Emergency Debris Removal - Annual Contract

Agency:	Charlotte County
State:	Florida
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	238990 - All Other Specialty Trade Contractors 561730 - Landscaping Services 562119 - Other Waste Collection
Posted Date:	Apr 7, 2026
Due Date:	Apr 14, 2026
Solicitation No:	26-323
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

PURCHASING DIVISION

Charlotte County Administration Center

18500 Murdock Circle, Suite 344

Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094

Phone 941.743.1378

Fax 941.743.1384

TO: PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026

RE: ADDENDUM #5, RFP NO. 20260323, EMERGENCY DEBRIS REMOVAL – ANNUAL CONTRACT

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 3:00 p.m. (EST), APRIL 14, 2026

Firms are hereby notified that this addendum shall be made a part of the above-named proposal and contract

documents. The following are issued to revise/clarify the proposal and contract documents, and these items shall

have the same force and effect as the original proposal and contract documents. Proposals to be submitted on

the above-specified date at Purchasing shall conform to the revisions and clarifications as listed herein.

ITEM # 1 QUESTION/ANSWERS:

Q1: Line item 1a and 1b say "Remove debris from ROW and haul to DDMS or final disposal." -

costs for hauling to a DMS are much different than hauling directly to final disposal due to wait

times and other factors. Could the county separate line items for hauling to DMS and hauling to

final disposal?

A1: The most cost-effective location should be utilized by the contractor. In certain circumstances, the

most economical location could be a final disposal site.

Q2: For line item 1b - what scenario would the County expect to utilize hand-loading for ROW

debris?

A2: Hand-loading could be expected or needed in areas such as the County’s barrier islands.

Q3: For line item 7b, if a contractor selects and provides a DDMS site, would both line items 7a

and 7b be charged, or would it just be line item 7b?

A3: Both line items 7a and 7b would be applicable at the lump sum cost per DDMS.

Q4: What is the difference between line items 8a and 8g? They appear to be the same. There

appears to be a similar issue between 8d and 8j.

A4: These were inadvertently duplicated. Please strikethrough Items 8g and 8j, which are the duplicates.

Q5: Pricing Category 8, Final Disposal Mileage

a. Category 8 (Final Disposal) includes multiple load-and-transport line items but does not

specify mileage ranges from the DDMS to the final disposal facility. Given that final

disposal site locations may vary significantly in distance, would the County consider

adding mileage-based pricing tiers to Category 8-line items? For example:

• 0–30 miles

• 31–60 miles

• 61–90 miles

Mileage-based tiers would allow the County to evaluate haul pricing on

an equitable basis and ensure unit rates accurately reflect actual

transport costs regardless of disposal site location

A5: No, all currently pre-authorized DDMS are less than 31 miles from the Charlotte County Landfill and

other previously utilized final disposal locations.

Q6: Regarding the evaluation of the Pricing, does Charlotte County intend on adding up all unit

price line items to get a total figure to compare against other proposers or will there be estimated

quantities assigned to calculate a total extended price?

A6: No.

Q7: If quantities are going to be assigned, what will they be?

A7: N/A

Q8: Regarding the evaluation of the hourly pricing, how does Charlotte County intend on weighing

the hourly line items?

A8: Part F will be used to evaluate the price proposals.

Q9: Can Charlotte County explain the exact methodology evaluators are required to use to

determine which price proposal will receive the Maximum Points as it is not clearly specified in

the RFP specifications?

A9: The Professional Services Committee will evaluate line item pricing of each proposer to comparison

of all proposals submitted.

Q10: Regarding Line Item 3i – Fluid collection/management from vessels/vehicles, considering the

amounts of fluids vary greatly between a standard vehicle and a 25’+ vessel, would the County

consider adjusting the unit of measure from each to per gallon?

A10: The price proposal sheet can be amended from “each” to Per Drum (55 gal). Please strikethrough

“each”, on Item Item 3i, and correct to “Per Drum (55 gal)”.

Q11: Regarding line item 9h – Beach Raking – would the County consider adjusting Description

from beach raking to the collection of debris generated through beach raking? The reason we ask

is that it is impossible to know, even post events, how much the raking operation will generate, so

the cost of the raking is usually done through utilizing the hourly equipment schedule rates.

A11: No, per section 6.11, the Contractor is required to complete an assessment of the volume of

disaster generated debris to include estimated quantity by cubic yard. Section 4.1 requires the Contractor

to provide necessary equipment to rapidly remove and lawfully dispose of all disaster related debris. Due

to these requirements, the Contractor should understand the appropriate response level to address beach

raking at the time of activation.

Q12: Regarding Part 3 – Waterway Debris Removal, would the County consider revising the

pricing structure to separate debris removal into two categories: (1) land-based debris removal

(including vegetative, C&D, and mixed debris) and (2) marine debris removal?

A12: Section 11.2 states: “Waterway debris that is accessible from roadways and/or maintained ROW

using traditional collection methods will be considered ROW collection and will not be eligible waterway

debris removal pricing.”

Q13: The previous Q&A indicated that prices proposed will remain for the duration of contract.

Firm fixed pricing over a five-year term places a significant financial risk on proposers,

particularly given current market volatility. For example, fuel costs in Florida have exceeded $4.00

per gallon, illustrating the unpredictability of operating expenses. In light of these conditions, we

respectfully request that the County consider allowing for an annual price adjustment on each

contract anniversary date, tied to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

the South Region. Alternatively, if the County could consider a shorter firm fixed pricing period of

two years, followed by annual adjustments based on the CPI for the South Region. This approach

would help balance cost stability for the County while mitigating undue financial risk for service

providers.

A13: Charlotte County is revising term stated in RP-02, CONTRACT AWARDS/TERM OF CONTRACT to

the following:

The initial term on the contract will be effective from date of award, through and including

December 31, 2028, with three (3) one-year renewal terms options with CPI Index increase at

renewal per CPI South Region.

Q14: Please explain specifically how the pricing of one proposal will be evaluated against the

pricing from another proposal, including the answer to these questions:

o Will each pricing proposal be analyzed and refined to become one total number which can

then be compared to the other proposals?

o Will some of the line item prices offered be excluded from the pricing evaluation? If so,

which line items will be included, and which will be excluded?

o Will extended totals (unit price multiplied by estimated quantity) be used to evaluate

pricing, and if so, what estimated quantities and what line items will be used to derive the

extended totals that will be evaluated?

o Will all pricing line items be evaluated equally, or will some line items receive more

importance in the evaluation?

A14: See Answers below:

o No.

o See Q/A#8.

o No estimated quantity.

o Part F will be focus.

Q15: Will annual contract price increases based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) be allowed?

A15: Please see Q/A#13.

Q16: Will renewals be executed at the consent of both parties?

A16: Yes, mutual consent.

This addendum is binding and is to be considered as if contained within the original proposal documents of RFP

No. 20260323. Firms are required to acknowledge receipt of this addendum on their proposal forms.

Kimberly A. Corbett, C.P.M., CPPB

Senior Division Manager - Purchasing

KAC/rm

cc:

Professional Services Committee

Clerk

File

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Emergency Debris Removal - Annual Contract

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also