HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum 2 - RFP - 10110 Shields Protected Infrastructure Design - Stuart to Lake
Addendum # 2
RFP Shields Protected Infrastructure Design – Stuart to Prospect
ADDENDUM NO. 2
Description of RFP 10110: Shields Protected Infrastructure Design – Stuart to Prospect
RFP DUE DATE: 3:00 PM (Mountain Time) April 2, 2025
To all prospective Professionals under the Request for Proposal documents described above, the
following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this
addendum:
Exhibit 1- Questions and Answers
Please contact Adam Hill, Senior Buyer, at 970-221-6777 or adhill@fcgov.com with any questions
regarding this addendum.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT
ENCLOSED WITH THE RFP STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
nd Floor
970.221.6775
970.221.6707
fcgov.com/purchasing
Addendum # 2
RFP Shields Protected Infrastructure Design – Stuart to Prospect
Exhibit 1 – Questions and Answers
1) Does the city plan to contract this as a Master Professional Services Agreement with work
orders for the 30 percent design and any subsequent design phases?
Response: Correct
2) In the Transportation Capital Project Prioritization Study, the summary sheet for this project
identifies several traffic operation considerations, including adding a westbound right-turn
lane, converting to single left-turn lanes on Prospect Road, flashing yellow arrow
implementation, and road/lane diet potential for Shields Street and Prospect Road. Is it the
city’s intention to evaluate each of these considerations as a part of the 30 percent design?
Response: Yes, alternatives to traffic operations should be evaluated as part of the 30
percent design.
3) The RFP states “It is suggested that the Professionals include each of the City’s questions
with their response.” Does this mean the City would like to see the criteria for each section
copied and pasted into the proposal, or can we modify the City’s text so long as it clearly
aligns with the question asked? For example, instead of “Describe the methods and
timeline of communication your firm will use with the City’s Project Manager and other
parties” could we use a heading that says, “Methods and Timeline of Communication?”
Response: Acceptable.
4) Please confirm that the cover letter counts toward the 20-page limit.
Response: Correct.
5) May we include graphics and information in the margins such as firm logo, page numbers,
and the name of the project so long as they do not provide added scope or marketing-
related information?
Response: Acceptable.
6) Is section B. Professional Information applicable to the prime contractor only, or would you
like to see this information for all subcontractors as well?
Response: Section III.B is specific to the Professional submitting a proposal. Relevant
information to include on subconsultants will be up to discretion of the Professional.
7) Does the 10 point Arial font requirement also apply to graphics?
Response: No, but must be legible.
8) Please confirm that the “Authorization form” mentioned on page 13 the same thing as the
“Acknowledgement form” referenced on page 16 (and located in Section V).
Response: Correct.
9) Does the Certification Regarding Lobbying count toward the 20-page limit?
Response: No.
Addendum # 2
RFP Shields Protected Infrastructure Design – Stuart to Prospect
10) Is the City of Fort Collins providing the topographic survey, including surface data, with the
expectation that the consultant team will provide CDOT-style ROW plans (if/ when
needed)?
Response: Survey will be completed by the selected Professional. City staff will procure any
necessary ROW plans.
11) Should property easement/acquisition consulting be presented at this stage in the project,
or would those discussions be expected to occur beyond the 30% design phase?
Response: City staff will procure ROW plans and work through the acquisition process if
needed.
12) Is the cover letter included in the page count?
Response: Yes.
13) Would the City be willing to accept $2 million in Cybersecurity insurance, given the nature
of the work?
Response: Acceptable.
14) Should CDOT oversight and funding become available for future design phases, does the
City anticipate any Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements?
Response: There is currently not a DBE goal established for this project. If the project
becomes federalized in the future, the selected Professional should be capable of bringing
on subconsultants that would meet any DBE requirements if applicable.
15) We understand that the City may seek federal funding for this project. Based on the federal
government’s evolving stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion, does the City still want
proposers to respond to Section III. E. c. of the RFP? (Experience working and delivering
projects, programs, and/or initiatives that support Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
throughout your firm’s workplace, including leadership, and supply chain. Examples of this
may be demonstration of working within cultural and language gaps, development of
diversity programs, diverse project teams, equitable opportunity vendor supply chain, and
how your firm has applied an equity lens to processes such as recruitment, hiring,
purchasing, career pathways, salaries, and staff engagement.)
Response: The City of Fort Collins is committed to the values of diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Partnering with firms that demonstrate these values is an important factor for the
City.
16) Is Shields and Lake Street a protected intersection?
Response: No, please see attached corrected Attachment 1.
17) Would the City post that concept as an addendum for all potential bidders so we can better
understand the work’s scope? The project limits are clear, but it would be helpful to know
more about the extents of roadway vs. signals vs. signing/marking vs. other improvements.
Response: Please see attached concept.
9,028
1,504.7
This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps
Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this
map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
6,859
City of Fort Collins - GIS
1,143.0
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet1,143.00571.50
Notes
Legend
Parcels
Growth Management Area
Parks
Schools
Natural Areas
City Limits
10
'
10
'
10
'
10
'
10
'
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
WITH 3' SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
6' SIDEWALK
8' SIDEWALK
10
'
9'
10
'
10
'
10
'
10
'
10
'
10
'
WITH 3' SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
CENTER TURN LANE
10'
11'
10'
11'
10'
10'
11'
12'
12'
12'
11'
CENTER TURN LANE
FLOATING BUS STOP
8' SIDEWALK
FLOATING BUS STOP
8.5' BIKE LANE
11'
EX. BUS STOPMIXING ZONE
1 1
1
1
22
1
1
1
EX. ROW
WITH 5' SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
6' BIKE LANE WITH 3' SEPARATION10
'
11
'
10
'
11
'
10
'
WITH 3' SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
10
'
1
1
THE QUARRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FOR FYA IMPLEMENTATION.
LONGER MAST ARMS ALLOWING
CONSIDER FULL REBUILD WITH
TO STREET-GRADE BIKE LANE
RAISED BIKE LANE TRANSITION
POTENTIAL RETAINING WALL LOCATION WITH SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
WITH SEPARATION
6' RAISED BIKE LANE
PR. ROW
MAINTAIN ACCESS
INTERSECTION QUADRANT
INSTALLATION AT EACH
RAISED MIXING ZONE
1
LEGEND:
PR. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP
PR. ISLAND
PR. MEDIAN COVER MATERIAL
PR. SIDEWALK
PR. ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PR. ASPHALT OVERLAY
PR. CONCRETE PAVEMENT
1
2
SHIELDS ST.
PRO
SPECT RD.
ST
U
A
R
T
S
T
.
6/14/23
SLBDRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:EXHIBIT
1www.olsson.com
TEL 970.461.7733
Loveland, CO 80538
1880 Fall River Drive
DATE:
9207 - TCPPS
DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. THIS
ASSOCIATES AS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND IS
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RELEASED BY OLSSON
NOTE
S. SHIELDS STREET & W. PROSPECT ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
NOTES:
REMAIN AND BUFFERED BIKE LANE ON STUART ST.
EX. PAINTED BIKE LANES WEST OF SHIELDS ST. TO
PROSPECT RD., PROTECTED BIKE LANES ON SHIELDS ST.,
ACTIVE MODES PLAN: NO NEW BIKE IMPROVEMENTS ON 1.
SCALE IN FEET
100'200'50'0'
HO
B
B
I
T
S
T
.
B