RFP Bridge Preventative Maintenance Program Plan Project 2023-33 - Addendum 1CV �GbINW
DATE: June 20, 2025
TO: All Prospective Professional Engineering Consultants for Bridge Preventive Maintenance
Program Plan
RE: 2023-33 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Plan RFP
ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
The following shall be considered as incorporated into the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the above -
referenced services. Portions of RFP not specifically mentioned in this Addendum remain in force.
■ REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Question 1: On RFP page 10 of 17, "Firms Background, Qualifications, and Experience" does not have
a section number by it. Is this to be included as part of the cover letter, should it be its own
section and count within the page limit?
Answer 1: Cover Letter
Question 2: On RFP page 10 of 17, "Reference of California government agencies (preferably cities
utilizing)" — can you clarify what La Quinta prefers cities are utilizing?
Answer 2: References from Cities that the Proposer has worked with
Question 3: On RFP page 10 of 17, are there any criteria or specific questions we need to answer
under "3. Staffing and Project Organization"?
Answer 4: No, please provide the organizational chart this project.
Question 5: There is a 13% DBE utilization commitment on this contract. On RFP page 11 or 17, "4.
Subcontracting Services" indicates using subconsultants is not preferred and shall not
be named. However, this contradicts with Caltrans/federal funding requirements. We
kindly request the City modify this section to allow for inclusion of subconsultant
information including firm names and qualifications.
Answer 5: RFP page 11 of 17, "4. Subcontracting Services" is revised to read the following:
Subcontracting any portion(s) of the Scope of Services is allowable; the proposer
should demonstrate that it is in the best interest of the project to permit a portion
of the service(s) to be subcontracted by the proposer. Provide details on the role
of any subcontractor that will be used. Assignment is prohibited.
ta 0"fra
lit,
Question 6: The point values on both pages of "Attachment 7, Evaluation Criteria" do not match. Can
you please confirm which point values are correct?
Answer 6: The first page is correct, please see revised evaluation criteria attached here as
Attachment 1.
Question 7: Task 9 includes post -award construction support services, but the design fee is defined
as Lump Sum. Can phase 3, Construction Support be time & materials to be added -on
later?
Answer 7: Task 9 is considered as Time and Materials Not to Exceed. Please provide a
Budget for the work with the hours allocated.
The Consultant is hereby notified; Addendum No. 1 must be acknowledged as required under
Section 6, Addenda and submitted as part of the RFP. Failure to acknowledge and incorporate
addenda will not relieve the proposer from the responsibility to meet all terms and conditions of
the RFP and any subsequent addenda.
APPROVED:
$��an MclCr'�Ke�
5ryan M�Hinncy (Jun JC. J�)� l5 5� Pf
Bryan McKinney, PE
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Attachment: 1. Revised Evaluation Criteria
END OF ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
ATTACHMENT 1
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Consultant:
Reviewer:
Date:
Refer to Scoring Breakdown on next sheet.
Category
Max Pts
Score
Understanding of work to be done
30
Staffing and Scope of Work
20
Pertinent Project Experience
25
Schedule
10
Format/Organization
10
Intangible Qualities
5
Total
100
Unique Qualities (Intangibles):
(Explanation)
Comments:
Reviewer's Signature
TOTAL
Contract Administrator's Initials Date
Page 1 of 2
Scoring Breakdown:
Understanding of work to be done - 30 points maximum
0-10: Scope of work is off topic or is missing more than 5 key elements.
11-20: Scope of work is understandable but missing a few key elements.
21-30: Scope of work well justified and most or all key elements are included.
Staffing and Scope of Work - 20 points maximum
0-8 points: Staffing is not clearly listed or does not match scope of work proposed.
9-15 points: Staffing is included but experience is not relevant or similar.
16-20 points: Staffing is included, matches the scope of work, and experience is relevant.
Pertinent Project Experience - 25 points maximum
0-8 points: Consultant does not include previous experience or has very minimal
experience.
9-16 points: Consultant lists previous experience, but experience is not relevant or similar.
17-25 points: Consultant lists relevant previous experience with similar work.
Schedule - 10 Points Maximum
0-4 points: Schedule is missing key components and is unreasonable
5-7 points: Schedule is reasonable but missing key components
8-10 points: Schedule is reasonable and has all key components
Format/Organization - 10 points maximum
0-4: Scope of work is not or barely organized into tasks and subtasks, does not flow clearly.
5-7: Scope of work is organized into tasks and subtasks, but not in a clear logical order.
8-10: Scope of work is well organized into logical tasks and subtasks to complete a project.
Intangible Qualities - 5 points maximum
Intangible qualities are those traits or abilities that are not included in the above categories.
Page 2 of 2