CLICK HERE: ADDENDUM NO. 2
Request for Proposals (RFP) 2026-001
Memory Care / Skilled Nursing Facility Feasibility Study, Programming, Design, Engineering, and Construction Administration Services
Issued By: Meskwaki Nation, Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
Issue Date: October 20, 2026
RFP Number: 2026-001
CLICK HERE FOR FULL RFP WITH ADDENDUMS
CLICK HERE FOR ADDENDUM #2 QUESTION RESPONSES
NOTICE TO PROPOSERS
This Addendum forms a part of RFP 2026-001 and shall be acknowledged in the Proposal Submission. The following questions were received from prospective proposers. Responses provided herein clarify, supplement, and, where applicable, modify the original solicitation documents.
All other requirements, terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
QUESTIONS & RESPONSES
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Question 1.0 The OPR provides detailed design-phase requirements but does not address bidding, construction administration, or post-construction services. What level of involvement is expected from the design team during those phases?
Answer 1.0 The selected Architect/Engineer (A/E) team is expected to provide full participation and support throughout bidding, construction administration, commissioning coordination, project closeout, and post-construction warranty phases.
Question 2.0 What energy performance and sustainability goals should the design team target?
Answer 2.0 The Tribe seeks energy-efficient design solutions that reduce long-term operating costs and improve building performance. Design teams should identify and evaluate energy reduction opportunities and life-cycle cost savings.
Question 3.0 Section 1.2 references demographic and market analyses. Since the RFP includes a proposed facility program and square footage, what level of demographic and market analysis is expected? Also, will prior studies be available for use by the design team?
Answer 3.0 The selected consultant shall validate the proposed program through a targeted demographic, healthcare utilization, and market analysis sufficient to confirm projected demand, resident needs, staffing considerations, and operational feasibility. Existing studies, assessments, and available data maintained by the Tribe will be provided to the selected firm when available.
Question 4.0 Multiple sections reference planning sessions, community meetings, and focus groups. How many meetings should the design team anticipate?
Answer 4.0 Proposers should anticipate a minimum of six (6) to eight (8) stakeholder engagement sessions, including meetings with Tribal leadership, Health Services personnel, Elders, Senior Services staff, community members, and project stakeholders. The exact number may be adjusted as project needs evolve.
Question 5.0 Section 1.4 includes operational and financial feasibility assessments. Please clarify the design team’s role and expected level of involvement in this effort.
Answer 5.0 The design team’s role includes evaluating operational impacts related to facility infrastructure and building systems, including estimated utility consumption, energy costs, maintenance requirements, life-cycle replacement costs, and other real-property related operating expenses.
Question 6.0 The space allocations in Section 1.5 differ slightly from the Recommended Facility Program on page 87. Which should be used as the basis for scope, design, and fee development?
Answer 6.0 Section 1.5 of the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) shall serve as the primary basis for scope, design development, and fee preparation.
Question 7.0 Section 2.2(b) indicates the A/E team will locate and verify existing utilities. Will the Tribe provide information for private utilities that are not identified through standard utility locates, including Tribe-owned fiber and communications infrastructure?
Answer 7.0 Yes. Available information regarding Tribal-owned utilities and communication systems will be provided to the selected consultant.
Question 8.0The RFP references inclusion of dementia-friendly design for the two residential spaces. Will these units share the same common areas as the other assisted living residents or is their space separated from the rest of the facility?
Answer 8.0 The Tribe anticipates secure memory-care accommodations that support resident safety and specialized programming. The final relationship between memory-care and assisted-living common spaces will be evaluated and refined during programming and schematic design. Spaces can be shared.
Question 9.0 Section 1.8 indicates the A/E will be responsible for vetting potential funding sources including CMS (any Medicaid or Medicare patient) and IHS. These funding sources come with strings attached which impact applicable codes/guidelines, production efforts, and client project budget. We have a significantly higher design effort mechanically if IHS funds the project and they require the team to adhere to the IHS Architect / Engineer Design Guide IHS DES 2025 Architect Engineer Design Guide.
Answer 9.0 Proposers should identify any anticipated scope, cost, and design implications associated with compliance requirements tied to potential funding sources. Include an estimated allowance for additional design services that may be required to comply with Indian Health Service (IHS) Design Guide requirements.
Question 10.0 Does the current clinic accept or plan to accept Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) patients and does the Tribe anticipate pursuing CMS participation for the new facility?
Answer 10.0 The Tribe is evaluating future operational and funding strategies, including possible participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Consultants should identify any significant design or regulatory considerations associated with CMS participation.
Question 11.0 Does the existing clinic operate under an existing IHS contract/compact, or does the tribe plan to seek new IHS operational funding, IHS Construction Program Funding, Small Ambulatory Funding, JV Construction Program Funding, or other IHS appropriations for the new Memory Care facility?
Answer 11.0 The Tribe continues to evaluate available federal funding opportunities, including potential IHS-related funding programs. The Clinic operates under an existing IHIS contract. No additional funding will be sought through IHS. The selected consultant may be asked to assist in identifying applicable funding requirements and associated design implications
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Question 1.0 Will the Meskwaki Nation assist with coordinating access to Tribal leadership, staff, Elders, community members, and other stakeholders for the interviews, workshops, focus groups, and other engagement activities identified in the RFP?
Answer 1.0 Yes. The Tribe will assist with coordinating access to leadership, staff, Elders, community members, and other stakeholders necessary for project engagement activities.
Question 2.0 Does the Meskwaki Nation have existing Tribal demographic reports, elder needs assessment, community health needs assessment, Health Clinic utilization information, strategic plan or other relevant existing data or studies? If so, will these materials be made available to the selected team?
Answer 2.0 Yes. Existing demographic information, healthcare utilization data, planning documents, assessments, and other relevant materials will be made available to the selected consultant to the extent such information exists and may be shared.
Question 3.0 The RFP states that the architect should provide geotechnical services for the project. These services are not typically covered by architectural insurance carriers. Would it be acceptable for the architect to coordinate the geotechnical RFP and requirements but have the contract held by the Nation?
Answer 3.0 Yes. If deemed appropriate, the Tribe may elect to contract directly for geotechnical services, with the selected consultant assisting in coordination and technical requirements.
Question 4.0 Who will be the Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for plan review, construction inspection, and occupancy approval on Settlement land? This may determine which building code versions and other standards should be the basis of design.
Answer 4.0 The Tribe serves as the AHJ and recognizes applicable IBC, NFPA, NEC, and other relevant codes and standards. Third-party inspections and commissioning may be required.
Question 5.0 The OPR is unclear if an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey will be required. Can this be an additional service if the need for this becomes known?
Answer 5.0 Yes. Include an estimated allowance for this service if required.
Question 6.0 During the site meeting, it was discussed that the Meskwaki Nation was not intending to solicit an outside provider partner to run the facility. Staff would be recruited and trained to fill this need overtime. Please confirm. It may be beneficial to advertise for a licensed administrator immediately to participate in the planning phase and begin the program certification process. Without an experienced operator on the Owner ’s side, preference-based decisions such as care approaches and types / grades of medical equipment may result in future frustrations.
Answer 6.0 At this time, the Tribe anticipates operating the facility utilizing Tribal staff and leadership resources. However, the Tribe reserves the right to engage outside advisors, consultants, or operational experts as needed during project development. This option can be considered.
Question 7.0 During the site meeting, it was indicated that the previous home was on septic and that the closest sanitary sewer was shallow enough to likely warrant a lift station. Are any other known service / utility obstacles affecting this site? What level of utility infrastructure information will be available for the design team such as maps, pressure, fire flow, and capacity?
Answer 7.0 An Iowa One Call utility locate may be performed. Known utilities in the area include Tribal fiber, telephone, electric, and water infrastructure. Additional available utility information will be provided to the selected consultant.
Question 8.0 During the site meeting, it was noted that this project is intended to follow a traditional design -bid-build approach. Please confirm that a contractor or CM aside from Brett Westphall will not be part of the planning & design phase of the project.
Answer 8.0 The project is anticipated to follow a traditional design-bid-build delivery method utilizing a single lump-sum prime construction contract. No construction manager is currently designated beyond Tribal representatives; however, the Tribe reserves the right to designate a construction manager at a later date.
PROGRAM
Question 1.0 The OPR Section 1.5 narrative (pg 10) and the Recommended Facility Program table (pg 87) give different areas for dining, kitchen, activity room, and administrative offices. Some other spaces including wellness, community gathering areas, and food pantry are not reflected on both. Which governs as it will impact the construction cost estimate?
Answer 1.0 Include: Wellness, Food Pantry, and Senior Services Community Gathering spaces within project planning and cost estimates.
Question 2.0 Future expansion is not consistently described between OPR Section 1.5 narrative (pg 10) and the Recommended Facility Program table (pg 87). Please clarify. Additionally, page 87 indicated that infrastructure should be sized for the planned growth, but should common & support spaces built in the initial phase of construction be enlarged for full expected resident capacity?
Answer 2.0 Infrastructure and utility systems shall be planned to accommodate approximately twenty-five percent (25%) future growth.
Question 3.0 Aside from senior services group, are there other existing Meskwaki Nation healthcare, wellness, food service, transportation, social services, or other programs that are anticipated to directly support the proposed nursing home and memory care facility? If so, please identify key groups and confirm if they will require any space with the new building.
Answer 3.0 Potential support may include programs from Health Clinic, Meskwaki Family Services, Meskwaki Recreation Center and any other tribal program as needed. Specific space needs will be validated during programming
Question 4.0 May the existing pond on the west side of the parcel be used for stormwater management, or is it to be preserved or removed?
Answer 4.0 The pond is currently expected to remain in place and may be evaluated as part of the project’s stormwater management strategy.
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES & EVALUATION
Question 1.0 Should the Fee Proposal required under Section 7.20 of the RFP be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope or included within the proposal?
Answer 1.0 No. The Fee Proposal may be included within the submitted proposal package. Please clearly label.
Question 2.0 Assumptions regarding depth of services, level of finishes & systems, and the $9-12 million budget range may create high variance for fees. Section 6.10 of the RFP indicates that cost points may be awarded based upon comparison to the lowest responsive proposal received. Will this only reflect lump -sum fees requested under Section 7.20.A or will it consider the breakdown of phases / consultants as well as construction cost estimates?
Answer 2.0 The project is anticipated to utilize mid-level finishes and systems. Cost evaluation will be based upon the Gross Fee identified in Section 7.20A. Section 7.20B shall provide the percentage breakdown of that Gross Fee.
Question 3.0 Section 6.11 states Native American Preference will be applied in accordance with applicable Tribal procurement policies. How is the preference applied to scoring or ranking?
Answer 3.0 Native American Preference is applied as an evaluation adjustment and not as a direct increase in contract price. Eligible vendors receiving Tribal Preference will be documented and maintained on file by the Procurement Specialist.
For procurements where price is a factor:
- Contracts below $50,000 may receive a preference allowance of up to ten percent (10%) of the lowest responsive bid for evaluation purposes.
- Contracts exceeding $50,000 may receive a preference allowance of up to five percent (5%) of the lowest responsive bid for evaluation purposes.
The allowance is used solely to compare and rank bids and does not increase the actual contract amount.
When proposals are otherwise substantially equal in qualifications, responsiveness, technical merit, quality, and price, preference will be applied in the following order:
- Enrolled members of the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
- Descendants of the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
- Other federally recognized Native American Tribes or Tribal members, including Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian entities.
If no tribally owned businesses are available, consideration may be given to veteran-owned, small, socially and economically disadvantaged, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses.
The Tribe reserves the right to award based on best value and will not sacrifice required qualifications, quality, or project objectives solely to apply a preference. Documentation supporting the application of preference shall be maintained in the procurement file.
CONTRACT
Question 1.0 Section 8.1 of the RFP states the agreement will be based on AIA B101 -2017 together with Owner -issued amendments, supplementary conditions, and project -specific provisions. Section 8.2 requires offerors to identify exceptions, and states that failure to identify them may be read as acceptance. Please provide those amendments and supplementary conditions with the RFP documents so exceptions can be stated.
Answer 1.0 The dispute-resolution language included in Section 8.1 is the Tribe’s standard modification to the AIA B101 form. The box in section 8.2.4 for “other” will be selected and the quoted language inserted. Other contract terms may be negotiated with the selected firm and will depend on the final scope and terms agreed upon by the Tribe and Architect. Any additional requirements, including potential incentive or retainage provisions, may be addressed during contract negotiations.
Question 2.0 Many AIA B101 agreements are modified to have limitation of liability clause under article 8.1 that would limit the design team’s liability to between one to two times the fee for the project. Would this be an acceptable term?
Answer 2.0 A limitation-of-liability provision may be considered during contract negotiations. Acceptance would depend on applicable funding requirements and whether appropriate protections are available to the Tribe. Any proposed limitation would need to preserve adequate recourse for design-related issues, including consideration of insurance coverage and exclusions from the liability cap for damages resulting from the Architect’s sole gross negligence or intentional acts.
Question 3.0 Title 9 Employment under the tribal laws was referenced in 8.1, how can a team clarify the requirements for our firms? We would not anticipate hiring design staff specifically for this project, but one or more of our offices may hire staff during the course of the project. In what ways would our participation in this RFP require us advertise and hire in accordance with Title 9?
Answer 3.0 Title 9 requirements apply to hiring activities conducted specifically for this project. Normal staffing of an existing office in the ordinary course of business is not, in itself, considered a violation of these requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Proposers shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in their Proposal submission.
MESKWAKI NATION
The Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
349 Meskwaki Road
Tama, Iowa 52339
(641) 484-4678
www.meskwaki.org
Response provided by: Kimber Damour, Procurement Specialist
End of Addendum Number 2