RFP-PLA01-26B Transportation Planning Consulting Services Addenda B.pdf

Steven M. Neuhaus County Executive

August 13, 2026

RE: RFP-PLA01-26, Transportation Planning Consulting Services Addendum B

Dear Offerors:

This Addendum B is to provide clarifications and address questions for the above-mentioned RFP.

I. Orange County Clarifications.

1. Through this Addendum B, the County wishes to inform all prospective offerors of the following requirements:

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice published a landmark final rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), establishing enforceable technical standards for the digital content of State and local governments. The rule applies to agencies providing services through websites, mobile applications (apps), PDFs, online forms, and other digital tools, requiring that this content be accessible to people with disabilities (both outside the County government and County employees). To meet this requirement, the County must ensure their web content and mobile apps meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA. This means that, when applicable, full compliance with WCAG 2.1 must be achieved (deadline for the County is April 26, 2027) and will be required of the vendor during the term of the contract awarded under this RFP.

Accordingly, the County hereby is adding the following provisions to the RFP:

a) Accessibility Requirement Notice: All proposed solutions (web, software, hardware) must comply with ADA Title II as amended in 2024 and conform with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards.

b) Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) Request: Offerors must submit a current Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR/VPAT) for all software, hardware, and web deliverables, as applicable. ACRs must reflect WCAG 2.1 AA conformance.

c) Testing Requirement: The County reserves the right to test proposed solutions for accessibility prior to award, including keyboard-only navigation and screen reader compatibility.

The following provisions are hereby added to the contract resulting from this RFP:

a) Vendor shall indemnify and hold harmless the County from any claims, lawsuits, damages, and attorney’s fees arising from the Vendor’s failure to comply with the accessibility requirements of this contract.

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

Renee Arnold-O’Regan, M.A.

Commissioner

255-275 Main St., P.O. Box 218 Goshen, New York 10924

TEL: (845) 291-2792 FAX: (845) 378-2365

www.orangeCountygov.com

b) The Vendor agrees to maintain the accessibility of its software and web products throughout the duration of the contract, including any patches, updates, or new versions, and to provide updated ACRs/VPATs for each major release.

c) Vendor shall include these accessibility requirements in all subcontracts, ensuring subcontractors inherit the same obligations.

2. Through this Addendum B, Orange County adds its Artificial Intelligence Policy to this RFP.

Compliance with this policy will be required of the vendor during the term of the contract awarded under this RFP.

II. Questions & Answers

1. Who are the incumbents on this contract?

There are no incumbents on this contract. The Orange County Planning Department does not currently have a contract for on-call transportation services.

2. The RFP notes, “Some RFPs may be awarded to more than one entity” (Basis of Award, page

6), “… although it is anticipated that the selected Consultant will…” (Scope, page 10), “The Consultant awarded a contract…” (Background, page 10), “Award(s) may be made to the highest scoring Offerer(s)…” (Basis of Award, page 29). Some references are singular and some are plural. Please clarify, does the County intend to award this opportunity to a single consulting team or to multiple teams?

The County intends to award this opportunity to a primary consultant overseeing a team of subconsultants, as necessary, to complete the array of tasks outlined in the RFP. The County, however, reserves the right to award multiple contracts if the circumstances so warrant.

3. The RFP requires the inclusion of “executed versions of the “Federal Pre-Award Certifications”

[i.e., Appendix F] (Federally Required Certifications, page 21) and FTA Annual Certifications and Assurances. Please confirm whether or not this requirement applies only to the Prime Consultant or also to Subconsultants.

The forms the subconsultants will sign are the Federal Pre-Award Certifications which include the DBE Letter of Intent, DBE Certification (as applicable), Debarment and Suspension Certification, and the Lobbying Certification, as well as the Federal Annual Certification and Assurances. Following the award, all subconsultants will be required to sign a “Subcontractors Letter” which requires them to agree to all terms of the primary contract including indemnification and insurance requirements.

4. The RFP requires the inclusion of “a list of rates for reimbursables for Consultant and all

Subconsultants for contract years 2026-2027 through 2030-3021.” (Reimbursable Rates, page 24). Given the uncertainty of future costs, is it acceptable to use responses such as “the IRS designated mileage reimbursement rate in effect on the date of provided services”, “actual cost of reproduction services”, “actual cost of postage/shipping”, “GSA Per-Diem rates in effect on the date of provided services”, etc.?

Yes.

5. The RFP specifies “At the beginning of each contract year and when updates are made as per

Section 2.c. of the Pricing section above, Consultant shall provide County with an Excel file that lists the names of all Consultant and Subconsultant staff providing services under this contract, their position title, firm, and the Level at which they will be billed.” and “No additional Levels or revisions of Level rates will be permitted.” (Payment, page 25). If there are staffing changes at the Prime Consultant or a Subconsultant, can the list of individuals be modified during a contract year provided they stay within the Level rates for Personnel costs?

Yes, the individuals can be modified within the Level rates. If the rate for Level 2 is specified as $100 for a contract year, then that rate cannot be changed but individuals can be moved to, added to, or deleted from Level 2.

6. The RFP requires the completion of several forms. Please confirm whether or not the following forms apply only to the Prime Consultant or also to Subconsultants:

Proposal Form (page 31) Non-Collusion Certification (page 34) Iran Divestment Act Certification (page 35) Disclosure of Prior Non-Responsibility Determinations (page 37) Appendix J – Orange County Department of Information Technology – Compliance Security Questionnaire (page 176) Appendix K – NYS Vendor Responsibility Questionnaire For-Profit Business Entity Appendix L – Orange County Department of Finance Supplier/Payee Application Form Appendix N – Pay-to-Play Law Form A Appendix N – Pay-to-Play Law Form B

Subconsultants only need to complete the Non-Collusion Certification, the Iran Divestment Act Certification and the Disclosure of Prior Non-Responsibility Determinations.

7. Appendix C of the RFP appears to be missing. Is there an Appendix C?

Appendix C is on page 70 of the RFP document.

8. What do you anticipate in the Proposal Narrative in terms of the level of detail for a technical approach to the scope tasks?

The proposal narrative should demonstrate a clear ability to complete scope tasks based on a working understanding of industry best-practices and prior experience.

9. Several Scope tasks indicate a potential separate task-order procurement, are you seeking proposers' confirmation that the relevant expertise can be provided?

Yes, however, the County reserves the right to self-perform or issue a separate solicitation for any services covered by the RFP as it deems necessary, in its sole discretion.

10. Scope tasks L to Q do not indicate the potential for a separate task-order procurement but correlate with UPWP items (or a USHUD grant) that indicate potential need for consultant support. Are these also potentially to be procured through a task order assignment?

All work that is assigned under the contract resulting from this RFP will be through task order assignment. However, please also see the response to Question 9.

11. Does OCTC foresee the need to update its Travel Demand Model as part of this contract?

This will be determined by County at a later date. Currently, NYMTC handles Travel Demand Modeling (TDM) for OCTC, mainly in relation to Air Quality Conformity, which the County reserves the right to continue. However, it’s possible that, after consultation with the awarded contractor, TDM for specific projects may be run by the consultant, likely using the NYBPM but possibly with different inputs.

12. Would the selected consultant team need to include any and all potential teammates for future task orders? Or could the selected consultant add teammates at the time of the task order procurement.

Teammates can be added but the vast majority of potential teammates should be included in the proposal so the County can accurately gauge the depth and breadth of the team’s capabilities and the capacity to meet the needs of the intended tasks.

13. Does OCTC anticipate selecting a single consulting team or several (a pool) for this engagement?

Please refer to answers to Questions 2 and 9 above.

14. Please confirm that the Level Lists presented for pricing will include hourly rates that would apply to the prime consultant and all sub-consultants. That is, each firm within a team can not submit separate Level Lists with different rate structures.

Yes, that is correct.

15. Shall resumes be included in Section 2: Background/Experience or Section 4: Personnel (as described on RFP page 27)?

Full resumes/CVs of staffing to be assigned to this project at initiation need only be provided once and may be included as part of the “Background and Experience” section of the proposal or as part of the “Personnel” section of the proposal.

16. Which firm is currently performing the Countywide Transit Feasibility Study and Transit

Consulting Services? Additionally, is the Transit Consulting Services contract separate from the Transportation Planning Consulting Services contract, or is there anticipated overlap between the scopes of work?

The current Transit Consulting Services contract was awarded to Transpo Group USA, Inc. as a result of RFP-PLA02-24. Transpo Group will perform the Transit Feasibility Study through their contract and there is currently no anticipated overlap between the scopes of work.

17. Could the County provide examples of reimbursable expenses that are anticipated under this contract (e.g., travel, public outreach materials, meeting expenses, translation services, printing, data purchases, software, data collection, etc.)? Additionally, if expenses not identified in the consultant's original Reimbursables List become necessary to perform a future task order, may those expenses be added and billed with County approval?

Common categories of expenses related to the provision of services sought under this RFP and the markup rate, if any, must be identified in the proposal. Expenses outside the listed categories will generally be rejected unless they were pre- approved in writing by County before they were incurred.

18. Please clarify if offerors can propose multiple billing rates per Position Billing Level, or if there should only be one billing rate per Level.

Only one billing rate per Level.

19. The RFP requires offerors to propose hourly rates for each Position Billing Level and indicates that these rates apply to both the prime consultant and subconsultants. If the prime and sub-consultant(s) have positions assigned to the same billing level, will all firms be required to bill at one awarded rate for that level, or may the prime and sub-consultant(s) have different billing rates within the same Level?

Only one billing rate per Level for both prime and subconsultant(s).

20. If project staffing changes during contract performance, may replacement personnel be assigned within the same approved Position Billing Level upon notification to the County, provided the replacement personnel possess comparable qualifications and experience?

21. May additional staff and position titles be added during contract performance, provided they are placed within an existing approved Position Billing Level?

22. The RFP states that staff changes after contract award without County notification and approval may delay payment. Can the County clarify the approval process and whether substitutions with similarly qualified personnel will be routinely permitted?

Staff changes should not pose a delay as long as they are communicated in writing to the County, prior to execution of a task order or as soon as possible, in the event of an emergency. The Consultant should also supply an updated Excel workbook with that changed staff listed in the update. The workbook is required for invoice-matching of staff hours to pay rates therefore the workbook must be kept up to date. However, adding or changing a subconsultant firm may create a delay as additional forms and, possibly, a contract amendment may be required.

23. The RFP states that all deliverables become the property of the County. Please confirm that consultants retain ownership of their pre-existing methodologies, templates, software tools, analytical frameworks, models, databases, and other background intellectual property used in performing the work.

Yes, unless County funds were used to purchase any of the foregoing, e.g., a dataset for a specific project.

24. Please confirm that commercially licensed third-party software, datasets, and models remain subject to their existing license restrictions and are not transferred to the County through ownership of project deliverables.

Please refer to answer to Question 23.

25. For the Orange & Dutchess Transportation Access & Mobility Study funded through HUD CPF-

EDI, can the County identify the specific HUD requirements that will flow down to the consultant?

Please see Appendix I to the RFP entitled “FY 2023 Community Project Funding Grant Agreement NO. B-23-CP-NY-1133” for specific requirements.

26. The RFP states that task orders may be approved by the Commissioner or designee, including via email, and then incorporated through a contract amendment. May the consultant begin work upon written/email task order approval, or only after execution of the contract amendment?

No work should commence before a task order has been added to the contract. Please review Article 34 “Modification” of the Agreement for Consultant Services (Appendix A to RFP).

27. Under Submission of Proposals, item #2 requests proposed project staffing and resumes/CVs for all personnel, while item #4 requests staffing assigned at project initiation, including titles and resumes. Can the County clarify the distinction between these requirements and whether personnel information and resumes may be provided in a single consolidated section?

Please see the answer to Question 15. Additionally, please also review the answers to Questions 12 and 22.

28. The Basis of Award section includes “Availability” as a scored evaluation criterion worth up to

12 points. Can the County clarify what information Offerors should provide to demonstrate availability and how this criterion will be evaluated?

The Orange County Planning Department anticipates that several projects will run simultaneously for the duration of this contract, and offerors must demonstrate their ability to take on and address variable tasks in a timely manner.

29. The RFP requests resumes/CVs for “all personnel.” Given the anticipated use of a large multidisciplinary team, may offerors provide resumes for key personnel, with additional staff identified by role and qualifications?

Please see the answers to Questions 12, 15 and 22.

30. Are consultants that perform private-sector engineering work in the County restricted from participating in this program?

Consultants that perform private-sector engineering work in Orange County are not restricted from submitting a proposal to this RFP.

31. Do we need to respond to every component listed in RFP or can we respond to certain components?

Proposals must include an organized narrative response to all elements listed in the specifications - see Item #3 on page 27 of the RFP.

32. Page 11 states that Offerors should be advised that the Transit Consulting Services firm that is currently under contract with the County will be performing the Countywide Transit Feasibility Study. Can the county identify for us the name of that firm? Also, will the firm preparing the Feasibility Study be involved in other any aspects or tasks outlined in the RFP?”

Please see the answer to Question 16 above.

33. Are consultants that perform private-sector engineering work in the County restricted from participating in this program?

Please see the answer to Question 30 above.

34. What service may be required for/by Congestion Management Planning services?

For information on what may be required for/by Congestion Management Planning services, please refer to subsection (III)(E) of the “Specifications” section on page 13 of the RFP.

35. Will this contract create complete streets policy for the county or assist to help implement current policy or best practices?

For information on Complete Streets Planning and Implementation, please refer to subsection (III)(F) of the “Specifications” section on page 13 of the RFP.

36. Is there an estimation of how much data will be required to be collected for this contract?

Data requirements will vary based on individual projects, and an offeror should demonstrate their ability to collect, manage, and maintain transportation-related data in a way that is accessible to Orange County Planning Department staff and, in some cases, the public.

37. What will be required to model Congestion Management Process (CMP), Congestion

Management / Air Quality (CMAQ), Travel Demand Model, Long-Range Transportation Plan?

Please see the answer to Question 11.

38. What range of services are you looking for to support Non-Motorized/Active Transportation Planning? What titles and expertise would be required to successfully complete this task?

For information on Non-Motorized/Active Transportation Planning, please refer to subsection (III)(K) of the “Specifications” section on page 16 of the RFP.

39. Should the consultant develop a plan and implementation strategy for high accident locations?

For more information on planning and implementation strategy for high accident locations, please refer to subsection (III)(O) of the “Specifications” section on page 19 of the RFP. Please note that several other tasks/subsections of the “Specifications” section of the RFP also reference safety.

40. Will there be any design work associated with this task?

Conceptual plans (basic outline or general scope) may be requested as a component of several tasks outlined in the “Specifications” section of the RFP. As the bulk of this work is UPWP-funded and this procurement is not Brooks Act compliant, design is prohibited and nothing further than conceptual plans may be permitted.

41. What range of services or qualifications are you looking for to support this task?

Offerors should demonstrate their team’s ability to complete various transportation planning tasks outlined in the “Specifications” section of RFP based on technical expertise, industry-best practice, and prior experience. It is important for offerors to demonstrate their capacity to manage multiple tasks simultaneously.

42. Is OC Planning looking for a lawyer to draft the procedures for 23 CFR 450.316(c) or just a competent person familiar with the interested party statute?

Law degree is not required to draft the procedures but thorough familiarity with the applicable statute(s) is. Any such procedures are subject to review by the County Law Department and/or federal and state agencies, as applicable.

43. Does award of this contract create any restriction on the consultant’s eligibility to pursue future engineering, environmental, or other municipal contracts for projects identified through the MPO/UPWP activities?

The terms of the contract resulting from this RFP are set forth in the solicitation and the AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES template annexed to the RFP as Appendix A. The County does not offer legal advice to offerors. Please consult with your attorney regarding conflict of interest or other legal restrictions, if any, that may affect your participation in future municipal contracts resulting from said activities.

44. What Esri licensing does the County own?

The Orange County Planning Department has access to a variety of ArcGIS Pro User Types up to Professional Plus through the County and NYSDOT which provide certain user licenses to the MPOs. These can be modified but would only be accessible to County employees.

45. Has there been a past roadway inventory done by the County in GIS format?

The County has an existing roadway inventory. For more information on data collection and analysis, please refer to subsection (III)(G) of the “Specifications” section on page 14 of the RFP.

46. Does the County have up to date planimetrics (sidewalks, trail networks, ferry routes, docks, bridge locations, sign type and locations, bike lanes, transit routes and stops)?

The County does not have up-to-date planimetrics for all topics mentioned in question

46. The County may have some data related to several topics that has not been updated recently.

47. Does the County have Esri portal, Esri ArcServer, ArcGIS Online?

The County has an enterprise portal, ArcServer, and a credit base AGOL.

48. Will the County expect the consultant to host GIS web maps and apps within the consultants

Esri account environment?

The County anticipates hosting maps or apps within our Esri environment.

49. Does the County currently have a GIS based asset and facility management program? If so, what vendor product is the County using?

No. However, the Orange County Department of Public Works maintains datasets for County roads, bridges, and some culverts in both ArcGIS and Google Earth formats.

50. Are the hourly rates intended as a not-to-exceed cap per level, or should we invoice the exact rates listed?

Hourly rates are the exact flat rates, not a not-to-exceed cap, for each Level, until they are updated with a new contract year. For example, if the Level 2 hourly rate is $100, all employees at Level 2 will bill at $100/hour.

51. If the rates are not-to-exceed caps, our actual costs will fluctuate based on the consultant staff mix. Consequently, the actual budget will likely be significantly lower than a budget calculated using maximum cap rates. How should we best demonstrate this variance? Would you like us to include detailed subconsultant rate breakdowns as well?

Please see the answer to Question 50 above. For billing rates, please also review answers to Questions 5, 14, 18, 19, 21, and 22.

52. In relation to Article 19 of the Agreement for Consultant Services, we note that statutory Workers Compensation and Disability are part of the insurance requirements. Our firm is based in Canada and does not have this coverage, but we do maintain Commercial General Liability insurance (limit of CAD $5 million) which includes Employers’ Liability. Please confirm if the County will accept this in place of New York’s Statutory Workers Compensation and Disability insurance.

The County requires liability coverage, NYS Workers Compensation (statutory requirement) and NYS Disability and Paid Family Leave (statutory requirement) coverage, or a certificate of attestation of exemption from the statutory requirement, which applies if:

(1) the entity has no employees in the State of New York; or

(2) The out-of-state entity obtains a contract or license where all the work is performed outside of New York State.

A contractor must provide proof that they have NYS Workers Compensation and NYS Disability and Paid Family Leave insurance in effect or, alternatively, provide proof it is not required (i.e., the firm is exempt).

53. Article 19 of the Agreement for Consultant Services requires the successful proponent to have Employer’s liability coverage in the amount of USD $500,000 ea. accident; USD $500,000 disease ea. employee; and USD $500,000 disease policy limit. Our Employers’ Liability coverage has an aggregate limit of CAD $5 million. Please confirm that this is acceptable to the County.

Please see the response to Question #52. Employer’s Liability is Part 2 of a standard NYS Workers Compensation policy. Please refer to the Workers’ Compensation website to determine whether you need to purchase a policy with those required limits or if you are exempt.

54. Article 19 of the Agreement for Consultant Services requires the successful proponent to maintain Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of USD $1 million. Our firm does not own any vehicles, and so we only maintain Non-Owned Automobile Insurance with a limit of CAD $2 million. Please confirm that this is acceptable to the County.

Non-owned auto liability coverage is sufficient under the circumstances described in the question.

55. Item no. 12 of Instructions to Offerors says that “Offerors should be properly registered to do business in the State of New York and furnish applicable certificates of authority/incorporation/partnership/dba, etc. with their Proposal.” Our firm is based in Canada and is currently not registered to do business in the State of New York. In this case, may we still submit a proposal with the understanding that we would register to do business in the State of New York upon notice of contract award?

Your proposal will not be rejected for lack of proof of registration. The concept of "doing business" in New York for foreign corporations is complex and fact-specific. To avoid any penalties for “doing business” in NY without authority, please consult a legal professional to determine your status and whether your firm is required to register under Section 1301 of New York Business Corporation Law. The County does not provide legal advice to offerors.

56. Item no. 5 of Instructions to Offerors says that “ONE (1) UNBOUND SET OF WHICH MUST CONTAIN ORIGINAL SIGNATURES including completed copies of any forms or certifications required in this RFP and three (3) sets of all Proposals shall be submitted.” For Offerors submitting bids via email, can you confirm what you expect their email package to contain? Do you want Offerors to submit an email package with the following:

a. For the single “unbound set”, should Offerors provide one zip file containing separate copies of the required forms and the proposal?; and

b. For the “three (3) sets”, should Offerors provide three (3) duplicates of a PDF that contains their proposal and all required forms?

Proposals via email are not acceptable and will be considered non-responsive.

57. Do you have an AI policy that articulates in what ways you would or would not like your consultants to leverage AI tools and automations? In the absence of a policy, can you advise on such usage?

A copy of the County’s AI Policy is provided with this addendum. Additionally, Orange County Planning Department intends to discuss artificial intelligence use at the task order level with the successful offeror.

58. Task G: Data Collection, Modeling, Monitoring, and Analysis

What existing transportation, land use, socio-economic, GIS, and safety datasets will be provided by OCTC, NYSDOT, or NYMTC?

As projects are developed into task orders, existing data and potential needs will be identified at that time. Consultants should be able to gather or procure all such data as may be needed.

Does this task include developing public-facing dashboards or web-based tools for the public to consume the collected/analyzed data?

It is possible and will depend on a particular project. Such work would be identified in the task order.

59. Task N: Montgomery Area Traffic Study

We understand there have been previous discussions with NYSDOT regarding potential improvements at the intersection of NYS Route 416 and NYS Route 211 to better accommodate turning movements. Can you provide an update on the status of this initiative and any available concept plans or studies?

All necessary information will be made available to the successful offeror following the award of contract.

Is there existing truck origin-destination data available, or should the proposal assume additional data collection or analysis will be required?

There may be some data available but it is likely that additional data collection and analysis will be required.

Regards, Renee Arnold-O’Regan, M.A.

Commissioner of General Services