CYMPO Regional Professional Services On-Call RFQ:
Addendum 1 – click here
Responses to Questions:
(Please submit questions in writing by email to Christopher.Bridges@yavapai.us no later than ten (10) working days prior to the closing date of November 1, 2019. Responses to questions will be posted on this page no later than six (6) working days prior (October 24, 2019) to the closing date of November 1, 2019.)
Question #1:
Could you please confirm that the 15 double-sided page count for the proposal is equivalent to 30 single-sided pages? Essentially, we want to verify that each double-sided page counts as one page versus two pages.
Answer: Using both sides does not count as 30 pages. The 15 double sided page count equals 15 pages even though you are using both sides of the paper.
Question #2:
May firms submit as both a prime consultant and also be included as a subconsultant within other SOQs?
Answer: Yes
Question #3:
Will the acquisition of either right of way or easements be anticipated under the Transportation Planning Area of Expertise?
Answer: Neither activities are anticipated.
Question #4:
Are we responding to Phase 1 only at this time?
Answer: Responses submitted are considered for the full 5-years of the on-call contract. Annually the selected firms will be asked to update their teams and qualifications as they could potentially change over time.
Question #5:
Please clarify the DBE requirement. It is stated as 0% on page 10, Item 17., but there is significant language pertaining to DBE in the RFQ. Item 20 suggests that for each Task Order consultants will need to submit a DBE Intended Participation Affidavit summery Form and a DBE Intended Participation Affidavit. Just to clarify, we only need to include On-call DBE Commitment (Form 3204PS) at this time, as well as the AZUTRACS proposers list?
Answer: The DBE Goal assigned by ADOT is 0%. Language related to each task order having a DBE goal assigned was preliminary language that was a strike through but unfortunately was not deleted prior to advertisement.
Question #6:
Where can we find Appendix F, Acknowledgement of Compliance with Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Requirements and Applicable Law, attached hereto as Appendix F? Appendix F, beginning on page 37 of the RFQ, appears to be the On-call Contract.
Answer: The language on page 12 (#13) has been modified to read, “Signed On-Call Contract attached hereto as Exhibit F, which includes acknowledgment of compliance with Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and requirements of applicable law”, and the posted RFQ has been modified to include this language.
Question #7:
On page 46, section 32.c references a “Service IGA”. Is this referring to this agreement?
Answer: Yes, and language has been modified to read “agreement”.
Question 8:
Does the 12 point font minimum apply to all graphics, tables, etc. or is it acceptable to use a smaller font as long as it is legible?
Answer: The 12 point is intended for the main text. Smaller within graphics if legible is acceptable.
Question #9:
We would just like to confirm that the contract to select in the AZ UTRACS system to create the Bidders/Proposers List for the subject on-call contract should be MPDWP-CYMPOPlanningOnCall CYMPO Planning On-Call (Non-Engineering).
Answer: Yes, that is correct.
Question #10:
Are tabs a required part of the SOQ or can we choose to exclude them? If tabs are required is it permissible to mark a page as intentionally blank in order to assure that the section breaks fall on the correct page?
Answer: Tabs are not a required element of the submital.
Question #11:
Are we allowed to include an 11×17 page folded to an 8 ½ x 11 page for the individual and expertise table? If so, would that be counted as one page?
Answer: 11×17 pages are not allowed, only 8 ½ x 11 pages are permissible.
Question #12:
Would you like us to include a signed contract in the submittal prior to being awarded the contract?
Answer: Yes, you need to submit a signed contract with the RFQ submittal (Appendix F) on November 1, 2019.
Question #13:
If selected for this contract, can we add subconsultants later for any specific tasks/disciplines required for a task order, or must we include all potential subconsultants now?
Answer: We advise firms to include all potential team members and subconsultants with the submittal. Annually CYMPO will request from each consultant firm an update of their team members and subconsultants and at that time you will have the ability to update or modify team members, subconsultants, experience, certifications, etc. Firms will not be allowed to continuously change team members through the year based on an individual task order.
Question #14:
The total number of pages must not exceed 15 double-sided pages, and we are requested to submit one (1) printed hard copy and one (1) electronic PDF format submission on a compact portable drive of the SOQ with a maximum of fifteen (15) double-sided pages. The PDF format submission must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy submission.
We want to confirm that the electronic (PDF) copy we submit on a USB flash drive will be 30 pages, even though the printed hard copy will only have 15 pages that are double-sided. Is this correct?
Answer: Yes the PDF can be 30 pages in electronic format because when printed double sided, it would meet the requirement of 15 double sided pages.
Question #15:
Are graphical front and back covers allowed and excluded from the page count?
Answer: Graphics are allowed, but the 15 pages double sided includes the front and back cover. Pages that ARE excluded from the total page count are cover letter, table of contents, resumes tabs, appendices, and forms.
Question #16:
- Will you please provide the contract number for this RFQ?
- Will you please provide the ADOT TRACS number for this effort?
Answer:
- The contract number for this RFQ is “MPDWP-CYMPOPlanningOnCall”.
- It is our understanding that we will have official ADOT TRACS numbers once Task Orders are awarded.
Question #17:
As a design professional, the Contractor’s professional liability insurance bars coverage for any third-party, upfront defense. The policy will, however, reimburse indemnitees for those reasonable defense costs and fees incurred as a result of the Contractor’s negligence as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. To ensure that Section 11 and Section 23 of the On-Call Contract is consistent with the parameters of the Contractor’s professional liability insurance coverage and indemnitees have actual benefit of this coverage, would CYMPO be amenable to modifying this language as follows upon contract award:
- CYMPO Indemnification. The Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CYMPO and its respective directors, officers, officials, employees and agents for, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, losses, damages or lawsuits as a result of to the extent caused by the Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions, pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent said claims, liabilities, expenses or lawsuits arise by the negligent acts or omissions of CYMPO or its agents or employees. The Consultant further releases and discharges CYMPO, its departments and divisions, its agents and employees, and any and all persons legally responsible for the acts or omissions of CYMPO, from any and all claims which the Consultant has or may have against CYMPO, its agents or employees, arising out of or in any way connected with the Consultant’s activities as set forth below, other than those acts which occur due solely to the negligence or willful acts of CYMPO, its employees or agents.
- Indemnification of ADOT. The parties to this contract agree that the State of Arizona, its departments, agencies, boards, commissions and universities shall be indemnified and held harmless by the CONTRACTOR and CYMPO for the vicarious liability of the State as a result of entering into this contract. However, the parties further agree that the State of Arizona, its departments, agencies, boards and commissions shall be responsible for its own negligence. Each party to this contract is responsible for its own negligence.
To the extent permitted by Arizona law, CYMPO and Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, agree to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the State of Arizona, any jurisdiction or agency issuing any permits for any work arising out of this Agreement, and their respective directors, officers, officials, agents, and employees (hereinafter referred to as “Indemnitee”) from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including court costs, attorneys’ fees, and costs of claim processing, investigation and litigation) (hereinafter referred to as “Claims”) for bodily injury or personal injury (including death), or loss or damage to tangible or intangible property to the extent caused, or alleged to the extent be caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of CYMPO’s Contractor or any of the directors, officers, agents, or employees or subcontractors of such Contractor. This indemnity includes any claim or amount arising out of or recovered under the Workers’ Compensation Law or arising out of the failure of such Contractor to conform to any federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or court decree. It is the specific intention of the parties that the Indemnitee shall, in all instances, except for Claims arising solely from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Indemnitee, be indemnified by such Contractor from and against any and all claims. It is agreed that such Contractor will be responsible for primary loss investigation, defense and judgment costs where this indemnification is applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor has no obligation to defend or pay indemnitee defense costs incurred prior to final determination of liability or to pay any amount that exceeds the proportionate share of Contractor’s finally determined percentage of liability as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Answer: We have consulted with our attorney, and we are required to meet the requirements set forth by ADOT. In sections 11 and 23, the indemnification language aligns verbatim with the language provided by ADOT, and therefore we will not be able to modify the language.
Question #18:
Pursuant to the City’s responses to questions as posted on your website, it appears that the language on Page 12 of the RFQ – Proposer’s Checklist (#13) has been modified to read, ““Signed On-Call Contract attached hereto as Exhibit F, which includes acknowledgment of compliance with Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and requirements of applicable law.” The answer to Question #12 would indicate that you now expect proposers to execute your On-Call Contract and include with their formal submittal. Note that the last page of the contract pertains to approval of the parties respective legal counsel, however, the signature block only includes CYMPO’s attorney.
Are proposers to note requested exceptions in the On-Call Contract and will doing so render the proposer’s submittal non-responsive? Are proposers to obtain the signature of their respective legal counsel on the contract?
Answer: Signature from legal counsel of the proposer is not required, but we have included a signature line in the event it is a requirement per the proposer’s policies. The modified RFQ will be posted to the RFQ page on the CYMPO website and will also be redistributed via email.
Question #19:
Since we are submitting one hard copy are we able to include a clear plastic sheet protector and black vinyl back strictly to protect the document and have it excluded from the page count?
Answer: Yes