RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 1 of 13

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT OFFICE

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 32110-82026

AMENDMENT # 5

FOR EMERGENCY DEBRIS REMOVAL SERVICES

DATE: August 27, 2026

RFP # 32110-82026 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. This RFP Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFP dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.

EVENT

TIME

(central time zone)

DATE

1. RFP Issued June 22, 2026

2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 2:00 p.m. June 25, 2026

3. Pre-response Conference 10:00 a.m. June 26, 2026

4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline 2:00 p.m. June 29, 2026

5. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. July 2, 2026

6. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments”

August 27, 2026

7. Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. September 4, 2026

8. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations

September 25, 2026

9. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals . September 28, 2026

10. Negotiations (Optional) September 29, 2026 – October 2, 2026

11. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection

October 5, 2026

12. End of Protest Period October 12, 2026

13. State sends contract to Contractor for signature

October 13, 2026

14. Contractor Signature Deadline 2:00 p.m. October 16, 2026

2. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFP.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 2 of 13

Any restatement of RFP text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFP document.

RFP

SECTION

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

1 Can the State clarify whether the anticipated scope includes any construction activities? This would require respondents to account for prevailing wage requirements (due to Davis-Bacon) in their pricing, or whether the work is limited to emergency debris removal and hauling services?

The Scope of Services for RFP 32110-82026 is specific to debris removal following a disaster or emergency event, or other similar event(s). All work expected to be performed under the contracts emanating from this RFP should be classified as disaster relief and cleanup services, not construction work.

2 If a Respondent currently holds a qualifying contractor license in a reciprocal state and has submitted a complete Tennessee contractor license application, including the required license verification/trade exam waiver documentation, proof of scheduled or completed Tennessee Business and Law exam, and financial documentation supporting the required $1,000,000 monetary limit, will the State accept proof of the pending Tennessee application at the time of RFP submission, provided the Respondent obtains and maintains the required Tennessee license before contract award, contract execution, or commencement of any work?

Tennessee law requires a person or entity engaging in contracting in Tennessee to be properly licensed with the appropriate classification and monetary limitation. See T.C.A. § 62- 6-103(a)(1). The Board’s rules also provide that a person, firm, or corporation that engages or offers to engage in contracting without a valid contractor’s license, or in violation of the terms and conditions of the license, shall not be awarded the contract for that project or permitted to participate in a rebid. See Tenn.

Comp. R. & Regs. 0680-01-.18.

A submitted application only means the applicant has requested licensure.

It does not authorize the applicant to contract unless and until the Board issues the license. In past disaster-related situations, where temporary contractor licenses have been allowed by executive order, the applicant still had to be issued a temporary license by the Board or its designee. The executive-order process did not make a pending application the equivalent of a license.

Therefore, the State is not open to revising this language. In accordance with RFP Item A.4., Respondents are required to possess and maintain the applicable license(s) at the time of the RFP Response.

3 RFP Attachment 6.4 (Reference Questionnaire) requires

No, per the instructions at the top of the Reference Questionnaire for RFP

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 3 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

respondents to obtain new reference questionnaires for this solicitation. Recognizing that many public agency clients have recently completed substantially similar reference questionnaires for respondents in connection with other public procurements, would the State consider accepting those recent references, together with current contact information for verification, rather than requiring agencies to complete duplicative reference questionnaires?

32110-82026, references must be received using either the form provided or an exact duplicate of the Reference Questionnaire document.

The references must be made with the form located within RFP 32110- 82026 and no other format will be accepted.

4 Does the State have a monitoring firm contracted? If so, which monitoring firm?

The current contracts can be found here.

5 Will awarded contractors be ranked?

No, as listed within Section 1.0.

Description within Appendix A – Scope of Services:

Authorized Users shall contact all awarded Contractors simultaneously, provided all contracts are fully executed and active at the time of need. Authorized Users will evaluate each Contractor’s ability to meet the specific requirements of the assignment, with emphasis on availability and response time.

Selection should be based on consideration of factors including, but not limited to, response time, mobilization capability, estimated time to completion, cost, capacity, and any other project-specific requirements related to the unique characteristics of the debris field.

6 Does the State intend to divide the State into geographic portions and activate multiple contractors simultaneously?

No, all awarded Contractors are required to be able to provide services to the entire State of Tennessee as this is a Statewide Contract.

However, Authorized Users will evaluate each Contractor’s ability to meet the specific requirements of the assignment, with emphasis on response times. This will be dependent on the size of the disaster and the awardee’s capability to provide service to all Authorized Users.

7 Item C.4. requires Respondents to "provide a minimum of one example where the Respondent has worked with federal agencies in providing these services." Please clarify whether this

This is not intended to require having been a federal contractor. The intent of this provision is to show that there has been work completed in coordination with the federal oversight https://hub.edison.tn.gov/psp/fsprd_12/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/TN_PUBLIC_SUPPLIER.TN_ACTIVE_SWC_CMP2.GBL?Page=TN_CNTRCT_EVAL&Action=U&ForceSearch=Y&ExactKeys=Y&SETID=&TN_SWC_NBR=825

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 4 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

requirement is satisfied only by a reference in which a federal agency (e.g., FEMA, USACE, FHWA) was the direct contracting party for the debris removal services, or whether it may also be satisfied by a reference for a state or local government contract in which a federal agency was involved (for example, through FEMA Public Assistance funding/reimbursement, FEMA or FHWA monitoring, or other federal oversight of the work).

for eligibility of work and reimbursement. In accordance with Item Ref. C.4. the Respondent must provide one example of where they have worked in coordination with federal agency oversight.

8 Does this RFP or the resulting contract include a set-aside, minimum utilization requirement, or participation goal for small businesses, minority-owned businesses, or other GO-BID-certified businesses?

No, there are no set-aside, minimum utilization requirements, or participation goal for small businesses, minority-owned businesses, or other GO-BID certified businesses within this RFP. But the Central Procurement Office does have an aspirational goal of 18% for GO-BID certified businesses within the Department of General Services.

9 Section 3.1.1 states that a Technical Response must not include any pricing or cost information, including pricing from other projects. Can Respondents list the total contract value of past projects in the Technical Response to show project size and experience, or would this be considered prohibited cost information?

Yes, the total contract value of past projects can be listed to show project size and experience. Please only provide either the total contract value or the amount of cubic yardage collected, but not both.

10 Line Item #13-Reduction of Vegetative Debris is currently described as Burning, Grinding, or Chipping. Would the State consider making Burning its own line item as the cost of Grinding vs. Burning is significantly different?

Yes. This Line Item has been separated within Appendix A and added to Attachment 6.3. the Evaluation Model.

11 Where Right of Entry agreements are required, will these costs be billed “at cost” similarly to access construction or should this cost be contemplated in unit pricing?

Yes, like access construction, this is to be handled as a passthrough expense to the Authorized User and should not be included in unit pricing.

12 Attachment 6.2, Section A, Item A.4 and Appendix A, Section 1.4 require that all Respondents "possess and maintain an HC-H and HC-5 license, or an HC license," issued by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, and provide documentation of possession as of the RFP Response due date.

Separately, Section 4.7.2 provides that, "[b]efore the Contract resulting from this RFP is signed, the apparent successful Respondent (and Respondent employees and

Please refer to the answer for Question #2. The State requires licensure at the time of the RFP submission. That meets the requirements of Section 4.7.2. as it is before the Contract resulting from the RFP is signed.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 5 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

subcontractors, as applicable) must hold all necessary or appropriate business or professional licenses to provide the goods or services as required by the contract."

13 Will the State consider the licensing requirement in Item A.4 and Appendix A, Section 1.4 satisfied where the requisite license-holder is an affiliate, with common ownership, of the Respondent at the time of submission of the RFP Response and the Respondent provides proof of the affiliate’s license along with a written statement confirming that it will possess the requisite license in its own name prior to contract execution consistent with Section 4.7.2?

Please refer to the answers to Questions #2 and #12.

14 Please provide the names and titles of the Proposal Evaluation Team members who will review and score the responses. (RFP §5.2.1)

Per RFP Section 5.2.1.3. Proposal Evaluation Team members will independently evaluate each Technical Response (that is responsive to the RFP) against the evaluation criteria in this RFP and will score each in accordance with the RFP Attachment 6.2., Technical Response & Evaluation Guide.

Once evaluations are complete, during the Open File period following the Notice of Intent to Award being issued, the names and titles of the Evaluation Team members will be made available within the procurement file.

15 The Cost Proposal & Scoring Guide (Attachment 6.3) appears only as a link, and the RFP does not explain how the 30 available cost points are calculated. Could you describe how the Cost Proposal will be scored

— for example, will the response with the lowest total price receive the full 30 points, with higher-priced responses scored proportionally?

(RFP §5.1, §5.2.2)

Please refer to the added language in the Cost Proposal & Scoring Guide (Attachment 6.3.) – Version 2.0 and RFP 32110-82026 – Version 2.0 to clarify these issues.

16 Please confirm that the “Evaluation Factor” values in Column E of the pricing workbook are used only as weights to calculate each respondent’s evaluated total for scoring purposes. (Attachment 6.3, Price List)

The Solicitation Coordinator will multiply the Item Score by the associated Evaluation Factor (indicating the relative emphasis of the item in the overall evaluation). The resulting product will be the item’s Raw Weighted Score for purposes of calculating the section score as indicated.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 6 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

17 As a public record, can the State share a copy of the current or most recent debris removal contract(s) awarded under SWC 820, including the pricing? (RFP §4.8)

The current contracts containing all requested information can be found here.

18 Section 4.13 (Next Ranked Respondent) says the State may negotiate with the “next ranked Respondent” if it stops doing business with a selected Respondent.

Elsewhere, though, the RFP describes awarding up to three contracts and contacting all awarded contractors at the same time (Appendix A), and the word “ranked” does not appear anywhere else in the evaluation criteria.

Please clarify: (a) how respondents are ranked for this purpose — for example, is the “next ranked” respondent simply the one with the next-highest total score below the three awardees; (b) whether this applies only when contracts are first awarded, or also throughout the contract term and any renewals; and (c) whether a replacement respondent would sign a contract under the same Pro Forma terms and at its own originally proposed prices. (RFP §4.13; §5.2.4; Appendix A)

(a) The "next ranked respondent” is the next best-evaluated respondent after those who were selected for award via the RFP.

(b) The right persists throughout the term of any awarded contract (including renewals and extensions).

(c) Within 120 days after the Cost Proposal opening, a replacement respondent’s Technical Response and Cost Proposal remain valid; if selected during that period, the State expects the next-ranked respondent to sign the Pro Forma Contract and honor its originally proposed prices. After day 120, the State may initiate negotiations with the next ranked Respondent. Any resulting contract would retain the Pro Forma Contract’s necessary clauses and substantially the same scope, with pricing and minor operational terms subject to negotiation consistent with CPO policy.

19 What was the most recent event that required the State to activate its debris removal contractor(s), and roughly how many cubic yards of debris were collected?

Winter Storm Fern. Right of Way – 797,000 cubic yards collected.

20 Can the State share historical or estimated yearly debris volumes (by debris type, if available) to help respondents prepare competitive unit prices?

This is an unknown. The previous two

(2) activations of debris removal have accounted for the following volumes:

• Tropical Storm Helene (2024)

Right of Way – 720,000 cubic yards

Waterway – 5,270,154 cubic yards

• Winter Storm Fern (2026)

Right of Way – 797,000 cubic yards

21 Which contractor(s) currently hold, or most recently held, the statewide contract for these services?

The current contracts containing all requested information can be found here.

22 Does the State currently have a debris monitoring firm under contract, and if so, which firm(s)?

See the answer to Question #4.

https://hub.edison.tn.gov/psp/fsprd_12/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/TN_PUBLIC_SUPPLIER.TN_ACTIVE_SWC_CMP2.GBL?Page=TN_CNTRCT_EVAL&Action=U&ForceSearch=Y&ExactKeys=Y&SETID=&TN_SWC_NBR=820 https://hub.edison.tn.gov/psp/fsprd_12/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/TN_PUBLIC_SUPPLIER.TN_ACTIVE_SWC_CMP2.GBL?Page=TN_CNTRCT_EVAL&Action=U&ForceSearch=Y&ExactKeys=Y&SETID=&TN_SWC_NBR=820

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 7 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

23 The State plans to award up to three contracts to cover the entire state. Please confirm that all awarded contractors will be eligible for work anywhere in the state (as the simultaneous-contact language in Appendix A suggests), rather than being assigned to set regions or grand divisions. (RFP §1.1;

Appendix A)

See the answer to Question #6

24 White Goods (pricing lines 19– 23): please confirm whether removing and disposing of any spoiled food inside refrigerators or freezers is included in the White Goods price, or whether that food is measured and billed separately under the Putrescent Debris lines. (Appendix A §4.8, §4.13)

This should be included in the White Goods price.

25 Bonds (E.14 Payment Bond and E.15 Performance Bond): the payment bond is set at 25% of the $1,000,000,000 Estimated Liability (which is $250,000,000), the performance bond at 25% of “total job cost,” and both are currently due on the Effective Date of the Contract. Because this is a standby contract with no guaranteed amount of work, please explain how “total job cost” is calculated

— for example, is the bond based on each individual activation or task order, using the estimated value of that specific job? Also, because these bonds must be in place whether or not the contract is ever activated, the contractor pays the bond premium regardless.

In keeping with common practice in disaster debris work — where bonds are usually posted after an event, sized to the estimated value of the actual job, and increased if needed — would the State consider (a) setting the bond amount for each activation or task order based on that job’s estimated value, rather than as a percentage of the full billion-dollar estimate;

and/or (b) adding a pay item to reimburse the contractor for the bond premium? (Attachment 6.6, E.14, E.15; C.1)

Payment Bonds and Performance Bonds shall be required per job assigned. Please see the updated language within Pro Forma Section E.14 and E.15 within RFP 32110- 82026 – Version 2.0.

26 Pro Forma §E.21 says Authorized Users may use this contract by buying directly from the contractor under their own purchasing rules, may request added or changed terms by mutual agreement, and that the State is not responsible or liable for those transactions. Please clarify: (a) how an Authorized User formally adopts and becomes bound to this contract — for example, does a purchase order or callout automatically apply the Pro Forma terms, or is a separate

A. Per Appendix A, Section 1.0 – The Contractor shall be issued a work assignment by the Authorized User prior to beginning any work. This would attach them to the Contract.

B. Per RFP Section E.21. Any requested changes should not impact the competitive nature of the contractor selection process. Any modification pursuant section is subject to the procurement policies

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 8 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

participation agreement required; (b) how much an Authorized User may change the Pro Forma terms; and (c) for work ordered by non-State Authorized Users, please confirm that the Authorized User — not the State — is responsible for payment, and state which payment terms apply: the contract’s prompt-pay terms or the Authorized User’s own.

(Attachment 6.6 §E.21; §C.1) and procedures of the Authorized User and subject to agreement by the Contractor and Authorized User.

C. The Authorized User is responsible for payment to the Contractor and subject to RFP Section D.26. The payment terms shall be in accordance with Tennessee law and all provisions of the RFP.

27 Construction & Demolition (C&D) hauling routes: Appendix A §4.5 describes hauling C&D directly “from the side of the right of way to final disposal site,” but the pricing schedule has no C&D line for a direct right-of-way-to-final-disposal haul (it lists only waterways→DMS, waterways→Final, ROW→DMS, and DMS→Final). The vegetative debris lines, by contrast, do include a right-of-way-to-final-disposal option (line 4). Please clarify how a direct C&D right-of-way-to-final-disposal haul should be priced, or add the matching line item. (Appendix A §4.5;

Attachment 6.3, lines 15–18)

Appendix A and the Evaluation Model

– Attachment 6.3. have been updated to add the requested line item.

28 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) unit of measure: Appendix A §4.9 measures HHW by container weight (for example, a 55-gallon drum or a cubic-yard Clean-Pak container), while pricing lines 24–26 measure it “Per Pound.” Please confirm which unit of measure controls (per pound, or per drum/container); the industry standard is typically per pound. (Appendix A §4.9;

Attachment 6.3, lines 24–26)

Appendix A has been updated to reflect that it will be weighed per pound. The Contractor is required to have a scale on site to measure quantities.

29 HHW vs. Hazardous Waste:

the RFP’s debris list and §4.9 treat Household Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Waste as separate categories, but pricing lines 24–26 combine “HHW/Hazardous Waste” under one price. Please confirm whether a single price is meant to cover both, or whether they should be priced separately; the industry standard is typically to price them individually. (Appendix A §2; §4.9; Attachment 6.3)

As these materials are handled differently by the Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF), additional line-items have been added to separate the categories within Appendix A and Attachment 6.3. the Evaluation Model – Version 2.0.

30 Vehicle and vessel storage costs: Appendix A §4.11 says that “all handling, hauling, storage, disposal, and processing costs… will be included in the unit price” for trailers, vessels, and vehicles, yet pricing lines 33 (“Management of Staging Yard,” per day) and 34 (“Blocking of Vessels,” each) appear to pay for storage-related work separately. Please

The references to storage and security have been removed from Section 4.11 of Appendix A.

Respondents should price storage separately under Lines 33 and 34.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 9 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

confirm whether staging-yard and vessel-blocking costs are included in the per-vehicle price or are paid separately under lines 33–34.

(Appendix A §4.11; Attachment 6.3, lines 30– 34)

31 “At Cost” pass-through items:

Appendix A §2.5 requires access-road construction and restoration to be billed as an “At Cost” pass-through, and §4.16 anticipates specialized waterway access (such as crane mats and geotechnical testing). The pricing workbook has no line item or pass-through field for these costs. Please explain how respondents will be reimbursed for access-road and waterway-access costs. (Appendix A §2.5, §4.16; Attachment 6.3)

The Contractor will be reimbursed by the Authorized User for these expenses at cost with no markup following the issuance of an Invoice from the Contractor identifying expenses and providing documentation supporting the expense.

32 Screening of earthen materials:

pricing line 39 (“Screening of Sand, Soil, Silt & Sediment”) is a pay item, but Appendix A §4.14 (earthen debris) does not describe screening or how it is measured. Please confirm how it will be measured and when screening is authorized. (Appendix A §4.14; Attachment 6.3, line 39)

The Line-Item for Screening of Earthen Materials has been removed from Appendix A and the Evaluation Model – Attachment 6.3.

33 Waterway debris removal:

Appendix A §4.16 says waterway removal “will depend on the type of debris being removed and be charged under that line-item,” and the schedule includes “from waterways and adjacent areas impacted by flooding” versions of several debris lines. Please confirm that all waterway debris removal is billed under these debris-type lines — that is, there is no separate standalone waterway pay item. (Appendix A §4.16; Attachment 6.3)

That is correct. There is no separate line-item for standalone waterway debris, but each debris type with the exception of Infectious Waste and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, & Nuclear Contaminated Debris have waterway removal line-item options.

34 “Reduced” vs. unreduced labeling: the pricing workbook labels line 5 “Loading and Hauling Vegetative Debris” (DMS→Final) and line 18 “…Reduced C&D Debris,” while Appendix A’s schedule labels line 5 as “…of Reduced Vegetative Debris.” Please confirm whether the DMS-to-final-disposal lines (5 and 18) are meant to cover only reduced material, or whether a separate line item for reduced vegetative debris (mulch) could be added. (Appendix A Schedule; Attachment 6.3, lines 5, 18)

The Evaluation Model – Attachment

6.3. and Appendix A have been updated. Please see the new Evaluation Model – Attachment 6.3.

and Version 2.0 of Appendix A.

35 Stumps and root-balls (pricing line 12) use a single “Per Root-ball” price for all stump sizes, while hazardous trees are priced in tiers by diameter (lines 8–11). Stumps are also distinguished by diameter, so the same

Appendix A and the Evaluation Model

– Attachment 6.3. have been updated to reflect these changes.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 10 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

approach the State already uses for trees could apply here. Because one price for all sizes may push respondents to price toward the largest, most labor-intensive root-balls, would the State consider pricing line 12 in tiers by stump/root-ball diameter — like the tree tiers on lines 8–11

— so the price reflects the actual work in each size range? (Attachment 6.3, line 12; cf. lines 8–11)

Suggested diameter tiers:

– 24″–36″

– 36″–47″

– 48″–71″

– greater than 71″

36 Trailers, vessels, and vehicles (pricing lines 30–31) use a single “Each Vehicle” price for everything from a passenger car to a 48-foot vessel. Because one price across that whole range may push respondents to price cautiously toward the largest items, would the State consider pricing lines 30–31 in size tiers — like the tree tiers on lines 8–11 — so the price reflects the actual handling and disposal cost of each size? (Attachment 6.3, lines 30–31; cf. lines 8–11)

Suggested tiers:

– up to 24 feet

– 25 feet to 48 feet

– greater than 48 feet

Appendix A and the Evaluation Model

– Attachment 6.3. have been updated to reflect these changes.

37 Appendix A §3.1.B requires the Authorized User to provide enough debris/field monitors, and §2.2.A requires all work to be supervised by a monitor the Authorized User selects. Because Authorized Users can include local governments and other entities (per Pro Forma §E.21), what assurance does the State provide that each Authorized User activating the contract will have qualified monitors in place at the time of a callout, so the contractor can start and keep working without delay?

(Appendix A §2.2.A, §3.1.B; Attachment 6.6 §E.21)

Under Section 2.2.A of Appendix A, Authorized Users must ensure that, “[d]uring operations”, the debris monitor is “physically located at a callout site or other Authorized User-designated location;” is “available immediately via phone and capable of reporting in person to an Authorized User designated location within forty-five (45) minutes of notification to correct any issues that may arise;” or “[r]eport[s] status of operations and utilization of Debris Removal Operations at interval times, as determined by the Authorized User, to an Authorized User designated representative.

38 If a monitor is not in place at the report date and time given in the callout

Per Appendix A, Section 2.0 Services to be provided by the Contractor:

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 11 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

(§3.1.A), what is the State’s or Authorized User’s backup plan to prevent contractor delays, and will the contractor be paid for standby or idle time caused by the missing monitor — especially since the Appendix A downtime provision addresses only delays caused by the contractor, and §C.4 limits standby-type pay? (Appendix A §3.1.A;

Attachment 6.6 §C.4)

The Contractor shall provide all equipment, labor, and materials necessary to perform the following listed services in accordance with all Contract terms. All debris removal operations must be performed by the Contractor in the presence of Authorized User personnel or their designated representative, unless otherwise approved by the Authorized User.

At the time the work is assigned, the Authorized User and Contractor should discuss the use of a Debris Monitor or coordinate for the presence of Authorized User personnel.

39 Section 4.8 cautions Respondents not to submit trade secrets and states the full response becomes open to public inspection. Will the State permit Respondents to submit a redacted 'public' version alongside the full response, or otherwise mark and protect genuinely proprietary/trade-secret material?

No, the Respondent should provide a response to the best of their ability with the understanding that all response contents are open to public inspection. Per Section 3.3.2. of RFP 32110-82026, A response must not restrict the rights of the State or otherwise qualify either the offer to deliver goods or provide services as required by this RFP or the Cost Proposal. If a response restricts the rights of the State or otherwise qualifies either the offer to deliver goods or provide services as required by this RFP or the Cost Proposal, the State, at its sole discretion, may determine the response to be a non-responsive counteroffer and reject it.

All responses are subject to the Open File period after the Notice of Intent is awarded and will be made available for public records request thereafter.

40 Pay item 7 prices hazardous hanging-limb cutting at ‘greater than 2″ diameter.’ Will the State please consider generalizing hanging-limb eligibility language with FEMA’s Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, Version 5 (effective January 5, 2025), which describes eligibility by immediate-threat criteria rather than a fixed diameter?

Appendix A and the Evaluation Model

– Attachment 6.3. have been updated to reflect these changes.

41 Does the State's email server have a maximum file size limit for incoming attachments? If so, what is that limit, and if a proposal exceeds that limit, may proposers submit their response across multiple emails provided each is clearly labeled with a

Due to size limitations on our network, E-mail submissions are limited to 20 megabytes in size per message.

Per Section 3.2.2.2. of the RFP, both the Technical Response and Cost

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 12 of 13

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

sequential identifier (e.g., "Technical Response 1 of 3")?

Proposal should be submitted separately in the form of one (1) digital document.

Per Section 3.3.6. of the RFP, A Respondent must not submit more than one Technical Response and one Cost Proposal in response this RFP, except as expressly requested by the State in this RFP.

42 Being that this solicitation concerns the entire state, haul distances to a DMS and Final disposal are unknown and could vary greatly. These haul distances affect the cost of hauling. Would the State consider mileage tiers?

No, the State is not open to this change.

43 Line Items 1 & 2- Waterway Debris Removal- There is a cost difference in waterway debris removal using LAND-Based equipment as opposed to using MARINE Based Equipment. Would the State please allow us to submit separate pricing for each of these two distinct services?

See the Answer from Question #33

44 Line Item # 12- Stump Removal- The size of the Stump affects the cost of removal. Industry standard is to price them by size categories (Example 24-36” diameter, 36-48" diameter, 48-72” diameter, >72” diameter. Would the state consider breaking out size groups?

See the Answer from Question #35

45 Line Item # 13- Reduction of Vegetative Debris. Would the State consider separating these line items?

See the Answer from Question #10

46 The RFP states the pricing sheet must be submitted exactly as it is, so if the State allows us to break out these distinct pricing points as requested, how should we submit them? Or will the State modify their pricing sheet?

Please refer to Evaluation Model v2.0

- Attachment 6.3. released with this Amendment.

47 On page 7, the RFP states:

NOTICE: A technical response must not include any pricing or cost information. If any pricing or cost information amounts of any type (even pricing relating to other projects) is included in any part of the technical response, the state may deem the response to be non-responsive and reject it. Typically, when providing either references or past performance information – we include cubic yardage from previous clients and invoice amounts. Should the invoice

As seen in the answer to Question #9, only the total value of previous projects or cubic yardage collected should be submitted to show project size and experience. Not both values.

RFP # 32110-82026 – Amendment # 5 Page 13 of 13

SECTION

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

amounts be omitted due to the requirement above?

48 Is the contractor responsible for the tipping fees?

Please refer to Appendix A Section

4.15 Disposal/Tipping Fees. All

disposal and tipping fees associated with final disposal will be reimbursed by the Authorized User for actual costs.

3. Delete RFP # 32110-82026, in its entirety, and replace it with RFP # 32110-82026 Release # 2, attached to this amendment. Revisions of the original RFP document are emphasized within the new release. Any sentence or paragraph containing revised or new text is highlighted.

4. RFP Amendment Effective Date. The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release. All other terms and conditions of this RFP not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.