SM1235174_AD_RFQ.pdf

CONTRACT NO. SM1235174

F.A.P. NO. AC-PRT-1227(004)E

Competitive Sealed Proposals

Procurement Phase One – Request for Qualifications Design-Build

September 29, 2026

MD 249 – (Piney Point Road) From Thomas Point Road to Stark Drive

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises are encouraged to respond to this Solicitation Notice.

2 09-29-2026

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

II. RULES OF CONTACT

III. PROPOSER QUESTIONS

IV. EMARYLAND MARKETPLACE ADVANTAGE

V. RFQ ADDENDA

VI. COSTS AND STIPENDS

VII. SUBSTITUTIONS

VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS

IX. DESIGN-BUILDER SELECTION AND AWARD PROCESS

X. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

XI. RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS

XII. OVERVIEW OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION

XIII. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR THE STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

XIV. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

XV. DETERMINATION OF THE REDUCED CANDIDATE LIST

XVI. CHALLENGES

XVII. CONTENTS FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION

XVIII. EVALUATION FACTORS

XIX. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

XX. PROTESTS

XXI. RIGHTS AND DISCLAIMERS

XXII. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY

XXIII. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE

3 09-29-2026

I. Introduction

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is seeking the services of a qualified Design-Builder for a Design-Build Contract as defined in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 21.05.11 and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 636. This Contract will be procured using the “Competitive Sealed Proposals” procurement method as defined in COMAR 21.05.03. This “Competitive Sealed Proposals” procurement is a two-phase process. Phase One of this procurement is the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from interested Design-Build Teams. SHA is seeking responses to this RFQ from Design-Build Teams who are qualified and prepared in all respects to undertake the design and construction of the MD 249 from Thomas Point Road to Stark Drive project.

The most highly qualified Design-Build Teams will be considered reasonably susceptible for award and placed on the Reduced Candidate List (RCL). If there is sufficient interest by qualified Design-Build Teams and SHA is satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of response, then the procurement will move into Phase Two, and the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued only to the RCL.

After issuance of the RFP, SHA will hold One-on-One meetings with the RCL. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss issues and clarifications regarding the RFP and/or the Proposer’s potential Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC). Each meeting will be held independently with each Proposer on the RCL. Further details on the One-on-One meetings will be provided in the RFP; however, no aspect of these meetings is intended to provide any Proposer with access to information that is not similarly available to other Proposers, and no part of the evaluation of Proposals will be based on the conduct or discussions that occur during these meetings.

An ATC is a request by a Proposer to modify a Contract requirement, specifically for that Proposer’s use in the Proposal process. The ATC must provide a solution that is equal to or better than the requirements in the RFP. ATCs may be submitted by Proposers after placement on the RCL. Approval of ATCs is at SHA’s sole discretion. SHA will use this ATC process during Phase Two of the procurement process to allow innovation and flexibility to be incorporated into the Proposals and to be considered in making the selection decision. This is intended to avoid delays and potential conflicts in the design associated with deferring of technical concept reviews to the post-award period and to ultimately obtain the Best Value for the State. The ATC process will be further defined in the RFP.

At the conclusion of each One-on-One meeting period, SHA may release standardized questions confidentially to each team on the RCL. Proposers will have one week to respond to those questions. All responses will be confidential. These standardized questions and resulting confidential responses will help SHA to assess if there are major concerns or issues seen by the RCL with the procurement or project documents. Any changes that result from this process will be issued via addendum to the RCL. This process will be further defined in the RFP.

A. Project Overview

This is a Fixed Price/Best Design Design-Build Contract. The Contract price is fixed at $9,369,760.00.

The Contract will be awarded as a best value selection to the Proposer from the RCL that provides the best combination of qualifications in Phase One and technical solutions in Phase Two addressing the evaluation criteria established in the RFP for the fixed price. The general scope of the work is the design and construction of living shoreline, flood mitigation, and roadway improvements along MD 249 from Thomas Point Road to Stark Drive. The Design-Builder will be responsible for all work required to deliver the improvements that it proposes in its Technical Proposal for the lump sum price of $9,369,760.00 stipulated by the Administration.

4 09-29-2026

This project extends approximately 2 miles along MD 249 (Piney Point Road) between Thomas Point Road and Stark Drive on Saint George Island in Saint Mary’s County, Maryland. The roadway is a low-lying minor collector with elevations ranging from approximately 2.0 to 4.7 feet above sea level across the four (4) project sites, making it highly susceptible to tidal inundation, wave action, and shoreline erosion due to its location between the Potomac and Saint Mary’s Rivers near the Chesapeake Bay.

Projections indicate that by 2045, inundation could occur up to 226 times per year, increasing risks to roadway integrity, residential access, and emergency response.

To address these challenges, the Design-Build effort will focus on implementing targeted, constructible roadway and living shoreline solutions at the most vulnerable segments of the roadway as well as erosion hotspots to reduce flood impacts and maintain access to the roadway to the greatest extent practicable and thereby improve overall functionality of the corridor. Improvements are intended to provide consistent access while addressing site-specific drainage, erosion, and shoreline interaction challenges through an integrated and practical design approach.

This project will not provide new access to any undeveloped areas nor provide additional through traffic capacity as a result of the improvements.

B. Project Goals

1. Reliable Long-Term Access and Roadway Integrity on MD-249 –The project shall reduce the frequency, depth, and duration of roadway inundation by raising the roadway while promoting long-term reliable access. It shall also improve roadway integrity and drainage assets to support safe, continuous, and resilient operations and access for at least 25 years, at a minimum, under existing and projected coastal conditions, and minimize maintenance.

2. Drainage System Performance and State of Good Repair – Support positive drainage from the roadway and minimize adverse drainage impacts to adjacent private properties during tidal and storm events. Extend asset service life, including achieving a minimum drainage asset condition of rating 4 (Good Condition) with an expected minimum service life of 25 years.

Existing culvert outfalls need to be able to convey stormwater runoff per the design storm event. Improve structures to ensure resiliency of the roadway while minimizing impacts to regulated resources to the greatest practicable extent and reducing overall maintenance.

3. Stabilize Shoreline Adjacent to MD 249 – Implement targeted shoreline stabilization and restoration measures along vulnerable segments to reduce erosion, limit shoreline migration, and protect adjacent infrastructure, including private properties, from ongoing coastal processes. Reduce erosion risk, protect the roadway and associated assets, and minimize future maintenance.

4. Maintenance of Traffic – The project shall maintain reliable access for the traveling public, emergency services, adjacent properties, and construction personnel during construction.

Construction-related conflicts, delays, disruptions, utility impacts, and rework shall be minimized.

C. Project Key Issues

1. Recurring Roadway Flooding: MD 249 is a low-lying road ranging in elevation from 0 to 9 ft above sea level and frequently affected by coastal flooding, storm surge, and wind generated wave activity. The construction approach will need to balance the challenge of elevating the roadway while minimizing environmental impacts to the surrounding critical habitats and meeting environmental permitting requirements.

5 09-29-2026

2. Drainage Limitations: There are no existing stormwater management facilities and the existing drainage structures lack necessary elevation, have limited capacity and are regularly affected by tidal backwater, standing water, and sediment buildup. Sand and sediments are washing onto the roadway and clogging culverts, ditches, and outlets, which severely reduce infrastructure functionality. Therefore, it will be difficult to balance the construction of the drainage improvements that address these issues while also protecting environmental resources and satisfying permitting and regulatory requirements.

3. Shoreline Erosion: The current shorelines at Sites 1 through 4, including existing rip rap revetments, are severely eroded and encroach upon the roadway. Erosion, specifically marsh and dune loss, and shoreline movement is an on-going problem threatening the roadway and private property. It will be difficult to address wave energy and erosion in an environmentally sensitive setting while minimizing impacts to coastal resources and meeting permitting requirements.

4. Constructability, Access and Safety: Piney Point Road is a two-lane roadway and is the sole access point from the mainland to Saint George Island, meaning construction will occur in a narrow, low-lying coastal corridor with limited staging space, active daily traffic, and existing utilities. The design and construction approach must account for utility coordination, Time of Year (TOY) restrictions, work sequencing, temporary traffic control measures, public safety and access, private driveway access during/after construction, and mitigation of impacts to regulated resources.

D. Project Status

The current status of aspects of the project is as outlined hereafter.

1. Survey

Aerial photogrammetry at 1” = 50’ was prepared from photographs. A contour surface model and topographic base map were prepared on the basis of this photogrammetry. Supplemental data was collected and surveys were performed along portions of the roadways to refine pavement elevations, ditch inverts, service access roads, potential SWM facilities, and pipe culverts. The data from these supplemental surveys was incorporated into the plan and the surface. All surveys were performed in the Maryland State Plane Grid, NAD 83/91 and NAVD 88. The Design-Builder shall obtain all additional survey data necessary for their design, construction, and verification of surface model for all design activities.

2. National Environmental Protection Act Compliance

In accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771), SHA prepared an environmental document presenting evidence that the proposed project would not individually or cumulatively result in any significant environmental effects to community, natural, or cultural resources.

FHWA concurred with this finding on August 11, 2026. The Design-Builder shall fulfill all commitments included in the NEPA document. If the Design- Builder’s improvements alter the project in such a way that they would result in an increase in impacts such that a subsequent, post-award NEPA re-evaluation is required, the re-evaluation will be completed by SHA, at the Design-Builder's sole cost and risk, with the Design-Builder providing all technical data and information needed. This process will be further defined in the RFP.

a. Noise – This project is classified as a Type III Project in accordance with SHA Noise Policy

6 09-29-2026 and 23 CFR 772.5. As this project does not add through-capacity or result in substantial horizontal and/or vertical alignment shifts, neither noise analysis nor noise abatement is required. However, if the Design-Builder’s improvements alter the project in such a way that it would meet the definition of a Type I Project, in accordance with SHA Noise Policy and 23 CFR 772.5, the Design-Builder shall conduct a Final Design Noise Analysis, submit a Technical Noise Analysis Report, and provide any and all technical data for SHA to prepare a NEPA re-evaluation.

b. Air quality – The MD 249 drainage improvement project is located in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not distinguished as a nonattainment or maintenance area for criteria pollutants identified by the Clean Air Act (EPA Green Book). As a result, demonstration of transportation conformity is not required (40 CFR 93.102(b)). Further, the project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117; therefore, no analysis of mobile source air toxics (MSATs) is required because the project is considered a project with no meaningful potential MSAT effects, as per FHWA guidance (Updated Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, January 2023). Based on this guidance and the project’s scope of work, no further air quality analysis is required. If any NEPA re-evaluation results in the need for a qualitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis the Design-Builder shall provide all information for the Administration to do so.

c. Cultural resources – The proposed improvements are confined to protecting the existing shoreline, reinforcing ditches and improving drainage along the highway to prevent flooding.

No architectural features associated with the St. George Island Survey District, including unevaluated Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) resources, are located within the project area. An archaeological assessment, based on desktop analysis and two prior surveys in the project area, determined that the proposed project is unlikely to affect intact or potentially significant archaeological resources and no further archaeological work is warranted. Based on these findings, SHA has determined that there would be no historic properties affected by the proposed shoreline and drainage improvements. The Maryland Historical Trust concurred with SHA’s No Historic Properties Affected determination on July 28, 2025, as detailed in the approved NEPA document.

d. Natural Resources – Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

The project area may support two species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) jurisdiction: tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus, proposed endangered) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus, proposed threatened). The project is within the scope of and adheres to the criteria of the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat, Northern Long-eared Bat, and Tricolored bat (December 13, 2024). SHA determined and USFWS concurred that the project is not likely to adversely affect the tricolored bat. USFWS further confirmed that the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the monarch butterfly.

Federally listed species under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries jurisdiction potentially occurring within the project area include Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, green sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and loggerhead sea turtle. Additionally, the proposed project area is located within designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The proposed project will comply with the requirements outlined in the FHWA Not Likely to Adversely Affect Programmatic Consultation (“Not https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03/programmatic-biological-conference-opinion-for-transportation-projects-in-the-range-of-listed-bats-dec-2024.pdf https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03/programmatic-biological-conference-opinion-for-transportation-projects-in-the-range-of-listed-bats-dec-2024.pdf

7 09-29-2026

Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) programmatic”). The Design-Builder shall be responsible for adherence to/implementation of all applicable Project Design Criteria. Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) Protected Resources Division concurred that the concept design for this project is not likely to adversely affect listed species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction.

Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental Review Program noted that Island Creek and St. Georges Creek are classified as Use II streams. Additionally, DNR noted that there are records of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and natural oyster bars within the project area and stipulated that the proposed work be conducted “under the most rigorous conformity with State, Federal and County guidelines and regulations for erosion and sediment control.”

The Design-Builder shall comply with conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset impacts to Use II streams, Mapped SAVs (SAVProtectionZones_2023_SM3.pdf), Natural Oyster Beds (Maryland Shellfish Waters and Gears Line Map), and Essential Fish habitat, including:

• To the maximum extent practicable, the Design-Build Team shall avoid permanent impacts (e.g., filling) of mapped SAV. The Design-Build Team shall work to support the Administration’s continued coordination with DNR and NOAA Fisheries Habitat and Ecosystem Services Division (HESD) to develop an in-kind compensatory mitigation plan for any unavoidable impacts at a 3:1 ratio to account for temporal loss and other potential challenges associated with SAV restoration.

• The Design-Build Team shall avoid in-water work during the SAV growing season (April 15 to October 15) to avoid indirect impacts to remaining SAV beds in the project vicinity.

• The Design-Build Team shall incorporate all applicable construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) from Appendix B of the FHWA Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.

• Specific applicable BMPs from Appendix B shall be determined by the Design- Build Team and incorporated into the final design, prior to construction.

Should in-stream work be unavoidable, it is the Design-Builder’s responsibility to provide the Administration with all information required for coordination with USFWS regarding any requirements for TOY restrictions and potential waivers, as necessary.

3. Permits

The permits and/or approvals required will depend on the Design-Builder’s proposed improvements. The following permits and/or approvals are anticipated to be required for this project:

• Stormwater Management Approval and Erosion and Sediment Control Approval (from SHA- Plan Review Division)

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (from Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE))

• Section 404 Individual Permit, Water Quality Certification and Nontidal Wetlands & https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/sav_maps/SAVProtectionZones_2023_SM3.pdf https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6b0e52c32d44483eb96afe9ab35c181f https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6b0e52c32d44483eb96afe9ab35c181f

8 09-29-2026

Waterways Permit (from United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and MDE)

• Reforestation Law Approval (from DNR)

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Conditional Letter Map Revision

(CLOMR)

• Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) (from FEMA). All floodplains in St. Mary’s County are classified as floodways and any proposed increase or decrease in the floodplain elevation will require a LOMR. The Design-Builder is responsible for all application fees associated with this permit.

• MDE Hydrology and Hydraulics Approval

• Phase I Mitigation Approval/Acceptance for Wetland Mitigation

• Phase II Mitigation Plan Approval

• Water Quality Certification

4. Right-of-Way and Temporary Construction Easements

The Administration has identified additional right-of-way needed to design and construct the project. The Administration is developing plats and will acquire the right-of-way.

The Design-Builder may prepare design plans, permit applications, and any other engineering documentation related to the project in advance of the right-of-way clear date. The Design-Builder may begin construction activity only on plans where the disturbance is entirely contained within right-of-way certified by the Administration to be in SHA’s possession. The Design-Builder may not proceed with construction on any properties not within SHA possession until such time as the Administration issues a Right-of-Way Certification stating that right-of-way is clear for the construction package. The Administration may issue multiple Right-of-Way Certifications throughout the acquisition process. The Right-of-Way Certification(s) will only list those properties which have been cleared at the time of issuance.

The Design-Builder may revise the roadway alignment and other details of the project to alter the limits of construction or disturbance, subject to environmental constraints, but all construction must be contained within the right-of-way. The Design-Builder will be responsible for acquiring, at its expense, all other rights in land needed for construction staging, yarding, construction, or otherwise.

5. Pavement & Geotechnical Explorations

The Administration has obtained soils borings and infiltration tests at selected locations along the project corridor and performed laboratory testing of the samples. These studies were performed with reasonable care and recorded in good faith. The Administration considers the information Engineering Data and will stand behind its accuracy at the location it was taken. The Administration assumes no responsibility in respect to the sufficiency of the studies for design. The Design-Build Team will need to perform additional geotechnical testing and analysis to complete the project. The Design-Build Team shall be responsible for performing a complete geotechnical program including additional borings, sampling, in-situ and laboratory testing, analysis, and design, as necessary to complete design and construction.

The Administration will provide pavement sections for various Roadway Elements. The Design-Builder may elect to design one or more alternate pavement sections, subject to SHA’s approval. The Design- Builder's pavement sections shall be determined by the Administration, at its sole discretion, to be equal to or better than the sections provided by SHA. The design and construction of alternate pavement sections shall be at no additional cost to the Administration. The Design-Builder shall develop pavement sections for any Roadway element that is needed. The Design-Builder's pavement sections shall be

9 09-29-2026 determined by the Administration, at its sole discretion, to be satisfactory for the project conditions. The design and construction of the pavement sections shall be at no additional cost to the Administration.

It is the responsibility of the Design-Builder to determine patching quantities in the determination of their Price Proposal and assume all risks associated.

6. Utilities

All utility data of which the Administration is aware is reflected on the survey information. The Administration has had a utility designating service locate underground utilities which identified the existence of the utility at its horizontal location. Inaccuracies in information regarding the locations of an underground utility based on utility designation information shall be considered material only if the utility’s actual centerline location is more than three (3) feet distant from the horizontal centerline location shown in that information, without regard to vertical location. Additional utilities may be present in the area.

Utility test hole data has been field collected by the Administration at single point locations. The utility’s horizontal and vertical location has then been verified using accurate survey techniques. The Administration considers this information Engineering Data and will stand behind its accuracy at the locations that it is taken.

The Design-Builder is responsible for obtaining all information that will be required to complete the roadway design and construction. The Administration has conferred with the utility companies with facilities in this area concerning the potential impact of this roadway construction. The Design-Builder shall coordinate and cooperate with other contractors that are expected to be relocating utilities during the construction of this Project. The Design-Builder will be responsible for determining the status of all designs and relocations and for identifying all additional required relocations and for coordinating the design and construction of the utilities with the design and construction of the roadway improvements of this Project.

The Design-Builder will be responsible for obtaining any additional utility data it determines necessary for design and construction of the project.

7. Erosion and Sediment Control

A Stormwater Management (SWM) concept design was developed by the Administration solely to establish right-of-way needs. The Design-Build team will be responsible for performing all SWM design and obtain all approvals in compliance with the Sediment and Stormwater Guidelines and Procedures Maryland State Highway Administration version 1.4.

No erosion and sediment control design has been developed by the Administration. The Design-Build Team will be responsible for the preparation of final Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and obtaining final approvals.

10 09-29-2026

II. Rules of Contact

The Procurement Officer is the SHA's single contact and source of information for this procurement.

The following rules of contact will apply during the Contract procurement process, which begins with the issuance of this RFQ and will be completed with the execution of the Contract. These rules are designed to promote a fair, unbiased, and legally defensible procurement process. Contact includes face-to-face, telephone, facsimile, electronic-mail (e-mail), or formal written communication.

The specific rules of contact are as follows:

1. Section 11-205 of the State Finance and Procurement Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, prohibits and penalizes collusion in the State procurement process.

2. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Procurement Officer, a Proposer may contact the Department or Administration only through the Procurement Officer and only in letter format via e-mail and not orally. The Proposer’s contacts with the Department or Administration will be only through a single representative authorized to bind the Proposer.

3. The Procurement Officer normally will contact a Proposer in writing through the Proposer's designated representative.

4. Neither a Proposer nor its agents may contact any Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) employees, including Department or Administration heads, members of the evaluation committee(s) and any other person who will evaluate Statements of Qualifications (SOQ), regarding the project, except through the process identified above.

5. Any contact by a Proposer determined to be improper may result in disqualification of the Proposer.

6. SHA will not be responsible for or bound by: (1) any oral communication, or (2) any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the Procurement Officer.

III. Proposer Questions

SHA will consider questions submitted in writing by Proposers relating to this RFQ or any additionally supplied information, including requests for clarification and requests to correct errors. Project questions shall be submitted in letter format via e-mail with return confirmation receipt. SHA will not consider receiving any confidential questions.

No verbal requests or personal visits will be honored. All written contacts shall be addressed to the Procurement Officer at:

Jeffrey T. Folden, P.E., DBIA Director, Office of Program and Alternative Delivery, SHA E-mail Address: SM1235174_MD249@mdot.maryland.gov

During the RFQ phase, only e-mailed inquires will be accepted. No requests for additional information or

11 09-29-2026 clarification to any other MDOT or SHA office, consultant, or employee will be considered. Questions will not be accepted by phone. Questions, which will only be accepted from the primary or secondary contact, must include the requestor’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and the Proposer he/she represents.

Only questions received by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date specified in Section XXIII will be addressed. All responses to RFQ questions shall be in writing and will be disseminated only by posting on eMaryland Marketplace Advantage (https://emma.maryland.gov/). Additionally, any addenda will be posted only to eMaryland Marketplace Advantage. Questions and responses and addenda will not be mailed out. Any response to questions will be issued without attribution and posted sequentially on eMaryland Marketplace Advantage. Multiple responses are anticipated. The last response will be posted not later than 5 calendar days prior to the SOQ due date.

IV. eMaryland Marketplace Advantage

Each Contractor is requested to indicate its eMaryland Marketplace Advantage (eMMA) vendor number in the Transmittal Letter (cover letter) submitted at the time of the Design-Build Team’s Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) submission to this RFQ.

eMMA is an electronic commerce system administered by the Maryland Department of General Services.

In addition to using the Administration’s website (http://www.roads.maryland.gov) and possibly other means for transmitting the RFQ and associated materials, solicitation and summary of the Pre-Proposal Conference, Contractor questions, and Procurement Officer’s responses, addenda, and other solicitation-related information will be provided via eMMA.

In order to receive a contract award, a vendor must be registered on eMMA. Registration is free. Go to https://emaryland.buyspeed.com/bso/login.jsp , click on “Register” to begin the process, and then follow the prompts.

V. RFQ Addenda

If necessary, SHA will issue addenda to modify conditions or requirements of this RFQ. Any revisions will be posted exclusively on eMMA. It remains the responsibility of all prospective Proposers to check eMMA for any addenda issued prior to the submission of their SOQ. Acknowledgement of the receipt of all addenda to this RFQ issued before the submittal due date shall be included in the Transmittal Letter accompanying the Proposer’s SOQ. Acknowledgement of the receipt of addenda to the RFQ issued after the submittal due date shall be in the manner specified in the in the addendum notice. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum does not relieve the Proposer from complying with the terms, additions, deletions, or corrections set forth in the addendum.

VI. Costs and Stipends

Proposers are solely responsible for all costs and expenses of any nature associated with responding to this RFQ, including attending briefing(s) and providing supplemental information. The RFP will provide for payment of a stipend in the amount of $50,000 to each non-selected Proposer on the RCL meeting the requirements specified in the RFP.

VII. Substitutions

Proposers are advised that, for a Proposer to remain qualified to submit a Proposal after it has been placed https://emma.maryland.gov/ http://www.roads.maryland.gov/

12 09-29-2026 on the RCL, its organization, including all firms identified in its SOQ, and Key Staff personnel identified in the SOQ must remain intact for the duration of the procurement process. A Proposer may propose substitutions for participants after the SOQ submittal; however, any participants must have equal or better qualifications than identified in the SOQ submittal. Any changes must be approved in writing in letter form by the Administration. Determination as to whether substitutions for participants have equal or better qualifications shall be at the Administration’s sole discretion. Requests for changes must be made in writing no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the due date for submittal of Proposals. The Proposer should carefully consider the make-up of its team, prior to submittal of the SOQ, to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of any such changes during Phase Two of the procurement process and thereafter throughout the term of the Contract.

VIII. Compliance with Applicable Laws

In connection with this RFQ, the RFP, and the Contract, Proposers shall comply with all applicable laws in all aspects in connection with the procurement process of this project and in the performance of the Contract.

IX. Design-Builder Selection and Award Process

The project will be awarded using the Competitive Sealed Proposal Method as defined in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 21.05.03. The intent of SHA is to award the Contract to the responsible Proposer from the RCL whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the State, considering the evaluation factors set forth in the RFQ and the RFP and the Price.

Each SOQ will be broken down into individual Evaluation Factor sections. Each Evaluation Team will only be given the section or sections for each specific Evaluation Factor or Factors they are rating and not the SOQ in its entirety. Each Leader of the Evaluation Team will be part of the Evaluation Committee with other appropriate key staff. This Evaluation Committee will review each Evaluation Factor and determine an overall Technical Rating for each SOQ.

Once the SOQ evaluations are complete, a RCL of those Design-Build Teams considered most highly qualified shall be developed. The RCL will be determined based on an evaluation of the factors set forth herein. In order to be eligible for evaluation, SOQs submitted in response to this RFQ must include a response to each pass/fail and Technical Evaluation Factor. If there is sufficient interest by qualified Design-Build Teams and SHA is satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of response, then an RFP shall be issued to only the RCL.

Those Design-Build Teams who have made the RCL shall be notified in writing in letter form and shall be supplied the RFP package. This package shall include all materials necessary for Design-Build Teams to fully understand the legal, technical and price requirements for this project. Those Design-Build Teams that do not make the RCL shall be notified in writing and will be provided the opportunity for a debriefing.

The Technical Proposal and Price Proposal responses, including any incorporated ATCs, shall be submitted in separate, sealed packages on the date and time to be specified in the RFP. The proposals shall not be publicly opened but shall be taken to a secure location at the time and date indicated in the RFP. The proposals shall be opened in the presence of at least two of SHA’s employees who shall compile a register of received proposals. Responses to the RFP not delivered at the location, date, and time specified shall be returned unopened.

The Technical Proposals and Price Proposals, including any incorporated ATCs, shall be reviewed by independent teams. The technical factors to be evaluated will be listed in the RFP. The evaluation of the

13 09-29-2026

Price Proposal shall be based on the total Contract scope proposed by the Design-Builder, including any incorporated ATCs, and shall include all work to deliver the Contract scope including, but not limited to, engineering, design, permitting, construction, labor, equipment, and materials.

Once the Technical Proposal ratings have been completed by the Evaluation Committee, the Evaluation Committee will determine an overall technical rating considering the SOQ rating from Phase One of the procurement and the Technical Proposal rating from Phase Two of the procurement. The Technical Proposal will be approximately two times the relative importance of the SOQ. Once the overall technical rating is determined, the Evaluation Committee will consider the price and perform a trade-off analysis to determine the most advantageous to the State. When determining which Proposer’s submittal is most advantageous to the State, the relative importance of the overall technical rating is substantially greater than the price.

Upon completion of the evaluations, SHA may elect to conduct discussions with each Proposer considered reasonably susceptible for award. These discussions have two purposes:

1. Ensure that SHA understands the extent of items being offered by the Proposer, and

2. Provide SHA with the opportunity to identify any critical weakness and inconsistencies with SHA’s expectation in a Proposal.

SHA reserves the right to award the Contract without holding discussions.

Upon completion of the discussions, the Proposers may be asked to submit best and final offers (BAFO) at a time and date to be specified. The notification of the time and date will be in writing after the completion of all discussions. The BAFOs will be evaluated and be part of the final determination when recommending a Proposer for award. The selected team will be notified of the recommendation.

The unsuccessful teams will be notified in writing in letter form and will be provided the opportunity for a debriefing.

NOTE: All materials, conferences, proposals and other matters related to this project shall remain confidential until the Contract is awarded to the successful Design-Builder.

X. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

The Proposer’s attention is directed to 23 CFR Section 636 Subpart A and in particular Subsection

636.116 regarding organizational conflicts of interest. Section 636.103 defines “organizational conflict of interest” as follows:

Organizational conflict of interest means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the owner, or the person's objectivity in performing the Contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage.

The Proposer is prohibited from receiving any advice or discussing any aspect relating to the project or the procurement of the Contract with any Person with an organizational conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, the Persons identified in Section XI, below.

By submitting its SOQ, each Proposer agrees that, if an organizational conflict of interest is thereafter discovered, the Proposer must make an immediate and full written disclosure to SHA that includes a

14 09-29-2026 description of the action that the Proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflicts. If an organizational conflict of interest is determined to exist, SHA may, at its discretion, cancel the Contract. If the Proposer was aware of an organizational conflict of interest prior to the award of the Contract and did not disclose the conflict to SHA, SHA may terminate the Contract for default.

XI. Restrictions on Participation in Design-Build Contracts

Proposers are advised to consult the requirements of § 13-212.1 of the State Finance and Procurement (SF&P) Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland prohibiting an individual who assists an executive unit in the drafting of specifications, or a person that employs the individual during the period of assistance, from submitting or assisting with a Proposal.

An individual or entity that has received monetary compensation as the lead or prime design consultant under a contract with the Administration to develop this request for proposals (RFP) and/or have been retained to perform construction phase services on behalf of the state, or a person or entity that employs such an individual or entity, or regardless of design phase responsibilities has received in excess of $500,000.00 for services performed, may not submit a Technical Proposal or a Price Proposal for this procurement and is not a responsible proposer under COMAR 21.06.01.01. The Technical Proposal or Price Proposal from such an individual or entity will be rejected pursuant to COMAR 21.06.01.01 and

COMAR 21.06.02.03.

The following is a list of consultants and/or subconsultants that have received monetary compensation under a contract with the Administration as the prime consultant to develop the concept plan, have been retained by the Administration to perform construction phase services on the behalf of the state for this procurement, have received payment in excess of $500,000.00 or otherwise that SHA has determined to be conflicted and ineligible to participate in any manner whatsoever in connection with this procurement, including any involvement in connection with the development, preparation, or submission of a Proposal.

SHA makes no representations regarding the completeness of the list:

• Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (RK&K)

• Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA)

• RJM Engineering, Inc.

• Mercado Consultants, Inc.

• Mead & Hunt

• NMP Engineering Consultants, Inc.

• Remline Corp.

• WSP USA, Inc.

• Rossi Transportation Group, Inc.

• Coastal Resources, Inc.

Any questions regarding eligibility must be appealed to the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals.

http://21.6.1.1/ http://21.6.1.1/ http://21.6.2.3/

15 09-29-2026

No official or employee of the State of Maryland, as defined under General Provisions Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, whose duties as such official or employee include matters relating to or affecting the subject matter of this Contract, shall during the pendency and term of this Contract and while serving as an official or employee of the State become or be an employee of the Design-Build Team or an entity that is a subcontractor on this Contract.

No Design-Build Team may use any persons meeting the above restrictions in any capacity, key staff or otherwise, on this Design-Build Contract. It is the responsibility of the Design-Build Team to identify any potential ethics issues concerning its former MDOT employees and seek an opinion from the State Ethics Commission regarding any potential conflicts of interest. The Design-Build Team shall provide certification in its cover letter that it is in compliance with State Ethics Laws prohibiting work on a matter in which a former MDOT employee participated significantly as a State Employee for the duration of this Contract.

XII. Overview of Statement of Qualifications Submission

Parties interested in being considered for award of this Design–Build Contract with SHA shall submit a SOQ, alone or with others, as the Design–Builder. The Design-Builder may also include other parties as subconsultants, subcontractors and suppliers in their SOQ submittal that they are committing currently. At least the Lead Design Firm and Lead Construction Firm must be included at this time.

The objective of Phase One of the procurement is to create a RCL of the most highly qualified Proposers with the general capability, capacity, experience, and approach necessary to successfully undertake and complete the Work. The Design-Builder will have primary responsibility to plan, design, manage, and control the project and complete the project on or ahead of schedule. SHA has set high responsibility standards for the Design-Builder that are reflected in the Technical Evaluation Factors of this RFQ.

XIII. Evaluation Factors for the Statement of Qualifications

Pass/Fail Factors

• The SOQ is complete and does not deviate from the RFQ requirements in any material respect.

SHA may allow certain deficiencies in the SOQs relating to the above factor to be corrected through clarifications, as described below, but shall have no obligation to do so.

SOQ Technical Evaluation Factors:

• Design-Builder Capability

• Project Understanding and Design-Build Approach

The ratings assigned to the Technical Evaluation Factors will be compiled to determine an overall quality rating for the SOQ. The ratings of each of the Technical Evaluation Factors and the overall technical rating for the SOQ will be through a consensus process.

Numerical scores will not be assigned.

The relative importance of the Technical Evaluation Factors and subfactors, when noted, will be weighted based on the following criteria:

16 09-29-2026

• Critical – Factors or subfactors weighted as Critical are approximately three times the relative importance of Important.

• Significant – Factors or subfactors weighted as Significant are approximately two times the relative importance of Important.

• Important – Factors or subfactors weighted as Important are considered to be integral to the success of the Project.

While some factors and subfactors may have more relative importance than others, all of SHA’s goals are necessary for project success. Proposers are cautioned not to overemphasize an approach of certain goals at the expense of other goals.

Quality ratings for each Technical Evaluation Factor and the overall technical rating for the SOQ will be based on the following quality rating criteria:

Exceptional: The Proposer has demonstrated a complete understanding of the subject matter. The Proposal communicates an outstanding commitment to quality by a highly skilled team in all aspects of the Work. The Proposal contains significant strengths and minor weaknesses, if any.

Good: The Proposer has demonstrated a strong understanding of the subject matter. The Proposal communicates a commitment to quality by an experienced team in all aspects of the Work. The Proposal contains strengths that outweigh weaknesses.

Acceptable: The Proposer has demonstrated an adequate understanding of the subject matter.

The Proposal communicates a commitment to quality Work by a qualified team. The Proposal contains strengths that are offset by weaknesses.

Unacceptable: The Proposer has not demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter. The Proposal fails to meet stated requirements and/or lacks essential information. The commitment to quality is not adequate, with Work performed by unqualified or unproven teams. The Proposal contains deficiencies, significant weaknesses and minor strengths, if any.

The evaluators may also use a plus (+) or minus (-) suffix to further differentiate the strengths or limitations within the technical ratings of Exceptional, Good, and Acceptable to more clearly differentiate the SOQs.

The term “weakness,” as used herein, means any flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance. A significant weakness in the Proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

Any SOQ that receives an overall rating of Unacceptable in one or more Technical Evaluation Factors will receive an overall SOQ rating of Unacceptable and will not be included in the RCL.

XIV. Request for Clarification

The Proposer shall provide accurate and complete information to SHA. If information is not complete, SHA will either declare the SOQ unacceptable or notify the Proposer, who may be allowed to participate further in the procurement of this project if all information required is provided within the timeframe established by SHA. Any insufficient statements or incomplete affidavits will be returned directly to the

17 09-29-2026

Proposer by SHA with notations of the insufficiencies or omissions and with a request for clarifications and/or submittal of corrected, supplemental or missing documents. If a response is not provided, the SOQ may be declared unacceptable. SHA may waive technical irregularities in the form of the SOQ of the Proposer that do not alter the quality or quantity of the information provided.

SHA may, at its sole discretion, request clarifications and/or supplemental information from a Proposer regarding its SOQ, at any time prior to finalizing the RCL. All clarification requests and responses shall be written in letter format and sent via e-mail. Responses shall be limited to answering the specific information requested by SHA.

Proposers’ e-mail follow-up responses to inquiries by SHA shall be submitted to the address indicated below or as otherwise specified in writing by SHA. Responses shall be submitted to:

Jeffrey T. Folden, P.E., DBIA Director, Office of Program and Alternative Delivery, SHA e-mail address: SM1235174_MD249@mdot.maryland.gov

XV. Determination of the Reduced Candidate List

SHA will establish an RCL. Based on evaluation of the SOQs, the RCL will consist only of the most highly qualified Proposers as determined by SHA. The unsuccessful teams shall be notified in writing in letter form and provided an opportunity for a debriefing.

XVI. Challenges

The decision of SHA on the RCL and the subsequent award of the Contract shall be final and shall not be appealable, reviewable, or reopened in any way, except as provided in Section XX of this RFQ. Persons participating in the RFQ phase of this procurement shall be deemed to have accepted this condition and the other requirements of this RFQ.

XVII. Contents for Statement of Qualifications Submission

A. Cover Letter (Limit 2 Pages)

The cover letter includes mandatory information requirements. The cover letter will not be part of the evaluations. The cover letter must be addressed to the Procurement Officer:

Jeffrey T. Folden, P.E., DBIA Director, Office of Program and Alternative Delivery, SHA

The SOQ submittal cover letter must be signed by individual(s) authorized to represent the Major Participant firm(s) and the Lead Construction firm(s).