SLED Opportunity · CONNECTICUT · CITY OF NEW HAVEN
AI Summary
The City of New Haven seeks architectural services for a Conditions Assessment Report and adaptive reuse study of the historic Edgerton Park Carriage House and Greenhouse. The project requires compliance with historic preservation standards and aims to guide repairs and community use enhancements.
The City of New Haven Parks Department is seeking proposals for architectural services to develop a Conditions Assessment Report for the EDGERTON PARK CARRIAGE HOUSE AND GREENHOUSE. The project is funded by grant funds from the Community Investment Account of the State of Connecticut, as administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Work must be done in accordance with SHPO standards and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and be prepared by a consultant team that meets the federal qualifications standards under 36 CFR Part 61 for Historical Architect.
New Haven Parks and Edgerton Park Conservancy are working together in partnership to look at how best to repair these systems and to maximize the use of these buildings as a community resource. We are seeking assistance from a qualified historical architect for a Pre-Development Study to 1) assess the overall condition of the carriage house and greenhouses 2) provide guidance on how to retrofit the heating and cooling systems of the buildings to be compliant with the City of New Haven’s climate and energy efficiency goals, and 3) provide advice on how the buildings may be further utilized to support goals of New Haven Parks and Edgerton Park Conservancy for programming and events, including the potential to install a commercial kitchen to support events and educational programming.
The assessment resulting from this RFP would be used to guide further investment in stabilizing the buildings and redevelopment of the spaces to best meet community needs. The report will be hosted on the New Haven Parks website and a public meeting will be scheduled in partnership with Edgerton Park Conservancy to share the results and to invite the public to offer further ideas for re-envisioning the spaces.
The assessment will be required to have preliminary cost estimates in order to allow New Haven Parks to plan use of its capital funds for repairs at the buildings while also balancing the various needs that exist throughout the park system.
Edgerton park and its buildings were added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. The condition of the buildings and the grounds is essential to maintaining the quality of the park. Edgerton Park Conservancy recently completed a master plan for the care and maintenance of the grounds; however, the buildings have not been comprehensively assessed and are beginning to show significant disrepair.
Of greatest concern are Edgerton Park greenhouses and the carriage house. These facilities are essential to maintaining community programming at the park. Heating systems for the greenhouses and the carriage house are showing significant signs of distress. Windows and framing need repair. Plumbing systems are becoming outdated. Due to these growing concerns, this Feasibility/Adaptive Reuse Study and Conditions Assessment Report for both buildings are necessary to have a plan for continuity of service from the buildings.
Completeness:
Are all necessary requirements included? Does the set of requirements cover all aspects of the system's functionality, performance, and constraints? Are there any obvious omissions?
Are all stakeholders' needs addressed? Have the requirements captured the essential needs and expectations of all relevant user groups and stakeholders?
Are functional and non-functional requirements adequately represented? Does the documentation include both what the system should do and how well it should do it (e.g., performance, security, usability)?
Clarity and Unambiguity:
Are the requirements easy to understand? Is the language used clear, concise, and free from jargon or technical terms that stakeholders might not understand?
Is each requirement stated unambiguously? Is there only one way to interpret each requirement? Are there any vague or subjective terms used?
Are the requirements at the appropriate level of detail? Are they specific enough to guide design and development but not so detailed that they constrain implementation unnecessarily?
Consistency:
Are the requirements consistent with each other? Do any requirements contradict or conflict with other requirements?
Are the requirements consistent with existing systems and standards? Do the requirements align with any relevant organizational standards, industry best practices, or existing systems the new system will interact with?
Verifiability:
Is it possible to determine if each requirement has been met? Can each requirement be tested, demonstrated, inspected, or analyzed to confirm its fulfillment?
Are measurable criteria defined where appropriate? For non-functional requirements (like performance), are there specific metrics and target values defined?
Traceability:
Can each requirement be traced back to its source? Is it clear which stakeholder need or business goal each requirement addresses?
