HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP YMCA Fence & Trash Enclosure 2025-10 / Civic Center Bridge 2026-07 Addendum 2
Page 1 of 3
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Date: July 29, 2026
To:All prospective proposers
RFP: YMCA FENCE AND TRASH ENCLOSURE PROJECT NO. 2025-10 & CIVIC
CENTER BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2026-07
The following provisions are hereby incorporated into the RFP for the above-referenced
consulting services, originally published on July 09, 2026.
The following is a response letter for all questions received as part of this RFP
1. Question: "Present the proposals in a format and order that corresponds to the
numbering and lettering contained herein", but one of the Evaluation Criteria is "Project
Understanding and Approach" and it does not have a corresponding number. Under
what number should our U&A go?
Answer: The following shall be included under Section IV. Proposal Format
between Sections 5. And Sections 6.
5.1 Project Understanding and Approach
A description of the firm’s project understanding and how the consultant team will
approach the project.
5.2 Scope of Services
A description of the tasks, sub-tasks, and deliverables that will be provided. The Scope
of Work should be presented in a logical format that can be easily attached to the
Agreement for Contract Services.
5.3 Project Schedule
A comprehensive Gantt Chart schedule describing the nature and scheduling of
proposed tasks.
2. Question: Do subcontractors also need to fill out Attachments 2 and 3?
Answer: No, only the Prime Consultant.
3. Question: Are consultants expected to provide cost estimating?
Answer: Yes, consultants shall provide a cost estimate at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
reviews (at a minimum) as described in the PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
section of the RFP.
Page 2 of 3
4.Question: Are original bridge design drawings, shop drawings, fabrication drawings,
or previous inspection reports available?
Answer: They are unavailable. It is suspected the bridge manufacturer is a part of the
company Contech Engineering Solutions.
5. Question: Can the City confirm whether the bridge structural steel is painted
galvanized or mild steel, or another material? If known, are previous coating
specifications available?
Answer: The city cannot confirm the bridge material nor the current coating material or
previous specifications.
6. Question: Is the consultant expected to retain and manage any specialty testing
subconsultants (e.g., NDE, GPR, concrete testing), or is intent to do initial assessment
and then consultant can provide recommendations if any of those services are
warranted and potentially have those procured directly by the City if needed?
Answer: The prime consultant shall determine which sub-consultants are needed to
complete the work as described in the RFP. It is not expected to retain and manage any
additional specialty testing subconsultants if unneeded. If after the initial assessment it
is determined a specific specialty testing is needed that is not included in the proposal,
the city may request to add the additional services via amendment to the contract. The
consultant may include an optional task if it is suspected specific specialty testing will
be needed based on judgement or past practice.
7. Question: May we assume hazardous materials testing (e.g., lead-based paint, etc.) is
excluded from the consultant's scope?
Answer: Hazardous materials testing for construction demolition may be excluded from
the consultant’s scope. However, demolition plans and specifications must address any
lead and/or asbestos if found during investigation.
8. Question: Will the City provide a current topographic survey and utility information for
the trash enclosure? May we assume no civil engineering scope (grading, drainage,
utility relocation, paving, ADA improvements, etc.) is required?
Answer: The City will not provide a current topographic survey due to the small nature
of each project. Minimum Civil Engineering Scope relevant to the construction of the
trash enclosure such as subgrade preparation, concrete design, etc. should be included
in the plans and specifications. Specific Grading, Specific Drainage, Utility Relocation,
Paving, ADA improvements (outside the trash enclosure area) as mentioned in the
question can be omitted.
9. Question: May we assume a geotechnical investigation is not required for the trash
enclosure, and that foundation design may be based on code-presumptive values or
available geotechnical information provided by the City?
Page 3 of 3
Answer: The consultant may utilize code-presumptive values for the foundation
design.
10.Question: Has the City established a target construction budget for either project?
Answer: The City has not established a target construction budget for either project at
this moment. It is suspected a targeted construction budget will be determined after
the concept review (1st Review).
11.Question: Please clarify the anticipated level of bidding and construction support.
Should consultants assume responses to RFIs and limited submittal review only, or
are construction site visits, structural observation, and construction meetings
expected?
Answer: Consultants should include responses to RFI and submittal reviews for
bidding and construction support. Construction Site Visits and Structural Observation
may be included as an optional task for the Civic Center Bridge Improvements for RFI
questions during construction. Construction meeting attendance is not expected.
12.Question: Can [the] waterfall be turned off temporarily to facilitate observations? Can
we assume we can enter the water with waders to do initial observations?
Answer: Yes to both questions.
13.Question:Is the consultant expected to perform a complete structural analysis of the
existing bridges, or is the intent to evaluate and design localized repairs based on
observed deterioration?
Answer: The intent is to evaluate, and design localized repairs based on observed
deterioration as well as protective measures against further deterioration.
In all other respects the original RFP shall remain in effect.
*******************************************************
End of Addendum No. 2
Published July 29, 2026
________________________
Felix De Leon, Senior Civil/Managing Engineer
City of La Quinta