01_RFP_11697_Port_PED_10.02.26.pdf

Sourcing Event ID 11697 PWP-690 (4-26) October 02, 2026

San Francisco Public Works Request for Proposals

Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Services Port of San Francisco – Waterfront Resilience Program

This Solicitation can be viewed at SF City Partner Website https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/index.aspx

RFP Advertised Friday, October 02, 2026

Pre-Proposal Conference Wednesday, October 14, 2026, 10:00 AM, PT Please RSVP via this link:

https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/YJ6L8wFHFf

Deadline for Questions Tuesday, October 20, 2026, 5:00 PM, PT

Deadline to Submit Proposals Friday, November 13, 2026, 1:00 PM, PT

Contract Manager Carlos Colón

RFP Administrator: Belle Macaranas DPW-ProContracts@sfdpw.org

Attachments

Attachment 1: City’s Contract Terms Attachment 2: Scope of Work for Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Services Attachment 3: Minimum Qualifications Template Attachment 4: Written Proposal Template Attachment 5: Cost Fee Proposal Attachment 6: CMD Forms Attachment 7: Contract Forms Attachment 8: List of Reference Documents Attachment 9: City Non-disclosure Agreement Attachment 10: Bidder Public Sourcing Event Guide Attachment 11: Supplier Public Sourcing Event Guide https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/index.aspx https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/YJ6L8wFHFf mailto:DPW-ProContracts@sfdpw.org

PWP-690 (4-26) i October 02, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS III

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND SOLICITATION SCHEDULE 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 SELECTION OVERVIEW 1

1.3 ANTICIPATED CONTRACT TERM 2

1.4 ANTICIPATED CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT 2

1.5 POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTICE 2

1.6 SOLICITATION SCHEDULE 3

1.7 PROPOSER QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS 4

1.8 SOLICITATION ADDENDA AND CHANGE NOTICES 4

1.9 ACCESS TO REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 5

SECTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 6

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 6

2.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 9

SECTION 3 CITY’S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY REQUIREMENTS 10

3.1 NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS (“EQUAL BENEFITS”) 10

3.2 PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCE 10

3.3 HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE 10

3.4 MINIMUM COMPENSATION ORDINANCE 11

3.5 FIRST SOURCE HIRING PROGRAM 11

3.6 OTHER SOCIAL POLICY PROVISIONS 11

SECTION 4 LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 12

4.1 LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ORDINANCE 12

4.2 CMD FORMS 13

4.3 LBE PAYMENT AND UTILIZATION TRACKING 14

4.4 CMD COMPLIANCE OFFICER 14

SECTION 5 EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 15

5.1 EVALUATION OVERVIEW 15

5.2 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS 15

5.3 WRITTEN PROPOSAL 18

5.4 ORAL INTERVIEWS AND PRESENTATION 19

5.5 FINAL SELECTIONS 20

SECTION 6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 21

6.1 TIME AND PLACE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS 21

6.2 SF SUPPLIER PORTAL SUBMITTAL PROCESS 22

6.3 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL PACKAGES 22

6.4 PROPOSAL CONTENT 23

SECTION 7 CONTRACT AWARD 25

7.1 PROPOSAL SELECTION 25

7.2 CONTRACT TERMS AND NEGOTIATIONS 25

7.3 REGULATORY AND LEGAL REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO AWARD 25

7.4 REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE SERVICES SOLICITED 27

SECTION 8 TERMS AND CONDITION FOR RECEIPTS OF PROPOSALS 28

8.1 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 28

8.2 LIMITATION ON COMMUNICATIONS DURING SOLICITATION 28

8.3 SOLICITATION ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 28

PWP-690 (4-26) ii October 02, 2026

8.4 OBJECTIONS TO SOLICITATION TERMS 29

8.5 PROTEST PROCEDURES 29

8.6 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 30

8.7 DELIVERY OF PROTESTS 32

8.8 PROPOSAL TERM 33

8.9 REVISION TO PROPOSAL 33

8.10 PROPOSAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 33

8.11 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 33

8.12 PROPOSER’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE 34

8.13 RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS BY THE CITY 34

8.14 NO WAIVER 35

8.15 OTHER 35

PWP-690 (4-26) iii October 02, 2026

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

The following definitions apply to this Request for Proposals (RFP):

A. Solicitation Terms

1. “Local Business Enterprise (LBE)” - A business that is certified as an LBE under SF Administrative Code §14B.3. Only certified Small and Micro-LBEs can be used to satisfy the LBE subcontracting participation requirement.

2. “Proposal” - the complete response submitted by a Proposer to this RFP, including all required forms, technical content, and attachments.

3. “Proposer” - Any legal entity(ies) submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP,

4. “Sourcing Event”- refers to this solicitation, created and advertised through City’s Financials and Procurement System “PeopleSoft.” Bidders and Suppliers will post their proposals or bids in PeopleSoft through a Sourcing Event.

5. “Supplier” - refers to the Proposer(s) selected for contract award pursuant to this RFP, and an approved entity in the City’s PeopleSoft System or SF City Partner Website, “Supplier Portal.”

6. “Supplier Portal”- The City’s Financial and Procurement System, “PeopleSoft” also referred to as the SF City Partner Website.

