Bid Change Brief
Addendum No. 1 — Pool Deck Replacement, Inskip Pool and Park (Rebid)
About this document. This is a plain-English summary prepared to help you organize and flag items in the source addendum. It is a reading aid for your team.
The source document governs. Where this summary and the source document differ, the source document controls. Confirm every item against the original before you rely on it or submit anything.
This summary flags what I found on review. It is not a statement that nothing else changed. Items not flagged here have not been cleared.
This is organization support. It is not legal, tax, engineering, bonding, insurance, or estimating advice, and it is not a review of your pricing or your bid strategy. Perceptive Systems does not represent that any bid, form, or submission meets any agency's requirements, and does not guarantee any bid outcome.
Every summary is reviewed line by line by a person before delivery.
The short version
The bid date did not move — and that's the first thing to know, because addenda that don't move dates get skimmed. This one shouldn't be. It deletes the prevailing-wage requirement outright (money comes out of your number), removes two alternates the drawings used to carry, buries a February 1 sitework constraint inside a completion answer, and — the item most worth a confirming email — deletes a section by a title that doesn't match what that section number contains in the Project Manual.
What changed that matters
The prevailing-wage requirement is deleted — take that cost out
The addendum states the Tennessee Prevailing Wage Act does not apply to this project, deletes the wage-requirements section in its entirety, and adds a catch-all: all references to prevailing wage requirements anywhere in the Contract Documents are of no force or effect. That catch-all matters, because wage language also sits in the Instructions to Bidders and in General Conditions ¶40 — both are swept by it. The addendum is explicit that bidders shall not include prevailing-wage compliance costs. If your labor pricing carried them, you're heavy against every bidder who read this.
Addendum Item 3 · Instructions to Bidders (BD-4) · General Conditions ¶40 (BD-44)A section-number mismatch worth one confirming email
The addendum deletes "Section 01 41 15, 'Tennessee Prevailing Wage Requirements.'" But in the Project Manual, Section 01 41 15 is titled "Basic Regulatory Requirements" — building codes, asbestos handling, ASTM standards — and contains no wage language at all. The intent reads as striking wage requirements wherever they appear, and the catch-all sentence supports that. But on a literal reading, "01 41 15 deleted in its entirety" points at the codes section. Before you rely on either reading, confirm with the Purchasing Agent exactly which text is deleted. Two minutes of email now beats an argument about code-compliance scope later.
Addendum Item 3 vs. Project Manual §01 41 15 and Table of ContentsAlternates B-1 and B-2 are gone — and the bid form never had them
A bidder noticed the drawings referenced powder-coated (B-1) and stainless (B-2) railing alternates the bid form has no line for. The answer: all Alternate B references are removed; the details are stamped NOT USED on the current drawings. The bid form already matches — it carries only the Base Bid and the Alternate "A" deduct. The real instruction is hiding in the response: confirm you are pricing from Revision 2 of the drawings, dated 5/5/26. This is a rebid — if your takeoff started from an earlier set and priced a railing alternate, pull it out.
Addendum Items 1–2 · Bid Form (BD-7) · §01 23 00 Schedule of AlternatesDemolition pricing is clarified — base bid carries it, Alternate A deducts it
Demolition of the existing wood deck goes in your base bid total. Alternate "A" is the deduct if the Owner has its separate contractor do that demolition instead. Price the demo scope once, cleanly, so the deduct is a real number and not a guess — if the Owner takes the alternate, that's the number you live with.
Addendum Item 1 (clarification paragraph) · §01 23 00 Alternate "A"A February 1 sitework constraint is buried in the completion answer
The bid form leaves calendar days blank for you to propose — and liquidated damages run $200 per calendar day. The addendum now gives you the boundaries: project complete by May 1, and any work disturbing soil done by February 1 so grass can establish before the pool opens. Disturb soil after February 1 and sodding is on you. That's a winter-sitework sequencing constraint dressed as a schedule note. Propose your calendar days — and sequence your earthwork — against those two dates.
Addendum Item 4 · Bid Form (BD-8), calendar days + liquidated damagesTwo risks stay on your side of the line — priced by assumption
No railing quantity takeoff will be provided; quantities are yours to estimate from the documents and existing conditions. And no geotechnical report exists — footings are sized on an assumed 2,500 psf soil bearing value, and bidders are expected to price on that assumption. Neither is a change so much as a confirmation that the risk sits with you. Carry both knowingly, not accidentally.
Addendum Items 2 and 5 · structural notes, Sheet S1Forms and submissions it touched
Acknowledge this addendum on the bid form
The bid form has a block reading "Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addendum" — list Addendum No. 1 there. A bid that fails to acknowledge an issued addendum can be rejected. Also note the addendum's own cover language: it becomes part of the contract documents and modifies the original specifications.
Bid Form (BD-9) · Addendum No. 1 cover language · §00 91 13The envelope requirements didn't change — re-check them anyway
This package requires subcontractor listings (plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and masonry where applicable) with license numbers on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must be marked with the project, opening date, and time. The addendum doesn't touch this — but it's the kind of mechanical requirement that gets missed in the final hour while the pricing changes above get absorbed. Re-check it as you seal.
Outside-the-Envelope Form · Instructions to Bidders (BD-3/BD-4)Deadlines — what moved, what didn't
| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| Bid due | UNCHANGED — 11:00 AM Eastern, Mon, Aug 10, 2026 |
| Question deadline | Passed — 4:30 PM, Aug 3, 2026 |
| Project completion (stated in responses) | By May 1 |
| Soil-disturbing work (stated in responses) | By Feb 1, or sodding required |
With questions closed, this addendum may be the final word — but nothing prevents the City from issuing another. Watch the City's bid page through bid morning.
Re-check before you submit
- Remove prevailing-wage compliance costs from your labor pricing — the addendum is explicit that bidders shall not include them.
- Send the Purchasing Agent one confirming email on the Section 01 41 15 title mismatch, so the codes section's status is in writing.
- Confirm your takeoff is built on drawings Revision 2, dated 5/5/26 — this is a rebid, and stale first-round sets are the likeliest source of a priced-in Alternate B that no longer exists.
- Price demolition in the base bid and make the Alternate "A" deduct a deliberate number.
- Propose calendar days that fit completion by May 1 and soil work by February 1 — with $200/day liquidated damages behind whatever number you write in.
- Carry the railing-quantity and soil-bearing assumptions knowingly in your number.
- List Addendum No. 1 in the acknowledgment block on BD-9, and re-check the outside-the-envelope subcontractor listings as you seal.
Questions on anything above, reply and I'll point you to the exact item or page in the source documents. Whether to chase the deleted wage costs out of your number aggressively or conservatively is your call — I've flagged it, not decided it.