RFP NO. 16-02 POPES CREEK RAIL TRAIL DESIGN

RFP# 16-02 ADDENDUM 1

1

CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services

Purchasing Division

Telephone: 301-645-0656

July 7, 2015

RFP NO. 16-02

POPES CREEK RAIL TRAIL DESIGN

ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE

TO: All Offerors

Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Request for Proposal

(RFP) 16-02. These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the

solicitation documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due date for questions has passed and

due date for proposals remains the same as stated in the solicitation.

I. Changes, Additions, and Modifications to the RFP

A. Changes

1. Part I, Section 1.3 – Proposal Content (page I-2)

Delete “d. Offeror’s Experience Form;” from the list under Original Proposal package.

B. Attachments

1. Attachment A – Pre-Proposal Meeting Sign-In Sheet

2. Attachment B – Right of Way Survey

II. Pre- Proposal Meeting Notes DATE: June 29, 2015 TIME: 10:00 am ATTENDEES: See “Attachment A”

A. Introduction

Good morning, and welcome to the pre-proposal meeting for RFP 16-02, POPES CREEK RAIL

TRAIL DESIGN.

My name is Shanna Reese, Assistant Chief of Purchasing for Charles County Government. Also with

us today is Mr. Tom Roland, Chief of Parks & Grounds.

The intent of this work is to provide design services for construction of a trail over the former Pope’s

Creek rail corridor from U.S. Route 301 to the Pope’s Creek waterfront.


2

This meeting will be conducted in two parts. I will first review selected portions of the Request for

Proposals within the RFP. Items not reviewed should not be construed as being less important than

those reviewed. No information will be presented that is not already contained within the RFP.

The meeting will then be turned over to Mr. Roland who will discuss technical aspects of the project.

B. Procurement Discussion

All solicitation documents may be found on the Charles County Bid Board.

Ensure all required forms and any other information required is complete and in your proposal package.

A complete proposal package is explained on page I-1 and I-2. Incomplete proposals may be rejected.

Questions concerning the RFP should be directed to me in writing via the contact information provided

in the RFP on page I-3.

No information obtained from any source other than the solicitation documents found on the County

Bid Board, or from myself or Mr. Roland during this meeting, may be considered to be accurate.

Proposals must be valid for 120 days from the due date (page I-2).

There is an aspirational 25% MBE goal for this solicitation.

This RFP is subject to the County’s Small Local Business Enterprise Program. If your firm is a Charles

County registered SLBE and you want to take advantage of the SLBE preference, please complete the

SLBE program forms located on page I-24 to I-26 of the solicitation. All Charles County small

businesses are encouraged to apply.

The protest policy is on page I-7.

The County may reject any and all proposals for any reason it deems necessary, and may waive any

irregularities and/or informalities, and make award in any manner that is in the best interest of the

County.

By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, the offeror certifies that their firm is not

debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in government procurement by the federal

government, the State of Maryland, or any other state, county, or municipal government.

C. Technical Discussion

This will be the County’s 2nd rail trail and has been in the County’s possession for approximately 6

months. The County has also acquired the old SMECO building off Popes Creek Road as part of this

area. The County is working to acquire a property located adjacent to the trail at US-301.

Unlike the Indian Head rail trail, Pope’s Creek does not have an elevated rail bed.

The trail starts in Faulkner at US-301 and proceeds 2.7 miles to Popes Creek Road.

The trail will be composed primarily of a stone dust material approximately 4 inches above a geotextile

and an 1800-foot boardwalk near the pond. There is also a trestle bridge that requires repair. Short

boardwalk segments may be an option. There will be a 66-foot right-of-way. The maximum trail size is

10 feet, but the County’s preference is for an 8-foot wide trail.

As part of the scope, the Design Engineer will need to make recommendation for how the material is

moved into place.

US Fish & Wildlife Services (FWS) will review and approve the construction plans per grant funding

requirements. FWS has also approved a small overlook platform with the location to be determined.

The preferences is also to leave as many existing trees as possible in the design.

Parts of the trail are impacted by severe erosion. The Design Engineer shall be responsible for

determining grades of where culverts need to go.

The contract term considers the time for permit acquisition.


3

This is a priority project for the County.

D. Questions Received

Question 1

Question: Can you walk over the bridge right now?

Response: This is not suggested for safety reasons. Rotten ties are on top. Steel structures are

expected to be in good shape.

Question 2

Question: Can you use Popes Creek Road to haul?

Response: Yes.

Question 3

Question: Will the US Army Corps of Engineers be based out of Baltimore?

Response: Yes.

Question 4

Question: Any base information available? Right of way plats?

Response: We only have right of way plats. See Attachment B.

Question 5

Question: County have topographical maps for this?

Response: The County will provide these to the awardee.

Question 6

Question: Was stormwater management required on the 14 mile trail just completed?

Response: No, this was elevated 14 – 15 feet.

Question 7

Question: Railroad right of way abandoned for 35 years?

Response: Nothing has run on it since the early 1960s. Approximately 1980, a salvage company

removed most of the metal components from the trail.

Question 8

Question: Based on the aerial, there is no existing parking area for this?

Response: No, the County is currently trying to acquire the property. No parking design is included

with this project.

Question 9

Question: Difficult walk?

Response: No, the County has cleared the top section. Below the bridge, you are walking on the rail

bed. Trying to access from Popes Creek Road, the rail-bed is completely overgrown.

Question 10

Question: Is there a minimum tree size that FWS has determined should be kept on the trail?

Response: The minimum size has not been determined nor have the trees been identified to be saved.

Question 11

Question: What is the relationship between the County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)?

Response: The County used FWS funds to purchase the property, which includes conservation

easement.


4

Question 12

Question: Was 1800’ boardwalk determined by FWS?

Response: This was approved by FWS based on flooding.

Question 13

Question: What permits is the contractor going to be responsible for?

Response: The Contractor will be responsible for all permits, which may include Critical Area

Commission, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

U.S. FWS, and other various State and County permits.

Question 14

Question: Has the County met with MDE or the U.S Army Corps of Engineers on site?

Response: No.

Question 15

Question: Will the boardwalk require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval?

Response: This is anticipated.

Question 16

Question: When talking about going around trees, how wide is the easement?

Response: 66 feet.

Written Questions Received through 07/02/2015

Question 17

Question: Can you provide general project budget figures, as related to state and federal grants, that

will be utilized for this project? Specifically, as follows;

o The trail segment over the former Pope’s Creek rail corridor from U.S. Route 301;

o The trail segment that traverses through wetlands and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

(CBCA) which is intended to be constructed of an elevated boardwalk system;

o The existing rail bridge.

Response: Obviously design will allow the County to get a better handle on estimated construction

costs. Our preliminary estimate is between $300K - $400K per mile.

Question 18

Question: For the portion of the trail within wetlands, wetland buffers, and the CBCA, which the U.S.

Department of Fish and Wildlife is providing grant money;

o Can you provide the name and contact information for the USF&W person that is the primary

contact for the Charles County for this project?

Response: The name and contact information for the US FWS contact will be provided to the

Contractor selected to perform the work.

Question 19

Question: The RFP states that the design consultant shall work with the USF&W structural engineer,

geotechnical engineer, and others of their team for the design of said boardwalk. Can you provide any

initial design parameters, specifications, technical notes/references which the USF&W have provided

to the county at this point in time?

Response: The intent here is for the design consultant to provide a preliminary boardwalk design

concept for USF&W review. They will be most concerned with location, height and verifying that

length/width restrictions are followed. There are no specifications at this point.

Question 20

Question: From the map provided, there appears to be several potential access points on "roads" or


5

"paths" from the Pope's Creek Road. Does the county own any of the land in those areas with such

access and/or have permission or potential permission from adjacent land owners to the trail project

corridor accessing from the Pope Creek Road?

Response: Other than one access road off of South Faulkner Road, the only access to the property is

at the trail terminus (each end: Rte.301 and also Popes Creek Road).

Question 21

Question: Penn Trails LLC is working under a five year requirements contract # with Howard County,

Maryland, for Trail Design and Planning Services. All potential work tasks that would be involved

with the Charles County project could directly relate to those contained in the Howard County contract

#4400002452. Penn Trails intends to work as a Sub-Contractor to Skelly & Loy (Prime Contractor) for

your RFP 16-02. The question is, can Penn Trails / Howard County's contract be utilized by Charles

County as part of the MID-ATLANTIC PURCHASING TEAM? OR, would Penn Trails have to be

the Prime Contractor for your office to access the Howard County contract's pricing, terms and

conditions?

Response: Charles County has issued this solicitation for the design work stated. The County has

decided not to pursue this work by utilizing another government entity’s contract. In order to utilize

another government entity’s contract, the County will only work with the Prime Contractor awarded

the Contract.

Question 22

Question: In regard to the referenced RFP, the “Offeror’s Experience Form” referenced in Section 1.3

(d) on p. I-2 could not be located in the RFP package. Will this form be issued in an addendum?

Response: See Item I.A.1 above for this change.

Question 23

Question: Will there be trail heads? Will trail heads have parking? If so, where will they be located

and how many parking spaces are required? Will there be a trail head at each end of the trail? Are the

design of such trail heads and parking part of the scope of this contract?

Response: Trailhead parking areas are not included in this RFP.

Question 24

Question: Will a Traffic engineering study be required if there is parking provided at trail heads or

elsewhere or for any other reason?

Response: Traffic Study is not part of this RFP.

Question 25

Question: The existing rail bridge might be determined as inadequate for continued use for a trail by

the analyses conducted as part of this contract. If so, options will be to either a) design a new bridge

and remove the existing one, or b) design remediation to use the existing bridge in a rehabilitated state.

Should we assume that the work of a new bridge design or remediation design, if needed, will be

negotiated as an addition to the scope of this contract?

Response: We are assuming that the existing trestle bridge will be adequate for conversion into a

pedestrian/bike bridge. We are looking for the consultant to make design recommendations to

rehabilitate the existing structure.

Question 26

Question: Some areas of forest appear to be required for clearing from the point where the trail departs

the cleared rail corridor, and goes in a westerly direction toward the terminus of Pope’s Creek near the

Potomac River. Removal of significant portions of trees might trigger the need for a bird or other

animal study. Construction might take place during nesting periods of migratory or other birds.

Construction of the boardwalk portion of the trail will be through the wetlands and marshes of the


6

western reaches of Pope’s Creek, and that area might contain fish or other vertebrae animals. Will a

bird and/or other wildlife impact study be required for the project?

Response: We are assuming that no wildlife impact study will be required.

Question 27

Question: Are information kiosks or signage or other trail identifiers, way finders, or amenities

contemplated as part of the scope of the project?

Response: Information kiosks, signage and other amenities will not be included in this project.

Question 28

Question: Will a landscape planting plan for plants not associated with storm water management

practices be part of the scope of this contract?

Response: No.

Question 29

Question: What if any survey information does the County possess that it will make available to the

selected consultant? i.e. Deeds, Plats, Property surveys, topographic surveys, forest delineations,

wetland delineations, floodplain studies, stream studies, aerial photography, etc.

Response: Property survey and topographical surveys.

Question 30

Question: Have historical resources been identified as part of the site or in close proximity? Will a

historical resources study be required? Will an archaeological study be required?

Response: Historical and archaeological studies are required.

Question 31

Question: Can you review or describe the access that may be afforded from 301? Is there property near

there that may be available for access and storage?

Response: At this time, access is limited. We assume that a temporary entrance could be considered

at Rte.301. We are also in negotiation with the owner of the adjacent parcel at this location. There is

also an access option off of South Faulkner Road.


7

ATTACHMENT A


8


9


10

ATTACHMENT B


11


12


13


14


15


16

***END OF ADDENDUM***

RFP NO. 16-02 POPES CREEK RAIL TRAIL DESIGN

Documents

Transcript of RFP NO. 16-02 POPES CREEK RAIL TRAIL DESIGN