Addendum RFP 2025-20 Safe Streets SS4A.pdf

Addendum A – Safe Streets 2025-20

1. What are the Public Works Department's capabilities and available equipment for installing temporary traffic calming strategies? Do you have existing inventory we can utilize, and would you consider purchasing new items such as flexible delineators, bollards, dynamic speed feedback signs, or pavement markings specifically for this study?

Yes - pending current infrastructure at sites.

2. What is your vision for traffic calming and temporary street closures as part of this planning process?

We anticipate temporary lane closures as part of this project’s implementation. We are open to temporary street closures as needed as well. The City recently updated their traffic calming policy to allow for traffic calming measures to be used on collector streets (along with local/residential). We would like demonstration activities to prioritize creative and established traffic calming.

3. How do you envision improving multi-modal interconnectivity throughout the city?

We would like to focus demonstration activities in areas that have missing links between transportation networks and types, along with areas heavily used by multiple traffic types.

4. Regarding in-kind contributions, would you like to maximize available staff time for this project, and what capacity do you have?

Yes, we are aiming to maximize staff time for the in-kind contribution. This will include but isn’t limited to the Planner II, DPW staff, police staff, and other members of Community and Economic Development. We also will rely partially on equipment purchase for the in- kind contribution. Neither of these have been finalized and we are flexible on how to meet our in-kind contribution.

5. Does the City foresee translation services for engagement materials, and if so, which languages and materials should be prioritized based on community demographics?

Concerning translation during public outreach, we have had the most success in creating any surveys, fliers, emails, etc. in the appropriate language and sharing with our community partners who are already part of those communities. There is an expectation for translation services to be available throughout the project, as needed. We prioritize Spanish and Hmong for translation services.

6. Does the City prefer a standalone project website, a dedicated webpage on its existing site, or integration within its current platform?

A standalone website may be utilized, but creation of a page on the City’s website would be preferred to ensure continued access after the project. This is negotiable.

7. How does the City envision public engagement and participation for this effort? Does this include a community-wide survey or community mailers?

The City is generally uninterested in using community mailers because they are cost prohibitive and historically have been minimally impactful. We would be open to a mailing if proven to be the most effective communication tool. We would like to rely on digital media, news media, and direct outreach at events for public engagement.

8. Can you clarify what the RFP means by 'Elaborate Proposals (i.e., expensive artwork) beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective Proposal, are not necessary or desired'? What level of visual presentation do you consider appropriate?

Proposals that would create financial impact on bidders.

9. For the sake of this project and contract, does the City consider xxx a “Design Professional”?

We don’t classify vendors on solicitations – This RFP is being done per required specifications.

10. Will the City accept electronic submissions in lieu of a submission package that includes a paper copy and a USB copy?

Not on this one.

11. If proposers have requested edits to the City's Standard Terms and Conditions, sample contract, or insurance requirements, should we include those with our proposal submission?

Please do not modify sample contract.

12. The RFP asks that proposers "Complete and return Forms A through E." Section 3 of the RFP (Page 9) describes Form D as a Cost Proposal, Form B describes it as a "Proposal Offer Form", and Form D itself includes the project Scope of Work and the Proposal Requirements. Could the City provide clarity on what proposers should include as "Form D" in our submission?

Please include project proposal scope as part of Form D – just reference your proposal as Form D / other pages complete as provided.

13. Planning page so it has been added here too: https://www.greenbaywi.gov/517/District-Corridor-Planning

14. Questions the COGB could not answer before the deadline:

Does the City have mapping depicting luminaire makes/models, quantities, approximate locations, etc.?

Does the City contract with the electric utility for lighting of any roadways that should be evaluated?

The RFP says "City wide" data collection. Is it known roughly how many intersections or roadway volume/speed counts are anticipated?

Where are the roadway condition reports accessed, or are these something the consultant would produce?

If the consultant needs to produce them, is there a scope or outline what these reports look like?

Is the City looking for formal road safety audits at all locations along the high-injury network or is this anticipated to be higher level with greater scrutiny applied when necessary?

What level of detail is intended for the traffic studies to gain a better understanding of safety improvements feasibility? Is this essentially HCM analysis to determine if a treatment would be overly detrimental to vehicular operations or something more involved with a standalone deliverable or summary?

15. In reference to 2. Contract Negotiations (page 5 of the RFP), where it states that "the highest-ranked applicant will enter into negotiations with the City," will those negotiations include the terms and conditions of the contract, or just the scope and fee? Scope and Fee – Terms and Conditions will be discussed before final contract.

16. As this contract governs services that qualify as ‘design professional services’ under 2023 Wisconsin Act 211—which expressly prohibits indemnity or defense obligations beyond proportional negligence—is the City willing to renegotiate this indemnity clause or propose alternative language limited solely to the extent of each party’s proportional professional negligence and removing the defense obligation under the Act? This will be discussed before final contract award.

https://www.greenbaywi.gov/517/District-Corridor-Planning