Addendum No.4 RFQ 26-0108 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (5.1.26)

NOLA Public School
Procurement Department
2401 Westbend Parkway, Suite 5076,
New Orleans, LA 70114
Paul A. Lucius, Executive Director of Procurement
May 1, 2026
Addendum No. 4
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION NO. 26-0108
PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
This Addendum and Clarification item forms a part of the RFQ Documents and modifies the original
RFQ Documents issued April 2, 2026. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum on the Addendum
Form of the Request for Qualifications. Failure to do so may subject proposal to disqualification.
This Addendum consists of 33 Pages.
CLARIFICATION:
1. Question: Compensation and budget disclosure
During the April 17 preproposal meeting, Mr. Holm indicated that respondents could
submit a written question on compensation ranges or the anticipated budget for this engagement.
Would NOLA-PS please provide:
a. the anticipated annual contract value range for the owner representation services;
b. the anticipated fee structure (hourly, fixed fee per project, percentage of construction value,
or hybrid);
c. any information on historical compensation paid to the incumbent firm that would provide
context for respondents' price proposals; and
d. any specific budget considerations the evaluation committee will apply when reviewing fe
e proposals.
Answer: The district's budget for this project is $1,680,000.00. Historically, these services have
been compensated on an hourly basis, and the most recent consultant contract totaled
$2,600,000.00. Changes to the scope-including increased internal staffing, the elimination of
data management and daily site visits, and revised planning and analytical needs-have
significantly reduced the required level of service. Accordingly, the amount stated above
represents the district's maximum available budget. Proposals will be evaluated based on the
respondent's ability to deliver a strong partnership approach and effective service plan within
these funding constraints.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

2. Question: DBE participation | calculation methodology, team structure, and impact of
federal program changes
The RFQ establishes a 35% DBE participation goal. Separately, on October 3, 2025, the U.S.
Department of Transportation issued an Interim Final Rule that fundamentally restructured the
federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, suspending all existing DBE certifications
pending individualized reevaluation under new standards that remove race- and sex-based
presumptions of disadvantage. State Unified Certification Programs, including Louisiana's, are now
reevaluating currently certified DBE firms under the new standards. Would NOLA-PS please clarify
the following, taken together:
(a) whether the 35% is calculated on the total contract value or on the portion of work attributable
to DBE-performable tasks;
Answer: DBE goal is calculated based on the total contract value.
(b) whether a DBE-certified prime firm satisfies the entire 35% goal, or whether DBE
subcontractor participation is required regardless of prime certification status;
Answer: If the prime contractor is a DBE Prime, then the 35% goal is achieved.
(c) how DBE participation is calculated when a DBE firm is also a named teaming partner with
prime-level responsibilities;
Answer: The DBE goal for this contract remains at 35%.
(d) whether the 35% DBE participation goal referenced in RFQ 26-0108 is tied to federal funding
sources (which would implicate the federal IFR's temporary suspension of goal-setting) or is based
on NOLA-PS's own locally-established program;
Answer: OPSB's DBE Program, Policy and Procedures are independent of the Federal DBE
Program.
(e) if federal funding is involved, how NOLA-PS will reconcile the RFQ's 35% goal with the IFR's
suspension of federal DBE goals until UCP reevaluations are complete;
Answer: OPSB's DBE Program, Policy and Procedures are independent of the Federal DBE
Program.
(f) whether firms named as DBE partners in responses to this RFQ must be currently certified under
the new individualized standard, or whether firms certified under the prior standard (and currently
undergoing reevaluation) will satisfy the RFQ's DBE participation requirement;
Answer: OPSB will review the DBE firms submitted, and make the decision based on the
supporting documentation within the proposal.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

(g) how respondents should treat DBE partners whose reevaluation is pending at the time of
submission - specifically, whether such firms can be named with a reservation or conditional
commitment, or whether only fully recertified firms may be listed; and
Answer: OPSB will review the DBE firms submitted, and make the decision based on the
supporting documentation within the proposal.
(h) whether NOLA-PS will accept good-faith-efforts documentation in lieu of the 35% goal given
the current disruption in the DBE certification landscape, and if so, what standards will apply.
Answer: The Respondent, at a minimum, may submit qualitative and quantitative evidence of Good
Faith Efforts to attain DBE Participation. However, the ability or desire of the Consultant/Prime
Contractor to perform the services of a contract with its own organization, does not relieve the
Consultant/Prime Contractor's responsibility to make a Good Faith Effort, to achieve the owner's
DBE contract goal. (Please review DBE Policy & Provisions for additional information.)
3. Question: Conflict-of-interest provisions for teaming partners and subconsultants
What conflict-of-interest provisions apply to firms named as teaming partners, subconsultants, or
DBE partners on this engagement? Specifically:
(a) may a team member participate as a prime or subcontractor on other NOLA-PS projects
during the term of this contract;
(b) how are existing NOLA-PS contracts held by team members at the time of award treated;
(c) may team members pursue future NOLA-PS procurement opportunities issued during the
contract term, including any anticipated Facility Condition Assessment RFP;
(d) is the COI scope defined project-by-project (i.e., team members are conflicted only out of
projects where they provide owner representation services), or is COI applied broadly
across all NOLA-PS work during the contract term?
Answer: Generally, we do not expect to have to navigate the selected vendor's availability. So if
they are helping us manage capital projects, they should not be also bidding on projects. Also, while
not issued, the FCA project forbids anyone who does that work from participating in any of the work
identified through the assessment.
4. Question: Field inspection frequency | verbal vs. written guidance
During the April 17 pre-proposal meeting, NOLA-PS staff indicated that field inspection
frequency on this engagement would be "weekly plus as-needed," a reduction from the
incumbent's daily inspection posture. The RFQ language appears to reference a different
frequency. Would NOLA-PS please clarify:
(a) the anticipated field inspection frequency the successful team should plan to staff for (daily,
weekly-plus-as-needed, or other);
(b) whether inspection frequency varies by project type, size, or phase (e.g., pre-
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

construction, active construction, closeout);
(c) if the RFQ language and the verbal guidance are inconsistent, which should govern the
team's proposal scope and pricing; and
(d) whether NOLA-PS has the flexibility to adjust inspection frequency during the contract
term based on project conditions.
Answer: This will be on an as needed basis and to view and ensure work is being done as planned
and in a safe and appropriate manner. The capital team is working on behalf of our customer, the
campus operator, so an active presence in the project's management is expected. The current model
of daily site visits, however, is not being utilized moving forward.
5. Question: Shortlist and oral presentation process
The RFQ indicates that shortlisted respondents may be invited to oral presentations on May 8,
2026. Would NOLA-PS please confirm:
(a) the number of firms anticipated to be shortlisted;
(b) the format, duration, and attendee composition of the oral presentations;
(c) whether the scoring rubric weights described in the RFQ apply to oral presentations or
whether a separate rubric governs; and
(d) whether respondents will receive the evaluation committee's feedback on their written
submission prior to orals.
Answer: Oral presentations, if utilized, will be discussed with the selected organizations at that
time.
6. Question: Commissioning, code inspection, and testing and balancing
The scope of work for owner representation services references construction oversight. Would
NOLA-PS please clarify:
(a) whether commissioning services on mechanical, electrical, and life-safety systems are part
of this engagement's scope or are procured separately;
(b) whether code inspection and plan review coordination with the City of New Orleans
Department of Safety and Permits is within the owner-rep team's scope or retained by the
district; and
(c) whether testing and balancing, independent special inspections, and other third-party
testing services are within scope or procured separately.
Answer: These services are provided by the contractors and designers on the projects and are not a
part of this agreement.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

7. Question: Pre-bid peer review
Would NOLA-PS please clarify whether the owner representation team is expected to perform pre-
bid constructability review, peer review of design documents prior to issuance for bid, or value
engineering review, and if so, at what stages of the design process.
Answer: Plan review and coordination with the A&E partners is a normal part of the construction
management process and therefore would be expected on assigned projects.
8. Question: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) interface
The April 17 pre-proposal meeting indicated that the Facility Condition Assessment scope is being
pulled out of this contract and procured separately under a forthcoming FCA RFP. Would NOLA-
PS please clarify:
(a) the anticipated interface between the owner representation team and the eventual FCA
consultant (data sharing, coordination meetings, joint site visits, etc.);
(b) whether the owner-rep team is expected to use FCA outputs as inputs to project planning
and prioritization, and if so, at what cadence;
(c) whether the FCA RFP is scheduled to be issued during the contract term of this RFQ, and if
so, the anticipated timing; and
(d) whether firms participating on the owner-rep team are eligible to pursue the FCA contract,
either independently or through a separate entity.
Answer: The bid anticipates the final product software will be available to all members of the capital
improvements team, internally and externally. The project lists are built with FCA date (of course),
as well as the input of the campus operators and field inspections from the SFO site inspectors. We
issue a list annually, but other projects are added as needed. We hope to issue the FCA RFP shortly
(weeks, not months). The selected FCA vendor may not participate in any projects identified through
the FCA project.
9. Question: Incumbent firm status and cone of silence
Would NOLA-PS please confirm:
(a) whether the current incumbent owner's representation provider is submitting or
resubmitting a response to RFQ 26-0108;
(b) whether any individual currently or recently assigned to the incumbent engagement is
participating as a team member in any submission to this RFQ, and whether such individuals
are within the scope of the procurement's code of silence during the evaluation period; and
(c) whether any NOLA-PS staff member with current or recent oversight responsibility for the
incumbent engagement is serving on the evaluation committee for this RFQ.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

Answer: We will not know who is submitting a response, until responses are received. The code of
silence applies to any conversations related to the bid for this service. It is possible, through the
normal course of business, the incumbent or their hired subcontractors, will have normal business
interactions around existing services. Yes. It is possible for a NOLA-PS employee who provided
oversight to the previous engagement to serve on the Evaluation Committee.
10. Question: Project pipeline and historical workload
To allow respondents to scope the engagement accurately, would NOLA-PS please provide:
(a) a list of the approximately 18 projects anticipated to kick off in summer 2026, including
project description, location, scope type, and estimated construction value for each;
(b) a list of projects currently under consideration for the 36-month period following contract
award, recognizing these may not be committed but reflect the district's planning horizon;
and
(c) a 36-month look-back of capital projects completed by the district, with project description,
location, scope type, and construction value, to inform respondents' understanding of the
typical project mix and scale.
Answer: The monthly report to the Board includes all this information, though we do not project
beyond the next fiscal year. As mentioned, the current FCA is aged, and we are expecting to update
these inputs. Please see a summary of this report attached (See Appendix A), or alternatively, the
report provided monthly in the board Property committee meeting.
11. Question: Project type diversity and operational complexity
The RFQ references a subset of project types (e.g., roofing, HVAC, plumbing, subsidence
remediation). Recognizing that the district's actual capital portfolio may include additional
categories, and that project types vary materially in the operational effort they require, would NOLA-
PS please provide:
(a) a more complete list of project types the district has delivered in recent years or anticipates
delivering during the contract term, beyond the categories referenced in the RFQ;
(b) which project types the district's capital projects team finds most operationally complex or
resource-intensive to deliver (e.g., projects requiring after-hours sequencing, multi-phase
scheduling, hazardous materials coordination, or extensive stakeholder engagement); and
(c) which project types tend to proceed with the least friction, so respondents can appropriately
allocate supplemental support across the portfolio.
Answer: Please see the previously provided summary (presented monthly to the Board) of the
SFPP program projects from FY23 forward. Time to implement is driven by project complexity
and often equipment availability (i.e., shipping times for chillers).
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

12. Question: Project seasonality and scheduling
Because certain project types (e.g., tuckpointing, interior finish work, HVAC replacements
requiring extended shutdowns) are often constrained to summer recess while others (e.g., roofing,
limited-impact mechanical work) can proceed during the school year, would NOLA-PS please
clarify:
(a) what percentage of the district's typical annual capital program is scheduled for summer
recess versus during the school year;
(b) how the district sequences projects that cannot be accommodated in a single summer
window; and
(c) whether respondents should model their staffing approach around a concentrated summer
peak period or a steadier year-round workload.
Answer: While there is certainly more activity during school closures, there is some activity, from
planning, procurement, and scheduling, throughout the year. Sequencing depends on the project,
sometimes being phased, at others performing tasks in bursts as facilities become available. We
have, but do not foresee in the near term, utilization of swing space. Steadier modeling is ideal, but
again, we are busiest in terms of simultaneous projects, during school closures.
13. Question: Fee structure | hourly vs. fixed fee
Supplementing Question 1 on compensation, and based on the verbal guidance at the April 17 pre-
proposal meeting that the engagement is structured to provide supplemental support to the district's
capital projects team on an as-needed basis, would NOLA-PS please clarify:
(a) whether this engagement is intended to be structured as an hourly professional services
contract with billable rates by labor category, or as a fixed fee contract with a defined annual or
project-based fee;
(b) if fixed fee, how respondents are expected to scope and price the commitment without
visibility into the specific project list and project values (per Question 10);
(c) if hourly, whether respondents should submit labor rates by category (principal, project
manager, owner's representative, construction inspector, administrative support, DBE participant
roles, etc.) and whether those rates will be evaluated separately from qualifications; and
(d) whether respondents may propose a hybrid structure (e.g., fixed fee for routine project
management plus hourly for as-needed additional tasks).
Answer: The district's budget for this project is $1,680,000.00. We have historically paid for this
service on an hourly basis, and the previous consultant's budget was higher, most recently
$2,600,000.00. The addition to internal staff, removal of the data management and daily site visits,
and the updated planning and analysis have changed the scope of the previous services. The funds
stated above are the limit of our budget. Consideration will be given to who can take those funds
and provide the best plan for partnering on the project.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

The current invoicing indicates personnel assigned, tasks, hours and rate and rolls to a monthly
amount. Some months are higher than others, but there is a strong consistency typically across the
moths. Again, as mentioned before, the capital project lift from inception through the new FY27
list is published month, and a summary has been provided here.
14. Question: On-site supervision | prime contractor vs. owner's representative
The RFQ language appears to contemplate daily or near-daily field inspection by the owner's
representative, while verbal guidance at the April 17 pre-proposal meeting suggested a lighter
"weekly plus as-needed" posture with the district's capital projects team providing primary
oversight. In traditional governmental construction programs, the owner's representative often
provides full-time on-site QA/QC. In private-sector programs, the prime contractor provides on-
site supervision and the owner's representative performs periodic oversight. Would NOLA-PS
please clarify:
(a) whether the owner's representative is expected to provide full-time on-site supervision
during active construction, or whether the prime contractor is expected to carry that
responsibility with the owner's representative performing periodic oversight;
(b) whether the expectation varies based on the prime contractor's firm profile (e.g., a general
contractor may have dedicated on-site supervision staff, while a specialty trade prime such
as a roofer or HVAC contractor may not);
(c) whether NOLA-PS's capital projects team provides any of the daily on-site oversight
function during active construction; and
(d) how this expectation aligns with or differs from the compensation model in Question 13
above, since full-time on-site staffing has a materially different cost profile from periodic
oversight.
Answer: This will be on an as needed basis and to view and ensure work is being done as planned
and in a safe and appropriate manner. The capital team is working on behalf of our customer, the
campus operator, so an active presence in the project's management is expected. The current model
of daily site visits, however, is not being utilized moving forward.
Additional information: As to (d), the submitted financial compensation model proposed should
NOT include daily site supervision.
15. Question: Peer review | in-house vs. third-party
Supplementing Question 7, would NOLA-PS please clarify whether pre-bid constructability review,
peer review of design documents, and value engineering review must be performed by a third party
independent of the owner's representation team, or whether such review may be performed by
qualified personnel within the owner's representation team or its named teaming partners.
Answer: Qualified members of the partner's team are acceptable. Generally, it is hoped that we have
chosen the most qualified A&E providers, and their expertise will not normally require third party
review. In those rare cases, the district will hire that outside of this agreement.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

16. Question: What is the scope of work for projects planned in 2026, 2027 and 2028? For
example, roof, mechanical, interior, replacing window seal, etc.?
Answer: The planned capital projects are reported monthly in the District capital project report, and
the FY27 projects will be released at the April Board meeting on April 28th. The report is
comprehensive and covers all open planned and unplanned capital projects. A copy of the March
report is attached (See Appendix A).
17. Question: What is the projected budget for planned projects associated with question #1
above?
Answer: The monthly capital report lists the known budget for each project. The figure changes as
projects move from projected, to designed, procured, constructed, and completed. The report
referenced above can be used to review the budgets as reported at the March Board Meeting.
18. Question: Please clarify what content is included in the 20-page limit. Specifically, are
Appendix materials (including required forms, resumes, and DBE documentation) excluded
from the page count?
Answer: The 20-page limit applies to the Qualifications Response narrative only. Required forms,
appendices, resumes, and DBE documentation are excluded from the page count.
19. Question: Are tab dividers, cover pages, and section separators included in the 20-page limit?
Answer: No. Tab dividers, cover pages, and section separators are considered organizational
materials and are not included in the page count.
20. Question: Should Tab 10 include only the provided cost form, or is additional
narrative/explanation permitted or expected?
Answer: As clarified in the addendum, Tab 10 is designated for References. Cost is identified as
Tab 9; however, cost is not required and will not be evaluated as part of this RFQ. Cost Form
should be submitted only if requested. Please use the updated Cost Form in this Addendum.
21. Question: Should references be included both in Tab 9 narrative format and on Appendix
forms, or is one sufficient?
Answer: As clarified in the addendum, Tab 10 is designated for References. References must be
submitted using the required format outlined in the RFQ. Including references within the narrative
response is optional; however, submission of the required reference information is mandatory.
22. Question: Which DBE forms are required at the time of proposal submission versus post-award
reporting requirements?
Answer: All required DBE documentation must be submitted at the time of proposal submission,
including DBE Responsiveness Form 1, DBE Responsiveness Form 2, DBE Certification Letter(s)
(if applicable), and the DBE Professional Services Compliance Certification Checklist. Failure to
include these documents shall result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive. Post-award DBE
reporting will be required in accordance with contract requirements.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4

23. Question: Can OPSB provide an estimated annual volume, size range, and funding sources
(local, state, federal) for projects anticipated under this contract?
Answer: Virtually all capital projects, following the end of ESSER funds, are funded through the
district milage for the SFPP. Familiarity with the SFPP and how it controls the funding of the capital
projects is a critical component of being able to successfully perform the tasks set forth in this
request.
24. Question: What level of on-site presence is required for PM and field inspection personnel
across projects?
Answer: This will be on an as needed basis and to view and ensure work is being done as planned
and in a safe and appropriate manner. The capital team is working on behalf of our customer, the
campus operator, so an active presence in the project's management is expected. The current model
of daily site visits, however, is not being utilized moving forward.
25. Question: Will the PM/CM Consultant be expected to lead procurement activities (e.g., bid
development, contractor selection support), or provide advisory support only?
Answer: Support only. At this time, all procurement efforts are led by NOLA Public Schools
Procurement Department.
26. Question: How will emergency/unplanned projects be scoped, authorized, and funded under
this contract?
Answer: As those projects arise, if the time needed to cover these circumstances exceeds the
availability of the selected team, change orders will be considered. This is particularly true in a
major incident such as a named storm.
27. Question: Does OPSB currently use a project management or capital program tracking system
(e.g., e-Builder, Procore, Primavera), and will the selected Consultant be required to integrate
into or enhance this system?
Answer: No, but we are considering adding one. If so, yes, the expectation is that all work would
be documented in this system, as currently we do not have a centralized process. Training would be
provided by the District. Additionally, please recall from the pre-bid meeting, the District will be
completing a new FCA process, and that software will also be used by both internal and external
members of the capital project management team. Primary responsibility for the maintenance and
upkeep of both systems would be a NOLA-PS task.
RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services Addendum No. 4