Meadow Mountain Trial Enhancements Design & Permitting Service

ADDENDUM NO.5
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2026
To: All Bidders
From: Siera Wigfield Senior Planner
RE: Request for Proposal #26-0429 Meadow Mountain Trial Enhancement Design & Permitting
Service
Purpose of Addendum
This Addendum No. 5 provides final clarifications, consolidates key procurement information, and incorporates responses to
questions received.
This Addendum supersedes any conflicting information contained in the original RFP or prior addenda.
The contents of this addendum are hereby incorporated into and made part of the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Acknowledgement of Receipt
Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum No. 3 by initialing below and including a copy of this page with their
proposal submission.
Addendum No. 5 Acknowledgement: Initials: _____________
1

Addenda & Informational Links
Project Website
Background Document SharePoint
Pre Proposal Meeting Recording
Pre Proposal Transcript (AI)
Addendum 1 2026-03-20
Addendum 2 2026-03-27
Addendum 3 2026-04-09 Site Visit Notes
Addendum 4 2026-04-13
Key Project Information
Proposal Due Date May 11, 2026 at 2:00 PM (Local Time) - updated
Submission Requirements One (1) hard copy required
* Clearly labeled: "RFP #26-0429 Meadow Mountain Trail Enhancements"
* Delivered to:
Garrett County Commissioners Office
203 South Fourth Street, Room 207
Oakland, MD 21550
* Electronic copy: encouraged but not required
Price Proposal Shall be submitted concurrently with the full proposal
* The April 15, 2026 price submission date is hereby rescinded
Questions Deadline Closed - No additional questions will be accepted
Questions & Answers
Q: Are additional connecting trails (e.g., Ranger Station access, Bittinger Road segment) included?
A: The project area includes the primary Meadow Mountain Trail corridor and associated segments identified in the RFP
and supporting materials.
* The 1.4-mile segment from the overlook to Bittinger Road (MD 495) referenced in prior materials is considered
part of the broader system context and may be evaluated.
* Connections such as the Ranger Station access trail may be evaluated, but inclusion in final design shall be
determined through the design process based on feasibility, cost, and agency coordination.
Q: Can the County provide construction history, maintenance logs, or design standards?
A:
* The trail was constructed in multiple phases by different contractors, resulting in varying conditions and limited
consolidated documentation.
* Formal maintenance logs (e.g., gravel placement history) are limited.
* There is no single adopted trail width standard across the system.
Expectation:
The Consultant shall:
* Evaluate existing conditions in the field
* Recommend appropriate trail typologies and widths
* Balance recreation, safety, and Forest Service operational access needs
Q: Can crossings be evaluated during preliminary design with final design as an additional service?
A: Yes.
* Evaluation of crossings shall be included as part of base scope (30% design)
* Due to permitting complexity, final design and permitting for specific crossings may be scoped as additional or
refined services, subject to feasibility and County direction
This approach is consistent with prior guidance regarding SHA coordination and potential constraints.
2

Q: Can existing structures and potential new structures be evaluated in preliminary design, with final design as additional?
A:Yes.
* Evaluation of:
o Existing structures (rehabilitation potential)
o Need for new structures shall be included in base design services
* Advancement to final design shall:
o Be contingent upon feasibility
o Require coordination with DNR and applicable agencies
o May be refined during later phases or treated as additional scope elements
As noted previously, new structures may require additional permitting and coordination.
Legal Disclosure Requirement (Lawsuits)
Clarification:
Offerors shall disclose any lawsuits, claims, or legal actions filed within the past three (3) years related to professional
services.
For each, provide:
* Nature of claim
* Jurisdiction
* Case number (if available)
* Status
* Outcome (if applicable)
If none, include a statement indicating such.
Evaluation Criteria Clarification
Proposals will be reviewed by an evaluation committee composed of Garrett County staff and technical advisors with
relevant expertise in trail design, planning, engineering, and project delivery. Agency partners may participate in an
advisory capacity as appropriate.
Each proposal will be evaluated independently by committee members and scored in accordance with the criteria outlined
below.
1. Technical Proposal Evaluation (100 Points)
1. Demonstrated understanding of the Meadow Mountain Trail context; quality, creativity, and feasibility of the
proposed approach; ability to improve user experience while achieving RTP construction readiness. (35 points)
2. Experience delivering similar trail projects, including mixed motorized and non-motorized use, forested terrain,
drainage and erosion control, and RTP or comparable funding programs. (25 points)
3. Qualifications of key personnel; trail-specific credentials; experience with professional trail design and
construction-ready documentation; appropriate use of subconsultants. (15 points)
4. Ability to deliver phased design services within anticipated timelines; demonstrated capacity to manage workload
and coordinate with agencies. (10 points)
5. Reasonableness and clarity of the proposed fees for each phase; alignment with scope and anticipated funding
constraints. (15 points)
2. Cost Proposal Evaluation (50 Points)
6. Cost proposal. (50 points)
Cost proposals will be evaluated separately from the technical proposal based on completeness, reasonableness, and
alignment with the proposed scope of work. Lower cost proposals will generally receive higher scores; however, cost will be
considered in relation to the level of effort and overall value provided.
3. Total Evaluation
Total Maximum Score: 150 Points
Final rankings will be based on the combined total of the technical proposal score and cost proposal score.
Once each member of the Selection Committee has rated each proposal, a composite rating is developed which indicates
the committee's collective ranking of the highest rated proposals in a descending order.
3

At this point, the Selection Committee may request interviews of the top ranked Firms. Project managers are requested to
attend these meetings. The Selection Committee will conduct all subsequent interviews as necessary and may use interviews
to clarify proposals and inform final rankings.
The Selection Committee will make a recommendation for contract award to the Purchasing Agent. The Purchasing Agent
will review the recommendation of the committee and present it to the Board of County Commissioners for their final
approval during their weekly public session.
This procurement is a competitive proposal process and not a low-bid procurement. Award will be made to the proposer
whose submission is determined to be most advantageous to the County.
Prepared by:
Siera Wigfield
Senior Planner, Planning & Land Management Division
Garrett County Government
4