2026_1_3_Addendum 2_Questions Walnut Grove Tr.pdf

Addendum #2

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

RFP# 25-019

Pettit Creek Bridge Replacement – Owner provides answers to questions from interested firms

Bid Submission Deadline:

January 2, 2026

CARTERSVILLE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

100 Pine Grove Road

Cartersville, GA 30120

Walnut Grove Trail Reroute RFP

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS…

The RFP references two different submission 6mes—January 13 at 10:00 AM (Sec6on 4.A) and 11:00 AM (Sec6on 4.C). Could you please confirm the deadline?

The deadline is January 13, 2026 at 10:00am.

We wanted to clarify the City’s preferred method for proposal submission. Should proposals be submiMed electronically, via hard copy, or both? If hard copies are required, how many copies should be provided, and should all submiMals be delivered to the Cartersville Parks & Recrea6on Department?

Six hard copies should be submi?ed, along with a copy on a flash drive.

Does the City have a master plan for the park area located west of PeUt Creek that proposers should reference and incorporate in the loca6on of the trail?

No. The City does not have a master plan that incorporates this this porFon of trail.

Could you please clarify the City’s expectations regarding coordination with FEMA for the No- Rise Certification and/or CLOMR submittal? Specifically, should the designer anticipate serving as the primary point of contact with FEMA for preparation, submittal, and review coordination, or does the City plan to lead or share that role?

The designer will be responsible for submission of the required FEMA documents/studies/certifications concerning encroachment into the Floodway and Special Flood Hazard Area. These documents should be submitted to the City of Cartersville Public Works Department and FEMA, if required, for approval.

Given that the proposal window includes the holiday season and year-end, is the City considering an extension to the RFP deadline? If so, when is the RFP deadline extended to?

There will not be an extension to the RFP deadline.

The notes say 5 foot thick, but I would think this is a typo and should actually be 5 inches thick. I don't want to assume, so please just let me know.

It is a typo and should indicate 5-inches thick.

Is this Design-Build, or CMAR? (preference for DB).

It is a Design-Build.

Regarding the survey, can the City clarify what size trees will be required to show on the existing conditions survey? If we need to show trees, or even just the specimen trees on the plan, it could greatly impact the cost of that initial survey.

We are thinking the most appropriate tree to use is the Evergreen.

For the Flood Study, there are several possible scenarios depending on the interpretation of the rules for this area, which could result in a significant variation in fees. Since it is impossible to know the full extent of the flood study prior to performing our due diligence, would it be acceptable to list a range of anticipated fees as a separate line item, in lieu of trying to provide a fixed fee for this service?

It would certainly be acceptable to list a range of anticipated fee as a separate line item.

Are there any designated specimen trees or protected vegetation within the project limits that must be preserved, and if so, can the City provide their locations and any applicable protection requirements?

There are not any designated specimen trees.

Should the trail alignment generally follow the layout shown on the provided exhibits, or is the intent for the designer to adjust the alignment to follow existing contours to minimize grading and environmental disturbance?

The trail alignment should generally follow the layout shown in the provide exhibit.

Will the City provide wetland and stream delineation for the project area, or will this be the responsibility of the consultant, and if consultant provided should this be completed prior to Land Disturbance Permit submission?

It is the responsibility of the consultant.

Have any recent floodplain studies, hydraulic models, or floodway analyses been completed for the project area that could be made available to the design team?

There are no recent floodplain studies, hydraulic models or floodway analyses.

The RFP references an 8-foot-wide sidewalk with a thickness of 5 feet. Please confirm that the intended sidewalk thickness is 5 inches and advise whether any special or reinforced sidewalk section is required.

This was a typo and has been corrected to reflect a thickness of 5-inches. There is not special reinforced sidewalk section required, other than what is typical for floodway areas.

Are there any existing geotechnical reports for the project area, including reports prepared during construction of the adjacent water treatment plant, that can be provided for reference during design?

The latest GeoTechnical Report is attached.

What access does the city anticipate for construction on each side of the river, and should contractors assume use of the existing dirt access road on the west side or will alternate access routes be permitted?

Appropriate access will be provided on both sides, including the availability of the existing dirt access road on the west side.

What level of work is anticipated for tying into the existing sidewalk on the east side of the bridge, and should proposers assume only a direct sidewalk connection or are additional improvements such as ADA ramps or crosswalks expected?

The city is open to the varied ideas of consultants, including direct sidewalk connection, ADA ramps, crosswalks and/or raised footbridge.