My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Artistic Holiday Designs
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Bids-RFQ-RFP
>
RFP
>
RFP No. 26-04-01 Citywide Holiday Lighting & Decorations
>
RESPONSES
>
RESPONSES
>
Artistic Holiday Designs
>
Artistic Holiday Designs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2026 11:08:46 AM
Creation date
5/18/2026 11:06:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
8 <br /> <br />4. Kings Point Drive – Pole Décor <br />5. Pedestrian Bridge – Pole Décor <br />A49. The City is open to Design Proposals. <br /> <br />Q50. Electrical Licensing Requirements - The scope appears to consist of temporary decorative <br />lighting (≤90 days) with no installation of new circuits or permanent infrastructure. Is a licensed <br />electrical contractor required for this scope? <br />A50. Refer to Addendum # 2. <br /> <br />Q51. The RFP references an overall budget range of approximately $200,000–$250,000. Is this <br />budget intended to apply solely to Group 1 (mandatory base scope)? Or is it expected to cover <br />the combined total of Groups 1, 2, and 3? <br />A51. A1. Budget is intended to include Group 1 at minimum, the proposer has the option to <br />include scope within their bid for Groups 2 and 3 within this budget. <br /> <br />Q52. If Groups 2 and 3 are optional, should they be treated as add alternates outside of the <br />base budget, or included within the overall budget target? <br />A52. A1. Budget is intended to include Group 1 at minimum, the proposer has the option to <br />include scope within their bid for Groups 2 and 3 within this budget. <br /> <br />Q53.The RFP states that Group 1 is mandatory, while Groups 2 and 3 are optional, with the <br />condition that Group 3 may only be priced if Group 2 is fully completed. Are Group 1 items <br />considered the required base scope for evaluation? Are Groups 2 and 3 treated as optional <br />add-alternates? Will evaluation be based primarily on Group 1 totals, or combined totals? <br />A53. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is <br />determined to be the most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration total cost and <br />all other evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. <br /> <br />Q54.If optional items are not included, is listing them as “N/A” acceptable without impacting <br />the evaluation? <br />A54. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is <br />determined to be the most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration total cost and <br />all other evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. <br /> <br />Q55. <br />The RFP indicates that the primary focus should be on Collins Avenue (Rights-of-Way) and <br />major parks, including: <br />● Heritage Park <br />● Town Center Park <br />● Samson Oceanfront Park <br />● Gateway Park
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.