July 31, 2019 
 
 
 
                                                  AMENDMENT FOUR (4) 
 
 RFP-024-2019 (P)- Territory-Wide Government Wide (GWAN) and Land Mobile 
Radio Public Safety (LMR-PS) Architectural & Engineering Services.  
 
 
INSERT: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 
 
1. Is the funding for this proposed project coming from the USVI government or is 
there another funding source? 
 
A. The funding source is from the VI Government and FEMA. 
 
2. Can you tell us the composition of the evaluation committee? 
 
A. The composition of the evaluation committee is as followings, three representatives 
from the Department of Property and Procurement, and two representatives from the 
User Agency.  
 
3. What are the evaluation criteria and weighting?  (e.g., Technical 40%, Cost 25%, etc.) 
 
A. The criteria and weighing is as follows, Qualification… 30 pts., Responsiveness and 
Dedication… 30 pts., Experience… 30 pts., and References… 10 pts.  
 
4. Can you further explain the Pricing section of the RFP?  It states that the “proposal 
provided will contain estimates for repairs of existing and design/implementation of a 
new system, including…”  The language implies that USVI would like the cost estimates 
listed as bullet points included in the response to the RFP.  It would be nearly impossible 
to provide those estimates in the RFP proposal without first having conducted the work 
requested in the RFP.  It appears as those cost estimates would be included in the 
deliverable report for the project.  Did you mean that our pricing was to include the 
necessary effort to develop all of those cost estimates? 
 
A. Estimates, assessments and detailed analysis of the systems outlined in the RFP are the 
deliverables.  The deliverables are to be provided once a contractor is chosen via the 
RFP process.  Once a contract is signed with the contractor (based on the RFP process), 
the deliverables will be the output.  The RFP is to determine the contractor that can 
provide the best value for the deliverables listed.  Cost estimates, assessments and 
detailed analysis of the systems outlined in the RFP should not be included in the 
response to the RFP.  These are the deliverables. 
 
5. Page 4 of the RFP states firms should “submit one (1) original and five (5) copy sets of 
the proposals” (technical). On Page 6, it says for the cost proposal “one (1) original and 
four (4) copy sets. Can you provide clarity on if the Cost Proposal should also include 5 
copies? 
 
A. The ‘cost proposal’, which must be submitted in a separate envelope, should be ONE 
original and FOUR copy sets. The proposal itself must be ONE original and FIVE copy 
sets.  
 
6. On page 6, paragraph 5 of the RFP where it speaks to Project References it says that it 
must include a notarized written consent from the authorized representative.  Is this a 
notarized letter of consent from the reference?  If so, this is a highly unusual 
requirement that we have never seen in other RFP’s and creates an onerous burden on 
our past clients that we normally wouldn’t ask of them.  Additionally, they would have 
to complete the letter, have it notarized, and return the original notarized version via US 
mail which could create a time issue due to the relatively quick turnaround time for 
these proposals.  Would you consider waiving this requirement for a notarized letter of 
consent, or consider extending the due date for responses by 30 days? 
 
A. Yes, the notarized letter must be from the reference. Consideration has already been 
given, and an extension has already been granted.  
 
 
 
All other terms and conditions remain the same. 
 
A copy of this amendment must be returned with your bid.