SLED Opportunity · ALASKA · KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH
AI Summary
Ketchikan Gateway Borough seeks civil engineering design services for replacing 8" HDPE water mains and valves along Roosevelt and Franklin Drives, covering 2,300 linear feet.
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough is seeking civil engineering design services to replace the water mains in Roosevelt Drive and Franklin Drive with 8" HDPE water mains, install new three-way valve clusters at all side roads with cross-road extensions, replace all valving and piping in the Franklin/Roosevelt intersection, and extend HDPE mains into the PRV. In total, the project will replace mains in some 2,300-lf of roadways.
The Roosevelt Drive and Franklin Drive intersection has held the generative mains for the drinking water distribution system since the construction of the Forks Creek Dam in the 1930s. Upgrades commencing in 1983 installed 6-inch PVC drinking water piping throughout Roosevelt and Franklin Drive. Following treatment plant installation in 1989, the Borough undertook the 1991-1993 Mountain Point Service Area Water and Sewer Master Improvements Phase I-V project, entailing the construction of the booster station to provide system pressure, replacement and extension of water mains to all neighborhoods, and installation of pressure reducing vaults to create the low pressure zone along the highway. While all new mains in Roosevelt Drive and Franklin Drive are 8-inch ductile iron, the materials in the roadways remain 6-inch PVC. The 2024 South Tongass Water Utility Master Plan identified the main sizing as being an inhibiting factor for flow throughout the water system.
Of more concern is that the discontinuous nature of the ductile iron and PVC material exacerbates electrolytic corrosion: mainline valves at Rogers Pass Road have come apart on two occasions in the past five years, and cross-road mains are at high risk of pinhole leaks that would be difficult to rectify without major impacts to the traveling public. This project will extend new piping across all roadways, and provide terminal valves with the unpaved roadways.
This Addendum is issued to modify, clarify, or supplement the original solicitation documents. Any material changes to the solicitation requirements, specifications, schedule, or conditions are identified in this Addendum.
Failure to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum, if required by the solicitation instructions, may render a proposal non-responsive. Except as specifically modified by this Addendum, all other terms, conditions, and requirements of the solicitation remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
A question was submitted during the Question & Answer period of the Solicitation. The response to that question results in a modification to the Scope of Work. Because the response constitutes a material change to the scope of work, the modification is issued through this Addendum to formally incorporate the change into the Solicitation documents.
Question Asked:
The Scope of Work outlined on page 9 of the RFP indicates that KGB is seeking civil engineering design services, and construction administration and inspection services do not appear to be included within the described scope. However, the Fee Proposal Instructions on pages 9–10 request that proposers include costs for construction administration services, including daily project inspections. Could KGB please clarify whether construction administration and inspection services are intended to be included as part of this contract, and if so, whether these services should be addressed in the Narrative (staffing plan, relevant qualifications, and related discussion) as well as included in the Fee Proposal?
Answer:
The Scope of Work not including Construction Administration (CA) services and daily inspections was an oversight. Please utilize the Fee Proposal Instructions for purposes of scoping the project through construction. The submitted proposal should reflect the capacity, capability, and personnel the proposer possesses and can allocate towards this project at each phase through CA.
Note, however, that it is understood that the final design bid scope will impact CA services and that the value provided in this proposal is subject to reevaluation during the design process (e.g. multiple project phases require greater CA services); and that the Borough reserves the right to award any portion of this project at this time, so CA may not be awarded in the format as proposed.
This Addendum is issued to modify, clarify, or supplement the original solicitation documents. Any material changes to the solicitation requirements, specifications, schedule, or conditions are identified in this Addendum.
Failure to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum, if required by the solicitation instructions, may render a proposal non-responsive. Except as specifically modified by this Addendum, all other terms, conditions, and requirements of the solicitation remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.
Whether the proposal is (1) well organized, (2) void of material that is neither required nor desired, (3) does not exceed the suggested maximum number of pages, and (4) includes the requested copies of the proposal for Part One and Part Two.
Qualifications, experience, training, certifications and licenses for project manager and key supervisors anticipated to provide services called for under this RFP.
Approach to performing work called for under this RFP (how the job will be staffed, travel time policy [if relevant], resources, and structure on data reporting).
Respondent’s understanding of the project and its objectives.
Qualifications of subcontractors expected to be used on the project (if subcontractors are not contemplated this allocation of up to 5 points should be applied to a) through c) above).
Past project experience similar to this project.
Evaluation of comments by Owner references on similar projects regarding matters such as change order history, litigation and other claims, completion within schedule, workmanship, and general satisfaction.
Proposed project schedule and ability to complete the project within that schedule given current and potential time commitments for the proposed project.
Adequacy of support personnel, facilities and other resources necessary to provide their services as required.
