RFP_7400_SMW3040_ADD_1_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 7400 SMW3040 Addendum No: 1 Date: August 27, 2026

This addendum is to incorporate the following changes to the above referenced solicitation:

1.0 Questions:

1. Q: Please provide the total assets under management and, if possible, the current investment line-up if there is one.

A: The City of Austin does not currently have an OPEB trust.

2. Q: How many participants are currently receiving other post-employment benefit reimbursements from the trust?

3. Q: Is the City seeking reimbursement services for plan participants in addition to trust administration services?

A: The City of Austin is not seeking reimbursement services for plan participants at this time.

4. Q: Who is the current administrator and where are the assets held?

5. Q: What are the current fees for trust administration (please indicate both flat and asset based, if applicable)?

6. Q: Would the City consider moving the assets to another trust under new administration?

7. Q: Is the City looking for any enhancements with a new administrator?

A: The City of Austin does not currently have an OPEB trust. The City of Austin is seeking an administrator who can assist with the creation of the trust and the business processes in support of the trust.

8. Q; What pain points, if any, does the City currently experience in the current running of the trust?

9. Q: How much does the City have set aside to contribute into an OPEB Section 115 Trust?

10. Q: Can you provide a copy of the ‘City-approved data security and privacy protocols’?

A: The City would expect and have the recommended contractor attest they meet the NIST 800-53 Moderate Controls with the privacy overlay.

11. Q: Is there a preferred trust document template (e.g., a specific IRS Section 115 model)?

A; No, the City of Austin will work with the selected vendor to select an appropriate model that meets the needs of the trust. The City of Austin does want the selected trust to comply with IRS Section 115.

12. Q: The Scope of Work item 4 (page 2) states that the Contractor "is not licensed to provide and does not offer tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial advice." However, the RFP also requests services that appear to require investment and actuarial expertise. On the investment side, the Proposed Methodology section (Solicitation Instructions, 10.7, pages 8 to 9) asks the Offeror to develop an investment policy and asset allocation guidelines and to provide investment performance history and reporting. On the actuarial side, the Scope of Work (page 2) asks the Contractor to facilitate actuarial valuation updates and funding modifications for GASB compliance, and the RFP requests recommendations on initial and ongoing contributions to the trust.

a. How should Offerors reconcile the disclaimer in Scope of Work item 4 with these requirements?

A: Although not an expert, the City of Austin would expect that a vendor who administers OPEB trusts with other governments would have similar responsibilities, for example, reviewing investment policy, asset allocation guidelines and the ability to work closely with actuaries to appropriately reflect the value of the trust in their actuarial work.

b. Does the City plan to separately retain an investment consultant for this scope, or will a bundled response that includes trust administration and investment consulting, through the prime and its subcontractors, be considered?

A; The City of Austin would consider a “bundled response” but is also anticipates contracting with separate vendors to provide these necessary services (investment consulting, actuarial services, etc.).

c. Is it permissible to include a team member with actuarial credentials as part of the proposed team?

A: Yes, the City of Austin does not want to place any constraints on the skills and abilities of the team submitting a response to this RFP.

13. Q: Is the Contractor expected to serve as directed trustee/custodian directly, or may it partner with (or subcontract to) a separate corporate trustee/custodian bank?

A: The City of Austin does not have a pre-determined direction in this area, so the proposer is open to respond as they deem appropriate.

14. Q: Are subcontractors required or anticipated for specialized functions (actuarial, legal, investment management), and if so, is there a preference for how those relationships should be structured and disclosed?

A: This solicitation has no subcontracting goals however Offerors who wish to subcontract can find information on subcontracting starting on page 9 of the Offer and Certifications Form of the solicitation.

15. Q: The stated page limits (e.g., 2 pages for Executive Summary, 8 pages for Qualifications, 30 pages for Methodology) — do these limits include exhibits, resumes, charts/graphs, or appendices, or are those excluded?

A: Any additional exhibits, resumes, charts/graphs and appendices can be excluded from page limit requirements, however please note that those will not be factored into scoring of response. Only those pages within the limits will be used for evaluation.

16. Q: Given the Executive Summary must be "on official business letterhead and signed" — is a scanned or electronic signature acceptable given all submissions must be electronic per Section 5.1?

A: Yes, digital or scanned signatures are acceptable.

17. Q: With a 36-month base term plus two 36-month renewal options (up to 9 years total), should pricing include any assumed escalation/adjustment methodology for the renewal periods, or will pricing be renegotiated at each option?

A: Any proposed price increases beyond the initial 36-month term must be clearly reflected in the submitted pricing and accompanied by a detailed explanation. Complete contract pricing is required.

18. Q: Section 2(K) of the Scope of Work references "City-approved data security and privacy protocols" — does the City have a specific framework or standard (e.g., NIST 800-53, SOC 2 Type II) that Offerors should reference or attest to in their proposal?

A: Please see question 10 above

19. Q: The Solicitation Cover Sheet lists the packet under "RFP 7100 SMW3040" in the Solicitation Documents table, while the number used everywhere else is "RFP 7400 SMW3040." Please confirm this is a typo and that RFP 7400 SMW3040 is the correct/controlling number.

A: That was a typo in the cover sheet and has been corrected. The correct number is RFP 7400 SMW3040

20. Q: The Scope of Work refers to the "City of Austin Post-Retirement Health Care Plan Trust," while the Cover Sheet refers to the "Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund." Please confirm these refer to the same trust/plan.

A: Yes, the “City of Austin Post-Retirement Health Care Plan” is the formal name for the Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund referenced in the Cover Sheet.

2.0 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Offeror Name Offeror Authorized Signature Date

RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE SOLICITATION CLOSING

DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

Solicitation: RFP 7400 SMW3040 Addendum No: 1 Date: August 27, 2026