DLCD RFP S-66000-00008210 Parking Jump Start Guide - Questions & Answers.pdf
PDF 143 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CFEC Parking Management Jump Start Guide RFP
- Solicitation number
- S-66000-00008210
- Issued by
- Lincoln County, Albany City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Q&A related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in Oregon (RFP S-66000-00008210) for a Parking Management Jump Start Guide. The RFP is seeking assistance in collecting data and information from the eight most populated areas in Oregon, as well as developing a list of parking management policies and ordinances that could be adopted by any city across the state. The RFP does not involve any state-level code or policy development work, and the stakeholder engagement is limited to city and agency staff, as well as members of the Project Management Team (PMT). The agency is interested in a survey of the current landscape of parking management approaches across cities of varying populations, regions, politics, and circumstances, rather than a detailed comparison of local codes and policies.
The related state and local contract opportunity involves the Parking Management Jump Start Guide RFP, which covers the jurisdictions of Marion County and the City of Salem in Oregon. The RFP does not provide any specific details on pricing terms, set asides, incumbents, funding requirements or sources, or any other salient information.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP S-66000-00008210 - Parking Jump Start Guide RFP Final.pdf | ||
| Coffee~2.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DLCD RFP S-66000-00008210 Parking Jump Start Guide – Ques�ons & Answers
1. Can the Agency clarify if the "eight most populated areas” described in Sec�on 1.1, 2nd paragraph (page 4), are the same as the MPO’s men�oned in the defini�on of “Metropolitan Ci�es and Coun�es” in Sec�on 2.2, 4th paragraph (page 5)?
Yes; these are the same.
2. Can the Agency clarify if the intended data and informa�on collec�on from Oregon ci�es requested in Sec�on 2.4.3 (page 8) will be limited to those ci�es and coun�es found within the eight regions listed in Sec�ons 1.1 and 2.2?
The cri�cal data are from the metropolitan ci�es and coun�es impacted by the rule (this is 44 jurisdic�ons, as eight smaller popula�on jurisdic�ons have requested and received exemp�ons). Addi�onal data and examples are welcome, but not expected.
3. Please confirm the intent of the “code and ordinance language” described in Sec�on 2.4.1.1, 2nd bullet-point (page 7), is the purpose to develop a list of policies/language/ordinances that may be adopted by any city across the state?
Yes.
4. Is the Agency interested in a specific comparison or analysis of current local codes or policies across the various ci�es interviewed, such as the 8 regions listed in Sec�ons 1.1. and 2.2?
The agency does not need a specific, point-by-point comparison of all current local codes and policies. The agency is interested in a survey of the landscape and mul�ple concrete examples of parking management approaches from ci�es of differing popula�ons, regions, poli�cs, and circumstances.
5. Does the Agency an�cipate any State-level code or policy development work to be completed under this Agreement?
No. This is intended as voluntary assistance, not code or policy.
6. Is the Agency interested in the collec�on of community feedback (via an online survey, public mee�ngs, or similar forum) as part of the Stakeholder Engagement required in Sec�on 3.3.5.2 (page 12) or is the contact to be limited to ci�es/agency staff and PMT members?
No. The stakeholders to be engaged are city and agency staff and PMT members.
7. Can the Agency clarify if a Gant Chart will meet the requirement for a “graphic illustra�on of the project schedule” described in Sec�on 3.3.5.3, 3rd bullet-point (page 12)?
Yes. This meets the requirement.
8. Are the “3 references” described in Sec�on 3.3.5.4 (page 12) and Sec�on 3.3.6 (page 13) the same as Reference Check form (Atachment D)?
DLCD RFP S-66000-00008210 Parking Jump Start Guide – Ques�ons & Answers
They may be the same or different.
9. Is the Agency interested in an organiza�on chart or brief bios/resumes of any Proposer staff other than the Key Persons described in Sec�on 3.3.4 (page 11), which may poten�ally be included in the Company Profile sec�on or separately in the appendix?
The agency would like full informa�on about the Key Persons. If other people will spend significant �me on the project, brief bios would be helpful.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .