Formal RFP for Professional Design DRT South Refinement Study.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

for

ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES

PROJECT NUMBER: 926223

PROJECT NAME: Deschutes River Trail South – Refinement Study

PROPOSALS DUE: August 28, 2025, 2:00 PM pacific time at 799 SW Columbia Street, Bend, OR 97702

PROJECT MANAGER

Henry Stroud, AICP

Principal Planner henrys@bendparksandrec.org

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR

Joanna Edwards

Administrative Analyst joanna@bendparksandrec.org mailto:henrys@bendparksandrec.org mailto:joanna@bendparksandrec.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

{01917565-01528897;2} REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Deschutes River South – Refinement Study

PROJECT # 926223

Article 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview; Project;

1.2 Background

1.3 Solicitation Schedule

1.4 Pre-Proposal Meeting

1.5 Procurement Authority and Method

1.6 Minimum Proposer Qualifications

1.7 Definitions

1.8 Solicitation Documents

Article 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 General Description of Deliverables/Meetings

2.2 Scope of Services

Article 3 INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

3.1 Submission of Proposals

3.2 Withdrawal of Proposals

3.3 Opening of Proposals

3.4 Availability of Documents

3.5 Reservation of District Rights

3.6 Addenda

3.7 Sample Agreement

3.8 Protests

Article 4 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Proposal Content

4.2 Proposal Format

Article 5 EVALUATION AND AWARD

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.2 Evaluation Scoring

5.3 Evaluation Committee

5.4 Disqualification

5.5 Evaluation Process

5.6 Clarification

5.7 References

5.8 Proposal Rankings

5.9 Award Notification and Process

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Article 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview; Project;

An Oregon special district separate from the City of Bend, the Bend Park and Recreation District

(the “District”) is governed by a five-member, elected Board of Directors, and managed by an

Executive Director.

The District, through this formal Request for Proposals (“RFP”), is seeking Proposals from qualified organizations interested in providing professional planning and engineering design services for the following project:

(1) Project Name: Deschutes River Trail South – Refinement Study

(2) Project Location(s): Bend, OR

(3) Project Description: This study will develop and evaluate alternative alignments for a segment of the planned Deschutes River Trail in Bend, Oregon. It will also carry out preliminary engineering feasibility analyses for two “preferred alternatives” including schematic design, order of magnitude cost estimates, a summary of the regulatory framework and permitting requirements, right of way acquisition needs and environmental impacts/mitigation requirements. The intent of this study is to provide the district, the public, and other stakeholders with more detailed and accurate information about the project to inform future community conversations and project design engineering. See section 1.2 “Background” for a more detailed description of the project history.

(4) Project Schedule: This project is anticipated to start on or around October 1, 2025 and be completed by April 1, 2027.

(5) Estimated Fee: The district’s estimated budget for the services described in the Scope of Services (as defined below) is $250,000.

Proposals shall be based on the “Scope of Services” described in Article 2 below and in compliance with all prescribed public procurement requirements and this RFP. Proposers submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP do so at their sole expense; the District is not responsible for any Proposer expenses associated with this RFP.

1.2 Background

The “Deschutes River Trail South Urban Growth Boundary & Bike/Pedestrian Bridge”

(DRT South) project is identified as a planned project in the Bend Park & Recreation District’s

Comprehensive Plan (2024). The purpose of the project is to complete one of the last remaining gaps on the Deschutes River Trail and to enhance access to the Deschutes National Forest. The project has been identified in locally adopted plans since the mid-1990s including the City of

Bend - Urban Trails Plan (1996), the City of Bend & Bend Park & Recreation District - Deschutes

River Trail Action Plan (2002) and the Bend Park & Recreation District - Trails Master Plan (2008).

The project was also identified in the Deschutes National Forest Alternative Transportation

Study (2015) which provided recommendations to enhance non-motorized access to high-use recreational areas in the Deschutes National Forest and to reduce environmental impacts associated with driving and illegal parking.

The district began work on the DRT South project after voters approved a bond measure to support the development of new parks and trails in 2012. A citizens advisory committee established by the district evaluated eight (8) trail alignments and five (5) bridge locations. The committee selected the current planned trail alignment and bridge location based on an evaluation of several criteria including wetland/riparian impacts, constructability, private property impacts, user experience, and connections to existing trails and planned trailhead parking locations. However, the selected bridge location is on federal property which is managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and is within a portion of the upper

Deschutes River that is classified as a State Scenic Waterway and a Federal Wild and Scenic

River.

The Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive

Management Plan (1996), or “CRMP,” guides the management of the state and federal waterways within the upper Deschutes. State scenic waterways are administered under the authority of the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Commission and the Oregon Parks and

Recreation Department (“OPRD”) coordinates the program. The current Oregon Administrative

Rules (“OAR”) for the Upper Deschutes River, which are duplicated in the CRMP, do not permit new bridges in any of the State Scenic Waterway classification areas (OAR 736-040-0073). New bridges are discouraged within the Federal Wild and Scenic Waterway classification areas.

In 2014, the district submitted a request to OPRD to narrowly amend the OAR to allow for the construction of “bicycle and pedestrian bridges” within the State Scenic Waterway where the planned bridge is located. OPRD convened an advisory group to determine if the OAR should be amended. The advisory group recommended not to make any changes to the OAR unless provided compelling evidence of a statutory basis for, local policy changes conducive to, or public sentiment in support of an amendment to the OAR. OPRD followed this recommendation, but they also asserted that there is an existing process that allows landowners to construct projects that are not permitted by the CRMP (i.e. the bridge) by submitting an application to OPRD. This application triggers a mandatory 12-month review period during which time OPRD may work with the applicant to minimize impacts to the State Scenic

Waterway or purchase property to stop the project entirely. If no agreement is reached within a year, the project is not required to adhere to the State Scenic Waterway Rules and may proceed

(Oregon Revised Statute 390.845). Unfortunately, OPRD’s decision not to open a new rule making process effectively halted the project as the Forest Service has indicated they will not submit an application for a bridge on their property unless the CRMP is changed to allow for the project. Concurrently, the project became highly controversial amongst the public, and there were two failed attempts by opponents to pass state legislation to prohibit any new trail bridge over the Deschutes River entirely.

In 2018, the district hired Oregon Consensus to complete a conflict assessment to ascertain if, and how, a collaborative community process to reach consensus on a shared vision for the Deschutes River Trail could proceed. The assessment found that while outdoor recreation along the river is highly valued, the contention surrounding the project was reflective of a broader community tension between equitable access to the national forest and environmental protection. It also found that there were numerous disagreements about basic facts about the project that made proceeding highly difficult. In 2019, the BPRD Board of

Directors felt the project was at an impasse and directed staff to pause work and focus on other projects.

Since 2019, southern Bend has continued to develop. More than 70 homes have been built within the State Scenic Waterway near the planned trail and there are several land use applications for additional residential development within this area. Moreover, community interest in the project has remained strong; BPRD’s 2023 Community Needs Survey indicated that 50% of survey respondents (n=819) were very supportive and 27% were somewhat supportive of completing the DRT South project. In response to the continued community interest in the project, the district’s Board of Directors requested that staff reevaluate the project to determine its viability.

Beginning in 2024, Staff held several meetings with OPRD and the United States Forest

Service, reviewed historic project records, researched current state and federal regulations, and spoke with several different project stakeholders. Staff found that: (1) there were no changes in the CRMP or the OAR regarding the Scenic Waterway Program, (2) there are numerous unanswered questions about the project’s potential environmental impacts, constructability, and cost and (3) there is no viable path to constructing a bridge on USFS property unless the

CRMP is modified, which is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. After being presented with these findings, the district’s Board of Directors passed a motion directing staff to

“collaborate with stakeholders and the community to develop and evaluate alternative trail alignments to connect the southern portion of the Deschutes River Trail to the Deschutes

National Forest.”

This study will review the current planned alignment and develop and analyze alternative trail alignments and trail bridge locations located outside of US Forest Service

Property. It will also include additional feasibility analysis for two bridge locations to identify potential environmental impacts, permitting requirements, right of way needs, schematic designs, and cost estimates if the project were to advance to final design and construction.

Given the contentious history of the project, the complicated federal and state programs that guide management of the river, and the district’s desire to protect and enhance the river environment, this study will be carried out with robust public input and transparency.

The intent of this study is to provide the district, the public, and other stakeholders with updated, accurate information regarding the anticipated design, permitting process, cost, and impacts/benefits of the planned project.

1.3 Solicitation Schedule

The District reserves the right to deviate from the following “Solicitation Schedule”, deviations from the Solicitation Schedule prior to Closing will be made via written Addendum.

EVENT DATE

RFP Issuance July 31, 2025

Pre-Proposal Meeting/Presentation - Non Mandatory August 6, 2025 10:00AM

“Closing” – Proposals Due August 28, 2025 at 2:00 PM

Presentations, Demonstrations, and Interviews (if held) September 8-9, 2025

Notice of Intent to Award (estimated) September 12, 2025

Board of Directors Approval (estimated) September 23, 2025

1.4 Pre-Proposal Meeting

(a) A Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal meeting will be held at the date and time stated in the Solicitation Schedule at 799 SW Columbia St., Bend, OR 97702.

(b) Prospective Proposers are encouraged, but not required, to attend.

1.5 Procurement Authority and Method

The District is issuing this RFP pursuant to its authority under Bend Park and Recreation District

Resolution No. 416 and Resolution No. 2023-01. The District is utilizing the formal selection procedure pursuant to OAR 137-048-0220.

1.6 Minimum Proposer Qualifications

At the time of submitting a Proposal, not less than one of Proposer’s principals, partners, or key staff assigned to this project must currently hold a certificate or license in good standing from the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, as applicable and appropriate for the professional design services necessary for project completion.

Consultant teams must have experience in:

- Leading public participation processes (direct experience in leading difficult community conversations and consensus building is required).

- Multi-use trail design.

- Bridge design & engineering.

- Experience and familiarity with NEPA/environmental review processes, and any applicable permitting processes including but not limited to permits issued by the

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office the US Army Corp of Engineers, the City of Bend, Deschutes County and others.

Consultant teams must include a:

- Project facilitator, or facilitators, with experience managing public involvement processes. The project facilitator(s) will be a primary point of contact for project stakeholders and will be responsible for leading and managing stakeholder and public involvement processes.

1.7 Definitions

Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this RFP shall have the meanings given to such terms in Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 279A.010 and 279C.100, and Oregon Administrative Rules

(“OAR”) 137-046-0110 and 137-048-0110, which are incorporated by reference.

1.8 Solicitation Documents

For purposes of this RFP, the following documents together constitute the RFP:

(1) this RFP;

(2) Attachment A – Proposer Submission Checklist;

(3) Attachment B – Proposer Information and Certification;

(4) Attachment C – Proposal Label;

(5) Attachment D – Project Goals;

(6) Attachment E – Study Area;

(7) Attachment F – Sample Agreement.

Article 2

SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 General Description of Deliverables/Meetings

- Review Team Meeting (6 total): Approx. 1.5-hour meeting with consultant and project review team; online or in-person at the BPRD district office. The project review team will consist of the project manager and other district staff responsible for providing input on the project.

- Memorandum (6 total): Deliverable to client in printable format; 8.5x11 and 11x17 paper size, may be transmitted electronically.

- Stakeholder Touchpoint (4 total): Exact method(s) determined by consultant; combination of public participation processes to solicit stakeholder input during various phases of the project;

must be led by Project Facilitator.

- Public Touchpoint (3 total): Exact method(s) determined by consultant; combination of public participation processes to solicit input during various phases of the project; public meetings must be led by Project Facilitator.

- Board of Directors Presentation (3 total): Approx. 45min to 1-hour presentation to the Bend

Park & Recreation District Board of Directors; meetings are held bi-monthly on the 1st and 3rd

Tuesday of each month beginning at 530pm at the BPRD district office.

2.2 Scope of Services

Phase 1: Existing Conditions

1.1 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Project Kickoff

1.2 Existing Conditions Memorandum

- Deliverable: Combination of maps and text adequate to clearly describe property boundaries, rights of way, zoning districts, zoning overlay zones, planned trails, environmental constraints (wetlands, critical habitat, etc.)

topography and other significant factors that may influence trail development within the study area.

Phase 2: Alternatives Development

2.1 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Review existing conditions memorandum; review plan for upcoming stakeholder touchpoint and public touchpoint.

2.2 Stakeholder Touchpoint

- Purpose: Introductions; review project purpose and scope; review existing conditions; solicit feedback on project goals, hopes/concerns, and potential alignments.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

2.3 Public Touchpoint

- Purpose: review project purpose and scope; review existing conditions; solicit feedback on project goals, hopes/concerns, and potential alignments.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

- Must include at least one public meeting or open house.

2.3 Proposed Alternatives Memorandum

- Deliverable: Combination of maps and text to clearly describe each alternative, beginning and ending points, trail width/surface, length and type of crossings

(e.g. bridge, boardwalk, etc.)

- Must include one “no-build” alternative utilizing existing or substantially complete (funded/designed/pending) trails.

- Alternatives must conform to grade requirements for trails in the Architectural

Barriers Act Guidelines and otherwise conform to current best practices in multi-use/bicycle trail design.

2.4 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Review proposed alternatives, review plan for upcoming board of directors presentation.

2.5 Board of Directors Presentation

- Purpose: Review existing conditions and proposed alternatives memorandums.

- Board Action: Provide feedback on proposed alternatives.

Phase 3: Alternatives Analysis

3.1 Alternatives Analysis Methodology Memorandum

- Deliverable: Combinations of graphics and text that clearly demonstrate how the alternatives will be evaluated.

- Must show how a matrix, ranking, or other analysis technique will be used to evaluate and compare each alternative.

- Possible evaluation criteria include environmental impacts, property impacts, cost, viewshed impacts, accessibility, ease of use, length/travel time, etc.

3.2 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Review alternatives analysis methodology; review plan for upcoming stakeholder touchpoint and public touchpoint.

3.3 Stakeholder Touchpoint

- Purpose: Review and solicit feedback on proposed alternatives and alternatives analysis methodology.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

3.4 Public Touchpoint

- Purpose: Review and solicit feedback on proposed alternatives and alternatives analysis methodology.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

- Must include at least one public meeting or open house.

3.5 Alternatives Analysis Results Memorandum

- Combination of maps, text and graphics to describe the findings of the alternatives analysis.

3.6 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Review Alternatives Analysis Results Memorandum; review consultant plan for upcoming stakeholder touchpoint and board of directors presentation.

3.7 Stakeholder Touchpoint

- Purpose: Review Alternatives Analysis Results Memorandum.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

3.8 Board of Directors Presentation

- Topic: Results of alternatives analysis; recommended alternatives for Phase 4 preliminary feasibility studies.

o Recommended alternatives will be selected by the consultant & project review team.

- Board Action: Approval of proceeding with feasibility studies for the recommended alternatives.

Phase 4 – Preliminary Feasibility Studies (two sites)

4.1 Draft Preliminary Feasibility Studies Memorandum

- Deliverable: Combination of text and graphics adequate to clearly describe:

Schematic trail and bridge designs, order of magnitude cost estimates, construction access assessment & needs, description of anticipated right of way or easement acquisitions (not legal descriptions), summary of anticipated permits and anticipated mitigation requirements.

4.2 Review Team Meeting

- Purpose: Review draft feasibility studies memorandum; preparation for advisory committee meeting.

4.3 Stakeholder Touchpoint

- Purpose: Review Preliminary Feasibility Studies Memorandum.

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

4.4 Public Touchpoint

- Purpose: Present Draft Preliminary Feasibility Studies Memorandum

- Exact methods determined by consultant.

- Must include at least one public meeting or open house.

4.5 Final Preliminary Feasibility Studies Memorandum

- Deliverable: Combination of text and graphics adequate to clearly describe:

Schematic trail and bridge designs, order of magnitude cost estimates, construction access assessment & needs, description of anticipated right of way or easement acquisitions (not legal descriptions), summary of anticipated permits and anticipated mitigation requirements.

4.6 Board of Directors Presentation

- Topic: Present Final Preliminary Feasibility Studies Memorandum.

- Board Action: To be determined.

Article 3

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

3.1 Submission of Proposals

Proposals must be received by the Contract Administrator (as specified on the cover page), or designee, no later than Closing at the address specified on the cover page. Late, faxed, or electronically transmitted Proposals will not be accepted.

3.2 Withdrawal of Proposals

If a Proposer desires to withdraw a sealed Proposal, it must do so prior to Closing by submission of a written request, signed by an authorized representative of Proposer, on Proposer’s letterhead, to the Contract Administrator.

3.3 Opening of Proposals

Proposals must be opened in such a way as to avoid disclosure of the contents until after the

District executes an agreement with the selected Proposer. Disclosure of Proposals and Proposal information is otherwise governed by ORS 279C.107.

3.4 Availability of Documents

This RFP, including all Addenda, attachments, and notifications, are published on Premier

Builders Exchange at premierbx.com under “Public Works Projects”. Proposers are responsible for checking this website for the issuance of any Addenda or notices prior to submitting a

Proposal. The District encourages prime Proposers to register with Premier Builders Exchange as a plan holder for this project. Questions or access issues related to Premier Builders Exchange may be directed to (541) 389-0123 or admin@plansonfile.com.

3.5 Reservation of District Rights

The District reserves all rights regarding this RFP, including, without limitation, the right to:

(1) waive any minor informality or non-conformance with the provisions or procedures of this RFP, and seek clarification of any Proposal, if required;

(2) negotiate an agreement based on the Scope of Services described in this RFP and to negotiate separately in any manner necessary to serve the best interest of the District;

(3) reject any or all Proposals received, or cancel this RFP, without liability upon the District’s finding that it is in the best interest of the public to do so;

(4) amend or delay this RFP without liability upon the District’s finding that it is in the best interest of the public to do so;

(5) reject any Proposal that fails substantially to comply with all prescribed RFP procedures and requirements;

(6) amend any agreements that result from this RFP;

(7) engage other consultants to perform the same or similar services; and

(8) to extend any agreements that result from this RFP without any additional procurement process for up to five-years, for the circumstances described in OAR 137-048-0310.

3.6 Addenda

The requirements of this RFP may only be changed by issuance of written Addenda by the

District. Proposals will be considered non-responsive if the Proposal does not reflect all

Addenda.

3.7 Sample Agreement

(a) The awarded Proposer will receive a Professional Services Agreement (a sample is attached, see section 1.8). The terms, conditions, requirements, and understandings of the sample agreement are in addition to those set forth in this RFP.

(b) Proposers are advised to thoroughly review and familiarize themselves with the sample agreement. The awarded Proposer is expected to promptly sign and return the final agreement.

file://///bprd.local/documents/Shared/PURCHASING%20&%20CONTRACTS/Documents%20WIP/5%20-%20Solicitations/premierbx.com mailto:admin@plansonfile.com

3.8 Protests

Consultants or Proposers may submit, and the District will resolve, protests of this RFP or consultant selection in accordance with OAR 137-048-0240 which must be received by the

District prior to the Protest Response Deadline specified in the Solicitation Schedule.

Article 4

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Proposal Content

In addition to the other requirements of this RFP, each Proposal must meet the following requirements. A Proposal Submission Checklist is attached for Proposer’s convenience (see section 1.8).

(a) Proposer Information and Certification: Proposer must submit one complete Proposer Information and Certification (a copy is attached, see section 1.8) signed by an authorized representative of Proposer.

(b) Insurance Coverage: Proposer must indicate on the Proposer Information and Certification, whether Proposer currently has, or will be able to obtain, insurance coverage(s) meeting or exceeding the requirements of the sample agreement.

(c) References: Proposer must provide at least three references. References from projects of similar type and scope are preferred. References may be submitted for either the prime- Proposer or the sub-Proposer(s), if any.

(d) Minimum Qualifications: Proposals must state how Proposer meets the minimum qualifications required by section 1.6.

(e) Technical Proposal: Proposals must describe how Proposer will meet the technical requirements of the Scope of Services, and what distinguishes Proposer and its approach. Additionally, Proposals should focus on addressing the Evaluation Criteria (as defined in section 5.1 below).

4.2 Proposal Format

(a) Proposers are encouraged to exercise brevity in compiling their Proposal. Elaborate artwork, cover pages, head shots, expensive paper or binders, brochures, or other promotional presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective Proposal are not desired.

(b) Written Proposals cannot exceed a total of fifteen (15), 8.5 x 11-inch single-sided pages with a minimum text size of 11-point font; District-provided forms and attachments are not included in the maximum page count.

(c) Electronic Proposal Submission:

(1) The District’s preferred Proposal submission format is in PDF on a single USB flash drive.

(2) Proposals submitted in PDF should be consolidated into as few separate files as possible.

(3) Notwithstanding the District’s preference that Proposals be submitted in electronic format, Proposals are required to be physically delivered to the Contract Administrator.

(d) Hardcopy Proposal Submission:

(1) Hardcopy (paper) Proposals will be accepted.

(2) The District prefers use of submittal materials that contain post-consumer recycled content and are readily recyclable, where applicable.

Article 5

EVALUATION AND AWARD

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

The District’s Evaluation Committee (as defined in section 5.3) will use the following “Evaluation

Criteria” to evaluate all Proposals in three phases (as defined in section 5.5):

(a) Technical Proposal (Phase 1)

(1) Project Team

Proposals shall:

(A) Identify key staff from prime-Proposer and sub-Proposer(s), if any, that would be assigned to this project, and describe key staff’s specific roles, qualifications, and experience with projects of similar type and scope.

(B) Describe how the current, and projected workload, of key staff identified allows for sufficient capacity to complete this project.

(C) Describe other projects the proposed project team (including prime-Proposer and sub-Proposer(s) where applicable) have worked on or completed together.

Projects of similar type and scope are preferred.>

(2) Approach and Process

Proposals shall describe Proposer’s:

(A) Philosophy for the design of public spaces, specifically multi-use trails and bridges.

(B) Approach to design, project management, budget, schedule management, communication, and public engagement.

Proposals should clearly explain the approach for each of the public touchpoints and stakeholder touchpoints identified in the scope of work including the format (e.g. public meeting, open house, survey, one on one interview, etc.), venue (e.g. online, in-person, hybrid), and activity (Q&A, presentation, charrette, etc.).

This information should be presented in a chart, table, or graphic and clearly show where each of the touchpoints fit in the overall project schedule

Please note: The consultant project facilitator(s) will be the primary point of contact for project stakeholders and will be responsible for leading and managing stakeholder and public involvement processes.

(C) Proposed project schedule.

(3) Experience:

Proposals shall describe Proposer’s experience with:

(A) Designing and engineering multi-use trails and trail bridges,

(B) Leading public participation processes (direct experience in leading difficult community conversations and consensus building is required).

(C) Experience and familiarity with NEPA/environmental review processes, and any other applicable permitting processes

(D) Central Oregon’s, or other similar regions’, climate, geology, and material availability.

(E) Authority’s Having Jurisdiction (“AHJ”) for this project, which includes, but may not be limited to: Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the City of Bend, and Deschutes County

(b) Presentations, Demonstrations, and Interviews (Phase 2): In accordance with section 5.5(c) the Contract Administrator will notify those Proposers selected for evaluation Phase 2 of the evaluation criteria for Events (as defined in section 5.5(c)), if held.

(c) Fee Proposal (Phase 3): For those Proposers selected for evaluation Phase 3, the District will evaluate Proposer’s Fee Proposal (as defined in section 5.5(d)(1)), pricing policies, or other pricing information in accordance with ORS 279C.110(5) and OAR 137-048-0220(4)(c)(B), as specified in section 5.5(d)(2).

5.2 Evaluation Scoring

The Evaluation Committee will use the Evaluation Criteria to assign points according to the following weighting (“Evaluation Scoring”):

EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMUM POINT VALUE

Project Team 20

Approach and Process 40

Experience

Subtotal (Phase 1) 100

Presentations, Demonstrations, and Interviews (if held) 25

Subtotal (Phase 2) 25

Fee Proposal* 15/18

Subtotal (Phase 3) 15/18

Total 115/143

*Maximum points assigned to Fee Proposal evaluations will not exceed 15% of total possible evaluation points. If presentations, demonstrations, and interviews are held, Fee Proposal evaluations will have a maximum point value of 18. If presentations, demonstrations, and interviews are not held, Fee Proposal evaluations will have a maximum point value of 15.

5.3 Evaluation Committee

The District will form an “Evaluation Committee” of not less than three members, consisting of

District staff, landowner representatives, government partners, or community partners, who will evaluate each Proposal.

5.4 Disqualification

Any attempt by a Proposer to improperly influence an Evaluation Committee member will result in Proposal rejection.

5.5 Evaluation Process

The District’s evaluation will take part in three phases. “Phase 1” will consist of evaluation of each technical proposal received in accordance with section 5.5(a) (Minimum Requirements) and section 5.5(b) (Technical Proposal). “Phase 2”, if held, will consist of presentations, demonstrations, and interviews of each selected Proposer in accordance with section 5.5(c)

(Presentations, Demonstrations, and Interviews). “Phase 3” will consist of evaluation of each selected Proposer in accordance with section 5.5(d) (Fee Proposal).

(a) Minimum Requirements (Phase 1). The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each Technical Proposal received prior to Closing on a pass/fail basis to determine if it meets the minimum requirements of this RFP. Any Proposal found to fail any minimum requirement of this RFP will be deemed non-responsive and may be returned to the Proposer upon request.

(1) Additionally, the District may further investigate the qualifications of a Proposer, including but not limited to: (1) successful performance of similar services, (2) compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, (3) its completion or delivery of services on schedule, and (4) its lawful payment of suppliers, sub-consultants, and employees.

(b) Technical Proposal (Phase 1). The Evaluation Committee will evaluate and assign scores to each Proposal that has met the minimum requirements of this RFP (in accordance with section 5.5(a)) based upon the quantity and quality of the information contained within the Proposal utilizing the Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Scoring.

(1) Points assigned by each Evaluation Committee member will be added together and divided by the quantity of Evaluation Committee members to compute an average score for each Evaluation Criteria.

(c) Presentations, Demonstrations, and Interviews (Phase 2). The Evaluation Committee may conduct and score presentations, demonstrations, or interviews (collectively, “Events”) at its discretion. If Events are held, the Contract Administrator will notify those Proposers selected for evaluation Phase 2 of the time and date, process, and the evaluation criteria for Events.

(1) The Evaluation Committee will assign points to the Events in accordance with section

5.2. Points assigned to Events by each Evaluation Committee member will be added together and divided by the quantity of Evaluation Committee members to compute an average score.

(2) The District may add, remove, or otherwise change the Evaluation Committee members prior to any Events.

(3) The District is not responsible for any Proposer costs incurred by participation in Events

(d) Fee Proposal (Phase 3). Upon completing the technical proposal evaluation (in accordance with section 5.5(b)), the presentations, demonstrations, and interviews, if held (in accordance with section 5.5(c)), and announcing the evaluation scores and rank of each Proposer, the Evaluation Committee may request up to the three highest scoring Proposers to submit Fee Proposals which will be evaluated in accordance with section 5.5(d)(2).

(1) Each “Fee Proposal” shall consist of:

(A) a schedule of hourly rates that Proposer will charge for the work of each individual or each labor classification that would perform services on this project (these hourly rates must be submitted in the form of an offer that is irrevocable for not less than 90-days after the date of the Fee Proposal);

(B) a reasonable estimate of hours that Proposer will require to perform the Scopeof Services; and

(C) a list of expenses, including travel expenses, that Proposer expects to incur in connection with providing the professional services.

(2) Fee Proposals will be evaluated as follows: the lowest overall Fee Proposal will receive the full points available; all other Fee Proposals will be weighed against the lowest Fee Proposal.

(3) Notwithstanding any ranking or evaluation of a Fee Proposal, District reserves the right to negotiate and further refine, the rate schedule, expenses, number of hours, maximum compensation, project schedule, and any other aspect of the Fee Proposal, Scope of Services, or terms of the final agreement.

5.6 Clarification

(a) If any portion of a Proposal is unclear, the Evaluation Committee may request additional information from the Proposer. Proposers cannot submit any new information or documentation in response to a clarification request. Proposal clarifications cannot be used to rehabilitate a non-responsive Proposal.

(b) Proposers must provide responses to Evaluation Committee clarification requests within 24-hours (Monday – Friday, excluding federal holidays). Failure to provide clarification may result in lower scores.

5.7 References

The District reserves the right to: (1) request references in addition to those provided by

Proposer, (2) investigate any references whether or not furnished by the Proposer, and (3) investigate the past performance of any Proposer.

5.8 Proposal Rankings

(a) The Evaluation Committee will add together the points awarded each Proposal during Phase 1 to determine which Proposers are selected to participate in Phase 2.

(b) After Phase 2, the Evaluation Committee will add together the points awarded each Proposal during Phases 1 and 2 to determine which Proposers are selected to participate in Phase 3.

(c) For Proposers participating in Phase 3, the Evaluation Committee will add the points awarded for Fee Proposals to the points awarded under Phases 1 and 2for a total score and ranking of Proposers.

5.9 Award Notification and Process

(a) Once the Evaluation Committee agrees that the highest scoring Proposer meets the needs and interests of the District, the District will issue a written notice of its intent to award an agreement.

(b) The District intends to negotiate a specific scope of services, the consultant’s performance obligations and schedule, the payment methodology, and any other conditions or provisions the

District believes are in its best interest with the highest scoring Proposer prior to execution of an agreement.

(c) The District may, either orally or in writing, formally terminate negotiations with the highest scoring Proposer if the parties are unable to reach an agreement within a reasonable amount of time. The District may thereafter negotiate with the second highest ranked Proposer, and so on, until negotiations result in an agreement, or the District cancels the RFP.

– END OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS –

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

All attachments and Proposal content requirements specified in this RFP must be included in

Proposals. This checklist is provided for the Proposer’s convenience in assembling a Proposal and is not required to be returned. The District does not guarantee that all requirements of this RFP are represented below, it is Proposer’s sole responsibility to ensure its Proposal contains all elements required by this RFP, and applicable law and administrative rule.

The following Proposal content and attachments are required to be returned with the Proposal:

☐ Detailed Proposal Content as specified in section 4.1.

☐ Proposer Information and Certification as specified in section 4.1(a).

☐ Insurance Coverage as specified in section 4.1(b).

☐ References as specified in section 4.1(c).

☐ Minimum Qualifications as specified in section 4.1(d).

☐ Technical Proposal as specified in section 4.1(e), including:

☐ <Project Team> as detailed in section 5.1(a)(1);

☐ <Approach and Process> as detailed in section 5.1(a)(2); and

☐ <Experience> as detailed in section 5.1(a)(3).

☐ Attachment B – Proposer Information and Certification

Proposers are encouraged to use the following attachment to identify their Proposal, it is provided for

Proposers convenience and is not required.

Attachment C – Proposal Label

The following attachments are not to be returned with the Proposal. Proposers must review these attachments, the terms and conditions of each will be incorporated into the agreement for the services.

Attachment D - Project Goals

Attachment E – Study Area Map

Attachment F - Sample Agreement

– END OF ATTACHMENT A –

ATTACHMENT B

PROPOSER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION

FIRM/COMPANY NAME:

STREET ADDRESS:

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:

WEBSITE:

PRIMARY CONTACT NAME:

PRIMARY CONTACT TITLE:

PRIMARY CONTACT TELEPHONE:

PRIMARY CONTACT EMAIL:

Proposer (check one) is ☐ / is not ☐ a resident of the State of Oregon (“resident” as defined in ORS

279A.120(1)). If not, indicate state of residency: .

Proposer (check one) yes ☐ / no ☐ holds a current certificate or license in good standing from the

Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners, the Oregon State Landscape Architect Board, or the Oregon

State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, as applicable.

Registration #

Name and title of primary individual authorized to represent Proposer in any negotiations and sign any agreement(s) that may result from the RFP:

NAME: TITLE:

Proposer currently has, or prior to executing any agreement(s) if awarded will be able to obtain, insurance coverage meeting or exceeding the insurance requirements of the attached Sample

Agreement, (check one) yes ☐ / no ☐.

Affirmative Action Program. The District is an equal employment opportunity employer and values diversity in its work force. The District requires its consultants to have an operating policy as an equal employment opportunity employer. Firms of 50 people or less do not need to have a formal equal employment opportunity program, but shall have an operating policy supporting equal employment opportunity. Proposer shall answer the following questions (check yes or no):

yes ☐ / no ☐ Does your Firm have more than 50 employees?

yes ☐ / no ☐ Does your Firm have a formal equal employment opportunity program?

1. Proposer, by signature of its authorized representative below, hereby certifies:

a. that Proposer has read, understands, and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the

RFP and the resulting agreement, subject to any negotiations entered into between the District and Proposer in accordance with the RFP, if awarded;

b. that Proposer has complied, or will comply, with all requirements of local, state, and federal laws, and no legal requirements have been or will be violated in responding to the RFP or executing any agreement(s) that result;

c. that Proposer has not discriminated and will not discriminate, in violation of ORS 279A.110, against any disadvantaged business enterprise, a minority-owned business, a woman-owned business, a business that a service-disable veteran owns or an emerging small business that is certified under ORS 200.055 in obtaining any required subcontract;

d. under penalty of perjury, that Proposer is, to the best of Proposer’s knowledge, not in violation of any tax laws described in ORS 305.380;

e. that no conflict of interest (“conflict of interest” defined as: no officer, employee, or agent of the Proposer has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the operation of Bend Park and Recreation District or its affiliates), exists which precludes an impartial Proposal from being submitted by Proposer and that if such conflict should arise, Proposer will immediately notify the District;

f. the price(s) and/or amount(s) of this Proposal shall be arrived at independently and without consultation, communication, or agreement with any other consultant, Proposer, or potential

Proposer, and neither the exact nor approximate price(s) and/or amount(s) of this Proposal will be publicly disclosed before agreement award(s) or cancellation of the RFP;

g. no attempt has been made or will be made to induce any firm or person to refrain from

Proposing on the RFP or to submit any noncompetitive Proposal or other complementary

Proposal;

h. that it’s Proposal is made in good faith and not pursuant to any agreement or discussion with, or inducement from, any firm or person to submit a complementary or other noncompetitive

Proposal; and

i. that if awarded an agreement, Proposer shall be authorized to do business in the State of

Oregon at the time of the award.

2. Proposer acknowledges receipt of all Addenda issued under the RFP, if any.

3. District shall not be liable for any claims or be subject to any defenses asserted by Proposer based upon, resulting from, or related to, Proposer’s failure to comprehend all requirements of the RFP.

4. District shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by Proposer in both preparing and submitting its Proposal, Fee Proposal, if requested, or in participating in the Proposal evaluation/selection or contract negotiation progress, if any.

5. The signatory of this Proposer Information and Certification is a duly authorized representative of the Proposer, has been authorized by Proposer to make all representations, attestations, and certifications contained in this Proposal document, the RFP, and all Addenda issued, if any, and to execute this Proposal document on behalf of Proposer.

By signature below, the undersigned authorized representative hereby certifies on behalf of Proposer that all contents of this Proposer Information and Certification and the submitted Proposal are truthful, complete, and accurate. Failure to provide information required by the RFP may ultimately result in rejection of the Proposal.

PROPOSER SIGNATURE

Signature Title

Name (please print) Date

– END OF ATTACHMENT B –

ATTACHMENT C

PROPOSAL LABEL

SEALED PROPOSAL ENCLOSED

DELIVER TO:

BEND PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT

ATTN: HENRY STROUD

799 SW COLUMBIA STREET

BEND, OR 97702

PROPOSAL MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN:

August 28, 2025 at 2:00 PM pacific time

FOR:

DESCHUTES RIVER SOUTH – REFINEMENT STUDY

PROPOSER NAME:

Proposer may optionally use the above label to identify its Proposal.

– END OF ATTACHMENT C –

ATTACHMENT D

PROJECT GOALS

Project Goals:

1. Complete the southern portion of the Deschutes River Trail

2. Minimize impacts on the natural environment and the scenic qualities of the Deschutes River

3. Provide enhanced non-motorized access to the Deschutes National Forest

4. Provide close-to-home recreation opportunities

5. Reduce the travel length/time to the Rimrock Trailhead from Southwest Bend

ATTACHMENT E

STUDY AREA

PROPOSER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION

Deschutes River South – Refinement Study

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

{01917577-01705390;1}

This professional services agreement is dated as of the Effective Date and is between BEND PARK AND

RECREATION DISTRICT, an Oregon special district (the “District”), and <ENTER CONSULTANT’S FULL

LEGAL NAME>, <a/an> <enter organization type (e.g. “corporation” or “individual”)> (the “Consultant”).

<Choose solicitation method> seeking professional design services for <enter project name><choose solicitation definition> The Consultant submitted a proposal dated <enter proposal date> in response to the District’s request, offering to provide the District with the Services (“Proposal”). The District subsequently awarded the project to the Consultant.

The District and the Consultant now desire to memorialize the terms and conditions pursuant to which the Consultant will provide, and the District will pay for, the Services.

For the mutual exchange of promises contained in this agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the District and the

Consultant agree as follows:

Article 1

PROJECT PARAMETERS

1.1 Project

This Agreement is based upon the following initial information and assumptions and as further detailed in Article 2 (Scope of Services) (the “Services”):

(1) Project Name: <enter project name>

(2) Project Location(s): <enter street address(es), taxlot(s), or other unique project location identifier(s)>

(3) Project Description: <enter project description and/or brief background/history>

(4) Project Schedule: This project <choose project beginning>, and be completed by <enter project completion>

1.2 Representatives

The following representatives are assigned by each party to administer this agreement and serve as the primary point-of-contact on behalf of their respective entity. Either party may change their representative at any time by written notice to the other party.

The “District Representative”:

<enter first and last name>

<enter title>

<enter street address>

<enter city, state zip code>

<enter email address>

<enter phone number>

ATTACHMENT F- SAMPLE AGREEMENT

{01917577-01705390;1} PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

Template 06.24.2025

The “Consultant Representative”:

<enter first and last name>

<enter title>

<enter street address>

<enter city, state zip code>

<enter email address>

<enter phone number>

1.3 Consultant’s Sub-consultants

Choose an item.

(1) <enter Sub-consultant Specialty (e.g. Landscape Architect, Structural Engineer, etc.)>:

<enter Sub-consultant’s legal name>, <street address>, <city, state zip code>.

1.4 Consultant’s Compensation

The Consultant will be compensated at the rates and/or unit prices described in the Consultant’s attached fee proposal (see section 1.6), if any, but in no event will total compensation under this agreement exceed <enter consultant’s compensation ($###,###) (when the agreement price exceeds $250,000, the amount should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar)> (the

“Agreement Price”).

1.5 Agreement Term

This agreement is effective as of midnight at the end of the Effective Date and terminates as of midnight at the end of <enter agreement expiration date>.

1.6 Agreement Documents

For purposes of this agreement, the “Agreement Documents” consist of the following documents listed in order of precedence for the purpose of determining conflicting provisions in the Agreement Documents expect that in the event of overlap or inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement Documents, the term that provides a better quality or quantity of service to the District controls. To the extent that any terms of a document provided by the

Consultant conflicts with terms of this agreement, such terms are void and are expressly and wholly subject to the terms of this agreement.

(1) This agreement;

(2) <enter agreement document (e.g. The District’s RFP, including all addenda, incorporated by reference as Exhibit A; and)>

(3) <enter agreement document (e.g. The Consultant’s Proposal, attached as Exhibit B.)>

Article 2

SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 Scope of Services

The Consultant, acting as the District’s professional consultant for this project, shall supply all labor, training, certifications, licensure, materials, supplies, equipment, tools, and incidentals necessary to provide the Services for the District as more particularly detailed in <choose and enter where scope is detailed>. The Consultant shall perform the Services in a good and professional manner, and in accordance with the terms of this agreement, applicable federal, state, and local law, rule, code, ordinance, and policy.

2.2 Consultant’s Basic Services

The Consultant’s basic services include, as applicable to this project, the usual and customary

<select/enter appropriate services for the project (e.g. acoustical, architectural, civil, electrical engineering services, fire protection, interior design consulting, landscape architecture, landscaping, lighting, mechanical, plumbing, security system(s), structural, surveying, transportation planning)>, and other basic services necessary for successful completion of the

Services.

2.3 <Enter Scope of Work Section>

(a) <enter of work item>

Article 3

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES

3.1 Sub-consultants;

(a) Except for the Consultant’s sub-consultants specified in section 1.3, the Consultant shall provide the District Representative with a list of all sub-consultants it intends to utilize in its performance of the Services. The District reserves the right to review all sub-consultants proposed.