Addendum #4

7/26/2024

Questions:  What level of detail for sidewalk information is Lake County looking to collect ?  A GIS database of existing infrastructure and sidewalk gaps?  

Response:  LCDOT currently has a GIS database of existing bike and ped infrastructures along with gaps on our system, so this should be omitted from the scope.

Questions:  What level of detail for sidewalk information is Lake County looking to collect? An inventory of vertical separation at sidewalk panels? Or a detailed inventory of spalls and cracks throughout the sidewalk network?

Response:  LCDOT currently does not have any information on vertical panel separation, spalls or cracks in sidewalks within the right-of-way.  Keeping in mind that the sidewalks in our right-of-way are owned by other agencies (largely municipalities), this inventory should be included in the scope of services if it is a state and federal requirement of an ADA transition plan. 

 

Addendum #3

7/23/2024

Question:  In the 2018 self-evaluation performed by Alfred Benesch & Company (Benesch) on behalf of LCDOT, what was the extent of curb ramp data that Benesch collected?

Response:  The self-evaluation information collected in 2018 by Alfred Benesch has been updated each year by the LCDOT.  Data has been collected at each ADA curb ramp location including running slope and cross slope, type and condition of detectable warning, turning space provided, etc.  The data will be made available to the consultant as we expect the curb ramps to be included in the evaluation and transition plan.    

Question:  Were any sidewalks simultaneously included in the self-evaluation?

Response:  Most sidewalks on the County Highway system are owned and maintained by municipalities.  LCDOT owns nearly 65 miles of bike path, with the remainder within our right-of-way being owned by other agencies (municipalities, Lake County Forest Preserve District, etc.).  The expectation is that all sidewalk and bike paths within Lake County right-of-way be included in the evaluation and transition plan. 

Question: Is the 2016 Transition Plan prepared by ACT Services available online, or will it only be made available to the awarded Proposer?  

Response: See below link attachment

/assets/1/6/2016_Lake_County_Facilities_Transition_PLan.pdf

 

Addendum #2

7/18/2024

Questions: Does the county have a set budget for this project? Are you able to share?

Response: At this time, we are still reviewing the budgetary numbers and are unable to provide any further details.

Questions: The RFP states that "All questions shall be submitted no less than seven (7) days prior to the RFP opening date." but then also lists the due date for questions as July 26th. I wanted to verify that questions will be open until July 26th.

Response: Questions are confirmed to be due by 11:00 AM on July 26th.

Question: Regarding the scope of work, the fee sheet lists facilities assessments, but facilities assessments are not referred to in either phase of the SOW. If the County anticipates facilities assessments in the scope of work, please provide information about the facilities:

• List of facilities
• Use of each facility (office, recreation, administrative, public safety, etc.)
• Gross square footage of each facility

Response:/assets/1/6/Facilities_with_Public_Access_(003).xlsx

 

Addendum #1

Question: Will questions be answered on a rolling basis? Or will they be provided in one addendum after the July 26 question deadline?

Response: Questions will be answered on a rolling basis.

Question: Company Background item 9 asks for resumes for all key professionals. Implementation Plan asks for project team resumes for key members of the implementation team.

To keep the submittal as simple as possible, is it acceptable to provide the resumes in just one of those sections? If so, is the section choice up to the proposer or does Purchasing have a preference?

Response:  Yes

Question: Scope of Services asks for an approach for each service identified in the RFP’s scope of services. Implementation Plan asks to describe the proposer’s implementation plan for each task identified in the scope of work. We interpret both of these sections as asking for the proposer’s approach to the project. Please clarify what the distinction is, if any, between the Scope of Services and Implementation Plan sections. Is it acceptable to combine them into one “Approach” section?

Response:   Yes

Question: Regarding the scope of work, the fee sheet lists facilities assessments, but facilities assessments are not referred to in either phase of the SOW. If the County anticipates facilities assessments in the scope of work, please provide information about the facilities:

• List of facilities
• Use of each facility (office, recreation, administrative, public safety, etc.)
• Gross square footage of each facility

Response: List will be available by 4:30 pm Friday July 19th

 

Question: If facilities assessments are in the SOW, will the scope be limited to publicly accessed spaces, or will spaces used exclusively by staff also be included?

Response: Public accessed spaces only