RFP 2026-0064-PW/DK Water Reclamation Facility Expansion - Design-Build Project Addendum No 3
| Bidders ID: | NBD14263586385938241 |
|---|---|
| Due Date: | Jul 14, 2026 |
| Posted Date: | May 29, 2026 |
| Level of Government: | State & Local |
| State: | New Mexico |
| Agency: | Santa Fe County |
| Category: |
|
| Source: | Members Only |
Attachment Preview
Justin S. Greene
Commissioner, District 1
Lisa Cacari Stone
Commissioner, District 2
Camilla Bustamante
Commissioner, District 3
Adam Fulton Johnson
Commissioner, District 4
Hank Hughes
Commissioner, District 5
Gregory S. Shaffer
County Manager
May 29, 2026
SANTA FE COUNTY
RFP No. 2026-0064-PW/DK
Water Reclamation Facility Expansion - Design-Build Project
ADDENDUM NO. 3
Dear Proponents,
This addendum is issued to reflect the following immediately. It shall be the responsibility of
interested Offerors to adhere to any changes or revisions to the RFP as identified in this Addendum
No. 3. This documentation shall become permanent and made part of the departmental files.
RFP DOCUMENT REVISIONS:
❖ Section V.C.1, Phase II Proposal Format, is revised to move the Schedule from Volume
II to Volume I. Volume I shall include the Technical Proposal, including the Schedule.
Volume II shall include the Cost Proposal only.
Section V.C.2, Phase II Evaluation Factors, is revised to state that the Schedule will be
evaluated under Factor No. 2, Quality of Construction Approach. Factor No. 5 will evaluate
Cost only. All point allocations remain unchanged.
❖ Phase II Proposal Submission
The Phase II Proposal submission deadline has been extended. Phase II Proposals must be
received no later than July 14, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
Dropbox Submission Link: https://www.dropbox.com/request/bw35x4eyu8sqtm8hm3a5
Attachment D: Alternative Technical Concept Meeting Procedures and Schedule
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX:
505-995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
Question No. 1: MACC Responsiveness/Funding
Section II.B, Scope of Work, states that the project has a Maximum Allowable Construction Cost
(MACC) of $13,000,000. Based on a preliminary review of the scope of work it appears that the
required scope of work is going to exceed the MACC. Will an Offeror be deemed non-responsive if
the proposed cost exceeds the MACC, or will a proposal above the MACC still be Evaluated?
Answer No. 1: No. An Offeror will not be deemed nonresponsive solely because its proposed cost
exceeds the MACC.
Question No. 2: MACC Exceeded Limit
If the total price exceeds available funding, does County intend to; revise scope, seek additional
funding, negotiate, or terminate procurement?
Answer No. 2: The County intends to negotiate with the highest ranked Offeror to determine whether
the project can be completed within available funding.
Question No. 3: Project Priority / Basis of Design:
The RFP establishes a Maximum Allowable Construction Cost (MACC) of $13,000,000, while also
requiring expansion of the facility to 1.0 MGD with future modular expandability, advanced nutrient
removal, reuse quality effluent, and continued operation of the existing plant during construction.
Please clarify the County’s primary project objective in the event these objectives conflict:
Priority A: Deliver a complete 1.0 MGD facility, even if the total price exceeds MACC; or
Priority B: Deliver a project that remains within MACC, even if scope, capacity, or certain facility
improvements must be reduced.
Answer No. 3: Priority A. The County’s primary objective is to deliver a complete 1.0 MGD facility
that meets the requirements of the RFP.
Question No. 4: Cost Evaluation
Section 5, Cost and Schedule, of the Phase II Evaluation Factors states that compliance with the
MACC is a component of the cost evaluation; however, this section does not state how the County
will be evaluating the proposed cost in relation to the MACC. Can clarification be provided on how
the County intends to utilize compliance with the MACC as an evaluation metric for the submitted
proposals?
