Codification and Supplementation Services

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
for Codification and Supplementation
Services, SEC26-01
ADDENDA
Prospective bidders are responsible for reviewing any
published addenda regarding this bid at
ebmud.com/business-center
CONTACT
Rischa Cole, Secretary of the District
(510) 287-0404
rischa.cole@ebmud.com
RESPONSE DUE
May 20, 2026
12:00 p.m. PDT
SUBMIT ELECTRONICALLY TO*
Rischa Cole, EBMUD
secoffice@ebmud.com
*Hardcopy proposals will not be accepted
375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240 . WWW.EBMUD.COM/BUSINESS-CENTER/

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
RFP for EBMUD Codification and Supplementation Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. SCOPE
B. PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS
C. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
II. CALENDAR OF EVENTS
III. DISTRICT PROCEDURES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS
A. RFP ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD
B. EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE
C. PRICING
D. NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD AND PROTESTS
E. WARRANTY
IV. RFP RESPONSE SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION
A. DISTRICT CONTACTS
B. SUBMITTAL OF RFP RESPONSE
C. RESPONSE FORMAT
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A - RFP RESPONSE PACKET
EXHIBIT B - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT C - CONSULTING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT D - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY INFORMATION TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
REV 3/26/25

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
I. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. SCOPE
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) is a public entity headquartered in
Oakland, California. It provides high-quality drinking water for 1.4 million customers in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties and provides wastewater treatment for 740,000
customers. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of elected officials.
The District's Board of Directors enacts local laws by ordinance and resolution. At
present, these ordinances and resolutions are maintained and administered separately
by different District departments responsible for their respective subject matter areas.
For certain ordinances and resolutions, the District self-publishes "consolidated"
documents that reflect the most current version of the local law and incorporate all
past amendments and changes. These consolidated documents are likewise
maintained and administered separately by various District departments and are made
available to the public through a variety of means and at different online locations.
It is the intent of these specifications, terms, and conditions to describe services for
the initial codification of the District's ordinances, rules, and regulations and related
maintenance, supplementation, and online hosting. The District intends to award a 5-
year contract to the Proposer who best meets the District's requirements.
Through this RFP, the District's aim is to create a single code that combines all
appropriate District ordinances and resolutions into a uniform, unified body. The
District aims to ensure consistency (both in terms of style and substance) across its
body of law, eliminate redundancies, and improve public transparency and
accessibility.
B. PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS
1. Proposer Minimum Qualifications
a. Proposer, Proposer's principal, or Proposer's staff shall have been
regularly engaged in the business of providing codification services for at
least five (5) years.
b. Proposer shall possess all permits, licenses, and professional credentials
necessary to perform services as specified under this RFP.
C. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
General
The selected Proposer shall be expected to:
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 3

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
1. Review all provided District ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and
related materials (Codification Materials) for proper incorporation into the
Code, and identify any conflicts or inconsistencies within the District's
Codification Materials or between the Codification Materials and applicable
state statutes. Proposers will be provided with access to District Codification
Materials upon request.
2. Propose changes to effect uniformity of style and correct typographical and
spelling errors, grammar and usage.
3. Submit any suggestions for substantive additions or changes to Codification
Materials to the District's Office of General Counsel in the form of a legal
memorandum.
4. Conduct a conference, in person, by telephone or via webinar, to review the
legal memorandum.
5. Provide the District with a draft copy of the proposed Code for review prior to
publication, in both a clean form and red-lined form that clearly identifies
proposed changes.
6. Prepare and publish a comprehensive Code of all provided District Codification
Materials, including a Code index.
7. Prepare and provide physical copies of the adopted Code, printed in an 8-1/2 x
11 inch, single-column page format, housed in heavy-duty post binders.
8. Assist the District in the adoption of the Code as the official body of law of the
District.
Online Code:
The selected Proposer shall be expected to:
1. Provide reliable 24/7 hosting services for the online electronic Code.
2. Provide easy and logical navigation of online electronic Code content for District
ratepayers and staff.
3. Post online searchable copies of legislation adopted between updates, i.e.,
legislation not yet codified.
4. Back up the Code on a secure and reliable Web server.
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 4

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
5. Provide offline alternative viewing options to support slower internet
connections.
6. Display full-quality graphics and tables with searchable captions.
7. Offer data transfer services to make Code information available in alternative
formats (such as Microsoft Excel) for use in other District software.
8. Provide designated District staff with training sessions to enable staff to:
a. Publish related documents online in the same platform as the Code to
facilitate comprehensive searching.
b. View electronic Code visitor statistics including number of visits and
most commonly searched terms.
c. View online archived versions of the Code for historical reference.
d. Download the Code to an editable Microsoft Word document.
e. Search multiple Codes at once to find sample legislation in the codifier's
database of client Codes.
f. Insert password-protected annotations into the online Code.
Supplementation Services:
The selected Proposer shall be expected to:
1. Regularly incorporate new Codification Materials provided by the District into
the Code, at the District's request.
2. Assist the District with proper placement of Codification Materials within the
Code.
3. Assist the District with implementation of standard style conventions, internal
sectional organizational hierarchy and numbering system to match the Code;
correct/update as necessary.
4. Read and review for missing wording and internal conflicts.
5. Confirm accuracy of internal and statutory references; suggest updates as
necessary and appropriate.
6. Maintain legislative integrity and improve the presentation of tabular material
so that the information contained therein is easily accessible.
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 5

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
7. Notify the District of any issues and concerns, and work with the District to
determine an appropriate resolution.
8. Compose or update supporting documents and ancillary Code pieces, including
the Disposition List, Table of Contents, Index, General References, and Editor's
Notes.
9. Create an Instruction Page so that paper Code holders can properly update the
Code.
10. Update the online Code with each supplement.
II. CALENDAR OF EVENTS
EVENT DATE/LOCATION
RFP Issued April 20, 2026
Proposal Conference TBD To be held remotely.
Response Due May 20, 2026 by 12:00 p.m.
Anticipated Contract Start July 31, 2026
Date
Note: All dates are subject to change by District.
Proposers are responsible for reviewing https://www.ebmud.com/business-
center/requests-proposal-rfps/ for any published addenda. Hard copies of addenda
will not be mailed out.
III. DISTRICT PROCEDURES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS
A. RFP ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD
1. RFP responses will be evaluated by the Selection Committee and will be scored
and ranked in accordance with the RFP section entitled "Evaluation
Criteria/Selection Committee."
2. The Selection Committee will recommend award to the Proposer who, in its
opinion, has submitted the RFP response that best serves the overall interests
of the District. Award may not necessarily be made to the Proposer with the
lowest overall cost.
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 6

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
3. The District reserves the right to award to a single or to multiple General or
Professional Service Providers, dependent upon what is in the best interest of
the District.
4. The District has the right to decline to award this contract or any part of it for
any reason.
5. Any specifications, terms, or conditions issued by the District, or those included
in the Proposer's submission, in relation to this RFP, may be incorporated into
any purchase order or contract that may be awarded as a result of this RFP.
6. Award of contract. The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals,
to accept one part of a proposal and reject the other, unless the proposer
stipulates to the contrary, and to waive minor technical defects and
administrative errors, as the interest of the District may require. Award will be
made, or proposals rejected by the District as soon as possible after proposals
have been opened.
B. EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE
All proposals will be evaluated by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee
may be composed of District staff and other parties that have expertise or experience
in this type of procurement. The Selection Committee will select a Proposer in
accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. The evaluation of the RFP
responses shall be within the sole judgment and discretion of the Selection
Committee.
The Selection Committee will evaluate each RFP response meeting the qualification
requirements set forth in this RFP. Proposer should bear in mind that any RFP
response that is unrealistic in terms of the technical or schedule commitments, or
unrealistically high or low in cost, will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of
technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risk
of the District's requirements as set forth in this RFP.
RFP responses will be evaluated and scored according to the Evaluation Criteria below
and scored according to a zero to five-point scale. The scores for all Evaluation Criteria
will then be added to arrive at a weighted score for each RFP response. An RFP
response with a high weighted total will be ranked higher than one with a lesser-
weighted total.
The Evaluation Criteria are as follows:
Evaluation Criteria
A. Technical Criteria:
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 7

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
In each area described below, an evaluation will be made of the probability
of success of, and risks associated with, the RFP response:
1. System Design - A comparison will be made of the proposed codification,
supplementation, and online hosting systems. Additional credit will be
given for features of the proposed design that offer enhanced utility,
ease of use, or ease of integration with existing District legislative and
administrative processes.
2. Software Design and Development - The evaluation will compare the
proposed software capabilities with the requirements of this RFP in
terms of the software's compatibility with existing District legislative and
administrative processes.
3. Ancillary Services - A comparison will be made of the proposed services
with the requirements of this RFP. Credit will be given for convenience,
responsiveness, and technical expertise.
B. C ost:
The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest
responsive RFP response received by each Proposer's total proposed cost.
While not reflected in the Cost evaluation points, an evaluation may also be
made of:
1. Reasonableness (i.e., does the proposed pricing accurately reflect the
Proposer's effort to meet requirements and objectives?);
2. Realism (i.e., is the proposed cost appropriate to the nature of the
products and services to be provided?); and
3. Affordability (i.e., the ability of the District to finance this project).
Consideration of price in terms of overall affordability may be controlling in
circumstances where two or more RFP responses are otherwise judged to
be equal, or when a superior RFP response is at a price that the District
cannot afford.
C. Im plementation Plan and Schedule:
An evaluation will be made of the likelihood that the Proposer's
implementation plan and schedule will meet the District's schedule.
Additional credit will be given for the identification and planning for
mitigation of schedule risks which the Proposer believes may adversely
affect any portion of the District's schedule.
D. R elevant Experience:
RFP responses will be evaluated against the RFP specifications and the
questions below:
1. Do the individuals assigned to the project have experience on similar
projects?
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 8

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
2. Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate backgrounds that
would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the project
requires?
3. How extensive is the applicable education and experience of the
personnel designated to work on the project?
E. R eferences (See Exhibit A - RFP Response Packet):
If a short list process is used for a solicitation, references are only
performed on the shortlisted Proposers and the score for reference checks
is not included in the preliminary short list score.
F. O ral Presentation and Interview:
The oral interview may consist of standard questions asked of each of the
Proposers and specific questions regarding the specific RFP response.
G. U nderstanding of the Project:
RFP responses will be evaluated against the RFP specifications and the
questions below:
1. Has the Proposer demonstrated a thorough understanding of the
purpose and scope of the project?
2. How well has the Proposer identified pertinent issues and potential
problems related to the project?
3. Has the Proposer demonstrated that it understands the deliverables the
District expects it to provide?
4. Has the Proposer demonstrated that it understands the District's time
schedule and can meet it?
H. M ethodology:
RFP responses will be evaluated against the RFP specifications and the
questions below:
1. Does the methodology depict a logical approach to fulfilling the
requirements of the RFP?
2. Does the methodology match and contribute to achieving the objectives
set out in the RFP?
3. Does the methodology interface with the District's time schedule?
I. C ontract Equity Program:
Proposer shall be eligible for SBE or DVBE preference points if they are a
certified small business entity, as described in the guidelines contained in
Exhibit A-Contract Equity Program, and they check the appropriate box,
requesting preference, in Exhibit A-Proposer Information and Acceptance.
Qualified DVBEs and/or SBEs will receive an additional 5 points to their total
score.
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 9

RFP For Codification and Supplementation Services
C. PRICING
1. Prices quoted shall be firm for the first 12 months of any contract that may be
awarded pursuant to this RFP.
2. All prices quoted shall be in United States dollars.
3. Price quotes shall include any and all payment incentives available to the
District.
4. Proposers are advised that in the evaluation of cost, if applicable, it will be
assumed that the unit price quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy
between the unit price and extended price.
D. NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD AND PROTESTS
At the conclusion of the RFP response evaluation process, all entities who submitted a
proposal package will be notified in writing by e-mail or USPS mail with the name of
the Proposer being recommended for contract award. The document providing this
notification is the Notice of Intent to Award.
Negotiations for a Consulting Services Agreement with a "not to exceed" contract
price (for time and expenses) will be scheduled shortly after the Notice of Intent to
Award. If an Agreement cannot be achieved, the District will proceed to negotiate with
the next highest ranked Proposer.
Protests must be in writing and must be received no later than seven (7) workdays
after the District issues the Notice of Intent to Award. The District will reject the
protest as untimely if it is received after this specified time frame. Protests will be
accepted from proposers or potential proposers only.
If the protest is mailed and not received by the District, the protesting party bears the
burden of proof to submit evidence (e.g., certified mail receipt) that the protest was
sent in a timely manner so that it would be received by the District within the RFP
protest period.
Proposal protests must contain a detailed and complete written statement describing
the reason(s) for protest. The protest must include the name and/or number of the
proposal, the name of the firm protesting, and include a name, telephone number,
email address and physical address of the protester. If a firm is representing the
protester, they shall include their contact information in addition to that of the
protesting firm.
RFP NO. SEC26-01
Page 10