AMENDMENT No. 2 to

RFP NO. 26- 044/DJ

AMENDMENT No. 2

DATED: June 3, 2026

Palm Beach County Procurement Department

240 S Military Trail, West Palm Beach, FL 33415

RFP NO. 26-044/DJ

Title: Building Fee Study Consultant

This Amendment is issued to provide additional information, and clarification to the RFP document:

1. Proposers are advised of the following changes to the RFP:

A. Section 1 GENERAL INFORMATION, is revised as follows:

a. Delete Subsection 1.7 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“All proposals must be submitted on 8 ½” x 11” paper.

One (1) unbound original, Seven (7) bound copies, and one (1) electronic copy in pdf (CD or flash drive) of the complete proposal must be received in the Procurement Department by June 23, 2026, 4:00 p.m. local time. The original and all copies must be submitted in a sealed envelope or container. The proposer’s complete return address must be included on the outer envelope or wrapper enclosing any materials submitted in response to this RFP. The outer envelope or wrapper should be addressed as follows:

Proposer Name Address Phone No.

Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Procurement Department 240 S Military Trail West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 ATTENTION: David Juhe, Senior Buyer RFP No. 26-044/DJ

Title: Building Fee Study Consultant Due Date: June 23, 2026, 4:00 p.m. local time.

The Procurement Department’s office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays observed by the County.

Proposers are responsible for informing any commercial delivery services, if used, of all delivery requirements and for insuring that the required address information appears on the outer wrapper or envelope used by such service.

The Price Proposal Page(s) (Appendix A) must be signed by an officer of the company who is legally authorized to enter into a contractual relationship in the name of the proposer (“Authorized Person”).

The submission of a signed proposal by a proposer will be considered by the County as constituting a legal offer by the proposer to perform the required services at the proposed pricing identified therein.”

2. Questions received at the May 28th, 2026, Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference, and the County’s responses:

Q.1. How many job descriptions in Building Division?

A.1. There are approximately 50 different positions title in the Building Division, however, not all positions titles will be part of the pay study.

Q.2. Please clarify whether pricing should be based solely on Building Division services or on the Department as a whole.

A.2. Pricing shall be based on the Department as a whole and shall include all services and divisions identified within the Scope of Work and Section 4.3 of the RFP.

Accordingly, the Appendix A pricing proposal should reflect a comprehensive department-wide scope consistent with the RFP requirements.

Q.3. Please clarify how the cost-of-service (“COS” or “COP”) study timing is expected to be completed and whether the County has a required project schedule or phased approach.

A.3. The County expects the Consultant to propose a detailed project schedule and methodology for completion of the cost-of-service study as part of its response to the RFP. As identified in Section 3.2 of the solicitation, the proposal should include estimated durations for each project phase, key milestones, data collection periods, staff coordination meetings, draft deliverables, benchmarking activities, fee modeling, and final presentation schedules. The County recognizes that respondents may utilize differing methodologies and project sequencing approaches; however, the proposed timeline must demonstrate the Consultant’s ability to complete the required services in a reasonable and efficient timeframe while allowing sufficient opportunity for County staff review, validation, stakeholder coordination, and implementation planning.

3. Questions received from Government Consulting Partners, Inc., and the County’s responses:

Q.1. Please confirm whether the base scope and Appendix A price are intended to include all services performed by the Planning, Zoning, Code Compliance, Administration, and Building Divisions listed in Section 4.3, or whether Building Division services are the primary required scope, with other divisions to be added only at County direction and not part of this scope and professional fee proposal.

A.1. The Scope of Work and Appendix A pricing proposal are intended to include all services performed by the Planning, Zoning, Code Compliance, Administration and Building Divisions identified in Section 4.3 of the RFP. Although the Building Division is the requesting division for this procurement, the fee study and pay analysis are intended to evaluate all fees and related services assessed by the Department. In addition, the RFP was intentionally structured to allow other County departments or divisions to utilize the contract, if needed, for similar scope of work services related to regulatory, permitting, inspection, enforcement, administrative, impact, or other related fees, subject to County authorization.

Q.2. Please clarify the expected depth of the “Pay Analysis.” Is the County seeking a labor-cost adequacy analysis for fee recovery purposes, or a broader compensation/market study?

A.2. The “Pay Analysis” is intended to evaluate labor costs, staffing levels, and compensation assumptions as they relate to fee adequacy, cost recovery, and long-term operational sustainability. The County is not seeking a comprehensive compensation or classification study, compensation plan redesign, or collective bargaining support under this procurement unless separately authorized by the County in writing.

Q.3. Please confirm whether impact fees are included for compliance review and coordination only, or whether the County expects a full impact fee update within this procurement.

A.3 Building Division assess impact fees based on information provided OFMB, however, Impact fees are included within the scope for purposes of compliance review, legal considerations, proportionality evaluation, and coordination within the broader fee framework. The department is not seeking a standalone impact fee study or full impact fee update, including independent growth projections, capital facility planning, or adoption-ready impact fee calculations, under this procurement.

Q.4. Does the County expect the consultant to evaluate replacement of the existing valuation-based Building fee table with cost-based alternatives such as square-footage, flat, tiered, hourly, deposit, or hybrid structures?

A.4. The County expects the Consultant to evaluate alternatives to the existing valuation-based Building fee methodology as part of the fee structure review. This may include evaluation of flat-fee, tiered, hourly, square-footage-based, deposit-based, hybrid, or other cost-recovery approaches, as appropriate and supportable under Florida law and County policy.

Q.5. Will the County provide permit/application/case volume data by fee line item, valuation, square footage, permit type, plan review cycles, inspection counts, private provider involvement, and reinspection activity?

