901130 Addendum 1 for Collaborative Community Planning Council

County of Alameda, General Services Agency – Purchasing

RFP No. 900977, Addendum No. 2

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

ADDENDUM No. 1

RFP No. 901130

for

Collaborative Community Planning Council

Specification Clarification/Modification and Recap of the Networking/Bidders Conferences

Held on October 3, 2013

This County of Alameda, General Services Agency (GSA), RFP Addendum has been electronically issued to potential bidders via e-mail. E-mail addresses used are those in the County’s Small Local Emerging Business (SLEB) Vendor Database or from other sources. If you have registered or are certified as a SLEB, please ensure that the complete and accurate e-mail address is noted and kept updated in the SLEB Vendor Database. This RFP Addendum will also be posted on the GSA Contracting Opportunities website located at .

REVISED BID DUE DATE: Bid Responses are now due on November 6, 2013 by 2:00 p.m.

Alameda County is committed to reducing environmental impacts across our entire supply chain.

If printing this document, please print only what you need, print double-sided, and use recycled-content paper.

RFP No. 900977, Addendum No. 2

Page 1

County of Alameda, General Services Agency – Purchasing

RFP No. 901130, Addendum No. 1

The following Sections have been modified to read as shown below. Changes made to the original RFP document are in bold print and highlighted, and deletions made have a strike through.

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

EVENT / DATE/LOCATION
Request Issued / September 13, 2013
Written Questions Due / by 5:00 p.m. onOctober 3, 2013
Networking/Bidders Conference #1 / October 1, 2013 @ 10:00 am
Completed / 1401 Lakeside Drive
Room 222
Oakland, CA 94607
Completed
Networking/Bidders Conference #2 / October 3, 2013 @ 1:30 pm
Completed / 1000 Broadway
Room 310A
Oakland, CA 94607
Completed
Addendum Issued / October 15, 2013 October 21, 2013
Response Due / October 31, 2013 November 6, 2013by 2:00 p.m.
Evaluation Period / November 1-8, 2013 November 7-14, 2013
Vendor Interviews / November 12-15, 2013 November 15-22, 2013
Board Letter Recommending Award Issued / November 27, 2013
Board Consideration Award Date / December 17, 2013
Contract Start Date / March 1, 2014

Note: Award and start dates are approximate.

RFPNo. 901130, Addendum No. 1

Page 1

County of Alameda, General Services Agency – Purchasing

RFP No. 901130, Addendum No. 1

BID FORM – 901130

COST SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON EXHIBIT A AS IS. NO ALTERATIONS OR CHANGES OF ANY KIND ARE PERMITTED. Bid responses that do not comply will be subject to rejection in total. The cost quoted below shall include all taxes and all other charges, including travel expenses, and is the cost the County will pay for the three-year term of any contract that is a result of this bid.

Quantities listed herein are annual estimates based on past usage and are not to be construed as a commitment. No minimum or maximum is guaranteed or implied.

Bidder hereby certifies to County that all representations, certifications, and statements made by Bidder, as set forth in this Bid Form and attachments are true and correct and are made under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California.

This amount will count for 25% of the proposal’s value. points in the evaluation

A.
Task description / B.
Estimated Annual number of hours
(B x 12) / C.
Hourly rate / D.
Annual cost
(B x C) / E.
Extended three year cost
(D x 3)
1 / Attending monthly meetings / 246 / $
2 / Preparation for meetings / 984 / $
3 / Administrative assistance / 492 / $
4 / Attending annual retreat / 8 / $
5 / Planning annual retreat / 7272
72 / $
6 / Ad Hoc meetings as required Total Estimated annual number of hours / 7272
72 / $
7 / Subtotal lines 1 to 7 for each column / 1874
88 / TAX (9%)
99 / Grand TOTAL COST

Vendor Name:______Signature:______

Date:______Printed Name:______

CURRENT REFERENCES

RFP No. 901130 –Collaborative Community Planning Council

Pages 9 and 10 of the Bid Response Packet

will count for 10 % POINTS IN THE EVALUATION.

Bidder Name:

Company Name: / Contact Person:
Address: / Telephone Number:
City, State, Zip: / E-mail Address:
Services Provided / Date(s) of Service:
Company Name: / Contact Person:
Address: / Telephone Number:
City, State, Zip: / E-mail Address:
Services Provided / Date(s) of Service:
Company Name: / Contact Person:
Address: / Telephone Number:
City, State, Zip: / E-mail Address:
Services Provided / Date(s) of Service:

FORMER REFERENCES

RFPNo. 901130–Collaborative Community Planning Council

Pages 9 and 10 of the Bid Response Packet

will count for 10 %POINTS IN THE EVALUATION.

Bidder Name:

Responses to Written Questions

Q1)The United States Postal Office sometimes does not deliver on time, so will the County go by the date on the postmark as the date of receipt?

A)No. Bids must be received by 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 6th. Proposals that arrive early are secured in a cabinet until 2:00 P.M.on the day of the bid opening, at which point the County attaches a time-stamped ticket to show the bid was received on time. Bidders are also provided with a receipt if they deliverproposals. Proposals that arrive later than 2:00 P.M. on the due date(for example, at 2:01 P.M.) will not be accepted and will be disqualified. For this reason, the County suggests that Bidders drop off their bids in advance of the deadline.

Q2)There was no contract amount noted, but will there be an approximate amount available for the Bidder to know so that they can build their proposal around it?

A)The award amount will be less than the $250,000 per year budgeted in the past.

Q3)Is the current contract a public document, and if so, can that be viewed by Bidders? Does ‘current contract’refer tothe contract for services or the RFP?

A3) ‘Current contract’ refers to the contract for services/standard services agreement. The incumbent has a standard services agreement with Alameda County. Contact John Butchart at to request a copy of this 19-page document under the California Public Records Act. Information from winning proposals is frequently incorporated into the standard services agreement.

Q4)There does not seem to be much of a training component for council members. Is that considered to be a part of the winning bidder’s responsibilities?

A)For new council members there is a one-day orientation that is provided by the support staff. This occurs two to three times a year, based on when new members join the council. The County tries not to have trainingfor just one person so it will delay orientation untilthere is a small group of new council members, in order to save resources.

Q5)In San Francisco the support contractor is also responsible for assessing the preferred needs assessment for various communities. This can be done internally or contracted out. Is that part of this support program as well?

A)The County had the needs assessment for this process done internally through the Office of AIDS last year.

Q6)Would there be any space onsite, whether it’s just a desk or office space, where the CCPC Administrator staff can work?

A)The County provides space for the actual meetings, but not for the contractor’s office or staff.

Q7)Will the Addendum be released on the County’s website or will it be sent to the Bidders?

A)The addendum will be posted on the website and it will be emailed to vendors listed on Exhibit C: The Vendor Bid List. This is why it’s important for Bidders attending a bid conference to sign in and provide an accurate email address. If a Bidder did not attend the bid conference, they can be added to the Vendor Bid list by providing an accurate email address to the Contracts Specialistfor this RFP, John Butchart.

Q8)Page 3 of Exhibit A (Bidder Information and Acceptance),Item 10 states:

The undersigned acknowledges ONE of the following (please check only one box):

Bidder is not local to Alameda County and is ineligible for any bid preference; or

Bidder is a certified SLEB; (Bidder must check the first box and provide its SLEB Certification Number in the SLEB PARTNERING INFORMATION SHEET); or

Bidder is LOCAL to Alameda County and is requesting 5% bid preference, and has attached the following documentation to this Exhibit:

Copy of a verifiable business license, issued by the County of Alameda or a City within the County; and

Proof of six (6) months business residency, identifying the name of the vendor and the local address. Utility bills, deed of trusts or lease agreements, etc., are acceptable verification documents to prove residency.

Is this necessary for the bid if there is no SLEB requirement?

A8)SLEB and local requirements have been waived and this language no longer applies to this RFP. SLEB and local are not requirements because this project is federally funded.

Q9)Page 5 of Exhibit A, Item 3(c)(2), states:

Bidders are to provide a list of three (3) current and three (3) former clients. References must be satisfactory as deemed solely by County. References should have similar scope, volume, and requirements to those outlined in these specifications, terms, and conditions.

Given how specialized this project is, it may be difficult for bidders to provide references of similar scope and volume to Alameda County. How should bidders address this issue?

A)The County does not require bidders to list references that are solely HIV related, although that would be ideal. References should have similar scope, volume, and requirements to those outlined in these specifications, terms and conditions.

Q10)Page 11 of the RFP, Section H (Evaluation Criteria/Selection Committee), states:

The evaluation process may include a two-stage approach including an initial evaluation of the written proposal and preliminary scoring to develop a short list of bidders that will continue to the final stage of oral presentation and interview and reference checks.The preliminary scoring will be based on the total points, excluding points allocated to references, oral presentation, and interview.

If the two-stage approach is used, the three bidders receiving the highest preliminary scores and with at least 200 points will be invited to an oral presentation and interview.Only the bidders meeting the short list criteria will proceed to the next stage.All other bidders will be deemed eliminated from the process. All bidders will be notified of the short list participants; however, the preliminary scores at that time will not be communicated to bidders.

Can the County clarify if in fact there will be a two-stage approach for this project or if they may forego the interview stage?

A10) The County will determine if the two-stage approach will be used after the bids are received. If the two-stage approach is used, the 3 bidders with the highest scores will be interviewed. If the two-stage approach is not used, all qualified bidders will be interviewed.

Q11)Page 12 of the RFP, Evaluation Criteria, item B, states:

The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest responsive bid received by each bidder’s total proposed cost.

Can the County provide a numerical example of how the Cost will be determined?

A)The County calculates the cost evaluation points by dividing the lowest proposed amount by each bidder’s total proposed amount and then multiplying that number by five. For example, assume the County received three bids. Vendor A submitted a total proposed amount of $10. Vendor B submitted a total proposed amount of $15. And Vendor C submitted a total proposed amount of $20. Also assume that the Cost evaluation weight is 15. The highest possible Cost evaluation points, under this scenario, is 75 (maximum weight of 15 times 5).

Vendor A would receive the maximum number of Cost evaluation points because they submitted the lowest proposed cost ($10/$10 = 1 and 1 * 5 * 15= 75 points). Vendor C would receive the least amount of Cost evaluation points because they submitted the highest proposed cost ($10/$20 = 0.50 and 0.50 * 5 * 15 = 37.5 points). Vendor B would receive Cost evaluation points that would fall somewhere in between ($10/$15 = 0.67 and 0.67 * 5 * 15 = 50.25 points).

Q12)Please provide additional information regarding the evaluation of the Overall Proposal, Section E on page 13, worth 25 points.

A)The Overall Proposal,evaluation criteria E, valued at 25 points, is a comprehensive standard that includes anything not covered by the other criteria except Oral Presentation and Interview, criteria F. The Overall Proposal criteria includes such factors as organization and neatness of the bid, overall comprehension of the goal, practicality of implementation, and any additional characteristics the evaluator deems important.

Q13)Page 12 of the RFP, Evaluation criteria, item B states:

While not reflected in the Cost evaluation points, an evaluation may also be made of:

1. Reasonableness (i.e., does the proposed pricing accurately reflect the bidder’s effort to meet requirements and objectives?);

2. Realism (i.e., is the proposed cost appropriate to the nature of the products and services to be provided?); and

3 .Affordability (i.e., the ability of the County to finance the bid)

Consideration of price in terms of overall affordability may be controlling in circumstances where two or more proposals are otherwise adjudged to be equal, or when a superior proposal is at a price that the County cannot afford.

4.Reserve amount (i.e. since federal funding is subject to sequestration cuts over the course of the contract, a higher reserve amount is better than a lower reserve amount)

Given that this is not part of the evaluation points, how will this evaluation be used?

A)Items 1-Reasonableness, 2–Realism, and 3–Affordability will be evaluated as part of the Overall Proposal criteria E. The reserve amount would have been an amount determined by the bidder and evaluated as part of the Overall Proposal criteria, but it was deleted from the original bid form. It has been replaced with Ad Hoc meetings on row 6 of the bid form, which is estimated at 72 hours, which will be evaluated as a component of the Cost criteria B.

Q14)Are bidders required to use the annual number of hours stated on the bid form or can bidders provide their own estimates of hours?

A)Bidders are required to use the number of hours stated on the bid form. COST SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON EXHIBIT A AS IS. NO ALTERATIONS OR CHANGES OF ANY KIND ARE PERMITTED.

Q16) Are CCPC meetings open to the public and can bidders visit the meetings to see them first hand?

A16)The CCPC meetings are open to the public. A complete CCPC calendar is available at . Visitors are encouraged to confirm meetings in advance by calling (510) 326-3476.

The following participants attended the Bidders’ Conferences:

Company Name / Address / Representative / Contact Information
Shanti
730 Polk St.
San Francisco, CA 94109 / Mark Molnar / Phone: 415-674-4726
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor:
Certified SLEB: No
Banks-Cisneros
26696 Chiplay Ave.
Hayward, CA 94545 / Priscilla Banks / Phone: 510-461-1268
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor:
Certified SLEB: No
AIDS Project of the East Bay
1320 Webster St.
Oakland, CA 94612 / Alvan Quamina / Phone: 510-435-7688
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor:
Subcontractor:
Certified SLEB:

RFPNo. 901130, Addendum No. 1

Page 1

EXHIBIT C

VENDOR LIST

RFP No. 901130 – Collaborative Community Planning Council

Below is the Vendor Bid List for this project consisting of vendors who have responded to RFI No. 901130,and/or been issued a copy of this RFP. This Vendor Bid List is being provided for informational purposes to assist bidders in making contact with other businesses as needed to develop local small and emerging business subcontracting relationships to meet the requirements of the Small Local Emerging Business (SLEB) Program:

This RFP Addendum is being issued to all vendors on the Vendor Bid List; the following revised vendor list includes contact information for each vendor attendee at the Networking/Bidders Conferences.

RFP No. 901130 - Collaborative Community Planning Council
Business Name / Contact Name / Contact Phone / Address / City / State / Email
AIDS Project of the East Bay / Alvan Quamina / 510-435-7688 / 1320 Webster St. / Oakland / CA /
All Health Care / Shirley Lampkin / 510-465-7333 / 546 Ninth Street / Oakland / CA /
Bibby, LLC / Douglas Bibby / 510-525-9499 / 1109 Neilson St / ALBANY / CA /
Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency / Sonja Fitz / 510.649.1930 x 222 / 2065 Kittredge St. Suite E / Berkeley / CA /
Ratcliff Consultants Inc. / Walter Ratcliff / 510-658-0583 / 6016 Romany Rd / OAKLAND / CA /
Shanti / Mark Molnar / 415-674-4726 / 730 Polk St. / San Francisco / CA /
Sweetwine Consultant Service / Patricia Sweetwine / 510-326-3476 / 710 E. 22nd St., Ste. 101 / OAKLAND / CA /
The Banks Broup / Priscilla Banks / 510 461-1268 / 26696 Chiplay Ave, Hayward, CA 94545- / Hayward / CA /
Prof. Steve Ugbah / 510 885-3317
C: 925 961-2148 / CSUEB / CA /
Priscilla Banks /
Estelle Clemons /
Facente Consulting / Shelley Facente / 415 999-1310 / 5601 Van Fleet Ave. / Richmond / CA /

Exhibit C – RFP No. 901130

Page 1