Addendum 1.pdf

Town of Boonsboro

Safe Routes to School

Addendum #1 – 1/21/2026

Q&A

Received Tue 1/13/2026 2:48 PM via email from RK&K:

1. Can you please confirm the design scope? The scope described at the pre-proposal meeting did not seem consistent with the RFP; i.e. The scope of work is to design a closed section road along the entire length of Center Street (from Campus Avenue to Lakin Avenue), including 5’ sidewalks on both sides of Center Street, and drainage calculations to account for stormwater management of drainage coming from Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue.

a. Are the project limits solely along Center Street? Any improvements anticipated along Orchard Drive or Ford Avenue? This design is for construction on Center Street. Future phases will include both Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue for reconstruction for closed section roads with sidewalk on both sides.

b. Does the design scope include new sidewalk on one side of Center Street? Both sides? Both sides.

c. Does the existing sidewalk on the east side of Center Street between Orchard Drive and Campus Avenue need to be reconstructed? Yes, all new sidewalk to ADA specs. Or, is it the Town’s intent to tie-into the existing sidewalk with the improvements along Center Street?

2. Please specify the limits of work along Center Street – i.e. Campus Ave to Ford Ave? Center Street from Campus Avenue to Lakin Avenue.

3. Please confirm that pedestrian oriented lighting / supplemental street lighting (and associated analysis) is not included in the scope and that the Town wishes to maintain existing street lighting. The Town wishes to install new street lighting along all of Center Street.

4. Please confirm if public outreach has been conducted by the Town for this project? Is public outreach / public meetings included in the scope? Public outreach has not yet been conducted. The Town plans to hold multiple public meetings with residents and business owners once a preliminary plan is available to discuss.

5. Is the Technical proposal being evaluated by SHA and/or the Town? Both SHA and the Town.

6. Can you please confirm the available project budget for engineering? $874,856 is available for design engineering.

7. Time distribution is identified as 5 pages. This is typically identified as one page in SHA RFPs. Can you please confirm page limits? Time distribution is not to exceed 5 pages. 1-5 pages will be accepted.

8. Section H is identified as 10 pages. Since Section H is not rated, would the Town consider reducing the page limit to 1-2 pages which is typical of SHA proposals? Section H cannot exceed 10 pages. 1-10 pages will be accepted, but the required information can likely be conveyed in one page.

Received Fri 1/16/2026 2:46 PM via eMMA from Precision Systems Inc.:

Technical versus financial submission structure RFP Reference: Proposal Submission and Selection Process sections Pre-proposal call reference: Discussion regarding eMMA configuration and Brooks Act process The RFP narrative describes a qualifications-based selection in which the highest-ranked technical firm is invited to submit a price proposal; however, the eMMA posting and some solicitation language suggest a single-phase submission. During the pre-proposal call, the Town acknowledged this inconsistency and indicated an addendum would clarify. Please confirm whether this procurement is intended to be a two-phase, Brooks Act-compliant process with price proposals requested only after technical ranking, or a single-phase submission, and if single-phase, please provide the price proposal instructions and how cost will be evaluated and weighted. This procurement will be a two-phase as indicated in the RFP. The eMMA posting is being modified to be consistent with the RFP. Technical proposals will be ranked and then price proposals will be requested.

Work Plan Page Limits RFP Reference: Proposal Content and Format Requirements; Evaluation Criteria; Work Plan Requirements The RFP allocates a maximum of three pages for the Work Plan, while requiring offerors to address, within that space, the following elements:

• Demonstration that the consultant team possesses the experience, resources, knowledge, and technical ability to perform and deliver all requirements of the contract

• Acknowledgement that this is a project-specific contract and understanding of required schedules and deliverable deadlines

• A detailed work plan demonstrating how schedules and deadlines will be met

• A clear description of the consultant’s technical approach to the project

• A comprehensive quality assurance and quality control program

Based on our experience responding to Maryland municipal and MDOT-affiliated procurements of similar size, funding structure, and federal-aid complexity, a three-page limit for this combined set of requirements appears unusually restrictive. In comparable procurements, the Work Plan and its subsections are typically afforded 6-10 pages, given their central role in evaluating project understanding, delivery risk, and compliance with MDOT SHA and federal-aid requirements.

In addition, the January 2024 Safe Routes to School Feasibility Study documents significant technical and coordination challenges, including stormwater management constraints, ADA compliance, right-of-way impacts, and constrained corridor conditions. Addressing these issues meaningfully within a Work Plan requires sufficient narrative space to ensure clarity and comparability among proposers.

Accordingly, we respectfully request clarification if the page limit for the Work Plan section may be increased to 8 pages. The Work Plan section may be a maximum of 10 pages. 1-10 pages will be accepted.

Final design scope by corridor RFP Reference: Scope of Services Feasibility Study Reference: Sections 1, 5, and cost tables Pre-proposal call reference: Clarification that Center Street is the primary focus The RFP references Orchard Drive, Ford Avenue, and Center Street, while the pre-proposal call indicated that final PS&E design effort is focused on Center Street, with Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue included primarily for upstream drainage context. The Feasibility Study presents full design options and cost estimates for all corridors. Please confirm which corridors are included in final design PS&E and whether Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue require any geometric design beyond drainage analysis. The primary focus of this design is only for Center Street, with Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue included for upstream drainage. Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue do not require any geometric design beyond drainage analysis.

Stormwater management level of effort RFP Reference: Scope of Services Feasibility Study Reference: Sections 4.4 and 7 The Feasibility Study identifies stormwater management as a significant driver of cost and complexity and discusses localized, offsite, and alternative ESD options. During the pre-proposal call, the Town indicated stormwater is one of the most challenging aspects of the project. Please confirm whether full stormwater design and permitting are required as part of PS&E and whether offsite or nontraditional ESD concepts identified in the Feasibility Study remain acceptable. Full SWM design and plans for permitting are required for the design of Center Street closed section with sidewalk on both sides with new pedestrian lighting from Campus Avenue to Lakin Avenue. Offsite or non-traditional ESD concepts remain acceptable.

Right-of-way and easement deliverables RFP Reference: Scope of Services Feasibility Study Reference: Section 6 and Table 3 The RFP states the consultant is responsible for identifying required ROW and easements, while the Feasibility Study notes that property impacts are preliminary and may change with survey and design optimization. Please clarify the expected level of ROW deliverables, specifically whether the consultant is to prepare formal ROW plats or only exhibits sufficient to support Town acquisition, and whether temporary easements and rights-of-entry must be delineated at final design. Right-of-ways will be a critical element of this design. A detailed survey of all easements and right-of-way will need to be done on Center Street to determine what is already dedicated/platted to the Town. This road right-of-way will need to be overlayed on the design to determine any gaps where the Town may need to acquire right-of-way or easement or fee simple. Please identify any areas where you believe would require construction easements for the project. Preparation of formal exhibits to be included in any future right-of-way agreements would be expected under this scope of work.

Survey extent expectations RFP Reference: Scope of Services Feasibility Study Reference: Section 8 Conclusion The Feasibility Study recommends either full corridor survey or selective survey depending on cost and constraints, but the RFP does not define minimum survey limits. Please confirm whether full corridor topographic and boundary survey is required, or whether selective survey is acceptable, and if so, how survey extents should be determined. Full corridor survey is required on Center Street to include topographic and boundary surveys along Center Street from Campus Avenue to Lakin Avenue. Topographic survey would be required on Orchard Drive and Ford Avenue for upstream drainage.

DBE requirements and content RFP Reference: Introduction, Page 2, Paragraph 2 The RFP references a “DBE Package (if required)” but does not clarify whether it is required or, if so, its required content. Please clarify the nature of the “DBE Package”. There are no DBE requirements in accordance with the Final Interim Rule enacted by the federal government and immediately effective as of October 3, 2025.

Bentley ProjectWise requirements RFP Reference: Technical Requirements The RFP states Bentley ProjectWise is required unless otherwise approved but does not specify whether the Town or SHA will provide access. Please clarify whether ProjectWise access will be provided by the Town or SHA, or whether the consultant is expected to host the platform, and whether alternative document management systems may be approved at proposal stage. The Consultants shall, at their own cost, provide industry-standard software applications and platforms to perform all services required in this RFP. You may propose an alternative for consideration at the proposal stage.

Schedule constraints and grant milestones RFP Reference: Schedule requirements Feasibility Study Reference: Funding and implementation discussion Please confirm whether there are any grant-driven milestones, obligation deadlines, or target construction advertisement dates that proposers should incorporate into their schedules, including assumed MDOT SHA review durations. 100% design must be completed by May 30, 2028. Construction must begin no later than May 30, 2033.

Time Distribution Page Count RFP Reference: G. Time Distribution The RFP states the “Time Distribution must not exceed five pages” p.11; the number five is underlined in red, and in Maryland RFPs of similar size and scope, this section is limited to one page.

Please confirm the correct page limit for the Time Distribution section. Time distribution is not to exceed 5 pages. 1-5 pages will be accepted.

Received Mon 1/19/2026 4:59 PM via eMMA from from Precision Systems Inc.:

SF330 Part I Section H Page Count RFP Reference: D. v. Section H The RFP states the section “shall be limited to ten pages and must certify that the Key Staff individuals meet the education, experience, registration/licensure, expertise, and all other professional qualifications specified in this advertisement.” p.10;

In Maryland municipal and MDOT-affiliated procurements of similar size and scope, SF 330 Part I, Section H is typically limited to one page and consists solely of the required certification statement, with detailed qualifications addressed elsewhere in the SF 330 and technical proposal.

Accordingly, please confirm the intended page limit and content expectations for SF 330 Part I, Section H, including whether the brief certification statement above is sufficient or whether additional narrative is expected. Section H cannot exceed 10 pages. 1-10 pages will be accepted, but the required information can likely be conveyed in one page. The brief certification statement is sufficient as long as all qualifications are identified elsewhere in the proposal.

Received Wed 1/21/2026 12:58 PM via email from Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc.:

• In the preproposal meeting on Jan 12, 2026, Town expressed interest on focusing on the new sidewalks along Orchard Drive and drainage issues from the uphill. Is Town anticipating to add a revised scope?

No.

• Can Town confirm if a cost proposal is due on Feb 2, 2026? Per RFP it is not due on the technical submittal. This procurement will be a two-phase as indicated in the RFP. The eMMA posting is being modified to be consistent with the RFP. Technical proposals will be ranked and then price proposals will be requested.

• Since the project design cost is funded by FAHP, any additional deliverables are required to meet FAHP guidelines. Is your question whether or not additional deliverables are required to meet FAHP guidelines? If so, the answer is yes.

• Is total fund of $940,460 applies to cover the design and permitting fees of the project only? $940,460 is the total funding for the feasibility study and design. The feasibility study was completed and there is $874,856 available for design.

• What is the CADD deliverable format for the project? We typically receive all design files as PDFs.

• Under scope of services for Surveying item c: “Obtain SHA Right of Way Certification for the project.”

Please provide more details on this service. Because this is a design project, ROW certification is not required. Please disregard this item.

• ROW documents expected to be old and may not exist. This may take extra effort for the design team.

Can city provide the property addresses that already have the ROW/boundary information? Yes.

• Is Town anticipating possibility for easement plats? Based on the street view existing ROW is tight to new 5 feet sidewalk? Yes. It is anticipated that to design this project easement/right-of-way will likely be required. To what extent, depends on the Center Street design.

• Based on the street view electric pole, utilities relocation may be required. Is Town considering relocation? It is not the Town’s intent to relocate any electric poles, but if the design requires relocation of electric poles, the Town will relocate.

• Is Town issuing SWM and grading approvals after Town review is Completed? No.

• Is Washington County Soil Conservation District (SCD) will review and approving Erosion and Sediment Control Design plans? Yes.

• Is MDOT reviewing any plans, cost estimates, and specifications? Yes, SHA requires review of design plans at the 30-, 60-, 90-, and 100-percent milestones. There is a 4-week turnaround time for SHA offices to review and give comments. SHA will send the Town a comment letter to share with the consultant, and they will need to submit a point-by-point response letter with their next design milestone.

Received Wed 1/21/2026 3:47 PM via email from Sheldia Associates:

1. Will the deadline shift to allow time to address the questions answered in a soon to be released Addendum? Yes, the due date will be extended to February 9, 2026 at 3:30pm.

2. Can you confirm that there are no Federal or State DBE requirements? There are no DBE requirements.

During their final review of the drafted RFP, the State OPCM removed the DBE requirement in compliance with the Final Interim Rule enacted by the federal government and immediately effective as of October 3, 2025.