Answer No. 4: The Cost factor is worth 300 points and will be evaluated using the cost formula stated
in the RFP:
Cost Score = (Lowest Responsive Price ÷ Offeror Price) × 300
Compliance with the MACC will be considered as part of the County’s review of cost reasonableness
and consistency with the technical proposal. MACC compliance is not a separate point allocation.
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX:
505-995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
Question No. 5: Schedule Evaluation
Section 5, Cost and Schedule, of the Phase II Evaluation Factors includes the Offerors schedule as
part of this section; however, the section does not state how the County will utilize the schedule as an
evaluation factor or what aspects of the schedule will be considered a priority. Can clarification be
provided on how the County intends to evaluate the Offerors proposed schedule as part of the overall
proposal evaluation process?
Answer No. 5: As revised by this Addendum, the Schedule has been moved from Evaluation Factor
No. 5 to Evaluation Factor No. 2, Quality of Construction Approach. Factor No. 5 will evaluate cost
only.
The proposed schedule will be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s technical response. The County will
consider whether the schedule is realistic, achievable, properly sequenced, and demonstrates the
ability to complete the project on time and within budget while maintaining continuous operation of
the facility during construction. The most complete, realistic, and well supported schedule may
receive a higher score under Evaluation Factor No. 2.
Question No. 6: Target Substantial Completion/Contract Duration
Section V, Evaluation Factors paragraph A, states that a target substantial completion date will be
established in Phase II; however, Addendum 2 which initiated phase II or the provided Phase 2
schedule appears not to state a target substantial completion date or a maximum allowed contract
duration. Does the County have a target substantial completion date or maximum contract duration
for the project?
Answer No. 6: The County’s goal is to achieve substantial completion as soon as practicable. Offerors
shall provide their proposed substantial completion date and contract duration as part of their
Technical Proposal. The final substantial completion date and contract duration will be subject to
negotiation with the selected Offeror.
Question No. 7: Contract Duration/Target Substantial Completion
Will the contactor’s proposed project duration or proposed substantial completion date provided in
their proposed project schedule be the basis for the contract duration, or will the County’s Target
Substantial Completion Date remain as the basis for contract completion?
Answer No. 7: The contract duration and substantial completion date will be subject to negotiation
with the selected Offeror. The Offeror’s proposed project duration and schedule will be considered
during negotiations.
Question No. 8: Question Response Timeline
The Provided Phase 2 Schedule states that responses to the written questions will be provided on June
5th. Due to the tight time frame of Phase 2 and the need for the proposing teams to receive questions
as soon as possible, can the County provide answers to submitted questions as close to the question
submission dates as possible in lieu of releasing all responses on the indicated date of June 5th? Also,
Can the County Respond to this RFI by the field meeting on May 14th?
Answer No. 8: As requested, verbal clarifications were provided at the Mandatory Phase II Site Visit
and Pre Proposal Conference to assist the shortlisted Offerors. Formal responses are being issued
through this Addendum prior to June 5, 2026, to provide Offerors with additional time.
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX:
505-995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
Question No. 9: Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) Meetings
Will confidential Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) meetings be offered during Phase II?
If yes, please delineate:
•
frequency
•
format No format.
•
confidentiality protections
•
decision turnaround time
ATC review greatly improves innovation, lowers lifecycle cost, and reduces proposal risk.
Answer No. 9: Yes. The County intends to offer one confidential ATC meeting with each
shortlisted Offeror, if requested. There is no required format. The Offeror shall present its ATC
during the meeting. ATC presented by one Offeror will not be disclosed to other Offerors. Feedback
will be provided during the ATC meeting.
Question No. 10: Stipend
Evaluation Factor Section C.3 states that an unsuccessful Phase 2 Offeror that submits a responsive
Phase 2 proposal may be eligible to receive a $40,000 dollar stipend, and that it is at the County’s
sole discretion if the Stipend will be authorized and provided. Please confirm that the county will be
providing an unsuccessful Phase 2 Offeror that submits a response proposal with the indicated
stipend of $40,000?
A simple Yes/No is requested.
Answer No. 10: Yes, if the design solution being proposed is creditable and responsive.
Question No. 11: Stipend
If a stipend is offered to a Phase 2 Offeror and the Offeror elects to receive the stipend, will the
County then retain the rights to the Offerors proposal and any intellectual property contained
within?
Answer No. 11: Yes. If an Offeror elects to receive the stipend, the County will retain the rights to
the Offeror’s proposal and any intellectual property contained therein. The stipend is intended to
help offset the costs incurred by an Offeror in preparing a design solution and cost proposal, and to
encourage participation in Phase II. The County further understands that the design solution may
only be utilized for this specific site location.
Question No. 12: Volume 2, Cost Section Requirements
The RFP or Addendum 2 did not provide a cost schedule/bid form or include instructions on what is
required to be included for the cost portion in Section 5 of the Phase 2 proposal? Will the County be
providing a cost schedule/bid form and are there any other documents or information that will be
required to be included within the cost portion of Section 5.
Answer No. 12: The County will provide a Cost Proposal Form for Volume II. Offerors shall
submit their total proposed cost based on their proposed design and construction solution. A
traditional bid sheet with unit price items will not be provided.
Volume II shall include the completed Cost Proposal Form and a general schedule of values equal
to the total cost proposal.
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX:
505-995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
Question No. 13: Bid Bond
Is a bid bond required to be included with the Offeror’s Phase 2 submission?
Answer No. 13: No. A bid bond is not required with the Phase II submission. The selected Offeror
shall furnish Performance and Payment Bonds in accordance with the RFP and final Design Build
Agreement prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Question No. 14: Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) Meeting: As our entire design and
construction approach is highly dependent on responses to very technical questions. Can a
confidential ATC meeting be held at your earliest convenience? The confidential discussion will
allow our Design Build Team to pursue competitive savings, if they are beneficial to Santa Fe
County.
Answer No. 14: Yes, see Attachment D: Alternative Technical Concept Meeting Procedures and
Schedule.
Question No. 15: Proposal Format: Can it be confirmed that the Phase II proposals will need to follow
the same formatting requirements for Phase 1 as stipulated in RFP Section IV. C “Proposal Format”,
and if not, can the formatting requirements be provided for the Phase II proposal?
Answer No. 15: Phase II Proposals shall follow the general formatting requirements stated in Section
IV.C of the RFP. The Phase I 20 page limit does not apply to Phase II.
Volume I shall include the Technical Proposal, including the proposed design concept, technical
response, construction approach, Schedule, and other applicable technical evaluation factors. No
pricing shall be included in Volume I. Volume I shall not exceed 30 pages, excluding appendices.
Volume II shall include the Cost Proposal only, including the completed Cost Proposal Form and any
required supporting cost information. Volume II is not subject to the 30 page limit.
Question No. 16: Page Size: Can it be confirmed that 11x17 pages will be allowed for drawings,
charts, schedules, images or other aspects of the proposal where the larger 11x17 format helps with
readability and clarity?
Answer No. 16: Yes. 11x17 pages are allowed for drawings, charts, schedules, images, and similar
exhibits where needed for readability.
Question No. 17: Appendix Inclusion: Can the offerors’ Phase II proposals provide Drawings,
Schedules, Design Calculations, and other information as Appendixes in lieu of containing these
features in the proposal narrative body?
Answer No. 17: Yes. Drawings, schedules, design calculations, and other supporting information may
be provided as appendices. The technical narrative must still address the applicable Phase II
evaluation factors.
Question No. 18: Internal Proposal Hyperlinks: Are offerors permitted to include internal hyperlinks
within the PDF proposal that direct reviewers to appendices and other relevant sections to facilitate
navigation, readability, and the overall evaluation process?
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX:
505-995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
You are viewing the opportunity summary page, which includes a brief overview and a preview of the attached documents.
Disclaimer: The details regarding bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), and requests for qualifications (RFQs) on this site are provided for convenience and do not represent official public notice. To respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs, please contact the appropriate government department.
TRY FOR FREE
Not a GovernmentBidders Member Yet?
Get unlimited access to thousands of active local, state and federal government bids and awards in All 50 States.