A.5. The County intends to provide available historical and current operational data necessary to support the fee study and cost-of-service analysis. Available data may include permit/application/case volumes, valuation data, square footage data, plan review cycles, inspection and reinspection activity, private provider utilization, expedite or after-hours activity, and revenue by fee category, to the extent such data exists and is reasonably accessible.

Q.6. Will the County provide current Building permit and inspection utilization reports, direct and indirect cost schedules, and any existing cost allocation plan or internal service cost allocations?

A.6. The County intends to provide available financial and operational information necessary to support the cost-of-service analysis, including direct and indirect labor costs, salary and benefit allocation information, technology and overhead costs, budget and expenditure data, and other available cost allocation or internal service information maintained by the County.

Q.7. Should the proposal include optional pricing modules for County divisions or departments outside the Planning, Zoning and Building Department that may later use the model?

A.7. Optional pricing modules for additional County divisions or departments outside the Planning, Zoning and Building Department are not required as part of the proposal. However, as stated in the RFP, the County reserves the right to utilize the resulting contract for similar services for other County departments or divisions, subject to County authorization and applicable contract provisions.

Q.8. For SBE/API scoring, please confirm that Exhibit C establishes a relative SBE evaluation preference rather than a fixed minimum percentage goal for non-SBE prime respondents.

A.8. No goals were established for this solicitation, it is an SBE evaluation preference for Prime Proposers.

4. Questions received from Plante Moran, and the County’s responses:

Q.1. Based on the adjusted project timeline, what is the County’s anticipated start date for the project?

A.1. Anticipated start date is August 10, 2026. The RFP identifies this as the anticipated contract start date.

Q.2. Based on the adjusted project timeline, what is County’s anticipated completion date for this project?

A.2. The Scope of Work is generally anticipated to be completed within 120 to 180 calendar days, subject to data availability and County review timelines.

Q.3. What is the County’s anticipated budget for the proposed project?

A.3. The County has established an internal budget for this effort; however, a specific range is not being disclosed to ensure a competitive procurement process. Proposers are expected to submit fully burdened, market-competitive pricing aligned with the scope of work.

Q.4. Can you please provide the total number of job descriptions for evaluation within the Cost and Compensation element of the project?

A.4. There are approximately 50 different positions title in the Building Division, however, not all positions titles will be part of the pay study.

Q.5. We understand based on the pre-proposal meeting that Building is in scope for the project.

Can you please clarify if the consultant should provide pricing to analyze fees for “Planning, Zoning, Building, Code Compliance, Administration, or other regulatory, permitting, inspection, enforcement, or development-related departments” as listed in the County’s RFP?

A.5. Pricing shall be based on the Department as a whole and shall include all services and divisions identified within the Scope of Work and Section 4.3 of the RFP. Accordingly, the Appendix A pricing proposal should reflect a comprehensive department-wide scope consistent with the RFP requirements.

Q.6 If to Planning, Zoning, Building, Code Compliance, Administration, or other areas are in scope, do you anticipate they would be completed on the same timeline as the Building Fee Study?

A.6. At this time, the main concentration would be the Building Division, however, there may be a decision to have separate studies for each Division simultaneously with Building Division fee study.

Q.7. The RFP states, “Each proposer should submit a minimum of five (5) references demonstrating the successful provision of fee studies, cost-of-service analyses, or similar financial consulting services, within the past five (5) year(s).” Does this include references for experience with Cost and Compensation studies?

A.7. You may be included if relevant. The RFP asks for references demonstrating fee studies, cost-of-service analyses, or similar financial consulting services, and separately requires experience with pay analyses, employee pay, staffing levels, and labor costs related to fee adequacy and cost recovery.

Q.8. The RFP states that the County would like a benchmarking and comparative analysis. Has the County already defined other agencies for benchmarking? If so, can these be shared?

A.8. The RFP does not identify specific agencies. It requires benchmarking against comparable Florida jurisdictions and comparable competitors, with benchmarking clearly distinguished from cost-of-service findings. The County have not defined other agencies for benchmarking

Q.9. Does the County have current workload data at the position level that can be shared as part of this analysis?

A.9. The County would be able to provide available workload data at the position level.

Consultant will need access to staffing, workload, permitting, financial, and time allocation data, and may validate assumptions through interviews, workshops, or time studies.

5. Questions received from Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., and the County’s responses:

Q.1. Does the County intend for this to be a formal compensation/pay study (e.g., position-by-position market salary analysis with wage surveys), or would a benchmarking approach comparing Palm Beach County's compensation levels against comparable Florida local governments be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 4.4.4?

A.1. The County's intent is not to require a comprehensive compensation study or compensation plan redesign. The Consultant shall conduct a pay and classification analysis sufficient to evaluate staffing classifications, compensation assumptions utilized in fee calculations, alignment with labor market conditions and service complexity, and compensation-related cost drivers affecting fee recovery and long-term sustainability. A benchmarking approach utilizing comparable Florida jurisdictions may be acceptable provided it adequately addresses the requirements of Section 4.4.4.

Q.2. For the "Pay and labor cost findings" deliverable referenced in Section 4.5, would the

County accept findings based on peer jurisdiction benchmarking, or does the County expect a standalone pay study with detailed market comparisons by classification?

A.2. The County will accept pay and labor cost findings based on a reasonable and defensible methodology that addresses the requirements of the Scope of Work. Peer jurisdiction benchmarking may be utilized as part of the analysis; however, the Consultant shall clearly demonstrate how compensation and labor costs impact fee recovery and service delivery costs. A standalone compensation study is not required unless the Consultant's evaluation determines that the compensation structures of the selected peer jurisdictions are materially misaligned with prevailing industry and labor market compensation levels. In such cases, the Consultant may recommend additional compensation analysis to establish appropriate market benchmarks.