Proposer_s Questions and Answers.pdf

Riverwalk Corridor Structure Design Request for Proposals Proposer’s Questions and Answers

1. Please confirm that fee will be submitted and included in the selection criteria. We have experience being awarded a competitive contract with a local agency where fee was submitted even though there was State or Federal funding, a complaint was lodged, and the agency had to reissue the RFP without fee being considered. This caused several months of delay in starting design.

a. Upon a second review of the RFP by CDOT, it has been confirmed that this project will follow a qualifications-only selection process. We will revise the language in the RFP to omit fees. The due date for the proposals has been extended to accommodate the time needed for the edits to the RFP.

2. Does the project funding impose schedule constraints like an expiration date?

a. The funds must be expended by December 31, 2026.

3. We did not see Attachment C (Base Survey Information). Would the Town please provide that information?

a. Addendum 1 provides a link to download the survey files.

4. What specific low flow conditions will need to be evaluated for the study, in addition to the base (100YR) flood conditions? I.e. Ordinary high water flows? If so, is this defined by the permanent vegetation line? Does low flow mean 2YR flood flows or winter condition flows?

a. 100 year and winter and fall low-flow conditions are desired for analysis alongside any other recommendations by the proposing teams.

5. Are there specific design constraints for the low flow conditions?

a. The Town is interested in investigating water levels during low-flow conditions. There are low-flow periods when the water flows are not visible in the river and are considered to have a negative aesthetic impact. At this time the Town does not believe this would impact the design of the structures in the RFP.

6. Can the Town provide the base survey information from Attachment C please?

a. Addendum 1 provides a link to download the survey files.

7. As described in the RFP, this project is grant funded and must follow the CDOT design process. Our experience with the CDOT process is that the QBS process does not allow fees to be used for professional engineering services which may jeopardize the Town's grant funding. Would you clarify if the requested fees are allowed for design selection?

a. Upon a second review of the RFP by CDOT, it has been confirmed that this project will follow a qualifications-only selection process. We will revise the

8. With a federal MMOF grant as the major funding source for this engineering design project, should this procurement follow Brooks Act requirements – qualifications based without a fee?

a. Upon a second review of the RFP by CDOT, it has been confirmed that this project will follow a qualifications-only selection process. We will revise the

9. If a team includes a construction firm as a subconsultant partner to provide cost estimating support services, would that contractor be conflicted out of constructing the project?

a. Town procurement policy would not prohibit a contractor from bidding on a future construction phase; however, we cannot forecast what stipulations may be included if grant funds are received for future construction phases.

10. Should we include the preparation of a C/LOMER in our scope and, if required, our fee estimate?

a. Any map revisions will be handled in subsequent project phases and should not be included in the proposal for the project.

11. If interviews are necessary, with summer vacation season upon us, would the Town be able to share when they anticipate conducting the interviews (for planning purposes) and whether they would be virtual or in-person?

a. The Town will accommodate the availability of teams selected for interview and can offer in-person, virtual, and hybrid options.

12. Will the survey information described in Attachment C be provided?

a. The files have been provided as Addendum 1.

13. Does Breckenridge intend on ordering title commitments for this project, or should this be included in the scope?

a. Title commitments are not part of this scope of work.

14. Is the intent of converting the entire HEC-2 model to HEC-RAS to be able use that model for future projects on other sections of the river? If not, is building a project specific HEC-RAS model and have it tie into the HEC-2 model at the upstream and downstream ends of our project reach acceptable?

a. The updated model can tie at the project limits.

15. Is a Stormwater Infrastructure GIS database available?

a. The Town does not have a comprehensive stormwater database at this time.