rfq24_0002addendum2.pdf

Addendum No. 2 Pre-Qualification for Storm Drain Rehabilitation through Page 1 of 3 Internal Pipe Lining Priority 1 Pipes – Contract 6; RFQ No. 24-0002

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

PURCHASING DIVISION 1111 1st AVENUE – 1st FLOOR, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 31901

P. O. BOX 1340, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 31902-1340

706-225-4087, Fax 706-225-3033 ColumbusGA.gov

March 28, 2024

ADDENDUM NO. 2

Pre-Qualification for Storm Drain Rehabilitation through

Internal Pipe Lining Priority 1 Pipes – Contract 6 RFQ No. 24-0002

Use the form provided in the solicitation to acknowledge receipt of this addendum. Failure to do so may result in your submittal being deemed non-responsive and not receiving further consideration for award.

Vendors are informed that the above subject solicitation is hereby modified, corrected, or supplemented as specified, described and set forth in this addendum:

QUESTIONS/RESPONSES

1. What licenses are needed at time of bid?

Response: Georgia Utility Contractors License number and expiration date.

2. What is the contract term?

Response: The initial term of the contract will be for three years, with the option to renew for two additional twelve-month periods. Contract renewal shall be contingent upon the mutual agreement of the City and the Contractor.

Notice of intent to renew will be given to the contractor in writing by the City Purchasing Manager, normally sixty days before the expiration date of the current contract period. This notice will not be deemed to commit the City to a contract renewal.

It should be noted that multi-year contracts may be continued each fiscal year only after funding appropriations and program approvals have been granted by the Council of the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia. In the event that the necessary funding is not approved, then the affected multi-year contract becomes null and void, effective July 1st of the fiscal year for which such approval has been denied.

Termination for Convenience: For the protection of both parties, either party giving 60 days prior notice, in writing, to the other party, may cancel this contract.

3. Technical Experience Form 2, how many projects do we need to submit? Is this requirement different than the requirement on page 9, paragraph 2 asking to submit the last 10 projects?

COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

Georgia’s First Consolidated Government

Addendum No. 2 Pre-Qualification for Storm Drain Rehabilitation through Page 2 of 3

Response: No it is not different, it can be the same. You must submit at a minimum the last 10 projects.

4. Section III, A, 2. a. 2) on page 9 states, “The Installing Contractor for the cured-in-place reconstruction must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience using the exact named product proposed and, have installed at least 300,000 linear feet of the exact named proposed product including at least 20,000 feet of 24-inch diameter (or larger) cured-in-place product in the last five

(5) years. In addition, a minimum of 10,000 linear feet of 48- inch diameter or larger of the exact name brand product must have been installed in the United States. The installing Contractor must certify that the liner tube/resin composite system to be used is the exact system for which all submittals and certifications were made in the bid. No substitutions will be allowed, and misrepresentations or omissions may be grounds for contract termination with the Contractor waiving any and all claims against the Owner for work performed on costs incurred. Additionally, contact names, email addresses and telephone numbers from Contractor’s last ten (10) projects is required. Documentation shall be submitted in the Contractor’s bid.”

My firm meets the 300,000 linear feet requirement with one product, and we meet the 20,000 and 10,000 LF requirements with two products. In the interest of schedule and heathy, free-market competition, I do not allow my firm to sole-source on projects. The requirement, as expressed in Section III, A, 2. a. 2) requires that we sole-source on the Project. That seems to be an unintentional implication that hurts the Public’s interest in Work completed ahead of schedule and under budget.

Most delays and price escalations in our business are manufacturer-caused, and creating an environment that encourages competition is the only way - in my experience - to ensure the manufacturers do not create delays or price increases for their convenience.

Given that all CIPP must be the same and must pass the same tests to meet the Specifications, would the Owner revise Section III, A, 2. a. 2) to require that the Contractor have 300,000 LF of experience installing CIPP that meets CCG’s Specifications, at least 20,000 LF of which is 24”-diameter or larger, and at least 10,000 LF of which is 48” diameter or larger?

Response: The RFQ is looking for a company that has experience installing the same product that your company installs at the specified quantities.

5. Section III, A, 2. a. 4) on page 9 states, “The Contractor will be required to designate a wet-out facility and will be required to provide wet-out liner tubes from this designated facility only.

Multiple facilities to supply wet-out liner tubes for the duration of this Contract may not be used without prior approval of the Engineer.”

This is against our company policy. I can waive the company policy and comply, but I do not see what the Owner gains from requiring Contractors to sole-source, and there is MUCH to be lost, and I am happy to share the experiences I have with sole-sourcing.

Does the Owner truly want Contractors to sole-source products as vital as CIPP, or can this requirement be changed to state, “Contractor will be required to designate ALL wet-out facilities and will be required to provide wet-out liner tubes from these designated facilities. Unapproved facilities to supply wet-out liner tubes for the duration of this Contract may not be used without prior approval of the Engineer,”?

Response: Sole sourcing is not being requested, the RFQ is looking for quality control and uniform product quality. As stated in the RFQ, it would just have to be approved by the engineer.

Addendum No. 2 Pre-Qualification for Storm Drain Rehabilitation through Page 3 of 3

6. Section III, A, 4. a. on page 11 states the following: “Provide a list of all projects completed over the last two years with all information on projects as required on Technical Experience Project Information Form. Omission of any projects may be grounds for disqualification.”

My firm completed 388 projects in 2023. Filling out a Technical Experience Project Information for all of those and a similar number of projects in 2022 to avoid disqualification seems like a more strenuous demand than the Owner means to place on firms interested and competing to work for it.

Additionally, this would become a huge file that would be difficult to convey. Would the Owner consider revising the language to require that we provide all information on projects as required on Technical Experience Project Information for 5 projects from each year, and additionally list the name of each distinct customer for whom we completed projects in those two years?

Response: Yes, this would be adequate to fulfill the intent.

7. Section III, A, 2, b, 2) on page 10 states the following: “Contractor/Installer Experience: The

Contractor installing the lining system must have a minimum of 20,000 linear feet of installation history with the particular product installed and that a minimum of 2,000 linear feet of 54- inch or larger. The Contractor must have references dating back at least five (5) years of installation history with the particular lining system they are installing.”

In addition to potentially causing some of the same sole-sourcing issues described above in question 4, this requirement raises an additional concern. Currently, the best Geopoymer Lining system on the market is a newer product. It is manufactured by a well-established manufacturer, but it is an improvement. Why would CCG prefer the older, lesser product? Would the Owner consider replacing “particular product” with “particular manufacturer’s product” and replacing “particular lining system” with “particular manufacturer’s lining system”?

Additionally, we have seen more poor and under-qualified contractors cause larger issues in the Centrifugally Cast and Geopolymer markets than we have in the CIPP market. Given that fact, it seems inconsistent that the Owner would allow such inexperienced Contractors to perform this type of work, when the CIPP experience requirements are stringent and exclusionary, as I am sure they are meant to me.

Would the Owner consider changing the 20,000 LF requirement to a 100,000 or 200,000 LF requirement? This change would reflect the fact that there are less pipes available to rehab via this technology without allowing a Contractor with very little experience performing Centrifugally Cast or Geopolymer work to qualify. To do anything less than 100,000 LF in a 5-year period, as required, is to have very inexperienced personnel.

Response: The requirement listed in the RFQ will remain as is.

Andrea J. McCorvey, Purchasing Manager