Ohio Logo Sign Program RFP Contract Clarification

Ohio Logo Sign Program

RFP Questions and Answers
and Contract Clarification

Questions

_______________________
Q1: Fee Collection - How would it be handled if the contractor collects the majority of the program revenue at one time of the year as it relates to providing the semi-annual remittance?

A1: ODOT is not specifying the billing or collection schedule for the program manager. The RFP and Contract are clear about the calculation of the semi-annual remittance to the State as well as the minimum semi-annual remittance. The minimum semi-annual remittance will not be altered to accommodate the billing strategy/decision of the selected program manager.
_____________________
Q2: Can the audited financial statement be for the parent company in lieu of the subsidiary company?

A2: Yes, this is sufficient as long as additional unaudited financial statements for the subsidiary company is provided as well.
_____________________
Q3: If a prospective program manager is not a publicly traded company but has had a 2006 audit - is this sufficient to meet the requirements?

A3: Yes, this is sufficient as long as additional income statement and balance sheet information is provided to the extent possible.
_____________________
Q4: Do minor law suits or litigations need to be reported (example - a legal action to collect delinquent payments from a program participant)?

A4: The intent of this requirement is not to report minor or routine legal actions that can reasonably be expected to be required as part of normal program administration. The definition of what is "minor" is subjective. ODOT encourages the disclosure to be as comprehensive as possible. Law suits or litigations that are not disclosed and are later discovered by ODOT (and deemed by ODOT not to be minor) could potentially be considered a reason by ODOT to cancel an awarded contract.
_____________________
Q5: Clarification - what constitutes the 25 page limit. Specifically, are the advertising agreement and trail blazing sign consent resolution counted against the 25 page limit?

A5: The RFP is clear and specific defining what is included in the 25 page limit. The RFP requirements remain unchanged. Dividers, blank sheets, tabs and other similar pages that do not add content to the RFP response (i.e. purpose is to make organization more clear) will NOT be counted against the 25 page limit.
_____________________
Q6: Can additional questions or clarifications be requested from ODOT regarding the RFP and contract?

A6: The general answer is no. If a prospective responder feels, however, the RFP or Contract information is in error or not clear they may request additional information from ODOT (Jim Roth). If in ODOT's opinion the question or clarification request is already sufficiently answered by the RFP or Contract we will not respond. If we feel that a clarification or question is materially important to responding the RFP (and that the RFP and Contract do not already adequately address the issue) we will respond to all parties at today's question and answer session as well as issue information via the ODOT web site. We will not respond directly to individuals or individual firms now that the question and answer meeting is completed. We believe the RFP and contract already provides the information necessary to respond to the RFP and will not answer further questions unless we believe it critically important.

CLARIFICATION

There continues to be confusion about the semi-annual remittance that is to be paid to the State. Here is additional clarification.

The question asked at the May 19th, 2008 meeting involved a hypothetical situation where a program manager collected all (or the majority) of the participation fees in one semi-annual period and therefore collected little new income in the following semi-annual period. In this case - would they still have to pay the minimum semi-annual remittance in the second semi-annual period?

The clarification is that the amount of program revenue used to calculate the semi-annual remittance to the State should be based upon the semi-annual program revenues - not the annual revenues.

In the hypothetical example posed at the May 19th meeting a program manager collects all of the annual fees in the first 6 months and therefore very little additional program revenue income is collected in the second semi-annual period. In essence the program manager has collected the total program annual revenue in the first 6 months. The semi-annual program revenue would be the total annual program collected divided by 2 (i.e. converting annual revenue collected into semi-annual revenue). The balance of the collected annual revenue would be used later to pay the second semi-annual remittance to the State.

Hypothetical Example -

The new program manager signs all existing program participants to new annual contracts and collects $X in ANNUAL program fees in the first semi-annual period. The State remittance formula for that first semi-annual period would be the larger of (1.) or (2.):

(1) Semi Annual Remittance Fee to State = $X/2 - program admin fees - reimbursable construction costs - new program participation bonus

(2) $500k (the minimum semi-annual remittance)

The above example assumes that all of the program revenue collected in the first semi annual period ($X) is actually the full annual program participation fee.

I hope this clarifies and answers all of your questions regarding this issue. Semi-annual remittance to the State is based upon semi-annual program revenue.