Questions and Answers.pdf

Charging the Atlanta Region:

A Transportation System Electrification Plan that Works for Everyone

Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Project

Request for Proposals

Questions and Responses

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is seeking proposals from firms or teams of firms experienced in the installation and operation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. The scope of work to be undertaken is defined by a federal competitive funding award from the USDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) program.

Interested firms were invited to submit a proposal that addresses the requirements defined in a Request for Proposals (RFP) released on Wednesday, May 28, 2025. ARC hosted an online pre-bid conference from 2:00 to 3:00 PM ET on Monday, June 2, 2025. Participants were invited to submit questions during the conference, or via email to ARC staff through 4:00 PM ET on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Responses to all questions received are provided below, organized to align with the general structure of the RFP. The individual/firm asking each question has been anonymized.

FUNDING AVAILABILITY

Can ARC clarify whether the funds obligated for Phase 1 are immediately available for reimbursement upon invoicing, and not subject to delay due to broader federal funding reviews or administrative holds? We would like to ensure there are no unexpected delays in reimbursement at this stage of the project.

Federal CFI funds in the amount of $200,000 are currently obligated in the FHWA Delphi system and ARC has been advised by our FHWA Georgia Division project manager that is permissible to begin charging against these funds at any time. ARC staff have participated in regular monthly calls with other CFI awardees around the country. Several of them have projects which are already actively underway and have reported that they are submitting invoices and receiving reimbursement payments from the federal government in a timely manner.

How secure is the funding for the first $200k for phase 1? Is there any chance of that funding not being available?

See response to previous question.

Can you please clarify the bidder’s responsibility for time and materials that are at risk. For example, if the project is halted in the middle of a billing cycle, who is responsible for covering the vendor’s incurred costs?

In the event of the project being terminated prior to completion of the work scope, any outstanding financial obligations of ARC and the EVCP will be governed by paragraphs 32-39 of the standard contract language included as Appendix E of the

RFP.

TEAM COMPOSITION, ORGANIZATION, AND EXPERIENCE

Are joint ventures and/or multiple part[ie]s eligible to apply? Requiring a single recipient to the respond to a 75 site RFP limits the number of applicants willing to apply and skews the program’s business model preference to Electric Vehicle Service Providers (EVSPs) that seek to own and operate Level 2 chargers on another’s property. As there are only a few EVSPs today seeking to make such investments, this can limit the pool of applicants, including small business owners, municipalities, and site hosts with just a single location who seek to own and operate themselves instead of having an EVSP.

Applicants may form joint venture teams if that facilitates delivery of the project concept as defined by ARC’s agreement with FHWA. However, one firm must be designated as the lead entity for contracting purposes, with the others serving in the role as subcontractors to the lead firm.

Is ARC open to proposals being co-led by two firms, or must there be a single prime contractor with all others listed as subcontractors?

Can ARC clarify if the respondents to the Team Member experience can include subcontractors – EVSE installer companies, EVSE manufacturer, EVSE maintenance providers - prior experience?

Yes, if a team comprises multiple firms, the proposal should include information on the experience of each entity and its key personnel assigned to this project.

Does the scope of work pertain to any of the following models: Design-Build, Charging-as-a-Service, Build-Operate-Maintain (BOM), etc.?

The work scope is divided into two phases where federal funds will be available for reimbursement. The first phase is for development of the Deployment Plan, which may involve some design and preliminary engineering elements, but is primarily focused on identifying sites and clearing them through the environmental review process. The second phase is for the purchase of charging equipment and costs associated with final engineering, construction and installation. Under the terms of ARC’s funding agreement with FHWA, the EVCP will be obligated to operate and maintain the equipment for a minimum of five years and provide performance data to ARC on both a quarterly and annual basis. Costs for those activities will not be eligible for federal funding reimbursement.

Are we allowed to collab Georgia Power’s Make Ready program dollars with this CFI grant?

Yes, applicants may partner with Georgia Power or other entities as necessary to maximize the ability of the available federal funding to achieve the objectives of this project on the defined schedule.

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION / STANDARDS

Can Proposers propose EV Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) solutions?

The federal CFI funds used for this project will be used to purchase and install EV charging equipment at selected sites. Once operational, the chargers should be free to use by the consumer and there should be no need for ongoing service payments to the EVCP by the property owner/manager. As such, ARC does not believe that a CaaS model is appropriate for this project.

Noting that ARC aims to promote free community-based Level 2 charging through this RFP, is there any flexibility in integrating faster charging speeds, such as Level 3 (also known as Direct Current Fast Charging, or DCFC) during the contract term? This could be in terms of charger upgrades (replacements) or adding additional chargers at project sites.

The amount of funding available for the project is fixed and non-negotiable. If the EVCP wishes to install chargers which operate at a delivery speed higher than the federal standard for Level 2, they may propose that. However, the ability to provide faster chargers should not be done at the expense of other requirements of the project (e.g., reducing the number of charging stations and/or ports). Once CFI funding has been fully expended and reimbursed, the costs of any future upgrades to the equipment must be borne fully by the EVCP. Note also that any upgrades within five years of the project’s completion must be coordinated in advance with ARC due to the federal interest in the equipment. Disposition of any Level 2 chargers paid for by CFI funds before the end of the five-year operational period may require reimbursement to FHWA.

NUMBER OF CHARGERS

The RFP states that each charging station must have at least four network-connected charging ports and be capable of simultaneously charging at least four EVs. Can ARC clarify that the EV charging station is the site location and not an individual charger (dispenser)? Is the expectation that a EV charging station definition should be considered similar to a definition of a gas station – multiple fuel dispensers and multiple fuel ports. The answer will also help clarify that each site is required to have four ports simultaneously available and not each individual charger (dispenser/unit) is not required to have four ports available simultaneously?

Yes, a charging station may have four ports which are co-located in close proximity to each on a single site (i.e., parcel, property or curb face), but operate independently of each other. It may also comprise a single unit with four ports, or two units with two ports each.

Will ARC fund more than 4 ports per site?

The amount of federal funding available for the project is fixed. If the budget permits an EVCP with a lower-cost technology solution to install more than four ports at any or all of the required minimum of 75 sites, that capability will be considered during the proposal evaluation process.

LOCATION OF CHARGERS

Do the EV chargers need to be available to the public 24/7 (e.g. outside business hours)?

Charging stations can be located on either public or private property, but must be accessible to any member of the general public 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Please note that this requirement is defined in the last paragraph on page 12 of the RFP.

Have any locations been scouted for this? Should we assume all stations will be installed in public parking lots or street side parking?

ARC has not scouted specific locations for charging equipment. To streamline the environmental review and approval process, and thus expedite the overall deployment schedule, our objective is to locate infrastructure where the land has been previously disturbed and the acquisition of additional property is not required.

Public parking lots and street side parking are two locations that align well with this objective, but an applicant may be able to identify other suitable sites.

Will any of the site locations be private businesses?

As stated in the last paragraph on page 12 of the RFP, “…stations can be located on either public or private property, but must be accessible to any member of the general public 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Access to the charging stations must not be blocked by security gates, require any form of pass or permit, or require payment for parking while being used.” Note that if a charger is located on property owned by a private business, access to the chargers may not be restricted for the exclusive use of employees, customers, or other visitors to that business.

Do you have a list of all the eligible sites that could get chargers? I know the RFP talks about the awardee choosing the sites I'm just wondering if we will get that list to review before submitting or after award?

As stated in the first paragraph of page 12 of the RFP, ARC has not defined sites. The applicant must identify potential locations as part of their proposal.

Will each location be responsible for their own utility bill once the EV chargers have been installed?

The entity which receives the utility bill and is responsible for payment must be negotiated between the EVCP and the owner/manager of each site where charging infrastructure is installed. ARC cannot assume this responsibility under the terms of our funding agreement with FHWA.

How specific were the site proposals in ARC’s CFI application? Beyond the stated goal of 75 stations across 19 counties, were any potential host sites or site typologies submitted?

An overview summary of the application will be made available on the procurement page for this project (https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project). Potential station locations were identified as a concept by the private sector entity which assisted in development of the application. Please also see the response to the final question in this document (page 13) for additional context on the application.

https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project

By what stage in the project must site locations be finalized—including executed land access/use agreements? Is this required by the end of Phase 1, or at a later milestone?

The expected outcome of Phase 1 of the project is a Deployment Plan that identifies station sites and clears as many as possible through the NEPA process so that implementation can begin immediately when and if the remaining CFI funds are obligated by FHWA under Phase 2. It is anticipated that achieving environmental clearance will occur in tandem with completion of executed land access/use agreements with property owners. However, if it is determined by a NEPA professional that final agreements may follow this milestone by a few weeks or months, ARC is open to this approach. Note that CFI funds for Phase 2 must be obligated no later than September 30, 2026, so that date should be considered the latest in which a significant number (if not all) of the sites have executed agreements in place and construction may begin.

For Phase 1, to what extend do landowners need to be engaged? For example, do they need to be (a) identified, (b) contacted, with agreement in principle pending funding, (c) lease agreements in place, or other?

See response to previous question.

Will ARC or its GEPS team support securing site access agreements (e.g. MOUs or easements) with local jurisdictions or private owners, or is this responsibility entirely on the EVCP?

The EVCP should be prepared to assume full responsibility for securing site access agreements. It is not expected that a GEPS team will be under contract until late in the Phase 1 schedule. Some assistance from the GEPS team may be available in the latter stages of the process, especially if those activities extend into the spring/summer of 2026, but successful delivery of the project should not be dependent on this assumption.

Will ARC or the GEPS team assist with local government permit applications, or is the EVCP expected to fully manage and fund this?

The EVCP should be prepared to assume full responsibility for securing local government permits. It is not expected that a GEPS team will be under contract until late in the Phase 1 schedule. Some assistance from the GEPS team may be available in the latter stages of the process, especially if those activities extend into the spring/summer of 2026, but successful delivery of the project should not be dependent on this assumption.

COST TO CONSUMERS

In the early days of the EV industry, free charging was more common. Today however, it’s unfeasible for providers to absorb capital costs including permitting, safety reviews, traffic engineering, community engagement, and compliance without revenue from the stations themselves. Given that free charging is not a requirement under the CFI program rules, would ARC consider removing this stipulation from the solicitation? My concern is that this requirement will limit responses to firms without sustainable business models, which in turn will jeopardize long-term deployment targets including the 2029 operational deadline.

The concept of offering free charging was a central aspect of ARC’s CFI application, which was submitted in June 2023. We recognize that the industry has evolved over the past two years, and will continue to evolve in the future. However, that application is incorporated by reference in ARC’s funding agreement with FHWA, so this is a requirement we cannot waive without a contract amendment. An amendment could not be completed in time to achieve the deadlines required to access federal funding and to maintain the overall project completion schedule.

I have a question regarding the evaluation criteria: In Section 3d, Cost to Consumers is weighted at 8 points. However, in Section III.4, it states that “Charging infrastructure installed under this project will provide electricity at no cost to the consumer.” Could you kindly clarify or reconsider this requirement? Providing EV charging at no cost to consumers would render the project financially unviable, especially when considering installation, maintenance, and operational costs.

See response to previous question.

How firm is the requirement that charging should be free for 5 years? Are any exceptions permitted?

See response to previous question.

Was the provision of free charging (including energy costs) budgeted into ARC’s original CFI proposal? Can any portion of the electricity cost be reimbursed through federal funds, or must 100% be covered by the EVCP?

See response to previous question. Also, per ARC’s funding agreement with FHWA, federal funds available for Phase 2 will be limited to the purchase, construction and installation of the charging equipment. No federal funds may be used for reimbursement of electricity costs once the chargers are operational.

To support free charging, can energy or other operating costs be recouped through CFI funding?

See response to previous question.

Can site operators offer charging at no cost to the consumer for a limited time length of time and then begin charging customers in order for the business model to be successful?

Free charging must be provided to the consumer for a minimum of five years after the chargers are operational. ARC accepts that a successful business model to provide free charging may require that time limits be imposed on each individual user and an EVCP is free to include such restrictions as part of their proposal.

However, note that any revenue generated from enforcement of a time limit may be subject to a cost-sharing arrangement with FHWA due to the federal interest in the equipment. The EVCP would be expected to disclose this assumed potential income source in advance so that ARC can consult with FHWA as part of the evaluation process. ARC will not assume any role in monitoring, collecting, and/or transmitting any income derived from time limit fees, penalties, or surcharges.

Free to use by consumer isn't a problem, my question would be does the cost associated with electricity go to the site host or is that expected to be a cost paid by the bid winner as an ongoing cost?

The business model to provide free charging to the customer is an integral aspect of the proposal and should be established by the EVCP. ARC is agnostic about what entity receives the bill for the electricity used and/or how it is paid. The only requirement is that no federal funds may be used to reimburse the EVCP or the property owner/manager for electricity costs once the chargers are operational.

It is understood that grant recipients cannot charge drivers to charge. Can estimated kW costs over the five-year term be included in the project budget as an eligible reimbursable costs? Cost recovery over the five-year term is necessary to ensure economic viability for the 75 stations.

Federal CFI funds are being made available to cover up to 80% of the upfront cost of purchasing and installing charging equipment. The cost to service and maintain that equipment in a state of good repair for the duration of the five-year reporting period may be factored into the purchase cost. However, the business model to provide free charging to the customer is an integral aspect of the proposal and should be established by the EVCP. No federal funds may be used to reimburse the EVCP or the property owner/manager for electricity costs once the chargers are operational.

After the 5 year period can units switch from free use to monetized?

Yes. ARC and FHWA involvement ends once all requirements of the five-year reporting period following implementation have been satisfied. The EVCP will be free to modify the equipment and its operations at any site in whatever manner best meets their long-term business model.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

No questions related to reporting requirements were received.

DESIGN STANDARDS AND AMENITIES

No questions related to design standards and amenities were received.

TYPES OF VEHICLES TO BE SERVED

Is there a preferred design for micro-mobility (scooter/e-bike) charging compatibility? Or is this a purely optional enhancement?

ARC does not have a preferred design and this capability, while desirable, is optional. However, note that a technology solution that offers the ability to charge micromobility devices may receive additional points in the proposal evaluation process.

SCHEDULE

Will ARC consider extending the application deadline? With a four-week procurement schedule, few applicants will have the ability to put an entire portfolio of sites together with secure site host commitments, utility will serve commitment, and financial commitments in order to submit strong, viable applications.

ARC does not propose to extend the deadline past June 27, 2025 at the present time. To the extent possible, ARC prefers an EVCP that offers a seamless “turnkey” site identification and implementation experience. But we understand that some aspects, such as those mentioned, will take time to finalize completely and may need to be accomplished as an element of the Deployment Plan. As discussed in the RFP, our intention is to complete Phase 1 by March 31, 2025 so that obligation of funding to advance into Phase 2 can be secured no later than September 30, 2025.

An application may propose that additional time be permitted for the Phase 1 work where finalizing certain details by the June 27, 2025 deadline presents a challenge.

However, note that such a shift in the overall project timing may impact the score the proposal receives during the evaluation process.

BUDGET

The RFP states clearly that CFI funds cannot be used for community engagement. Do you know if there were matching funds available for this type of service?

In its application, ARC chose to focus CFI funding on activities directly associated with site selection and implementation. Associated work related to community engagement may be conducted using separate funding resources, as described in the RFP section on the general engineering and planning services team.

What is the estimated construction budget?

Details of the budget are available on page 7 and Exhibit B of the RFP.

Are project management costs eligible costs for reimbursement? For example, costs related to permitting, final site design, utility construction, equipment installation and testing/validation at the selected sites as well as costs to develop a final list of potential sites based on the initial list, a gap analysis of existing infrastructure, and stakeholder engagement.

Project management costs associated with development of the Phase 1 Deployment Plan are eligible for reimbursement. These would include all activities required by staff of the EVCP (and any subcontractors) to finalize charging station sites and clear them through the environmental review process. Determining sites may require some level of gap analysis and stakeholder engagement. Under Phase 2, ARC intends to focus federal CFI funding exclusively on the purchase of chargers and associated construction and installation costs. As stated on page 8 of the RFP – “Permitting, safety reviews, traffic engineering, community engagement, administrative, compliance and monitoring costs under Phase 2 must be borne entirely by the EVCP.” For purposes of this project, costs for personnel who actively conduct physical work to bring a charging station site online (beginning with site prep and concluding with testing and validation) are eligible as construction/installation costs.

Per the scope of services, what types of engagement activities are permissible to charge against the available CFI funding? "Community engagement" is listed as not permissible, however, "stakeholder engagement" is listed in the "additional scope details." Please clarify.

Any expenses for EVCP or subcontractor staff to undertake community engagement during development of the Phase 1 Deployment Plan are eligible for reimbursement.

Such expenses are not eligible as part of the Phase 2 work scope.

Can Phase 1 funding be reimbursed on a monthly or similar basis while costs are incurred, or is it reimbursed at the end?

Invoices should be submitted by the EVCP to ARC on a monthly basis. Details of this process will be established in a kickoff meeting to be held in conjunction with issuance of a Notice to Proceed.

REQUIRED FORMS

No questions related to the required forms were received.

GENERAL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES TEAM

I noted that the ARC team may engage a GEPS provider to help with site selection and planning. We may be a good fit for some of this work - we've previously worked for a range of governments at a local, county and national level to support EV charging planning and site selection. What is the process to be considered as the GEPS provider?

ARC initiated a Request for Quotes (RFQ) process in December 2024 to secure the services of a GEPS consultant team. Initial submittals were received in January 2025, but the evaluation and selection process was put on hold indefinitely due to federal funding uncertainties. No timeline for restarting that process has been determined. Information on that procurement process and the proposed work scope is available at: https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/general-engineering-and-planning-services/.

Can ARC share more detail on the procurement process and timeline for the General Engineering and Planning Services (GEPS) team? Any further details on how the GEPS team might support or coordinate with the selected EVCP would be helpful as we shape our approach.

See response to previous question.

What is the procurement process for the GEPS vendor? Who can respond to this?

See response to previous question.

Can a company responding to the GEPS procurement process also response to the CFI RFP? Could a party be awarded both if the party is not the lead vendor on the CFI RFP?

https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/general-engineering-and-planning-services/ https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/general-engineering-and-planning-services/

A company which was previously included on a GEPS team that submitted a Statement of Qualifications in January 2025 may be included as a subcontractor to the EVCP on a team applying for this CFI project.

MISCELLANEOUS

Can ARC facilitate any high-level utility coordination, especially with Georgia Power or EMCs, to pre-clear connection requirements?

It is expected that the EVCP, or a member of the team, will have the necessary professional relationships with utility providers to facilitate implementation of the project. ARC has had limited direct engagement with those entities over the years, primarily with planners and management, and our contacts are not likely to be those critical to this project.

Do you have union requirements?

This project does not have a union requirement. Since federal funds are being used, contractors would be expected to follow relevant federal laws and regulations, but ARC does not have any additional requirements in that regard.

Can I get a copy of any addenda that have been released to date?

As of Friday, June 6, no addenda to the RFP have been released. If any revisions are made to the proposal contents or submittal schedule, that information will be posted on the procurement page for this project (https://atlantaregional.org/ procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/). All individuals who have submitted an email address and requested to be updated on the project will receive a direct notification when and if any addenda are posted.

Will ARC provide a list of pre-bid conference attendees?

We are unable to provide this information since it would involve releasing names, affiliations, and email addresses without the express consent of all individuals who participated in the meeting.

Can I get a copy of the pre-bid meeting sign in sheet and/or plan holder’s list if available?

https://atlantaregional.org/%20procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/ https://atlantaregional.org/%20procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/

Can ARC share a copy of its original application submitted to USDOT for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) grant? This would help ensure alignment with the goals and commitments presented.

In conjunction with release of these responses, an overview summary of the application will be posted on the procurement page for this project (https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/).

The application was developed in collaboration with two private sector entities (Volta and RaceTrac), as explained on pages 6-7 of that document. ARC acknowledged in the application that since the CFI program uses federal funds, a fair and open procurement process would be required to secure an EVCP to implement the project work scope. As explained on pages 14-15:

Both RaceTrac, Inc. and Volta Charging understand these procurement requirements and accept that they may not ultimately be the final partners with whom ARC contracts. The work scope outlined in this application should be understood as a concept which ARC intends to implement across the region, not commitments to engage the services of any specific private sector partners.

It should be noted that ARC requested funding from both the Community and Corridor components of the CFI program in the application, but only the Community portion was awarded funds ($6,120,067). As a result, some modifications to the project’s work scope and budget were necessary before the final funding agreement between ARC and FHWA was executed. However, the basic concept and objectives for the portion of the project to expand Level 2 EV charging access throughout the region remained unchanged.

https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/ https://atlantaregional.org/procurement/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-project/