POSTED Addendum - Deaverview Master Plan.pdf

Addendum No. 1 Issue Date: 07/02/2026

Project Name: Deaverview Master Plan Project Number: 298-FY26-CED-RFP-DeaverviewMasterPlan

TO: Prospective Applicants

This addendum forms a part of the Request for Proposals and modifies the original Project Number 298-FY26-CED-RFP-DeaverviewMasterPlan only to the extent specifically noted below. Failure to acknowledge this addendum in the submittal may subject the submitter to being deemed non-responsive.

This Addendum is posted on the City procurement website at www.ashevillenc.gov/bids. This is the official source of this addendum. All addenda and attachments shall be published to the same location.

This Addendum consists of 7 pages in total.

This Addendum is to address Clarifications/Changes and Responses to Questions

Clarifications/Changes

The original RFP failed to include information regarding the parcels and a property map.

This is now changed to include those PIN numbers and a map of the properties.

The City owns a 21.23 acre property located at 65 Ford Street in Asheville, NC, PIN 9628-36-0733 and a 16.55 acre property located adjacent to Pisgah View Road in Asheville, NC, PIN 9628-16-9767, 9628-26-0829, 9628-16-9612, and PIN 9628-27-4164 as shown below, and HACA owns approximately 20.69 acres of property located at 275 Deaverview Road in Asheville, NC, with PIN No. 9628-46-1397, respectively, also shown below.

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/bids

Answers to Questions

1. Question: Can you provide a link to the previous engagement work done with the HACA residents in 2021?

Response: Extensive engagement was done years ago to understand the design preferences for a new apartment project for the Deaverview Apartments residents. This data is not publicly available but will be shared with the selected firm.

2. Question: Is the PEAK Academy facility already designed and expected to be located on a specific 4-acre portion of the site, or is that still open for discussion?

Response: No, this is still open for discussion. It is expected that design of any educational facilities will come after this master planning project determines where on the collective site is most suited for a school campus. At this time, the City of Asheville is committed to including a 4 acre portion for such use in the master design.

3. Question: How was the total program (minimum of 340 housing units) defined? Was a market study utilized to inform this program? What percentage of these units are expected to be homeownership?

Response: These units represent a shared goal of the parties to this planning effort. The goal is to fully replace the units of Deaverview Apartments (160) plus an additional 180 units of mixed income (affordable and market) and mixed density (multi and single family) housing.

We expect our selected master planning partner to help navigate the actual market opportunity to meet this goal.

4. Question: Should the Plan include any supportive "People" strategies to help improve the quality of life for HACA residents?

Response: Yes

5. Question: What would the City like to see included in the "service level agreement (SLA)" This is not a typical request for planning RFPs.

Response: The Service Level Agreement (SLA) should clearly define the scope of services that the proposed planning partner will deliver. Key elements include any and all performance commitments that the planning firm will make in order to execute on the necessary deliverables of the project.

6. Question: Has a budget range been established for this project?

Response: Yes. As the source of funding supporting this is a federal grant, an independent cost estimate was completed to ascertain an expected cost range. However, the City of Asheville will not be sharing this budget range with prospective applicants.

7. Question: If our proposal happens to exceeds the typical size limit supported by email, is there a way to transmit this file to you? It was mentioned in the pre-proposal meeting that the City does not accept file sharing services.

Response: Please coordinate with us and we will work with you to ensure you are able to successfully submit the proposal. Note that the proposal page limit is 50 pages.

8. Question: Have you determined a budget for the master planning process?

Response: See response to Question 6.

9. Question: Regarding the question asked at the pre-proposal that you were not sure the answer, if a design firm is chosen for the MP, can they also be awarded the design of the MP? Would it matter if the design firm was not the prime?

Response: This RFP is for the development of a master site plan. Firms that design a master plan may not later compete to be the development partner or construction firm. This prevents firms from unfairly writing specifications that only their own firm may be able to deliver on and prevents conflicts of interest.

10.Question: Could you provide a site plan or parcel numbers for the project?

Response: Yes, that is now included in the RFP as part of this addendum.

11.Question: Our understanding in the Housing Strategy is the City envisions a mix of single-family and multifamily residential units. Please confirm.

Response: Yes.

12.Question: Does the City have an anticipated budget or budget range for this project?

Response: See response to Question 6.

13.Question: Could you confirm the current grades, classes, and student population at the Peak Academy (K-8)?

Response: PEAK Academy serves between 150-170 students in grades K-8.

14.Question: Does the Peak Academy anticipate enrollment or grade level expansion?

Response: PEAK Academy does not anticipate expansion beyond the 8th grade.

15.Question: Could you expand on the scope requirements for geotechnical services for this master plan?

Response: We would expect our selected partner to be able to provide services (or partner with another firm that can provide such services) that will allow the master plan to fully understand site feasibility, risks, and mitigation strategies within the constraints of the geophysical makeup of the collective site. The goal would be to be able to hand this study and the master plan to a development partner so they can move forward quickly with construction design.

16.Question: Could you expand on the scope for property appraisal services outlined in the

RFP?

Response: Property appraisal services will help the parties ascertain the real value of current assets at the collective site and how that can be leveraged as part of the costs and financing strategy of the master development plan.

17.Question: What are the limits of the redevelopment?

Response: Limits might include current zoning, market conditions, and site constraints, but actual redevelopment limits should be ascertained by the planning partner as part of the master development plan.

18.Question: Are there any available existing condition base plans of the redevelopment site?

Response: None are available at this time.

19.Question: Can you provide basic demographic information about the existing residents (age, family sizes, accessibility needs) and existing housing types (current bedroom mix and building types)?

Response: As of 06/30/2026, there are 131 reported households housed at Deaverview, representing 258 individual residents. Ages range from 0 to 82, with 98 residents aged 17 or younger and 19 at 62 or over (the HUD-approved range to be considered elderly).

Household sizes are broken down as follows: 68 with one person, 28 with two, 21 with three, eight with four, two with five, three with six, and one with seven.

Of the 160 units on the property, 20 are one-bedroom, 70 are two-bedroom, 56 are three-bedroom, and 14 are four-bedroom. There are no reported accessibility features or accessibility-associated reasonable accommodations on file for current residents.

20.Question: I can’t remember, but did you say you would post the list of pre-proposal meeting attendees?

Response: This can be gathered via the video link we have posted on our bid page.

21.Question: Are you able to be more specific with the community engagement scope? (ex: # of meetings requested, etc)?

Response: At least 2 community engagement events and at least 2 public education meetings are anticipated, but more may be required to ensure buy-in from the community and resident input is effectively gathered and incorporated into the plan. Other community engagement efforts (i.e. online) may be necessary and it is expected that the selected assist with those efforts as well.

22.Question: Are you requiring firms to use the exact cost proposal form included in the RFP?

Response: Yes, please use that form and provide as much information as possible.

23.Question: We understand that HUD is the federal sponsoring agency. Does HUD have a published policy related to indirect or overhead costs?

Response: Yes. Please refer to 2 CFR 200.414.

24.Question: Under Section 4. Evaluation Criteria & Required Content, Item 2f: how is customer data defined?

Response: Customer data would be any and all data collected and generated as a result of this planning effort. This includes but is not limited to data collected from community engagement, site feasibility studies, and market studies.

25.Question: Under Section 4, Evaluation Criteria & Required Content, Item 2g: how do you define service level agreement and what are the key elements that this agreement should have?

Response: The Service Level Agreement (SLA) should clearly define the scope of services that the proposed planning partner will deliver. Key elements include any and all performance commitments that the planning firm will make in order to execute on the necessary deliverables of the project.

26.Question: Our organization's core expertise is real estate pre-development feasibility analysis, master development planning, public-private partnerships, design, and community engagement. We have extensive experience working closely with a variety of architectural and design firms, and typically, we would propose that the City engage our organization first, with part of our scope including support for the City as it procures one or more architecture and design firms. This would allow the City to have access to our real estate predevelopment experience when interviewing prospective firms. In this case, due to the scale and complexity of the project, we anticipate the need for expertise in educational facilities (school) design, architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, cost estimating, affordable housing design in accordance with North Carolina

Qualified Allocation Plan for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects, and community engagement. Our approach enables the City to engage the most appropriate firm (or firms) for the project, and to ensure that design elements reflect financial feasibility analysis. If our organization were to be selected, would the City of Asheville be amenable to procuring those complementary services concurrently or following our engagement?

Response: The City may select the firm that demonstrates they can best meet the needs of the project. If a prospective firm is able to demonstrate that they would be the best planning partner and that concurrently procuring complementary services would best serve the City’s needs, then the City may be amenable to such a proposal.

27.Question: As we perform feasibility analysis, we may recommend additional third-party engagements for services such as environmental and geotechnical analysis. Our organization would support the City of Asheville, if desired and as part of our proposed scope of services, in designing an appropriate scope for third-party services and in the recruitment and selection of a qualified firm, in alignment with the City’s procurement process. The RFP, under Section 3: Statutory and/or Licensure Requirements, states that services, such as environmental and geotechnical analysis, can be obtained from a partner firm. Will the City of Asheville procure those services directly or is the applying firm expected to procure those services as a subcontractor?

Response: The applying firm may procure those services as a subcontractor and come forward with a joint proposal. If a prospective firm is able to demonstrate that they would be the best planning partner and that concurrently procuring complementary services would best serve the City’s needs, then the City may be amenable to such a proposal.

I understand that failure to acknowledge any addenda may cause this bid/proposal to be deemed non-responsive.

Authorized Signature Company Date

- End -