Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design

City of Raleigh Request for Qualifications #: 274-2022SBRTR Title: Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design Submittal Due Date: January 20, 2023 at 4:00 PM EST Please Note: This RFQ 274-2022SBRTR is an extension of RFQ 274-2022SBRT which was loaded with an incorrect due date in IPS. This addendum is in response to the questions received and documents requested. ADDENDUM NO. 1 Issue Date: December 21, 2022 Issuing Department: Transportation-Transit Direct all inquiries concerning this RFQ to: Het Patel Planning Supervisor Email: het.patel@raleighnc.gov mailto:het.patel@raleighnc.gov Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 2 City of Raleigh Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design Issue Date: December 22, 2022 To: All Proposers This Addendum, containing the following additions, clarifications,

and/or changes, is issued prior to receipt of qualification packages and does hereby become part of the original RFQ documents and supersedes the original RFQ documents in case of conflict. Receipt of this addendum must be acknowledged by signing in the area indicated below. Please make the follow additions, clarifications, and/or changes to the RFQ as listed below and sign and return this addendum with your submittal package. Responses to Questions Received: Question: Are there any consultants/firms/individuals that are precluded from participating on the Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design, and if so, will that list be made public to prospective proposers? Answer: No consultants/firms/individuals will be precluded from participating on Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design. Question: If there are NO consultants/firms/individuals precluded from participating on the Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design, how is the City mitigating a perceived advantage of those consultants/firms/individuals to other prospective proposers to ensure a level playing field with no unfair knowledge/advantages? Answer: Wake BRT Southern Corridor 10% Design Plans, Wake BRT System Standards, Wake BRT New Bern 65% plan documents, and Wake BRT New Bern Avenue 90% Roadway and Architectural plan documents (currently under review at NCDOT) will be linked to the addendum. The RFQ selection process will follow only the metrics outlined in the advertised RFQ. Question: What project information will be provided to proposing teams during the procurement process? Answer: Wake BRT Southern Corridor 10% Design Plans, Wake BRT System Standards, Wake BRT New Bern 65% plan documents, and Wake BRT New Bern Avenue 90% Roadway and Architectural plan documents (currently under review at NCDOT) will be linked to the addendum. Question: Will the current design (approaching 30%) be shared with proposing teams? If so, when will this be provided? Answer: Wake BRT: Southern Corridor 30% Design Plans are not anticipated till Spring- Summer 2023. Wake BRT: Southern Corridor 10% Design Plans are provided. Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 3 Question: Is working on past/current/active private development projects existing along/adjacent/interacting with the proposed project corridor/station locations considered a perceived Conflict of Interest by the City? Answer: This is not perceived to be a Conflict of Interest. However, the City of Raleigh would request that interested firms disclose involvement with projects adjacent/interacting with proposed project along the corridor. Question: Will a copy of the presentation from the Pre-Submittal Meeting be published with the Addendum? Answer: Yes, attached to this addendum. Question: What does the City of Raleigh require for proof of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)? Answer: DBEs must be certified by North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Question: Are DBE proofs of certification excluded in the 30-page limit? Answer: Yes, DBE proof of certification is excluded from 30-page limit. Question: Can you include an attendee list in the addendum, please? Answer: Yes, attached to this addendum. Question: Are any firms precluded from replying to this RFQ—namely those that have already worked on a Wake BRT project? Answer: No consultants/firms/individuals will be precluded from participating on Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design. Question: Which firm is working on 0-30% design for Wake BRT Southern Corridor? Answer: WSP Question: What have we done with Wake BRT Station Design to-date? Answer: Wake BRT System Standard Station Typologies will serve as a starting point for Wake BRT Southern Corridor Station Design. However, designs will be modified to account for context-sensitive solutions. In other words, final design team will use the station typologies as a baseline to advance station design along Southern Corridor and identify appropriate typologies to apply to each station location. Question: How will art be integrated into BRT stations? Answer: Three (3) places have been identified in station design to integrate art. Glass screens, railings, and concrete. Final design team will be responsible in coordinating with prospective artists to integrate art into station design for Southern Corridor. Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 4 Question: Can you please provide additional detail on S. Wilmington Street Extension? Answer: The dotted line shown on the Southern Corridor’s BRT alignment on slide 6 of the Pre-Submittal Meeting Presentation shows S. Wilmington Street assumption from the City of Raleigh Streets Plan and previous studies. Final design will determine alignment and typical section of the extension. The City of Raleigh is interested in limiting right-of-way impacts for the S. Wilmington Street Extension. Decisions made between 10% and 30% design will be shared with the selected team. Question: Will WSP or HNTB have conflicts of interest pursuing these contracts? Answer: No consultants/firms/individuals will be precluded from participating on Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design. Question: Is survey work required for this project? Answer: Yes, survey work will be part of final design and will be scoped with selected consultant. Question: Will there be any need for stormwater infrastructure? Answer: The City of Raleigh is interested in implementing Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) solutions where feasible. Traditional stormwater infrastructure design will need to meet NCDOT standards. Question: The RFQ requests the organization chart and resumes in both Tab 2 and Tab 3. Should the organization chart and resumes be presented in Tab 2 or Tab 3? Answer: The organization chart and resumes can be provided under either Tab. They do not need to be duplicated in both tabs. Question: Please detail the Consultant role and expectations for the Wilmington Street Extension. Answer: The consultant will be responsible for final design of S. Wilmington Street Extension including further refinement of alignment and typical sections of the roadway. The selected firm will verify feasibility of alternatives derived from 30% design. Question: Has a class of action been submitted to the FTA? If so, what type of NEPA document is being completed for Southern BRT? Answer: A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) class of action checklist was submitted to FTA in June 2022, and in July 2022 FTA determined that a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) was required for Wake BRT Southern Corridor. Question: How is the Wilmington Street Extension being addressed in the NEPA document? Answer: NEPA documentation work was initiated in Fall 2022, Wilmington Street Extension is included within the NEPA Area of Effect (AOE). Additional work on DCE is anticipated in 2023. Question: DBE proofs of certification excluded in the 30-page limit? Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 5 Answer: Yes, DBE proof of certification is excluded in the 30-page limit. Question: Are appendix items and attachments excluded in the 30-page limit? Answer: Appendix items and other attachments are excluded in the 30-page limit. Question: Regarding format (Project Understanding, Approach and Schedule), the RFQ under Tab 2 format includes a list (i., ii., etc.) of must haves for submitting. Is this list meant to be what our entire proposal must include or just specifically what should be included in Tab 2? Answer: Tab 2 identifies elements that all proposals must address; however, respondents may elaborate further in their proposals. If not in Tab 2, each item of the list should be addressed within the submittal in another section. Question: Regarding Tab 4 (Work Samples and References), the RFQ states “Work samples will NOT count toward the stated page limit. Please note that only electronic copy of each work sample is required as a part of the RFQ response submittal. A brief summary of work samples (1 page or less) should be included in the proposal. The summary will not count towards the stated page limit for the proposal.” Can the hard copy of the proposal and the electronic copy just be the same – having work samples in both versions? Answer: Yes, hard copy of the proposal and electronic copy should be the same and should include work samples. As indicated in the RFQ, work samples will not count towards the stated page limit. Question: We don’t need to get a copy of Appendix III from the business reference to include in our proposal, correct? Answer: Correct, the business reference form from Appendix III should be emailed directly to the City of Raleigh contact (Het Patel, het.patel@raleighnc.gov). Question: Do we include all Appendix/Attachments at the end of the document? Answer: Yes, please provide all appendix forms or any other attachments at the end of the document. Question: Which Appendix/Attachments do subs need to fill out/complete, if any? Answer: Subconsultants do not need to fill out/complete any appendix forms. Question: Is the Point of Contact for our Business References to send Appendix III, Het Patel (510 West Martin Street, Suite 200)? Answer: Correct, please have business references email completed forms to het.patel@raleighnc.gov. Question: Will contract Terms & Conditions be negotiated upon selection, or must those be clarified and submitted with proposal response (Exceptions to the RFQ form)? mailto:het.patel@raleighnc.gov mailto:het.patel@raleighnc.gov Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 6 Answer: Please see standard contract terms & conditions outlined in Appendix V. Please submit any exceptions to the RFQ form and any modifications may be considered upon selection. Question: Can you clarify the level of involvement of survey, Geotech and public involvement on this project? Answer: Survey, Geotech and public involvement area all important components of the final design scope of work. SUE Level B/C and D along the entire route corridor picking up 75’offset from the edge of roadway (200’ wide corridor) and 150’ off any side streets was completed for preliminary design. Public involvement for the project includes updates at key design milestones (60%, 90% and final design) and participation in Wake BRT Program Open House events. Question: What is the status of [the] ROW. Do we need to include [it] in our proposal? Answer: Right-of-Way (ROW) impacts will be further defined through the final design work and should be included in technical approach. Question: [Are] roadway lighting and station lighting required? Answer: Roadway lighting and station lighting are important components of the final design scope of work. Question: Are work samples supposed to only come from Prime? Or can it be subs too? Answer: Work samples can be provided for Prime and Subconsultants. Question: Work samples are not included in page count. But can they be 11x17 documents (like work plans)? Answer: Yes, work samples may be 11x17 documents. Question: Do business references (Appendix III) have to match work samples? Answer: No, business references do not have to match work samples. Question: The RFQ states “Include a concise resume for each member of the key personnel that will be assigned to the project.” It seems that you want only resumes from Key Personnel but also state in the RFQ “information regarding the expertise and experience of staff person(s) to be assigned to work on the project.” So, would you like to see resumes for everyone listed on the org chart in order to fulfill the expertise and experience info, or just the members we decide are Key Personnel? Answer: Please provide resumes for key personnel only. The City of Raleigh considers any personnel identified as a task lead within the org chart as key personnel (ex. Lead Guideway/Roadway, Lead Architect/Station Design). Question: Does Appendix I – Proposal Questionnaire Form, get submitted with the proposal? Answer: Yes, please attach proposal questionnaire form to the proposal. Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 7 Question: Do Attachments A-C get submitted with proposal? Answer: Yes, please provide Attachments A-C with proposal. Question: What company location are you asking for when you refer to ‘chiefly located’? Answer: Please provide the location of incorporation for prime and subconsultants working on the project. Also provide key office locations for prime and subconsultants that will work on this specific project. Question: WSP has been preparing the preliminary plans for the project that are not yet available to the other teams. Can you provide the 10% plans to all interested teams and extend the submittal deadline to provide adequate time for all teams to review the plans, understand the scope of the project, and develop a detailed technical approach? Answer: Wake BRT Southern Corridor 10% Design Plans, Wake BRT System Standards, Wake BRT New Bern 65% plan documents, and Wake BRT New Bern Avenue 90% Roadway and Architectural plan documents (currently under review at NCDOT) will be linked to the addendum. With the addendum released earlier than anticipated (December 31, 2022) timeline, the submittal deadline will remain as January 20, 2023. Question: Can you clarify the City’s expectations of the roles and responsibilities of Master Design Lead and Principal Civil Engineer? Answer: The Master Design Lead will be responsible for all things related to integrating Wake BRT System Standards into the final design including station design typologies and vertical design/engineering components and the Principal Civil Engineer will be responsible for all things related to roadway design and engineering. Question: Based on the current design, does the City anticipate widening or modifying any of the existing bridges along the project corridor (S. Wilmington Street over Railroad, I-40 over S. Wilmington Street, or S. Wilmington Street over S. Saunders St.)? Is a new bridge proposed to allow NB BRT traffic to cross S. Saunders St? Answer: The current 10% design assumption does not anticipate widening any of the existing bridges along the project corridor. The 10% design assumption does include modification to the S. Wilmington Street bridge over S. Saunders St. to allow northbound BRT traffic across S. Saunders Street and allow an off-ramp to S. Wilmington Street Extension. A new bridge structure is proposed for bicycle- pedestrian access across S. Saunders from S. Wilmington Street and would be part of the final design team’s responsibility. City of Raleigh has not received NCDOT comments on 10% design and these structures are NCDOT owned and maintained; therefore, further coordination will be needed. Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 8 Question: What level of topographic surveys and SUE location have been completed to date? Are full topographic surveys and level B SUE available for all areas where construction is expected to take place? Answer: SUE Level B/C and D along the entire route corridor picking up 75’offset from the edge of roadway (200’ wide corridor) and 150’ off any side streets was completed for preliminary design. Additional survey may be needed as final design advances. Question: Appendix I notes that references can be provided for projects that have been completed in the last 3 Years. Page 13 of the RFQ notes that work samples and references be for work performed in the last 5 Years. Please clarify the City’s preference for the time frame. Answer: References should be from projects completed in the last three (3) years and work samples can be from projects completed in the last five (5) years. Question: Are there specific design related project commitments that have been made to project stakeholders relative to the 30% design? If so, what are those commitments? Answer: Project assumptions at 10% design includes the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) of S. Wilmington Street to S. Wilmington Street Extension. The alignment and typical section will be finalized during final design. Wake BRT design standards include target of 50% dedicated lanes for BRT corridors. The current 10% design for Wake BRT Southern Corridor assumes 74% dedicated lanes. The Town of Garner is a key project stakeholder and has endorsed the LPA. Upon final design, UDO requirements for the City of Raleigh and Town of Garner would direct development along the corridor. Question: Is the final design team expected to provide FTA support services such as 3rd party agreements, risk workshops, and small starts templates? Answer: Yes, FTA agency coordination through FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Small Starts readiness process is an important component of final design team scope of work. Question: Section 1.2 Background (pg. 5) says “The consultant will review and identify any recommendations from previously developed studies including 30% design, or studies in development that are highly relevant to the Wake BRT System and incorporate those recommendations when possible. A copy of these studies will be provided to the Consultant (in electronic format where possible).” Can the City provide a copy of these studies or any drafts that have been completed to date? Answer: Wake BRT: Southern Corridor 10% Design Plans and Wake BRT System Standards documents will be provided as an attachment to the addendum. Question: Section 1.6 Submittal Requirements and Contact Information – Are wet signatures required on the signed original proposal? Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 9 Answer: Yes, wet signatures are required on the signed original proposal, the electronic copy can be scanned or certified e-signature. Question: Section 1.6 Submittal Requirements and Contact Information – What is the maximum file size for emailing the electronic version? Answer: If emailing electronic version, please provide via secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP) services. Electronic versions can also be provided on a flash drive with original proposal. Question: Tab 2 Project Understanding, Approach, and Schedule – Will the City consider allowing the schedule to be provided on 11x17 page size? Answer: Yes, the schedule may be provided on 11x17 page. Question: Tab 2 Project Understanding, Approach, and Schedule – Will the City consider allowing the schedule to not count towards the page count to allow Consultants to provide a sufficient level of detail in the schedule? Answer: No, schedule will count towards the page count. As indicated above it can be on an 11x17 page and will be counted as one (1) page. Question: Tab 4 Work Samples and References – Can the City provide additional information on what you would like to see for the work samples (ex. drawings, renderings, etc.)? Answer: Work samples may include design plans from similar scope projects, including roadway and vertical design components. Renderings and other visual communications for similar scope projects are encouraged. Question: Tab 4 Work Samples and References – Since the work samples will be provided only as an electronic copy, should they be provided as a separate document? Or should they be included as an appendix in the electronic version of the proposal? Answer: Work samples should be included as appendix/attachment to the electronic version. Hard copy original of the proposal and electronic copy should be the same. Question: Appendix I & IV: Required Forms - Would you like these included as a separate tab in the proposal? If yes, please confirm that these are not included in the page count. Answer: Yes, Appendix 1 & IV forms should be included in the proposal as an attachment and will not be included in the stated page count. Question: Appendix I Proposer Questionnaire Form – Should this form be completed for the Prime only? Or is it required for Subconsultants too? Answer: Appendix I should be completed for the prime only. Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 10 Question: Appendix IV MWBE Participation Form – Please confirm that only percentage of the total contract should be included and that no proposed dollar amount should be included at this time. Answer: Correct, please only provide percentage of anticipated DBE/MWBE performance and no dollar amount should be included at this time. Question: Appendix VIII, Attachments A, B, and C – Would you like these included as a combined tab "Attachments" in the proposal? If yes, please confirm that these are not included in the page count. Answer: Yes, please provide Attachments A-C with proposal and these will not be included in the stated page count. Question: Appendix VIII, Attachments A, B, and C – Should these forms be completed for the Prime only? Or is it required for Subconsultants too? Answer: Attachments A-C should be completed for the prime only, but the prime is responsible for ensuring the conditions outlined in attachments A-C are met by subconsultants. Question: Appendix IV MWBE Participation Form is specific to MWBE firms, but the RFQ states a DBE goal. Can the City clarify if MWBE firms count toward the DBE goal of 13%? Answer: This FTA assisted project has an overarching DBE goal of 13%. MWBE participation is welcomed; however, the DBE goal is what should be certified for this project. If MWBE firm is eligible for DBE designation, they must be certified with NCDOT. Het Patel, Planning Supervisor Attachments to Addendum: 1. Pre-Submittal Meeting Attendees 2. Pre-Submittal Meeting Presentation Links to resources identified in responses: 1. Wake BRT System Standards – DRAFT 2. Wake BRT Southern Corridor 10% Design – Under NCDOT review 3. Wake BRT New Bern Avenue 90% Design – Under NCDOT review 4. Wake BRT New Bern Avenue Architecture Plans – Under NCDOT review https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR28/Wake%20BRT_System%20Standards_Draft.pdf https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR28/Wake%20BRT_Southern%2010%20Percent%20Plans_October%202022.pdf https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR28/Wake_BRT_NewBernAve_RDY_PLN_90_Pct.pdf https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR28/Wake_BRT_NewBernAve_Architecture_90Pct.pdf Addendum #1 to RFQ 274-2022SBRTR | Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design 11 Sign below and return this addendum with your submittal response. Proposer Name & Company: Date: Signature: Title: Municipal Building | 222 West Hargett Street | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 One Exchange Plaza | 1 Exchange Plaza | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mailing address: City of Raleigh | Post Office Box 590 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0590 December 9, 2022 Wake BRT: Southern Corridor RFQ Pre-Submittal Meeting Sign- In Sheet Name Organization Email In-Person/Virtual? John Adams WSP John.adams2@wsp.com Virtual Sam Brewer City of Raleigh (COR) Sam.brewer@raleighnc.gov Virtual Ben Bruster COR Benjamin.bruster@raleighnc.gov In-Person Jeff Dayton HDR jeffrey.dayton@hdrinc.com Virtual Jeff Douglas HDR jdouglas@hdrinc.com Virtual Laura Fisher Benesch lfisher@benesch.com Virtual Mike Holder Gannett Fleming mgolder@gfnet.com Virtual Randall Chesson Kittelson & Associates, Inc. rchesson@kittelson.com Virtual Michelle Podeszwa McAdams podeszwa@mcadamsco.com Virtual Craig Friesen Gannett Fleming cfriesen@gfnet.com Virtual Richard Hancock HDR Richard.hancock@hdrinc.com Virtual Kelly Harter HDR Kelly.harter@hdrinc.com Virtual Jeff Thatcher RK&K jthatcher@rkk.com Virtual Josh Hurst Kittelson & Associates jhurst@kittelson.com Virtual Luke Volkmar Neighboring Concepts luke@neighboringconcepts.com Virtual Lynette Royster BREE & Associates Inc (DBE) lynette.royster@breeassociates.com Virtual Grady McCollum COR Grady.mccollum@raleighnc.gov Virtual Kelli McCombs Kimley-Horn Kelli.mccombs@kimley-horn.com Virtual mailto:John.adams2@wsp.com mailto:Sam.brewer@raleighnc.gov mailto:Benjamin.bruster@raleighnc.gov mailto:jeffrey.dayton@hdrinc.com mailto:jdouglas@hdrinc.com mailto:lfisher@benesch.com mailto:mgolder@gfnet.com mailto:rchesson@kittelson.com mailto:podeszwa@mcadamsco.com mailto:cfriesen@gfnet.com mailto:Richard.hancock@hdrinc.com mailto:Kelly.harter@hdrinc.com mailto:jthatcher@rkk.com mailto:jhurst@kittelson.com mailto:luke@neighboringconcepts.com mailto:lynette.royster@breeassociates.com mailto:Grady.mccollum@raleighnc.gov mailto:Kelli.mccombs@kimley-horn.com Municipal Building | 222 West Hargett Street | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 One Exchange Plaza | 1 Exchange Plaza | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mailing address: City of Raleigh | Post Office Box 590 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0590 Page 2 December 9, 2022 Wake BRT: Southern Corridor RFQ Pre-Submittal Meeting Sign- In Sheet Name Organization Email In-Person/Virtual? Mona Elabbady SRF Consulting Group melabbady@srfconsulting.com Virtual Sunny Nandagiri Benesch snandagiri@benesch.com Virtual Morgan Nelson Kimley-Horn Morgan.nelson@kimley-horn.com Virtual Jerry Page Gannett Fleming jpage@gfnet.com Virtual Randall Chesson Kittelson & Associates rchesson@kittelson.com Virtual Betty White Kimley-Horn Betty.white@kimley-horn.com Virtual Het Patel COR Het.patel@raleighnc.gov In-Person Cara Russell COR Cara.russell@raleighnc.gov In-Person Ben Possiel COR Benjamin.possiel@raleighnc.gov In-Person Brian Blackwell HNTB bblackwell@hntb.com In-Person Paul Meehan HDR Paul.meehan@hdrinc.com In-Person David Simpson WGI davidsimpson@wginc.com In-Person Bill Gilmore HDR Williams.gilmore@hdrinc.com In-Person John Johnson STV John.johnson@stvinc.com In-Person Alina Redden MBP aredden@mbpce.com In-Person Terry Snow Gannett Fleming tsnow@gfnet.com In-Person Monette Harris The Tenacity Group LLC monetter@thetenacitygroupllc.com In-Person Mark Huffer HNTB mhuffer@hntb.com In-Person mailto:melabbady@srfconsulting.com mailto:snandagiri@benesch.com mailto:Morgan.nelson@kimley-horn.com mailto:jpage@gfnet.com mailto:rchesson@kittelson.com mailto:Betty.white@kimley-horn.com mailto:Het.patel@raleighnc.gov mailto:Cara.russell@raleighnc.gov mailto:Benjamin.possiel@raleighnc.gov mailto:bblackwell@hntb.com mailto:Paul.meehan@hdrinc.com mailto:davidsimpson@wginc.com mailto:Williams.gilmore@hdrinc.com mailto:John.johnson@stvinc.com mailto:aredden@mbpce.com mailto:tsnow@gfnet.com mailto:monetter@thetenacitygroupllc.com mailto:mhuffer@hntb.com Municipal Building | 222 West Hargett Street | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 One Exchange Plaza | 1 Exchange Plaza | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mailing address: City of Raleigh | Post Office Box 590 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0590 Page 3 Patrick Livingston STV Patrick.livingston@stv.com In-Person Jeff Meador RK&K jmeador@rkk.com In-Person Ed Edens AECOM Ed.edens@aecom.com In-Person Bryan Lambeth Dewberry blambeth@dewberry.com In-Person Reggie Scales VHB rscales@vhb.com In-Person Rob Belisle Terracon Consultants rbelisle@terracon.com In-Person Iona Thomas McAdams Thomas@mcadamsco.com In-Person Jeff Moore Kimley-Horn Jeff.moore@kimley-horn.com In-Person Richard Vinson COR Richard.vinson@raleighnc.com In-Person mailto:Patrick.livingston@stv.com mailto:jmeador@rkk.com mailto:Ed.edens@aecom.com mailto:blambeth@dewberry.com mailto:rscales@vhb.com mailto:rbelisle@terracon.com mailto:Thomas@mcadamsco.com mailto:Jeff.moore@kimley-horn.com mailto:Richard.vinson@raleighnc.com WAKE BRT SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN RFQ PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING DECEM BER 9, 2022 AGENDA City of Raleigh Team and Organizational Values Wake BRT Program Update: • Project’s Current Status Wake BRT Southern Final Design RFQ: • Schedule • Goals • Evaluation Criteria • Scope of Work TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT CITY OF RALEIGH – TEAM DAVID EATMAN HET PATEL CARA RUSSELL BEN BRUSTER SYLVESTER PERCIVAL GRADY MCCOLLUM BEN POSSIEL ENGINEERING SERVICES ROADWAY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CITY OF RALEIGH – CORE ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES Responsiveness Integrity Respect Collaboration Honesty Diversity Stewardship Initiative WAKE BRT PROGRAM – OVERVIEW STATUS: Route Selection/MIS (initial review) NEXT STEPS: Identification of LPA (2023) NEW BERN AVENUE STATUS: Advance Design (90%) NEXT STEPS: Construction Start (2023) Anticipated Service (2025) STATUS: Preliminary Design (10%) NEXT STEPS: Anticipated Final Design (2025) Anticipated Construction (2027)* SOUTHERN CORRIDOR STATUS: Preliminary Design (10%) NEXT STEPS: Anticipated Final Design (2024) Anticipated Construction (2026)* * Note – Beginning of construction phase is contingent on federal funding allocation and award NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN WESTERN CORRIDOR NORTHERN CORRIDOR WAKE BRT: SOUTHERN CORRIDOR Overview • 5.1 miles, 3.8 miles of dedicated lanes • Connecting downtown Raleigh and Rupert Road in Garner • Ten (10) proposed stations – nine (9) new • Seven (7) CNG or other alternatively fueled buses Timeline • Fall 2021 – Began preliminary design • Summer 2022 – 10% design • August 2022 – FTA CIG Small Starts Ratings Submission • Spring/Summer 2023 – Anticipated 30% design NEW BERN SOUTHE RN WESTERN NORTHERN SOUTHERN CORRIDOR – 10 PERCENT DESIGN SEGMENT 1 • Right Business Access and Transit (RBAT) - Downtown Raleigh (Wilmington Street and Blount Streets); Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to City Farm Drive/Keeter Center Road • Mixed Traffic - South Street and Salisbury Street SEGMENT 2 • Median Running Transitway - City Farm Drive/Keeter Center Road to Garner Station Boulevard (includes S. Wilmington Street Extension) • Mixed Traffic - Southbound on the S. Wilmington Street flyover SEGMENT 3 • Mixed Traffic - Garner Station Boulevard to Rupert Drive SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3 NEW BERN SOUTHE RN WESTERN NORTHERN 1 Urban Core 2 Intermodal 3 Split Island 6 Shared Median 5 Suburban 4 Peripheral WAKE BRT STATION TYPOLOGIES EDENTON AT BLOUNT RALEIGH BLVD MEDICAL DISTRICT GORALEIGH STATION NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN RFQ – SCHEDULE • RFQ Advertisement Date: December 2, 2022 • Pre-Submittal Conference (optional): December 9, 2022, 10:30-11:30 am • Deadline for written questions: December 16, 2019, noon • City Response to Questions (anticipated)*: December 22-30, 2022 • Submittal Due Date and Time: January 20, 2023, 4:00pm • Evaluation Meeting (anticipated)*: Late January / Early February 2023 • Interviews (anticipated)*: February 13-24, 2023 • Selection Announcement (tentative)*: March 2023 * Indicates dates that may be subject to change NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN RFQ – GOALS • The successful consultant team must also demonstrate significant experience and capacity to: • Design BRT infrastructure (e.g., stations and dedicated lanes) • Integrate design standards and branding • Enhance user experience through design • Develop and implement communication & marketing strategy • Integrate functional art, coordinate with selected artists • Coordinate with public and private utilities • Engage in value engineering • Agency coordination – FTA CIG readiness process • Create final design plans for BRT infrastructure and technology • This project will require a multidisciplinary approach and coordination with various City of Raleigh Departments, Project Stakeholders and local communities. • The City of Raleigh Department of Transportation-Transit goal for DBE participation is 13% NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN RFQ – EVALUATION CRITERIA Criteria Weight Score • Consultant team’s experience with BRT design: 25% 0-3 • Project understanding and approach: 20% 0-3 • Customization/innovation to project approach: 15% 0-3 • Projected workload/availability of key personnel: 10% 0-3 • Consultant team’s experience working together: 10% 0-3 • Strategies for communications and marketing: 10% 0-3 • Organization, completeness, graphic/visual quality: 10% 0-3 Score Points 0 - Missing or Does Not Meet Expectation 2 - Meets Expectation 1 - Partially Meets Expectation 3 - Exceeds Expectation NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN RFQ – INTERVIEWS Interviews should address the following categories*: • Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design • 30-100% Final BRT Design • Scheduling and phasing • NEPA Coordination • Agency Coordination – FTA CIG Readiness Process • Integration of System Standards and Station Design Typologies • Technology and ITS * Additional information will be provided prior to the interview NEW BERN SOUTHERN WESTERN NORTHERN QUESTIONS NOTE: The questions received today, and in writing by 12pm on December 16, will be included in the addendum issued between December 22nd – December 30th. Written responses will override any discussion and answers at the pre-submittal conference. QUESTION S? THANK YOU! PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING DECEM BER 9, 2022 Request for Qualifications # 274-2022SBRTR Title: Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design Issue Date: December 2, 2022 Due Date: January 20, 2023 no later than 4:00 PM EST Issuing Department: Transportation - Transit Direct all inquiries concerning this RFQ to: Het Patel Planning Supervisor Email: het.patel@raleighnc.gov 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 3 1.1. Purpose ........................................................................................... 3 1.2. Background ..................................................................................... 3 1.3. RFQ Timeline .................................................................................. 5 1.4. Pre-Submittal Conference ............................................................... 5 1.5. Questions ........................................................................................ 5 1.6. Submittal Requirements and Contact Information ........................... 6 1.7. MWBE Participation Form ............................................................... 8 1.8. Rights to Submitted Material ........................................................... 8 1.9. Communications ............................................................................. 8 1.10. Lobbying ......................................................................................... 8 1.11. Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................... 8 1.12. Proposer Expenses ......................................................................... 9 1.13. Proposer Acceptance .................................................................... 10 1.14. Federal Funding Requirements ..................................................... 10 2. Qualifications Package .......................................................................... 14 2.1. Request for Qualifications Required Document Format ................ 14 2.2. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Information .............14 2.3. Qualifications Package Document..........................................14 3. Proposal Evaluation .............................................................................. 15 3.1. Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................... 15 3.2. Oral Presentation............................................................... 16 3.3. Final Selection............................................................................... 16 3.4. Addendum........................................................................ 16 3.5. Notice to Proposers Regarding RFQ Terms & Conditions ............ 16 3.6. Contract Term....................................................................16 4. Scope of Services .................................................................................. 17 Appendix I – Proposer Questionnaire ............................................................ 20 Appendix II – Reference Questionnaire (Instructions) .................................. 21 Appendix III – Reference Questionnaire Form .............................................. 22 Appendix IV – MWBE Participation Form ..................................................... 24 Appendix V – Contract Standard Terms & Conditions ................................. 25 Appendix VI – Federal Provisions and Requirements..............................33 Appendix VII – Exceptions to RFQ .................................................................. 38 Appendix VIII – Federal and State Requirements and Special Conditions ...40 3 Appendix IX – Example Template for Final Design Scope of Services...... 65 4 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The City of Raleigh is seeking one or more qualified firm(s) with which to contract for the following services: Wake BRT: Southern Corridor final design (30%-100%) and incorporation of design standards, such as branding, station design and user experience to be consistent with that of the overall Wake BRT system. A detailed scope of services is provided in Section 4 of this document. Information related to this solicitation, including any addenda, will be posted to the North Carolina Interactive Purchasing System (IPS) at: https://www.ips.state.nc.us/IPS/ All questions related to this solicitation must be submitted in writing (via email) to the following individual: Contact Name Email Address Het Patel Het.Patel@raleighnc.gov Questions submitted via telephone will not be answered. 1.2 Background The City of Raleigh, the Capital City of North Carolina, remains one of the fastest growing areas in the country. A great economy, top educational institutions, and exceptional health care facilities are some of the characteristics that attract people to the triangle area. The mild climate, diverse work force and proximity to Research Triangle Park combine to make Raleigh a great place to live. Raleigh is a 21st Century City of Innovation focusing on environmental, cultural, and economic sustainability. The City conserves and protects our environmental resources through best practice and cutting-edge conservation and stewardship, land use, infrastructure and building technologies. The City welcomes growth and diversity through policies and programs that will protect and enhance Raleigh’s existing neighborhoods, natural amenities, history, and cultural and human resources for future generations. The City leads to improve quality of life for neighborhoods and standard of living for all citizens. The City works with universities, colleges, citizens, and local partners to promote new technology, create new job opportunities, and encourage local businesses and entrepreneurs. The City enlists and prepares 21st Century staff with the skill sets to carry out the duties of the City through transparent civic engagement and by providing the very best customer service to our citizens. Wake County voters chose in November 2016 to invest in the Wake Transit Plan with a half- cent transit-designated sales tax. The Wake Transit Plan was sponsored by Wake County, with participation from 7 regional partners. The Wake Transit Plan includes four “Big Moves” to: Connect the region; connect all Wake County communities; create frequent, reliable urban mobility; and, enhance access to transit. 5 The adopted plan provided recommendations for both long-range and near-term solutions for the region, focusing on tripling countywide bus service, increasing the number of high frequency routes running every 15 minutes or less, adding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and commuter rail systems, and funding additional on-demand trips to serve the unincorporated area of the county. The goal is to implement the plan by 2033. The plan envisions that Wake BRT would be deployed along the following four (4) corridors, covering approximately 20 miles: 1. New Bern Avenue corridor from Downtown Raleigh to New Hope Road 2. Southern corridor from Downtown Raleigh to Garner 3. Western corridor from Downtown Raleigh to Downtown Cary 4. Northern corridor from Downtown Raleigh to Crabtree Blvd. The goal is to implement all planned BRT corridors by 2033 with the New Bern Avenue BRT project being operational in 2025. The Southern Corridor BRT will be the second project, with anticipated service in 2028. The successful consultant team will demonstrate that it has adequate experience and resources to assist the City of Raleigh with meeting these goals. The successful consultant must also demonstrate significant experience and capacity with developing BRT infrastructure (e.g. stations and dedicated lanes), incorporating design standards, branding, and user experience components, communications / marketing strategy, as well as coordinating with artists for art integration within BRT design and developing final design plans for BRT infrastructure and technology. The consultant will review and identify any recommendations from previously developed studies including 30% design, or studies in development that are highly relevant to the Wake BRT System and incorporate those recommendations when possible. A copy of these studies will be provided to the Consultant (in electronic format where possible). The consultant will be required to review all relevant studies and reports identified by the Project Management Team (PMT). Additional studies and plans might be identified during the course of this contract. 1.3 RFQ Timeline Provided below is a list of the anticipated schedule of events related to this solicitation. The City of Raleigh reserves the right to modify and/or adjust the following schedule to meet the needs of the project. All times shown are Eastern Time (ET): RFQ Process Date and time RFQ Advertisement Date December 2, 2022 Pre-Submittal Conference December 9, 2022 10:30 to 11:30 EST (Hybrid) Deadline for written questions December 16, 2022 by noon EST City Response to Questions (anticipated) December 22-30, 2022 6 RFQ Process Date and time Submittal Due Date and Time January 20, 2023, 4:00pm EST Evaluation Meeting (anticipated) Between end of January 2023 and early February 2023 Interviews (if required) February 13-24, 2023 Selection Announcement (tentative) March 2023 1.4 Pre-Submittal Conference In the event that the City of Raleigh elects to conduct a Pre-Submittal Conference or Site Visit, attendance by prospective proposers is strongly encouraged but is not mandatory. Prospective Proposers are encouraged to submit written questions in advance. The Pre-submittal Conference will take place as a hybrid meeting. Below are the two (2) options to participated in the pre-submittal conference. In-Person: December 9th, 2022 from 10:30 to 11:30 AM Raleigh Municipal Building, Conference Room 305 222 West Hargett St. Raleigh, NC 27601 Virtually: MS Teams Meeting Information Below Meeting link: Microsoft Teams Meeting Invite Meeting ID: 260 225 063 834 Passcode: KktBke Call-in: +1 919-561-6523, 609028575# Phone Conference ID: 609 028 575# 1.5 Questions Requests for clarification and questions to this RFQ must be received by the City not later than the date shown above in Section 1.3 RFQ Timeline, for the submittal of written inquires. The firm’s failure to request clarification and submit questions by the date in the RFQ Timeline above shall be considered to constitute the firm’s acceptance of all City’s terms and conditions and requirements. The City shall issue addenda reflecting questions and answers to this RFQ, if any, and shall be posted to North Carolina Interactive Purchasing System (IPS). No information, instruction or advice provided orally or informally by any City personnel, whether made in response to a question or otherwise in connection with this RFQ, shall be considered authoritative or binding. Respondents shall be entitled to rely only on written material contained in an Addendum to this RFQ. It is important that all Respondents submitting to this RFQ periodically check the North Carolina Interactive Purchasing System (IPS) for any Addenda. It is the Respondents 7 responsibility to ensure that all addenda have been reviewed and, if required signed and returned. All questions related to this solicitation must be submitted in writing (via email) to the following individual: Contact Name Email Address Het Patel Het.patel@raleighnc.gov Questions submitted via telephone will not be answered. 1.6 Submittal Requirements and Contact Information Proposals must follow the format as defined in Section 2 Qualifications Package and be addressed and submitted as follows: DELIVERED BY OTHER DEIVERY SERVICES or DROP-OFF City of Raleigh ATTN: Het Patel 510 West Martin Street | Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27601 RFQ No. 274-2022SBRTR Proposals must be enclosed in a sealed envelope or package and clearly marked with the name of the submitting company, the RFQ number and the RFQ Title. Proposers must submit: 1) one (1) signed original; and, 2) one (1) electronic version of the signed original via email or flash drive; The electronic version of the Proposal must be submitted as a viewable and printable Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) on or before the RFQ date and time provided in Section 1.3 RFQ Timeline. Proposals received after the RFQ deadline above will not be considered and will be returned unopened to the return address provided on the submission envelope. Any requirements in the RFQ that cannot be met must be indicated on Appendix VI: Exceptions to the RFQ and submitted with the qualifications. Proposers must respond to the entire Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Any incomplete proposal may be eliminated from competition at the discretion of the City of Raleigh. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any reason and to waive any informality it deems in its best interest. Submittals that arrive after the due date and time will not be accepted or considered for any reason whatsoever. If the firm elects to mail in its response, the firm must allow sufficient time to ensure the City’s proper receipt of the package by the time specified in Section 1.3 RFQ Timeline. Regardless of the delivery method, it is the responsibility of the firm to ensure that their response arrives at the designated location specified in this Section 1.6 and is received by the due date and time specified in Section 1.3 RFQ Timeline. 8 1.7 MWBE Participation Form The City of Raleigh prohibits discrimination in any manner against any person based on actual or perceived age, race, color, creed, national origin, sex, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial or marital status, religion, economic status, or veteran status. The City maintains an affirmative policy of fostering, promoting, and conducting business with women and minority owned business enterprises. Complete and submit the MWBE Participation Form (Appendix IV) with your qualification package. 1.8 Rights to Submitted Material All qualification packages and supporting materials, as well as correspondences relating to this RFQ, shall become the property of the City. The content of all submittals will be held confidential until the selection of the firm is made. Qualifications will be reviewed by the Evaluation Team, as well as other City staff and members of the general public who submit public record requests. Any proprietary data must be clearly marked. In submitting qualifications, each submitting firm/company agrees that the City may reveal any trade secret materials contained in such submittal to all City staff and City officials involved in the selection process and to any outside consultant or other third party who serves on the Evaluation Team or who is hired by the City to assist in the selection process. Qualification submittals marked entirely as “confidential”, “proprietary”, or “trade secret” will be considered non-responsive and will be removed from the evaluation process. 1.9 Communications All communications of any nature regarding this RFQ with any City staff, elected City officials, evaluation committee members are strictly forbidden from the time the solicitation is publicly posted until award. Questions must be submitted in writing to the individual designated in Section 1.1 Purpose, prior to the deadline provided in Section 1.3 RFQ Timeline. Violation of this provision may result in the firm’s proposal being removed from consideration. 1.10 Lobbying By responding to this solicitation, the firm certifies that is has not and will not pay any person or firm to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of the City or the State of North Carolina, or any elected official in connection with obtaining a contract as a result of this RFQ. 1.11 Conflicts of Interest City of Raleigh contracts are controlled by three conflict of interest provisions. First, federal procurement standards provide in 2 CFR 200.318 (c)(1), No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents of the non-Federal entity may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. 9 Similarly, the North Carolina General Statutes provides a criminal statute for conflicts of interest in public contracting, N.C.G.S. § 14-234(a) states: (1) No public officer or employee who is involved in making or administering a contract on behalf of a public agency may derive a direct benefit from the contract except as provided in this section, or as otherwise allowed by law. (2) A public officer or employee who will derive a direct benefit from a contract with the public agency he or she serves, but who is not involved in making or administering the contract, shall not attempt to influence any other person who is involved in making or administering the contract. (3) No public officer or employee may solicit or receive any gift, favor, reward, service, or promise of reward, including a promise of future employment, in exchange for recommending, influencing, or attempting to influence the award of a contract by the public agency he or she serves. City of Raleigh Charter Section 3.9 regulates private transactions between the City and its officials and employees. The Charter states: No member of the City Council, official, or employee of the City of Raleigh shall be financially interested, or have any personal beneficial interest, either directly or indirectly, as agent, representative, or otherwise, in the purchase of, or contract for, or in furnishing any materials, equipment or supplies to the City of Raleigh, nor shall any official or employee of the City of Raleigh accept or receive, or agree to accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any person, firm or corporation to whom any contract may be awarded or from whom any materials, equipment or supplies may be purchased by the City of Raleigh, by rebate, gift, or otherwise, any money or anything of value whatsoever, or any promise, obligation or contract for future reward or compensation, for recommending or procuring the uses of any such materials, equipment or supplies by the City of Raleigh; no member of the City Council, official or employee of the City of Raleigh shall for his own personal benefit operate, directly or indirectly, any concession in any building or on any lands of the City of Raleigh, nor shall any official or employee of the City of Raleigh bid for or be awarded any contract granting concessionary rights of any nature or kind from the City of Raleigh; it shall be unlawful for any member of the City Council, official or employee of the City of Raleigh to bid for or to purchase or to contract to purchase from the City of Raleigh any real estate, equipment, materials, or supplies of any nature or kind whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, at either public or private sale, either singly, or through or jointly with any other person. 1.12 Proposer Expenses The City of Raleigh will not be responsible for any expenses incurred by any Firm in the development of a response to this Request for Qualifications or any other activities associated with this procurement including but not limited to any onsite (or otherwise) interviews and/or presentations, and/or supplemental information provided, submitted, or given to City of Raleigh and/or its representatives. Further, the City of Raleigh shall reserve the right to cancel the work described herein prior to issuance and acceptance of any contractual agreement/purchase order by the recommended Firm even if the awarding authority for each entity has formally accepted a recommendation. 10 1.13 Proposer Acceptance Submission of any proposal indicates a Proposer’s acceptance of the conditions contained in this RFQ unless clearly and specifically noted otherwise on the Exceptions to RFQ (see Appendix VII) and submitted with proposal. The City of Raleigh has the sole discretion and reserves the right to cancel this RFQ, and to reject any and all proposals, to waive any and all informalities and/or irregularities, if it is deemed to be in the City of Raleigh’s best interests to do so. The City of Raleigh reserves the right to accept or reject any or all of the items in the proposal, and to award the contract in whole or in part and/or negotiate any or all items with individual firms if it is deemed in the City of Raleigh’s best interest. Moreover, the City of Raleigh reserves the right to make no selection if proposals are deemed not in the best interest of the City. 1.14 Federal Funding Requirements The services and materials to be provided under this contract will be financed in whole or in part with Federal funding. As such, Federal laws, regulations, policies, and related administrative practices apply to this contract. The most recent of such Federal requirements, including any amendments made after the execution of this contract shall govern this contract, unless the Federal Government determines otherwise. The Federal provisions and requirements identified in Appendix VI (Federal Provisions and Requirements) may be applicable to this contract. The awarded contractor is responsible for complying with all applicable provisions and requirements. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 11 2 QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE Submittal responses must follow the format outlined below. The City may reject as non- responsive at its sole discretion any submittal that does not provide complete and/or adequate responses or departs in any substantial way from the required format. Proposals shall not exceed 30 pages. 2.1 Request for Qualifications Required Document Format Responses should be divided using tabs to separate each section, listed sequentially as follows: Tab 1: Cover Letter Provide an introduction letter summarizing the unique qualifications of your firm to meet the needs of this project. This letter should include the following: • Include the name and address of the prime consultant and the state in which it is incorporated and chiefly located; and, • Include the name and address of each sub-consultant, the state in which each entity is incorporated and chiefly located; and, • Briefly describe the consultant (prime and sub-consultants) and its interest in performing the required professional services; and, • Include the name, address, phone and e-mail address of the designated contact for the consultant (prime consultant); and, • Include a statement indicating any judgments against the consultant (prime, sub-consultants and third-party consultants) within the last five (5) years, or pending litigation, related to professional conduct or services; and, • Acknowledge all addenda to the RFQ document (each addendum must be identified); and, • The cover letter should be presented on the firm’s official letterhead and signed by an authorized representative who has the authority to enter into a contract with the City on behalf of the firm. Include the name, address, telephone and email address of the individual who serves as the point of contact for this solicitation. Tab 2: Project Understanding, Approach and Schedule Provide a comprehensive narrative, outline, and/or graph demonstrating the firm's understanding and approach to accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Scope of Work section of this RFQ. A description of each task and deliverable and the schedule for accomplishing each shall be included. All pages in the proposals must be “8.5x11” and no additional correspondence should be submitted. One “11x17” page may be used for map or other illustrative purposes. This page will count as one (1) towards the total page count. All proposals submitted must include all of the following information: 12 i. A clear concise answer to this question – “why should the City select your team for this project?” ii. Identify how the team might go about completing this project (Project Understanding). iii. Identify the office location where all the team members proposed for this project are based; and, what percentage of project work each of these members will be doing. Identify the location of the corporate office. Consultants are reminded of the City’s professional consultant selection policy, SP 100-5 Retention of Professional Services, and specifically Section 5.3 within the policy which states “Request for Qualifications shall be distributed to all identified professional consultants in the field of endeavor within the Raleigh area”. iv. Information regarding the expertise and experience of staff person(s) to be assigned to work on the project. It should also contain specific proposed responsibilities of the project staff person(s), coordination activities with City of Raleigh staff and estimated workdays of participation. Provide a description and organizational chart showing the structure of the proposer’s team, inter- relationships, areas of responsibility and the names and current professional licenses (e.g., PE) of key personnel assigned to the project along with their areas of responsibility. Identify commitment level of personnel assigned to the project. Include a concise resume for each member of the key personnel that will be assigned to the project. Note that no substitutions to the proposed project team of the selected consultant(s) can be made without the prior written approval of the City of Raleigh. v. Information on the current and projected workload of key staff to be assigned to this project; including level and magnitude of involvement and start and anticipated completion dates. vi. Identify the role and the experience of each team member, with specific regard to their participation in similar projects. Project references and contact information should be included for similar projects. Identify all co-consultants and/or sub-consultants that will be utilized for the project. A minimum of three (3) references including client’s name, address, contact person, telephone number, email, project start and end date as well as a project description and listing of relevant key consultant personnel. References shall be for similar or related projects on which key staff that are proposed for this project have worked. vii. Provide a contact email address and name for the submitting consultant. viii. Identify which services would be performed by consultants’ “in-house” resources and which services will require sub-consultants. ix. This RFQ is a subject to the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 13%, further detail provided in Section 2.2. Technical Approach Each consultant is encouraged to present potential adjustments and enhancements to the Scope of Services (identified in Section 4) that it believes to be important in executing the project and meeting the client’s schedule. 13 Except as clearly stated in this section, it shall be assumed that the City of Raleigh Scope of Services shall supersede any and all such approaches that may be described and/or included in the proposal. Additional tasks or analysis that will enhance the overall quality of the study may be proposed with an explanation of how they address the Scope of Services. Should there be any disclaimers or caveats pertaining to the provision of services and start-up of services as described in the specifications, they must be listed with an explanation of why they are proposed. Project Implementation Plan and Anticipated Schedule The project implementation plan should demonstrate how the consultant will manage their responsibilities, schedule the work to be performed and work with the City of Raleigh staff and other consultant teams involved in the development of the Wake BRT project and other related projects/initiatives along the corridors. The Wake BRT project is dynamic; successful consultant team needs to demonstrate flexibility and ability to adapt to change in direction. The schedule should begin from start-up in days, phases, and/or steps. It should include the following: • Major work tasks and key milestone dates for the project, based on days after notice to proceed. • Logical dependencies to indicate what work must be accomplished before other work can begin The schedule should also indicate timing and the nature of interim and progress reports at appropriate milestones. Adherence to the schedule will be critical for this project. The consultant must demonstrate capacity to conduct work and meet deadlines. Tab 3: Team Firm, Experience and Certifications/Qualifications This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment and firm of personnel to be assigned to this project. The Proposer shall provide information as to the qualifications and experience of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to this project, including resumes citing experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person. A project- specific firm chart which clearly illustrates the roles, responsibilities, and the reporting relationships of each team member should be included. Resumes will not be counted against the page limit. Organization chart may be submitted as one “11x17” page and also will not be counted against the page limit. Tab 4: Work Samples and References Respondents are required to submit samples of a deliverable product from a minimum of three (3) projects of similar scope and nature performed in the past five (5) years that best illustrate the proposed consultant team’s qualifications for the project. For each project, list the names of key personnel and their responsibilities. Also provide the name and contact information for a person associated with each of the owners or the organizations that contracted for the professional services who is very familiar with the project and the consultant’s performance. 14 The selection committee will look for evidence of experience on federally funded transportation structures and transit operations projects, public outreach experience, and public/private development initiatives in this section of the RFQ. BRT design expertise is critical for this project. Work samples will NOT count toward the stated page limit. Please note that only electronic copy of each work sample is required as a part of the RFQ response submittal. A brief summary of work samples (1 page or less) should be included in the proposal. The summary will not count towards the stated page limit for the proposal. Work samples should address development of Various BRT elements and infrastructure components as well as demonstrate ability and capacity of advancing a BRT project from 30% to 100% design. The Evaluation Team prefers that all three work samples demonstrate the consultant team’s experience with BRT. 2.2 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Information This contract is subject to the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs. The City of Raleigh Department of Transportation’s goal for participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) is 13%. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise will require proof of certification. 2.3 Qualifications Package Documents This RFQ is comprised of the base RFQ document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract award. All attachments and addenda released for this RFQ in advance of any Contract award are incorporated herein by reference. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 15 3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION 3.1 Evaluation Criteria This is not a bid. There will not be a public opening. The Evaluation Team will review all qualifications packages adhering to the requirements of this RFQ. The Evaluation Team will be comprised of staff from the City of Raleigh, Town of Garner and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). After the qualifications have been reviewed, the Evaluation Team will determine a “short list” of consultants. “Short-list” consultants will be invited to an interview with the Evaluation Team. For the interview, at a minimum, each consultant’s master design lead, principal civil engineer, project manager, structural engineer lead, communications lead, and NEPA lead planner must be present. These are the persons who will work with the City of Raleigh staff on a day-to-day basis during the project. Key team members that will be assigned to the project must also be present. “Short-list” consultants will be asked to provide a list of consultant staff attending and presenting at the interview. The Evaluation Committee reserves the right to request modifications to the interview attendee list. The Evaluation Team will rank the qualifications packages based on their understanding of the project, proposed work plan approach and project team experience on similar projects, as described in the table below. The qualifications packages will be evaluated based solely on the following criteria: Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the following criteria: Criteria (a) Weight (b) Score (0-3) (a) x (b) Weighted Score Consultant experience with BRT design 25% Project Understanding and Approach 20% Customization/innovation to project approach 15% Projected workload/availability of key personnel 10% Consultant team’s experience working together 10% Strategies for communications and marketing 10% Organization, completeness, graphic/visual quality 10% Final Score Score Points 0 - Missing or Does Not Meet Expectation 2 - Meets Expectation 1 - Partially Meets Expectation 3 - Exceeds Expectation 16 3.2 Oral Presentation An oral presentation of the proposal will be requested of all “short-list” consultants. For the interview, at a minimum, each consultant’s master design lead, principal civil engineer, project manager, structural engineer lead, communications lead, and NEPA lead planner must be present. Additional details will be provided to the “short-list” consultants before the interviews. 3.3 Final Selection Qualifications will be reviewed after opening and will be ranked in order of choice, at which point contract negotiations will begin with the most qualified firm. If negotiations are unsuccessful, the City will then pursue negotiations with the next most qualified firm. The City shall not be bound or in any way obligated until both parties have executed a contract. The City also reserves the right to delay the award of a contract or to not award a contract. The general conditions and specifications of the RFQ, including the firm’s fee proposal, and/or written correspondence applicable to the RFQ, may become part of the contract documents. Failure of the awarded firm to perform as represented may result in contract cancellation. 3.4 Addendum to RFQ Any addendum issued will be considered part of the RFQ document and will prevail over inconsistent or conflicting provisions contained in the original RFQ document. A receipt of all addenda must be acknowledged in the qualifications submittal. As with other required documentation, submittals that fail to reference receipt of the addendum may be excluded from further consideration. 3.5 Notice to Submitting Firms Regarding RFQ Terms and Conditions It shall be the Submitting Firm’s responsibility to read the Instructions, the City’s terms and conditions, the Federal provisions and requirements, all relevant exhibits and attachments, and any other components made a part of this RFQ, and to comply with all requirements and specifications provided herein. Submitters are responsible for obtaining and complying with all Addenda and other changes that may be issued in connection with this RFQ. 3.6 Contract Term The contract awarded from this RFQ shall be effective upon the date of the City’s signature (the “Effective Date”) and remain effective until the work is completed. The estimated timeframe and competition for the work stated in this RFQ is three (3) years. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 17 4 SCOPE OF SERVICES Awarded firm shall provide services, all as set forth in this RFQ and more particularly described in this Section 4. The purpose of this solicitation is for the City of Raleigh Transportation Department to secure professional architectural and engineering consulting services for Wake BRT: Southern Corridor final design (30%-100%) and inclusion of prior decisions for the overall Wake BRT System into design. This includes design standards, such as branding, station design and user experience. The following Scope of Services is intended to be a general outline of the work and not an all- inclusive description of the professional and technical services that may be required to complete the project. Adjustments to the tasks and task sequencing, which will improve the effectiveness of the effort, while containing costs, are encouraged. Location-specific design challenges could be identified within certain corridors that might require immediate coordination with NCDOT. Additionally, the City may choose to add other BRT related design elements to the final scope of services for this contract. Numerous coordination efforts will be included in the process and the consultant selected for this project will need to show capacity to meet deadlines identified by the City of Raleigh. The scope of services include Wake BRT: Southern Corridor Final Design. WAKE BRT: SOUTHERN CORRIDOR FINAL DESIGN This section of the Scope of Work focused on advancing the Wake BRT: Southern Corridor in design from 30% design to 100% design. This part of the scope will be delivered in close coordination and partnership with the Engineering Services Department. Appendix IX attached to this RFQ provides a template for Final Design Scope of Services from the Engineering Services Department. Additional items not identified below may be pulled into the scope of services for final design from the Engineering Services template. A future subtask in this category may also include providing design services support during the construction phase of the project. This may include providing support during the bid phase. 4.1.1 Final Design This Task involves completing Project Development as defined by FAST Act, including final design, and producing Issued for Construction design submittals, including plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate. Because of the city’s concern about cost effectiveness and minimizing the risk of cost overruns, the Consultant will be expected to continually assess ways to optimize costs and reduce cost risk while still maintaining the project value. Value engineering exercise may be expected including review of plans at specified points through the process by external engineering professionals to suggest alternative approaches, materials, etc. This task will include the following design level milestone deliverables: 60%, 90% and 100% design. The task will at a minimum include the following categories for final design consideration: