RFP CP-27-02 Responses to Questions.pdf

RFP CP-27-02

Responses to Submitted Questions – Strategic Planning and Visioning Services September 9, 2026

1. Does the City have a minimum expectation for the number of community or stakeholder engagement activities?

The City expects multiple community and stakeholder engagement activities but does not have an established minimum expectation for the number of community or stakeholder engagement activities. Proposers should recommend an engagement approach that they believe will provide meaningful and representative input from College Park’s community.

The City is particularly interested in a mix of engagement methods and opportunities to reach residents and stakeholders who may not typically participate in traditional public meetings.

2. Beyond the February briefing and final presentation, how many Mayor/Council work sessions or briefings should proposers anticipate?

In addition to the Strategic Priorities briefing and final presentation identified in the RFP, the City anticipates one additional Mayor/Council worksession during the planning process, likely early in the process to provide an opportunity for the Mayor and Council to share their perspectives on City priorities, opportunities, and challenges. Proposers may recommend additional sessions or briefings as part of their proposed approach.

3. Are there existing City, community, or University of Maryland events that may be used for engagement or pop-up activities?

Yes. There are existing City, community, or University of Maryland events that may be used for engagement activities. Specific opportunities will depend on the project schedule and event calendars. The City welcomes creative approaches that can leverage existing events to meet community members where they are already planning to be.

4. Will the City assist with outreach, participant recruitment, meeting space, and stakeholder contact lists?

Yes, the City expects to actively support the engagement process, including promotion through City communications channels, coordination of meeting space, and sharing available existing contact lists for stakeholders. The consultant should lead the design and facilitation of the engagement process, including identifying relevant stakeholders and developing an appropriate participant recruitment and outreach strategy, with the City serving as an active partner.

5. Does the City expect live Spanish-language interpretation at community engagement activities, or only bilingual written/online materials?

The City expects English and Spanish language written/online materials. The City also wants Spanish speaking community members to be able to participate meaningfully in engagement activities. Proposers should describe how they would accomplish this, including where bilingual facilitation or live interpretation would be appropriate. The City doesn’t anticipate requiring live Spanish language interpretation at every engagement activity.

6. Does the City have a preferred survey or online engagement platform, or should proposers include those tools in the proposed fee?

The City does not have a preferred survey or online engagement platform, although it does maintain a subscription with Survey Monkey that may be available for use with this project.

Proposers should recommend appropriate tools as part of their methodology. Any consultant provided platform or tool should be clearly identified in the proposal and included in the project budget.

7. The $65,000 budget covers both Vision 2045 and the three-to-five-year Strategic Action Plan across all six tasks; is that figure firm, or is there flexibility?

The City’s planned budget for this project is $65,000, which includes both Vision 2045 and the three-to-five-year Strategic Action Plan. Proposals should be constructed to accomplish the City’s core objectives within that budget. The base proposal should be sufficient to fulfill the project scope and produce both planning documents. Proposers may identify additional or enhanced services as optional, separately priced line items beyond the base proposal. These items should represent enhancements, not services required to complete the project. Any optional items should clearly describe the item/service, associated costs, and the value of the item/service to the project. Inclusion of optional items in the proposal does not commit the City to funding those services.

8. Does the budget include the consultant's travel costs for in-person engagement, or may travel be priced as a separate reimbursable?

Proposals should include anticipated travel and other reimbursable expenses within the total proposed fee.

9. How many in-person versus virtual engagement activities and Council presentations does the City anticipate within the available budget?

The City has not specified a specific number of in-person vs virtual engagement activities.

Proposers may recommend a mix based on their proposed methodology and project plan.

The City expects that key community engagement opportunities and Mayor/Council presentations will occur in person. Virtual methods could be used strategically, where appropriate.

10. Will the FY2021–FY2025 Strategic Plan close-out (presented to Council October 2026) be shared with proposers, or only the selected consultant?

The Strategic Plan close out is not anticipated to be available until late October, after the deadline for the submission of proposals. The report will be available publicly in late October on the City’s website.

11. Is there an incumbent or prior consultant from the FY2021–FY2025 plan who is expected to respond?

The City does not have any expectations on who will respond to the RFP. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria listed in the RFP.

12. For bilingual engagement, does the City require Spanish-language facilitation staff, or is translation of materials sufficient?

Please see the response to Question #5.

13. Will the City provide translation/interpretation services and community-outreach channels, or is the consultant responsible for those costs?

No, the City will not be available to provide translation or interpretation services. Please see the response to Question #5 regarding the City’s expectations for bilingual engagement. Proposers should account for translation/interpretation services that are necessary to support their proposed methodology within their proposed project budget.

The City will support the project via its existing communication channels.

14. Please confirm submission logistics: original plus three hard copies mailed to the Finance Department, with no electronic option accepted?

Yes, that is correct. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the submission requirements stated in the RFP.

15. The RFP expresses a preference for experience with similarly sized municipalities, university cities, or communities with diverse populations. Will the City give equal weight to strategic planning and visioning references that are (a) out of region, (b) municipalities substantially smaller or larger than College Park, or (c) other public and mission-driven organizations — such as counties, educational institutions, libraries, associations etc. — where the planning methodology is directly comparable even if the exact client type is not?

Proposers’ relevant strategic planning and visioning experience will be evaluated based on its relevance to the City’s overall needs. Experience with similarly sized municipalities, university communities, and diverse populations are desirable but not an absolute requirement. Any comparable work with other public sector organizations will be considered when the scope, methodology, engagement process and deliverables demonstrate relevant experience.

16. Translation and interpretation: The RFP requires English- and Spanish-language engagement and materials. Does the City have existing translation and/or interpretation resources available to support the project, or should proposers include all translation and interpretation services and associated costs in their proposed budget?

Please see the responses to Question #5 and #13.

17. Community engagement logistics: What logistical support does the City anticipate providing for community engagement activities, such as meeting space, event scheduling, promotion and participant recruitment, printing, audiovisual technology, and other on-site support?

Please see the response to Question #4.

18. Mayor and Council engagement: For purposes of developing the project approach and budget, approximately how many Mayor and Council meetings, work sessions, or presentations does the City anticipate the consultant attending or facilitating over the course of the project?

Please see the response to Question #2.

19. Final document design: Please clarify the City's expectations for graphic design and production of the final Vision 2045 and Strategic Action Plan. Does the City expect the consultant to provide fully designed, publication-ready documents, including graphic design and accessibility work, or will City staff provide design and branding support for final publication?

The City expects that the final Vision 2045 and Strategic Action Plan documents are professionally organized, visually engaging, accessible, and suitable for public distribution.

The City doesn’t expect an elaborate stand-alone publication design process. City staff can provide branding guidance, logos, photography, and other available assets. Proposers should describe the level of document design included in their proposed fee.

20. Project budget: Please confirm whether the City's $65,000 project budget is intended to include all consultant travel, translation, printing, engagement-related expenses, and other reimbursable or direct costs.

Please see the response to Questions #5, #6, #7, #8, and #13. Proposals should account for anticipated consultant travel, engagement related expenses, consultant provided tools, or other costs within the proposed fee, except for City provided resources specifically identified in these responses.

21. Existing community survey: The Existing Conditions Assessment references community survey results. Could the City provide additional information regarding the existing survey, including when it was conducted, its general scope, and whether the City anticipates a new community-wide survey as part of the Vision 2045 engagement process?

The last community survey was conducted in 2025 and can be viewed on the City’s website.

The City does not anticipate a new, statistically valid community-wide survey as part of the Vision 2045 engagement process. Proposers should recommend an approach that meets the City’s goals and objectives, which may include surveying.

22. Regarding Section 13, Item 5, Relevant Project Experience and References: May the requirement to provide five examples of similar projects completed within the past five years be satisfied collectively through relevant experience of the proposer's proposed project team, including key personnel, subcontractors, and/or partner firms, or must all five projects have been performed under contract by the proposing firm itself?

The five examples may include the relevant experience of the project team, including key personnel, subcontractors, and partner firms. Proposers should clearly identify which entity and proposed team member(s) performed each project and their role in the project. The City will consider both firm experience and the relevant experience of the individuals who will perform the work.

23. Multilingual Engagement Scope: Section 2 (About the City) notes that College Park's population includes significant Asian and other non-English-speaking residents, in addition to the Hispanic/Latino population. Section 5 (Scope of Services) specifies English- and Spanish-language engagement and materials. Has the City identified any additional priority languages beyond Spanish for the community engagement process, or is Spanish the sole language requirement for this engagement?

English and Spanish are the required languages for this project. The City recognizes that there are residents that speak additional languages and welcomes proposals that describe inclusive approaches for reaching those communities. However, proposers are not required to provide translation or facilitation in any additional languages beyond English and Spanish.

24. Interim Strategic Priorities Briefing Format: Section 5 (Task 5) requires an Interim Strategic Priorities Briefing no later than February 2027 to inform FY2028 budget development. Could the City clarify whether this briefing is expected to be delivered as an in-person presentation to the Mayor and Council, a written briefing document, or at the consultant's discretion based on what best serves the City's budget timeline?

The City expects that this will be delivered as an in-person presentation to the Mayor and Council with supporting written briefing document that provides a summary of the initial https://www.collegeparkmd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7578/College-Park-2025-Survey_Report?bidId= findings and recommendations. The purpose of this presentation/briefing is to help inform the development of the City’s FY28 budget.

25. Consideration of SDVOSB/Local Business Status: The Evaluation Criteria in Section 15 do not reference any preference or additional consideration for veteran-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, or Maryland-based small businesses. Does the City's procurement process afford any scoring consideration to proposers holding SDVOSB, VOSB, or Maryland VSBE certification, or is this outside the scope of the stated evaluation criteria?

Proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria stated in the RFP. There is no separate scoring preference for proposals holding SDVOSB, VOSB, or Maryland VSBE certification or for veteran-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, or Maryland-based small businesses

26. Proposal Length Expectations: Section 13 asks that proposals be "concise" but does not specify a page limit. Can the City provide guidance on an expected or preferred page length for the narrative proposal sections, excluding required attachments and forms?

The City does not have a page limit. Proposers should provide sufficient information that demonstrates their understanding of the project, approach, qualifications, experience, project team, proposed schedule, and fee, while keeping the proposal document concise and focused. There is no preferred page count.

27. Did the City’s 2021–2025 Strategic Plan achieve its intended purpose, and how did the City measure its effectiveness?

The City’s 2021-2025 Strategic Plan has provided an important framework for identifying City priorities and guiding work over the five-year period. The City is currently conducting a close-out assessment of the plan which will be presented to Council in late October.

28. What impact, if any, did the City’s two-year election cycle have on the continuity and effectiveness of the five-year Strategic Plan?

The City’s two-year election cycle is a consideration for long-range planning. One objective of this project is to develop a long-term community vision that can provide continuity beyond the individual election cycles, while creating a shorter-term Strategic Action plan that can be reviewed and adapted as priorities or conditions evolve.

29. Is there a strategic plan from another city or organization that the City considers particularly effective or would like this planning effort to learn from?

The City hasn’t identified a single strategic plan that it intends to replicate. We welcome proposers’ recommendations and examples of effective approaches in other communities.

The City is particularly interested in plans that are community driven, accessible, visually understandable, actionable/measurable, and structured to remain useful over time.