Addendum

Addendum #5

7/30/2024

Question: What is the difference between the 2016 self-evaluation and the 2018 curb ramp self-evaluation?

Response:  The 2016 self-evaluation was a countywide initiative to begin the process of developing an ADA transition plan.  The 2018 curb ramp self-evaluation was specific to the LCDOT which targeted documenting curb ramps located within the County ROW on County roadways.  This did not include any ramps on building facilities.

 

 Question: Phase I (Item 7.) – What are the remaining quantities of LCDOT Public Rights-of-Way facilities (ie crosswalks, ADA ramps, traffic signals, sidewalk length, etc.) that still need a self-evaluation subsequent to the 2016 self-evaluation and the 2018 LCDOT curb ramp self-evaluation?

Response: The County has GIS information for all curb ramps located on our roadways.  While we do have a GIS layer that shows the locations of all sidewalk and bike paths in the County system, the sidewalk/bike path between ramps locations have not been evaluated for ADA compliance.  In addition, we have crosswalk pavement markings at every ADA crossing, but they have not been evaluated for ADA compliance.

 

Question: Phase I (Item 9.vi.) – For the LCDOT Transition Plan, what exactly is included in the remedial action required for compliance - are there CADD drawings and Construction Documents/Special Provisions for how to bring the locations into compliance with elevations, geometric layout, etc.?

Response: Remedial action required for compliance would be what is needed to bring a facility up to ADA compliance based on the data collected.  An example would be to have crosswalk pavement markings widened to fit the footprint between ramps or replace a section of sidewalk so that the deficient side slope can be corrected.  The design work would be done by the LCDOT or one of it’s roadway consultants.

 

Question: Proposal Price Sheet - What’s the difference between the PROWAG Assessment and the Facilities Assessment?

Response:  The PROWAG assessment includes facilities located within the ROW on County roadways.  The facilities Assessment includes county facilities outside of the roadways. 

 

Question: The Proposal Price Sheet includes a line item for Staff Training. Beyond the RFP mentioning “guiding designated County staff through the ADA Transition Planning process” in the introductory Scope of Work paragraph, are there any specific goals the County has for such Staff Training? For example, would County staff be receptive to training on completing a portion of the self-evaluation themselves?

Response:  The LCDOT is receptive to training that would allow us to fulfill portions of the self-evaluation ourselves.  We currently perform similar work by having our construction department update our curb ramp inventory when work is performed in an area. 

 

Question: Does the County have IT staff that will take information for the ADA Transition Plan web pages and upload it, or will the Consultant perform all web page creation from scratch?

Response: The design and creation of the ADA Transition Plan webpage will be done by the consultant.   The County does have IT staff that can update the ADA Transition Plan webpages after it has been created.

 

Question: Can you provide the 2018 Self Evaluation performed by Alfred Benesch.

   Response:  The 2018 self-evaluation by Benesch targeted collecting data from the remaining curb ramps within the roadway that had not been evaluated previously.  The scope of work included:

• Inventory an estimated 3,000 ADA ramps on Lake County roads.
• Assemble, prepare, and train team on electronic documentation system.
• Travel to every relevant intersection in Lake County.
• Determine if ramps need to be added or removed from LCDOT responsibility
• Inspect and document each curb ramp
• Complete LCDOT checklist for each ramp (ramp running slope, cross slope, etc)
• Photograph each ramp.
• Backup all documentation to Lake County GIS server.
• Review data with LCDOT personnel.
•  

Question: Can the LCDOT GIS data containing the curb ramp inventory and improvements through 2023 construction be provided at this time? 

Response:  We will provide the GIS data to those who have finalist interviews.

 

Questions: Should the proposer assume that the curb ramp data collected by Benesch and updated by LCDOT is comprehensive in regard to determination of ADA compliance, and no additional data at curb ramps should be collected as part of this project?  

Response:  Yes, the curb ramp data is comprehensive.  No additional data at curb ramps will need to be collected as part of the contract. 

 

Question: Please confirm that the County expects the proposer/consultant to conduct in-field ADA compliance evaluations of the facilities listed in Phase 1 scope Task 7, with the exception of curb ramps, and that any field-collected and related ADA compliance information should be delivered in GIS format for all facilities. 

Response:  Yes, the consultant will perform ADA compliance evaluations of facilities within the roadway ROW except for curb ramps.  All data deliverables should be in GIS format. 

 

Question: Can the County provide GIS layers or maps of the public rights-of-way facilities described in Phase 1 scope Task 7? (95 miles of sidewalk, 1,076 crosswalks, 179 traffic signals, 71 miles of bike facilities, and on-street parking) at this time? 

Response:  We have provided the GIS layers of our facilities.  In looking at the GIS layers, we find that while we have a crosswalk between every curb ramp, the crosswalks themselves have not been evaluated and do not have a GIS layer.  Also note that we identify the signals that are under our control, but do not have data such as the number of pedestrian push-buttons, height of push buttons from the sidewalk, measured distance from ramp to push-button, etc.

 

Questions: Can the County confirm what the quantity of crosswalks includes? We would like to understand if these are: 

1. Intersections that have pedestrian crossings? 
2. Individual legs of intersections that have pedestrian crossings? 
3. Individual legs of intersections that have marked pedestrian crossings? 

Response:  The County does not have a layer in GIS for crosswalks.  The number of crosswalks per intersection has not been tabulated, only the total amount of crosswalks. 

 

Question: Can the County confirm the locations or quantity of on-street parking to be evaluated? 

Response: The County has a handful of on-street parking in two locations.  These would have to be evaluated for ADA compliance.

 

Question: Are in-person meetings required for the citizen stakeholder engagement, or could online meetings and/or engagement methods be proposed? How many in-person or virtual meetings and open house events should be included in the fee to be provided? 

Response: For this proposal, assume 5 in-person meetings and 5 virtual meetings for citizen stakeholder engagement.  The final number of meetings will be discussed and determined during the contract negotiations with the selected consultant.

 

Question: Is the intent that the selected consultant design and develop the LCDOT ADA Transition Plan web page in Phase 1 Task 6 and Phase 2 Task 6, or would the selected consultant only provide website content guidance for the County’s IT/web development staff? 

Response: Yes, the consultant will design and develop the County ADA Transition Plan webpages.

 

Question: There are unknowns for the scope of services to be included in Phase 2, particularly which facilities should be included for evaluation in the upcoming ADA Transition Plan Update project when evaluations were previously completed in 2016. For the purposes of establishing a fee and level of effort, should proposers assume that all buildings will be evaluated, including 15 Health Department facilities, 1 DOT facility, 1 public works facility, and 18 FCS facilities? Otherwise, which facilities should be assumed to be evaluated? 

Response: The County is relying on the consultant to advise what changes need to be added to the original plan after reviewing the 2016 self-evaluation and speaking with facility departments.

 

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