Can each requirement be traced forward to design elements, code, and test cases? Will it be possible to follow the implementation and verification of each requirement throughout the development lifecycle?
Feasibility:
Are the requirements technically feasible to implement within the project constraints? Can the system be built with the available technology, resources, and timeline?
Are the requirements economically feasible? Are the costs associated with implementing the requirements justifiable in terms of the benefits they provide?
Modifiability:
Is the requirements documentation structured in a way that allows for easy modification? Can changes be made to individual requirements without causing significant ripple effects on other requirements?
Is there a clear process for managing changes to requirements?
Testability:
Are the requirements written in a way that facilitates the creation of test cases? Can testable conditions be derived directly from the requirements?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
The selection for award will be based on lowest responsible and qualified bidder.
Responsibility will be evaluated based on the candidate’s previous experience, qualifications of the bidder including quality of the proposal, references, quality of samples (previous work products), previous experience, and the ability to competently complete the work within the allotted budget and period of time.
The proposer must be approved by the SHPO prior to award. The SHPO and the New Haven Parks expect to select an architect and award a contract on or about June 16, 2026.
Bidders are required produce examples of similar work experience.
Preference will be given to bidders who have extensive experience utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Objective: To assess the qualifications, experience, and availability of the personnel proposed for the project.
Relevant Experience:
Expertise Match: Do the assigned staff members possess direct experience and expertise relevant to the specific tasks and technical requirements of this project?
Role Alignment: Are the skills and experience of each individual appropriate for their proposed role and responsibilities?
Qualifications & Certifications:
Educational Background: Do key personnel have relevant academic qualifications?
Professional Certifications: Are there any required or highly desirable professional certifications (e.g., PMP, specific technical certifications) that the assigned staff hold?
Availability & Dedication:
Time Commitment: Is the proposed time commitment for each staff member sufficient for their assigned tasks, considering other potential commitments?
Stability: Is there a clear indication of staff availability throughout the project lifecycle?
Team Structure & Cohesion:
Clear Roles: Are the roles and reporting lines clearly defined for the entire project team?
Team Experience: Does the proposed team have a history of working together effectively on similar projects?
Key Personnel Stability:
Designated Leads: Are key project leads identified, and do they have a proven track record of leadership in similar projects?
Succession Planning (if applicable): Is there any indication of how critical roles would be backfilled in case of unforeseen circumstances?
Objective: To evaluate the realism, comprehensiveness, and efficiency of the project timeline.
Realism & Achievability:
Feasibility: Is the proposed timeline realistic given the scope, resources, and known complexities of the project?
Contingency: Does the schedule include reasonable buffers or contingency time for unforeseen delays or risks?
Clarity & Detail:
Milestones: Are clear, measurable, and logical milestones defined?
Task Breakdown: Is the schedule broken down into sufficiently detailed tasks with estimated durations?
Dependencies: Are critical path activities and dependencies clearly identified?
Efficiency:
Optimized Flow: Does the schedule demonstrate an efficient sequence of activities, minimizing idle time or unnecessary overlaps?
Resource Allocation: Does the schedule align with the proposed resource allocation without creating bottlenecks?
Alignment with Scope:
Comprehensive Coverage: Does the schedule cover all aspects of the project scope of work?
Deliverable Timelines: Are the timelines for key deliverables clearly stated and reasonable?
Objective: To assess the organization's experience and understanding of working within a context comparable to the project's location.
Direct Relevance:
Population Size: Has the organization successfully completed projects in cities with a comparable population size?
Demographic Similarities: Does their past experience reflect an understanding of similar demographic characteristics, if relevant to the project?
Contextual Understanding:
Regulatory Environment: Does their experience suggest familiarity with similar local regulations, permitting processes, or bureaucratic structures?
Infrastructure: Have they worked in environments with similar infrastructure challenges or opportunities?
Logistical Capabilities:
Local Resources: Does their past work demonstrate an ability to mobilize resources effectively in a similar urban setting?
Stakeholder Engagement: Have they successfully navigated stakeholder relationships in comparable city environments (e.g., local government, community groups)?
Challenges & Solutions:
Problem-Solving: Can they articulate specific challenges encountered in similar cities and how they successfully overcame them?
Adaptability: Does their experience show an ability to adapt strategies to specific local conditions?
Objective: To evaluate how thoroughly and effectively the proposed work plan addresses all components of the project's defined scope.
Completeness:
Full Coverage: Does the work plan explicitly address every single item and requirement outlined in the Scope of Work (SOW)?
No Gaps: Are there any areas of the SOW that are not clearly covered or addressed in the work plan?
Clarity & Specificity:
Detailed Methodology: Does the plan describe a clear, logical, and detailed methodology for achieving each part of the SOW?
Actionable Steps: Are the steps outlined actionable and understandable?
Understanding of Requirements:
Interpretation: Does the work plan demonstrate a clear and accurate understanding of the project's objectives and requirements as stated in the SOW?
Implicit Needs: Does it also address any implicit needs or potential challenges related to the SOW?
Deliverables & Outcomes:
Defined Outputs: Does the work plan clearly link specific activities to the production of defined deliverables and desired outcomes for each SOW area?
Quality Assurance: Does it describe how the quality of deliverables for each SOW area will be ensured?
Risk Mitigation (per SOW area):
Identified Risks: Does the plan identify potential risks specific to each area of the SOW?
Mitigation Strategies: Are there clear and appropriate strategies proposed to mitigate these risks?
Objective: To assess the financial realism, transparency, and value for money of the proposed budget.
Cost Realism:
Sufficiency: Is the proposed budget sufficient to cover all necessary project activities, resources, and contingencies without being excessive?
Market Rates: Are the proposed costs for labor, materials, and other expenses consistent with current market rates?
Detail & Transparency:
Breakdown: Is the budget presented with a clear, itemized breakdown of costs (e.g., labor, materials, travel, subcontracts, overhead)?
Justification: Is there clear justification provided for significant cost items?
Value for Money:
Cost-Benefit: Does the budget represent good value for the anticipated outcomes and quality of work?
Efficiency: Does the budget demonstrate cost-effective approaches without compromising quality?
Accuracy & Consistency:
Calculations: Are all calculations accurate, and do they align with the proposed work plan and schedule?
Completeness: Does the budget account for all project phases and potential indirect costs?
Payment Terms:
Clarity: Are the proposed payment terms clear, reasonable, and aligned with project milestones?
Objective: To evaluate the overall stability, capacity, and reputation of the proposing organization.
Experience & Track Record:
Relevant Projects: Has the organization successfully completed projects of similar scope, complexity, and type?
Longevity: How long has the organization been in business, and does it demonstrate stability?
Reputation & References:
Client Satisfaction: Do references or past performance demonstrate a history of client satisfaction and successful project delivery?
Industry Standing: Is the organization well-regarded within its industry or field?
Financial Stability:
Capacity: Does the organization appear financially stable and capable of undertaking a project of this size without undue risk? (Often assessed through financial statements or credit checks, if requested).
Organizational Structure & Capacity:
Resources: Does the organization have the necessary internal resources (e.g., equipment, facilities, support staff) to execute the project?
Scalability: Can the organization scale its operations to meet the demands of this project?
Quality Management & Methodologies:
Processes: Does the organization have established processes for project management, quality control, and risk management?
Certifications (e.g., ISO): Does the organization hold any relevant quality management certifications?
Innovation & Adaptability:
Forward-Thinking: Does the organization demonstrate an ability to incorporate new technologies or innovative approaches?
Problem-Solving Culture: Does their background suggest a proactive approach to problem-solving?
The proposer must develop a Cover Sheet that includes the information below. Legal Name is defined as the name of the provider or vendor submitting the proposal. Contact Person is defined as the individual who can provide additional information about the proposal or who has immediate responsibility for the proposal. Authorized Official is defined as the individual empowered to submit a binding offer on behalf of the proposer to provide services in accordance with the terms and provisions described in this RFP and any amendments or attachments hereto.
Executive Summary.
Proposals must include a high-level summary of the main proposal and cost proposal. The summary must also include the organization’s eligibility and qualifications to respond to this RFP and a brief overview of why the Respondent should be selected for the activities highlighted in the scope of services.
To Submit a Responsive Proposal:
The proposal must include but is not limited to:
Staffing Expectations
Qualifying bidders must meet minimum professional qualifications under the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards as expanded and revised in 1997 (62 FR 33708, June 20) for the fields of Engineering and/or Historic Architecture.
Qualifying Architect must be licensed and registered in the State of Connecticut.
Qualifying bidders must have similar/related background and experience in Adaptive Re-use of Historic Buildings if applicable.
The Proposer must certify that the personnel identified in its response to the RFP will be the persons actually assigned to the project. Any additions, deletions, or changes in personnel assigned to the project must be approved by New Haven Parks. in advance of their exclusion or inclusion, with the exception of personnel who have terminated employment. Replacements for personnel who have terminated employment are subject to approval by New Haven Parks and the SHPO. At its discretion, New Haven Parks may require removal and replacement of any of the Proposer’s personnel who do not perform adequately on the project in the sole opinion of New Haven Parks regardless of whether they were previously approved by New Haven Parks.
All responses to the RFP must conform to the instructions.
1. Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. New Haven Parks is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer and does not discriminate in its hiring, employment, or business practices. The State is committed to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and does not discriminate on the basis of disability in admission to, access to, or operation of its programs, services, or activities.
2. Preparation Expenses. New Haven Parks shall not assume any liability for expenses incurred by a proposer in preparing, submitting, or clarifying any proposal submitted in response to this RFP.
4. Proposed Costs. All proposed costs must be fixed through the entire term of the contract.
5. Changes to Proposal. No additions or changes to the original proposal will be allowed after submission.
6. Supplemental Information. Supplemental information will not be considered after the deadline submission of proposals, unless specifically requested by the New Haven Parks. New Haven Parks may ask a proposer to give demonstrations, interviews, oral presentations or further explanations to clarify information contained in a proposal. Any such demonstration, interview, or oral presentation will be at a time selected and in a place provided by New Haven Parks. At its sole discretion, the New Haven Parks may limit the number of proposers invited to make such a demonstration, interview, or oral presentation and may limit the number of attendees per proposer.
8. RFP Is Not An Offer. Neither this RFP nor any subsequent discussions shall give rise to any commitment on the part of New Haven Parks or confer any rights on any proposer unless and until a contract is fully executed by the necessary parties. The contract document will represent the entire agreement between the proposer and New Haven Parks and will supersede all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, alleged or made, between the parties. New Haven Parks shall assume no liability for costs incurred by the proposer or for payment of services under the terms of the contract until the successful proposer is notified that the contract has been accepted and approved by the New Haven Parks.
I. RIGHTS RESERVED TO New Haven Parks
By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, a proposer implicitly accepts that the following rights are reserved to New Haven Parks:
1. Timing Sequence. The timing and sequence of events associated with this RFP shall ultimately be determined by New Haven Parks.
2. Amending or Canceling RFP. New Haven Parks reserves the right to amend or cancel this RFP on any date and at any time, if New Haven Parks deems it to be necessary, appropriate, or otherwise in the best interests of the State.
3. No Acceptable Proposals. In the event that no acceptable proposals are submitted in response to this RFP, New Haven Parks may reopen the procurement process, if it is determined to be in the best interests of New Haven Parks.
4. Award and Rejection of Proposals. New Haven Parks reserves the right to award in part, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, for misrepresentation or if the proposal limits or modifies any of the terms, conditions, or specifications of this RFP. New Haven Parks may waive minor technical defects, irregularities, or omissions, if in its judgment the best interests of New Haven Parks will be served. New Haven Parks reserves the right to reject the proposal of any proposer who submits a proposal after the submission date and time.
5. Sole Property of New Haven Parks All proposals submitted in response to this RFP are to be the sole property of the New Haven Parks. Any product, whether acceptable or unacceptable, developed under a contract awarded as a result of this RFP shall be the sole property of New Haven Parks unless stated otherwise in this RFP or subsequent contract. The right to publish, distribute, or disseminate any and all information or reports, or part thereof, shall accrue to the New Haven Parks and the SHPO without recourse.
6. Clerical Errors in Award. New Haven Parks reserves the right to correct inaccurate awards resulting from its clerical errors. This may include, in extreme circumstances, revoking the awarding of a contract already made to a proposer and subsequently awarding the contract to another proposer. Such action on the part of New Haven Parks shall not constitute a breach of contract on the part of the State since the contract with the initial proposer is deemed to be void ab initio and of no effect as if no contract ever existed between New Haven Parks and the proposer.
The City needs you to get the Disclosure Form notarized. We are offering you a convenient way to do this online through Notary Online (https://notarylive.com) . However, you don't have to use this online service. If you do choose to use it, it will cost you $25 each time you use it for a notarization. You can explore other ways to get your document notarized if you prefer not to pay this fee, click "No".
An online notarization option will be provided for you when responding.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Statement of Qualifications:
Each solicitation response shall include a Statement of Qualifications in the format provided in this Solicitation upon stationary of the responding entity.
All questions must be answered, and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. The respondent may submit any additional information he/she desires.
This comprehensive financial review is a necessary step for the City of New Haven to ensure the respondent possesses the financial capacity to successfully undertake and complete the proposed project. Your affirmative response confirms your understanding and willingness to comply with these requirements if requested.
Briefly describe your reason for answering no.
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept the terms and condition of each individual policy.
As a bidder or proposer, any document you submit to the City of New Haven may be a public record and be open for personal inspection or copying by any person. In Connecticut ‘s public records” are defined as all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Section 1-210, CT. A document is subject to personal inspection and copying unless it falls under one of the public records exemptions created under Connecticut law. Answer No if : No part of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public record law.
By claiming that all or part of the bid or proposal is exempt from the public records law, the undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the City of New Haven, its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from and against all claims arising out of a request to inspector copy the bid or proposal. The undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, provide defense (including payment of attorney fees, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses up to and including any appeal) for and defend any such claim at its sole cost and expense through counsel chosen by the City of New Haven and agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if they (claims, etc.) are groundless, false, or fraudulent.
The following parts of the bid or proposal submitted are exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public records law because: (list exempt parts and legal justification - e.g., trade secret):
Respondent expressly acknowledges that the submission of a response, purchasing agreement, or any supporting documentation shall not contain embedded hyperlinks to external terms and conditions. Any terms and conditions intended to be part of the contract must be provided in full, physical or digital text within the formal submission. Furthermore, any respondent terms that conflict with the City’s Standard Terms and Conditions shall be deemed secondary; the City’s terms shall prevail unless a specific exception is negotiated and signed by both parties."
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept this requirement as a condition of award."
For Example: "Homeland Security"
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from Fleet, in the internal attachment section
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from the Technology Department , in the internal attachment section of this project.
Instructions for Project Managers
Based on the information you currently have, attempt to answer this question to the best of your capability. Ultimately, purchasing will review this carefully and edit and update as needed based on your solicitation requirements.
As a standard, all activities for Construction and Service require the following:
Any Professional Services type project (usually Request for Proposals) will require the following:
For Commodity, General Liability is the minimum requirement.
This particular question is to be answered for the company (or their subcontractors) not their employees.
Please enter the specific License or Certification required to be eligible to compete on this solicitation. For example, "CPA - Certified Public Accountant."
Guidelines used to determine whether a response is good, effective, or meets expectations of the project
Choose your evaluation factors. Below are example factors you can consider for your Evaluation Criteria. It is important that your actual evaluation of proposals is consistent with the factors and criteria you include in the RFP document. You will be able to add or edit any custom criteria along with the point values (using a 100-point-scale) while you are editing the Evaluation Section of this project.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
General definitions and parameters of each approach.
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.