000015153_Mini-RFP~1.docx

S017-DOJ061925

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

A&E Related Services MINI-RFP/ OregonBuys Bid Solicitation Number: S-73000-00015153 for Work Order Contract (“WOC”) Assignment Under Price Agreement (“PA”) series:

Transportation Land Use Planning 2021—PA #s: B38909, B38913, B38914, B38915, B38916, B38917, B38918, B38920, B38921, B38922, B38923, and B38924.

From the following Categories/Subject areas:

· Transportation System Planning

· Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

· Public Transportation Planning:

NOTE: Only Consultants that have been awarded a PA in the above PA series and Categories/Subject Areas for the services identified in this Mini-RFP are eligible to respond to this Mini-RFP.

Project Name: SW Allen Blvd: SW Murray Blvd - SW King Ave (Planning Project)

Project Location: Beaverton, Oregon; Washington County

ODOT Key Number: K23252

DBE Participation Goal: 0% (see section 1.3 for more information)

LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY PROJECT. The Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT” or “Agency”) is delivering this Project on behalf of the City of Beaverton.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE: See “Bid Opening Date” for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys.

Single Point of Contact (“SPC”): See “Purchaser” and “Info Contact”, including email address, for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys. This is the only point of contact for this Mini-RFP. All inquiries regarding this procurement, whether relating to the Mini-RFP process, administration, deadline or award, potential COI issues, or to the intent or technical aspects of the Services must be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Purchaser.

Accessibility: ODOT is committed to complying with all statutory requirements to ensure that it is providing information that is more accessible to people with disabilities, as required by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and 36 C.F.R. 1194 Appendix A. This includes information regarding the solicitation process. Please contact the SPC identified in OregonBuys as the “Purchaser” to request reasonable accommodation for access, due to a disability, to information related to this solicitation, or the solicitation process, or both. Accommodation requests must be received by the SPC 3 business days prior to the Proposal Submission Deadline (see “Bid Opening Date” in OregonBuys).

GOVERNING LAW: This Mini-RFP and the resulting WOC shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Specific laws and rules that govern the solicitation process are found in Chapters 279A and 279C of the Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”), and Chapter 731, Divisions 146 and 148 of the Administrative Rules (“OAR”) of the Oregon Department of Transportation. The solicitation and resulting WOC may be subject to other laws and rules.

Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: The State of Oregon (“State”) is committed to taking active steps toward increasing and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion values across procurement processes for minority, women, emerging small, and veteran-owned businesses by reducing barriers to compete for and be awarded state contracts. All eligible interested businesses are encouraged to submit bids for this contracting opportunity.

Non-Discrimination Notice: ODOT in accordance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252. 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all eligible Bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that all eligible business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this solicitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

SECTION 0.0 OREGONBUYS; SOLICITATION SCHEDULE

OregonBuys is the electronic procurement system used by Agency. This Mini-RFP is advertised in OregonBuys (https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/) as a Bid Solicitation, which is open only to registered vendors that have an existing PA, as identified on page 1, with Agency for the needed Services.

0.1 INFORMATION AND ATTACHMENTS INCORPORATED FROM OREGONBUYS

This Mini-RFP includes all documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, and any addenda thereto, used for soliciting Proposals. In addition to the provisions set forth and linked within this Mini-RFP, this Mini-RFP incorporates by this reference the information published on the OregonBuys Bid Solicitation page for this Mini-RFP, including but not limited to:

· Details entered in the Header Information section of the Summary Tab; and

· All attachments, Amendments, notices, question and answer documents, and any other files linked in the Attachments section.

0.2 CROSSWALK OF TERMS USED IN OREGONBUYS

Definition of terms used in OregonBuys.

Amendment means “Addendum” or “Addenda” as defined in OAR 137-046-0110(1).

Bid Opening Date means “Closing” as defined in OAR 137-046-0110(6).

Master Blanket Purchase Order (“MBPO”) means Any form of contract, agreement (i.e. price agreement, on-call contract, etc.), purchase order or WOC.

Quote means Any form of offer submission by vendors; i.e., Bids, Proposals, Price Proposals, or any other type of offer in response to a Bid Solicitation.

Vendor means Any form of business entity registered in OregonBuys. Only registered vendors are eligible to submit a Quote and enter into Purchase Orders, MBPOs, or Release Requisitions pursuant to a Bid Solicitation or Mini-RFP advertised in OregonBuys.

0.3 GUIDANCE FOR OREGONBUYS

For quick reference information regarding common questions from vendors when using OregonBuys, see User Guides under “OregonBuys eProcurement System” on the Contracting with ODOT webpage: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Business/Procurement/Pages/HowTo.aspx.

0.4 MINI-RFP SCHEDULE

All dates listed are subject to change.

Deadline for Proposal submittal See Bid Opening Date identified in OregonBuys for this Mini-RFP

1.1 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Agency means the Oregon Department of Transportation.

CA/CEI means construction contract administration / construction engineering inspection services.

Consultant means an architect, engineer, photogrammetrist, transportation planner, land surveyor or provider of related services, or entity which employes any of the foregoing, performing Services for Agency under a contract or WOC.

LPA means local public agency.

NTE means not-to-exceed.

Proposal means a written response to this Mini-RFP.

Proposer means a vendor which submits a Proposal.

Services means the architectural, engineering, photogrammetrist, planning, land surveying or provider of related services, or combination of the foregoing, to be provided by the Consultant for the resulting WOC.

SOW means statement of work; part of a contract that outlines the tasks, deliverables, and timeline for the Project.

SPC means single point of contact; the Purchaser identified in OregonBuys.

State means the State of Oregon.

WOC means work order contract.

1.2 SUMMARY OVERVIEW AND WORK ORDER CONTRACT (“WOC”) OBJECTIVES

The WOC objectives include community engagement to develop and deliver an implementation strategy to create a multimodal corridor, between SW Murray Boulevard and SW King Street just west of OR Highway 217, in Beaverton, Oregon, that makes walking, biking, and public transportation safer and more comfortable, as well as contributes to places where people want to live, work and shop (the “Project”). This implementation strategy will be adopted by the City of Beaverton City Council and incorporated into their Transportation System Plan (“TSP”).

Planning work addressed under this WOC will outline approaches to implement investment options that address existing conditions within the Project area, have strong neighborhood support, are consistent with Project goals and applicable plans/policies, can leverage internal funding, and are eligible for external funding that could likely be secured.

ODOT is requesting Proposals from eligible Price Agreement holders (identified above) regarding specific Related Services experience relevant to the Project, and as further described in Section 4.0 Menu of Services (“MOS”).

The Project is a Local Public Agency (“LPA”) Project for the City of Beaverton (“City”) delivered by Agency. The expected outcome of the WOC is to support Agency by performing planning activities, including review of existing plans/policies, field observations, conceptual designs of changes in infrastructure and traffic control, traffic analysis, and planning-level cost estimates (collectively, the “Services”). The City will plan and conduct engagement activities, and presentations to the Project’s Technical Advisory Committee and City Council. Services include collaborating with Agency and City to prepare necessary materials by helping adapt prior deliverables, and update draft deliverables based on input received. Agency reserves the right to modify the Services as necessary to meet Agency needs.

The Services require expertise and experience in the planning and design of facilities for people walking, biking, and taking public transportation; efforts to repurpose existing street right-of-way to enhance facilities for people walking, biking and taking public transportation; and solutions that can be quickly deployed using temporary materials (“Quick Build”). With this Project, the City will investigate the possibility of repurposing the right-of-way of one of its main arterials and consider implementing changes through a Quick Build approach.

CONSULTANT DELIVERABLES

Project Vision, Goals and Objectives Statement:

This statement will be informed by past planning efforts, responsive to the needs of residents and business/property owners, and consistent with the updated goals and objectives for Beaverton’s TSP.

Existing Conditions Report:

This report will describe: Current and planned future land uses within the project area; the demographics of who is living, working, and shopping in the corridor; the facilities within the street right of way; and Allen Boulevard’s roles within wider transportation networks. It will discuss; How people use the street to travel by day of week and time of day; how well existing facilities provide, or do not provide, safe and comfortable passage for people walking, biking and taking transit (focusing on broadening access for all populations, including individuals with mobility or communication disabilities consistent with the access protections outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act); the root causes behind key challenges in the performance of existing facilities for all travel modes; and key opportunities to overcome these challenges.

Investment Options Identification Memorandum:

This memorandum will identify investment options that focus on benefits such as safety and comfort for those walking, biking, and taking transit, as well as places where people want to live, work, and shop. It will build off solutions identified in the Allen Boulevard District Plan, be consistent with the goals and objectives of the TSP update, integrate input collected through public engagement, be grounded in best practices and local and regional experience and an understanding of opportunities and constraints, and be in line with the size and eligibility criteria of likely funding sources. It will consider:

· Operational changes such as retiming of traffic signals and transit priority.

· Capital infrastructure investments such as street lighting; curb extensions; high-visibility crossing treatments; wider sidewalks; street trees and planters; protected bike lanes; bike parking; and enhanced bus stops that give more priority, protection, and visibility to people walking, biking, and riding the bus.

· Streetscaping elements like public art, benches, wayfinding, and signage.

· Traffic-control elements such as speed limits/enforcement, turning restrictions, signal timing changes, striping changes, and refuge islands.

· Ways to repurpose the existing street right of way to build out the larger, citywide bike, pedestrian, and transit networks envisioned in the updated TSP.

· Solutions that can be deployed quickly in key locations using temporary materials (“Quick Build”).

Investment Options Investigation Memorandum:

This memorandum will present how investment options could make progress towards achieving Project goals while using plain language to compare scenarios communicating the broad outcomes of their potential implementation and addressing the uncertainties involved. It will describe:

· How different groups of people could be affected.

· Short- and long-term benefits, including changes to user behavior and adjacent land uses, as well as health of business environment.

· Key considerations including how investment options could result in people having more safe and comfortable choices about how they travel to destinations; people spending more time visiting businesses; everyone feeling safe while on the street (and in particular broadening access for populations with risk factors affecting access to services, such as youth, older adults, and people with disabilities); greening of the neighborhood, providing health and environmental benefits to the people living and working along the corridor; fewer people losing their lives or sustaining life-altering injuries due to traffic violence; people shifting some trips from auto-based trips to trips taken by walking, biking, or by bus; reducing noise, air, and climate pollution; vehicle queuing on the corridor, including spillback to other areas such as OR 217; vehicle traffic diversion into adjacent residential neighborhoods and the wider street network; changes in travel time; further shifts in trips taken by people currently driving on Allen including time of day, travel mode, and frequency; change in vehicular access to businesses and residences; residential and commercial displacement from redevelopment or higher rents.

· Case studies of similar investments implemented in other comparable contexts.

· The level of certainty or precision involved in the analysis of key considerations.

· Planning-level cost estimates for implementation, maintenance and operation.

· Implementation timeframe and level of effort.

· Eligibility for likely sources of funding.

· Adherence to applicable city, regional, and state policies.

Implementation Strategy Memorandum:

This memorandum will outline approaches to implement investment options, recommending a work plan to best package and sequence them. It will address key considerations, risks, and opportunities. It will discuss:

· The broad outcomes of potential implementation of these approaches and how different users and community groups could be affected.

· Areas where investment need is greatest (“Hotspots”) and separate context areas with similar conditions and needs.

· The eligibility and timing of sources of likely funding and network completion.

· The level of certainty or precision involved in the analysis of key considerations.

· The need for further investigations to better understand critical uncertainties, manage risks and facilitate future decision-making.

· The potential pros/cons and best context for success for “Quick Build” initiatives.

· Other investments that could complement investments in the street, such as affordable housing, schools, parks, public art, and businesses.

· Interventions that could mitigate or balance outcomes like the potential diversion of vehicles into adjacent residential neighborhoods and wider street network, and displacement of residents and businesses along the corridor.

· A plan for measuring outcomes like changes to travel behavior (e.g. vehicle speeds, number of people walking, biking, or taking the bus), traffic crashes that result in injury, customer visits for businesses, and rents.

Additional information is available in the following attached documents and links:

· SW Allen Boulevard District Plan (Attachment D)

· Complete Streets Policy Resolution (Attachment E)

· Transportation System Plan Update (“TSP Update”): Website Content (Attachment F)

· Community Profile and Trends (Attachment G)

· TSP Update: Policy and Plans Update (Attachment H)

· TSP Update: City Council Agenda Bill (Goals and Vision) (Attachment I)

· TSP Update: City Council Agenda Bill (Project Approach) (Attachment J)

· SW Allen Boulevard District Plan Link: Allen Boulevard District Plan | Beaverton, OR - Official Website

· TSP Update Link: Go Beaverton - Transportation System Plan Update | Beaverton, OR - Official Website

· Complete Streets Policy Link: Beaverton Complete Streets Policy | Beaverton, OR - Official Website

Proposers responding to this Mini-RFP do so solely at their expense. Agency is not responsible for any Proposer expenses associated with this Mini-RFP.

The selected Proposer and Agency will negotiate the delivery schedule, costs and final Statement of Work, within the scope of what is advertised here, for inclusion in the final WOC. Pending successful negotiations, the selected Proposer shall perform its obligations according to the WOC and applicable terms and conditions of the parent PA and exhibits thereto.

The WOC is anticipated to start March 2026 and is expected to be completed by August 2027.

1.2.1 Funding Source(s).

This Project uses Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) and local funds.

1.2.2 WOC Payment.

Payment will be made for completion of, or acceptable monthly progress on, tasks and deliverables in conformance with PA requirements and all applicable standards. The method of compensation will be determined by Agency and may be based on any of the following methods (may include more than 1 method – “Mixed”):

· Cost Plus Fixed-fee, up to a maximum NTE amount;

· Fixed Price for all Services; Fixed Price per Deliverable; Fixed Price per Milestone;

· Time and Materials, up to a maximum NTE amount;

· Price per Unit.

For further information see PA, Exhibit B, Compensation.

1.2.3 WOC Phases. [RESERVED]

1.2.4 Offer Period.

A Proposer's Proposal in response to this Mini-RFP is a firm offer, irrevocable, valid and binding on the Proposer for not less than 180 days following the Bid Opening Date for this Mini-RFP. Agency may request, either orally or in writing, that Proposer extend the offer period in writing.

In accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule, effective October 3, 2025 and published at 90 Fed Reg 47,969 (2025), modifying the certification, compliance and reporting requirements of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program (DBE IFR), ODOT’s DBE requirements that were applicable to federally funded projects prior to the 10/03/2025 effective date of the rule are no longer in effect, and the associated DBE contractual requirements have been suspended pending implementation of the DBE IFR.

In accordance with the DBE IFR, for this prospective WOC, ODOT has not set a DBE goal and the DBE reporting and compliance requirements are suspended. Proposer acknowledges that the DBE requirements set forth in the WOC may be modified throughout the WOC term for purposes of compliance with federal law. Proposer acknowledges and agrees that if awarded the prospective WOC, it will cooperate in processing any contractual modifications ODOT deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the DBE Program requirements that may result from the DBE IFR implementation or future modifications to the DBE Program and corresponding regulations.

1.4 QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, CHANGES, AND ADDENDA

The “Purchaser” identified in OregonBuys for this Mini-RFP is the Agency’s Single Point of Contact for this solicitation. All inquiries regarding this procurement, whether relating to the Mini-RFP process, administration, deadlines, award, potential COI issues, or to the intent or technical aspects of the Services must be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Purchaser. Failing to follow the foregoing requirements may result in Proposal rejection by Agency.

1.4.1 PROPOSER QUESTIONS, REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS/CHANGES, AND AGENCY RESPONSES All questions and requests for clarifications and changes must be received by the Purchaser via email on or before the deadline for Proposer Questions/Clarifications/Changes set forth in section 0.4.

Agency answers to questions received by the Purchaser by the stated deadline will be posted in OregonBuys to ensure that all Proposers base their Proposals on the same information. Agency answers to questions will provide clarifications and interpretations but will not change Mini-RFP or contract requirements, unless an Addendum is issued (see section 1.4.2, below).

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSTED ON OREGONBUYS DO NOT AFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MINI-RFP. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTUAL TERMS, AND PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS MINI-RFP CAN ONLY BE CHANGED VIA ADDENDA ISSUED BY AGENCY AND POSTED ON OREGONBUYS.

1.4.2 ADDENDA

Answers to questions or requests for clarifications or changes that Agency receives and that Agency, in its sole discretion, determines are substantive and provide new information, will be issued as official Addenda to this Mini-RFP. Changes or modifications to this Mini-RFP will be binding on Agency only if in the form of official Addenda issued by the Agency and published on OregonBuys in the Bid Solicitation Attachments section for this Mini-RFP.

1.5 PUBLIC RECORDS

After the evaluation/selection and negotiation process is complete, Proposals will be open to public inspection in accordance with ORS 279C.107. If a Proposal contains any information that may be considered exempt from disclosure under the various grounds specified in Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 through 192.478, the Proposer must clearly designate the portions of its Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, along with a justification and citation to the authority relied upon. Proposer must also submit a second version of the Proposal with the text claimed as exempt from disclosure redacted. Application of the Oregon Public Records Law shall determine whether any information is actually exempt from disclosure. Identifying the Proposal in whole as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure and the authority used to substantiate that claim, Proposer is deemed to waive any future claim for non-disclosure of that information.

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Unless otherwise provided in this Mini-RFP, by submitting a Proposal, each Proposer agrees to be bound by and comply with the terms and conditions of the Proposer’s existing PA, as amended. Any Proposal conditioned on Agency’s acceptance of terms and conditions other than those set forth in the existing PA and the requirements specified in this Mini-RFP (as they may be revised by an addendum to this Mini-RFP) will be rejected as non-responsive.

The Proposal must be organized as directed herein.

2.1 PASS/FAIL

Items in Section 2 marked as “PASS/FAIL” that are incomplete (except for minor informalities), not submitted by the Bid Opening Date, or are otherwise not in substantial conformance with the Mini-RFP requirements, will be rejected as non-responsive. Proposals must comply with ALL requirements marked as “PASS/FAIL” to be considered for further evaluation.

2.2 REQUIRED ITEMS AND SCORING DEDUCTIONS

Notwithstanding the scoring deductions, to be considered responsive, the Proposer must substantially comply in all material respects with applicable solicitation procedures and requirements and the solicitation documents.

· Proposals will receive a 2% scoring deduction, based upon the total available points, for each item in section 2 marked as “REQUIRED” that is incomplete (except for minor informalities). Incomplete items must be completed and submitted within 2 business days of a request by Agency. Incomplete items must be delivered via email to the Purchaser as identified in the request in order to provide an appropriate time stamp. Failure to complete and deliver incomplete “REQUIRED” items within 2 business days of request by Agency shall result in Proposal rejection. Time limitations will be based upon the time of the request sent by Agency and the time of the e-mail sent in response to Agency request.

· Scoring deductions are on an average score per Proposal basis and not a deduction per evaluator. For example, if a Proposer received an average score of 92 points from the evaluation committee, a 2 percent scoring deduction would result in a Proposal score of 90. (Percentage will be rounded to either the lower number if under .5% or to the higher number if .5% or over.)

2.3 PROPOSAL DEADLINE AND SUBMISSION FORMAT (PASS/FAIL)

Agency will not accept Proposals submitted after the Bid Opening Date for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys.

Proposals, including all attachments, forms, and other required items, must be submitted via OregonBuys. Submittal by any other means will be rejected.

Proposals must be organized as follows in a single PDF file:

· Proposal Cover Sheet (Attachment A and see section 2.4.3 below)

· Technical Proposal (responses to Evaluation Criteria described in section 3.2 (See section 2.4.4 below)

· Key Staff Resumes (Attachment B and see section 2.4.5 below)

· Project Samples (Attachment C and see section 2.4.6 below)

Conflict of Interest disclosures, if any, must be submitted as a separate PDF file. See Attachment A Proposal Coversheet, for additional instruction regarding Conflict of Interest disclosures.

The ODOT COI Guidelines and COI Disclosure Form are available on the Consultant Forms and Resources page (https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Business/Procurement/Pages/PSK.aspx)under Miscellaneous Procurement Forms.

2.4.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT (REQUIRED)

One Page is defined as: one side of a single 8-1/2" x 11" page, with 12-point minimum font size for the substantive text (including text in tables) and 11-point minimum font size for the Key Staff Resume and Project Sample forms. Any page over this size will be counted as 2 pages. Any page, or partial page, tabs, indexes or table of contents with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, resumes, etc., will be counted as 1 page.

If a Proposer submits a Proposal exceeding a set page limit, Agency will consider the pages up to the allowable page limit and discard all subsequent pages subject to that limit.

Any links to external information included in the Proposal and any Proposal attachments will not be considered or evaluated, unless specified in this Mini-RFP. The Proposer may choose how to allocate the number of pages between any sections, within the overall page limit(s).

2.4.3 PROPOSAL COVER SHEET (REQUIRED)

The Proposal must include a completed Proposal Cover Sheet using the form Attachment A - Proposal Cover Sheet (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys). The Proposal Cover Sheet is excluded from the page limit under section 2.4.4 below.

2.4.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (REQUIRED)

The Technical Proposal must include written responses to the Scoring Criteria set forth in section 3.2, in the order the criteria are presented thereunder. Technical Proposals must describe how Proposer meets the requirements that are specified in this Mini-RFP as related to the Scoring Criteria. The Technical Proposals must be clear and concise.

The Technical Proposal must not exceed 10 pages. 1 page is defined as: one side of a single 8-1/2" x 11" page, with 12-point minimum font size for the substantive text (including text in tables) and 11-point minimum font size for the Key Staff Resume and Project Sample forms. Any page over this size will be counted as 2 pages. Any page, or partial page, tabs, indexes or table of contents with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, resumes, etc., will be counted as 1 page.

If a Proposer submits a Technical Proposal exceeding the set page limit, Agency will consider the pages up to the allowable page limit and discard all subsequent pages subject to that limit.

2.4.5 KEY STAFF RESUMES (REQUIRED)

The Proposal must include a maximum of 5 Key Staff Resumes, each not exceeding 1 page, using Attachment B Key Staff Resumes (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys). See Evaluation Item 1 for more information. Resumes are not part of the technical proposal page limit.

2.4.6 PROJECT SAMPLES (REQUIRED)

The Proposal must include a maximum of 3 Project Samples using Attachment C Project Samples (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys). See Evaluation Item 4 for more information. Project Samples are not part of the technical proposal page limit.

2.4.7 OTHER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS [RESERVED]

2.4.8 Subcontractor Solicitation and Utilization Form [RESERVED]

2.5 FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS

Any statements, written or verbal, provided by the Proposer deemed by the Agency to be false or misleading will result in all or portions of the Proposal, including response to section 3.1.2 Interviews/Follow Up Questions, if any, to be rejected and removed from consideration in the evaluation for WOC award.

2.6 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL PROVISIONS

2.6.1 Agency reserves the right to reject any Proposal that is unreadable.

2.6.2 Per OAR 731-146-0150(4), in the event of a failure of an Electronic Procurement System or email system that interferes with the ability to submit electronic Proposals or to otherwise participate in the procurement, Agency may cancel the procurement or may extend the date and time of receipt of electronic Proposals by providing notice of the extension immediately after the Electronic Procurement System or email system becomes available.

Proposals meeting Pass/Fail criteria will be forwarded to an evaluation committee of at least 3 members that will independently review, score and rank Proposals according to the Scoring Criteria set forth in section 3.2.

The outcome of the evaluation process may, at the Agency’s sole discretion, result in:

(a) notice to Proposer(s) of selection or rejection for WOC negotiation and possible award;

Agency reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals and reserves the right to cancel this Mini-RFP at any time if doing either would be in the public interest as determined by Agency. Agency is not liable for any costs a Proposer incurs while preparing or presenting the Proposal or during further evaluation stages. All unreturned Proposals will become property of Agency and part of the public file without obligation to Agency.

3.1.2 INTERVIEWS/FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

Agency may conduct interviews/follow-up questions. If interviews/follow-up questions are conducted, the following will apply:

· The number of Proposers selected for interviews/follow-up questions is at the sole discretion of Agency.

· Interviews/follow-up questions responses may be evaluated by individuals that evaluated the written Proposals or by individuals which did not evaluate the written Proposals, at Agency’s discretion.

· Interview/follow-up questions scores (up to a maximum of 60 points) will be combined with the other criteria scores to arrive at a total score.

· Agency may conduct interviews/follow-up questions via teleconference, video conference, or in-person. Further details will be included with notification of time and date of interviews/follow-up questions, if conducted.

· Evaluation and scoring will be based on one or more of the following criteria:

· Understanding of Requested Services

· Technical Approach

· Project Management/Cost Effectiveness

· Proposer’s General Qualifications

· Proposer’s Capabilities

· Proposer’s Relevant Experience

· Project Team and Qualifications

3.1.3 REFERENCES [RESERVED]

3.1.4 AGENCY CLARIFICATIONS

Agency may require any clarification it needs to understand the Proposer’s Proposal. Any necessary clarifications which are in the best interest of the Agency, may be made before the Proposer is awarded a WOC, and some or all of the clarifications, and any resulting modifications, may become part of the final WOC.

3.2 SCORING CRITERIA

Proposal scoring will be based on the criteria stated in the subsections below.

3.2.1 EVALUATION ITEM 1 – Relevant Experience and Qualifications MAX POINTS: 45 Using Attachment B Key Staff Resumes, describe Project Team qualifications and provide specific information for the proposed Project Manager and proposed Key Staff you believe are most important to the success of this Project and that address the following Sub-Criteria:

1. Planning and design of facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit: Describe your experience helping jurisdictions identify, evaluate and implement these types of capital infrastructure investments (curb extensions, high visibility crossing treatments, wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, enhanced bus stops), streetscape elements (public art, benches, wayfinding and signage) and traffic control elements (speed limits/enforcement, signal timing changes, turning restrictions, striping changes, refuge islands). (15 points)

1. Efforts to repurpose existing street right-of-way to enhance facilities for people walking, biking and taking transit: Describe your experience in helping jurisdictions identify, evaluate and implement such solutions on street corridors where the community wants to reduce auto speeds, reduce auto lanes, and prioritize the movement of people walking and biking. Please elaborate on how you objectively highlighted impacts and considerations including by using performance metrics like travel time and people carrying capacity. (15 points)

1. Solutions that can be quickly deployed using temporary materials (“Quick Build”): Describe your experience helping jurisdictions identify, evaluate implement and maintain such initiatives as part of a long-term strategy. Please elaborate on how you objectively presented the opportunities, challenges and risks to decision-makers. (15 points)

Key Staff Resumes are not included in the Technical Proposal page limit identified for this Mini-RFP; however, a maximum of 5 Key Staff Resumes may be submitted. Any resumes submitted beyond this limit will be discarded by Agency and will not be included in the evaluation. The fields on the Key Staff Resumes form may be expanded, but may not exceed 1 page per resume and must use a minimum of 11 point font for substantive text.

Scoring of each the above Sub-Criteria will be based on relevance of the experience, qualifications, and technical competence of the Project Manager and other Key Staff for use on this specific Project. The Key Staff put forward for work on this Project should have availability to do the work. No substitutes will be allowed without prior authorization by Agency.

3.2.2 EVALUATION ITEM 2 – Project Approach MAX POINTS: 30

Given the information provided with this Mini-RFP, describe your approach for the Project to cost effectively meet Agency’s deliverables and objectives in the timeline needed.

Describe your approach to this Project by addressing the following Sub-Criteria:

1. Community Engagement: The City will plan and conduct all engagement activities, as well as presentations to City Council, with some support from the consultant. Describe the approach you would take to support the City in carrying out these responsibilities. Please outline how key members of your team would collaborate with City staff to prepare necessary materials by helping adapt prior deliverables and incorporate input from the community in finalizing these deliverables. (15 points)

1. Storytelling: Describe how your team would use a combination of quantitative and qualitative information to effectively tell stories about how the implementation of alternative investments could affect different groups of people. Please elaborate on the approach you would take to present both short and long-term benefits, use plain language to compare scenarios and their key considerations, incorporate case studies of similar investments implemented in other comparable contexts, and characterize the level of certainty or precision involved. (15 points)

3.2.3 EVALUATION ITEM 3 – Project Management and Collaboration MAX POINTS: 20 The City will take a major role in delivering the Project. Describe an example of successfully managing projects that require collaboration with multiple teams and where the client held an equal role in delivering work products. Include methods you used to communicate and manage risk. Describe an example of conflict resolution and adaptive leadership skills you used to assist organizations navigate change, and how these skills contributed to a project’s success.

3.2.4 EVALUATION ITEM 4 – Project Samples MAX POINTS: 15

Using Attachment C Project Samples, provide a maximum of 3 Project Samples. A Project Sample is 1 page demonstrating Proposer’s ability to communicate key information and inform decisions from one or more projects with a scope and magnitude that is similar to the Project described in this Mini-RFP. Each project must be performed by at least one of the proposed team's Project Manager or Key Staff, or both, in the same or similar roles.

Provided Project Samples must address how the work relates to the other scoring criteria and include at least one sample where your firm has done a corridor transformation, as described in Evaluation Item 1, on a street classification of arterial or collector. List Key Staff involved with each Project Sample and what role they played.

Each page must be marked only to call out a specific section or sections (circle or highlight a particular area of a page); any supplemental explanation must be included within the Technical Proposal page limit set forth in Section2.4.4.

Project Samples will be scored by evaluators on applicability to Project as well as format including appropriate use of tables and graphics; clear, concise text; and errors, including misspellings, grammatical, and typographic.

Project Samples are not included in the Technical Proposal page limit identified for this Mini-RFP; however, a maximum of 3 pages may be submitted for this criterion. Any pages submitted beyond this limit will be discarded by Agency and will not be included in the evaluation.

3.2.4 EVALUATION ITEM 5 – Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements MAX POINTS: 10 Proposers should not provide a written response to this criterion.

Per section 2.4.4, the Technical Proposal must be organized in accordance with the list of Scoring Criteria categories in Section 3.2. Proposals will be scored by evaluators on format including appropriate use of tables and graphics; ease of finding clear, concise responses that correlate with the order of evaluation criteria in the Mini-RFP; errors, including misspellings, grammatical, and typographic; and Proposers ability to follow instructions.

The total scores and selection for tentative WOC assignment will be determined as follows:

· Total Proposal Score = Total of all evaluator scores for a given Proposal, divided by the number of evaluators, minus any SCORING DEDUCTIONS received per section 2.2.

· Total Interview/Follow-up Questions Score (if conducted) = Total of all evaluator scores for a given interviewee, divided by the number of evaluators.

· Total Reference Score (if references are scored) = Total score received for all references evaluations divided by the number of references evaluations scored.

Final Score = Total Proposal Score plus Total Interview/Follow-up Questions Score (if conducted) plus Total Reference/Performance Scores (if conducted).

Based on Final Scores, Agency will issue an intent to award notice in OregonBuys and will negotiate the SOW, payment amount and methodology with the top ranked Proposer. If negotiations are not successful, Agency may terminate negotiations with the top ranked Proposer and may begin negotiations with the next highest ranked Proposer and so on, until successful negotiations are completed or Agency determines that cancellation of this Mini-RFP is in the best interest of the State.

3.4 AWARD REQUIREMENTS

Agency may reject a Proposal, rescind the intent to award notice, and select the next highest ranked firm for award if the apparent successful Proposer fails to provide the following required items within 7 calendar days of issuance of the intent to award notice, unless another date is specified in the intent to award notice.

3.4.1 COST DATA

Following development of the SOW, the selected Proposer shall submit a detailed Breakdown of Costs (“BOC”)) (BOCBOC-Negotiated Billing Rate (“BOC-NBR”) templates, as applicable, are available at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Business/Procurement/Pages/PSK.aspx) with cost information as required in the WOC Assignment and Requirements Exhibit of the PA.

Agency shall reject an offer and rescind the intent to award notice if Agency determines Proposer is not responsible or if Proposer has liquidated and delinquent debt owed to the State or any department or agency of the State.

Agency reserves the right to modify the Menu of Services as necessary to meet Agency’s needs. Agency will negotiate the final Statement of Work with the successful Proposer.

Please note: All Design tasks that are “RESERVED” are reserved for task numbering purposes only. The Transportation Land Use Planning Price Agreement Menu of Services does not include design services, and these tasks cannot be added to the statement of work in the WOC.

TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Task 1.1 Project Management and Coordination Task 1.2 [RESERVED] Task 1.3 Project Schedule and Schedule Updates Task 1.4 Meetings Task 1.4.1 Kick-off Meeting Task 1.4.2 Project Development Team Meetings [RESERVED] Task 1.4.3 Project Coordination Meetings Task 1.4.4 Project Subteam Meetings Task 1.4.5 Project Site Visit Meetings Task 1.4.6 Mobility Advisory Committee Meetings [RESERVED] Task 1.4.7 Design Verification Workshop [RESERVED] Task 1.4.8 Cost Risk Assessment [RESERVED] Task 1.4.9 Design Acceptance Workshop [RESERVED] Task 1.4.10 Preliminary Plans Review Meeting [RESERVED] Task 1.4.11 Advance Plans Review Meeting [RESERVED] Task 1.4.12 Final Plans Review Meeting [RESERVED] Task 1.4.13 Pre-PS&E Package Submittal Meeting [RESERVED] Task 1.4.14 PS&E Review Meetings [RESERVED] Task 1.5 Risk Management [RESERVED] Task 1.6 Value Engineering Study [RESERVED] Task 1.7 Construction Risk Management Transition [RESERVED] Task 1.8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Task 1.8.1 Quality Assurance [RESERVED] Task 1.8.2 QA/QC Quality Reviews

TASK 2 PROJECT INITIATION [RESERVED]

TASK 3 PLANNING SERVICES [RESERVED]

TASK 4 SCOPING

Task 4.1 Project Vision, Goals and Objectives Statement Task 4.1.1 Draft Statement Task 4.1.2 Technical Advisory Committee Presentation Support Task 4.1.3 Public Engagement Support Task 4.1.4 City Council Presentation Support Task 4.1.5 Final Statement Task 4.2 Existing Conditions Report Task 4.2.1 Draft Report Task 4.2.1.1 Current and planned future land-uses within the Project area.

Task 4.2.1.2 Demographics of who is living, working and shopping in the corridor Task 4.2.1.3 Facilities within the street ROW with focus on those serving people walking, biking, and taking transit (using existing GIS layers and data available through the TSP update) Task 4.2.1.3.1 Sidewalks Task 4.2.1.3.2 Bike Facilities Task 4.2.1.3.3 Crossings Task 4.2.1.3.4 Traffic Control (speed limits, signal timing/phasing) Task 4.2.1.3.5 Street Trees Task 4.2.1.3.6 Transit Routes/Stops/Waiting Areas and Transit Priority Measures Task 4.2.1.3.7 Access Points (Location/Dimensions of Driveways and Walkways) Task 4.2.1.3.8 On-Street and Off-Street Parking (Vehicles and Bikes) Task 4.2.1.3.9 Travel/Turn Lanes Task 4.2.1.4 Allen Boulevard’s Roles Within Wider Transportation Networks Task 4.2.1.5 How People Use the Street to Travel By Day of Week and Time of Day Task 4.2.1.5.1 Existing Use By People Walking and Riding Bikes (Where Do People Walk/Bike/Access Transit now and There May Be Demand in Future) Task 4.2.1.5.2 Transit Ridership (Boarding/Alighting/Ramp Deployment By Stop) Task 4.2.1.5.3 Vehicle Counts, Intersection Turning Movements Task 4.2.1.5.4 Origin/Destination of Vehicle Trips Task 4.2.1.5.5 Corridor Speeds (Average Travel Speeds at Different Locations) Task 4.2.1.6 How well existing facilities provide or do not provide safe and comfortable passage for people walking, biking, and taking transit by day of week and time of day (focusing on broadening access for all populations, including individuals with mobility or communication disabilities consistent with the access protections outlined in the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ACT”) Task 4.2.1.6.1 Marked and unmarked crossings (average waiting time, average distance between them, vehicle yielding to pedestrians) Task 4.2.1.6.2 Crash analysis (focus on fatal and serious injuries, identify intersections with a history of crashes and locations where community members indicate not feeling safe) Task 4.2.1.6.3 Vehicle travel time through corridor and queuing at key intersections Task 4.2.1.6.4 Transit travel time and reliability Task 4.2.1.6.5 Access for emergency response Task 4.2.1.7 Root causes behind key challenges in the performance of existing facilities for all travel modes and key opportunities to overcome those challenges Task 4.2.2 Technical Advisory Committee Presentation Support Task 4.2.3 Public Engagement Support Task 4.2.4 City Council Presentation Support Task 4.2.5 Final Report Task 4.3 Investment Options Identification Memorandum Task 4.3.1 Draft Memorandum Task 4.3.1.1 Operational changes such as retiming of traffic signals and transit priority Task 4.3.1.2 Capital infrastructure investments that give more priority, protection, and visibility to people walking, biking, and riding the bus (street lighting, curb extensions, high visibility crossing treatments, wider sidewalks, street trees and planters, protected bike lanes, bike parking, and enhanced bus stops) Task 4.3.1.3 Streetscaping elements (public art, benches, wayfinding and signage) Task 4.3.1.4 Traffic control elements (speed limits/enforcement, turning restrictions, signal timing changes, striping changes, and refuge islands Task 4.3.1.5 Ways to repurpose the existing street ROW to build out the larger city-side bike, pedestrian, and transit networks envisioned in the updated TSP.

Task 4.3.1.6 Solutions that can be deployed quickly in key locations using temporary materials (“Quick Build”) Task 4.3.2 – Technical Advisory Committee Presentation Support Task 4.3.3 – Public Engagement Support Task 4.3.4 – City Council Presentation Support Task 4.3.5 – Final Memorandum Task 4.4 Investment Options Investigation Memorandum Task 4.4.1 – Draft Memorandum: Present how investment options could make progress towards achieving Project goals, while using plain language to compare scenarios communicating the broad outcomes of their potential implementation and addressing the uncertainties involved.

Task 4.4.1.1 – How investment options work towards attaining the goals identified in the TSP update for the Project area and the city as a whole Task 4.4.1.2 – How investment options could build off assets in the corridor and or address existing needs Task 4.4.1.3 – How different groups of people could be affected Task 4.4.1.4 – Short and long-term benefits, including changes to user behavior and adjacent land uses, as well as health of business environment Task 4.4.1.5 – Key considerations Task 4.4.1.5.1 – People having more safe and comfortable choices about how they travel to destinations.

Task 4.4.1.5.2 – People spending more time visiting businesses Task 4.4.1.5.3 – Everyone feeling safe while on the street (and in particular broadening access for populations with risk factors affecting access to services, such as youth, older adults, and people with disabilities) Task 4.4.1.5.4 – Greening of the neighborhood, providing health and environmental benefits to the people living and working along the corridor Task 4.4.1.5.5 – Fewer people losing their lives or sustaining life altering injuries due to traffic violence Task 4.4.1.5.6 – People shifting some trips from auto-based trips to trips taken by…