all qualified proposers and is not limited to incumbent consultants. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the RFP requirements, with page limitations applied to all materials except resumes included as appendices.
The fee proposal should reflect labor classifications defined by each proposer, with hourly rates submitted in Attachment B serving as the basis for future Task Order negotiations and potentially as ceiling rates for time-and-materials work. The County reserves the right to negotiate compensation and billing methodology for individual Task Orders. Subcontractors may be identified and described in proposals as part of the pre-authorization process, with formal approval occurring upon contract award or Task Order issuance in accordance with County requirements. Oregon Business Registry registration is required at contract execution rather than proposal submission. Cyber liability or equivalent technology errors and omissions coverage may be required depending on the nature of services provided and will be finalized during contract negotiations. Task Order assignments will be made directly to one or more awarded contractors, with the County potentially requesting project-specific information, work plans, staffing approaches, and pricing before issuance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 2026-25 Addendum 1.pdf | ||
| RFP 2026-25 On Call Orgnizational Dev.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PH: 503-742-5400 WWW.CLACKAMAS.US
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #2026-25
ON-CALL ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES
RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
#1
Note that these are questions submitted by interested firms to the above referenced solicitation. The below answers are for clarification purposes only and in no way alter or amend the RFP as published.
1. Section 4.2 lists five evaluation categories totaling 100 points, while the Section 5 content headings assign points totaling 115 (including 10 points for Public Sector Experience & Organizational Compatibility and 5 points for References, with Proposed Team at 15). Could the County confirm the governing point allocation?
A. This has been corrected in Addendum 1.
2. Can the County share the anticipated annual budget, or historical annual spend, for organizational development consulting services across H3S, or the value of predecessor contracts for similar services?
A. The County has not established a guaranteed annual budget or anticipated spending amount for services under this Contract. This solicitation is intended to establish a pool of qualified on-call consultants, and Task Orders will be issued on an as-needed basis, subject to departmental priorities, project requirements, and available funding. Historical expenditures are not representative of this solicitation because organizational development consulting services have previously been obtained through separate contracts and procurements.
3. Approximately how many Contractors does the County anticipate awarding to the pool, in total or per Service
Category?
A. The County has not established a predetermined number of contract awards. The County intends to award contracts to multiple qualified Contractors. The number of awards will depend on the quality of proposals received and the County's anticipated need for expertise across the Service Categories identified in the RFP.
4. Are there incumbent consultants or firms currently providing these services to H3S under existing contracts, and if so, can the County identify them?
A. Various consultants have previously provided organizational development services to H3S under separate contracts. This solicitation is intended to establish a new department-wide consultant pool and is open to all qualified proposers
5. Can the County estimate the anticipated volume or frequency of Task Orders in the first contract year?
A. The County is unable to estimate the anticipated number, frequency, or value of future Task Orders. Task
Orders will be issued on an as-needed basis based upon departmental priorities, project requirements, and available funding. Award of a Contract does not guarantee the issuance of any Task Orders or any minimum amount of work.
6. Section 5.2.5 states resumes may be included as an appendix and will not count toward the page limitation. Can the County confirm whether, the Cover Letter, Attachments B and C, and any County-required forms, are likewise excluded from the 20-page limit?
A. The attachments are not excluded from the page limit
7. Does the County require Proposers to hold an Oregon Business Registry number at the time of proposal submission, or is registration required only prior to contract execution?
A. This is a requirement at time of contract execution
8. Regarding the Cyber Liability insurance requirement, will the County consider equivalent coverage under a technology errors and omissions policy, and is this coverage required at proposal submission or within the ten days following notice of award?
A. Cyber Liability (or equivalent Technology Errors and Omissions coverage, if acceptable to the County) may be required depending on the nature of the services provided under the resulting Contract or an individual Task Order. Insurance requirements will be finalized during contract negotiations and may be modified based on the specific services being provided
9. For the fee proposal, does the County have preferred labor classifications it would like reflected in Attachment B, or should each Proposer define its own classifications?
A. Each proposer is expected to define the requirements of their individual proposals. The County has not prescribed labor classifications. Proposers should identify the labor classifications that best reflect the services and personnel proposed.
10. For Attachment C, if a firm marks the "Other Specialized Expertise" line, will those services be eligible for Task Orders under the resulting contract?
A. Yes. If accepted by the County as part of the awarded proposal, Other Specialized Expertise identified in Attachment C may be incorporated into the resulting Contract and may be utilized through future Task Orders at the County's discretion, provided the services are consistent with the overall purpose and scope of the solicitation
11. Section 2.20 states that subcontractors may not be used unless specifically pre-authorized in writing by the County, while Section 5.2.5 instructs proposers to identify any proposed subcontractors and describe how their work will be managed.
Could the County clarify whether identifying proposed subcontractors within the Proposal—including their qualifications, roles, and management approach—satisfies the written pre-authorization requirement for proposal evaluation purposes, with any formal approval occurring upon contract award or Task Order issuance, or whether separate written authorization is required prior to Proposal submission?
A. Yes. Proposers should identify any anticipated subcontractors in their Proposal as requested in Section 5.2.5 of the RFP. Any use of subcontractors under the resulting Contract remains subject to the County's prior written authorization in accordance with Section 2.20 of the RFP
12. Could the County provide additional guidance regarding its anticipated approach to Task Order assignments? Specifically, should awarded contractors expect direct assignments, project-specific mini-competitions among the awarded pool, or a combination of both depending upon the nature of the engagement?
A. The County anticipates assigning Task Orders directly to one or more awarded Contractors in accordance with Section 3.3.2.2 of the RFP. Depending upon the nature of the assignment, the County may also request project-specific information, work plans, staffing approaches, interviews, pricing, or other information from one or more awarded Contractors before issuing a Task Order.
13. Could the County clarify whether the hourly rates submitted with the Proposal will serve primarily as the basis for future Task Order negotiations (or as ceiling rates), or whether those submitted rates will be binding for any future Time-and-Materials Task Orders?
A. The hourly rates submitted in Attachment B will be considered during contract negotiations and may serve as the basis for pricing future Time-and-Materials Task Orders. As provided in Section 3.3.2.3 of the RFP, the County reserves the right to negotiate compensation and billing methodology for individual Task Orders Orders
End of Clarifying Questions #1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .