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

Location:	Louisiana
Posted:	May 1, 2026
Due:	May 7, 2026
Agency:	New Orleans Public Schools
Type of Government:	State & Local
Category:	R - Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services
Solicitation No:	26-0108
Publication URL:	To access bid details, please log in.

Attachment Preview

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.

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;

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);

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;

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

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;

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

incumbent engagement is serving on the evaluation committee for this RFQ.

RFP 26-0108 Project and Construction Management Services

Addendum No. 4

This is the opportunity summary page. It provides an overview of this opportunity and a preview of the attached documentation.

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

Attachment Preview

See also