Legal Notice: Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District Request for Proposals

The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (“SRPEDD”), pursuant to M.G.L. ch.30B and Title 2 C.F.R. 200.317 et seq., is seeking proposals from qualified Proposers to provide for preliminary design of the proposed Northern Scenic Greenway (NSG), a 9.8-mile off-road facility across three towns: Westport, Dartmouth and New Bedford. The purpose of Northern Scenic Greenway (NSG) Preliminary Design is to develop a regional action plan to close a long-recognized east/west gap in the South Coast Bikeway, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Priority Trail.

The Request for Proposals (“RFP”) may be obtained from SRPEDD via email at cwelch@srpedd.org on or after March 23,2026, at 9 a.m., Eastern Time (EST) and requesting RFP COMP #2026-001 – Northern Scenic Greenway Preliminary Design. Proposals are due by 4 p.m., EST on April 21st, via email to cwelch@srpedd.org.

Proposals that are not prepared as required will be considered non-responsive. No faxed, hard copy (paper), or late proposals will be accepted. The term of any contract resulting from this RFP shall not exceed June 30, 2027. SRPEDD reserves the right to cancel all or part of this solicitation and to reject in whole or in part any and all proposals.

Note: Addenda added to RFP as of 4/2/2026. Please review below:

• We have deleted a line under  'Section IV: 2. Technical Proposal' that is no longer applicable to the RFP: ", which is necessary to perform an aerial survey sufficient for 10% design prior to "leaf out" (approximately April 15, 2026)."
• Under Section III, we have include the links for both the Feasibility Study and the public presentation materials separately for clarity: "The Feasibility Study and public presentation materials are linked."

The RFP states that a municipal role is to “Share existing available surveys and documentation of Existing Conditions”. Could you please clarify whether any existing survey, aerial mapping, utility information, right-of-way plans, or other base mapping from the three municipalities will be made available to the selected consultant for use in developing the preliminary design?

We have not collected or documented all available information. All communities have some publicly available information through GIS or similar software.

The RFP notes that two feasibility studies were completed however the link provided only links to one study. Please provide access to any additional studies completed if applicable.

There were two phases of one study. Links can be found here: Feasibility Study and public presentation.

Please confirm if the intent is to develop a survey baseplan that is suitable for 10% design or a baseplan that will meet MassDOT requirements for a 25% submission when the project advances.

A minimum threshold is 10%, this project is not anticipated to proceed to 25% without a special authorization by each municipality for their area. Regardless, we have identified specific areas that may require field surveying to allow full consideration of feasibility for option analysis. The consultant should provide a lump sum itemized cost for such survey costs for specific areas in their cost proposal. Additional costs beyond the scope of the executed contract will be considered as funding allows.

Could you please confirm the intended eastern survey limit in the vicinity of Mount Pleasant Street / Kings Highway? The RFP references both an endpoint at Kings Highway and, in the survey task, an extension through Mount Pleasant Street to Nash Road. We want to ensure our proposed scope and fee are aligned with the intended limits.

Yes, this additional area is requested for purposes of fully integrating the proposed plan with other New Bedford bike and pedestrian projects. The Project Work area ends at and includes the intersection with Kings Highway. The survey is extended to Nash Road to ensure proper coordination with New Bedford bicycle accommodations planning.

For purposes of preliminary design and existing conditions mapping, is GIS-based property line information acceptable at this stage, or is a higher level of property research / record title research anticipated as part of this contract?

The consultant should be diligent in identifying any potential conflicts or concerns as part of their data collection.

For roadway-based segments where the greenway may be accommodated within or adjacent to existing roadways, has a preferred side of roadway already been identified for study? If not, should we assume the survey should capture the full roadway corridor and 25 feet beyond the pavement edge on both sides throughout those portions of the alignment?

The previous studies were illustrative and did not specify a preferred side of the road, therefore the survey should capture the full roadway corridor and 25 feet beyond the pavement edge on both sides throughout those portions of the alignment.

Can you please clarify whether the expectation for the survey effort will be simply a compilation of available public and municipal survey data, existing available aerial mapping, with only limited on-the-ground field verification sufficient to support preliminary 10% path layout and right‑of‑way assessment, or whether a full MassDOT spec field survey is required including survey control, traverse, benchmarks, locating monuments, etc., meeting all base plan requirements suitable for eventual final design. Or is full survey anticipated after the completion of this 10% design effort.

The intent of previous addenda is to eliminate a non-applicable date, not the aerial survey component of the survey which is called out in Section III, Task 1. The proposer should describe the approach they will use to satisfy the requirements of a DOT process.

Could you please confirm that the proposal PDF is to be submitted via email to Chris Welch (cwelch@srpedd.org)?

Yes, RFP Proposal must be sent to Chris Welch.

Is there a file size limit for the proposal PDF attachment?

No, as long as the file can be sent via email.

To allow respondents time to incorporate any revisions based on the Owner's responses to the questions, can the proposal submission date be extended?

No, there will be no extension and the opening date for the RFP will be April 21^st at 4 pm EST.

RFP Section II:12: List of forms “South Coast Bikeway Alliance Vote of Corporation or Certificate of LLC Incumbency and Authority” – Could this form be provided?

As of the 04/14/2026 Addenda, this form is not required along with other required forms on the opening date of April 21^st.

RFP Section I:4 “All signatures must be written.” Does that mean “wet ink” signatures and scanned to PDF, or would e/signatures/DocuSign be acceptable?

Wet ink signatures or electronic signatures are allowable.

RFP Section I:12 "(3) if the Proposer is a corporation, by the authorized officer, whose signature must be attested to by the Clerk/Secretary of the corporation, and the corporate seal affixed." Is a signature and corporate seal required? If so, where does it belong in the proposal? Does that mean "wet ink" signature and seal, and scanned to PDF, or would e/signatures and digital seal be acceptable? Furthermore, this Section outlines signature requirements for individuals, partnerships, and corporations. Please clarify if these signature requirements apply to both the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal, or if the signature on the Price Proposal Form (Attachment 2) is sufficient for the Price Proposal.

A corporate seal is accepted, but not required.

What are the total funds available for consulting fees (not including in-kind)?

$352,500

Have all of the funding sources listed in the RFP been confirmed/awarded?

Yes.

The last paragraph under the Section III “Funding and Authority” section states, “Because the selected consultant may reasonably be expected to contract with one or more of the Municipalities should the project go forward”. Can you confirm that this refers to potential work beyond the current project scope (outside of this 10% design and planning study)?

Yes.

The RFP indicates that the project will advance to the MassDOT Scoping Checklist level. Can the Owner clarify whether the intent of this assignment is to provide planning-level preliminary design, within the allocated funding, sufficient to support a future MassDOT Project Initiation and Scoping review, or whether consultants should assume preparation of plans and documentation consistent with a MassDOT 10% design submission typically performed during MassDOT’s Project Development Phase?

The assumption is that a preliminary meeting with MassDOT will cover the scope. We will use the Scoping Checklist as a tool to bring the project design and report into better alignment with MassDOT requirements and independent of project initiation. Refer to MassDOT Guide for definition of project initiation.

The RFP requests that the consultant follow the MassDOT Standardized Scope of Services and Workhour Estimate. Can the Owner confirm if you expect the proposed scope of work and fee for this RFP submission to be prepared using the MassDOT Standardized Scope of Services & Workhour Estimate Form, or would that be expected to happen as part of the contracting phase after the consultant selection?

The MassDOT Standardized Scope of Services & Workhour Estimate Form is expected to be submitted at the contracting phase and is not a required document at RFP opening on April 21^st.

Since the work described appears to precede MassDOT’s formal Project Development Process, should consultants still organize their scope and fee strictly in accordance with the MassDOT Standardized Scope of Services format, or is it acceptable to structure the scope to reflect the planning-level nature of this assignment while maintaining general consistency with MassDOT task categories?

Proposers should organize their technical proposal and price proposal to reflect the planning-level nature of this assignment while maintaining general consistency with MassDOT task categories.

RFP Section III :Task 2: Section B. (10% Preliminary Design), point 9, states, "Notify the Project Team of additional ground survey work necessary to meet the needs of Task 4." Task 4 is "Final Preliminary Design and Final Report." Please clarify if the consultant is expected to perform this additional ground survey work or only to identify the need for it.

Should the project work require additional field work in other areas because of conditions discovered during the process, then such work shall be discussed as additional services per Task 2: Section B: 9 and 10.

The RFP states that design work will address right-of-way, drainage, utilities, permitting, trailhead parking, plantings, scenic concerns, and safety enhancements in accordance with MassDOT standards. Should this work be considered conceptual planning-level evaluation of these elements, or is the expectation that the consultant will develop engineering documentation approaching MassDOT 10% design standards for all segments of the corridor?  A 10% level of design is typically prepared during MassDOT’s Project Development Phase and after MassDOT’s Project Scoping.

Concept level survey and design is anticipated for the entirety of the project route for Task 2. In addition, there are several areas where it is reasonable to develop design information beyond concept level in order to compare alternate feasible routes.

The RFP lists wetlands delineation and identification of environmental concerns where applicable. Can the Owner clarify whether the expectation is for GIS-based wetlands identification and environmental screening, or if formal field wetlands delineation and flagging by a Wetlands Scientist will be required as part of this preliminary design effort?

Per Task 2, Paragraph B 2, there are four specific areas of concern where existing geography presents challenging conditions for a roadside path. On ground wetland delineation and detailed survey/confirmation are anticipated in these areas. The consultant should include in their price proposal the assumed extent and fees associated with each area. Please discuss approach in the Technical Proposal.

Can you please confirm the exact segments from the “Closing the Gap” report, that are part of the route outlined in the RFP?

RFP Task 2.B.2: “Assess the route as proposed in the “Closing the Gap” study and report on the feasibility of the proposed route, the pros and cons of the route and options for improving or addressing areas of concern, revise as necessary.” Is it the intent to have the design team make revisions to the actual “Closing the Gap” report? Or just to study the 4 areas of concern?

The intent is for Proposers to take the next steps after the report.

RFP Task 2.B.4 Can you please expand on the “conditions and reported concerns” referenced in this section of the RFP?

The Proposers need to identify these conditions and reported concerns within the Existing Conditions Report.

With the 90 day review period from the proposal submittal date, it may be late-July before a contract is finalized. With this in mind, would SCBA consider an early contract/NTP for the aerial survey to done “prior to “leaf out” (approximately April 15, 2026)” as noted in the RFP Section IV.2.1.D [or as soon as possible]?

See Addenda from April 2^nd.

Please confirm that the intent is to initiate the project with MassDOT through the MapIT process after the scope of work included in this RFP is completed and therefore the Project Scoping Meeting and final Pre-25% deliverables would also be completed by others outside the scope of work included in this RFP.

The RFP requests that The MAPIT process be a meeting topic engaged early in Task 2. We anticipate the selected consultant will lead the Team through the pros and cons of MassDOT Project Initiation in the course of the project and be mindful that a decision to initiate further work on a project with MassDOT will depend partly on how comprehensively the project is documented and scoped when presented to Municipal decision makers, even before it goes to MassDOT.