HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum #3 - RFP-Communications Audit_
1
2026
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP-2026IT-29693
RFP Issue Date: June 29, 2026
Addendum Date: July 21, 2026
Prepared by Information Technology Department
fernellr@newellmail.ca
2
Addendum #3
TO ALL BIDDERS:
The following changes, additions or deletions are hereby made a part of the Invitation to
Tender Documents for The County of Newell as full and completely as if the same were set
forth therein. Please be sure to submit this addendum with your tender.
Question:
1. Does the County expect on-site presence for staff interviews, stakeholder engagement,
and the optional leadership/council presentation, or is a remote/hybrid approach
acceptable?
Answer:
The County is open to on-site, remote, or hybrid approaches. Proponents should recommend
the approach they believe will best achieve the project objectives while providing value within
the available project budget.
Question:
2. Will the County provide access to existing materials to inform the review — for example,
current communications policies, brand/style guides, channel analytics (website, social,
newsletter), org charts, and any prior communications plans?
Answer:
Yes. The successful proponent will be provided with access to relevant existing documentation
and information reasonably required to complete the communications audit.
Question:
3. To help right-size the internal review within the available budget, approximately how
many employees, departments, and physical locations does the County have?
Answer:
The County employs approximately 80 full-time staff (excluding seasonal employees), with the
majority working from a single administrative location. The organization includes the following
functional areas, distributed across four Directors:
• Agricultural Services
• Facilities
3
• Parks and Programs
• Municipal Services
• Planning and Development,
• Fleet Services
• Engineering
• Municipal Enforcement
• Corporate Safety
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Information Technology Services
• GIS
• Communications
• Recreation
• Finance
• Corporate Services
• Human Resources
Question:
4. Section 5.6 lists the presentation of findings to leadership/council as optional. Should
proponents price this as a separate optional line item in Table A3, or include it in the
base lump-sum price?
Answer:
The presentation to leadership and/or Council is considered an optional service. Proponents
should identify the cost as a separate optional line item in Table A3 rather than including it in
the base lump-sum price.
Question:
5. As this is a communications audit rather than an equipment or software supply, is it
acceptable to mark the equipment-oriented fields of the Optional Equipment/Services
table (Table A3 — unit of measure, freight/delivery) as "not applicable"?
Answer:
Yes. This RFP is for professional services rather than the supply of equipment. Proponents may
identify equipment-related fields within Table A3, such as unit of measure and freight/delivery,
as "Not Applicable," where those fields do not apply to the proposed services.
Question:
6. Submission items 9 and 10 request confirmation of WCB clearance and liability
insurance, and Section 7.3 notes proof is required prior to project commencement. Can
4
the County confirm that a written statement of standing is sufficient within the
submission, with formal certificates provided by the successful proponent before
kickoff?
Answer:
Yes. A completed Table B2 confirming compliance with the insurance requirements is sufficient
for proposal submission. The successful proponent will be required to provide formal proof of
WCB clearance and liability insurance prior to project commencement, in accordance with
Section 7.3.
Question:
7. Is there a maximum page limit for the proposal submission, and are fillable versions of
Submission Forms A, B, and C available, or should proponents reproduce these forms
within their single PDF?
Answer:
The County has not established a maximum page limit for proposal submissions, and
proponents are encouraged to keep in mind the readability of their submission and the value of
its content. Fillable versions of Submission Forms A, B, and C are not available. Proponents may
reproduce the required forms within their single PDF submission, provided the content and
format are substantially the same as those included in the RFP.