Architectural & Engineering Services- CCNA
| Agency: | City of Sanford |
|---|---|
| State: | Florida |
| Type of Government: | State & Local |
| NAICS Category: |
|
| Posted Date: | Oct 30, 2025 |
| Due Date: | Nov 13, 2025 |
| Solicitation No: | RFQ 24/25-26 |
| Original Source: | Please Login to View Page |
| Contact information: | Please Login to View Page |
| Bid Documents: | Please Login to View Page |
Main
Agency
City of Sanford
City of Sanford
Status
Active
Active
Fiscal Year
2026
2026
Type
Request for Qualifications
Request for Qualifications
Department
Online Submissions
No
No
Project Estimate
Piggyback Solicitation
No
No
Insurance Required
No
No
Bid Bond Required
No
No
Bid Bond Amount
Performance Bond Required
No
No
Performance Bond Amount
Construction Bond Required
No
No
Construction Bond Amount
Scope of Services
A. Definition of the Project:
a. Description of nature of the work (e.g., new construction, renovation, infrastructure,
utility, roadway, stormwater, etc.)
b. Geographics location/site(s) of work.
c. Approximately project budget (“basic construction cost” if applicable) and timeline.
d. Key design criteria, performance requirements, and constraints (site constraints,
environmental, regulatory, budget, schedule).
B. The City of Sanford (City), Florida, hereby invites
A. Definition of the Project:
a. Description of nature of the work (e.g., new construction, renovation, infrastructure,
utility, roadway, stormwater, etc.)
b. Geographics location/site(s) of work.
c. Approximately project budget (“basic construction cost” if applicable) and timeline.
d. Key design criteria, performance requirements, and constraints (site constraints,
environmental, regulatory, budget, schedule).
B. The City of Sanford (City), Florida, hereby invites
Dates(All times are listed as
EST
)
Broadcast Date
10/7/2025 8:00 AM EST
10/7/2025 8:00 AM EST
Question End Date
10/28/2025 2:00 PM EST
10/28/2025 2:00 PM EST
Due Date
11/13/2025 2:00 PM EST
11/13/2025 2:00 PM EST
Bid Opening Date
Pre-Bid Meetings
Total: 0
(All times are listed as
EST
)
| Date | Time | Mandatory | Location |
Shortlist Meeting
Total: 0
(All times are listed as
EST
)
| Date | Time | Location |
Documents
Total: 7
Questions & Answers
Total: 75
| Question | Date Asked | Answer | Date Answered |
| Does the City expect to see one 75-page submittal combining all of the Firm`s proposed specific areas (as seen on pages 7-8 of the RFQ) or one 75-page proposal per each of the of the Firm`s proposed specific areas? | 10/9/2025 9:04:56 AM | One 75-page submittal combining all of the Firm`s proposed specific areas, excluding the attachments, is required. | 10/9/2025 9:21:24 AM |
| Is the "one member with AICP certification" required on each of the specific areas as seen on pages 7-8 of the RFQ? | 10/9/2025 9:06:35 AM | One AICP certification per company. | 10/9/2025 9:30:23 AM |
| What is the difference between this RFQ, the still-active 24/25-26 (for continuing architectural services), and the still-active 22/23-12 (for continuing engineering services)? | 10/9/2025 9:23:09 AM | Previous solicitation 22/23-12 is expiring. There is no difference between the two. Please see section 2.01, letter G. | 10/9/2025 9:34:49 AM |
| Was 23/24-29 awarded? If so, who was selected and are they precluded from this RFQ? | 10/9/2025 9:53:23 AM | RFQ 23/24-29 was awarded. We apologize for the delay is showing that it was awarded. If you were not awarded a contract for RFQ 23/24-29 you may submit a bid for this solicitation. | 10/9/2025 11:02:02 AM |
| Are we required to use 12-point font on the SF 330 form as well, or can we use the default font size and style included in the form? | 10/9/2025 11:01:30 AM | Section 3.09 of the solicitation says 12 point font. | 10/9/2025 11:05:38 AM |
| Are firms that were awarded under RFQ 23/24-29 required to submit a proposal under this solicitation? | 10/9/2025 11:19:14 AM | If you have an existing valid contract with the city, it may not exceed the 5-year term. | 10/9/2025 11:50:52 AM |
| Are submitting firms required to office all services listed under 2.01 Scope of Services or can a firm only submit for specific services categories (i.e. General Engineering Services)? | 10/9/2025 1:24:52 PM | Please submit for the area for which you are a specific subject matter expert. | 10/9/2025 1:34:36 PM |
| Section 1.04 Minimum Requirements, part C, states that “at least one member with AICP certification” is required. This certification is not standard for a water/wastewater engineering firm. Would the City consider removing this requirement? If not, can the City confirm that this qualification may be provided by a subconsultant? | 10/13/2025 11:46:35 AM | See addendum #2. | 10/13/2025 11:49:27 AM |
|
Does SF 330 Section H Go in both Tab A and G?
Are we to include attachment O in both sections A and E? Do Subs need a full SF 330 as well? |
10/13/2025 11:47:24 AM | An addendum is forthcoming with answers to all the remaining question. | 10/15/2025 4:03:30 PM |
| Are architectural firms able to submit, or only full scope AE firms that include engineering services? | 10/13/2025 3:22:31 PM | ||
| Are firms allowed to submit for a single sub-category within “Civil Engineering Services” (e.g., Transportation Planning ), or must we submit for the entire Civil group? | 10/15/2025 10:14:15 AM | ||
| 5.01’s table outlines the tab assignments, category, and maximum points. There seems to be a discrepancy between this Table, Row “F”, and Section 5.07 “Terms & Conditions”. Can you please clarify the intent, title, and associated maximum points of “Tab F”? | 10/15/2025 1:29:12 PM | ||
| "Should the architects submit qualifications solely for their architectural expertise? If they don`t have in-house engineering capabilities, they need to include a sub-consultant on their team? In your previous response, you mentioned submitting qualifications based on areas of expertise. Does this mean we need to include sub-consultants unless our firm has in-house engineering? Could you clarify your expectations?" | 10/15/2025 3:20:19 PM | ||
|
Will the City please clarify the requirements of Section 2.17 “Submission Deliverable” on page 16 of the RFP? This section states that responses must answer the listed questions/requests and be identifiable in the sequence provided. However, some items (such as “b. Reserved”) do not specify what information is required. Additionally, neither Section 2.17 nor Section 5 provides clear guidance on where each item within Section 2.17 should be placed within the proposal.
Additionally, would it be acceptable to include this information in an appendix at the end of the proposal? |
10/15/2025 3:52:22 PM | ||
| Could the City please clarify whether Attachments A–T are included in the overall page limit? These attachments total 29 pages, which would leave only 46 pages for the remaining sections, including the SF330 forms and our project approach. | 10/15/2025 3:56:18 PM | ||
| Could we respectfully request an extension of 10 business days for this submittal? | 10/15/2025 4:18:48 PM | ||
| Is the preliminary design report available? | 10/15/2025 4:19:18 PM | ||
| When the RFQ requests "that discipline and experience profile codes must be accurately reflected", where exactly in the submittal does the City expect to see these codes? | 10/15/2025 4:23:47 PM | ||
| Page 16 of the RFQ limits the Letter of Transmittal to three pages, but page 24 limits it to two. Which is the expectation of the City? | 10/15/2025 5:01:54 PM | ||
| For the sake of clarity, exactly which elements of our responses are counted in the 75-page limit? | 10/15/2025 5:03:30 PM | ||
| For Tab B, is it sufficient to submit each project in their SF330 Section F format or does the city expect to see a project data sheet in addition to the SF330 Section F format per project? | 10/15/2025 5:14:02 PM | An addendum is forthcoming. | 10/20/2025 10:10:54 AM |
| Both Tabs A and D say to include an organizational chart (SF 330 Section D). Which Tab does the City expect to see this? | 10/15/2025 5:19:02 PM | ||
| Aside from SF 330 Sections C-G, individual staff licenses/certifications, and Attachment "I", does the City expect to see information on proposed subcontractor staffing anywhere else? | 10/15/2025 5:35:22 PM | ||
| In Section 1.04, Subsection B (ii), the RFQ mentions providing projects that are “completed and/or currently being provided,” and Section 5.03 further states that the focus should be on projects completed within the last five years or currently underway. However, Attachment K specifies that projects must have been performed within the last three years. Can the City clarify which timeframe should take precedence and confirm whether projects that are currently in progress are acceptable to include? | 10/16/2025 10:34:41 AM | ||
| As the RFQ currently reads, the only content in Tab G is Section H. If Section H is only to be included in Tab A instead of Tab G, as directed in Addendum 3, what does the City expect to see in Tab G? | 10/16/2025 11:09:10 AM | ||
| Section 3.10 states that Certificates of Insurance should be inserted under Tab `B`, while Section 5.06 lists them under Tab `E`. Could you please confirm which tab the Certificates of Insurance should be placed under? | 10/16/2025 11:24:49 AM | ||
| My current understanding is that the City only expects to see subcontractor information on the organizational chart and Attachment "I". What am I missing? | 10/16/2025 11:28:46 AM | ||
| A previous question asked about where in our submittal to include experience profile codes, but the answer did not clarify. Can you please confirm where exactly in our submittal the City expects to see these codes? | 10/16/2025 11:41:18 AM | ||
| Could the City please clarify if Attachment K References should go in Tab B Similar Projects? Or should Attachment K go in Tab G? | 10/16/2025 11:42:55 AM | ||
| A previous question asked about how to depict our projects, but the answer did not clarify. Can you please confirm if the City expects to see each of our similar projects once (in SF 330 Section F format) or twice (once in SF 330 Section F format and again in our own format of choice)? | 10/16/2025 11:44:39 AM | ||
| A previous question asked about what specifically is included in the 75-page limit, but the answer did not clarify. Do only Tabs A, B, C, and D only count towards this limit? If not, can you please specify exactly which items from which tabs count towards the 75-page limit? | 10/16/2025 11:47:03 AM | ||
| Can the City please confirm whether it’s acceptable to include Attachments D, J, P, Q, R, S, and T in Tab G, or if we should instead create an Appendix Tab following Tab G for these attachments? | 10/16/2025 11:53:00 AM | ||
| A previous question asked about what specifically is included in the 75-page limit, but the answer did not clarify. Do only Tabs A, B, C, and D only count towards this limit? If not, can you please specify exactly which items from which tabs count towards the 75-page limit? | 10/16/2025 1:10:04 PM | ||
| Do subcontractors need to show their SF 330 Part II? | 10/16/2025 5:32:37 PM | ||
| Will the cover and tab pages be included or excluded in the 75 page limit? If excluded, can they be printed on front and back, or only single page? | 10/17/2025 2:01:02 PM | ||
| Are the subcontractors required to submit 330 resumes as well? | 10/17/2025 2:01:56 PM | ||
| Which tab are the addendums to be included in? Are the addendums part of the 75 page limit? | 10/17/2025 2:03:17 PM | ||
|
Other Consultants vendors are typically procured under the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA). These solicitations often include a section for Owner’s Representative services, supplementary project management, or staff augmentation; intended to enhance City staff capacity and provide additional oversight on projects as a third party on behalf of city and taxpayers. This scope generally includes reviewing and coordinating with other consultants (such as architects and engineers) and managing the general contractor.
Will a future addendum include a specific section for Owner’s Representative services? |
10/20/2025 9:36:30 AM | ||
|
Under B. Demonstration of experience located on page 5 of the RFQ, #4 is asking “describe your law firm’s experience working with other municipalities”. Can the City clarify if this is an error?
|
10/21/2025 1:44:39 PM | ||
| Are we to include both attachment G addenda acknowledgement, and the addenda acknowledgement that comes with each addendum? | 10/21/2025 1:44:58 PM | ||
| Can the organization chart be 11 x 17? If not, can we reduce the font for it? This RFQ covers a wide variety of services, and the current requirements may not allow us to show the range of staff required for the contract. | 10/21/2025 1:45:41 PM | ||
| Page 16, B is asking for “reserved”, and L is blank. What does the city want to see here? | 10/21/2025 1:46:10 PM | ||
| Page 20 in the RFQ states “Currently valid Certificates of Insurance, insert Tab “B” and Local Business Tax Receipt (formerly known as Occupational License) shall be placed under Tab “E” of your proposal.” Page 26 says to put insurance in Tab E. Should we include them in both or just one section? | 10/21/2025 1:46:26 PM | ||
| With the amount of respondents’ questions and various changes associated with the answers, will the City consider granting an extension? | 10/21/2025 1:46:46 PM | ||
| Since Section H will be included in Tab A, does this mean we can remove Tab G altogether? | 10/21/2025 3:16:52 PM | ||
| With the amount of respondents’ questions and various changes associated with the answers, will the City consider granting an extension? | 10/21/2025 7:35:58 PM | ||
| Can the organizational chart be 11 x 17? Also, can we reduce the font from 12 point? This RFQ covers a wide variety of services, and the current requirements may not allow us to show the range of staff required for the contract. | 10/21/2025 7:37:29 PM | ||
| Would it be acceptable to use an online notary for the forms that require notarization? | 10/22/2025 9:01:00 AM | ||
| Are SF 330 Section E resumes expected from subconsultants? Answers 3 and 7 in Addendum 4 are conflicting. | 10/23/2025 9:25:12 AM | ||
| On page 24 of Addendum 4, the update in 5.02 Section A now says "SF 330 Section G" in red. Does this mean the City expects to see SF 330 Section G in both Tab "A" and Tab "D"? | 10/23/2025 9:42:22 AM | ||
| Attachment B: “Insurance Requirements” under section 2, "C" states “Coverage must be provided for sexual harassment, abuse, and molestation.” Please confirm if this is something that the City is requiring. This is not a standard policy request. | 10/23/2025 11:38:23 AM | ||
| Page 2 in the standard Terms & Conditions, “Loyalty to the City” imposes an ongoing duty of loyalty and organization-wide duty of loyalty to the City that extends across all business lines, client relationships and beyond the scope of the contract and may conflict with other obligations to other clients, creating a conflict of interest. Can the City remove this from their T&C? | 10/23/2025 11:38:41 AM | ||
| Will the City allow firms to submit a list of exceptions to the terms and conditions? | 10/23/2025 11:47:18 AM | ||
| Can the City please confirm that the term ‘Contractor’ used throughout the RFQ documents, including but not limited to the signature blocks on the required forms, is intended to be interchangeable with ‘Consultant’ or ‘Proposer’ for the purposes of this solicitation? | 10/24/2025 1:00:41 PM | ||
| Would the City please remove the requirement for the proposer to ensure they will obtain all permits and authorizations as stated in the section Vendor’s Provision of Goods or Services, number 16 of the Contract Terms and Conditions for all City Procurements located on the City’s website? We cannot guarantee issuance of permits requested by the City. | 10/24/2025 1:00:55 PM | ||
| Would the City please remove the requirement for the proposer to warrant goods and services will be without defect and of the highest quality as stated in the section Vendor’s Provision of Goods or Services number 17 of the Contract Terms and Conditions for all City Procurements located on the City’s website? As design professionals, we do not provide goods like a contractor and cannot warrant against defects. Also providing services that are the highest quality is not defined. We can warrant that our services are per the standard of care. | 10/24/2025 1:01:05 PM | ||
| Would the City please remove the indemnification requirement as stated in the section Indemnification numbers 1, 7, and 9 of the Contract Terms and Conditions for all City Procurements located on the City’s website? These indemnification requirements are not in compliance with Florida Statute. | 10/24/2025 1:01:14 PM | ||
| Would the City please remove the Public Emergencies requirement as stated in the Contract Terms and Conditions for all City Procurements located on the City’s website? A design professional’s ethical obligations are to the public as a whole and not to one specific municipality. | 10/24/2025 1:01:22 PM | ||
| Please confirm SF 330 Section D is to be included in TAB D – Personnel/Project Team Experience, rather than in TAB A or any other location. | 10/27/2025 9:50:17 AM | ||
| In TAB B – Similar Projects, do projects need to be within the last three (3) years or within the last five (5) years. Can the projects be ongoing or must they be completed? | 10/27/2025 9:50:32 AM | ||
| Following the Sample Agreement is a Vendor Information Form on pages 95-97 of the RFQ document. Is this form required to be submitted with our proposal? | 10/27/2025 9:50:41 AM | ||
| Section 2.18 in the original RFQ and Addendum 4 lists a form called "Listing of Project Completed- Attachment “I”. No such form is included with that name. Can you please supply the form or confirm this is intended to say “Proposed Schedule of Subcontractor Participation – Attachment “I”. | 10/27/2025 9:50:48 AM | ||
| Under Employee Licenses & Addresses: Vendor Responsibilities #2 of page 4, would the City consider removing the following sentence: "City may request, and the vendor shall provide, employee addresses and drivers` licenses." Employees have a reasonable expectation that their personal information particularly home addresses, will be protected. We`re happy to provide office addresses and driver`s license information for employees whose roles require travel to job sites or similar activities, as revelant to the work. | 10/27/2025 10:11:44 AM | ||
| On page 5, Security breaches: Vendor Responsibilities #10, can the City revise the last sentence to say “The vendor shall advise the City within 72 hours of any security breaches as it relates to City’s data and where it is stored”? | 10/27/2025 10:12:29 AM | ||
| 3. Can the City remove the Compliance by City/Estoppel Certificates (page 7)? This clause appears to be modeled on real estate lease language and includes terms (e.g., “lease,” “rent”) that do not apply to this professional services agreement. | 10/27/2025 10:12:54 AM | ||
| 4. Can the City remove the “Verifying Authority: Expenditure of City Funds #1 (page 7)? This clause places an unreasonable burden on the vendor to verify the internal authority levels of City employees. Vendors typically do not have access to the City’s internal delegation of authority or approval limits. | 10/27/2025 10:15:40 AM | ||
| Can the City remove the “Most Favored Customer” section on page 35? | 10/27/2025 10:16:05 AM | ||
| Can the City extend the proposal due date by two weeks? | 10/27/2025 10:16:20 AM | No. The deadline will remain the same. | 10/27/2025 10:36:00 AM |
| Can the City please clarify which Addendum response should take precedence regarding the placement of the organizational chart (SF 330 Section D)? Addendum 4, Question 2, instructs proposers to include the organizational chart in Tab A for clarification purposes, while Addendum 3, Question 11, directs proposers to include the organizational chart only in Tab D, with the remaining documents in Tab A – Proposed Team. | 10/27/2025 10:58:47 AM | ||
| Section 2.18 in the original RFQ and Addendum 4 lists a form called "Listing of Project Completed- Attachment “I”. No such form is included with that name. Can you please supply the form or confirm this is intended to say “Proposed Schedule of Subcontractor Participation – Attachment “I”. | 10/27/2025 12:37:44 PM | ||
| Section 2.18 in the original RFQ and Addendum 4 lists a form called "Listing of Project Completed- Attachment “I”. No such form is included with that name. Can you please supply the form or confirm this is intended to say “Proposed Schedule of Subcontractor Participation – Attachment “I”. | 10/27/2025 3:18:03 PM | ||
|
Regarding 5.02 D. Financial Information: D. Financial Information. Provide an official letter from the proposer’s financial institution detailing the financial status of the proposer. The letter shall include a contact name, address, phone number, and fax number. The failure to produce financial requirements may be grounds for disqualification of your proposal response and offer.
What specific information must the official letter from the proposer’s financial institution include to adequately detail the financial status of the proposer, and what elements should be addressed to meet the requirement? |
10/28/2025 9:59:15 AM | ||
| In Addendum 3 Answer #11 you state to only include the Org Chart in Tab D and remaining documents should be included in Tab A, however in Addendum 4 Answer #2 you state to include the Org chart in Tab A. Can you please confirm? | 10/28/2025 11:49:35 AM | ||
| Does the cover page, tab pages and table of contents count toward the 75 page limit? | 10/28/2025 11:50:12 AM | ||
| Due to the several questions asked, would the City consider extending the deadline? | 10/28/2025 11:50:34 AM | Addendum #5 is forthcoming. | 10/29/2025 3:49:20 PM |
Commodity Codes
Total: 15
| Code | Description |
| [918-12] | Analytical Studies and Surveys (Consulting) |
| [918-15] | Architectural Consulting |
| [918-19] | Buildings, Structures and Components Consulting |
| [918-31] | Construction Consulting |
| [918-32] | Consulting Services (Not Otherwise Classified) |
| [918-42] | Engineering Consulting |
| [918-43] | Environmental Consulting |
| [918-46] | Feasibility Studies (Consulting) |
| [918-49] | Finance/Economics Consulting |
| [918-58] | Governmental Consulting |
| [918-75] | Management Consulting |
| [918-87] | Purchasing Consulting (Incl. Specification Development) |
| [918-88] | Quality Assurance/Control Consulting |
| [918-96] | Transportation Consulting |
| [918-97] | Utilities: Gas, Water, Electric Consulting |
Publications
Total: 1
| Publication | Date |
| Orland Sentinel | 10/7/2025 |
* Disclaimer: This website provides information about bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), or requests for qualifications (RFQs) for convenience only and does not serve as an official public notice. Individuals who wish to respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs should contact the relevant government department directly.
Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts
With Free Trial, you can:
You will have a full access to bids, website, and receive daily bid report via email and web.
See Also
Project: Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for Rehabilitation of Movable Bridges Ref.
Broward County
Bid Due: 6/12/2026
Description: Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Engineering Cont. Contract Department: Facilities Dev & Ops Buyer: Diana Brockman Solicitation
Palm Beach County
Bid Due: 5/16/2027
Solicitation Details You can review the detailed information about the solicitation here. If
Manatee County
Bid Due: 7/01/2026
Districtwide Environmental Compliance Monitoring Services RFP-DOT-07/08-6098DS Original Competitive Solicitation
State Government of Florida
Bid Due: 7/08/2060