HomeMy WebLinkAbout072925 LTAC Comments related to RFPALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
I have reviewed the RFP Packet and here are some issues I see from an applicant standpoint .
1. UBC: I believe the correct terminology should be UBI
2. The application states "your application must be signed, dated, and include the following items in the listed order." Attachment A – Capital Expenditures
* As written, the form assumes applicants understand capital and operational expenditures without providing any definitions or context. Most applicants are not requesting capital funding,
and in accordance with RCW 67.28.1816 the county itself is basically the only eligible entity. "(c) Supporting the operations and capital expenditures of tourism-related facilities
owned or operated by a municipality or a public facilities district"
* I recommend revising this process as the vast majority of applications are requesting operational funds and only require Capital Expenditures Declarations for relevant proposals.
3. Attachment B – Insurance Requirements: It would also be helpful to clarify what level and type of insurance coverage is being requested. Is general liability coverage sufficient,
or are specific endorsements (e.g., naming the County as additional insured, etc.) required? In my recent experience requesting insurance coverage—particularly for insuring events—companies
will not provide finalized insurance certificates until key details are confirmed (such as date, venue, scope, and whether alcohol is involved). For this reason, it's impractical to
require submission of a certificate at the time of application. Requesting this prior to disbursement of funds or upon contract execution, rather than during the initial application
is more practical.
4. Section 3: Proposed 2026 promotion, facility, event or activity budget: Specifically, should applicants submit a project-specific budget only, or is a full organizational budget also
required? Project-specific budgets should be sufficient to evaluate the scope, feasibility, and alignment with tourism promotion goals, and requesting an entire organizational budget
may be unnecessarily burdensome. Clear guidance on this point would help ensure consistency across applications and avoid confusion during the evaluation process.
5. Section 3: Optional work samples (maximum of 5 separate pieces): As you discussed in the recent meeting to remove the limit or number of samples, it's also worth considering you are
requiring it to be submitted digitally, attachments may create file size issues affecting email deliverability.
1. Jefferson County's Proposal Process - (page 7 of packet)
" Applicants are asked to attend the September 30, 2025 meeting beginning at 10:30 a.m. The County will provide meeting information for all complete applications." It would be beneficial
to create a process on how this meeting will take place. For example, setting a tentative schedule and order for when each applicant will present (alphabetically, in order of receipt,
etc.) with the flexibility to move an applicant if needed to accommodate their work/travel schedule. As well as providing the same amount of time for each applicant (ie 5 minutes),
and suggesting a brief overview of their application (2 minutes) with time to allow for questions (2-3 minutes).
5. Scheduled Site Visits (page 10): These have been listed in the past but never executed. Clarify if they will be conducted and how applicants will be evaluated during such visits.
Thank you for reviewing these concerns as you work through improving the application process.
Jessie Short