In addition to a technical proposal, the prospective proposer shall prepare a detailed cost proposal for the work to be performed. The cost proposal shall itemize all items that will be charged, including travel charges that will be involved in the project. Costs shall also be segregated to show staff hours, rates, and classifications, and administrative overhead.
The least-cost proposal will be awarded the maximum points. Higher cost proposals will receive a reduced award of points. The minimum score for the price criterion is zero points.
This Attachment contains required federal clauses and proposer forms to be included with the Request for Proposals (RFP) for design services. This project is funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Community Grants Program, Grant Agreement FAIN 02J97301.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Respondents must fill out the Subcontractors List indicating the name(s) of any anticipated subcontractors for the proposed project. Use multiple pages if necessary. For portions of the work where a subcontractor will be selected by competitive proposals at a later date enter the type of Work to be subcontracted followed by “To be Determined”. For example: “Electrical – To Be Determined”. If the use of subcontractors is not anticipated, “N/A” or “NONE” is to be written on the form.
Please select the applicable document, download the document, complete, and upload.
Please provide a copy of your surety bond.
Submit the price proposal separately from the proposal.
Each price-proposal component must be signed and dated by the person who prepares it. If that person is not authorized to bind the respondent, the price-proposal component must also be signed by a person who is authorized to bind the respondent.
Failure to properly sign and date the Price Proposal will be grounds for rejection.
Please upload a complete proposal exclusive of the price-proposal component.
Proposals must respond directly to the evaluation criteria for this project. Additional material (other than that requested below) is not required or desired. Clarity and brevity are encouraged. Limit submittals as follows:
| Proposal Documentation | Use forms provided in RFP |
| Cover Letter | 1 page suggested maximum |
| Response to Criteria | 5 pages suggested maximum |
| Resumes | Provide resumes for key personnel, 1 page suggested maximum each resume |
| Price Proposal | Per instructions, use the Price Proposal Forms Provided |
The following sections address the specific content expected for each portion of the proposal.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
The proposal itself must be signed by a person who is authorized to bind the respondent. Specifically:
Failure to provide evidence of authority to sign on behalf of the respondent will not be grounds for rejection if the Borough is able to confirm the authority of the signer to bind the respondent.
In the cover letter, the respondent should:
The narrative response to the Selection Criteria should specifically and accurately address each criterion in the order listed in this proposal. Respondents are encouraged to limit the response to 5 pages. Project and individual experience must be verifiable by listed references. It is the responsibility of the proposer to make certain that contact information is current.
Provide resumes for each managing member of the team (i.e., project manager for the prime contractor and each known or planned subcontractor) that will be assigned to this project. List name, title, intended role and responsibilities for the duration of the contract, educational background, and specific qualifications related to role and responsibilities, past relevant experience, number of years of relevant experience, supervisory responsibilities if relevant, list of projects individual was associated with during the last five years including type of project and project cost.
For each managing member of the team, provide at least two Owner or two Firm references for recent relevant projects.
Example: 1234 Park Avenue, Ketchikan, AK 99901
Please enter an estimated date.
Q (Funding Clarification): Per the EPA Grant Agreement provided by KGB, total project funding is identified as $1,875,000, consisting of $1.5 million from the EPA Community Grant and the remaining portion provided by the recipient (KGB). The ADEC Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement, also provided by KGB, identifies $750,000 in funding. Could KGB please clarify how these funding sources relate to one another? Is there any overlap? Are they two separate agreements funding different phases/portions of work? Is one being used as match or leverage against another? What is the total amount of funding available at this time?
A: The $1,500,000 EPA Grant funds 80% of the project expenses to be matched 20% by the ADEC Alaska Drinking Water Fund (ADWF) loan, for a total project cost of $1,875,000. The ADEC loan is $750,000, or double the match requirement, as a contingency against cost increases, regulatory requirements (e.g. ADOT requirements within the roadway), or other unanticipated expenses. Both funding streams apply to the entire scope of work. Insofar as these funding agreements impact the project, the specifications will need to reflect the more stringent of the procurement provisions. E.g. for materials, Build America Buy America (BABA) would supersede American Iron and Steel (AIS); for labor, the greater of the Federal or State Prevailing Wage applies; etc.
Q (Scope of Work Clarification): The Scope of Work outlined on page 9 of the RFP indicates that KGB is seeking civil engineering design services, and construction administration and inspection services do not appear to be included within the described scope. However, the Fee Proposal Instructions on pages 9–10 request that proposers include costs for construction administration services, including daily project inspections. Could KGB please clarify whether construction administration and inspection services are intended to be included as part of this contract, and if so, whether these services should be addressed in the Narrative (staffing plan, relevant qualifications, and related discussion) as well as included in the Fee Proposal?
A: See Addendum No. 1.
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.