June 6, 2016 RP ADDENDUM #3

Transcription

1 Addendum #1 Page 1 June 6, 2016 RP ADDENDUM #3 Q1. Re: Service Category E, page 19, the H&H modeling requested for the Richland Creek basin in item 1. is actually quite different that the updating of DFIRM panels. Would the county accept a submission that included H&H modeling but not preparation of DFIRM s (i.e. Item 1. but not Item 2.)? A1. The RFP should address both items. For clarification, update the Item 1 potential project to: 1. Develop a Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) model to evaluate the existing level of service of all county maintained pipes within the Richland Creek Basin. Also provide a determination of what upgrades are necessary to bring each pipe system into compliance with County standards, including a mechanism to develop a planning level cost estimate. Q2. Could you provide some additional detail on the location for each project below to ensure that we are addressing the correct project location? Service Category C Watershed Management Services 1. Retrofit the county facility at One Justice Square in Lawrenceville to meet a 1" runoff reduction standard. Could you provide the parcel idea for the location of the facility at One Justice Square? 2. Restore the stream using Natural Channel Design principles on the southern edge of the Gwinnettowned parcel downstream of the Hewatt Road Park and Ride facility. Could you provide the parcel id for the Gwinnett County owned parcel? 3. Upgrade existing stormwater management facilities at the GCDWR Central facility to meet current water quality, channel protection, and peak flow regulations. 4. Enhance/restore the wetland on the county-owned parcel behind the Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful facility and provide a walking trail for public access and monitoring around the site. Could you provide the Parcel Id for the Gwinnett County owned parcel and the address for the Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful Facility? A2. 1. One Justice Square Parcel IDs: and A. 2. Hewatt Road Park and Ride facility Gwinnett County-owned Parcel ID: GCDWR Central facility Parcel ID: (which is the entire parcel; include the DOT facilities on the northern edge of the parcel) 4. County-owned Parcel IDs (including Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful facility): and

2 Page 2 Q3. On the various Attachment 1 forms (for each service category), the statement is made: Gwinnett County requires pricing to remain firm for the duration of the initial term of the contract. Prior to that it states that no increase will be allowed to the submitted multipliers over the full term of the annual contract, without formal approval. In the first statement, does the term pricing refer to the raw salary rates of the employees doing the work and being billed for it, in this case, during the calendar year 2017 (1/1/17 12/31/17) or something else? How would individual salary adjustments for those employees be addressed in billing the County if that s the case? A3. GCDWR will allow salary adjustments on an annual basis. However, the salary rate of each employee as of January 1 needs to be held for the entire calendar year. If salary increases occur after January 1, the new rate cannot be utilized until the subsequent January 1 of the next calendar year. The multiplier cannot be increased for the 5 year demand services contract term except for the scenario presented in Question 4 below. Q4. I have a question regarding the labor overhead rate report. For a small firm, the cost of preparing this report is quite a financial burden. Will the department consider an alternative financial report for small businesses, such as a report prepared by the owner with a statement as to the validity and signed by the owner and notarized? Moreover, most of our subconsultants are small firms, and they will not be able to provide a labor overhead report. A4. GCDWR s preference is for all consultants bidding on this RFP to have an Indirect Cost Overhead Rate that is compliant with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The FAR system was established for the codification and publication of uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies. This ensures that government business is conducted in a manner above reproach and with complete impartiality. Please refer to the FAR web link for additional information: Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Therefore, engineering and consulting firms that contract with GCDWR should be aware of the FAR regulations and have an audited overhead rate compliant with FAR. GCDWR understands that newly established and/or smaller firms may not currently have an audited overhead rate. In this case, GCDWR recommends the following approach: Until the firm has established the necessary accounting system to prepare for a FAR compliant audited overhead rate, the Consultant can utilize an overhead rate of 110% in lieu of the FAR audited rate, and then propose a multiplier for the Office Rate and Field Rate greater than 110% to include profit. If the firm obtains a FAR compliant audited rate at any time during the contract term, this can be submitted to GCDWR for adjustment on future authorizations, as well as any current authorizations starting from the time the audited rate is submitted to GCDWR. The Office Rate multiplier and Field Rate multiplier will then be adjusted to provide for reasonable profit.

3 Page 3 Q5. Will the design teams for Categories A and B be required to include geotechnical and materials testing capability (in-house or with a subconsultant) on their team as part of their submittal? If not, how will these services be procured or assigned for individual projects? A5. GCDWR prefers that geotechnical and materials testing services be included on the team for Categories A and B. However, this is not a requirement of the RFP. If these services are needed, a geotechnical firm selected under the Service Category I contract can be utilized. Q6. On page 14, second paragraph from the top, part of Tab D instructions: will you define project type as it relates to contracts with GCDWR within the last five years, please? A6. Project type refers to planning, study, modeling, design, and construction management services, among others. Please use your best judgment. Q7. Where in the proposal would you like us to provide the affidavit forms and firm information page? We would propose to include this information as a part of the Appendix. Let us know if that is acceptable. A7. Yes, it is acceptable to include these documents in an Appendix. Q8. Please confirm affidavit forms should be provided by all firm team members. A8. GCDWR only needs the Contractors Affidavit & Agreement and the Ethics Affidavit from the firm submitting the proposal. Q9. On Page 4, Section II, Item B, the RFP states: The proposal must contain a statement that the consultant has carefully reviewed the agreement, can meet all insurance and other requirements, and if selected, will sign the agreement. No modifications to the agreement will be permitted. But on page 59, it states: Upon receipt of a proposal containing a Gwinnett County Sample Contract as part of the requirements, it is understood that the proposer has reviewed the documents with the understanding that Gwinnett County requires that all agreements between the parties must be entered into via these documents. If any exceptions are taken to any part, each exception must be stated in detail and submitted as part of the proposal document. If no exceptions are stated, it is assumed that the proposer fully agrees to the Sample Contract in its entirety. Is it acceptable to submit comments/exceptions to the contract as a part of the appendix following the guidance on P. 59? A9. GCDWR s preference is for the Consultant to accept the contract without any exceptions. However, it is acceptable to submit comments 1that will be reviewed however; there is no guarantee of acceptance. Q10. What roles within GCDWR are involved with making decisions for this RFP for Service Category s G?

4 Page 4 A10. A range of roles within GCDWR will be evaluating the various service categories. Additionally, there will be a minimum of one Gwinnett County employee outside of GCDWR on each selection team. Q11. On page 21, reference is made to use of the Lucity CMMS system. Clarifying question - does this mean Stormwater uses a separate CMMS system to track their asset maintenance than Maximo? If so, will Stormwater be considering consolidating their CMMS system to Maximo within the scope of this RFP timeframe? A11. All linear assets are tracked in Lucity and all vertical assets are tracked in Maximo. At this time, GCDWR does not anticipate consolidating these systems; however, this could change in the future. Q12. We are a local company specializing in Maximo CMMS and GIS services which clearly fits into your Service Category G. However, we note Service Category G also covers many other areas of consulting so we are looking for guidance from GCDWR. Would GCDWR want a local specialized consultant like us to respond to Service Category G in independently since we only provide a subset of the services included in your description for Service Category G OR would you guide us to partner (i.e. as a sub-consultant) with other organizations in our response such that our services are part of a broader service provider for GCDWR? We plan to respond either way, but would prefer not to waste your time or ours hence, the question. A12. Firms should propose under the service category(ies) that best fit their services. Q13. Is GCDWR familiar with use of a GSA Schedule to obtain preferred government rates? Is GCDWR open to use of a GSA Schedule? A13. For consistency in proposal evaluation, GCDWR is asking for firms to submit an audited overhead rate, as well as office and field multipliers. Refer to Question 4 for firms that do not have an audited overhead rate. Q14. Is it acceptable to include text smaller than 12 point in graphics? A14. Smaller text is acceptable; however, it is recommended that the proposal can be easily read. Q15. Instructions for projects in Tab D request All project experience sheets must have been completed within the past five (5) years. Is it acceptable to include projects that are ongoing? A15. Ongoing projects are acceptable. Q16. Instructions for projects in Tab D request the Lead Consultant and/or the Major Sub-Consultants shall provide a separate table listing all projects/task orders (past and current) with GCDWR within the last five (5) years. State the name of the project, GCDWR project manager and/or primary contact, project type, prime or sub, and contract value. What information would you like under project type? Does this mean the current Demand Services contract category?

5 Page 5 A16. See response to Question 6. The associated Demand Services Category can also be listed. Q17. Page 56 of the RFP, Preparation of Proposals Item I.B., requests "Each proposer shall sign the proposal and print or type his or her name on the schedule." Does this requirement apply to these proposals? A17. No. This requirement does not apply because schedule submittal is not required. Q18. On page 14, second paragraph from the top, part of Tab D instructions: will you define project type as it relates to contracts with GCDWR within the last five years, please? A18. See response to Question 6. Q19. Will the two referenced CDM report be made available? Alternate Chemical Conditioning Study for Solids Dewatering Lanier Filter Plant, Hazen and Sawyer, 2012 on page 3-4 Filter Backwash Equalization Improvements Report on page 3-7 A18. The CDM report provided under Addendum #1 contains sufficient information to respond to this RFP. Reports referenced in the CDM report are not necessary at this time. Q20. Will there be any bonding requirements? A20. No. Q21. Sample Services Agreement references an Exhibit C for insurance requirements, will that exhibit specific same requirements as Page 26 of the RFP entitled Professional Services Insurance Requirements? A21. Yes, the insurance requirements on Pages of the RFP are the same as those referenced in the Sample Service Agreement. Q22. Is Professional Liability Insurance to be written on a project specific basis? A22. Refer to Item 4 on Page 26 of the RFP. There are two options: 1) $1,000,000 (project specific for the Gwinnett County project) limit of liability per claim/aggregate, or (2) limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate. For this annual contract, the Lead Consultant needs to provide a Certificate of Insurance on an annual basis. Q23. The description for Service Category F, Urgent Services and Third-Party CM Services, indicates that quick professional services to respond to urgent or emergency projects as requested by GCDWR, on an as-needed basis. will utilize existing annual contract, sole source contracts and quick procurement methods to address critical issues. Similar language regarding the need to provide quick professional services to respond to urgent or emergency projects as requested by GCDWR, on an as-needed basis. appears in the description for Service Category A, Water and Wastewater Facilities and Pump Stations

6 Page 6 A23. Yes. Services, and in Category B, Water Line, Sewer Line and Reuse Water Line Services. However, the description in Category A and B does not contain the language that states these services will utilize existing annual contract, sole source contracts, etc. Can we assume that the same language related to this in Category F also applies to Category A and B? Q24. Proposal Fee Schedule: 1. Please clarify the definition of direct salary cost, as reported to the Internal Revenue Service? Direct salary cost and wages reported to the IRS are two different numbers if you have 401k plans and Section 125 plans for benefits. Wages reported to the IRS for various payroll tax reporting do not include any wages that are deducted under a Section 125 for Medicare, Social Security, Federal and State Wages. Wages reported to the IRS for various payroll tax reporting do not include any wages that are deducted for a 401k plan for Federal and State wages. Direct salary cost is the gross dollars paid to the employee (excluding bonus) before any of these deductions are taken. 2. As obtaining an audited overhead rate can be burdensome on small businesses, will GCDWR consider waiving this requirement for Minor Subconsultants? A Raw salary cost should be reported as the gross dollars paid to the employee, excluding bonus, before any deductions for 401K plans, Section 125 plans, etc. 2. See response to Question 4 for firms that do not have an audited overhead rate. Q25. Contractor Affidavits: Are the two affidavits, Code of Ethics Affidavit and Contractor Affidavit and Agreement, required to be included with the proposal for Minor Subconsultants? A25. See response to Question 8. Q26. Tab D: Project references are requested to include fax numbers. Are fax numbers required? If so, please provide fax numbers for GCDWR project managers. A26. Fax numbers are not required; however, please ensure a current address and phone number are provided. Q27. Page 23 of the RFP states, GCDWR shall not be invoiced for clerical labor or for other directs charges for items such as office, rent or overhead expenses of any kind including, but not limited to: insurance, telephone (including cellular service) and utility charges, office/drafting supplies, depreciation of equipment, professional dues, subscriptions, customary computer software/hardware, reproduction of drawings and/or specifications mailing, stenographic. The multiplier proposed in the fee schedule shall cover all such costs pertinent to the project work. Some of the cost listed herein are not included in our standard overhead rate and potentially other proposers overhead rate. Will GCDWR allow adjustments to be made to the overhead rate to account for cost in the event such costs are not

7 Page 7 included in a firm s overhead rate calculation in order to obtain a more accurate comparison of the calculated profit margin stated on Page 25? A27. There should be no adjustments made to the audited overhead rate. Q28. For Tab D, page 14, second paragraph we are asked to submit a table with projects/task orders with GCDWR in the last 5 years. In this table we are asked to include the project type for each project. Could you please clarify what GCDWR specifically means by project type to be sure we provide the right response for this item? A28. See response to Question 6. Q29. Page 12 For each certification in Tab A (e.g., PMP), do we need two representative projects per full time employee with the certification or two representative projects for the certification? A29. The two representative projects for each employee with a license and/or certification should be associated with the Service Category for which you are submitting. Q30. Page 14 In the context of Category H: For the proposed org chart in Tab E, are all of the same roles expected for the Category H project (i.e., Client Services Manager, Services Coordinator/Contract Manager, Project Managers, Subject Matter Experts, QA/QC Managers, and Lead Design Engineers)? If not, which roles are expected? Some roles do not seem directly applicable (e.g., Lead Design Engineer). A30. For each Service Category, the roles in the organization chart in Tab E should be customized to the Service Category for which you are submitting. For example, the proposed organization chart for Category H may be different than that for a traditional engineering design category. Therefore, a Lead Design Engineer may not be required. Q31 If one person's credentials and availability qualify for Tabs A, E, and H (tabs appear to request similar information), how should we differentiate the information across the tabs? A31. Individual(s) shall be listed in multiple Tabs of the proposal to meet the requirements of each Tab. Q32. Page In the Proposal Fee Schedule, does GCDWR expect the rate card for the first year only or a set rate for all five years? A32. The proposed office and field multiplier will be the same for all five years; however, the direct salary can be adjusted on an annual basis as described in Question 3. Q33. Page 58 Is a performance bond required for Category H and I? A33. No. See response to Question 20. Q34. Proposal Fee Schedule Pg. 23 states Field employees shall mean personnel that are performing duties in the field or at GCDWR s facilities for more than one year full time services. Is it correct to assume

8 Page 8 that employees who fit this description will bill at the Office Employee rate for the first year of full time service (even if in field) and the field employee multiplier will go in effect on Day 1 of Year 2? A34. If GCDWR s expectation is for the employee to serve in the field for one year or more, the field multiplier can go into effect immediately in Year 1. Q35. Page 23: Our federally audited multipliers do not include clerical, financial, and administrative staff as these labor categories are considered to be billed per their raw hourly rate times the same multiplier. Since GCDWR wants this staff included in the multiplier does GCDWR have guidance for how to reflect this addition to our audited multiplier rate (e.g. our submitted multiplier will need to be higher than our audited multiplier to take this requirement into consideration). A35. GCDWR understands that the proposed office and field multipliers will be adjusted to take into account clerical, financial, and administrative staff. However, the audited overhead rate should not be adjusted. Specific guidance on how to account for these staff in the proposed multipliers cannot be provided since every firm s staff mix is unique. Q36. Page 23 states that GCDWR shall not be invoiced for other direct costs and a list of other direct costs is listed which includes reproduction of drawings and/or specifications mailing. However, earlier in the same paragraph it s stated that the fee shall constitute full compensation and all other direct costs not covered by reimbursable expenses. Invoices for reproduction can easily be provided and will vary significantly between types and sizes of projects. Wondering if this was intended to address reproductions made in the course of doing business, but not the reproduction of design deliverables requested by GCDWR. Please confirm whether or not reproduction expenses for drawing/specification production is a reimbursable expense. A36. As noted in Addendum 1, the reproduction of drawings and/or specifications should be included in the proposed office multiplier and will not be invoiced to GCDWR. Q37. Page 23: Will GCDWR reconsider the hourly rate cap of $240. It seems conflicting to both follow an audited multiplier and to cap the rates. A37. The hourly rate cap only affects very senior level staff. If an individual s raw hourly salary multiplied by the proposed multiplier is greater than $240/hour, then the billing rate should be reduced to $240/hour. Q38. Gwinnett Fee Description Page 23: Gwinnett County has the right to verify the rates and multipliers used in the Contract through an audit. No escalation will be permitted. We assume this means no escalation of the multiplier applied to the actual current raw salary can you confirm? A38. Correct. There is no escalation of the proposed office and field multipliers; however, direct salary rates can be adjusted on an annual basis as described in Question 3. Q39. Can you please clarify what is included in overhead for the fee multiplier so we can compare against the definition of our audited overhead multiplier.

9 Page 9 Is there a minimum size for a firm (i.e. number of employees) to be selectable for Category I? A39. Refer to Question 4 for information on Indirect Cost Overhead Rates compliant with FAR. There are no minimum size requirements. Q40. Is a GA PE required for a category of services, even if no engineering design is involved for likely services in that category? Will points be deducted if the firm does not have a GA PE when proposing for such a category? A40. GCDWR understands that that staff mix will not be the same for the different Service Categories, and thus will not deduct points for services where a licensed Professional Engineer is not required. Q41. Page 63, the no bid page says if we fail to return the page, we could be removed from consideration. We do not wish to submit a no bid, do we still submit this page, but just leave it blank? A41. This form is required ONLY if a firm has decided to not participate in this RFP process. Q42. For category I, is there a difference between information management services and specialized technology/data management? A42. For Category I, GCDWR recommends firms propose the specialized technical services that best fit their firms suite of services. Q43. For Category I, there are two different lists of potential services, the first is found on page 11 in section I, and the second is on page 22 in Tab F. Is it correct to assume that Category I could include any of those services, plus ones that may not be mentioned in either list? A43. Correct; firms can submit other specialized technical services that are not listed in the RFP. The proposals should clearly provide the value of these services to GCDWR. Q44. Required Attachment 1 requests an Audited Overhead Rate as part of the table. Obtaining an audited overhead rate can be cost prohibitive for small firms (we have received quotes of between $7,000 and $12,000). Would you consider allowing a calculated, non-audited overhead rate for firms with annual revenue less than a certain amount such as $500,000 or $1,000,000? A44. See response to Question 4 for firms that do not have an audited overhead rate. Q45. Is an overhead rate still considered to be audited if it is then adjusted to include administrative support that is typically billable for other contracts (that would be used in an audited overhead rate calculations), but not billable for this contract? This solicitation directs firms to adjust the overhead rate to accommodate such costs.

10 Page 10 A45. The audited overhead rate should not be adjusted. However, the proposed office and field multipliers can be adjusted to include administrative support. See responses to Questions 27 and 35. Q46. Regarding the Fee Schedule, pg 22, and the Attachment 1 Service Multiplier Schedule for each service category, would the County consider an alternate means of determining an overhead rate other than one determined by a financial audit? Conducting an audit for this purpose is expensive for a number of our small businesses that are being considered as sub-consultants and would place an undue burden on them with no guarantee of having work under a demand services contract. A46. See response to Question 4 for firms that do not have an audited overhead rate. Q47. Regarding the Fee Schedule, pg 22, last paragraph that page: principals excluded from fee calculation for many of our small businesses that are being considered as sub-consultants, the firm may only consist of a principal and a few other staff and the principal may be actively producing the work. In the same manner, pg 23, it asks that clerical staff be excluded from billing as direct labor hours again these individuals may be helping to produce work for these firms aside from normal clerical and administrative duties. Can there be an exception for these small businesses that will allow these individuals to bill for their labor? A47. Please strike principals excluded from the 3rd paragraph under Separate Envelope Proposal Fee Schedule on Page 22 of the RFP. Consultants can include principals in the professional services for this RFP. Acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the Firm Information Page. Failure to do so may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive. Thank you, Shelley McWhorter Shelley McWhorter, CPPB Purchasing Associate III