WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL

UTAH STATION AREA ACCELERATOR

a WFRC-led project

Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued September 28, 2026

A. Summary Information

Please direct all pre-submission questions regarding this project to Andrea Pearson (andrea.pearson@wfrc.utah.gov).

PROJECT

Project Utah Station Area Accelerator

Source(s) of Funding Regional Infrastructure Accelerator Grant Build America Bureau, USDOT

Project Budget/Not to Exceed $985,000 total for consultant services

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

WFRC Project Manager (PM) Meg Padjen, Community and Economic Development Director Wasatch Front Regional Council 41 North Rio Grande St., Suite 103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 meg.padjen@wfrc.utah.gov

Project Partners ● Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG)

● Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)

● Utah Transit Authority (UTA)

● Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT)

● Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED)

● Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB)

● Governor’s Senior Advisor for Housing Strategy

● University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (KCGPI)

● Urban Lands Institute Utah Chapter (ULIU)

● Salt Lake Chamber

DATES

Posting of the RFP Monday, September 28, 2026 12:00 PM MT

Submission Deadline for RFP Friday, October 30, 2026 12:00 PM MT Responses submitted after this deadline will not be accepted.

Questions Regarding the RFP Due Thursday, October 15, 2026 12:00 PM MT

Clarifications to RFP Posted Monday, October 19, 2026 12:00 PM MT

Optional Interview(s) The Selection team may determine that it is necessary to conduct interviews in order to complete the selection process. If necessary, the target timeframe for the interview

RFP: Utah Station Area Accelerator | WFRC mailto:meg.padjen@wfrc.utah.gov mailto:andrea.pearson@wfrc.utah.gov sessions is November 9-13, 2026

Notice to Proceed Date To be issued by WFRC after contract execution.

Project Completion Date 20 months.

INSTRUCTIONS

Submittal Instructions This procurement is funded in whole or in part by federal grant funds and is subject to the procurement standards established in 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance), specifically 2 CFR § 200.318 through § 200.327, alongside applicable state and local procurement statutes (UT 63G-6a). Responses to this Request for Proposals must be contained in two separate PDF documents submitted by email to the WFRC Procurement Agent, Andrea Pearson (andrea.pearson@wfrc.utah.gov) prior to the submission deadline. Acknowledgement of receipt will be sent.

The Proposal must be formatted according to the page limits included within the RFP, including supplemental resumes and the cost proposal sheet. Minimum qualifications, scoring criteria, and other additional stipulations for proposals are specified in Section D of this RFP.

Questions and other correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals must be emailed to WFRC Procurement Agent, Andrea Pearson (andrea.pearson@wfrc.utah.gov) no later than 12:00 PM MDT on October 15, 2026. Any clarifications or additional information are anticipated to be shared publicly, online on WFRC’s Request for Proposals webpage by 12:00 PM MDT on October 19, 2026: https://wfrc.utah.gov/contact/request-for-proposals/

Cost Discussion Your Cost Proposal will be evaluated separately from your Technical Proposal. Therefore, you must submit two distinct documents.

Do not include any reference to project or task costs, pricing, rates, fees, or other cost-related information in the Technical Proposal.

Any Technical Proposal containing cost-related information will be deemed non-responsive and disqualified from consideration by the Selection Committee. It is permissible to include labor hours in the Technical Proposal.

Failure to submit a complete Cost Proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP will result in the entire Proposal being disqualified from consideration by the Selection Committee.

RFP: Utah Station Area Accelerator | WFRC https://wfrc.utah.gov/contact/request-for-proposals/

Instructions to Offerors The RFP is not intended to preclude a Proposer from providing relevant information necessary to demonstrate its ability to perform the Scope of Work; however, Proposals should directly address the requirements and evaluation criteria established in this RFP and must comply with the stated page limitations.

WFRC reserves the right and may reopen this solicitation, or create a new solicitation if it determines there may be more competition for the procurement item than when the original solicitation was posted.

RFP: Utah Station Area Accelerator | WFRC

B. Project Information Utah’s Wasatch Front is experiencing rapid growth, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity for strategic transportation infrastructure, housing, and economic development. Over the past two decades, Utah has emerged as a national leader in building an integrated, multimodal transit network—adding more than 140 miles of light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit through major investments like the $2.8 billion FrontLines 2015 initiative. This buildout has laid the groundwork for compact, transit-connected growth across the region. Building on that foundation—and with leadership from local communities and regional planning agencies, and strong support from the Governor and Utah State Legislature, including $5 million in state funding—Utah launched a station area planning initiative requiring each jurisdiction with a fixed-guideway transit station to adopt a locally-tailored station area plan. This effort is being implemented through a partnership led by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland Association of Governments, and the Utah Transit Authority.

To date, 100 station area plans have been certified, and that number continues to grow as additional communities complete their planning. These locally adopted plans form a strong and expanding foundation for walkable, mixed-use, transit-connected communities—and together they represent one of the most comprehensive station area development planning efforts in the nation.

The need for next-phase implementation support is urgent. The Utah Station Area Accelerator (SA2) will provide it. Utah’s certified station area plans have created a deep pipeline of projects with land use readiness and local support but without sufficient financial packaging capacity. The SA2 is uniquely positioned to bridge that gap—initially through federal grant support, and ultimately as a potentially self-sustaining platform delivering project acceleration and access to federal credit tools, such as TIFIA and RRIF.

The SA2 will help communities translate planning into action by identifying high-potential station area joint development projects, structuring them for financing, and supporting credit applications to programs like TIFIA and RRIF. As part of this work, the SA2 will also explore bundling multiple station area projects under a single TIFIA or RRIF Master Credit Agreement, enabling communities to pool resources, reduce transaction costs, and unlock federal financing at scale.

WFRC, the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the majority of the greater Salt Lake metropolitan area, will administer the project with partnership from the Mountainland Association of Governments MPO and a coalition of state entities, local governments, university partners, and private sector institutions.

With support from this Regional Infrastructure Accelerator (RIA) grant, this collaborative, phased approach will deliver hands-on support to 3–5 priority station areas in the first two years, helping local sponsors navigate project feasibility, financial structuring, and federal credit access. At the same time, the SA2 will lay the groundwork for long-term institutional capacity by sharing best practices and knowledge with our consortium of partners and exploring cost-sharing models for sustained SA2 support beyond the grant term.

With strong regional alignment, a deep and growing project pipeline, and a clear strategy for bridging planning and capital delivery, Utah’s Station Area Accelerator is ready to move from vision to execution.

THREE ROLES, PROCURED INDIVIDUALLY, ONE SCOPE OF WORK

Three distinct roles/teams will be procured to complete this effort under this single solicitation.

The three distinct roles will work together on one scope of work and each within their specific area of expertise, and coordinate with one another both directly and under the direction of the WFRC Project Manager. The Scope of Work laid out below assigns every task to one of the three roles and identifies where a role must support another role's deliverable. Following the award, the proposed approaches of the selected teams will be synthesized together to form one master scope of work, included within each respective contract, clearly stating which consultant is responsible for each task. Offerors must identify on the cover page of their submittal each role for which they are proposing. A respondent may propose to one role, to two, or to all three, whether as a single firm or as a team of firms; a response covering more than one role must be capable of being awarded role by role, and must present a separate approach, schedule and cost proposal for each. There is no preference for or against a multi-role response.

The three roles are as follows; offers should clearly identify which role they are submitting a proposal for on the cover page of their submittal.

A. Innovative Finance and Capital Strategy Advisor.

Provides specialized expertise in building the program, guiding project work overall, and navigating federal credit assistance, principally the TIFIA and RRIF loan programs. Generally, this role will advise communities and private partners for selected stations as to what financing tools and mechanisms are available to progress transit-oriented development, whether through TIFIA, RRIF or another applicable federal, state, local or private process. This individual or team will serve as a project development advisor to help structure a scalable approach to credit assistance, potentially through a master loan agreement that bundles multiple station area projects into a single TIFIA or RRIF loan, or other financing vehicle, structuring finance packages, and guiding application preparation for eligible station area joint development projects.

B. Station Area Development & Public-Private Partnership (P3) Specialist.

Brings experience in structuring public-private partnerships. This role focuses on facilitating integrated station area development and mixed-use development near transit through innovative procurement and joint development strategies. This person or team should advise communities on creative next steps to advance their station area plans, and seek solutions where barriers prevent implementation.

C. Stakeholder Engagement & Outreach Coordinator.

Brings experience with engagement around transit-oriented development / station-area planning;

manages engagement strategies with local governments, transit agencies, and community groups to ensure alignment, transparency, and sustained support across project development phases. Advises WFRC on communication around station area development implementation beyond the length of the RIA funded effort.

PROJECT SCHEDULE BY PHASE

Milestone Target Date

Performance Metric

Phase 1

RIA Kickoff and Staff Month Executive and advisory roles filled; interagency coordination group Onboarded 1-2 convened

Initial Screening and Project Month Comprehensive inventory of completed station area plans and joint Inventory Completed 3 development opportunities statewide

Local and Private Sector Months Initial round of meetings with mayors, city staff, and other local Engagement Process 3-6 stakeholders to validate station area project scope, timeline, and public goals, and identify priority pipeline

Priority Pipeline Evaluation Month Selection of 4-5 high-readiness sites for detailed technical assistance and Selection by RIA for 7 In-Depth Analysis

Screen for TIFIA/RRIF credit Month Referencing the Bureau’s Credit Programs guidance, evaluate statutory eligibility and other federal, 7 eligibility, sponsor readiness, creditworthiness, and legal or financial state, or local funding or barriers. Evaluate other potential federal, state, local or private funding or finance opportunities finance opportunities that could support project feasibility.

Phase 2

Pipeline Development Month Priority site stakeholders engaged to describe the credit support Workshop 8 opportunity and evaluation process, receive feedback

Technical Assistance Phase Months In-depth analysis launched for selected priority sites: market demand, 8-14 feasibility, value capture, and capital stack modeling

Credit Packaging and Month Viable projects prepared for credit support: draft pro formas, term Strategy Drafted 15 sheets, or Master Credit Agreement structure outlined

Priority Site Implementation Month Convening of project sponsors and stakeholders to refine pipeline and Credit Support 16-17 strategy and receive feedback Opportunity Workshop

Final Pipeline Refinement Month Refined pipeline report; summary of RIA outcomes, lessons learned, and and RIA Milestone Summary 18 recommendations for future phases Report

Phase 3

Project Advancement and Month Preparation of toolkit converting products from priority sites to regionally Federal Credit Support 19-20 applicable and available resource; sponsor handoff of complete package Initiated and implementation path

SCOPE OF WORK

How this Scope of Work is organized

This Scope of Work describes a single program of work divided into numbered tasks. Every task is assigned to one of the three roles described in Section B of this RFP, designated Role A, Role B and Role C. Respondents propose to fill one or more complete roles; they do not propose to complete individual tasks, and they do not propose to fill part of a role.

Following award, the approaches of the selected teams will be consolidated by WFRC into one master scope of work, which will be attached to each contract with the responsible party identified for every task. The task numbering used below will be carried into that master scope so that responsibility, deliverable, schedule and budget remain traceable from this solicitation through to contract administration and federal reporting.

Role assignment convention

● Lead. The role accountable for the task, its deliverable, its schedule and its budget.

● Support. A role that must contribute defined input to another role's deliverable, and must price that contribution, but does not own the deliverable.

● WFRC. Performed by WFRC or partner agency staff. Not procured under this RFP and not to be priced by respondents.

The three roles

Role Title Principal focus Indicative budget

A Innovative Finance and Capital Strategy Advisor

Financing structure, program eligibility, repayment source and transaction scale, including master credit agreement strategy and the routes available where federal credit does not fit.

[$475,000]

B Station Area Development and Public-Private Partnership (P3) Specialist

Development program, land control and assembly, entitlement path, infrastructure cost, and the partnership or joint development structure through which a project is delivered.

[$385,000]

C Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach Coordinator

Engagement of communities, sponsors, partner agencies and elected officials, including those whose station areas are not selected, and the transparency of the selection process.

[$125,000]

Total procured under this RFP [$985,000]

Compensation structure

Each contract awarded under this RFP comprises a firm fixed price for the base scope and an additional services allowance.

Base scope

The base scope comprises all tasks set out in Sections 4 through 8 of this Scope of Work, performed for four station areas. Respondents shall propose a single firm fixed price for the base scope of each role to which they propose. The firm fixed price is not subject to adjustment for the Consultant's actual level of effort.

Additional services allowance

Each award includes an additional services allowance in the amount stated below. The allowance is not part of the firm fixed price and is not priced by respondents. WFRC may authorize all, part or none of the allowance during the contract term, and no respondent should assume any part of it.

Additional services shall be authorized only by written task authorization issued in advance of the work, stating the scope, the deliverable, the schedule and a not-to-exceed amount, and priced at the Consultant's contract rate schedule or at a fixed price derived from it. The allowance is not available to fund any increase in the cost of the base scope.

Additional services may include in-depth technical assistance for a fifth station area; further analysis of a selected station area where the constraint identified under Task 2.0 requires work beyond the base allocation; discrete work identified under Task 2.0 as necessary to the program and not provided for in the base scope, extended support under Phase 3 for a sponsor that elects to proceed, or additional scope under Phase 3 related to the Station Area Accelerator Toolkit development and Station Area Accelerator sustainability recommendations. A recommendation on the use of the allowance is a deliverable of Task 2.0.

Role Firm fixed base scope Additional services allowance Total

A [$400,000] [$75,000] [$475,000]

B [$325,000] [$60,000] [$385,000]

C [$125,000] — [$125,000]

Total [$850,000] [$135,000] [$985,000]

What the firm fixed price includes

The firm fixed price shall be inclusive of all costs of performing the base scope, including professional labor, subconsultants, travel and subsistence, data and subscriptions, reproduction and production, and every other direct and indirect cost. No cost of performing the base scope shall be invoiced separately, and WFRC will not reimburse expenses in addition to the firm fixed price.

Three categories of cost fall outside the firm fixed price:

● Data and information furnished by WFRC under Section B, including the station area inventory, the geographic information systems layers, parcel and assessor data, and licensed market data. Where a respondent requires a dataset beyond those furnished, it shall identify the dataset, its source and its cost in the Cost Proposal.

● Third-party reports commissioned on specific parcels, including title reports, appraisals and environmental database searches. The number and location of such reports cannot be determined before the priority station areas are selected. They shall be authorized under the additional services allowance and shall not be priced in the base scope.

● Venue and meeting logistics for the convenings required by Task 2.8, which WFRC will furnish. The Consultant is responsible for facilitation, content and materials within the firm fixed price.

Subconsultants

Respondents shall name each proposed subconsultant, state the scope of work it will perform and the tasks to which it is assigned, and include its labor categories and rates in the rate schedule within the Cost Proposal. Substitution of a named subconsultant requires WFRC’s prior written approval.

Rate schedule

Respondents shall submit a schedule of loaded hourly rates by labor category, for the respondent and for each named subconsultant, binding for the contract term. Rates shall be inclusive of overhead, fringe benefits, profit and all indirect costs, and no further charge shall apply to an authorized hour. The Rate Schedule must be submitted with the Cost Proposal only.

The rate schedule serves two purposes: it informs WFRC’s evaluation, and it prices additional services if WFRC authorizes any. The firm fixed price for the base scope is not billed hourly, and the rate schedule is not a billing instrument under the base scope.

No points are awarded or withheld on the basis that one respondent’s rates are higher or lower than another’s. Respondents are scored on the criteria stated in Section F: Evaluation and Selection, which address the credibility of the proposed hourly rates as compared to range identified by the independent cost estimate, the total cost as compared to WFRC’s independent cost estimate, and completeness.

Basis of price evaluation

The firm fixed price stated for each role in this Section is a not-to-exceed amount. A Proposal whose firm fixed price exceeds that amount may be deemed non-responsive.

What is evaluated is the credibility of the proposed hourly rates as compared to range identified by the independent cost estimate, the total cost as compared to WFRC’s independent cost estimate, and completeness.

The figures stated in this Section are planning allocations. WFRC reserves the right to adjust the hourly allocation between personnel and between phases during scope and fee negotiation and during the contract term, in each case within the total award and consistent with the scope of work as filed with the Build America Bureau.

What WFRC provides

WFRC and its partners provide the following at no cost to the Consultant. Respondents shall not price them:

● The station area inventory across both the WFRC and Mountainland Association of Governments regions, with comparable data fields populated for every station area — identity and geography, plan and certification status, development capacity, land ownership, transit service, and market indicators — together with the underlying geographic information systems layers, parcel and assessor data, and licensed market data.

● Program management, Build America Bureau reporting, financial administration and grant compliance.

● Convening and staffing of the Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee, including agendas, materials and minutes.

● Receipt, logging and acknowledgement of station area nominations from communities.

● Every screening and selection decision. Consultants analyze and recommend; WFRC decides; the Regional Council receives.

Respondents should assume a populated station area inventory is available at Notice to Proceed.

Where a respondent believes a specific additional dataset is required for the role it is proposing to, it should identify the dataset, its source and its cost in the Project Approach rather than assume it.

Schedule basis

Tasks in this Scope of Work are expressed as weeks from Notice to Proceed, abbreviated NTP, with the corresponding grant milestone identified for each.

Phase 0 — Mobilization and method

Phase 0 covers mobilization and the establishment of criteria and method. Phase 0 provides for their review and refinement by the selected teams before they are applied, and for the integration of the three roles into a single work plan.

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone

0.1

Master scope and integrated work plan

A B C WFRC A single master scope of work and integrated work plan covering all three roles, in WFRC contract format, with a task-level budget by personnel and by subconsultant, a master project schedule, and a written protocol for coordination between the roles including how disagreement between roles is escalated to

WFRC.

Standard: Adopted by WFRC and attached to all three contracts.

NTP + 2

weeks

0.2

Establish screening criteria framework

A B C This task is to create a screening criteria framework for evaluating stations. Criteria should address market conditions, infrastructure needs, property owner buy-in, financing eligibility, etc. The framework should be organized into three Tiers as referenced in future phases so that initial evaluation can be streamlined and objective, and further evaluation can rely on inputs gathered from future engagement.

Standard: WFRC accepts the criteria framework. No Tier 1 scoring is run, and no criteria are published, before this task is complete.

NTP + 5

weeks

0.3

Master credit agreement feasibility

A — A written record of substantive engagement with the Build America Bureau on whether a pooled credit facility with multiple municipal sponsors will be entertained, and on what terms: the obligor structure required, whether sponsors must be jointly and

NTP + 5

weeks

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone severally liable, how the Bureau's outside financial and legal advisor costs are recovered across a pool, and what minimum aggregate scale makes a pool worth assembling. Includes a recommendation on what this means for the screening criteria and for what WFRC should be telling communities.

Standard: Findings are reflected in the Tier 3 tests before any shortlist is produced, and in the published criteria.

0.4

Engagement plan and message architecture

C A B An engagement plan covering the full remaining term, including: the contact protocol with communities and who speaks for the program; the sequence and format of community, sponsor and private sector engagement;

coordination of messaging with the Mountainland Association of Governments, the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah Department of Transportation; materials for the Steering and Advisory Committees; and the design of the non-selection package required at Task 1.7.

Standard: Adopted by WFRC.

NTP + 4

weeks

Phase 1: Screening and Prioritization

In the first phase, the project team will conduct a comprehensive assessment of all certified station area plans developed pursuant to state law (HB 462), together with station areas whose plans are adopted or in progress but not yet certified, and related eligible station area joint development opportunities identified through regional planning efforts or local initiatives outside a certified plan area. The assessment is comprehensive by design; the in-depth technical assistance that follows is narrowed to four to five priority projects. Approximately nine station areas are assessed for every one that advances to Phase 2. The screening method proposed must be economical enough per station area to be applied across the full inventory. This will include:

● Data-driven screening using GIS and market analytics to score station areas and project concepts by criteria such as land availability, land ownership, market strength, sponsor capacity, and proximity to existing transit infrastructure;

● Stakeholder engagement, including meetings with mayors, city planners, private developers, transit agencies, and other stakeholders to validate project scope, assess local support, and identify opportunities for public-private collaboration;

● Vetting of development potential through interviews with private sector stakeholders, including developers, landowners, and potential project sponsors, to assess market interest and development feasibility, as well as alignment with the cities’ station area plans;

● Early-stage coordination with property owners, where possible, to identify willing participants and gauge support for advancing specific sites into the project pipeline;

● Preliminary readiness assessments to evaluate policy alignment, infrastructure needs, entitlement status, and potential for credit enhancement.

Phase 1 is structured as a 3 tiered funnel. Tier 1 is a desk screen run on data WFRC already holds.

Tier 2 is a sponsor readiness assessment conducted through conversation. Tier 3 is a credit and financeability screen. Each tier is narrower and involves a more thorough station area assessment of the potential candidates.

We anticipate this phase will result in a prioritized list of 4-5 priority station areas with high-potential projects for further analysis, with the number scaled based on the available grant budget.

Anticipated Phase 1 Screening Process

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone

1.1 C A B The screening criteria, weights, scoring rubric, NTP + 6

Publication of tie-breaks and any portfolio rules published in a form weeks criteria and communities can read, before any scoring is run, process together with a plain-language explanation of how the process works and what a community can expect.

Standard: Published and accessible before Task 1.2 begins. WFRC approves content.

1.2

Tier 1 desk screen

B A A scored assessment of every station area in the inventory against the published criteria, delivered as a workbook, with: a one-line source note recorded against every score; missing data recorded as missing rather than scored as zero; independent scoring by two scorers with any divergence of two or more points reconciled in writing rather than averaged; a sensitivity test shifting each weight by plus and minus five points, reporting whether the composition of the shortlist changes; and a documented rationale at every elimination, not only at the final cut. Output is a shortlist of twelve to fifteen station areas.

Standard: WFRC accepts the workbook, the documented rationale and the sensitivity test. Scoring records are prepared on the assumption that they will become public records.

NTP + 12

weeks

1.3

Community and sponsor engagement round

C B Structured engagement with communities across the inventory — not only those on the Tier 1 shortlist — to validate project scope, assess local support, identify public-private opportunities, and surface work already done. Includes meetings with mayors, city planners and city engineering staff, coordination with the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah Department of Transportation, and a written record of each conversation in a common format.

Standard: Every community with a certified or in-progress station area plan has been contacted and offered a conversation, and the record is complete.

NTP + 16

weeks

Anticipated Phase 1 Screening Process

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone

1.4 B C Assessment of the twelve to fifteen shortlisted station NTP + 20

Tier 2 sponsor areas against sponsor readiness criteria: whether the weeks readiness project is a formal council and mayoral priority or a assessment staff aspiration; willingness to take specific enabling actions such as rezoning, land disposition, formation of a community reinvestment agency or district, or an infrastructure cost share; verification of land control and owner willingness, including any Utah Transit Authority or other public disposition intent; staff capacity, named and quantified; prior studies in hand;

and timeline alignment. Nomination responses received by WFRC are evidence at this tier. A community that did not nominate is assessed nonetheless. Narrows to eight to ten.

Standard: WFRC accepts the assessment and its documented basis.

1.5

Tier 3 credit and financeability screen

A B A screen of the eight to ten remaining station areas structured as gates plus quantitative analysis rather than as a weighted score, covering: statutory eligibility under TIFIA, RRIF or another applicable federal, state, local or private program; a transportation benefit and loan sizing sensitivity run against the methodology in force; identification of a dedicated or plausibly dedicable repayment source and its coverage; obligor capacity and creditworthiness; suitability for inclusion in a pooled facility and what that implies for structure and liability; a non-federal alternative route; and deliverability within the program horizon.

Standard: Each remaining station area carries a documented, defensible credit determination. Reasons for elimination are recorded.

NTP + 25

weeks

1.6

Priority pipeline recommendation

A B C A joint recommendation of four to five priority projects for Phase 2, ranked in priority order, together with one to two alternates identified in case WFRC authorizes additional services under Section 1. Delivered with the full scoring record, the application of any published portfolio rules shown on its face, and an explicit statement of what would have to change for a non-selected station area to become competitive.

Standard: Delivered to WFRC for decision.

NTP + 28

weeks

Phase 2: In-Depth Analysis and Pipeline Development

In Phase 2, the project team will provide targeted technical assistance to the selected cities/projects, with the goal of advancing them to a state of credit readiness and financing eligibility. The team will also identify immediate next steps that will catalyze implementation of the station area plan, as well as resources, loan programs, financing mechanisms, partnerships, etc. to enable them. This phase will include:

● Site-specific feasibility assessments, including land use analysis, infrastructure needs, phasing strategies, and development capacity modeling;

● Financial structuring, including development of preliminary pro formas, identification of funding gaps, value capture potential (e.g., tax increment, land leases, or joint venture structures), and capital stack strategies;

● Credit-readiness evaluation, determining whether each project is suited for individual TIFIA or RRIF loans, inclusion in a TIFIA/RRIF Master Credit Agreement, or another structured financing approach;

● Legal and regulatory review support, including documentation of zoning compliance, entitlement status, environmental review considerations, right-of-way constraints, letters of intent or interest from willing sellers, and preliminary development or disposition agreements;

● Market validation and sponsor coordination, to confirm demand projections and assess the capacity and readiness of the project sponsors (e.g., municipalities, housing authorities, or private developers);

● Refinement of development scenarios, iterating with public and private stakeholders to align financial feasibility with public objectives, transit goals, and long-term station area plans.

This phase ensures that the most promising projects are supported with rigorous, actionable analysis and structured in a way that aligns with federal credit programs. By the end of Phase 2, each candidate project or group of projects will have a clear path toward financing, including the technical groundwork necessary to pursue TIFIA or RRIF assistance, or other federal, state, local or private financing or funding strategies.

The Phase 2 budget supports approximately $150,000 of consultant effort per station area. We anticipate that this amount is less than the cost of performing every analysis described in this Section at full depth for every site. Therefore, we expect the selected station areas will receive differing packages of work, scoped to the constraints identified for each. Respondents shall not expect an equal division of the Phase 2 budget across the selected station areas. Task 2.0, described in the table below, shall (i) establish the respective station area allocation in writing, for WFRC’s approval, before substantive Phase 2 work begins, and (ii) make recommendations for the additional services allowance described in Section 1.

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone

2.0

Per station area diagnostic and work plan

A B C A single integrated document covering all selected station areas, delivered within four weeks of the priority pipeline decision. For each station area it states: the binding constraint on the project; what analysis that station area therefore requires and, equally important, what it does not; how the work divides between Role A

NTP + 32

weeks

Month 8 milestone and Role B for that site; the share of the Phase 2 budget the site will draw; and any respect in which the site's needs exceed what that share supports. It concludes with a recommendation on use of the additional services allowance, addressing whether remaining capacity is better applied to an additional station area or to further depth on a selected station area, and the cost of each at the contract rate schedule.

Standard: Approved by WFRC before substantive Phase 2 work begins on any site. The allocation between sites is expected to be unequal; the document must justify the inequality rather than assume an even division. Where a station area requires less than its indicative share, the Consultant shall report that to WFRC rather than absorb it into that station area's work. Authorization of the allowance is at WFRC's discretion and the recommendation does not commit it.

2.1 B — For each priority project, to the depth and emphasis set NTP + 32 to

Site feasibility for that site by the Task 2.0 diagnostic: land use 60 weeks and analysis, development capacity modelling, phasing Months development strategy, site assembly analysis, and identification of the 8–14 capacity entitlement path including any rezone, overlay or code amendment required.

Standard: Analysis sufficient for a developer or lender to evaluate the site, at the depth the station area's allocation supports.

2.2

Infrastructure definition and cost estimation

B — Definition of the public infrastructure required to unlock each priority project — utilities, streets, access, structured parking, public space — with engineering-grade order-of-magnitude cost estimates and a phasing sequence. Respondents should expect to carry appropriate engineering capability, whether in-house or as a named subconsultant.

Standard: Estimates are of a quality a lender's technical advisor would accept as a starting point.

NTP + 32 to 60 weeks

Months 8–14

2.3 B A Confirmation of demand projections for each priority NTP + 34 to

Market project — absorption, rents, values, product type — and 56 weeks validation assessment of the capacity and readiness of the project sponsor, whether a municipality, housing authority, transit agency or private developer.

Standard: Conclusions are sourced and testable, and reconcile with the assumptions used in Task 2.4.

Months 8–14

2.4

Financial structuring and capital stack

A B For each priority project: preliminary pro formas, identification of the funding gap, capital stack strategy, and sensitivity analysis on the assumptions that determine feasibility.

Standard: Models are delivered to WFRC in native, unlocked, fully formula-driven form with assumptions

NTP + 40 to 60 weeks

Months 8–15 milestone documented and separable from calculations.

2.5 A B Analysis of value capture and repayment potential for NTP + 40 to

Value capture each priority project — tax increment and community 60 weeks and repayment reinvestment agency capacity, public infrastructure Months structuring districts, special assessments, ground lease income, joint venture structures — and the coverage each could support.

Standard: Each priority project carries an identified repayment route or a documented finding that none exists.

8–15

2.6

Credit readiness determination

A — For each priority project, a determination of whether it is suited to an individual TIFIA or RRIF loan, to inclusion in a Master Credit Agreement with other projects, to a state, local or private financing route, or to none — with the reasoning and the conditions attaching to each.

Standard: Determination is documented against the applicable program requirements and is capable of being defended to the Build America Bureau.

NTP + 56

weeks

Month 15

2.7

High level compliance and regulatory review

A B — Credit and financing feasibility review, led by Role A: loan and credit agreement structures, obligor and security questions, pooled facility documentation, and the federal requirements attaching to the applicable program. Land, entitlement and transaction review, led by Role B: zoning compliance and entitlement status, environmental review considerations, right-of-way constraints, letters of intent or interest from willing sellers, and preliminary development or disposition agreements. Respondents should identify the legal capability they will bring and whether it is in-house or a named subconsultant.

Standard: Each priority project carries a documented compliance and regulatory status and recommendations of any changes that should be considered.

NTP + 34 to 60 weeks

Months 8–15

2.8 C A B Two convenings: a pipeline development workshop for NTP + 32

Workshops priority site stakeholders, explaining the credit support opportunity and the evaluation process and taking feedback; and a priority site implementation and credit support workshop later in the phase, refining the pipeline strategy. Roles A and B present substantive content at both.

Standard: Held on schedule, with materials, attendance and feedback documented.

weeks; NTP + 64 weeks

Month 8;

Months 16–17

2.9 C A B Sustained coordination with project sponsors, partner NTP + 30 to

Sponsor and agencies, elected officials and private participants 68 weeks partner across the phase, including the Steering and Advisory Months coordination Committees, and management of communication with communities not selected.

Standard: Continuous. No sponsor or partner learns of a material development in this program from a third party.

8–18 milestone

2.10 A B C — The analytical templates, financial models, term sheet NTP + 68

Toolkit and forms, procurement and joint development structures, weeks transferable and method guidance developed for the priority projects, Month 18 products generalised so that a community not selected can use them. Built as the work proceeds, not assembled at the end.

Standard: WFRC receives an unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, distribute and sublicense every template, model and analytical product produced under this contract, including in derivative form. No product on which WFRC's continuing use depends may be licensed back from the consultant.

2.11 A B C A refined pipeline report and a summary of program NTP + 70

Final pipeline outcomes to date, lessons learned, and weeks refinement and recommendations for subsequent phases, in a form Month 18 milestone suitable for submission to the Build America Bureau, summary report reporting change against the baseline captured at the start of the program.

Standard: Accepted by WFRC as satisfying the Month 18 grant milestone.

2.12 A B C For each selected station area, whether or not it elects to NTP + 70

Implementation proceed toward financing: the credit readiness weeks packet determination and its basis; the financial model in native, unlocked form; the site feasibility, infrastructure cost and market work; and a route map stating the financing structure recommended, the steps required, whose consent or participation is needed, the indicative timetable, and what the sponsor should expect to spend on its own financial and legal advisors and on the Bureau's advisor cost recovery.

Standard: Delivered at the close of Phase 2, so that a sponsor decides whether to proceed with full cost information in hand. Sufficient for a sponsor's own advisor to take up the work without repeating it.

Month 18

Phase 3: Credit Packaging and Project Advancement

Phase 3 runs for approximately two months at the end of the grant term and has two purposes. The first is to convert what the priority projects produced into products that communities not selected for participation in the Station Area Accelerator can use. The second is to initiate financing for any project that elects to proceed, and to hand that sponsor a complete package and a clear route forward.

Phase 3 does not carry a project to financial close. Preparation and prosecution of a federal credit application is sponsor-side work, undertaken by the sponsor with its own financial and legal advisors.

● Transferable products and regional delivery. The larger part of the Phase 3 allocation funds the generalization, publication and delivery of the products developed for the priority station areas, so that communities not selected for in-depth assistance receive usable value from the program. Task 2.10 requires those products to be built in reusable form as the work proceeds;

Phase 3 completes, packages and distributes them.

● Credit initiation and handoff. The balance of Phase 3 funds initiation and handoff for projects that elect to proceed. Not every selected station area is expected to reach that point within the grant term, and the allocation is not divided evenly among those that do.

Task Lead Support Deliverable, and the standard it must meet Due / milestone

3.1

Regional toolkit — completion and generalization

A B C The products developed under Task 2.10, generalized for use by any station area in either region and completed for publication: the screening method as a self-assessment tool; financial model templates in native, unlocked form; a credit eligibility self-screen;

joint development and public-private partnership structure templates; infrastructure cost benchmarks drawn from the priority projects; and a typology of the barriers most often encountered and the actions that address them, drawn from the Tier 2 record.

Standard: Usable by a community with planning staff and no financial advisor. WFRC receives maintainable source versions under the data rights terms at Task 2.10.

NTP + 76

weeks

Month 19

3.2

Toolkit delivery and regional convening

C A B Publication of the toolkit; direct delivery to every community with a certified or in-progress station area plan across both regions; a closing convening or briefing series presenting the products and the program's findings; and a written record of what each community received and how to use it.

Standard: Every community contacted during Phase 1 receives the toolkit and an explanation of how to apply it to its own station area.

NTP + 82

weeks

Month 20

3.3

Credit initiation and handoff

A B C For each project that elects to proceed: coordination with the Build America Bureau or other applicable program to open the process; preparation of the initial materials that program requires to begin; introduction and handoff to the sponsor's own financial and legal advisors; and a written record of positions taken and commitments received. Does not include preparation or prosecution of the full application.

Standard: The sponsor is in a live process with a named program contact and its own advisor engaged. WFRC's role ends at handoff.

NTP + 76 to 84 weeks

Months 19–20

3.4

Sustainability recommendation

A B C An updated pipeline strategy incorporating lessons learned and new opportunities, preparation for subsequent rounds of technical assistance or financing, and a recommendation on how the Accelerator function can be sustained beyond the grant term — including

NTP + 84

weeks

Month 20 milestone cost-sharing models, the institutional home, and what capability WFRC and its partners would need to retain.

Standard: Delivered as a decision document WFRC can act on, not a summary of what happened.

C. Budget The total available funds for consultant services is $985,000. The three roles procured under this RFP will be covered within this total budget. Section 1 of the Scope of Work states the indicative budget for each role. Those allocations are planning figures. WFRC reserves the right to adjust the allocation between roles and between phases during scope and fee negotiation, within the total award and consistent with the project scope.

D. Proposal Format Consultants must follow the formatting rules and outline below.

Team Resumes Supplemental pages with team resumes may be provided in addition to the team overview. Proposal submission shall be made via email as two PDF documents according to the Submittal Instructions in Section A of the RFP.

Page Definition, Font A page is defined as a single-sided 8.5" x 11" sized sheet that contains text, pictures, tables, graphs, charts, plan sheets, or any other graphics. A single section separator page with less than 20 words does not count as a page. The expected font size and page margins for the body of content are 11pt minimum and no less than 0.75 inches, respectively (page numbers and headers not included).

Links Do not include a reference or links to additional information. WFRC will instruct the selection team to not refer to provided links.

Outline Proposals must be formatted with the following sections, and adhere to the specified page limits:

● Cover: Content limited to image, project title, firm name, and firm logos. 1 page.

● Cover Letter: 1 page.

● Project Understanding: 1 page.

● Project Approach: 4 pages PER ROLE.

● Project Team: Qualifications, experience, and capabilities of the proposed project personnel, emphasizing collaborative project work together or with others: 4 pages PER ROLE.

● Project Example: Describe a similar or relevant effort led by your firm or team demonstrating the team’s capability to do the work. 1 page PER ROLE.

○ Include the following:

■ Name of project manager

■ Team members involved if included in proposal

■ Year

■ Project name

■ Project location

■ Project description

■ Services performed/project role

● Project Schedule: duration of each task in hours, by subconsultant and specific to personnel or position, and suggested timeline of project by task. 1 page.

● References (2): Two client references. Include email and telephone contact information.

Project reference interviews will be conducted by the Selection Committee. 1 page.

● Supplemental Information:

○ Limited to team members' resumes. 2 pages per member.

● Attachment #1: Cost Proposal Sheet (submitted as a separate pdf)

○ Must include a table reflecting the Project Schedule above, showing budget allocated by task and by subconsultant, at a minimum. All anticipated costs for travel and expenses should be included in the proposed budget. The Cost Proposal Sheet must state a firm fixed price for the base scope of four station areas, which must not exceed the amount stated for that role in the Scope of Work and must be inclusive of all costs of performance as required by the Scope of Work. Tasks must be identified using the task numbering in the Scope of Work. For each task, state the hours proposed by named individual and by the Offeror's own labor categories, together with the rate applied to each. Each proposed subconsultant must be named with its scope and assigned tasks stated. A schedule of loaded hourly rates for the Offeror and each named subconsultant, binding for the contract term and inclusive of overhead, fringe benefits, profit and all indirect costs, must accompany the Cost Proposal Sheet.

Offerors must not price the additional services allowance described in the Scope of Work and must not include it in the firm fixed price.