Wood_Pole_Inspection,_Treatment,_Repair,_and_UAV_Inspection_Services_(Addendum_#2_Revision).pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

WOOD POLE INSPECTION, TREATMENT, REPAIR, AND

UAV INSPECTION SERVICES

FOR THE

WATER & POWER DEPARTMENT, POWER DELIVERY

CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

Request for Proposals - Wood Pole Inspection, Treatment, Repair, and UAV Inspection Services Release Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026

Attachments:

A - Wood_Pole_Inspection_Specs_Attachment_A-FY27 B - Insurance Requirements - Utility Pole Inspection Services D - Master Services Contract E - REQUIRED FORMS - AAs - SIG-LEGAL-STATUS - DECLARATION OF NONCOLUSION 08022024 v2

F - DISQUALIFICATION_DISCLOSURE (4)

H - CONFLICT_OF_INTEREST (5)

N - Pasadena_Taxpayer_Protection_Amendment_Disclosure (2) O - DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVESdocx

1. Introduction

1. Summary

The City of Pasadena Water and Power Department (“PWP”) is seeking proposals from qualified and experienced firms to provide wood pole inspection, repair, restoration, treatment, and related reporting services for PWP’s electric distribution system. The selected firm will support PWP’s ongoing maintenance and compliance program for wood poles, including visual inspections, intrusive inspections, groundline inspections, preservative treatments, minor corrective repairs, pole reinforcement recommendations, installation of approved repair materials, and detailed reporting of observed conditions.

PWP’s wood pole program is intended to support safe, reliable, and compliant operation of the electric distribution system in accordance with applicable requirements, including California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) General Order 95, Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, and CPUC General Order 165, Inspection Requirements for Electric Distribution and Transmission Facilities. PWP’s system includes approximately 11,000 wood poles, including both municipally owned and jointly owned poles. A significant portion of the pole population is located in rear property or otherwise constrained access locations.

The scope of services may include, but is not limited to, pole condition assessment, identification of structural damage or decay, inspection for General Order 95 infractions, groundline and below-ground inspections, preservative and fumigant treatment, installation of visibility strips, guy guards, ground molding, pole tags, and steel truss reinforcement where approved by PWP.

The selected firm shall also provide detailed inspection records, photographs, condition ratings, repair recommendations, and electronic data deliverables in a format acceptable to PWP.

In addition to conventional field inspection and treatment services, PWP intends to include drone or other unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) inspection services under the resulting contract.

UAV services may be used to supplement field inspections, improve access to difficult or hazardous locations, document pole-top conditions, capture high-resolution imagery, and support more efficient assessment of pole attachments, crossarms, hardware, conductors, insulators, and other visible overhead facilities. UAV services shall be performed by qualified, FAA-compliant personnel and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

The selected firm shall furnish all supervision, labor, materials, equipment, vehicles, tools, technology, software, transportation, permits, methods, processes, and incidentals necessary to complete the work in accordance with the final scope of services, applicable laws and regulations, industry standards, and PWP requirements.

2. Background

The City of Pasadena is an ethnically diverse community that is home to approximately 142,017 people. Pasadena is the ninth-largest city in Los Angeles County. It is one of the primary cultural centers of the San Gabriel Valley. The City covers approximately 22.5 square miles, with an average of ten residents per acre. The median age of its residents is approximately 36.9 years.

There are over 100,000 jobs in a wide variety of industries in the City of Pasadena.

Pasadena Water and Power is a municipally owned and operated utility that provides electric and water service to the city of Pasadena. PWP owns, operates, and maintains a citywide electric distribution system that serves residential, commercial, institutional, and municipal customers throughout an approximately 23-square-mile service area.

PWP’s Power Delivery Division is responsible for the operation, maintenance, engineering, construction, and reliability of the electric distribution system. This work is performed through multiple functional groups, including Engineering, Transmission and Distribution, Meter, Substation Maintenance, Power Dispatch, and related support sections. These groups collectively support system reliability, public safety, emergency response, capital improvement projects, routine maintenance, and regulatory compliance.

PWP’s overhead distribution system includes approximately 11,000 wood poles, including both City-owned and jointly owned poles. The pole population includes poles located in streets, alleys, easements, rear property areas, and other locations that may present varying levels of access difficulty. Many poles support multiple facilities and attachments, including electric distribution conductors, transformers, streetlight equipment, communication attachments, grounding systems, guying, and related appurtenances.

Wood pole inspection, treatment, repair, and documentation are essential to maintaining the integrity of PWP’s overhead distribution system. Properly performed inspections help identify decay, insect damage, mechanical damage, pole-top defects, pole-line hardware issues, groundline deterioration, unsafe conditions, and potential General Order 95 infractions.

Preservative treatment and approved reinforcement methods may extend the useful life of serviceable poles, while timely reporting allows PWP to plan corrective maintenance, replacement, or other follow-up work.

The previous contract for these services was established through an Invitation for Bids process.

For this procurement, PWP intends to use a Request for Proposals process to allow the City to evaluate proposer qualifications, inspection methodology, technical approach, staffing, data management capabilities, safety practices, quality control procedures, experience with utility wood pole programs, and ability to incorporate modern inspection tools, including drone/UAV services. This approach is intended to provide PWP with greater flexibility to select the firm that offers the best overall combination of technical competence, regulatory understanding, field capability, data quality, and value.

3. Contact Information

Deadline for Questions

The deadline to submit questions related to this solicitation is Tuesday, September 15, 2026, prior to 11:00 am.

Questions regarding this solicitation should be submitted directly through the City's eProcurement Portal Q&A function. Do not contact any City employee or official regarding this solicitation. Any questions submitted after the date and time specified may not be considered.

Project Contact:

Renea Rangel Management Analyst III Email: rerangel@cityofpasadena.net Phone: (626) 744-4447 Procurement Contact:

Antonio Watson Project Manager Email: awatson@cityofpasadena.net Phone: (626) 744-8382 Department:

Water & Power Department, Power Delivery

4. Timeline

Release Project Date September 1, 2026

Question Submission Deadline September 15, 2026, 11:00am

Proposal Submission Deadline October 13, 2026, 11:00am mailto:rerangel@cityofpasadena.net tel:(626)744-4447 mailto:awatson@cityofpasadena.net tel:(626)744-8382

2. General Instructions

1. NOTICE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT

All responses to this Request for Proposal (RFP) accepted by the City of Pasadena (City) shall become the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City Manager recommends a contractor to the City Council, and such recommendation, with any recommended contract appears on the Council agenda, all proposals accepted by the City shall become a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public, with the exception of those elements of each proposal which are defined by the contractor as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as "Trade Secret", "Confidential" or "Proprietary". Each element of a proposal which a contractor desires not to be considered a public record must be clearly marked as set forth above, and any blanket statement (i.e. regarding entire pages, documents or other non-specific designations) shall not be sufficient and shall not bind the City in any way whatsoever. If disclosure is required or permitted under the California Public Records Act or otherwise by law, the City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such records or part thereof.

2. Electronic Submission and Delivery Instructions

Parties interested in responding are required to submit proposals electronically through the City of Pasadena's eProcurement Portal no later than 11:00 am on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. Please upload sufficiently early electronically through the city's eProcurement Portal before the time and day listed in the Notice Inviting Proposals. Proposals must be received in the system prior to the deadline.

The entire proposal must be formatted on standard-size 8½”x11” pages; 12 point font only. The "Technical Proposal," "Additional Data," and "Statement of Qualifications" can be no more than 50 grand total pages.

The Price Proposal must include all costs associated with the Technical Proposal as described in the Price Proposal instructions in the “#Proposer's Submittals/Checklist.”

The Technical Proposal should disclose your technical approach in as much detail as possible, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the technical proposal instructions. Along with all required forms and submittals (See #Attachments, and #Proposer's Submittals/Checklist. No Pricing shall be included in this part.

Proposals received after the Proposal Deadline may not be accepted by the City.

3. Technical Proposal https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pasadena https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pasadena/projects/263470/document?section=2529569 https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pasadena/projects/263470/document?section=2529579 https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pasadena/projects/263470/document?section=2529569

The proposal must be prepared in two parts: a "Technical Proposal" and a "Price Proposal." Each of the parts shall be separate and complete in itself so evaluation of one may be accomplished separate from the evaluation of the other. The Technical Proposal should disclose your technical approach in as much detail as possible, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the technical proposal instructions. Along with all required forms and submittals (See #Attachments, and Submittals/Checklist. No Pricing shall be included in this part.

The proposer shall submit a complete technical proposal describing how it will perform the services required by this solicitation. The technical proposal should be sufficiently detailed to allow the City to evaluate the proposer’s understanding of the work, proposed methodology, qualifications, staffing, safety and quality control practices, reporting capabilities, technology, and ability to successfully perform the services.

The technical proposal shall be organized using the headings and sequence below. Proposers should provide specific information, examples, and supporting documentation rather than general statements or restatements of the Scope of Work.

The technical proposal shall not include pricing. All pricing shall be submitted separately in the Cost Proposal in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

1. Executive Summary

The proposer shall provide a concise executive summary, not exceeding two pages, that includes:

a. A brief overview of the proposer’s recommended approach to performing the required services;

b. The proposer’s principal qualifications and experience relevant to the project;

c. Identification of the proposed project manager and key subcontractors, if applicable;

and

d. The principal features or advantages that distinguish the proposal.

Detailed information regarding project understanding, methodology, staffing, qualifications, innovations, assumptions, and exceptions shall be provided in the applicable sections of the Technical Proposal.

2. Understanding of the Project and PWP’s Operating Environment

The proposer shall demonstrate its understanding of PWP’s wood pole system, operating environment, and project requirements.

The response shall address, at a minimum:

a. The purpose and objectives of PWP’s wood pole inspection, treatment, repair, and restoration program;

b. The importance of maintaining compliance with applicable California Public Utilities Commission General Orders, including General Orders 95 and 165;

c. The operational and safety considerations associated with performing work near energized electric distribution facilities;

https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pasadena/projects/263470/document?section=undefined

d. The challenges associated with inspecting and treating poles located in rear-property areas, alleys, easements, landscaped areas, paved areas, constrained-access locations, and private property;

e. The potential presence of jointly owned poles and facilities belonging to communication companies or other utilities;

f. The need to coordinate work with PWP personnel, customers, property owners, public agencies, and other affected parties;

g. The importance of accurate and timely reporting of hazardous, urgent, or potentially noncompliant conditions;

h. The importance of maintaining complete, accurate, and usable inspection and maintenance records; and

i. The proposer’s identification of significant project risks, constraints, or implementation challenges and its recommended approach to addressing them.

3. Technical Approach and Work Methodology

The proposer shall describe its proposed methodology for performing the required services. The response shall explain how the proposed approach meets or exceeds the minimum requirements stated in the Scope of Work.

3.1 Visual Inspection

The proposer shall describe:

a. Its procedures for visually inspecting poles from the groundline to the pole top;

b. The conditions, defects, attachments, and potential General Order 95 issues that will be evaluated;

c. The tools, forms, software, and equipment used during visual inspections;

d. Its approach to documenting pole lean, cracks, checks, decay, fire damage, insect or animal damage, damaged attachments, grounding deficiencies, clearance concerns, and other observable conditions;

e. Its approach to photographing and documenting each inspected pole;

f. Its procedures for identifying and immediately reporting hazardous or urgent conditions; and

g. Any limitations of visual inspection and when additional investigation would be recommended.

3.2 Intrusive, Groundline, and Below-Ground Inspection

The proposer shall describe:

a. Its methodology for sounding, boring, probing, excavation, shell-thickness measurement, and evaluation of internal or external decay;

b. The tools and equipment used to conduct intrusive and below-ground inspections;

c. Its procedures for identifying hollow heart, shell rot, internal decay, insect galleries, external decay, and other structural deficiencies;

d. Its method for determining effective groundline circumference or remaining pole strength;

e. Its approach to poles located in asphalt, concrete, sidewalks, landscaped areas, or other difficult surfaces;

f. Its procedures for plugging inspection holes, backfilling excavations, replacing sod, and restoring the work area;

g. Its approach to minimizing damage to landscaping and private or public property; and

h. Any alternate or supplemental inspection technologies proposed.

3.3 Pole Condition Assessment and Recommendations

The proposer shall describe its method for evaluating and classifying pole condition.

The response shall include:

a. The proposed pole-condition rating or classification system;

b. The criteria used to determine whether a pole may remain in service without corrective action;

c. The criteria used to recommend treatment, monitoring, reinforcement, repair, or replacement;

d. The methodology used to evaluate remaining pole strength;

e. The process for documenting the basis for each recommendation;

f. The process for resolving inconsistent or inconclusive inspection results;

g. The procedures for obtaining supervisory or engineering review of unusual conditions; and

h. Sample condition-rating definitions, decision matrices, or inspection guidelines used on comparable projects.

Final decisions regarding pole replacement, reinforcement, or other corrective action will remain with PWP.

3.4 Preservative and Fumigant Treatment

The proposer shall describe:

a. The proposed external preservative treatment methods and materials;

b. The proposed internal preservative or fumigant treatment methods and materials;

c. Procedures for preparing the pole surface and removing external decay;

d. Procedures for applying pastes, liquids, wraps, fumigants, or other approved treatment products;

e. Procedures for treating poles with internal voids, hollow heart, insect damage, or decay;

f. Procedures for handling, storing, transporting, applying, documenting, and disposing of treatment products;

g. Procedures for protecting vegetation, landscaping, waterways, private property, and public improvements;

h. Procedures for documenting the treatment product, application rate, quantity, date, applicator, and location;

i. Proposed treatment warranties or guarantees, if any; and

j. Any recommended improvements or alternatives to the treatment requirements identified by

PWP.

The proposer shall identify all proposed treatment products and provide applicable product information, labels, safety data sheets, and regulatory approvals.

3.5 Repair, Restoration, and Reinforcement

The proposer shall describe its approach to:

a. Installing or replacing pole tags;

b. Installing or replacing visibility strips;

c. Installing or replacing ground molding;

d. Installing or replacing guy guards;

e. Performing other authorized minor repairs;

f. Evaluating whether a pole is suitable for reinforcement;

g. Installing steel C-trusses or approved equivalent reinforcement systems;

h. Determining the placement, orientation, anchoring depth, banding, and configuration of reinforcement materials;

i. Protecting grounding systems, underground facilities, pole attachments, and surrounding property during reinforcement work;

j. Inspecting and documenting completed repair and reinforcement work; and

k. Identifying conditions that make a pole unsuitable for reinforcement.

The proposer shall identify the reinforcement products it proposes to use and provide manufacturer specifications, installation requirements, warranties, and evidence of successful use on comparable utility systems.

3.6 Work Planning, Scheduling, and Production

The proposer shall describe:

a. Its approach to planning and scheduling assigned work;

b. Anticipated production rates for each major inspection, treatment, repair, and reinforcement activity;

c. Procedures for scheduling work in rear-property and restricted-access locations;

d. Procedures for responding to customer access refusals, inaccessible poles, weather delays, emergency conditions, or other obstacles;

e. Its ability to increase or decrease staffing in response to PWP’s workload and priorities;

f. Its process for tracking assigned, completed, incomplete, and deferred work;

g. Procedures for coordinating daily and weekly field activities with PWP;

h. Its ability to respond to urgent assignments or hazardous conditions; and

i. Any proposed minimum assignment quantities, mobilization requirements, or geographic limitations.

3.7 Customer, Property Owner, and Stakeholder Coordination

The proposer shall describe its approach to coordinating field activities with PWP, customers, property owners, residents, businesses, public agencies, communication companies, and other affected parties.

The response shall address:

a. Procedures for providing advance notice of inspection, treatment, repair, reinforcement, or UAV activities;

b. Procedures for obtaining access to rear-property, private-property, easement, fenced, or otherwise restricted pole locations;

c. Procedures for documenting customer contacts, notices, access attempts, access refusals, and unavailable customers;

d. Proposed standards for employee identification, uniforms, badges, marked vehicles, and professional conduct;

e. Procedures for coordinating work that may affect streets, alleys, sidewalks, traffic, pedestrians, landscaping, private property, or other utilities;

f. Procedures for responding to customer questions, complaints, concerns, or claims;

g. Procedures for documenting, reporting, and correcting damage to public or private property;

h. Procedures for escalating unresolved access, customer, safety, or coordination issues to PWP;

i. Procedures for coordinating with PWP when contractor activities may interfere with normal or emergency utility operations; and

j. Any assumptions regarding customer notification materials, mailing, translation, scheduling support, or assistance to be provided by PWP.

3.8 Mobilization and Contract Implementation

The proposer shall provide a preliminary implementation plan describing how it will begin and transition into full contract operations.

The plan shall address:

a. Proposed startup and mobilization activities;

b. Anticipated time required to begin field services following authorization to proceed;

c. Mobilization of personnel, vehicles, tools, equipment, materials, software, and technology;

d. Verification of required licenses, certifications, insurance, training, and other documentation;

e. Assignment and onboarding of the proposed project manager, supervisors, field personnel, data personnel, and subcontractors;

f. Project-specific safety orientation and training;

g. Coordination with PWP regarding work assignments, maps, pole records, asset identifiers, customer notification, access, and field priorities;

h. Development, review, testing, and approval of inspection forms, condition codes, reports, data formats, and quality-control procedures;

i. Initial EAM or GIS data-mapping and systems-integration activities;

j. Proposed pilot, testing, or initial field-validation activities before full production;

k. Procedures for identifying and resolving startup issues;

l. Proposed schedule for achieving full production capacity; and

m. Procedures for transitioning records, data, outstanding work, and other responsibilities at contract expiration or termination.

4. Qualifications, Experience, Staffing, and Capacity

The proposer shall demonstrate that it possesses the experience, personnel, resources, and organizational capacity necessary to successfully perform the required services. The response shall address the following:

4.1 Firm Qualifications and Comparable Experience

The proposer shall describe:

a. The number of years the firm has provided wood pole inspection, treatment, repair, restoration, or reinforcement services;

b. Its experience performing comparable services for electric utilities, particularly municipal utilities or utilities operating in California;

c. Its experience with utility systems of similar size, complexity, pole population, and operating conditions;

d. Its experience performing visual, intrusive, groundline, and below-ground inspections;

e. Its experience applying preservatives, fumigants, pesticides, and other pole-treatment products;

f. Its experience installing steel trusses or other pole-reinforcement systems;

g. Its experience working in rear-property, private-property, paved, landscaped, or constrained-access locations;

h. Its experience identifying and reporting General Order 95 conditions and other utility safety deficiencies;

i. Its experience providing electronic inspection records, photographs, GIS-compatible data, EAM integration, and asset-management deliverables; and

j. Its experience providing drone/UAV inspection services for electric utility infrastructure.

The proposer shall identify at least five comparable projects completed or substantially completed within the past six years. For each project, provide:

Client name;

• Project name and location;

• Contract term and approximate contract amount;

• Approximate number of poles inspected, treated, repaired, or reinforced;

• Description of services performed;

• Description of electronic reporting, GIS, EAM, or UAV services provided;

• Names of the proposer’s key personnel who worked on the project;

• Explanation of any significant performance issues, claims, disputes, or schedule delays;

and

• Client contact name, title, telephone number, and email address.

4.2 Proposed Project Team and Subcontractors

The proposer shall provide:

a. An organizational chart identifying the proposed project manager, supervisors, inspectors, treatment and reinforcement personnel, data-management personnel, drone/UAV personnel, and subcontractors;

b. The name, title, proposed role, responsibilities, and anticipated level of commitment of each key person;

c. Résumés for the proposed project manager and other key personnel;

d. Relevant experience of each key person performing comparable electric utility wood pole services;

e. Licenses, certifications, specialized training, and technical qualifications held by proposed personnel;

f. The proposer’s process for training, qualifying, supervising, and evaluating field personnel;

g. The proposed communication and escalation process between the proposer and PWP; and

h. Identification of the person authorized to make commitments and resolve contract-performance issues on behalf of the proposer.

The proposer shall identify each proposed subcontractor, the work to be performed by that subcontractor, and its relevant qualifications and experience.

4.3 Staffing, Resources, and Capacity

The proposer shall describe:

a. The number and composition of crews available to perform the work;

b. The vehicles, tools, equipment, materials, software, and technology available for the contract;

c. The location from which crews and equipment will be dispatched;

d. The proposer’s anticipated production capacity for the principal inspection, treatment, repair, reinforcement, and UAV activities;

e. The availability and commitment of the proposed project manager and key personnel;

f. Its ability to replace unavailable personnel without disrupting performance;

g. Its ability to increase or decrease staffing in response to PWP’s workload and priorities;

h. Its ability to manage multiple crews working at geographically dispersed locations; and

i. Its ability to respond to urgent assignments, changing field conditions, or changes in PWP’s priorities.

5. Safety, Environmental Compliance, and Quality Control

The proposer shall describe its approach to safely performing the required services, complying with applicable environmental and regulatory requirements, and ensuring the accuracy and quality of all field work and deliverables.

The response shall address the following:

5.1 Safety Program

The proposer shall describe:

a. Its written safety program applicable to wood pole inspection, treatment, repair, reinforcement, and drone/UAV activities;

b. Procedures for performing work near energized overhead electric facilities and for treating all lines and equipment as energized unless otherwise directed by PWP;

c. Minimum qualifications, training, and experience required for personnel working near energized facilities;

d. Job hazard analysis, tailboard meeting, job briefing, and stop-work procedures;

e. Personal protective equipment requirements;

f. Minimum approach-distance and electrical hazard procedures;

g. Traffic, pedestrian, and work-area control procedures;

h. Procedures for working in rear-property, fenced, uneven, steep, paved, landscaped, or otherwise constrained locations;

i. Procedures for identifying underground facilities and preventing damage to grounding systems, utilities, landscaping, and property;

j. Emergency response, incident notification, accident investigation, and corrective-action procedures;

k. Safety training and refresher-training requirements;

l. Procedures for monitoring the safety performance of employees and subcontractors; and

m. Relevant safety performance information during the past five calendar years, including reportable incidents, citations, violations, claims, or corrective actions.

The proposer shall identify any material safety citation, regulatory action, or significant incident associated with comparable work and describe the corrective action taken.

5.2 Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

The proposer shall describe:

a. All contractor, pest-control, pesticide-application, FAA, business, and other licenses or certifications required for the proposed services;

b. Procedures for supervising personnel who handle or apply preservatives, fumigants, pesticides, or other regulated materials;

c. Procedures for maintaining product labels, safety data sheets, application records, usage reports, and other required regulatory documentation;

d. Procedures for handling, storing, securing, transporting, applying, and disposing of preservatives, fumigants, pesticides, contaminated materials, containers, and related waste;

e. Spill-prevention, containment, cleanup, notification, reporting, and documentation procedures;

f. Procedures for protecting waterways, vegetation, landscaped areas, gardens, animals, public improvements, and private property;

g. Procedures for managing excavated soil, decayed wood, excess treatment materials, and other waste generated by the work;

h. Procedures for responding to environmental complaints, accidental releases, or suspected contamination; and

i. Its process for monitoring and implementing changes in applicable environmental and regulatory requirements.

The proposer shall identify the proposed treatment products and provide applicable product information, regulatory approvals, labels, and safety data sheets as supporting attachments.

5.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The proposer shall provide a quality assurance and quality control plan covering inspection, treatment, repair, reinforcement, UAV inspection, reporting, data management, and invoicing activities.

The plan shall describe:

a. Supervisory review and field verification procedures;

b. The frequency, methodology, and sample size of internal reinspections or quality-control checks;

c. Verification of pole identification numbers, locations, photographs, and associated asset records;

d. Validation of inspection findings, measurements, condition ratings, and recommendations;

e. Verification of treatment products, application methods, quantities, and treatment records;

f. Inspection and acceptance procedures for repair and reinforcement work;

g. Review of photographs, UAV imagery, electronic records, and supporting attachments;

h. Procedures for identifying incomplete, inconsistent, duplicate, inaccurate, or improperly mapped records;

i. Procedures for correcting deficient field work and resubmitting corrected records;

j. Root-cause analysis and corrective-action procedures for recurring errors or deficiencies;

k. Procedures for responding to PWP quality-control inspections and findings;

l. Procedures for retraining, reassigning, or replacing personnel whose work does not meet contract requirements;

m. Proposed quality-control reports, performance measures, and management review procedures; and

n. Procedures for confirming that completed and invoiced quantities are accurate and supported by field records.

The proposer shall provide representative quality-control forms, checklists, audit reports, or corrective-action documentation used on comparable projects.

6. Reporting, Data Management, Deliverables, and Systems Integration

The proposer shall describe its proposed approach to collecting, reviewing, managing, securing, reporting, and transferring inspection and work data. The response shall demonstrate the proposer’s ability to provide accurate and usable records that can be associated with PWP assets and incorporated into PWP’s EAM, GIS, work-management, or related systems.

6.1 Field Data Collection and Asset Identification

The proposer shall describe:

a. The field data collection platform, mobile application, software, forms, or other tools proposed for the work;

b. Whether the proposed system supports online and offline field operations;

c. The data fields proposed for each inspected pole;

d. The proposed pole-condition ratings, defect codes, treatment codes, repair codes, reinforcement codes, priority ratings, and recommendation categories;

e. Procedures for using PWP-designated pole numbers, asset identifiers, location identifiers, and other required fields;

f. Procedures for confirming the identity and location of each pole before recording inspection or work information;

g. Procedures for recording visual, intrusive, groundline, treatment, repair, reinforcement, and UAV inspection activities;

h. Procedures for associating photographs, videos, UAV imagery, reports, and other attachments with the correct pole or asset record;

i. The types of location information captured, such as street address, coordinates, circuit, geographic area, or other identifiers;

j. Procedures for documenting incomplete work, inaccessible poles, access refusals, follow-up recommendations, and deferred corrective actions; and

k. Procedures for preventing duplicate, incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrectly assigned records.

6.2 Reports and Data Deliverables

The proposer shall describe the reports and electronic deliverables it proposes to provide, including:

a. Individual pole inspection and condition-assessment records;

b. Hazardous-condition and priority-condition notifications;

c. Treatment, repair, and reinforcement completion records;

d. Daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic progress reports;

e. Exception reports identifying incomplete, rejected, inaccessible, or deferred work;

f. Completed-work summaries;

g. Quality-control reports and corrective-action tracking;

h. Production, schedule, and performance reports;

i. Billing support reports connecting invoiced quantities to completed field work;

j. Management dashboards, maps, or other data-visualization tools, if available;

k. Photographs, UAV imagery, videos, and supporting documentation; and

l. Final contract data and document exports.

The proposer shall identify:

The proposed frequency and timing of each deliverable;

• The proposed electronic file formats;

• Any proprietary software, viewer, license, subscription, hosting, storage, or access requirement;

• Any limitations on the City’s ability to search, export, transfer, or use the data; and

• The process for correcting rejected, incomplete, inaccurate, duplicate, or improperly mapped records.

6.3 Data Quality, Ownership, Security, and Retention

The proposer shall describe:

a. Procedures for reviewing and validating field data before submission;

b. Procedures for verifying that reports, photographs, attachments, and billing records correspond to the correct PWP asset;

c. Data-quality checks performed automatically by the proposed system and manually by supervisory personnel;

d. Access controls, user roles, authentication methods, audit logging, and other available security features;

e. Procedures for securely storing, backing up, recovering, transmitting, and retaining PWP data;

f. Procedures for protecting customer, infrastructure, location, and other potentially sensitive information;

g. The location where PWP data and backups will be stored;

h. Procedures for providing PWP access to its data during the contract;

i. Procedures for providing a complete, usable, and nonproprietary export of PWP data and attachments upon request or contract expiration or termination;

j. Procedures for deleting or returning PWP data following contract completion in accordance with City requirements; and

k. Any proposed use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, automated image analysis, or automated decision-making in collecting, analyzing, classifying, or reporting inspection data.

The proposer shall acknowledge that all data, photographs, imagery, reports, and related deliverables produced under the contract will be owned by PWP and subject to the Information Technology Requirements and Scope of Work.

6.4 EAM, GIS, and Systems Integration

PWP is implementing an Enterprise Asset Management system. The proposer shall describe its ability to exchange inspection and maintenance data with EAM, computerized maintenance management, GIS, work-management, and related utility systems.

The response shall include:

a. Experience integrating field inspection data with utility EAM, GIS, computerized maintenance management, or work-management systems;

b. Identification of systems with which the proposer has previously integrated;

c. Available data-transfer methods, including APIs, automated exports, secure file transfer, scheduled batch transfer, or direct entry into an owner-designated system;

d. Availability and capabilities of any documented API, including whether it supports retrieval, submission, updating, validation, and attachment transfer;

e. Supported file formats, data standards, and integration protocols;

f. Ability to transfer photographs, UAV imagery, videos, reports, and other attachments with the associated asset record;

g. Ability to support real-time, scheduled, and batch data transfers;

h. Availability of API documentation, data dictionaries, test or sandbox environments, and technical integration support;

i. Available authentication, encryption, access-control, and audit-logging methods;

j. API rate limits, maintenance windows, versioning practices, or other technical limitations;

k. Availability of webhooks, automated notifications, error reports, or transfer-status updates;

l. Proposed approach to data mapping, configuration, testing, validation, reconciliation, error correction, and implementation;

m. Ability to support direct entry into a PWP-designated system if PWP selects that approach;

n. Dependencies on third-party software, middleware, licenses, or services;

o. The proposer’s anticipated role and required PWP support during integration; and

p. Any one-time or recurring costs associated with integration, API access, licensing, hosting, storage, technical support, or data transfer.

The City has not determined the final method of integration. The selected Contractor shall cooperate with PWP and its EAM implementation team to establish the final data-transfer method. Proposers shall not assume that PWP will purchase or retain access to a proprietary contractor platform after expiration or termination of the contract.

6.5 Required Samples

The proposer shall include representative examples of the following:

a. Pole inspection and condition-assessment report;

b. Hazardous-condition notification;

c. Completed-work report;

d. Inspection photographs showing how the asset and observed condition are identified;

e. Pole-condition rating or decision matrix;

f. Electronic data export and related data dictionary;

g. Quality-control or data-validation report;

h. Management dashboard or progress report, if available; and

i. A description or diagram of a prior EAM, GIS, or work-management system integration, if available.

7. Drone/UAV Inspection Approach

The proposer shall describe its proposed approach to using drones or unmanned aerial vehicles to supplement conventional pole inspections.

The response shall include:

a. Experience performing drone/UAV inspections of electric utility poles and overhead facilities;

b. The specific conditions and components the proposer recommends inspecting by drone/UAV;

c. The limitations of drone/UAV inspection and the conditions that still require ground-based or intrusive inspection;

d. Proposed aircraft, cameras, sensors, software, and supporting technology;

e. Image and video resolution, stabilization, zoom, geolocation, metadata, and file formats;

f. Qualifications, certifications, training, and experience of proposed pilots and supporting personnel;

g. Compliance with applicable FAA requirements, airspace restrictions, waivers, authorizations, and flight rules;

h. Flight-planning, preflight, weather, public-safety, privacy, and site-control procedures;

i. Procedures for operating near energized facilities, buildings, roads, customers, and private property;

j. Proposed approach to rear-property and constrained-access poles;

k. Procedures for associating drone imagery and findings with the correct PWP pole or asset record;

l. Procedures for reviewing imagery and identifying defects;

m. Procedures for data security, storage, transmission, ownership, and retention;

n. Proposed UAV reports and deliverable formats;

o. Anticipated production rates and operating limitations;

p. Proposed use of subcontractors, if applicable;

q. Examples of previous utility UAV inspection projects; and

r. Recommended methods for incorporating UAV services into PWP’s overall wood pole inspection program.

The proposer shall provide sample UAV imagery and a sample utility inspection report demonstrating how observations, imagery, asset identification, and recommended corrective actions are documented.

8. Innovations, Assumptions, and Exceptions

8.1 Innovations and Recommended Improvements

The proposer shall identify any methods, technologies, products, or process improvements that could provide additional value to PWP beyond the minimum requirements of the Scope of Work.

Recommendations may address:

a. Inspection accuracy and consistency;

b. Pole-condition assessment and remaining-strength evaluation;

c. Risk-based inspection or predictive maintenance;

d. Mobile field-data collection;

e. EAM, GIS, or work-management system integration;

f. Drone/UAV inspection and image analysis;

g. Quality assurance and quality control;

h. Hazardous-condition identification and notification;

i. Customer notification and access coordination;

j. Treatment effectiveness or alternative treatment products;

k. Repair or reinforcement methods;

l. Worker and public safety;

m. Environmental protection;

n. Work scheduling, production tracking, or performance reporting; and

o. Long-term wood pole asset management.

For each proposed innovation or improvement, the proposer shall explain:

1. The anticipated operational or technical benefit;

2. How the recommendation differs from the minimum requirements;

3. Relevant experience using the proposed method or technology;

4. Implementation and training requirements;

5. Known limitations or risks;

6. Potential effects on schedule, staffing, data, or PWP operations; and

7. Any associated one-time or recurring cost.

Any proposed alternative shall meet or exceed the minimum safety, regulatory, performance, quality, data ownership, and interoperability requirements of the solicitation. PWP reserves the right to accept, reject, negotiate, or defer any proposed alternative or enhancement.

8.2 Assumptions and City Support Requirements

The proposer shall clearly identify all assumptions used in preparing its proposal, including assumptions concerning:

a. The anticipated quantity and geographic distribution of assigned poles;

b. Work sequencing, production rates, and assignment sizes;

c. Access to rear-property, private-property, easement, paved, or restricted locations;

d. Information, maps, records, asset identifiers, or data to be provided by PWP;

e. Customer notification or access-coordination responsibilities;

f. PWP personnel, equipment, traffic control, outage support, or other City resources assumed to be available;

g. Software, licenses, systems access, data storage, integration support, or technology to be provided by PWP;

h. Work hours, mobilization, scheduling, and response times;

i. Reliance on subcontractors, third-party technology, or proprietary products; and

j. Any other assumption that may affect the proposer’s performance, schedule, deliverables, or cost.

The City will not be responsible for an assumption that is not clearly disclosed in the proposal.

8.3 Exceptions and Proposed Alternatives

The proposer shall clearly identify:

a. Any exception to the Scope of Work, contract terms, technical requirements, or other solicitation provision;

b. Any proposed alternate inspection, treatment, repair, reinforcement, reporting, or UAV method;

c. Any proposed deviation from the required data, security, ownership, retention, or integration requirements;

d. Any limitation on staffing, production capacity, scheduling, locations, work hours, or response time;

e. Any service or deliverable the proposer considers outside its proposed scope;

f. Any proprietary requirement or limitation that could affect PWP’s access to or use of its data;

g. Any qualification, condition, exclusion, or limitation associated with proposed pricing;

and

h. Any requested clarification that is material to the proposer’s ability to perform the work.

Each exception or proposed alternative shall identify:

1. The applicable solicitation section;

2. The specific requirement at issue;

3. The proposer’s proposed revision or alternative;

4. The reason for the requested change;

5. The operational, technical, schedule, or cost effect; and

6. Whether the proposer can comply with the original requirement if the requested exception is not accepted.

Failure to expressly identify an exception may be interpreted as the proposer’s agreement to comply fully with the applicable requirement. The City is not obligated to accept any proposed exception or alternative.

9. Required Technical Proposal Attachments

The proposer shall include the supporting materials listed below as appendices to its Technical Proposal. The proposer should reference the applicable appendix within the relevant narrative section and should not repeat the same information in multiple locations.

9.1 Project Team and Qualifications

Include:

a. Organizational chart for the proposed project team;

b. Résumés of the proposed project manager and other key personnel;

c. Copies of licenses and certifications required to perform the proposed services;

d. A list of proposed subcontractors identifying the services each subcontractor will perform; and

e. Qualifications and relevant experience of each proposed subcontractor.

9.2 Comparable Project Information

Include the comparable-project and client-reference information required under Qualifications, Experience, Staffing, and Capacity.

The proposer should not submit a separate general statement of qualifications that duplicates the project descriptions, personnel information, or firm experience provided in the Technical Proposal.

9.3 Sample Reports and Data Deliverables

Sample materials may be redacted to protect confidential customer or utility information.

9.4 Drone/UAV Samples

Include:

a. Representative UAV imagery from an electric utility inspection project;

b. A sample UAV inspection report showing the asset identifier, observed condition, imagery, and recommended action; and

c. Copies of applicable FAA certifications for the proposed pilots or responsible UAV personnel.

9.5 Safety and Quality Control Documentation

Include:

a. A project-specific safety-plan summary or relevant excerpts from the proposer’s safety program;

b. A proposed quality assurance and quality control plan for this contract;

c. Representative quality-control forms, checklists, audit reports, or corrective-action documentation; and

d. Relevant safety-performance information requested in the Technical Proposal Requirements.

The City may request the proposer’s complete safety manual, training records, quality-control procedures, or other supporting documentation during proposal evaluation or before contract award.

9.6 Treatment and Reinforcement Product Information

Include:

a. A list of proposed preservative, fumigant, pesticide, or other treatment products;

b. Applicable product labels, regulatory approvals, and safety data sheets;

c. Manufacturer literature for proposed steel trusses or alternative reinforcement systems;

d. Installation requirements and technical specifications for proposed reinforcement products; and

e. Applicable product or workmanship warranties.

9.7 Assumptions and Exceptions Matrix

Include a consolidated matrix identifying each:

a. Assumption;

b. Requested exception;

c. Proposed alternative;

d. Applicable solicitation section;

e. Reason for the assumption, exception, or alternative; and

f. Anticipated operational, technical, schedule, or cost effect.

If the proposer has no exceptions, the matrix shall expressly state that the proposer takes no exceptions to the solicitation requirements.

9.8 Page Limit and Appendix Requirements

The Technical Proposal narrative and supporting appendices shall comply with the page limit stated in the solicitation.

The following documents should not count toward the Technical Proposal page limit:

• Required City forms and certifications;

• Copies of licenses and professional certifications;

• Product labels and safety data sheets;

• Manufacturer technical literature; and

• Required preference documentation.

All other supporting materials, including résumés, project descriptions, sample reports, and narrative appendices, shall count toward the stated page limit unless otherwise specified by the City.

4. Separate Price Proposal

The Price Proposal must include all costs associated with the Technical Proposal as described in the Price Proposal instructions in the “Submittals/Checklist.”

Parties interested in responding are required to submit their Price Proposal with their Technical proposal through the City's eProcurement Portal.

The pricing must include the total price proposed to accomplish all the performance and deliverables requested in this RFP, and offered by your firm. Each Proposer must submit a Price Proposal containing all costs associated with the technical proposal. The price proposal shall describe both the total and the detailed price for which the consultant will commit to complete the total scope of work and end products. The price proposal detail shall describe costs for each professional’s time, for the completion of each proposed task, and for all materials and supplies.

The fee information is relevant…