PLEASE NOTE: As long as you are registered for this RFP, you will continue to receive these notices. If you plan to not respond to this RFP with a proposal submittal, you may want to access the eProcurement Marketplace and mark "No Bid". Once you have done such, you will not continue to receive any notices pertaining to this RFP.
(1) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 2.1.1.14 of the RFP 1.0 Document, does a company phone satisfy this requirement?
AGENCY RESPONSE. Yes.
(2) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 2.1.1.16 of the RFP 1.0 Document, will the Agency inform the inspector when a child under the age of six will be residing in the unit prior to the inspection?
AGENCY RESPONSE. Yes.
(3) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 2.1.2.2.1 of the RFP 1.0 Document, is the contractor website required?
AGENCY RESPONSE. No, we hereby drop the requirement detailed within 2.1.2.2.1 that the Contractor must have a website.
(3a) QUESTION. If so, what content is required on the website?
AGENCY RESPONSE. Whereas the answer to the preceding No. (3) is “No,” accordingly, this item is “Not Applicable.”
(4) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 2.2.1.1 of the RFP 1.0 Document, is this requiring an actual numerical score or a summary of deficiencies?
AGENCY RESPONSE. The response that we can give is that the Contractor must respond to HUD with any information required by HUD.
(5) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 2.2.7.3 of the RFP 1.0 Document, Is this a typo? Should these entries be “Country Estates” and “Greenview”?
AGENCY RESPONSE. “Country Estates” is a typo; this entry is hereby revised to read “County Estates.” Also, “Greenville” is a typo, which is hereby revised to read “Greenview.” We are grateful that this these typos were pointed out to us.
(6) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 3.3.4.5.1 of the RFP 1.0 Document, Is this a typo? Which pricing items should this reference?
AGENCY RESPONSE. The numeral “56” is a typo—this numeral is hereby revised to read “5.”. Accordingly, this section is hereby revised to read: “Pricing Items No. 1-3 and 5-28 upon the proposed hourly rate submitted by the proposer for Pricing Item No. 4;” We are grateful that this typo was pointed out to us.
(7) QUESTION. Pertaining to Section 3.3.4.6 of the RFP 1.0 Document, the following appears to be a typo: “Proposers are not required to submit a cost for these charges (meaning, they can simply click on the “No Charge” option.” This appears to be inconsistent with the RFP sections pertaining to travel. Each specification (5-28, 31-34) states “No Bid: NOT ALLOWED for this item. You must bid this item.” And “No Charge: NOT ALLOWED for this item. You must enter pricing for this item.”
AGENCY RESPONSE. That was a typo. We have now revised the entries online within the eProcurement Marketplace for Pricing Items 5-28 and 31-34 to allow the “No Charge” option. We are grateful that this issue was pointed out to us. For any proposer that has already entered his/her pricing online, you can, if you wish, re-enter the eProcurement Marketplace prior to the submittal deadline to revise any of your pricing for any Pricing Items submitted, including you can now revise these Pricing Items to “No Charge” if that is your wish (this is an option, not required).
We are grateful for your interest in doing business with our Agency and we look forward to receiving a proposal submittal from your firm.
Regards,
Amie Creighton
Compliance Manager
Note: One of the files available for downloading might be a ZIP file.
