WILDLIFE_WATERS_CONSTRUCTION_AND_REDEVELOPMENT_Eds_Edits_02-03-2021.pdf
PDF 282 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Master Agreement AZ|CTR055131
- Contract number
- CTR055131
- Issued by
- Arizona
About this file
This document appears to be a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Wildlife Waters Construction and Redevelopment, likely issued by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). The document contains review notes addressing various sections of the proposal, including background, project estimates, work location, evaluation criteria, and proposal format requirements.
The RFP outlines an evaluation process with specific criteria, including 10% allocation for Method of Approach and 10% for Cost. The proposal requests details on experience, reliability, and methods of approach from potential contractors. While specific project details are not fully elaborated in these review notes, the document suggests a construction and redevelopment project related to wildlife waters, with an emphasis on contractor qualifications, technical approach, and cost effectiveness. The document appears to be an internal review draft with suggested corrections and formatting adjustments.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
WILFLIFE WATERS CONSTRUCTION AND REDEVELOPMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPSAL
Addressing the comments in RED
2. BACKGROUND
2.2. This paragraph looks fine - no substantive changes
3. PROJECT ESTIMATES
2.4 I can’t find an Exhibit II
1. WORK LOCATION:
3.1 I can’t find an Exhibit I that shows the AGFD Regional boundaries
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA
4.3 Method of Approach 20% 10%
4.4 Other? Nothing
4.5 Cost 10%
1.3 LIABILITY INSURANCE
Shouldn’t that be 5.3 rather than 1.3?
6. Proposal Format (shouldn’t it be PROPOSAL FORMAT)
The first paragraph is fine
6.1 Experience and Reliability (shouldn’t it be EXPERIENCE AND RELIABILITY)
That’s fine – no changes
6.1.1 No substantive changes
6.1.2 No substantive changes
6.1.3 No substantive changes
6.1.4 No substantive changes
5.1.4.1 should be 6.1.4.1
5.1.4.2 should be 6.1.4.2
6.2 No substantive changes
6.2.1 No substantive changes
6.2.2 No substantive changes
6.2.3 No substantive changes
6.3 Methods of Approach (shouldn’t it be METHODS OF APPROACH)
6.3.1 No substantive changes other than some spacing issues in b, c and d.
6.3.2 No substantive changes
6.4 No substantive changes
6.5 No substantive changes
6.6 No substantive changes
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .