CB2CBS RFP Questions and Answers

Crested Butte to Crested Butte South Shared-Use Path

Request for Proposals

Questions and Answers

RFP No.: METREC-2026-REC-PATH-001

Posted: March 24, 2026

The following questions were submitted by prospective vendors during the RFP question period. Where multiple firms asked similar questions, MetRec has consolidated them into a single response. All answers apply equally to all prospective vendors.

Proposal Structure, Format, and Page Limits

Multiple firms identified apparent inconsistencies between Section 8 (Proposal Instructions), Section 12 (Submittal Checklist), and the Proposal Submittal outline on pages 20–21 of the RFP. The following clarifications apply to all proposals.

Q1: There appear to be inconsistencies between the required proposal outline on pages 20–21, the Submittal Checklist in Section 12, and Section 8. Which should we follow?

A1: MetRec acknowledges that these sections could be read as conflicting and appreciates the firms that raised this issue. To clarify: Vendors should use the Section 12 Submittal Checklist as the definitive structure for organizing their proposals. Within the main proposal narrative (≤30 pages), vendors should address the content described in Items 1 through 10 of the Proposal Submittal section (pages 20–21) in the order listed. Supplementary materials—including graphics and exhibits, the draft scope and schedule, resumes, references, work samples, and vendor comments on the Services Agreement—should be placed in the corresponding appendices (A through F) as listed in Section 12. The condensed outline in Section 8 is a summary of required content that is consistent with this approach and may be used as a general guide.

Q2: Should the proposed scope of services be included in the qualifications section (Item 4.C.1 on page 20), or in an appendix?

A2: The proposed scope of services should be addressed briefly within the main proposal narrative under the Project-Specific Information section (Item 4.C on page 20). A more detailed draft scope, deliverables list, and schedule should be included in Appendix B, consistent with Section 12 and Section 8(e).

Q3: Are all appendices exempt from the 30-page narrative limit?

 A3: Yes. All appendices (A through F) as defined in Section 12 are exempt from the 30-page narrative limit. The 30-page limit applies only to the main proposal narrative. The cover sheet, cover letter (1 page), and table of contents are also excluded from the page count.

Q4: Can you confirm whether references (Appendix D) contribute toward the page count?

A4: References (Appendix D, 3–5 references) are exempt from the 30-page narrative limit.

Q5: Are we able to include full-page graphics within the body of the proposal without counting against the page limit, or do they have to be in Appendix A?

 A5: Full-page graphics, exhibits, and 11×17 sheets should be placed in Appendix A, where they are exempt from the page limit. Up to six 11×17 sheets are permitted per Section 8. Small graphics integrated into the narrative text are acceptable and will count toward the 30-page limit.

Q6: Are 11×17 sheets allowed within the body of the proposal? If so, are they considered one page or two?

A6: 11×17 sheets should be placed in Appendix A (or Appendix B where applicable) rather than within the body of the proposal narrative. Each 11×17 sheet counts as one sheet regardless of content. Up to six 11×17 sheets are permitted in Appendix A.

Deli Trail and Cement Creek Road Segments

Q7: Please provide additional information regarding what is expected for the Deli Trail segment. Will this be to resurface the current alignment as a hard-surface 10–12 ft path, or is it primarily a signage and wayfinding effort? Does the scope include an improved trail along or on top of the existing Deli Trail, or just a connection at Brush Creek Road?

A7: The specific design approach for the Deli Trail segment—including whether it involves resurfacing, a new alignment, wayfinding improvements, or a combination—will be determined during the 100% design phase. The RFP scope includes incorporation of the existing Deli Trail into the shared-use path 100% design. Vendors should describe their proposed approach to evaluating and designing this segment as part of their proposal.

Q8: Can you provide more clarification on the level of design for the Cement Creek Road section? Is this widening the roadway asphalt and striping a bike lane, or full design of a 10–12 ft wide trail with retaining walls? Does it include using the existing East River bridge concrete walkway, widening that bridge, or a separate pedestrian bridge?

A8: As with the Deli Trail, the specific design approach for the Cement Creek Road segment will be determined during the 100% design phase. The RFP scope references bike lane widening from the existing striped lane to a 10–12 ft standard, East River bridge sidewalk integration, and connection details to the Teocalli Road terminus (see Section 3.4 of the Scope of Work). Vendors should propose their recommended approach to this segment, including how they would address the East River bridge crossing, based on their professional expertise and understanding of the corridor constraints.

Teocalli Road Connection

Q9: The 10% design included a survey corridor connection with the north end of Teocalli Road in CB South behind Shavano Street. Is this still anticipated as a potential spur of the path?

A9: Yes. The project scope continues to include the extension along Cement Creek Road to Teocalli Road and connections at both ends of the corridor, as described in the RFP project highlights and Scope of Work.

Construction Funding and Environmental Review (NEPA)

Q10: What is MetRec’s anticipated method for construction funding? Has MetRec already started coordination with any federal adjacencies to determine the level of NEPA analysis?

A10: Local funds will initiate the 100% design phase. MetRec’s intent is to develop a construction funding strategy during the design phase, which is why the RFP includes Task H—Funding/Finance Strategy and Grant Application Support. MetRec may pursue state and federal funding for construction, and consultant teams should anticipate working within CDOT standards and processes consistent with potential future federalization. The selected consultant will be expected to advise on the appropriate level of NEPA analysis as the funding strategy takes shape, and to build the environmental and regulatory framework accordingly. Vendors should describe their approach to environmental and regulatory strategy in their proposals, including how they would accommodate multiple potential funding scenarios.

Pre-Proposal Meeting

Q11: The RFP references a Pre-Proposal Meeting (Optional). Has this meeting already occurred or been scheduled?

A11: Pre-proposal meetings have been scheduled and held upon request with interested firms. If your firm has not yet requested a meeting and would like one, please contact the RFP Primary Contact at admin@gcmetrec.com.

Public Touchpoints and Stakeholder Engagement

Q12: The RFP references touchpoints at major milestones (30%, 60%, 90%), 3–4 open houses under Section 5.2, and two public touchpoints under Task F on page 17. Please clarify the number of public touchpoints or open house events desired for the project.

A12: Task F of the Scope of Services (page 17) defines the minimum consultant-led public engagement effort: prepare concise boards and exhibits for, and attend, two public touchpoints (e.g., at 30% and 90% design milestones), plus briefings to relevant boards and committees as requested. The references to 3–4 open houses in Section 5.2 and stakeholder check-ins at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% milestones describe the broader project engagement framework, which may include MetRec-led engagement activities beyond the consultant’s scope. Vendors should propose a public engagement approach that includes, at a minimum, the two public touchpoints and board/committee briefings described in Task F, and may recommend additional engagement activities as they see fit.

Guardrail and Highway Safety Features

Q13: Much of the existing guardrail is marked as “to remain” but is often not up to current standards, with outdated end terminals. Would there be consideration to update the incidental guardrail where it improves safety?

A13: Safety improvements, including guardrail updates where warranted, may be considered as part of the design process. The selected consultant should evaluate existing guardrail conditions where they intersect with the shared-use path corridor and recommend improvements where appropriate. Coordination with CDOT on highway safety features within their right-of-way, including potential safety funding sources, is encouraged as part of the design approach.

Sustainability / Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Methodology

Q14: Can you provide more clarification on what is expected for the Sustainability/TBL Methodology portion of the RFP?

A14: As described in Item 10 of the Proposal Submittal section (page 21), vendors should provide a concise statement (no more than two pages) describing how their organization strives to be sustainable and how they incorporate Triple Bottom Line (TBL) principles—addressing social equity, environmental stewardship, and economic viability—into their workplace and their work. Vendors should highlight specific areas of opportunity in this project where sustainability and TBL principles could be applied and improved upon. This section is an opportunity to demonstrate your firm’s values and approach to sustainable practice, not a request for a detailed sustainability plan for the path itself.

All prospective vendors are reminded that the proposal deadline is April 3, 2026. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file under 25MB, emailed to admin@gcmetrec.com with the subject line “Response to RFP.”

Derrick Nehrenberg

Executive Director

Gunnison County Metropolitan Recreation District (MetRec)