Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum 2 - RFP - 10168 Consulting Services - Utility Financial PlanningAddendum # 2 RFP 10168 Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM NO. 2 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of RFP 10168: Consulting Services - Utility Financial Planning NEW OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) July 1, 2025 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this addendum: Notification of extending the Proposal Submittal Date to July 1, 2025 Please contact Jake Rector, Purchasing Manager, at (970) 221-6776 or jrector@fcgov.com with any questions regarding this addendum. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE PROPOSAL STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6775 fcgov.com/purchasing Addendum # 2 RFP 10168 Page 2 of 4 Exhibit 1 Questions and Answers • Who performed the previous rate study and/or utility financial planning engagement? A: The most recent consultant-led rate study was conducted pre-2010 for cost of service and rate design. All subsequent financial planning and rate design efforts were conducted by City staff. • The RFP references a November 30, 2025 completion date. Given the nature of the study (4 utilities), referenced tasks, anticipated review meetings and presentation to Council or sub-committee, as detailed in the RFP, would the City consider an alternate 9-month study schedule with a completion date in 2026? A: An alternative timeline may be suggested in the proposal with an explanation of specific deliverable timeline concerns. Please note the request is not soliciting a full traditional rate study that may typically include cost of service analysis and rate design, instead a focus on long-term revenue requirement modeling. • In RFP Section III.C.7 how will you weight/score respondents who cite that the study cannot be completed in in the August to November timeframe? Will they carry a lower score than those who promote the study can be completed by the November timeframe? A: Proposals should include objectives that can be delivered within the specified timeframe, and provide detail on items that are proposed to be completed beyond the August to November timeframe. • The scope of work references the development of a spreadsheet and/or excel-based rate model (II.A.e). Later, in III.C.5, the RFP asks the respondent for a “description of the software and other analysis tools to be used.” Is the City considering a software solution or tool other than an Excel-based modeling tool? Addendum # 2 RFP 10168 Page 3 of 4 • A: The City is seeking an Excel-based modeling tool, if an alternative software is proposed please provide detail on training, longevity, and upkeep. • In the RFP Objectives section the City references reviewing the existing long-term financial planning models. What software and/or tool was used in the development of the existing model? A: The City’s most recent comprehensive long-term planning model uses a Model Risk Excel software add-in that is no longer used. The existing modeling is Excel based only. • In the RFP Objectives section, the City specifically excludes cost of service and rate design from this scope of work. Why? Are you anticipating issuing a future RFP for those tasks? Should the modeling tool be developed in a way that facilitates future cost of services and/or rate design tasks? A: Cost of service and rate design tasks are completed by City Utilities rates staff and are outside of this requested scope of work. Modeling tool developed by the consultant will not need to facilitate cost of services and rate design. • RFP Section II.A.g requests a benchmarking survey—a comparison of rates versus neighboring communities. Does the City have a specific set of communities in mind and/or number of communities to compare against? Does the City acknowledge that many neighboring communities will have set rates that reflect cost of service and/or account for specific policy goals/drivers (rate design)? A: The City will provide a list of under ten (10) peer front range utilities to compare against and acknowledges differences in policy priorities that may impact individual utilities rate design and amounts. The City of Fort Collins’ maintains cost of service rates with bi-annual updates. • Would the resumes included in an Appendix count toward the page limit? Addendum # 2 RFP 10168 Page 4 of 4 A: Yes • Are we able to use font sizes smaller than 10pt for headers, footers, charts, graphics, and other elements apart from the main body text of the proposal as long as the text is legible? A: Yes • Does all of the text in our proposal need to be Arial or just the main body font of the proposal? A: No, you can use other fonts. • How long has the City been using the existing models? Is the City still using them? A: Existing financial forecasting models have been used for an estimated 10+ years, and the City is no longer using the comprehensive model in it’s entirety. Cost of service and rate design models have been in use for the same period, and are actively being used by staff without requested changes as part of the RFP scope. • When was the last time rates were adjusted? A: Rates are adjusted and adopted by City Council on an annual basis, with rate structure being evaluated and adjusted biannually for each utility increase adoption. Recent rate changes can be found at https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/utility-rates • What is the budget for the project? A: The project has sufficient budget to accommodate diverse proposals and options for scalability.