27-034 RFP Adm 3 - Posted.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

NO. 27-034

US 40 SHARED USE PATH-ABERDEEN TRAIN STATION TO HAVRE DE GRACE

ADDENDUM NO. 3

September 2, 2026

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please see the attached questions that were posted before the due date and time.

Question #1: Attachment A-2 (PDF Page 25) of the RFP states, "It is requested that the Consultant provide an exhibit within the proposal to show the limits of the survey anticipated for this work." Would the County permit this exhibit to be included in Section H of the proposal and presented on an 11" x 17" format?

Answer #1: Yes, that is acceptable.

Question #2: Could you please confirm whether the required Harford County Attachments E, F, G, and H should be included in Section I of the proposal along with the required SHA forms, including the Affidavit and MDOT Israel Certification?

Answer #2: Yes, that is acceptable.

Question #3: On Page 1 of the RFP, it states that questions must be emailed to the Procurement Agent. However, Page 3 instructs proposers to submit all questions through eMMA. Could you please clarify the preferred method for submitting questions?

Answer #3: All questions should be posted through eMMA. If you are unable to do so, please email the procurement agent.

Question #4: Could the County please confirm that the total funding authority for this contract shall not exceed $700,000.00? Based on our review, the scope of the project does not appear to be commensurate with the stated total funding authority.

Answer #4: Yes, total funding for this preliminary phase is $700,000.00

Question #5: Are any firms precluded from submitting on this RFP?

Answer #5: No, as long as firms meet the requirements stated in the RFP.

Question #6: Is street lighting expected to be analyzed for US 40, or only for the bike facility?

Answer #6: Only for the bike facility for this RFP.

Question #7: The evaluation criteria list "Key Staff" as 30% of the total score. Please elaborate on what is included in the evaluation of "Key Staff". Does this only include the SF 330 Section E resumes, or are the Organizational Chart and Support Staff Matrix also included in this evaluation?

Answer #7: The evaluation of Key Staff only includes the SF 330 Section E resumes. The Organization Chart and Support Staff Matrix will be used to evaluate the compatibility of the size of the firm with the size of the proposed project, and the capacity to accomplish the proposed work in the required time.

Question #8: On Page 16, Section F. Subcontractors Commitment, the final bullet reads, “Be signed and dated by the Principal/President of the firm; and”. Could you please confirm whether this bullet is incomplete and provide the intended text following “and”?

Answer #8: This is a typo in the template. No other bullets follow.

Question #9: On page Attachment A-4, the RFP says to obtain an MDE permit; however, because this RFP only covers through Preliminary Investigation there will not be sufficient design information to submit complete permit applications and obtain MDE permits. Based on our experience, MDE permits are typically obtained in the Semi-Final/Final design phase when all proposed features (structural modifications, erosion & sediment control, etc.) are incorporated into the overall project design. Please confirm if the County is expecting the consultant to obtain an MDE permit as part of this Preliminary Investigation phase deliverable.

Answer #9: An MDE permit is not required in this Preliminary Investigation.

Question #10: Page 6 lists both "Scope of Services" and "Examples of Work." Please clarify the specific scope of services that the County expects to be performed under this contract.

Answer #10: Scope of services.

Question #11: Page 5 of the RFP states that the project scope includes preliminary design, while Page 6 identifies deliverables as a Preliminary Investigation Report and Final Submission (100%). Please clarify the anticipated project milestones and final deliverables expected under this RFP.

Answer #11: 100% means a complete preliminary investigation (30% design) has been submitted.

Question #12: Will the awarded firm be precluded from the future final design of the project?

Answer #12: No, but if Harford County applies for TAP funding for 30-100% design, a new competitive RFP is required to take place. The firm completing the preliminary investigation would not be guaranteed award of the contract.

Question #13: The Time Distribution in Section G includes Project Manager as a separate labor classification; however, the Key Staff requirements do not identify a Project Manager. Please clarify whether the Project Manager is intended to be a separate position from the Project Engineer and Highway Engineer. If so, must Offerors identify and propose an additional individual as the Project Manager in the Technical Proposal, or may one of the five required Key Staff individuals also serve as the Project Manager?

Answer #13: The project manager does not have to be in a separate position. One of the five Key Staff may serve as Project Manager.

Question #14: Because Section H is not identified in the RFP as a separately scored evaluation criterion or as an item rated Acceptable (A), Unacceptable (U), or Neutral (N), please confirm that a condensed response that fully addresses all required certifications will be considered responsive.

Answer #14: If Section H is used to certify the key staff information, it would be use within the key staff section of the evaluation criteria. In other words, if Section H does not certify the key staff information, then the Key Staff score would be impacted.

Question #15: Please clarify whether Section H will be evaluated and under which evaluation criterion.

Answer #15: If Section H is used to certify the key staff information, it would be use within the key staff section of the evaluation criteria. In other words, if Section H does not certify the key staff information, then the Key Staff score would be impacted.

Question #16: Please clarify the maximum number of pages permitted for the Support Personnel Matrix

Answer #16: See part D (ii) on page 15. Two pages for support personnel

Question #17: Section G identifies a total Time Distribution of 60% office and 40% field and states that these percentages will apply to the total dollar amount of the subsequently negotiated Price Proposal. Given that a substantial portion of this contract consists of preliminary engineering and design services typically performed in an office setting, please explain the basis for the 40% field allocation. Please also confirm whether the stated office and field percentages are mandatory or whether Offerors may propose percentages that more accurately reflect their anticipated staffing and technical approach.

Answer #17: Offerors may propose different percentages

Question #18: Section G lists Project Surveyor and Party Chief as separate labor classifications in the Time Distribution. Because Party Chief services are typically included under the Project Surveyor category, please confirm that these classifications and their respective time-distribution percentages are correct. If so, please clarify the intended distinction between the responsibilities assigned to each classification. Alternatively, may Offerors combine these services under the Project Surveyor classification and adjust the time distribution accordingly?

Answer #18: Offerors may combine and adjust accordingly

Question #19: Considering that the office and field designations may determine which approved overhead rates are applied during price negotiations and invoicing, please define what constitutes “field” work under this contract and clarify how the applicable overhead rate will be determined for each labor classification and activity.

Answer #19: Any field exploration and survey work will be considered as field designation.

Question #20: Does the county intend to use the survey base mapping performed for the Preliminary design to also be used by the future design team for final design? Does the accuracy of the preliminary survey need to meet the accuracy specifications required for final design?

Answer #20: Yes, the survey work performed in this phase will be utilized in the future design phases.

Question #21: Boundary & Right of Way Survey – The RFP lists Deed Research under the scope of services with no clarification. Could the county please further define the expectation of the consultant as it relates to collecting and preparing property mosaics, field boundary evidence, and property/right of way resolution? Should the consultant assume that the boundary/right of way resolution will be used for future takings and/or easement preparation?

Answer #21: Yes, this deed research will be used for future ROW/easements preparation.

Question #22: Would GIS boundary location suffice for the preliminary design effort.

Answer #22: No, deed research is needed.

Question #23: Please confirm if “utility designations” is intended to mean that the consultant will provide Quality Level “B” Utility Designations as defined by ASCE 38-22.

Answer #23: Need utility marking that comes out of survey findings in this phase.

Question #24: The study area exhibit as shown on Addendum 1 includes areas within the CSX and Amtrak right of ways. Please confirm that the limits of the project extends into CSX and Amtrak right of ways as this would require field staff to receive training and badging, as well as coordination with each entity for right of way access and potential escorts.

Answer #24: In this phase, it will be sufficient to just establish through deed research if any of the railroad ROW will be involved in this project.

Question #25: Can the County elaborate on the level of effort required for reviewing crash data from MDOT SHA? Intersection crash data may pinpoint hotspots for which alternative treatments or design measures may be considered at high-volume crossings; as this is PI, this is typically not included at this point. If crash data along sections is required, then this may be indicative of existing roadside issues which may be exacerbated with an adjacent shared use path.

Answer #25: After looking further, the county decided no action is needed on this task from the consultant in this phase.

Question #26: Can the County elaborate on the scope element related to street lighting? As asked, this would read conduct a photometric analysis to see if current lighting meets the standards. At this point it would not, given there is no pedestrian facility. If the intent is to determine a path forward for lighting on the project, then consideration should be given to whether or not the County desires to include pedestrian-style lighting which would require their long-term contribution to maintenance. If not, standard MDOT SHA lighting would be utilized. If the outcome of the project is to refine the trail options to a preferred alternative to pursue into final design, then the lighting type should be refined at this point to determine a cost between alternatives.

Answer #26: Agree, no photometric analysis is needed. Will need pedestrian lighting options and estimates to be considered in the future design.

Question #27: Do we need to execute and include the signed addenda as part of our Technical Proposal submission, or is acknowledgment through the eMMA proposal submission process sufficient?

Answer #27: The signed addenda should be included as part of the technical proposal.

Question #28: Is the Financial Responsibility & Insurance section applicable only to the prime consultant, or should subconsultants also submit financial capacity and insurance documentation as part of the Technical Proposal?

Answer #28: This is only applicable to the prime consultant.

Question #29: Since the Scope section is limited to certifying that the contract scope can be performed and is not identified as a scored evaluation criterion, would Harford County consider reducing the maximum five-page Scope section requirement to two pages?

Answer #29: Yes, that is acceptable.

Question #30: Please clarify how the Example Projects submitted in SF330 Section F will be evaluated. Specifically, what factors will be considered when assessing project relevance and qualifications?

Answer #30: They will be evaluated based on the similar tasks performed in different projects.

Question #31: Does the scope of this contract include obtaining Stormwater Management (SWM) Concept Approval from the reviewing agency, or is the Consultant only expected to prepare and submit the Concept SWM plan/package for review and approval?

Answer #31: The consultant is expected to prepare and submit the concept plan/package for review and approval.

Question #32: Addendum No. 2 states that "Procurement will only open the bids of pre-qualified bidders" and that "Bidders must be pre-qualified in A-2 Bituminous Paving." Given that this solicitation is for consultant services, please clarify whether this requirement is applicable to this procurement.

Answer #32: Prequalification in A-2 Bituminous Paving is not required.

Question #33: For purposes of preparing the Preliminary Investigation design, would aerial and GIS-based mapping and QL-D utility mapping be considered acceptable for base mapping and utility designation efforts?

Answer #33: Survey work will be required for this task.

Question #34: Does the County expect detailed field survey and utility mapping, including utility quality levels QL-B, QL-C, and QL-D, as part of this contract?

Answer #34: The County expects a detailed field survey that will also be utilized in future design.

Question #35: The RFP identifies a contract funding authority of $700,000. Given the approximate 5-mile corridor length and scope of services described, would the County consider shortening the project limits to better align the scope with the available funding?

Answer #35: The County believes that these funds are sufficient for the preliminary investigation study.

Question #36: Would the County consider extending the proposal due date to provide approximately six weeks between issuance of the final Q&A responses and the proposal due date, should significant scope clarifications result from the question-and-answer process?

Answer #36: The County is not considering extending the due date.

Question #37: Section 9, Technical Proposal Required Information, H. Financial Responsibility and Insurance Requirements, Item 1, states: “The consultant shall include a letter addressed to SHA setting forth evidence that the consultant has the financial capacity to provide the services and has measures of protection for the State against errors and omissions.” Please confirm this letter should be addressed to SHA and provide the name/title of the appropriate recipient. If the letter should instead be addressed to Harford County, please provide the name/title of the appropriate recipient.

Answer #37: This letter should be addressed to the procurement agent of Harford County.

Question #38: Section 9, Technical Proposal Required Information, G. Time Distribution, states that the Time Distribution section shall not exceed three (3) pages and that the Consultant shall include a three (3)-page listing. SHA’s standard proposal requirements typically limit the Time Distribution section to one (1) page. Please confirm the three (3)-page requirement stated in this RFP is correct.

Answer #38: Yes, that is correct.

Question #39: Please clarify how prior work performed on this specific project, including involvement in the development of the concept plan or other previous phases, will be considered and weighted in the evaluation of Technical Proposals. Will prior involvement with this project provide any evaluation advantage, or will all Offerors be evaluated solely based on the criteria and relative weights identified in Section 8, Evaluation Criteria?

Answer #39: No extra points for working on this specific project in this phase.

Question #40: Is public outreach included in the scope of services?

Answer #40: Some level of public outreach will be required for the NEPA process. This may require a public meeting, which Harford County would be responsible for hosting. Consultants typically provide materials to support the meeting and provide documents to SHA as required (expected environmental impacts, GIS file with limits of disturbance, etc.)

Question #41: Can we include copies of the 9 concept plans (sheets 1-9 of 9 from the BMC Study, 11x17) in our proposal to illustrate the survey limits requested on page A-2 of the RFP? If so, in what section should it be included?

Answer #41: Not required to include BMC sheets.

Question #42: Will the Project Engineer function as the Project Manager and/or serve as the Primary Liaison with Harford County?

Answer #42: The firm can decide which key staff will serve as the project manager and primary liaison.

Question #43: Can you please clarify the 8-week schedule requirement on page 6. Is the County requesting us to allow 8 weeks’ review time for DPW to review the initial and final PI reports?

Answer #43: Yes, that is when you submit the reports; the County will need 8 weeks' review time.

Question #44: Key Staff 3 Highway Engineer lists experience in alternative project delivery methods. Can you please confirm if this experience is required? Is alternative delivery included in the scope of services?

Answer #44: It's preferred.

Question #45: Will a community outreach/public involvement meeting be required as part of the 30% design development? How many meetings are anticipated?

Answer #45: The county will deal/manage the public meetings.

Question #46: Will the County manage the grant directly, or should the consultant team include a subconsultant with experience managing TAP and MDOT-funded programs?

Answer #46: SHA will be involved throughout the project but the County will be managing the contract directly. SHA doesn’t require a subconsultant with TAP experience

Question #47: Is Bentley ProjectWise required for data storage and management, or can Microsoft SharePoint be used as an alternative?

Answer #47: ProjectWise is not required for the TAP grant

Sincerely, Karen Post NIGP-CPP, CPPB, CPPO, CMPA Procurement Agent III cc: