Consulting Services for Greyhound Rock Cabins and Educational Center Site Plan

Santa Cruz County Parks invites qualified consulting firms to submit proposals for site planning, environmental review, and design services for the Greyhound Rock Low-Cost Accommodations and Environmental Education Center project. This project will identify and develop a design for affordable overnight cabins and an environmental education center that serves the community while protecting and enhancing coastal resources, access, and knowledge.

The selected consultant will lead all aspects of project delivery, including technical studies, community and Tribal engagement, conceptual design development, CEQA environmental review, business planning, permitting, and completion of 60% construction documents for this sensitive coastal site. The scope requires demonstrated expertise in coastal planning, environmental analysis, site planning and design, community engagement, sustainable design, environmental education facility development, and regulatory compliance.

This project represents a unique opportunity to create a community-serving overnight and educational facility that balances public access with resource protection in California's coastal zone. 

Q (No subject): Can you reissue the tasks on page 16-20 in the RFP since the table was cut off?

A: Adjustment has been made to the size of the tables in this part of the RFP- should show properly when exported and viewed on the browser under Project Documents.

Q (No subject): Does the program and general public use of the existing parking and bathroom remain unchanged? The access from the existing parking lot to the beach appears to be the only access to the beach. Does this access strategy need to be improved or modified for maintenance or accessibility requirements?

A: The existing parking lot and restroom facilities on the southern portion of the site are not expected to be modified or redesigned as part of this project, with the exception of minor striping and signage to reserve a portion of parking spaces for overnight visitors. General public use of these facilities will remain unchanged. Regarding beach access, the existing coastal access pathway traverses a steep slope, making it technically infeasible to provide fully accessible beach access at this location. However, improvements to make the existing pathway more inclusive and usable will be included as part of the project scope and should be reflected in consultants' proposals. Consultants are welcome to include recommendations related to other existing facilities if they identify considerations that may benefit the project. Any such recommendations would be considered supplemental and outside the contracted scope of work unless otherwise authorized by the County.

Q (No subject): What accessibility code requirements are required for the project and for what areas, including the cabins, parking lot, structures, new trail, new outdoor gathering, pathway to existing parking lot, pathway to existing bathroom, pathway to beach access.

A: The project is required to meet California Building Code (CBC) accessibility requirements. This includes providing accessible cabin(s), parking spaces, structures, outdoor gathering areas, and accessible trails connecting these elements. The accessibility requirements for additional trails on the property will be determined during the planning and design phases of the project. The existing parking lot and associated facilities are not expected to require accessibility improvements, as these elements are not included in the project scope and will not be modified as part of this work. The existing coastal access pathway follows a steep slope, and it is not technically feasible to provide fully accessible beach access at this location. However, improvements to the existing coastal access pathway to make it more inclusive and easier to navigate are included in the scope of work.

Q (No subject): In the Biotic Report, the Impact Assessment on page 36 states that “It is ECI’s understanding that the proposed project will not remove any trees and that work will not occur within the structures in the Developed / Disturbed Habitat”. The project scope described in the RFP proposes work within the developed / disturbed habitat. Clarify if there are alternative recommendations to follow.

A: The impact assessment referenced on page 36 of the draft biotic report specifically pertains to work conducted during the geologic trenching investigations that occurred as part of the prior feasibility studies, and is not intended to define the limits of work for the proposed project. As described in the RFP, the proposed project includes potential work within the existing structures and the developed/disturbed habitat areas. As a general design principle, project elements should be sited to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat. Locating development within already disturbed areas will reduce environmental impacts and should be an important consideration in the overall site planning approach. Should any proposed project development result in impacts to sensitive habitat outside of the developed/disturbed areas, the consultant team will be required to prepare and submit corresponding mitigation plans as part of the regulatory permitting process. Consultants should factor this into their proposed environmental approach and fee proposal accordingly.

Q (No subject): Is a botanist required for project services per mitigation measures 2b, 3a, 3b? Or is this prior to construction and excluded for now from proposal?

