SLED Opportunity · CALIFORNIA · CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

    Active Modes Wayfinding Plan

    Issued by City of Rancho Cordova
    cityRFPCity of Rancho CordovaSol. 244472
    Closed
    STATUS
    Closed
    due Apr 18, 2026
    PUBLISHED
    Mar 19, 2026
    Posting date
    JURISDICTION
    City of
    city
    NAICS CODE
    541620
    AI-classified industry

    AI Summary

    The City of Rancho Cordova seeks proposals to develop a Wayfinding System Plan for walking, biking, and rolling. The plan includes reviewing existing wayfinding, designing signage, identifying routes, updating the bicycle map, and community outreach. Funded by a Carbon Reduction Program grant, the project supports active transportation and is managed by the Public Works Department.

    Opportunity details

    Solicitation No.
    244472
    Type / RFx
    RFP
    Status
    open
    Level
    city
    Published Date
    March 19, 2026
    Due Date
    April 18, 2026
    NAICS Code
    541620AI guide
    Agency
    City of Rancho Cordova

    Description

    The City of Rancho Cordova is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to prepare and develop a Wayfinding System Plan for walking, biking, and rolling throughout the City of Rancho Cordova. Task items include a review of existing wayfinding in the City, document best practices for wayfinding, design options for the wayfinding family of signs, identify routes and destinations, develop the Plan, and update the City's bicycle map. Community outreach may occur during certain tasks of this project.

    The City is nearing adoption of the Rancho Cordova Active Transportation Plan (ATP). This wayfinding plan will build off the momentum of the ATP and leverage the community input and updated geospatial data.

    The City anticipates a year to complete the scope of work items.

    Background

    The City of Rancho Cordova was awarded a Carbon Reduction Program grant award from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in 2024. An excerpt of the grant application is provided in the attachments of this RFP.

    Project Details

    • Reference ID: 80111
    • Department: Public Works
    • Department Head: Albert Stricker (Director of Public Works)

    Important Dates

    • Questions Due: 2026-04-02T00:00:00.000Z

    Evaluation Criteria

    • Work Plan (30 pts)
      • Understanding of the City’s requirements and expectations
      • Overall quality of work plan (including logic and clarity)
    • Qualifications of Key Personnel (30 pts)
      • This Plan requires well-roundedness of key team personnel providing skills that range from project management, graphic design, community and cultural sensitivities, transportation behaviors, technical knowledge of traffic control devices, material selection, cost estimates, and project delivery processes
        • Strong understanding of local government, placemaking, and interdepartmental collaboration
        • Strong understanding of active transportation and wayfinding (design, route/destination planning, and system plan development)
      • Availability of staff
      • Strong verbal, written, and graphic communication skills
    • Qualifications/Expertise of Proposed Team (20 pts)
      • This is addressing the strength of the proposed team and the depth of resources they represent
        • Experience/resources of the team with similar kinds of work
        • Demonstrated expertise of active transportation and wayfinding
      • Strength and stability of the firm and any proposed subconsultants
        • Strong internal processes for administrative tasks
        • Availability of non-key personnel to step into the project when needed
      • Qualifications assessed by proposal/references
    • Schedule and Quality Control (15 pts)
      • Reasonableness of schedule and deadlines
      • Internal controls and management practices to assure a complete and timely deliverable
    • Community Engagement Approach (5 pts)
      • Display an understanding of the local community
      • Provide an engagement approach with the community, including how this project will complement previous public outreach conducted during the development of the ATP

    Submission Requirements

    • Complete Proposal (required)

      Please Upload your COMPLETE Proposal here. 

    • Proposal Without Cost (required)

      Please Upload your proposal WITHOUT ANY COST INFORMATION here. You will be prompted to upload your Cost Information in another location.

      NOTE: Including Cost Information in your upload here may cause your proposal to be deemed non-responsive.

    • Separate Cost File (required)

      The fees/costs portion of your proposal should NOT be attached and uploaded with the rest of your Proposal. All cost/fees/pricing schedule information should be attached separately HERE.

      NOTE: Failure to upload your cost information in the proper manner may cause your proposal to be deemed non-responsive.

    • Additional Information (if needed)

      For any additional information requested or required by any of your provided answers please upload that additional documentation here.

    • Proposer Confirmation (required)

      By confirming here and submitting a proposal, Proposer confirms their authority (and has uploaded necessary documentation proving such) to execute this Proposal in its entirety as submitted and enter into a contract on behalf of the Company Name stated in said Proposal. Such confirmation will be understood as certification by the Proposer that they have completely read and understand this Request For Proposals in its entirety including any and all Addenda released prior to the time of submittal.

    • Basic Project Description (required)

      What is the goal of this procurement? Complete the following sentence:

      The City of Rancho Cordova, <DEPARTMENT NAME> Department is soliciting request for proposals for _____________

      NOTE: Do not worry about the Department Name, that will be added on its own, just type into the box as if completing the highlighted area.

    • Electronic Pricing (required)

      Do you wish to use the electronic pricing table available within OpenGov to collect pricing/cost information for this RFP? This does not prevent the use of a cost breakdown file to further expand on pricing provided or to receive pricing for additional services.

    • Cost File Submittal (required)

      If you are requiring Proposers to submit a cost breakdown or pricing information either instead of or in addition to the use of the electronic pricing table, would you like to require said cost information be submitted separately from the rest of the proposal?

      Typically this is done to allow evaluators to see proposals without seeing cost or without it being a factor in the initial evaluation of proposals.

    • Proposal Page Limit (required)

      What is the maximum number of pages that you wish to state as the limit for proposals?

    • Federal Funding (required)

      Is this a federally funded project?

    • DBE Goal (required)

      You have indicated that this is a federally funded project. What is the DBE Goal in % ?

      Do NOT INCLUDE the % sign. Simply state the numeric value.

    Questions & Answers

    Q (Project limits / geography clarification): Can the City clarify the full geographic study area and confirm whether the wayfinding plan is intended to cover all City limits, priority active transportation corridors only, or a defined network of trails, bikeways, and key destinations?

    A: Tasks identified in the scope of work should cover all City limits, including the wayfinding plan in Task 4. Please note – the “Wayfinding System Plan…” bullet point (and its sub bullet points) in Task 4 will cover only the highest priority routes within Rancho Cordova, based on the prioritization conducted in Task 3.


    Q (Existing mapping / GIS data): Will the selected consultant receive existing GIS data, bikeway and trail shapefiles, destination databases, sign inventories, and ATP-related mapping files at project initiation?

    A: The selected consultant will receive existing GIS data/shapefiles for bikeways and trails (including the files related to the ATP) and available sign inventories at project initiation.


    Q (Sign inventory extent): For the review of existing wayfinding, does the City expect a comprehensive field inventory of all existing active transportation wayfinding and interpretive signs, or a more targeted review of key corridors and systems identified by the City?

    A: The City has a current inventory of wayfinding signs Citywide, which will be shared with the selected consultant. The review of existing wayfinding conducted in Task 1 will provide a comprehensive summary of sign types, design elements, and styles. This information will be presented for the project team’s review and evaluation. This exercise will inform the following tasks.


    Q (Sign family design depth): Is the City seeking conceptual sign family design only, or should the consultant include a more detailed design intent package with preliminary materials, mounting approaches, and sign-type standards to support future implementation?

    A: This effort will develop both a sign family design to be used Citywide and a more detailed design intent package for an agreed upon subset of signs. The intent of the sign family design is to establish the look and feel for the active transportation wayfinding Citywide (Task 4). However, the “Wayfinding System Plan…” bullet point (and its sub bullet points) in Task 4 drills down to more detailed implementation considerations. Acknowledging that the development of a detailed design intent package for the entire city exceeds the scope of this effort, the selected consultant will identify a segment that will include a detailed design intent package for only the highest priority routes (identified by the prioritization exercise in Task 3).


    Q (Bicycle map update scope): Can the City clarify the expected level of effort for updating the City’s bicycle map, including whether the City expects graphic redesign, content updates only, print-ready files, digital/web-ready files, or all of the above?

    A: The City is looking to redesign its bike map based on the style preferences established in Tasks 1 and 2, with any necessary content updates, a print-ready file, and a digital/web-ready file.


    Q (Implementation planning expectations): Does the City expect the final plan to include a prioritized implementation matrix, probable cost ranges, and phasing recommendations for future fabrication and installation?

    A: The City expects a high-level cost estimate for fabrication and installation of sign types for the highest priority routes. We also expect an implementation approach for wayfinding Citywide, which can include phasing recommendations and a prioritized implementation matrix. The recommended wayfinding implementation approach should also identify key decision points of where and how wayfinding projects are implemented.


    Q (No subject): Can the City clarify the expected level of detail for sign placement? Should this be conceptual planning-level recommendations or field-verified locations with engineering considerations?

    A: The expected level of detail for sign placement guidance should be at a conceptual planning level. However, the “Wayfinding System Plan…” bullet point (and its sub bullet points) in Task 4 should include sign placement at field-verified locations with engineering considerations.


    Q (No subject): Task 4 references sign post and mounting detail drawings. Are these intended to be typical conceptual details or construction-ready specifications?

    A: The sign post and mounting drawings should be intended to show typical conceptual details.


    Q (No subject): Should the consultant use routes identified in the Active Transportation Plan, or is additional route analysis and prioritization expected?

    A: The City expects the consultant to use routes identified in the ATP as the basis for the Wayfinding System Plan, including the creation of priority routes and destinations for the wayfinding sign family. Task 3 will establish routes of highest priority for wayfinding.


    Q (No subject): What level of community engagement does the City anticipate for this project, if any, beyond leveraging the ATP outreach?

    A: The City is looking for consultants to propose that level, based on the scope of work tasks and what has been done for outreach during the ATP process. One of the RFP attachments is a public engagement summary for the ATP. We encourage proposers to go over that document and get a sense of the level of ATP public engagement.


    Q (No subject): For the redesigned bike map, is the expectation a static print-ready map, or also an interactive digital mapping tool?

    A: The City is looking for a print-ready map and online/web-ready map. The online map does not need to be interactive digital mapping tool, but rather a version of the print-ready map that is in a PDF/JPEG/AGOL or equivalent file.


    Q (No subject): Given the anticipated $180,000 budget, does the City envision this effort as a planning-level wayfinding framework, with detailed implementation to occur in a future phase?

    A: In general, the City envisions this effort as a planning-level wayfinding framework. With the “Wayfinding System Plan…” bullet point (and its sub bullet points) in Task 4, those deliverables should be at a level to illustrate design intent only. Detailed implementation will occur in a future phase.


    Q (No subject): Does the city have an inventory of existing vehicular wayfinding throughout the city as well as an inventory of wayfinding along its trails? If so, will this be shared with the consultant to help with the completion of Task 1?

    A: The City does have an inventory of existing vehicular wayfinding. We will reach out to our jurisdictional partners to compile an inventory of existing wayfinding along its trails. These inventories will be shared with the selected consultant.


    Q (No subject): Will the city provide finalized GIS data from the ATP on existing/ proposed facilities for the development of the Bike Map?

    A: The City will provide finalized GIS data from the ATP.


    Q (No subject): What is the anticipated format of the updated Online Bike Map (PDF vs AGOL)? Or is it open to different options?

    A: The City is open to different options for the updated online bike map (e.g., PDF, JPEG, AGOL, etc).


    Key dates

    1. March 19, 2026Published
    2. April 18, 2026Responses Due

    AI classification tags

    Frequently asked questions

    SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.

    SamSearch Platform

    Stop searching. Start winning.

    AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.