RFP-26-050-FH_Add_3.pdf
PDF 135 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES UNDER $750k State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- RFP-26-050-FH
- Issued by
- Seminole County, Florida
About this file
This is an Addendum No. 3 to RFP-26-050-FH issued by the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida, dated March 5, 2026, addressing continuing construction services for projects valued under $750,000. The solicitation seeks proposals from experienced contractors to provide construction services including carpentry, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, concrete, masonry, roofing, small building construction, and water-damage restoration. The addendum clarifies that the City will issue separate task authorizations when work is specific to a single trade, accommodating both general contractors and trade-specific subcontractors. Regarding proposal timelines, the City indicated during the pre-proposal conference held on February 19, 2026, that while a standard five-day turnaround is expected for task authorization responses, additional time may be granted on a case-by-case basis depending on project complexity, site conditions, or pending clarifications.
The addendum addresses vendor qualification requirements, confirming that the City will verify contractor licensing compliance and performance against solicitation requirements, potentially accepting relevant experience and current professional credentials in lieu of the stated five-year formal business existence requirement. Regarding task authorization participation, contractors must respond with either a proposal or a written "No Bid" statement; however, repeated "No Bid" responses from the same vendor may constitute grounds for removal from the program. The distinction is clarified that failing to respond entirely differs from submitting a "No Bid," with the former potentially being more serious. No specific pricing terms, set-asides, funding amounts, or contract renewal options are detailed in this addendum.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP-26-050-FH_Add_2.pdf | ||
| 2026_Master_Budget_Commission_Adopted.pdf | ||
| 2026_Master_Project_Schedule_-_GC_Services.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Pre-Conference_Sign-In_Sheet.pdf | ||
| RFP-26-050-FH_Add_1.pdf | ||
| RFP26-050-FH_Continuing_Construction_Services_under_$750k.pdf | ||
| RFP26-050-FH_Proposal_Submittal_Package.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP-26-050-FH
CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES UNDER $750K
Addendum No. 3
DATE: March 5, 2026 TO: All Respondents and Interested Parties FROM: Fabio Henao, CPO
Be advised of the following changes, additions, deletions, information, and/or clarifications to the subject solicitation. Only written questions answered in writing by formal Addendum will be binding. Oral and other interpretations or clarifications will be without legal effect. Questions received after the due date for questions will not be given any consideration. Respondents are reminded to review the original solicitation and all issued addenda, if applicable. Respondents must acknowledge all issued addenda, if any. Failure to acknowledge may result in the Respondent’s submittal being deemed non-responsive.
The Solicitation is hereby changed accordingly:
A. WRITTEN QUESTIONS RECEIVED:
Q1: We just has one question to clarify regarding the solicitation:
RFP Section 2.17.1 indicates that all proposers must have been in formal existence for not less than five (5) years. My company was started in 2025, however, I have been a certified general contractor in the state of Florida since 2017 and was previously a qualifier for my previous employer, prior to starting my company. Will previous experience and maintaining a CGC in the state of Florida for the previous nine years meet the intent of this requirement? Since inception, we have demonstrated experience successfully supplying relevant services identified within this solicitation
A1: The City will verify vendor’s CGC Licenses for compliance and performance to determine if it meets the requirements contained in the solicitation.
Q2: It was discussed during the pre-proposal conference on 2/19/26 that the intent was to award both general contractors and sub-trade contractors.
If a task order is specific to a certain trade, the GC that does not self-perform this work might not be competitive due to having to subcontract and manage outside forces.
Will there be separate task authorization requests for GCs and trade contractors if the scope of work is specific to one trade?
A2: The City will issue separate task authorizations if it is work for a single trade.
Q3: Reference page PPB-32 of the RFP.
Given that certain projects may require site visits, subcontractor coordination, clarifications, and potential RFIs prior to finalizing scope and pricing, the five-day turnaround may limit the ability to develop the most complete and competitive proposal.
Would the City consider allowing additional time when warranted by project complexity, site conditions, or pending clarifications?
Alternatively, would the City clarify whether extensions may be granted on a case-by-case basis?
Our goal is to ensure that pricing submitted under each Task Authorization reflects thorough coordination, accurate scope interpretation, and the most competitive value to the City.
A3: The City may consider additional time depending on the complexity, site conditions, or pending clarifications of the project(s). This will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis.
Q4: Reference page PPB-33 of the RFP.
For the task authorization process, if we are declining a task we are to provide a written “No Bid.”
In the section stating how contractors may be removed from the program, it references failing to respond.
Is failing to respond the same as declining a task?
A4: No. However, repeated “No Bid” responses from the same vendor may be considered grounds for removal from the program.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .