COUNTY OF ALAMEDA by jianghongl

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 15

									                                COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
                         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

                                 ADDENDUM No. 3
                                        to
                           RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 For
                         COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN


Specification Clarification/Modification and/or Recap of the Networking/Bidders Conferences
Held on TUESDAY APRIL 7, 2009 11:00am & 2:00pm
_________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

THIS COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY (GSA), RFP ADDENDUM HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED TO
POTENTIAL BIDDERS VIA E-MAIL. E-MAIL ADDRESSES USED ARE THOSE IN THE COUNTY‟S SMALL LOCAL EMERGING BUSINESS
(SLEB) VENDOR DATABASE OR FROM OTHER SOURCES. IF YOU HAVE REGISTERED OR ARE CERTIFIED AS A SLEB PLEASE
ENSURE THAT THE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE E-MAIL ADDRESS IS NOTED AND KEPT UPDATED IN THE SLEB VENDOR
DATABASE. THIS RFP ADDENDUM WILL ALSO BE POSTED ON THE GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY (GSA) CONTRACTING
OPPORTUNITIES WEBSITE LOCATED AT
HTTP://WWW.ACGOV.ORG/GSA/PURCHASING/BID_CONTENT/CONTRACTOPPORTUNITIES.JSP.




       Recap of the Networking/Bidders Conferences, and Responses to Written and
                          Verbal Questions that were received.


1.     The RFP states that County is seeking a consultant to “assist County Staff with preparation and
       development of the Climate Action Plan.” What role do you anticipate County Staff will play in the
       developing the plan and how much staff time will be dedicated to the CAP effort?

       County staff will manage all aspects of the consultant’s work in developing the Plan.
       There are 11 meetings scheduled throughout the project, including five meetings with
       staff during each Phase of Plan development and review.

2.     Page 8 of the RFP requests 1 Original unbound & 5 Copies bound; however, page 16 requests one
       original unbound & nine copies bound. Which is correct?

      One original unbound and nine bound copies are required, as described in “Exhibit M:
      Response, Content & Submittals” in the RFP.


3.     Page 8 of the RFP requests an insurance certificate in accordance with Exhibit C. Is this due with
       the proposal?

      Yes.

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 1 of 15
4.   Is the SLEB requirement 20% or 10%? How long does the process take to become certified as a
     SLEB?

     Businesses not meeting the definition of a local small or emerging business are
     required to subcontract a minimum of 20% of the estimated contract amount with a
     SLEB in order to be eligible for contract award.

            The above information can be found at the following web page:
            http://www.acgov.org/auditor/sleb/components.htm

            We will contact vendors within 10 days to schedule a site visit upon receipt of
            their applications. The processes are expected to be completed within 90 days or
            sooner.

            The following web page provides information about SLEB Certification Instructions
            for your reference:
            http://www.acgov.org/auditor/sleb/forms/VendorCertInstructions.pdf



5.   Page 17 states “See Exhibit M: Response, Content & Submittals.” This exhibit asks for more and
     different information than pg 8 “Submittal Requirements” does. Which format should be followed?

     The requirements listed in Exhibit M: Response, Content & Submittals is the correct
     format that is to be followed in preparing a proposal.

6.   Does the 10 page limit exclude resumes and project examples?

     Yes.


7.   Who is the consultant preparing the Government portion of the plan? Will they be eligible to bid on
     this rfp?

     Melissa Capria was hired as a GSA staff person to assist in developing the government
     portion of the plan. She will not be competing to work on the community climate action
     plan.

8.   Who prepared the County‟s high-level survey of GHG measures from other City/County action
     plans? Could this be made available to proposers to help develop the proposal scope of work?

     This survey was prepared by staff from the County’s General Services Agency,
     Community Development Agency, and Public Works Agency. Any information gathered
     will be shared with consultant chosen to develop the unincorporated community portion
     of the plan. No formal findings or summary documents have been prepared to share at
     this time.


9.   In addition to County Department involvement, has the County contemplated forming any sort of
     more formal stakeholder group to develop the community action plan? Would the County be open
     to such an approach?

     A formal stakeholder group has not been convened thus far in the process. The County
     welcomes input from proposers on ideas as to how best to accomplish the public
     involvement portion of this project.

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 2 of 15
10.   There are a significant number of printed copies of the draft and final Plan requested. Rather than
      dedicate this portion of the budget (as well as the paper and energy resources) to printing this
      many copies, would the County be open to discussing a more focused electronic distribution
      strategy that still reached intended community targets?

      There needs to be a specific number of printed copies available for the various
      constituencies that will be affected by/review the plan. However, the County recognizes
      the resources that would be used in printing, and is open to discussing a strategy for
      limited electronic distribution system of the Plan.


11.   Does the County have a list of certified SLEB‟s who we may contact as potential partners?

      You can visit the following webpage and search for vendors:
      http://www.acgov.org/sleb_query_app/gsa/sleb/query/slebmenu.jsp

12.   Can the County provide a list of firms, including SLEBs, who have requested the RFP and/or who
      attend the pre-proposal meeting?

      Yes; that list is included in this Addendum.

13.   We are considering teaming with a county-based non-profit (ICLEI) who is not registered as a
      SLEB, but does qualify under the requirements set. We are wondering if entities who have
      completed an application for SLEB certification and qualify to be recognized as a SLEB in the
      County, would qualify as a subcontractor (for at least 20% of our total bid) to our firm. I
      understand non-profits are exempt from SLEB requirements as a prime contractor on the project,
      but I am wondering if they are also exempt as sub-contractors.

      Yes, entities who have completed an application for SLEB certification and qualify to be
      recognized as a SLEB in the County, would qualify as a subcontractor. Nonprofits are
      NOT exempt as sub-contractors.

14.   Which tasks does the County envision that staff is going to be most involved in, or would directly
      coordinate?

      Staff will be directly coordinating the work of the consultant on all tasks described in the
      RFP.


15.   Is the ICEI inventory of the incorporated areas of the County available for review?

      A summary of the ICLEI Inventory is attached at the end of this Addendum.


16.   What was the methodology used to prioritize reduction strategies that were used in govt. portion of
      the CAP?

      The government portion of the Climate Action Plan is still being developed so the final
      methodology has not yet conclusively decided upon. In general it includes an analysis of
      the emissions potential of the proposed measures, costs of implementation and a series
      of decision making criteria. These decisions will include items such as additional
      benefits of action, ease of implementation, fit with existing priorities, visibility / public
      education, improving service delivery, etc. However the methodology is open to
      modification as the process advances.

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 3 of 15
17.   What is the anticipated level of coordination with Sustainable Community Strategy being developed
      by BAAWMD/ABAG/MTC?

      The County will be participating in future coordination efforts with the Regional Planning
      Agencies as those evolve, but not formally as part of this Climate Action Plan project.
18.   How many hard copies of the proposal do we need to submit?

      One original unbound and nine copies bound are required, as described in “Exhibit M:
      Response, Content & Submittals” in the RFP.


19.   My only question at this point: Is the current contractor for the County Government operations
      portion of the CAP eligible to compete for the Community CAP work?

      Yes, the contractor is eligible, but has indicated they will not propose on the Community
      portion of the Plan.


20.   Will lack of direct experience writing community climate action plans limit a
      prospective bidder's chances?

      If a prospective bidder does not have direct experience with developing Community
      Climate Action Plans, they can partner with another agency that does. A list of those
      firms that have been sent an RFP and who attended the two pre-bid conferences is
      included in this Addendum.

21.   How will the CAP for the unincorporated communities differ from the county
      government portion?

      The unincorporated communities plan will have a very different scope in that it is aimed
      at the larger community as opposed to the governments own internal operations.
      Therefore, it will likely contain a significantly different suite of measures aimed at
      addressing various emissions sources that are not part of the government’s emissions
      profile. For example the community plan will likely have to address items such as
      transportation systems, residential/commercial/industrial emissions. Additionally the
      community portion of the plan will likely contain more policy, incentive, regulatory, and
      education/outreach types of measures. The basic analytical framework should be
      similar between the two portions of the plan.

22.   Are there governmental regulations that define the public outreach program?
      a). If yes, can they be provided as an addendum to this RFP?
      b). If not, is there an internal review and approval process that the consultant should be aware of?

      There are no regulations that define the public outreach program. The internal review
      and approval process is described in the RFP.

23.   Define the consultant's role in development of the project website. Are additional
      funds available to pay for professional web design services?

      The consultant will work with County staff in the development of a joint project website
      (one that includes both the Government and Community portion of the Plan). No
      additional funding is available outside the stated budget for this project.



_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 4 of 15
24.   Are there (a) guidelines, or (b) a review and approval process for development of
      the survey tool?

      We’re anticipating a robust community process, however a statistically significant survey
      tool is not expected in this process. Staff will review and approve consultant’s proposed
      public outreach strategy.


25.   Has the county designated key people the consultant can work with in the various
      unincorporated communities to facilitate the public outreach component? If not,
      will suggested names be provided?

      There are existing community or county organizations and committees that the
      consultant will have access to.


26.   Can the consultant bill in advance to cover duplicating, meeting materials and
      development of graphics for meetings?

      No.

27.   Can the consultant bill in advance to cover the costs of producing the
      administrative draft, draft plan and final plan?
      No.

28.   Examples of similar work. Are other options available to meet this requirement if
      the bidder cannot produce copies of similar work? Will verification by references
      be acceptable?

      The consultant should be able to demonstrate knowledge of and work in the field of
      Climate Planning, or team with a firm that does. References for Planning-related work
      other than Climate Action Planning would be contacted as part of the review process.

29.   How much interaction between the consultant for this RFP and the county
      government portion is anticipated?

      There will be coordination and interaction as needed with the consultant doing the
      Government portion of the Plan. At the least, the consultant will interact at the five
      project staff meetings outlined in the RFP.

30.   Which County Agencies will be involved with the Climate Action Plan?

      GSA and Environmental Health


31.   Will the Climate Action Plan be a mechanism for the 2050 emission target forecast?

      The 2020 forecast will be incorporated into the 2050 forecast. However the focus of the
      project will be the 2020 forecast.


32.   Is the internal consultant bidding for the RFP?

      The internal consultant will not be bidding on the RFP.




_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 5 of 15
33.   Will the consultant be providing real costs as opposed to the cost benefit analysis contained in
      Appendix E of the RFP document?

      The goal is to determine magnitude of impact of expected emissions and proposed
      measures to mitigate those emissions. Anticipated “real” costs could be included but
      would be speculative for the mid and long-term horizons of the Plan.


34.   Would a business in Oakland obtain a higher SLEB preference rating vs. a competing firm located in
      San Francisco?

      Further research would be necessary to answer the question. In general a partnership
      could be formed with firms on both sides of the bay. Each firm will get equal
      percentages. Further information is contained on page 22 in the RFP packet. Further
      questions can be answered by contacting the Auditor Controllers Office.


35.   Did Stop Waste.org prepare a preliminary plan?
      Will they go through with their proposed tier program?
      Will Stop Waste.org develop further projects?

      Stop Waste.org was coordinated through measure D. A portion of the money is to be
      used strictly to hire a consultant to do a climate inventory. Stop Waste will only
      collaborate with the consultant to a limited extent.
36.   Is proposal funding coming from stimulus money?

      Money for the project will come from the General Fund. Although the County would like
      to have additional funding there is not sufficient time to compete for and route stimulus
      dollars.


37.   Will the Climate Action Plan include the Castro Valley and Eden Plan updates?

      The General Plan Updates and the Climate Action Plan are separate and distinct efforts,
      but will necessarily inform each other. The Climate Action Plan does not include the
      General Plan updates. New requirements state that agencies are to address green house
      gas emissions in their GP updates and EIRs. Both the Eden Area and Castro Valley
      General Plan Updates will include a discussion of GHG emissions, and a GHG analysis will
      be included in the General Plan EIRs. The County will be developing a larger GHG
      Element for the entire Unincorporated Alameda County after the GP updates are
      complete.

38.   What are the required proposal components? Is there some overlap with Exhibit M, page 8?

      There is some overlap between the lists of responsibilities.             The more inclusive list,
      Exhibit M, applies.


39.   Are documents provided as appendices in the back acceptable for submission?

      All documents provided as appendices or Exhibits in the RFP packet are required as part
      of the proposal submission.

40.   What is the maximum number of pages the RFP should contain?
      The scope of work should be 10 pages. This excludes resumes, and examples of other
      work.
_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 6 of 15
41.   Will a list of attendees of morning and afternoon sessions be distributed?

      Yes, it is included in this Addendum.

42.   Will the consultant selected to develop the community-portion of the CAP have input in the
      analysis methodology and report structure, or will the consultant developing the government
      portion of the CAP determine the methodologies and report structure?

      Yes the consultants will have input into the analysis methodology and report structure.
      Although the government portion of the Climate Action Plan will significantly inform that
      structure, it is anticipated that the final versions of both the community and government
      portions of the Plan will be influenced by both teams. Although the desired outcome is
      to have a similar look, feel, and analysis methodology used in both portions of the
      Climate Action Plan, there will likely be areas in which the unique nature of a community
      plan will lead to some differences in analysis and reporting.

43.   Is the $70,000 RFP budget to cover venue costs, and copies?

      All costs must be covered within the $70,000 dollar budget.

44.   Will mailing costs to approximately 140 thousand people also come from the same budget pool?

      Mailing costs will also come from the budget.

45.   Are there other key milestones coordinated with the December, 2009 completion target of the
      Climate Action Study?

      There will be some interagency coordination with GSA regarding other milestones as
      both Plans are being developed.


46.   Will the Climate Action Plan be distributed with the Greenhouse Gas component of the County
      General Plans?

      No, the GHG component of the General Plan Updates is different than and the Climate
      Action Plan process.

47.   Who will be responsible for the final draft resolution?

      County staff will complete the resolution.


48.   What is the expected level of environmental review throughout the process?

      Staff is working with County Counsel to determine the appropriate level of
      Environmental Review that is required for the County Climate Action Plan.
      Environmental Review is not included in the RFP Scope of Work.

49.   Is there a template of a Climate Action Plan available for viewing?

      The consultant will have access to the in-house template, which is the internal
      operations, or Government portion of the Plan. It is expected the two portions of the
      Plan (the Government and Community portions) will be consistent in look and feel.



_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 7 of 15
    50.   Will a transcript of the RFP meeting be provided to candidates?

          The audio records of the pre-bid meetings are available to candidates for review.

`   51.   Will lack of direct experience limit a candidate‟s chances for the RFP award?

          The Consultant should be able to demonstrate knowledge of and work in the field of
          Climate Planning, or team with a firm that does. The RFP will require a lot of technical
          expertise, in addition to effective public outreach and writing skills.

    52.   Is there an established list of stakeholder groups that can be shared with candidates?

          No, there is no one list of stakeholder groups. However, there are several County-led
          Community Advisory groups established and other organizations that the consultant will
          have access to.

    53.   Is there a stakeholder group of particular importance?

          There is no emphasis on any particular group. It is anticipated that the Faith
          Community, School Districts, business community, County-led Community Advisory
          groups and the Non-profit sector will all play a role.

    54.   What is the desired representational portion in the RFP: substantive/technical vs. community
          outreach?

          Ultimately the bulk of the Plan should consist of quantitative analysis that will derive, in
          part, from an inclusive public process. The representational portions of these
          components will be determined by the process itself.


    55.   Who is the County staff person assigned to the project; what is the availability of the County staff
          person; how will the consultant access assigned staff; and how often will the consultant and staff
          will work together?

          After completion of the conultant selection process Bruce Jensen, Senior Planner, will be
          the county’s Project Manager. Planning staff will assist Mr. Jensen, and will primarily be
          working with the consultant. There will also be times when the consultant will be
          coordinating with GSA and the Auditor’s SLEB person. There is also a cross-agency
          climate action team which includes, the General Services Agency (GSA), the Community
          Development Agency (CDA) , and the Public Works Agency (PWA). In addition a climate
          coordinator has been assigned from every County Department to join the cross-agency
          team. The consultant will work primarily with staff from CDA and GSA.




    _____________________________________________________________________________
    COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
    RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
    1/30/2012
    Page 8 of 15
                         The following participants attended the Bidders’ Conferences:

Geoff Danker                            LSA Associates 2215 Fifth St.Berkeley, CA 94710
Aaron Welch                             Raimi & Associates 46 Shattuck Square, Ste. 46, Berkeley, CA
                                        94704

Amy Fong                                Archstone Consulting One Bush St. San Francisco, CA 94104
Gil de Jesus
Lucy Armentrout                         PBS & J 353 Sacramento St., # 1000,San Francisco, CA 94111
Ivy Morrison                            Circle Point,555 W. 12th St.,Oakland, CA 94607
Kevin Colin                             1944 Embarcadero, Oakland, CA 94607
Sahar Abbaszadeh                        360 22nd St. Ste. 710,Oakland, CA 94612
Doug Davenport                          1999 Harrison Ste. 500,Oakland, CA 94612
Nada Djordjevich,                       360 17th Ste, 150, Oakland, CA 94612
Rhonda Rigenhagen                       38092 Parkmont, Fremont, CA 94536
Tom Brightbill                          1624 Franklin # 911, Oakland, CA 94612
Jeff Caton                              225 Bush St. Ste. 1700, San Francisco, CA 94104
John Deakin                             HDR,115 Sansome St.,San Francisco, CA 94109
Theresa Bennett-Wilkes                  600 16th St., Ste. 8, Oakland, CA 94612
Maile Smith                             Northgate Environmental, 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 510
                                        Oakland, CA 94612
Michael McCormick                       500 12th St. Ste. 240, Oakland, CA 94607
Jillian Rich                            500 12th St. Ste. 240,Oakland, CA 94607
Sophie Mintier                          1625 Shattuck Ave. # 300, Berkeley, CA 94610
Peter Bluhon                            261 Purdue Ave.,Kensington, CA 94708
Vivian Kahn                             4623 Davenport Ave., Oakland, CA 94619
Erec DeVost                             130 Battery St., San Francisco, CA 94111
Claire Bonham-Carter                    EDAW, 150 Chestnut St., San Francisco, CA 94111
Diana Sherman                           MIG, 800 Hearst Ave.,Berkeley, CA 94710
Stefanie Pruegel                        Gigantic Idea Studio, 580 2nd St.,Oakland, CA 94607
Claudette Altamirano                    1535 Treat Blvd., Ste. 607, Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Gary Cook                               2740 Folsom St., San Francisco, CA 94110
Margaret Netto                          Willdan Engineering, 2100 Park River Drive, Ste. 560,
                                        Sacramento, CA 95833
Sean Karafin                            100 Pringle Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596




_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 9 of 15
                                       RFP No. CDA PLN 2009/001, Addendum No. 3
                                                       Bid Acknolwedgement


The County of Alameda is soliciting bids from qualified vendors to furnish its requirements per the specifications, terms and conditions
contained in the above referenced RFP/Q number. This Bid Acknowledgement must be completed, signed by a responsible officer or
employee, dated and submitted with the bid response. Obligations assumed by such signature must be fulfilled.
1.   Preparation of bids: (a) All prices and notations must be printed in ink or typewritten. No erasures permitted. Errors may be crossed
     out and corrections printed in ink or typewritten adjacent and must be initialed in ink by person signing bid. (b) Quote price as
     specified in RFP/Q. No alterations or changes or any kind shall be permitted to Exhibit B, Bid Form. Responses that do not comply
     shall be subject to rejection in total.
2.   Failure to bid: If you are not submitting a bid but want to remain on the mailing list and receive future bids, complete, sign and
     return this Bid Acknowledgement and state the reason you are not bidding.
3.   Taxes and freight charges: (a) Unless otherwise required and specified in the RFP/Q, the prices quoted herein do not include
     Sales, Use or other taxes. (b) No charge for delivery, drayage, express, parcel post packing, cartage, insurance, license fees,
     permits, costs of bonds, or for any other purpose, except taxes legally payable by County, will be paid by the County unless
     expressly included and itemized in the bid. (c) Amount paid for transportation of property to the County of Alameda is exempt
     from Federal Transportation Tax. An exemption certificate is not required where the shipping papers show the consignee as
     Alameda County, as such papers may be accepted by the carrier as proof of the exempt character of the shipment. (d) Articles
     sold to the County of Alameda are exempt from certain Federal excise taxes. The County will furnish an exemption certificate.
4.   Award: (a) Unless otherwise specified by the bidder or the RFP/Q gives notice of an all-or-none award, the County may accept
     any item or group of items of any bid. (b) Bids are subject to acceptance at any time within thirty (30) days of opening, unless
     otherwise specified in the RFP/Q. (c) A valid, written purchase order mailed, or otherwise furnished, to the successful bidder
     within the time for acceptance specified results in a binding contract without further action by either party. The contract shall be
     interpreted, construed and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California.
5.   Patent indemnity: Vendors who do business with the County shall hold the County of Alameda, its officers, agents and
     employees, harmless from liability of an nature or kind, including cost and expenses, for infringement or use of any patent,
     copyright or other proprietary right, secret process, patented or unpatented invention, article or appliance furnished or used in
     connection with the contract or purchase order.
6.   Samples: Samples of items, when required, shall be furnished free of expense to the County and if not destroyed by test may
     upon request (made when the sample is furnished), be returned at the bidder’s expense.
7.   Rights and remedies of County for default: (a) In the event any item furnished by vendor in the performance of the contract or
     purchase order should fail to conform to the specifications therefore or to the sample submitted by vendor with its bid, the County
     may reject the same, and it shall thereupon become the duty of vendor to reclaim and remove the same forthwith, without expense
     to the County, and immediately to replace all such rejected items with others conforming to such specifications or samples;
     provided that should vendor fail, neglect or refuse so to do the County shall thereupon have the right purchase in the open market,
     in lieu thereof, a corresponding quantity of any such items and to deduct from any moneys due or that may there after come due to
     vendor the difference between the prices named in the contract or purchase order and the actual cost thereof to the County. In the

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 10 of 15
     event that vendor fails to make prompt delivery as specified for any item, the same conditions as to the rights of the County to
     purchase in the open market and to reimbursement set forth above shall apply, except when delivery is delayed by fire, strike,
     freight embargo, or Act of God or the government. (b)Cost of inspection or deliveries or offers for delivery, which do not meet
     specifications, will be borne by the vendor. (c) The rights and remedies of the County provided above shall not be exclusive and
     are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the contract.
8.   Discounts: (a) Terms of less than ten (10) days for cash discount will considered as net. (b) In connection with any discount
     offered, time will be computed from date of complete, satisfactory delivery of the supplies, equipment or services specified in the
     RFP/Q, or from date correct invoices are received by the County at the billing address specified, if the latter date is later than the
     date of delivery. Payment is deemed to be made, for the purpose of earning the discount, on the date of mailing the County
     warrant check.
9.   California Government Code Section 4552: In submitting a bid to a public purchasing body, the bidder offers and agrees that if
     the bid is accepted, it will assign to the purchasing body all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have
     under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, commencing with Section 16700,
     of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, materials, or services by the
     bidder for sale to the purchasing body pursuant to the bid. Such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the
     purchasing body tenders final payment to the bidder.
10. No guarantee or warranty: The County of Alameda makes no guarantee or warranty as to the condition, completeness or safety
     of any material or equipment that may be traded in on this order.


     THE undersigned acknowledges receipt of above referenced RFP/Q and/or Addenda and offers and agrees to furnish the articles
     and/or services specified on behalf of the vendor indicated below, in accordance with the specifications, terms and conditions of
     this RFP/Q and Bid Acknowledgement.


            Firm:
            Address:
            State/Zip




         By:_______________ ________________________________________________ Date____________
         Phone_____________________




         Printed Name Signed
         Above:_______________________________________________________________________________________




         Title:___________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 11 of 15
                                      RFP No. CDA PLN 2009/001


                                                EXHIBIT L
                                         RFP VENDOR BID LIST


Below is the Vendor Bid List for this project consisting of vendors who have responded to RFP No. CDA
PLN 2009/001 and/or been issued a copy of this RFP. This Vendor Bid List is being provided for
informational purposes to assist bidders in making contact with other businesses as needed to develop
local small and emerging business subcontracting relationships to meet the requirements of the Small
Local Emerging Business (SLEB) Program (described within this RFP). For additional information regarding
the SLEB Program, please visit our website at http://www.acgov.org/gsa/sleb/ and/or contact the Auditor-
Controller‟s Office of Contract Compliance (OCC) located at 1221 Oak St., Rm. 249, Oakland, CA 94612 at
Tel: (510) 891-5500, Fax: (510) 272-6502 or via E-mail at ACSLEBcompliance@acgov.org


Vendors who attended the Networking/Bidders Conferences have been added to the Vendor Bid List.
Please see the RFP sections entitled „Calendar of Events‟ and „Networking/Bidders Conferences‟ for
additional information. The Networking/Bidders Conferences scheduled for all current projects are posted
on the GSA Calendar of Events website at http://www.acgov.org/gsa/Calendar.jsp. This RFP Addendum is
being issued to all vendors on the Vendor Bid List; the following revised vendor list includes contact
information for each vendor attendee at the Networking/Bidders Conferences.



EIP Associates                         601 Montgomery Street, Ste 500, San Francisco, CA 94111
Lamphier & Associates                  1944 Embarcadero, Oakland, CA 94606
Energy Solutions                       1610 Harrison Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Town Green/Stephen Coyle               1611 Telegraph Street, Ste 719, Oakland, CA 94612
ESA                                    436 14th Street, #600, Oakland, CA 94607
LSA Associates, Inc.                   2215 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710
Circle Point                           555 12th Street, Ste 290, Oakland, CA 94607
Pacific Municipal Consultants          500 12th Street, Oakland, CA 94607
Kahn/Mortimer Associates               4623 Davenport Avenue, Oakland, CA 94619
CH2M HILL                              155 Grand Avenue, Ste 1000, Oakland, CA 94612
Raimi & Associates                     46 Shattuck Square, Ste 24, Berkeley, CA 94704
Jones & Stokes                         268 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94610
Cambridge Systematics                  555 12th Street, Ste 1600, Oakland, CA 94607
The Planning Collaborative             640 Third Street, Oakland, CA 94607
EIP Associates                         330 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Design, Community & Environment        1600 Shattuck Avenue, Ste 222, Berkeley, CA 94709
Placemakers                            1500 Park Avenue, Loft 310, Emeryville, CA 94608
EDAW                                   150 Chestnut Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Baseline Environmental Consulting      5900 Hollis, Emeryville, CA 94608
KEMA                                   492 Ninth Street, Ste 220, Oakland, CA 94607
LSA                                    2215 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710
T Y LIN International/CCS              1440 Broadway, Ste 402, Oakland, CA 94612-2023
DYETT & BATHIA                         755 Sansome Street, #400, San Francisco, CA 94111
Korve Engineering, Inc.                155 Grand Avenue, Ste 200, Oakland, CA 94612
M.I.G.                                 800 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710
EDAW, Inc.                             753 Davis Street, San Francisco, CA 94111

_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 12 of 15
Geoff Danker               LSA Associates 2215 Fifth St.Berkeley, CA 94710
Aaron Welch                Raimi & Associates 46 Shattuck Square, Ste. 46, Berkeley, CA
                           94704
Amy Fong                   Archstone Consulting One Bush St. San Francisco, CA 94104
Gil de Jesus
Lucy Armentrout            PBS & J 353 Sacramento St., # 1000,San Francisco, CA 94111
Ivy Morrison               Circle Point,555 W. 12th St.,Oakland, CA 94607
Kevin Colin                1944 Embarcadero, Oakland, CA 94607
Sahar Abbaszadeh           360 22nd St. Ste. 710,Oakland, CA 94612
Doug Davenport             1999 Harrison Ste. 500,Oakland, CA 94612
Nada Djordjevich,          360 17th Ste, 150, Oakland, CA 94612
Rhonda Rigenhagen          38092 Parkmont, Fremont, CA 94536
Tom Brightbill             1624 Franklin # 911, Oakland, CA 94612
Jeff Caton                 225 Bush St. Ste. 1700, San Francisco, CA 94104
John Deakin                HDR,115 Sansome St.,San Francisco, CA 94109
Theresa Bennett-Wilkes     600 16th St., Ste. 8, Oakland, CA 94612
Maile Smith                Northgate Environmental, 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 510
                           Oakland, CA 94612
Michael McCormick          500 12th St. Ste. 240, Oakland, CA 94607
Jillian Rich               500 12th St. Ste. 240,Oakland, CA 94607
Sophie Mintier             1625 Shattuck Ave. # 300, Berkeley, CA 94610
Peter Bluhon               261 Purdue Ave.,Kensington, CA 94708
Vivian Kahn                4623 Davenport Ave., Oakland, CA 94619
Erec DeVost                130 Battery St., San Francisco, CA 94111
Claire Bonham-Carter       EDAW, 150 Chestnut St., San Francisco, CA 94111
Diana Sherman              MIG, 800 Hearst Ave.,Berkeley, CA 94710
Stefanie Pruegel           Gigantic Idea Studio, 580 2nd St.,Oakland, CA 94607
Claudette Altamirano       1535 Treat Blvd., Ste. 607, Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Gary Cook                  2740 Folsom St., San Francisco, CA 94110
Margaret Netto             Willdan Engineering, 2100 Park River Drive, Ste. 560,
                           Sacramento, CA 95833
Sean Karafin               100 Pringle Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596




_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 13 of 15
     ICLEI Baseline Emissions Inventory of Unincorporated Alameda County

The County‟s emissions inventory report is in the final stages of development but is not yet available for
public review. The following has been extracted from the inventory to help inform the consultants in
developing their bid.

The inventory analysis was completed by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability in collaboration
with County staff StopWaste.org and the local Air Quality Management District. It was completed
following the standard greenhouse gas analysis methodology embodied in ICLEI‟s “International Local
Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol.” Data was provided by County‟s staff, PG&E, MTC,
StopWaste, the Air District, the California Energy Commission, and others.

Results of the unincorporated community emissions inventory:
The unincorporated areas of Alameda County emitted approximately 736,579 metric tons of CO2e in the
year 2003.
         Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by                            Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
                        Sector (2003)                                                       Source (2003)
                                                                                               Waste      Diesel
                                         Waste                                                  4%         10%
                                         4.0%

                                                                           Natural Gas
        Transportation
                                                                              27%
            46.2%                                                                                                  Electricity
                                                     Residential                                                      23%
                                                       26.8%




                                       Commercial/                                             Gasoline
                                        Industrial                                              36%
                                          23.0%



     2003
  Community                               Commercial/
                         Residential                               Transportation        Waste            TOTAL
 Emissions by                              Industrial
    Sector
 CO2e (metric
     tons)                197,216             169,578                 340,574            29,211           736,579
    Energy
  Equivalent
   (MMBtu)               3,173,069           2,570,639               4,596,640             0           10,340,348

Analysis Notes:
    Transportation
          o The majority of transportation emissions came from gasoline powered personal vehicles
          o Emissions from State highways and intercity rail were not included
          o Total Vehicle Miles Traveled on local roadways 614,915,500
    Residential
          o 140,648 residents lived in the unincorporated County‟s in 2003
          o 278.7 million kWh of electricity and 22.2 million therms of natural gas were consumed


_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 14 of 15
      Commercial/Industrial
          o Due to the PUC‟s 15/15 privacy rules, emissions from the commercial and industrial sectors
              were aggregated
          o 325.2 million kWh of electricity and 14.6 million therms of natural gas were consumed
          o Fugitive emissions (emissions that result as a byproduct of industrial processes) and direct
              access electricity/fuels purchases were not included
    Waste
          o 95,708 U.S. tons of solid waste and 20,198 U.S. tons of alternative daily cover were sent to
              area landfills.
          o A 60% methane recovery factor was assumed
          o Potential carbon sequestration within the landfill itself was not included
                                                                           Alternative Daily
                                    Municipal Solid Waste
                                                                                  Cover
    Waste Type                                                                                  TOTAL
                         Paper       Food     Plant   Wood/        All    Organic       Non
                       Products Waste Debris Textiles Other                Waste      organic
    CO2e (metric
        tons)           14,852       3,363    2,573     6,578       0       1,845        0      29,211
    Total Waste
      Disposal          19,142       7,657 10,336      29,957    28,617     7,404      12,794  115,907
     (U.S. tons)

Unincorporated Community Emissions Forecast:
Under a business-as-usual scenario, emissions from unincorporated Alameda County will grow by
approximately 21.5% (to 895,285 metric tons CO2e) between 2003 and 2020. This is based on projected
populations and job growth, as well as estimated increases in the vehicle miles traveled on local
roadways.


                          Figure 3 – Community Emissions Forecast
                                               Emissions Forecast for 2020


                                     900,000

                                     800,000

                                     700,000
                                                                             Waste

                                     600,000
                  Metric Tons CO2e




                                                                             Transportation

                                     500,000
                                                                             Commercial/
                                                                             Industrial
                                     400,000                                 Residential

                                     300,000

                                     200,000

                                     100,000

                                          0

                                               2003              2020




_____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RFP NO. CDA PLN 2009/001 – Addendum #3
1/30/2012
Page 15 of 15

								
To top