addendum-1-rfp-dot-2026-02.pdf

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DIVISION OF PROCUREMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES

BUREAU OF PURCHASE AND PROPERTY

STATE HOUSE ANNEX

25 CAPITOL STREET

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6398

DATE OF CHANGE: March 6, 2026

ADDENDUM # 01 TO RFP DOT 2026-02

DATE PROPOSALS DUE: April 3, 2026 TIME PROPOSALS DUE: 3:00 PM (ET)

FOR: KEENE INTERCITY BUS SERVICE

AMEND SECTION 1.B. SCHEDULE as follows:

RFP Schedule of Events currently reads:

EVENT DATE

LOCAL

TIME

RFP Released (Advertisement) February 4, 2026 Vendor Inquiry Period Ends February 27, 2026 3:00 PM Final Department Responses to Inquiries March 6, 2026 3:00 PM Proposal Due March 20, 2026 3:00 PM Estimated Notification of Selection and Commencement of Contract Negotiations

April 8, 2026

Service Initiated (Estimated) July 1, 2026

Change RFP Schedule of Events to read:

EVENT DATE

LOCAL

TIME

RFP Released (Advertisement) February 4, 2026 Vendor Inquiry Period Ends March 13, 2026 3:00 PM Final Department Responses to Inquiries March 20, 2026 3:00 PM Proposal Due April 3, 2026 3:00 PM Estimated Notification of Selection and Commencement of Contract Negotiations

April 21, 2026

Service Initiated (Estimated) August 1, 2026

AMEND SECTION 8.2 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY to add the following:

• Description of proposer’s ability to provide coordinated schedules and joint information or marketing plans with other providers.

• Description of ability to enter into interline ticketing agreements with other providers

CLARIFICATIONS:

Note: The State provided responses to the inquiry questions from vendors below. However, the State is uncertain if the responses provided full and complete answers to the satisfaction of the inquirers.

Therefore, the Vendor Inquiry Period end date has been extended to March 13, 2026, at 3:00 PM (ET) to enable vendors to submit questions for further clarifications.

Question 1:

Evaluation of Intercity Network Integration

Section 1 states that projects offering coordinated services with other intercity bus providers -including through-service buses, interline ticketing, coordinated schedules, and shared terminals “will receive priority.” However, the evaluation criteria in Section 6 do not list intercity-network integration as a scored category.

Could the Department clarify:

a) Whether deeper integration with the national intercity network beyond Boston-area services will be considered a differentiator during scoring, and if so, under which evaluation categories?

b) How the stated “priority” for coordinated intercity services will be reflected in the scoring process?

State Response:

a) The goal of the RFP is to connect Keene to the broader intercity bus network which, for the purposes of the RFP, is a connection to Boston. Deeper integration with the national intercity bus network beyond Boston is not a differentiator in scoring Proposals.

b) The State agrees that the paragraph with the stated “priority” at the end of Section C is confusing. Therefore, this paragraph is hereby deleted from the RFP. Please see the associated amended additions to the Technical Capability section above.

Question 2:

Meaningful Connection Requirement Where Connecting Carriers Do Not Interline

Page 10 requires the Keene–Concord service to provide a meaningful connection with existing service to Boston and Logan Airport, and similarly for the Nashua connection.

Since the carriers providing these connections do not participate in through‑ticketing, interlining, or clearinghouse arrangements:

a) How will “meaningful connection” be evaluated when a connecting carrier does not offer through‑ticketing or operational passenger-flow integration with other intercity operators?

More specifically:

b) Does a timed transfer alone satisfy the connection requirement, or is broader network connectivity also considered?

c) Will proposals that do offer interline‑capable connectivity elsewhere be scored differently?

d) Would proposals offering equal or better connectivity to Boston/Logan (in terms of journey time and not needing to change bus or purchase a separate ticket) without relying on the named services be evaluated differently?

State Response:

As question a) was broad, we will address questions b) through d):

b) Yes, a timed transfer alone satisfies the requirement for a meaningful connection. The State interpretation of meaningful connection is that the bus service between Keene and Nashua or Concord connects with bus service to/from Boston South Station within 2 hours. Given the frequency of service to/from Boston by Concord Coach Lines at the Concord terminal and by Boston Express at the Nashua terminal, the State believes this requirement can be easily met by the selected provider, as would the selected provider’s connecting service to South Station. Broader network connectivity in terms of connections beyond Boston will not be considered.

c) To clarify, the State’s goal is to have a seamless experience for passengers traveling from Keene to Boston South Station, whereby a passenger will be able to purchase a single ticket for the trip. As such, the intent would be for any services that operate at the affected State-owned terminals to enter into interline agreements with any/all other providers serving those same facilities. Whereas that requirement may not be expressly written into all current agreements related to access to the State-owned terminals, the State will make every effort to achieve that goal as soon as practicable in the future. In terms of evaluating proposals, interline experience will be considered within the Technical Capability section as amended above. The State intends to include a provision within the contract resulting from this RFP related to requiring interline agreements where possible.

d) No, such connections would not be evaluated differently. Any connecting service between Keene and Boston/Logan meets the requirement of connecting to the broader intercity network. Proposals offering equal or better connectivity to Boston/Logan without relying on Concord Coach Lines or Boston Express are an acceptable alternative and will be evaluated accordingly per the criteria in the RFP. Please note, the service must still meet the route and stop requirements in the Scope of Services.

Question 3:

Match Funding Constraints and Ability to Support Both Corridors

The RFP indicates only one of the two corridors will be awarded.

a) Is this limitation primarily due to the amount of available toll credits?

b) If an operator provides eligible in‑kind mileage match, would this expand the State’s flexibility to support both corridors?

State Response:

a) No, the limitation is based on the estimated/projected availability of federal (FTA) funding likely to be available for the service.

b) No, utilizing in-kind match is essentially the same as utilizing toll credits in that both

“matching” solutions result in effectively 100% federal participation, assuming the in-kind match available is sufficient. In short, there is $1.8 million of FTA Section 5311(f) funding available for the project. The availability of in-kind match does not affect the funding available for the project.

Question 4:

Eligibility of a Single Continuous Loop Serving Both Corridors

If a proposer submitted one continuous loop route, with a clockwise and anticlockwise departure serving both corridors, for example:

Keene → Concord → Nashua → Keene, and

Keene → Nashua → Concord → Keene thus providing two daily departures to each city:

a) Could this configuration be considered eligible for funding support covering both corridors?

b) If toll credits are insufficient, would offering eligible in-kind mileage match for both the Keene–Nashua and Keene–Concord segments allow this loop to be considered for support equivalent to serving both corridors? Or does the “one route” limitation apply regardless of match availability?

State Response:

a) Only the routes between Keene-Nashua or Keene-Concord would be eligible for funding support. While the loop concept may be feasible, service between Nashua and Concord already exists and is therefore not considered part of the project.

b) Per the answer to Question 3b, in-kind match results in up to effectively 100% federal participation. As such, the availability of in-kind match is considered irrelevant for the purposes of the RFP (other than potentially being relevant to a Proposer’s plan for continuation of services after the initial contract period). Otherwise, should the loop model be proposed, the State would consider one round trip each between Keene- Concord and Keene-Nashua as the equivalent of two round trips between either Keene- Concord or Keene-Nashua.

Question 5:

Is the available funding of $1.8 Million for the 2-year initial contract period, or for all 4 years?

State Response:

The available funding of $1.8 million is for all 4 years.

Question 6:

Will Transportation Development Credits (TDCs a.k.a. Toll Credits) be available for the entire 4-year period or will in-kind match be necessary at some point?

State Response:

The available FTA Section 5311(f) funding of $1.8 million is fully matched with TDCs. These funds, including TDCs, are available for the entire 4-year period. There is no requirement for in-kind match for the project.

Question 7:

Can NHDOT facilitate access to the Nashua terminal?

State Response:

Yes, the bus terminal at 8 North Southwood Drive in Nashua is owned by the State of New Hampshire and is managed and operated by Boston Express Bus, Inc. under contract with the State. If the Keene-Nashua route is awarded, the selected provider will have access to the Nashua terminal at no cost.