RFP Clarifying Questions 1.pdf
PDF 328 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-C01010-00006912
- Issued by
- Clackamas County, Mission CDP, Oregon
About this file
This document is a response to clarifying questions submitted by interested firms regarding Request for Proposals (RFP) #2023-45 issued by Clackamas County, Oregon for Architectural and Engineering Services for the Kellogg Creek Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF) Administration Building Remodel Project. The RFP requests information on the proposer's experience, key project team member resumes, and design considerations for a new lab space in the building remodel. Clarifications are provided regarding the differentiation between sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the RFP, the required length of resumes, and considerations for designing the lab space.
The related state and local contract opportunity is for the Kellogg Creek Administration Building Remodel Project, to be performed in Clackamas County and Oregon City, Oregon. The RFP does not provide details on pricing terms, set asides, incumbents, funding requirements and sources, or contract term and renewal options.
View the file
Other files
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 #2023-45
ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
KELLOGG CREEK WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY (WRRF)
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT
RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS #1
June 5, 2023
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. P. 12, section 5.4: the last bullet point requests identification of the firm’s accomplishments in similar projects, and asks for a list of similar projects. However, Section 5.5 also appears to ask for the same type of project experience. Are you looking for project experience to be duplicated in both sections, or is something different desired in each section? Given the limited space, it would be good to understand exactly what is desired.
Answer: 5.4 refers to proposer's experience and could also include that of team members (when with another firm) and/or sub-consultants. 5.5 refers to the proposing firm's experience.
2. P. 13, section 5.7 requests two-page resumes of key project team members. Most team resumes are designed to fit on one page, must the resumes be two pages each? Is there specific information the evaluation team is looking for that should be included?
Answer: The resumes should be two pages maximum. One page is fine. The information to be included is up to you.
3. A new lab space is proposed, but it appears fairly small and limited. Should the design team include a lab designer to help design the lab spaces and select equipment or does WES have enough in-house expertise to guide design of the lab?
Answer: Your design team should be configured to deliver a successful project based on what you know of WES expertise.
End of Clarifying Questions #1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .