Skip to Content

Explore: Sonoma County

County of Sonoma California

You are here:

Request for Proposal #101611: Response to Applicant Questions

Date: November 4, 2011

Contact: Anthony Taylor
Healthy Communities Section
Sonoma County Department of Health Services
490 Mendocino Ave, Suite 202
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Anthony.Taylor@sonoma-county.org

Request for Proposal #101611: Sonoma County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Education and Encouragement Coordinator

1. According to the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance Office Bulletin DLA-OB 10-14 (pdf), the threshold for requiring a pre-award audit was increased from $250,000 to $1,000,000, effective November 15, 2010. DLA-OB 10-14 says that "All incidences of the term "$250,000" shall be understood to mean "$1 million" when referring to pre-award audits." Is the requirement for a pre-award audit based on the older threshold of $250,000, or is this requirement included for other reasons? If so, could you please clarify what information will be required for the audit?

Given the recent decision to change the threshold for requiring a pre-award audit to $1,000,000, no pre-award audit will be required for this contract.

2) According to #9 of the proposal instructions, proposer(s) must include completed forms 10-O1 and 10-O2 (Attachment F), which are the DBE and UDBE information. However, by definition, a DBE is a for-profit small business. Could you please clarify whether these forms are required for a non-profit or public agency? I did inquire about DBE status with Patti Horsley of the SRTS Technical Resource Center, who then inquired with Caltrans, and she informed me that non-profits do not need DBE status. According to Caltrans, if a local agency contracts with a non-profit, there is no need for DBE goals or requirements. Also, Patti indicated that UDBE goals only apply if the consultant brings in any "sub-consultants" to work with them. In that case, they must make a good faith effort to seek out "sub consultants" that would help them meet the UDBE goal. The successful proposer (consultant) must either meet the UDBE goal with subcontractors, which it (later) reports on the Exhibit 10-O1; OR, if it is not able to do so, it must make a good faith effort to do so, as evidenced by the Exhibit 15-H which it must fill out to demonstrate the steps that the proposer took in trying to meet the UDBE goal. The adequacy of the good faith effort is determined by the local agency (with opportunity for review by Caltrans or FHWA at possible future audits).

If a proposer is a for-profit business, DHS requires both forms 10-O1 and 10-O2 be completed and submitted with the proposal. If the proposer is a non-profit or public agency, the proposer is encouraged to complete both forms as thoroughly as possible, indicating "not applicable" in the appropriate fields. Proposers planning to subcontract part of the grant are encouraged to identify subcontractors and indicate their DBE/UDBE status prior to submitting a proposal. However, proposers will not be disqualified if they have not identified subcontractors at the time the proposal is submitted.

3. According to #8 of the RFP, proposers must include a signed Certificate of Receipt of Addendum for each addendum posted to the D.H.S. announcement webpage. So far, no addenda have been posted as far as I can see. Is there a deadline for D.H.S. posting potential addendums to the RFP? Otherwise, it appears that proposers should wait until 11/10 to submit their RFPs to make sure they have not missed any potential addendums and are including required certificates of receipt. Please confirm.

There is not a deadline for DHS to post addenda to the DHS announcement webpage. If an applicant submits a proposal before a posted addendum is added, DHS will notify the applicant of any posted addenda and the applicant can submit the signed Certificate of Receipt separately. However, DHS recommends waiting until November 10th to submit the application to ensure that the proposal complies with all possible addenda.

4. On page 5 of the RFP, it says: "The contractor will implement in-classroom education at three grade levels (2nd grade, 3rd or 4th grade, and 5th or 6th grade)." I understand that the proposed in-class education program is based on what has been implemented up to this point in Sonoma County. If that is the case, the grade levels should be as follows: 2nd OR 3rd grade (pedestrian safety/skills), 4th grade (bike basics), 5th or 6th grade (advanced bikes skills). Please confirm whether the grade levels should be modified to reflect that breakdown.

Yes, the current in-classroom education is implemented at three grade levels (2nd or 3rd grade, 4th grade, and 5th or 6th grade). Applicants may propose what they feel is the best breakdown of in-classroom education. The final work plan will be negotiated.

Back to Top | Website Help | Contact Us | Website Privacy Policy | Notice of Privacy Practices | Get Adobe® Reader®