B. Program and Project Terms

8. “Flood Study” – The San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

9. “Recommended Plan” – The plan identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for adapting the San Francisco waterfront to sea level rise and coastal flooding as documented in the Flood Study.

10. “Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (PED)” – A USACE defined design and delivery phase that advances the Recommended Plan from planning through design in preparation for construction. For this RFP, PED is used to mean engineering, design, and related services as to advance and further define the Recommended plan including developing locally preferred modifications and changes, collecting data and completing engineering investigations, pre-design technical services for segments and/or projects, detailed design of individual projects selected by the Port, and engineering/design technical service to support bidding and construction of projects within the defined geographic limits of each contract.

11. “Plan Area” – The geographic extent of each PED contract – Northern Waterfront or

PWP-690 (4-26) iv October 02, 2026

Southern Waterfront, including neighborhoods and watersheds adjacent to the waterfront which are important for consideration of transportation, utility and urban design considerations. This is the largest geographic scale referenced in this RFP.

12. “Segment” – A portion of the waterfront that is smaller than the Plan Area but larger than an individual Project Area, which may be the focus during the Plan Development phase.

13. “Project” – A discrete action with independent utility to improve or alter a segment or facility along the waterfront. Once defined, Projects typically advance through the project development process in steps including pre-design, detailed design, construction and closeout. A Project may be an Early Resilience Action or another action outside of the Recommended Plan.

14. “Project Area” – Specific location of a singular project within the Plan Area at which design and/or construction activities are advanced from conceptual design through construction close-out. This is the smallest geographic scale referenced in this RFP.

15. “Plan Development” – The pre-design process that includes defining vision, principles, program requirements, implementation, design framework, and conceptual design at a geographic scale larger than an individual project.

16. “Project development” – The design through construction process that starts with conceptual design within a distinct Project Area.

17. “Early Resilience Action (ERA)” – Potential areas to begin design and construction of the Recommended Plan at project scale.

C. Acronyms

18. “BCDC DRB” – Bay Conservation and Development Commission Design Review Board

19. “BCDC ECRB” – Bay Conservation and Development Commission Engineering Criteria Review Board

20. “DDR” – Design Documentation Report

21. “Draft Report” – Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

22. “EDR” – Engineering Documentation Report

23. “Final Report” – Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

24. “HTRW” – Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

25. “ORCP” – Office of Resilience and Capital Planning

26. “PAC”– Program Advisory Services Consultant

PWP-690 (4-26) v October 02, 2026

27. “PED” – Pre-Construction Engineering and Design

28. “PED Consultants” – Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Consultants

29. “PED Consultant - N” Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Consultant – Northern Waterfront

30. “PED Consultant - S” Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Consultant – Southern Waterfront

31. “PMP” – Project Management Plan

32. “Port” – Port of San Francisco

33. “SFFD” – San Francisco Fire Department

34. “SFMTA” – San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

35. “SFPW” – San Francisco Public Works

36. “SF Planning” –San Francisco Planning Department

37. “SFPUC” – San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

38. “USACE” – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

39. “WRP” – Waterfront Resilience Program

PWP-690 (4-26) 1 of 37 October 02, 2026

Section 1 Introduction and Solicitation Schedule

1.1 Introduction

A. General

This Request for Proposals (RFP or “Solicitation”) is issued by the San Francisco Public Works (“SFPW”), a department of the City and County of San Francisco (“City”), on behalf of the Port of San Francisco (“Port”), seeking qualified suppliers (“Proposers”) to support the continued development and implementation of the Port’s Waterfront Resilience Program (“WRP”).

Services include advancing the plan vision and framework, developing conceptual engineering and design documents for areas of the plan, and completing detailed engineering and design documents to construct individual projects, including design support services during bidding and construction. The Port will evaluate a variety of project delivery options, including alternative delivery methods including Design/Build, Construction Manager / General Contractor, and Progressive Design/Build.

The Proposer may be an individual firm or joint venture and must demonstrate relevant expertise and extensive experience in Waterfront Resilience Plan Development and Project Engineering and Design services, as further described in the RFP and the Scope of Work for Pre- Construction Engineering and Design Services.

The City encourages the inclusion of Local Business Enterprise (LBE) firms in meaningful roles with clearly defined responsibilities that demonstrate a commitment to team integration and the development of LBE capacity. The LBE subcontracting participation requirement for this contract is 15%, of which 13% must be met with any combination of Micro and Small LBEs and 2% which may be met with any combination of Micro, Small, and SBA LBEs. Proposers are required to comply with all applicable San Francisco Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) requirements and must submit all required CMD forms and documentation with their proposal as specified in Section 4 of the RFP.

The Port shall order services covered by the awarded contract(s) through the issuance of individual Task Orders which shall be released against the awarded contract(s) during the contract term.

1.2 Selection Overview

The City shall award one (1) contract for the northern Plan Area (PED-North) and one (1) contract for the southern Plan Area (PED-South) to the Proposers that meet the Minimum Qualifications of this Solicitation whose Proposal receives the highest-ranking score.

Proposers will be evaluated and ranked separately for each Plan Area. Proposers may elect to submit a Proposal for one or both Plan Areas. The same Prime Proposer may be awarded one or both contracts; however, they must demonstrate sufficient capacity to perform both contracts at the same time.

Proposers submitting for both Plan Areas must submit separate Proposals for each Plan Area, each with a contract-specific staffing plan and capacity commitment. Each Proposal will be evaluated separately on its own merit. Key personnel may be shared across Proposals; however, PWP-690 (4-26) 2 of 37 October 02, 2026

Proposers must clearly identify personnel allocation for each contract and demonstrate sufficient capacity to perform both concurrently. Key personnel are defined as proposed staff that are more than 40% dedicated for each contract.

Responsive Proposals will be evaluated by a panel (“Evaluation Panel”) consisting of one or more parties with expertise related to the services being procured through this Solicitation. The Evaluation Panel may include staff from various City departments. Proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria outlined in this solicitation. The Proposers will be ranked starting with the Proposer receiving the highest score, then continuing with the Proposer receiving the second highest score, and so on.

2.3 Anticipated Contract Term

A contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation shall be non-exclusive with an initial term of 3,652 calendar days (10 years). The City at its sole, absolute discretion, shall have the option to extend the term subject to appropriate required approvals.

2.4 Anticipated Contract Not to Exceed Amount

PED-North: The contract shall have a not to exceed (“NTE”) amount of $65,000,000 (Sixty-Five Million Dollars) for the initial term.

PED-South: The contract shall have a not to exceed (“NTE”) amount of $50,000,000 (Fifty Million Dollars) for the initial term.

These amounts are based on City’s estimated budget for services over the advertised initial contract term. Should City’s actual spend exceed its estimated spend for the initial term, City may in its sole discretion increase the contract NTE for the initial term. Should City exercise its options to extend the contract beyond the initial term, City may also elect to increase the NTE proportionally.

1.5 Potential Conflict of Interest Notice

Awardees from the City’s Sourcing Event 0000010877 have been listed on the Port’s website under “Waterfront Resilience Program (“WRP”) Program Advisory Consultant.”

Firms that are awarded contracts under this RFP may have a potential conflict of interest with the WRP Program Advisory Services contract. Conflicts may be addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is the obligation of the Proposers as well as their Subcontractors to determine whether participation in any contract constitutes a conflict of interest. The Port will provide guidelines to assist Proposers; however, the Port will not provide legal advice to Proposers and assumes no responsibility or liability arising from Proposer’s reliance on any information set forth in this

RFP.

Proposers should carefully review Section 8.6, Conflicts of Interest and Unfair Advantage for additional guidelines regarding conflicts of interest.

PWP-690 (4-26) 3 of 37 October 02, 2026

1.6 Solicitation Schedule

A. Tentative Schedule. The anticipated schedule for this Solicitation is set forth below. The following dates are tentative and subject to change. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to check for any Addenda to this Solicitation or other pertinent information posted in the City’s SF City Partner Website: https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/. The City accepts no responsibility to any prospective consultant or sub-consultant, financially or otherwise, for the failure of any contingency requiring the postponement or cancellation of this Solicitation.

RFP Advertised Friday, October 02, 2026

Preproposal Meeting Wednesday, October 14, 2026, 10:00 AM PT

Deadline for Questions Tuesday, October 20, 2026, 5:00 PM PT

Deadline to Submit Proposals Friday, November 13, 2026, 1:00 PM PT

Shortlist Published Thursday, December 10, 2026

Oral Interviews Thursday, December 17, 2026

Final Rankings Issued (Notice of Intent to Award) Friday, December 18, 2026

Period for Protesting Final Rankings Within five (5) business days of the City's issuance Notice of Intent to Award

Port Commission Award Tuesday, January 26, 2027

Board of Supervisors, B&F Mid-February 2027

SF Board of Supervisors Authorization Late-February 2027

Notice to Proceed Early March 2027

B. Pre-Proposal Conference

1) The Pre-Proposal Conference for this project will be conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams Town Hall. Physical attendance will not be available.

2) Microsoft Teams Town Hall:

Join the meeting now

Meeting ID: 268 212 369 965 607 Passcode: CD3M9xC9

Dial in by phone: 1 415-906-4659; 408068676# United States, San Francisco Phone conference ID: 408 068 676#

3) Prospective Proposers are encouraged to RSVP for the Virtual Preproposal Conference using the following link: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/YJ6L8wFHFf

4) The Pre-Proposal Conference will begin at the time specified. Proposers’ representatives are urged to arrive on time. Topics already covered will not be repeated for the benefit of late arrivals. Failure to attend the Pre-Proposal Conference shall not excuse the awarded Proposer from any obligations of a https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/ https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_YmQyNjcyNmMtMjNiMy00NWRmLWIxM2YtOGQ3NTMzNWU0OWMx%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%2222d5c2cf-ce3e-443d-9a7f-dfcc0231f73f%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f6722b35-1ea6-4bd0-b85f-038c8202ba55%22%7d tel:%2014159064659,,408068676 https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/YJ6L8wFHFf

PWP-690 (4-26) 4 of 37 October 02, 2026 contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation. Any change or addition to the requirements contained in this Solicitation as a result of the Pre-Proposal Conference will be addressed and memorialized in a written Addendum to this Solicitation. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to check for any Addendum or other pertinent information posted on the City’s Supplier Portal:

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/index.aspx.

1.7 Proposer Questions and Request for Clarifications

A. Important Communication Restriction: Proposers must direct all communications regarding this Solicitation only to the Contract Administrator identified in this RFP.

Proposers should not contact Port staff, City staff, evaluators, or other City representatives regarding this Solicitation, except as permitted under Section 8.2, Limitation on Communications During Solicitation.

B. All requests for clarification of any ambiguities, discrepancies, inconsistencies or questions concerning the RFP, must be in writing via email to DPW-ProContracts@sfdpw.org no later than the date and time specified in the Solicitation Schedule or if amended via an Addendum. Proposers who fail to submit questions concerning this Solicitation and its requirements will waive all further rights to protest based on the specifications and conditions herein.

C. A written Addendum will be issued addressing each question and answer and posted publicly on the SF City Partner Website on the Supplier Portal:

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/Events-BS3/event-search.aspx.

1.8 Solicitation Addenda and Change Notices

The City may modify this Solicitation, prior to the Proposal due date, by issuing an Addendum to the Solicitation, which will be posted on the City’s Supplier Portal. Every Addendum will create a new version of the Sourcing Event and Proposers must monitor the event for new versions.

The Proposer shall be responsible for ensuring that its Proposal reflects any and all Solicitation Addenda issued by the City prior to the Proposal due date regardless of when the Proposal is submitted. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to check for any Addenda, Questions and Answers documents, and updates, which may be posted to the subject Solicitation. Proposers will be required to certify acknowledgement of Addenda issued to this RFP as provided in Attachment 7, Contract Forms, as part of its Proposal.

Any interpretation of modifications and clarifications in this RFP will be made by written addenda and shall become part of the RFP and any contract awarded. The City shall be bound only by the written terms of this RFP and any addenda hereto. The City will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpretation. Oral statements shall not be relied upon as legitimate responses and shall not be binding.

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/index.aspx https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/Events-BS3/event-search.aspx

PWP-690 (4-26) 5 of 37 October 02, 2026

1.9 Access to Reference Documents

The City has identified Reference Documents that prospective Proposers may review when preparing their Proposals. A list of available Reference Documents is included as Attachment 8 of this Solicitation. The Reference Documents will not be posted with the Solicitation.

To request access, Proposer must complete and submit Attachment 9 City Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA), to DPW-ProContracts@sfdpw.org. After the signed City NDA has been received and the required City review and execution have been completed, the prospective Proposer will receive a link to the folder containing the Reference Documents. It should not be included with the Proposal submitted through the SF Supplier Portal. A Proposer is not required to request access to the Reference Documents to submit a Proposal.

PWP-690 (4-26) 6 of 37 October 02, 2026

Section 2 Scope of Services

2.1 Project Background

The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Resilience Program (“WRP”) seeks qualified consultants to provide specialized pre-construction engineering and design (“PED”) services to support the advancement and implementation of the WRP’s proposed capital improvements, including the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study (“Flood Study”) Recommended Plan and Projects across the 7.5 miles of Port waterfront.

The WRP anticipates the design and delivery of approximately $15 billion to $20 billion in waterfront resilience improvements over the next several decades to reduce coastal flood risk from sea level rise and storms and to improve earthquake resilience of waterfront infrastructure and facilities. Design and delivery are anticipated to be in partnership with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), and in coordination with State and City agencies, and private partners.

Planned improvements include adaptable coastal flood defenses such as seawall and wharf replacements, levees, nature-based features, ground improvement of weak and liquefiable soils both onshore and offshore, regrading and modifications of adjacent roadways, light rail, and utility systems to address existing conditions and future needs, improvements to interior drainage systems including San Francisco Public Utility Commission (“SFPUC”) combined sewer system, strategies and infrastructure to manage rising groundwater, preservation and modification of historic buildings and resources, modifications to maritime facilities, and modifications to public spaces and parks. The Port requires these specialized services to advance overall plan development, complete pre-construction engineering and design of distinct areas, and detailed design of projects including design support services during project construction.

A. Port of San Francisco

The Port of San Francisco is an enterprise agency of the City and County of San Francisco. The Port manages the seven and one-half miles of the San Francisco waterfront. The Port’s jurisdiction stretches from Hyde Street Pier in the north to Heron’s Head Park in the south and includes 205 acres waterside and 629 acres of upland properties. The Port’s property portfolio is composed of approximately 550 ground, commercial, retail, office, industrial, and maritime tenants, including leases for waterfront destinations and facilities such as the Ferry Building, Oracle Parkhome of the San Francisco Giants, Fisherman’s Wharf, and PIER 39.

The Port is managed by an Executive Director who is appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco and serves the Port Commission. The Port Commission provides overall policy direction to the Executive Director.

The Port’s waterfront has played an important role in San Francisco’s development since the 1850s. The bulkhead buildings and finger piers along The Embarcadero, the shipyard warehouses and facilities at Pier 70, and other Port waterfront landmarks served to support a

PWP-690 (4-26) 7 of 37 October 02, 2026 growing City and handled maritime commerce for decades. As cargo and shipping needs changed, many historic facilities can no longer be used for cargo and shipbuilding and now serve as defining features of the unique San Francisco urban form, public places and related maritime activities.

The Port Divisions include Executive, Maritime, Real Estate and Development, Planning & Environment, Engineering, Finance & Administration, and Maintenance. More information on the Port can be found in the 10-year capital plan https://www.sfport.com/files/2023- 06/port_commission_approved_ten-year_capital_plan_for_2024-2033.pdf

B. Waterfront Resilience Program

The Waterfront Resilience Program (WRP”) is a dedicated program within the Port that works to ensure that the waterfront and its important regional and citywide assets are resilient to hazards including earthquakes, flooding, and sea level rise due to climate change, shoreline erosion, and other related risks. The WRP team is developing a program of projects, plans, and policies to improve seismic and flood safety along the Port’s 7.5-mile jurisdiction. Wherever possible, the WRP team is examining opportunities to enhance City infrastructure and services, increase the resilience of lifeline corridors along the waterfront, promote equitable access, enjoyment, and use of the Port’s public waterfront, and include enhancements to habitat and the public realm along what is largely a human-made shoreline.

The WRP is developing high-level, programmatic estimates of the potential cost of implementing adaptation strategies across the entire waterfront over the next 20 years or more. Current planning-level estimates place the potential cost range at $15 to 20 billion. This effort is expected to be one of San Francisco’s largest public works efforts, requiring a combination of new coastal flood defenses and seismic strengthening and floodproofing of near-shore infrastructure owned and operated by multiple City agencies.

Over the next 5 to 10 years, the WRP intends to build on the completed Flood Study, including the Recommended Plan for coastal flood defenses, by advancing design and engineering of the Recommended Plan using an executed Section 221 Memorandum of Understanding with USACE, and by completing detailed design and construction of multiple Projects, potentially including Fisherman’s Wharf Forward, Wharf J9 Replacement Project, Downtown Coastal Resilience Project, South Beach Coastal Resilience Project, multiple Seawall Earthquake Safety Projects, Pier 50 Earthquake Improvements, and multiple projects in the Southern Waterfront that have not yet been identified.

Critical to delivery of these Plans and Projects is determining, to the maximum extent feasible, whether the design and construction of the projects are integral to the USACE Recommended Plan and eligible for local sponsor credit. The WRP intends to pursue additional funding sources to support implementation of the program, including grants, City bonds, state bonds, and potential federal funding.

https://www.sfport.com/files/2023-06/port_commission_approved_ten-year_capital_plan_for_2024-2033.pdf https://www.sfport.com/files/2023-06/port_commission_approved_ten-year_capital_plan_for_2024-2033.pdf

PWP-690 (4-26) 8 of 37 October 02, 2026

C. USACE San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Overview

In June 2018, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) awarded San Francisco a “new start” study appropriation to commence a General Investigation (“GI”) feasibility study, which would consider and recommend potential project alternatives to reduce coastal flood risk along the San Francisco waterfront. Following the completion of the Flood Study, if USACE recommends and Congress approves a project for implementation, the federal government may pay for up to approximately two-thirds of the cost of design and construction, and the Port would be responsible for approximately one-third of the cost.

USACE, in collaboration with the City of San Francisco, published the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (“Draft IFR/EIS”) in January 2024. The Draft IFR/EIS can be downloaded here: https://www.sfport.com/wrp/draft-report or here https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/SFWCFS_DIFR_EIS_Main%20Report_1.pdf.

Release of the Draft Plan to the public started a 60-day formal public comment period under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During this period, USACE and the City conducted robust public outreach and engagement to get feedback on the Draft Plan.

Additionally, USACE conducted technical, policy, and independent peer review of the plan during this timeframe.

In June 2024, USACE leadership endorsed the Draft Plan at the USACE Agency Decision Milestone meeting (“ADM”). The USACE/Port Project Delivery Team (“PDT”) presented to leadership the Draft Plan, public comments, recommendations from USACE reviews, and the PDT’s workplan to address these comments and develop a revised Draft Plan, referred to as the Recommended Plan, for inclusion in the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Final IFR/EIS).

The Final IFR/EIS analyzes the coastal flood risk and effects of sea level rise for the 7.5 miles of waterfront within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction, from Aquatic Park to Heron’s Head Park, describes and analyzes an array of alternatives, and describes a Recommended Plan consisting of coastal flood defenses, floodproofing, and water management features to adapt the waterfront to sea level rise over time, with subsequent adaptation actions to respond to higher future water levels (“Recommended Plan”). The Recommended Plan is estimated to cost $17.8 billion plus inflation based on preliminary cost estimates, which are subject to change.

A Notice of Availability for the Final Report was published on July 31, 2026. Proposers are encouraged to download and review the Final Report. The Final IFR/EIS can be downloaded here: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=565319

Typical USACE projects advance to the Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Phase (“PED Phase”) following Congressional authorization and negotiation of a project agreement, such as a Design Agreement or Project Partnership Agreement. However, Congress has provided local sponsors with the option of advancing the design of coastal flood projects using local funding before Congressional authorization of projects. Under Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) the non-federal sponsor preserves the right to proceed with the design and/or construction of portions of a USACE project and receive credit toward their local match requirement (Section 221 MOU).

https://www.sfport.com/wrp/draft-report https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/SFWCFS_DIFR_EIS_Main%20Report_1.pdf https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=565319

PWP-690 (4-26) 9 of 37 October 02, 2026

Credit for work completed under the MOU is subject to USACE determinations that the work is integral to the authorized USACE project and is in line with federal estimates for the cost of the work.

To maintain momentum, reduce existing risk, and leverage existing general obligation bond funds in a timely manner, the Port executed a Section 221 MOU with USACE in early 2025 to (1) advance pre-construction engineering and design work for the Recommended Plan, including design-related studies and analyses, and (2) design and construct early implementation actions integral to the Recommended Plan, including all necessary pre-construction engineering and design work in compliance with USACE guidance and regulations.

2.2 Scope of Services

The selected Consultant will provide specialized pre-construction engineering and design services for the Port’s Northern and/or Southern Waterfronts, as applicable, under the direction of Port staff, as outlined in Attachment 2 of the RFP.

PWP-690 (4-26) 10 of 39 October 02, 2026

Section 3 City’s Social and Economic Policy Requirements

The San Francisco Municipal Code establishes several requirements for people seeking to do business with the City (“Social and Economic Policy Requirements”). These Social and Economic Policy Requirements can be found in Attachment 1, City’s Contract Terms, which Proposers are encouraged to carefully review. The Social and Economic Policy Requirements set forth below are not intended to be a complete list of all Social Policy Requirements applicable to this Solicitation and any contracts awarded from it.

3.1 Nondiscrimination Requirements (“Equal Benefits”)

Proposers awarded any contract exceeding $230,000 (the City’s “Minimum Competitive Amount”), may not, during the term of the Contract discriminate in the provision benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of such employees, where the domestic partnership has been registered with a governmental entity pursuant to state or local law authorizing such registration.

This Equal Benefits requirement applies in any of the contractor’s operations in San Francisco, on real property owned by San Francisco, or where work is being performed for the City elsewhere in the United States, subject to the conditions set forth in San Francisco Labor and Employment Code Articles 131 and 132. Contractors must submit a declaration confirming that the business complies with the Equal Benefits law. Refer to Attachment 1, for additional details related to the application of this Ordinance to a contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation. For more information, visit the Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) website. Proposers will be required to declare compliance with this Ordinance, as provided in Attachment 7, Contract Forms, as part of its Proposal.

3.2 Prevailing Wage Ordinance

Services to be performed by an awarded Contractor under this Solicitation will involve the performance of work covered by the California Labor Code Sections 1720 and 1782, as incorporated within Section 6.22(e) of the San Francisco Administrative Code (collectively, “Covered Services”), which is incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein and will apply to any Covered Services performed by Contractor and its subcontractors. Refer to Attachment 1, for additional details related to the application of this Policy to a contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation.

3.3 Health Care Accountability Ordinance

A Proposer selected pursuant to this Solicitation shall comply with Labor and Employment Code Article 121 For each Covered Employee, the awarded Contractor shall provide the appropriate health benefit set forth in Article 121.3. If the awarded Contractor chooses to offer the health plan option, such health plan shall meet the minimum standards set forth by the San Francisco Health Commission. Information about and the text of Article 121, as well as the Health Commission’s minimum standards, is available on the web at http://sfgov.org/olse/hcao. An awarded Contractor is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions in Article 121. Any Subcontract entered into by the awarded Contractor shall require http://sfgov.org/olse/hcao

PWP-690 (4-26) 11 of 39 October 02, 2026 any Subcontractor with 20 or more employees to comply with the requirements of the HCAO and shall contain contractual obligations substantially the same as those set forth in this Section. Refer to Attachment2 for additional details related to the application of this Policy to a contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation. Proposers will be required to declare compliance, as applicable to Article 121 ordinance, as provided in Attachment 7, Contract Forms, as part of its Proposal.

3.4 Minimum Compensation Ordinance

A Proposer selected pursuant to this Solicitation shall comply with Labor and Employment Code Article 111. For each Covered Employee, the awarded Contractor shall pay no less than the minimum compensation required by San Francisco Labor and Employment Code Article 111, including a minimum hourly gross compensation, compensated time off, and uncompensated time off. An awarded Contractor is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions in Article

111. Information about and the text of Article 111 is available on the web at http://sfgov.org/olse/mco. An awarded Contractor is required to comply with all of the applicable provisions of Article 111, irrespective of the listing of obligations in this Section.

Refer to Attachment 1 for additional details related to the application of this Policy to a contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation. Proposers will be required to declare compliance, as applicable to Article111 ordinance, as provided in Attachment 7, Contract Forms, as part of its Proposal.

3.5 First Source Hiring Program

The Successful Contractor agrees to participate and comply with the provisions of the First Source Hiring Program pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 83 (entitled “First Source Hiring Program”) for all design and construction related professional services work. Over the life of the contract, the Successful Contractor shall make good-faith efforts to hire a minimum number of referrals from the First Source Hiring Program to fulfill new and available entry-level positions. The number of referrals to be hired is based on the Construction Management Fee Schedule as set by the First Source Administrator. The Successful Contractor shall incorporate provisions of the First Source Hiring Program into any Joint Venture Partnership and shall require subcontractors to do the same.

For more details, visit the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) website at:

www.oewd.org. Questions should be directed to the designated Workforce Contract Compliance Officer, or to the CityBuild Compliance Manager at 415-701-4848, CityBuild@sfgov.org. Proposers will be required to declare compliance, as provided in Attachment 7, Contract Forms, as part of its Proposal.

3.6 Other Social Policy Provisions

Attachment 1, City’s Proposed Agreement Terms, identifies the City’s applicable social policy provisions related to a contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation. Proposers are encouraged to carefully review these terms and ensure they are able to comply with them.

http://sfgov.org/olse/mco http://www.oewd.org/ mailto:CityBuild@sfgov.org

PWP-690 (4-26) 12 of 39 October 02, 2026

Section 4 Local Business Enterprise Program Requirements

4.1 Local Business Enterprise Ordinance

The requirements of the Local Business Enterprise Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the “LBE Ordinance”) apply to this Solicitation.

A. LBE Subcontracting Participation Requirements

The LBE subcontracting participation requirement is 15% of the total value of services to be procured and can only be met with minimum 13% participation by Micro-LBE and/or Small-LBE firms and a with the remaining 2% met by SBA-LBE, Small-LBE, or Micro-LBE certified by the San Francisco Contract Monitoring Division (CMD).

Proposers are further advised that they may not discriminate in the selection of Subcontractors on the basis of race, gender, or any other basis prohibited by law, and that they shall undertake all required good faith outreach steps in such a manner as to ensure that neither MBEs nor WBEs nor OBEs are unfairly or arbitrarily excluded from the required outreach.

Proposers shall comply with all requirements of San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 14B, Local Business Enterprise Utilization and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance, and the applicable CMD forms included with this RFP. Please read CMD Attachment 2 for Architecture, Engineering and Professional Services carefully and in its entirety.

An LBE subconsultant must be certified by CMD in the scope of services that the prime Proposer is listing the LBE subconsultant to perform in order to receive LBE participation credit. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to verify each LBE subconsultant’s certification status, which can be done at the following link: https://sfgov.org/cmd. LBEs must be certified on the Proposal due date to receive LBE participation credit.

Each Proposer responding to this solicitation shall demonstrate in its Proposal that it has used good-faith efforts to select LBE Subcontractors as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code §§14B.8, 14B.9, and Chapter 14B’s Rules and Regulations and shall identify the particular LBE Subcontractors solicited and selected to perform work under the contract. For each LBE identified as a Subcontractor, the Proposal must specify the value of the participation as a percentage of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured, the type of work to be performed, and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the Proposal. LBEs identified as Subcontractors must be certified with the San Francisco Contract Monitoring Division at the time the proposal is submitted, and must be contacted by the Proposer prior to listing them as Subcontractors in the Proposal. Any Proposal that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph may be deemed non-responsive.

By submitting a Proposal to this RFP, Proposers acknowledge and agree to comply with both (1) the minimum 15% LBE subcontracting requirement with at least 13% participation by Micro-LBE and/or Small-LBE firms and (2) any additional subcontracting or outreach requirements that may be required as a condition of future funding sources.

https://sfgov.org/cmd

PWP-690 (4-26) 13 of 39 October 02, 2026

B. Potential Federal Funding Requirements

The contracts awarded under this RFP may become eligible for federal or other funding in the future. No federal funding has been secured or committed for this solicitation at this time. If future funding becomes available, additional subcontracting, outreach, or other funding-related requirements may apply to work funded by those sources. Any applicable requirements will be incorporated into the contract or applicable work authorization, as required.

C. LBE Subcontracting and Good Faith Outreach Forms

In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Section 14B.8(B), for the Proposer to be exempt from meeting the Good Faith Efforts requirements described in PART IV in CMD Attachment 2, the total amount of LBE participation must equal or exceed 20.25% (this percentage is the sum of the LBE subconsulting participation requirement(s) plus the 35% good faith efforts exemption).

Proposals which fail to comply with the material requirements of S.F. Administrative Code §§14B.8 and 14B.9, CMD Attachment 2, and this RFP, will be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected. During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of LBE subcontractor participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract. Proposers should note that the LBE subconsulting percentage(s) listed on their CMD Form 2A (the CMD Contract Participation Form) will be incorporated into the final Standard Agreement.

D. Reserved. (Application of LBE Rating Bonuses)

4.2 CMD Forms

Because LBE Subcontracting Participation Requirements apply to Contracts awarded pursuant to this Solicitation, Bidders must submit response packages that include the following CMD LBE Forms, which can be found in Attachment 6 of this Solicitation.

The applicable forms are:

• Form 2A – CMD Contract Participation Form

• Form 2B – CMD “Good Faith Efforts” Form. If a contractor’s proposed LBE subcontracting participation exceeds the sum of all LBE Subcontracting Participation Requirements for a Contract by at least 35%, the Bidder is excused from conducting or documenting its good faith efforts.

• Form 3 – CMD Non-Discrimination Affidavit

• Form 4 – CMD Joint Venture Form (if applicable)

Failure to complete, sign, and submit each of the required CMD/LBE forms with the proposal may result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive and rejected.

Direct all inquiries concerning the CMD LBE program to Ivan Oldenkamp, the CMD Contract Compliance Officer for the Port at ivan.oldenkamp@sfgov.org.The City strongly encourages proposals from qualified LBEs. If you have any questions concerning becoming certified as an LBE, please call (415) 554-0630 or visit the CMD website at http://www.sfgov.org/cmd.

mailto:ivan.oldenkamp@sfgov.org http://www.sfgov.org/cmd

PWP-690 (4-26) 14 of 39 October 02, 2026

4.3 LBE PAYMENT AND UTILIZATION TRACKING

The successful prime consultants and all participating subcontractors are required to use the Payment Module of the City’s Peoplesoft Financial Management System (FSP) and are required to submit CMD Payment Affidavits by confirming payments and entering payment data, unless instructed otherwise by CMD. Failure to submit all required payment information to the City’s Financial System with each payment request may result in withholding of 20% of the payment due. If assistance is needed, please contact user support at 1.415.944.2442 or by emailing sfcitypartnersupport@sfgov.org. Self-Service Training is also located on the web at:

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/training.aspx.

Contractors must submit all required payment information using the City’s new online Financial and Procurement System as required by CMD to enable the City to monitor Contractor’s compliance with the LBE subcontracting commitments. Contractor must include its LBE subcontractor’s approved payment requests in any payment application to the City within 30 days of receiving an invoice from an LBE subcontractor. Contractor shall pay its LBE subcontractors within three (3) working days after receiving payment from the City, except as otherwise authorized by the Chapter 14B LBE Ordinance. Failure to submit all required payment information in the Financial and Procurement System with each payment request may result in the Controller withholding 20% of the payment due pursuant to that invoice until the required payment information is provided. Following the City’s payment of an invoice, Contractor has ten (10) calendar days to acknowledge all subcontractors have been paid in the online Financial and Procurement System.

4.4 CMD COMPLIANCE OFFICER

The CMD Compliance Officer (CCO) for this Solicitation and any Contract awarded pursuant to this Solicitation is:

Ivan Oldenkamp Contract Monitoring Division City and County of San Francisco Email: ivan.oldenkamp@sfgov.org Website: www.sfgov.org/cmd mailto:sfcitypartnersupport@sfgov.org https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/pages/training.aspx mailto:ivan.oldenkamp@sfgov.org http://www.sfgov.org/cmd

PWP-690 (4-26) 15 of 39 October 02, 2026

Section 5 Evaluation and Selection Process

5.1 Evaluation Overview

The evaluation process will be conducted in three phases, as shown below. The Port will determine responsiveness of Proposals based on the Minimum Qualifications (“MQs”), Proposal completeness and compliance with Local Business Enterprise (LBE) requirements as determined by the City’s Contract Monitoring Division (CMD). Proposals that do not meet Minimum Qualifications and LBE requirements will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated further.

Written Proposals that pass the MQs and Proposal completeness review will be evaluated and scored by an Evaluation Panel composed of three or more individuals knowledgeable in the subject matter of this RFP.

Proposals will be evaluated and ranked separately for PED-North and PED-South. Up to three of the highest-scoring Proposers for each Plan Area will be invited to oral interviews.

Proposers will be evaluated and ranked according to their cumulative performance in the Written Proposal and Oral Interview, as described in this RFP. The highest-scoring Proposer for each Plan Area will be identified as the highest-ranked Proposer eligible to proceed to contract negotiations, subject to the terms of this RFP.

Evaluation Phase Maximum Points

Phase 1 - Minimum Qualifications and Proposal Completeness Review Pass/Fail

Phase 2 - Written Proposal N PED Consultant – 1000 Points S PED Consultant – 1000 Points

Phase 3 Oral Interviews and Presentations N PED Consultant – 1000 Points S PED Consultant – 1000 Points

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: N PED Consultant – 2000 Points S PED Consultant – 2000 Points

5.2 Minimum Qualifications

The minimum qualifications (“MQs”) set forth below are required for a Proposer to be eligible for further evaluation and award under this RFP. Proposers must complete and submit Attachment 3, Minimum Qualifications Template, with their Proposal, providing the information required to demonstrate each MQ. For each MQ, Proposers must provide supporting documentation that clearly demonstrates how the requirement is met within the Proposal, using relevant experience, such as past projects, and sufficient detail for the City to determine whether the MQ has been met.

PWP-690 (4-26) 16 of 39 October 02, 2026

Unless otherwise stated, the MQs apply to Proposals submitted for either PED-North or PED- South. Proposers submitting for both contracts must demonstrate that they meet the MQs for each Proposal.

Consultants who performed work for the Waterfront Resilience Program in a previous phase, either directly or indirectly through the Port, are not excluded from participating in this RFP.

However, such consultants may not use experience gained from their previous work on the Waterfront Resilience Program to satisfy the MQs listed below.

This screening is a pass/fail determination and a Proposal that fails to meet all the MQs will not be eligible for further consideration in the evaluation process. The City reserves the right to request clarifications from Proposers before rejecting a Proposal for failure to meet the MQs.

1. Prime Proposer or Joint Venture JV Minimum Qualifications

MQ # Description

MQ1 The Prime Proposer, or Lead JV Partner, if the Proposer is a Joint Venture, must meet one of the requirements below.