Active SLED Opportunity · COLORADO · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
AI Summary
CU Boulder seeks engineering firms for as-needed civil engineering professional services supporting university planning, design, and construction departments. This RFQ requires electronic submission by August 6, 2026.
The University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) seeks to retain various engineering firms for as-needed professional services in support of University’s departments of Planning, Design and Construction (PD&C), Housing Services (HDS), and Facilities Management Small Construction. The successful firm(s) will report directly to the designated CU Boulder project manager... **Solicitation Type**: RFQ - Request for Qualifications (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.2569109.2614471.C16671701 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 08/03/2026 04:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Owner Organization**: CU Boulder **Solicitation Number**: 26-39 **Reference Number**: 0000431587 **Pricing**: No Pricing **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | RFQ Submittal | RFQ Response | Yes | No | | Attestation | Acknowledgement and Attestation Form | Yes | No | | Minimum Qualifications | Minimum Qualifications & Demonstrated Project Experience Form | Yes | No | **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | The due date is only two weeks away - the RFQ for architectural services gave the proposers three weeks to prepare a response. Would the University consider extending the due date by a week? The responses to questions are due on April 4th via addendum which is only 2 days before the submittal due date. This is not much time to update the submittal based on responses - if the University will not extend the due date, would it be possible to have responses issued earlier? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | On page 5 of the RFQ, item 3.a indicates "Mechanical/Plumbing Firms". However, this solicitation is for Structural Engineering. Please verify this is a typo. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Sections III.3.a and Appendix A1 reference Mechanical/Plumbing services. Should these references instead identify Civil, with discipline-specific project examples? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Should the Acknowledgment and Attestation Form be submitted only as a separate BidNet file, or also appended to the Qualification Submittal as outlined in VII.2.f? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | For the three required projects, does the $100,000 threshold apply to the total fee for the design phase or including construction too? Does “completed” mean design services were completed or including construction too? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does CU Boulder prefer teams with subconsultants that can fulfill all anticipated elements related to the scope of services (e.g., topographic/planimetric survey, geotechnical and utility engineering, etc.)? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Would CU Boulder please expand on the anticipated project types that may be issued under this contract, beyond what is listed on pg. 4 and 5 of the RFQ? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Do subconsultants need to demonstrate the minimum requirements as stated on pg. 5 of the RFQ, or only the prime firm? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Section 1 asks for, "Experience on projects as a team." Can examples be provided in Section 3 Project Experience instead or is Section 1 looking for an overall statement of the staff working together as a team? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | In Section 1, is CU Boulder looking for full resumes to satisfy this requirement: "Qualifications and relevant individual experience." If so, do these count towards the page limit? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Do subconsultants need to supply the Demonstrated Experience Form and Attestation Form as well as the prime firm? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | How many firms/teams does CU Boulder anticipate selecting for this contract? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | In Section 2 for "current and projected workload" are you looking for workload of the firm or the key staff? How is this different from time commitment of key staff in Section 1? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | We would like to propose the following changes to the terms and conditions included with the solicitation to align the terms with Colorado Revised Statues Section 13.50.5-102: SC-5.1-03 Architect/Engineer Agreement Terms and Conditions Design/Bid/Build (State Form SC-5.1TC) Pages 34-35, Article 12 Miscellaneous Provisions, 12.26.1 General Indemnification: add "to the extent caused by" after "of the Indemnified Parties" in line 5, remove "in relation to" and add "negligent" prior to "act or omission" also on line 5. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Could you please clarify whether the cover page counts toward the page limit, or is it excluded from the page count? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For the three projects completed between 2023 and 2026, must they be projects on CU Boulder’s campus, projects for any higher education facility, or any relevant project type that meets the associated fee cap? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | For the three projects completed between 2023 and 2026, does “completed” mean the design was completed or that construction was completed? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Would projects where the engineer served as the sole subconsultant providing construction engineering services to a contractor qualify as relevant experience, or must the projects have been performed directly for an owner? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | The RFQ states that CU Boulder intends to interview a minimum of three teams and a maximum of ten teams. Is there a set number or anticipated range of firms that will ultimately be selected? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Since the contract term is one year, does CU Boulder expect to recompete this contract annually? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Will task orders awarded under this RFQ be issued on a time-and-materials basis, a fixed-fee basis, or potentially both? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | This RFQ is issued for Civil Engineering services, yet the minimum-experience requirement in Section III.3.a refers to "Mechanical/Plumbing Firms," and the Appendix A1 submittal form is titled "As-Need Mechanical/Plumbing Professional Services." Please confirm the discipline and minimum-experience criteria that apply to civil respondents, so that submittals are prepared and evaluated against the intended requirements. | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Appendix D requests three projects fully completed between July 2023 and July 2026, each with a total fee under $100,000, preferably performed by the respondent's Colorado office. Please clarify whether "completed" refers to completion of the firm's professional services or completion of construction | Answered in Addendum 3 | | We request the addition of a limitation-of-liability provision under a new Risk Allocation article (proposed as Article 14 of SC-5.1TC and Article 11 of SC-5.3). As proposed, the aggregate liability of consultant and its officers, employees, and subconsultants for all claims arising out of or relating to the project or contract — whether based in tort, negligence, professional errors and omissions, strict liability, breach of contract, or breach of warranty — would not exceed the greater of the total compensation received by consultant or $100,000. Because individual task orders under this program are capped at $100,000, this provision would align with project coverage. | Answered in Addendum 3 | | In the construction-phase observation language of SC-5.1TC, we request that the duty to "endeavor to guard the Principal Representative against defects and deficiencies in the Work" be revised to reflect the professional standard: Consultant will keep the Owner reasonably informed of the progress and quality of the Work and will report known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the Contractor's most recent construction schedule, together with defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. This revision aligns the observation obligation with the applicable professional standard of care and avoids implying a guarantee of the Contractor's means, methods, and work, which are outside the design professional's control | Answered in Addendum 3 | | In the indemnification provisions of both SC-5.1TC and SC-5.3, we request that Consultant's obligation be limited to costs resulting from third-party claims arising out of the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Consultant or its subconsultants. This conforms the indemnity to Consultant's professional standard of care and to Colorado's design-professional anti-indemnification statute (C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5). | Answered in Addendum 3 | | The Acknowledgment and Attestation Form requires signatures from a Corporate Officer and Secretary. These individuals are not involved in our pursuit of this RFQ and may not be readily available during the submission timeframe. Would signatures from other company principals who are authorized to execute contracts and legally bind the firm be acceptable in lieu of the Corporate Officer and Secretary signatures? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | The University has issued a revision to some of the schedule dates due to staffing needs. | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Regarding paragraph 2.a, it notes "Evaluation Form (1 through 7) in Appendix A. | Answered in Addendum 3 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/30/2026 11:58 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 2 | 08/02/2026 03:44 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 3 | 08/04/2026 01:40 PM EDT | |
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.