HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - 7587 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR HALLIGAN RESERVOIR ENLARGEMENT PROJECT (2)Addendum 1 – 7587 Engineering Services for the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project Page 1 of 3
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Description of BID 7587: Engineering Services for the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
Project
OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) January 24, 2014
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:
Exhibit 1 – Questions & Answers
Please contact Pat Johnson, CPPB, Senior Buyer at (970) 221-6816 with any questions
regarding this addendum.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN
STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE 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
970.221.6707
fcgov.com/purchasing
Addendum 1 – 7587 Engineering Services for the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT 1 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
1. Will third party consultants for the Halligan Seaman Water Management Project
(HSWMP) EIS be eligible for selection under the City’s RFP?
Third party consultants for the HSWMP EIS will likely not be eligible due to potential
for actual or perceived conflicts of interest, but we will determine that on an
individual basis.
2. Who are the HSWMP EIS third party consultants, if that information is publicly
available? There are many, and it is further complicated by the Corps of Engineers’
Common Technical Platform which uses third party contractors for both the HSWMP
and Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP).
The main firms we work with are WEST, Inc., DiNatale Water Consultants, CDM
Smith, Harvey Economics, GEI, Inc., States West Water Resources, and Anderson
Consulting Engineers.
3. Have there been any Halligan Reservoir enlargement feasibility studies completed
since the September 2002 report done by ECI/Knight
Piesold/Ayres/Terracon/ERO/Miller Ecological?
No.
4. There’s a conflict with the bid due date. What is the actual due date?
The RFP is due on January 24
th
, 2014.
5. In the Instructions for Proposal Submission, Section C Scope of Service, it asks for a
scope and cost estimate for Phase 1. In Section E it just asks for a fee schedule. I
wanted to be sure you were really asking for a cost estimate for Phase 1
We are asking for a Phase 1 estimate. We realize there may be a wide range of cost
estimates, but the scope/cost will be used to rate the firms on presentation,
understanding, etc. of the scope.
6. In the Instructions for Proposal Submission, it states that the information should be
provided “in the order listed.” We think it would help to reorder the items under Part
B so all the project team information is together, all the related experience
information in together, etc. Is that acceptable, or will your review be easier if we
present the subsections in the exact order listed in the RFP?
It is up to your firm to present the proposal as you see fit, but we would suggest
either thoroughly explaining why you listed it differently or just list it “in the order
listed”.
Addendum 1 – 7587 Engineering Services for the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project Page 3 of 3
7. The table of review criteria on page 5-6 of the RFP mentions a project schedule, with
a criterion being whether the project schedule is well defined, realistic and
achievable. The Instructions for Submission section does not mention the need to
submit a project schedule. Should we include a proposed project schedule in the
proposal?
Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. We would like to see a proposed project
schedule for the scope explained in Section VI.C. Please assume for the schedule
that all work for Phase I, Task 1.a. – Alternative Development will be completed
within six (6) months of the award of contract. All remaining Phase I tasks will be
completed as allowed by the timeframe of the federal permitting process, provided in
Section II.