Requests for Proposals

Questions and Inquires 

How is the City of Greenville related to this project? The feasibility study and design of this project will be shared with City staff and they are an important stakeholder but UGATA is the client and will provide all feedback and input on design.

Is there an established budget in mind? We are not publishing a budget but will take cost effectiveness into account when choosing a firm.

Have the utilities been notified of this potential project? Yes. SCDOT, Duke, and ReWa have all been notified of this project and have agreed to work with our designers within their design abilities. 

The cover lists a project start of November 2, 2026 and completion of February 19, 2017. What is the intended completion date, and does it apply only to the feasibility study? The project start date is November 2nd 2026 and the expected completion date will be February 19th 2027. This applies to the feasibility study with the add alternates schedules to be negotiated with the added context of the completed feasibility study

Please confirm the October 12, 2026 question deadline, its time of day, and where responses and addenda will be distributed; the later schedule contains TIME/DATE placeholders. Questions must be submitted before midnight on October 12th. Responses will be posted on UGATA’s website (https://ugata.org/rfps/). Firms are responsible for checking this regularly or setting up a website monitoring tool to receive notifications when changes are made.

Do the references to an Army Corps LOMR mean FEMA CLOMR/LOMR procedures, with USACE environmental authorizations handled separately? For Alternates 1B and 2B, should the fee include both preconstruction conditional review and postconstruction as-built information and final LOMR closeout? We are looking for a firm that is able to help with both FEMA CLOMR/LOMR and USACE environmental authorizations as well as any other regulations needed to build at this project site. Alternatives 1B and 2B should take the entire permitting process into account including post construction and closeout.

What survey limits, datum/control, boundary/easement information, wetlands delineation, subsurface utility verification and geotechnical investigations should be included in the base feasibility fee versus each design alternate? Are existing hydraulic models and current ReWa as-built records available? We would like the selected firm to gather all information needed to make a confident prediction of cost, timeline, and feasibility of the two proposed routes. It will be a professional decision of the selected firms what information will be needed for feasibility or design alternatives. Please explain your rational in your responses

UGATA is currently reaching out to SCDOT to see if they have updated hydrology models resulting from the recent work on the Washington St bridge 

UGATA does not have as-built records available for ReWa. The selected firm would be responsible for finding all

Is the trail-junction plaza to be fully designed and permitted under each alternate as well as evaluated for both routes during feasibility? Yes. Include the plaza in both.

Please confirm the applicable County trail section and how its shoulders and trail width should be reconciled with Duke’s 12-foot trail limit, clearances, grading restrictions and heavy-equipment access requirements. Are any project-specific Duke approvals or agreements already available? The typical trail cross section was provided as an example. When working within the Duke easement, the selected firm will make a professional decision of how to balance the requirements of Duke while upholding the trail user experience.

Are property rights and rights of entry secured for parcel 0140000300100 and all survey, construction-access and staging areas? Who will obtain any additional easements? UGATA will handle all easement and access questions.

What existing SCDOT direction, traffic counts, crossing studies or bridge records can be provided? Should additional traffic collection be included in the feasibility study? Firms will need to work with SCDOT to gather whatever information is required to determine feasibility. We do not anticipate any additional traffic data collection to be needed

How many stakeholder meetings and review/resubmittal cycles should be assumed? Are there target dates for each of the four design/permitting scenarios? Assume four meetings to review work. One at the beginning of the project, one at 30%, one at 90%, and one at 100%.

Target dates for design and permitting will be negotiated after the results of the feasibility study

Should the five required totals include permit/review fees and specialized expenses as fixed amounts or identified reimbursable allowances?  Please include the permit and review fees as fixed amounts 

Please confirm whether the B alternates are complete alternative prices rather than increments added to the A prices, and the expected pre-bid, inquiry, bid-opening and bid-review effort. B alternatives are the complete alternative prices

The bid review is expected to be minimal. We anticipate that the selected firm will need to answer technical questions but the bulk of the bidding process will be handled by UGATA and its partners 

What is the funding source for this project? The funding for the feasibility study and design will be funded by UGATA

Is UGATA open to the consultant suggesting small shifts in the alternative alignments as part of the technical approach section to aid in permitting? UGATA is open to any changes that will improve the project and the associated permitting hurdles. Please outline the suggested shifts and explain the rationale.

Will the firm be selected based on the lowest fee? The selection committee will take fee into account but will make the decision based on a combination of fee, experience, and understanding of the project.