A: As noted above, the impacts and mitigation noted in the Biotic Report were specifically for geologic trenching that occurred on the site prior to the release of this RFP. The planning and design components of the project are not expected to result in any impacts to sensitive habitats or species and therefore would not require mitigation measures. The selected consultant team will need to update the biological impact assessment and proposed mitigation measures after development of the site plan.

Q (No subject): Is there an anticipated percentage of use for the “organized program use” described in the RFP on page 12?

A: The facility is primarily intended to support organized programming, with public bookings anticipated during gaps in scheduled programs. The current estimated use ratio is approximately 75% programmed use and 25% public bookings; however, this ratio may shift based on the outcomes of the financial and business plan that the consultant team will prepare as part of the scope of work. The overarching goal is for the facility to be financially self-sustaining, which may require generating additional revenue through increased public cabin rentals or periodic facility-wide special event rentals. Proposers should account for this operational flexibility in their site planning and permitting approach, as design decisions will need to support a range of uses to meet the facility's long-term financial sustainability objectives.

Q (No subject): Is there additional information or areas regarding the potential “conservation easement” and “deed restrictions” noted in the RFP on page 13.

A: The County is currently working with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to finalize the deed restriction. As of the most recent meeting on March 11th, CDFW had drafted the deed restriction and was awaiting review and input from their legal counsel. CDFW will also be conducting a Land Conservation evaluation that will inform the deed restriction, as property transfer will occur through this mechanism rather than through a conservation easement.

Q (No subject): A communal restroom building is described in the RFP, but not included in attachment 4 prefab cabins. In the RFP on page 14, 4.4 Project Description, a variety of programs are noted within the “environmental education programming” including: “education or discovery center, dining hall, meeting space, or small event venue”. Are there any prefab structures that should be assumed or reference for cost efficiency similar to the cabins? Can you please clarify if you expect architectural services to be included?

A: Architectural services are expected to be included in the proposal to address the design of all buildings described in the RFP. This includes the cabins and communal restroom facility, as well as program spaces such as the education or discovery center, dining hall, meeting space, and small event venue. These program spaces will be accommodated through the renovation of the two existing buildings or through new construction, whichever approach proves most cost-effective. The prefabricated cabins referenced in Attachment 4 are provided as an example of a cost-effective, affordable prefabricated structure. Consultants are encouraged to explore comparable cabin alternatives that may offer similar cost efficiencies. The same cost-conscious approach should be applied to all remaining program buildings. Consultants are expected to propose an affordable and practical design strategy for the full complement of structures, balancing cost efficiency with functionality and the overall program objectives.

Q (No subject): Is there additional topographic survey information outside of provided 25P1-008_Attachment_3_Topo_Survey that will be issued to the selected consultant to inform trail and outdoor gather area development?

A: The topographic survey included as Attachment 3 of the RFP is the only survey data currently available and no additional topographic information will be issued to the selected consultant. It is the consultant's responsibility to evaluate the adequacy of the provided survey and to obtain any additional topographic data required to fully develop the 60% Construction Document package, including design drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimate.

Q (Fee Proposal): Per Section 7, Pricing/Fees, it appears the County would like consultants to submit a fee for tasks 1-9, however the scope of the project is variable, and subject to the results of the Tasks 1, 2, & 3.  It will be difficult to appropriately prepare a fee for tasks 4, 7, & 9 until other tasks are completed.  For example, we don't know if the Education Center will be adaptive re-use of existing structures or new construction.  If a fee is required, can we exclude tasks 4, 7, & 9 from our fee proposal at this time?

A: Fee proposals should include all tasks, 1 through 9. We understand that costs for certain tasks may vary depending on the outcomes of Tasks 1–3; however, the variation is not expected to be significant. If needed, consultants may include different budgetary scenarios or assumptions for Tasks 4, 7, and 9 as part of their fee proposal to reflect the range of possible outcomes, such as adaptive reuse of existing structures versus new construction for the Education Center. This approach will allow the County to evaluate proposals comprehensively while acknowledging the variable nature of the scope.

Q (Geotech): Task 1.4 requests a Geotech be included, however the layout of new structures is not yet determined so locations, quantity, and extent of borings cannot be determined until at a minimum task 3 is completed.  Can Geotech be excluded at this time?

A: A geotechnical investigation is a required study and cannot be excluded from the scope of work. For the purposes of preparing their fee proposal, consultants should assume the installation of 8–12 cabins, reuse of existing buildings, and construction of a communal restroom/shower facility, all located in the cabin and educational center areas shown in the Attachment 1 Site Diagram included in this RFP. Proposals should include sufficient geotechnical borings to support this work. Proposers are welcome to state their assumptions regarding the number, extent, and associated cost of borings included in their proposal. The scope of the geotechnical investigation may be refined as the project progresses and site layouts are further defined following the completion of Task 3, at which point the scope may be modified if required.

Q (Coastal Commission): What role and level of support does the County expect the contractor to provide the County during the process of obtaining necessary approvals from the Coastal Commission?

A: The County expects the selected consultant to provide full support throughout all regulatory processes associated with obtaining necessary approvals for the project, as described in Task 5: Environmental Review and Permitting. This includes, but is not limited to, preparation of permit applications, coordination of required studies and supporting documentation, response to agency comments, and attendance at relevant hearings or meetings as needed. Please note that direct approval of the project by the Coastal Commission is not expected as the project will be obtaining a CDP from the County. However, it is worth noting that the California Coastal Commission is already aware of this project and has expressed initial support, given its role in improving equitable coastal access. Consultants should reflect this context in their proposed approach to regulatory coordination and factor it accordingly into their project schedule and fee proposal.

Q (Traffic Consultant): Please confirm the County wants a Site Access Operation Study completed by a traffic consultant as part of the scope of work (under Task 1.7 of the RFP) to evaluate site access and Caltrans sight distance requirements and parking capacity?

A: The County confirms that a formal Site Access and Operations Study is not included as a required deliverable under Task 1.7 of the RFP. However, proposers should carefully consider the nature and extent of traffic and access analysis warranted given the specific site conditions and anticipated improvements at Greyhound Rock. By way of context, the Greyhound Rock property is currently served by two existing driveway entrances to and from Highway 1, and project access will continue to occur through both of these existing driveways. No new access points are proposed. Given the limited site area in the northern portion of the property, vehicular access and parking improvements in that area are expected to be limited in scope and will include: accessible parking spaces, a loading and unloading zone for overnight visitors, and access for service and transit vehicles. Parking for general facility visitors- with the exception of accessible parking- will be accommodated in the existing parking lot, which is anticipated to be modified through striping and/or signage to designate a portion of the area for facility use. Because no new driveways or significant changes to site access geometry are proposed, the County does not anticipate that a full traffic impact study will be required. However, the selected consultant will be expected to address Caltrans sight distance requirements for the existing driveways, evaluate the adequacy of parking capacity for the proposed uses, and confirm that the access and circulation configuration meets applicable standards. Proposers should use the above information to scope an appropriate level of traffic and access analysis commensurate with the project's complexity. The County is looking for a right-sized approach that satisfies Caltrans and permitting requirements efficiently. Proposals should clearly describe methodology and anticipated work products related to site access and parking in their technical proposals.

Q (Tribal Consultation): Given that the County seeks a CEQA statutory exemption, formal tribal consultation is not required for the project under AB52, please clarify the County’s expectation for the tribal consultation process, including the level of support the County expects from the contractor to meet the tribal consultation requirements outlined in the RFP?

A: While formal tribal consultation under AB 52 is not required given the County's pursuit of a CEQA statutory exemption, the County expects tribal engagement to be included as part of the consultant's scope of work in order to adhere to the County's equitable and inclusive community engagement standards. Consultants should outline their proposed approach to tribal engagement as part of their overall outreach strategy, which will be evaluated during the proposal review process. It should be noted that a cultural resources report has already been developed and will be shared with the selected consultant. This report reflects engagement efforts already initiated with the Amah Mutsun Land Trust, and as a result, the consultation process is expected to be more streamlined. Consultants should take this into account when scoping the level of effort associated with tribal outreach and factor it accordingly into their fee proposal.

Q (No subject): Will the consultant be expected to prepare the IS/MND if the Prop 4 exemption is denied, and if so, is additional budget available for that scope?

A: In the unlikely event that the Proposition 4 exemption is denied, preparation of an IS/MND is not included in the current scope of this RFP. Should that occur, a new scope of work and corresponding task would be developed and added to the contract at that time, with additional budget allocated accordingly.

Q (No subject): The RFP notes that archaeological resources have been identified on site and that detailed information will be shared with the selected consultant post-award. Can the County confirm the general nature or extent of the resources (e.g., surface scatter vs. subsurface deposit, whether a tribal cultural resource determination has been made) without compromising sensitivity protocols?

A: The County can confirm that an Integrated Cultural Resources Survey (ICRS) was conducted at the Greyhound Rock property. The survey identified two surface survey units positive for archaeological resources. No subsurface deposits were confirmed; however, the potential for subsurface deposits cannot be fully ruled out for the entire property. It should be noted that these identifications were not found within the northern project area.

Q (No subject): Can the County share any existing documentation on the two unused structures at the northern end of the Park — such as construction date, square footage, current condition, or any prior structural or hazmat assessments? The facility condition assessment is included in scope, but any available background would inform the adaptive reuse analysis.

A: The County can share the following background on the two structures at the northern end of the property. Both buildings were likely constructed between 1955 and 1964 by Big Creek Lumber. The taller northern structure was built as a warehouse for storing building materials (primarily plywood), which was sold to local contractors. The longer, lower building running parallel to the highway served as a maintenance shop. Both structures were actively used by Big Creek Lumber for maintenance operations until the mid-2000s. No formal structural assessments, square footage records, or hazmat reports are currently available to share. As noted in the RFP, a facility condition assessment is included in the consultant's scope of work and will provide the documentation needed to inform the adaptive reuse analysis.

Q (No subject): The grant application budgeted $865,000 for preconstruction work, while the consultant budget in the RFP is $500,000. Can the County clarify which tasks will be managed in-house by County staff versus delegated to the consultant team, and whether any tasks from the grant scope are intentionally excluded from this RFP?

A: The $500,000 consultant budget outlined in the RFP represents the portion of the grant allocated specifically for the scope of work described therein and is expected to be sufficient to fully address all tasks listed. The difference between the total grant budget of $865,000 and the consultant budget reflects funds that have been or will be used for other grant-eligible activities managed separately by County staff, including technical and feasibility studies such as the Biotic Report, Geologic Trenching and Report, and Integrated Cultural Resources Survey, as well as grant coordination and other tasks outside the scope of this RFP. Those activities are not part of the consultant's scope and are not expected to be delegated to the selected consultant team.

Q (No subject): The RFP indicates scope may be modified during contract negotiation to stay within budget. Is the County open to proposers submitting a base scope at $500K with clearly defined add-alternates, or does the County prefer a single scope proposal?

A: Prospective consultants are encouraged to submit proposals that meet the overall goals and needs of the project within the allocated budget. However, in the event that a prospective consultant team is unable to stay within the budget or recommends including tasks that do not fit within the project budget, additional tasks and their associated fees should be clearly delineated so that they can be considered. Submitting both will allow the County to evaluate the full range of services offered while maintaining flexibility to potentially adjust the final scope during contract negotiation as needed.

Q (No subject): Attachments 5 and 6 reference a draft biotic report and draft site geologic map. Are these available to all proposers, and are they considered sufficient for permitting purposes or will supplemental studies be required?

A: The draft biotic report and draft site geologic map referenced in Attachments 5 and 6 were included as attachments to this RFP (can be found in OpenGov under Section 9, Exhibits and Attachments) and are therefore available to all proposers. Final versions of both reports will be provided to the selected consultant upon contract execution. Regarding sufficiency for permitting purposes, the biotic report was prepared with the intent of covering the full project scope. However, it will be the responsibility of the selected consultant to review the existing studies and determine whether any supplemental investigations are required based on their proposed permitting approach and the specific requirements of the applicable regulatory agencies. Proposers are encouraged to factor this evaluation into their scope and fee proposals accordingly.

Q (No subject): The MOU framework anticipates an interim lower-cost accommodations program prior to permanent construction. While the RFP states this interim phase is NOT in scope, will the consultant need to coordinate with or account for any interim operations in the site planning or permitting work?

A: While the interim lower-cost accommodations program referenced in the MOU is not included in the consultant's scope of work, consultants will be required to account for interim program operations occurring on site during the site planning, design, and permitting process. Design and permitting decisions must consider the coexistence of interim operations and ongoing design and planning activities to avoid conflicts and ensure a seamless transition to permanent construction. Consultants should reflect this consideration in their proposed project approach. It is understood and expected that interim operations will be suspended prior to the start of construction of the permanent project.

Q (No subject): The contract term runs through June 30, 2027. Given a likely NTP of June 2026, this leaves approximately 12 months for a complex multi-phase scope including 60% design documents. Is the County open to a contract extension if regulatory processes (particularly CCC permitting) cause delays outside the consultant's control?

A: The initial date in the RFP was listed in error. The contract term in the RFP will be revised via subsequent addendum to extend through June 30, 2028. However, this project is funded by a Coastal Conservancy grant that currently requires all work to be completed by October 31, 2027. The County recognizes that meeting the October 31, 2027 deadline is not feasible given the number of steps required to complete the work, and the County anticipates that it will need to request a grant extension from the Conservancy to reflect a more realistic project timeline. Proposers should factor this additional context into their proposals. The County is committed to setting realistic expectations and does not expect consultants to propose unrealistic schedules. At the same time, the County expects proposed schedules to be both accurate and efficient, as well as to reflect honest sequencing and regulatory lead times without unnecessary schedule inflation. The County values a disciplined, well-reasoned approach to project delivery and is seeking proposals that demonstrate a clear-eyed understanding of the project's complexity and a credible path to completion. Regarding California Coastal Commission (CCC) involvement: proposers should note that this project will obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the County, not the CCC. However, because the CCC is supportive of the project and is likely to establish the most stringent environmental mitigation requirements applicable to it, the County intends to involve CCC staff in the project review process. Consultants should anticipate and account for this coordination in their proposed project approach and schedule. The CCC's existing awareness of and support for the project- given its role in advancing equitable coastal access- is expected to foster a collaborative working relationship throughout.

Q (No subject): Will the consultant be required to attend in-person meetings in Santa Cruz County, and if so, how frequently?

A: The RFP does not establish a set number of required in-person meetings. The frequency and format of meetings will depend on the consultant's proposed project management and community outreach approach. Proposers are expected to outline their meeting strategy in their proposal and account for any anticipated in-person meetings in Santa Cruz County within their scope and budget accordingly.

Q (No subject): The RFP states the project is outside both Urban and Rural Service Areas. Can the County confirm the current availability and capacity of water, sewer, and electrical utilities at or near the project site, and whether any utility extensions or on-site systems (well, septic, solar) are anticipated?

A: The County confirms that water and electrical utilities are available on site and were previously in service, though they are not currently connected. Both water and power are anticipated to be restored prior to the commencement of interim operations this summer. Sewer service is not available at the property. An existing septic system is present on site; however, it will require testing and evaluation to determine its condition and suitability for reuse as part of the permanent project. The selected consultant will be expected to assess all existing utility infrastructure and recommend appropriate on-site solutions as part of the site planning and design scope of work. Proposers should account for utility assessment, septic evaluation, and the recommendation of on-site systems (which may include septic, water, and electrical infrastructure improvements) in their scope and fee proposals accordingly.

Q (No subject): What type of firm do you anticipate serving as the prime for the project?

A: The County anticipates that the prime consultant will be a qualified landscape architecture, planning, or architecture firm capable of ensuring that all elements described in the RFP are appropriately balanced. The proposed team should collectively possess and demonstrate the expertise required to address the multidisciplinary scope of work outlined in the RFP.

Q (No subject): Are the cabins expected to need any utilities other than electricity?

A: The cabins are anticipated to require electricity only. No additional utilities such as water or sewer connections are expected to be extended to the individual cabin units, and the cabins will not include plumbing. However, each cabin will have an adjacent picnic area equipped with a water spigot. Plumbing and sewer facilities will be centralized within the communal buildings.

Q (No subject): What are the utilities currently at the site and is there any information available about capacity? Are new utility services anticipated, such as electrical, septic and water?

A: The County can confirm that water and electrical utilities are currently available on site. Sewer service is not available at the property. There is an existing septic tank on site that will need to be tested and evaluated for potential re-use as part of the project scope. The consultant will be expected to assess the existing utility infrastructure, determine whether new or expanded utility services are required, and recommend appropriate on-site solutions as part of the site planning and design work.

Q (No subject): What is the anticipated procurement process for construction (DBB, DB)?

A: The construction delivery method, Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or Design-Build (DB), has not yet been finalized. A formal determination will be made at the conclusion of the preliminary engineering phase, based on schedule, budget, risk allocation, and applicable public procurement requirements. Regardless of delivery method, all procurement activities will be conducted in accordance with the Santa Cruz County Contracting and Purchasing Ordinance, California Public Contract Code, and applicable federal requirements, including competitive solicitation, public notice, and DVBE/SBE participation requirements where applicable.

Q (No subject): What is the construction budget?

A: The preliminary construction estimate is approximately $13.4M. This estimate will be refined as the project advances through preliminary and final engineering phases, with updates provided at each major design milestone. The County has not yet secured full construction funding for the project, and a complete construction budget has not yet been established. The County will work with the selected consultant and funders to develop a final construction budget.

Q (No subject): The RFP mentions 60% design – is this referring to a 60% construction document package for all elements, including civil engineering?

A: Yes, the 60% design submission refers to a comprehensive 60% Construction Document package encompassing all disciplines and specialties required for the project, including but not limited to landscape, architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and any other applicable engineering and architectural elements. This package is intended to represent a sufficiently advanced and coordinated set of drawings and specifications that can be directly progressed to a 100% Construction Document set, serving as the basis for final design completion, permitting, and construction procurement.

Q (No subject): What stakeholders will participate in the programming of the environment education center, meeting/discovery center, dining hall/kitchen, small event space? Is a preliminary program available for the Dining Hall and Ed Center uses that would help understand the general size and scope of these uses?

A: The stakeholder group for programming these spaces is expected to include County Parks Planning, Recreation Programming, and Maintenance staff, as well as user-focused representatives. Input may also be sought from program partners such as environmental education providers, community representatives, and potential user groups to ensure the spaces align with intended programming and visitor experience goals. A preliminary program has not yet been established for the Dining Hall/Kitchen or Environmental Education Center. The sizing and scope of these facilities are intended to be responsive to the broader site program and overall project feasibility. Specifically, these shared-use spaces will be calibrated based on the ultimate scale of overnight accommodations and overall site capacity. For example, if the site program supports approximately eight cabins at full occupancy, the Dining Hall and Education Center would be designed to accommodate the total guest capacity associated with those cabins, along with staff and potential day-use participants as appropriate. These spaces are envisioned as flexible, multi-functional environments that may support dining, educational programming, community gatherings, and small events, with final sizing determined through the coordination of occupancy targets, operational models, and budget considerations. The consultant team should anticipate developing the program for these components iteratively and in parallel with overall site planning, to ensure alignment between capacity, functionality, and feasibility.

Q (No subject): What information will be provided by the County regarding the ‘interim operational phase’ (which is not in the scope of the project, but which must be considered in the consultant’s design and process)? [refer to p 13 of RFP]

A: The County will provide the selected consultant with all relevant information pertaining to the interim operational phase, including program schedules, site use calendars, and documentation of existing temporary infrastructure. This will ensure the consultant has a comprehensive understanding of current site conditions and ongoing activities as they develop the project design and phasing strategy. The Greyhound Rock Outdoor Education and Interim Camping Program is an active initiative currently operating on site, offering environmental education field trips and supervised overnight experiences for youth, schools, and community groups. Key interim infrastructure, such as the outdoor kitchen, restrooms, group campground area, and campground host facilities, is located within the area designated for the permanent cabin and environmental education center development, as shown in Attachment 1: Site Diagram. Given this overlap, the consultant's site planning, design approach, and permitting timeline must account for the continued operation of the interim program throughout the pre-construction phase. Particular attention should be given to site access, visitor and participant safety, activity scheduling, and protection of ongoing programming. Project phasing should be developed to minimize disruption to interim operations and maintain consistent community access and programming continuity. It is understood that interim operations will be suspended prior to the start of construction of the permanent project. The County will work collaboratively with the selected consultant to coordinate this transition and ensure a smooth handoff between interim and permanent phases.

Q (Consultant BudgetConsultant Budget): The consultant budget listed in Attachment 2 pg 15 is listed at $865,000 while the consultant fees budget listed on page 21 item 4.7 of the RFP is indicated as $500,000. Is there difference in the scope of services requested in the RFP compared to that descriped in Attachment 2? If so, where do you expect variation?

A: The $500,000 consultant budget outlined in Section 4.7 of the RFP represents the portion of the grant allocated specifically for the scope of services described therein and is expected to be sufficient to fully address all tasks listed. The difference between the total grant budget of $865,000 and the $500,000 consultant budget reflects funds that have been or will be utilized for other grant-eligible activities managed directly by County staff, including feasibility studies, grant administration, and coordination, as well as other tasks outside the scope of this RFP. Those activities are not part of the consultant's scope of work and will not be delegated to the selected consultant team. Proposers should base their fee proposals solely on the scope of services defined in the RFP, with a not-to-exceed budget of $500,000.

Q (Project Schedule Location in the RFP Response): Is the project schedule requested in 8.2.3 the same as the one requested in 8.2.4? If so, is it sufficient to include the schedule in 8.2.4?

A: The project schedule requested in Section 8.2.3 and Section 8.2.4 refer to the same deliverable. It is sufficient for proposers to include the project schedule once, under Section 8.2.4, to satisfy the requirements of both sections.

Q (Geotechnical and Environmental Consultant (Phase 1)): Would it be acceptable for the County to contract the Geotechnical / Environmental Consultants directly rather than the Prime Consultant for liability reasons? If so can those fees be excluded?

A: No. The County requires all subconsultants, including geotechnical and environmental consultants, to be contracted directly through the Prime Consultant. This structure ensures that the Prime Consultant retains full responsibility for coordinating all project elements, managing subconsultant performance, and delivering a cohesive and fully integrated work product. Subconsultant fees should therefore be included in the Prime Consultant's fee proposal.

Q (Existing Building Documentation): Are there any drawings or photographs available of the existing structures that can be shared?

A: No drawings of the existing structures are currently available for distribution. However, photographs of the existing conditions are available via the link below. Greyhound Rock - Photos: https://santacruzcountyca.sharepoint.com/:f:/s/PlanningProjectswithMariana/IgDREVzL0d-jS4qatzodm5zGARDt0N-VXghksyvn9aOPU9o Please note that the site visit period, as outlined in the RFP, has now closed.

Q (60% Design): Please confirm that 60% Design is equivalent to 100% Design Development Phase deliverables.

A: The 60% design submission is not equivalent to 100% Design Development phase deliverables. The 60% submission refers to a comprehensive 60% Construction Document package encompassing all disciplines and specialties required for the project, including but not limited to civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and any other applicable engineering and architectural elements. This package is intended to represent a sufficiently advanced and coordinated set of drawings and specifications that can be directly progressed to a 100% Construction Document set, serving as the basis for final design completion, permitting, and construction procurement.

Q (Business Plan Deliverables): The Business Plan deliverables as listed in the RFP don’t seem to align with the 20k fee estimate in the grant application consultant fee estimate. Please clarify if the scope in the RFP is accurate and if there is any flexibility to adjust the deliverables to meet the budget target.

A: The grant application served as the primary guide for the project scope and associated budget estimates. However, consultants are expected to apply their professional judgment and expertise to structure their fee proposal in a manner that accurately reflects their proposed approach and methodology. Proposers are encouraged to align their Business Plan deliverables and associated fees with the budget targets stipulated in the RFP, adjusting the level of effort and deliverables as appropriate to meet the established budget while still fulfilling the intent and objectives of the scope of work.

Q (Additional Biological Studies): Optional Task 1.11 (additional biological studies) - who authorizes this optional task, and is there contingency budget already allocated for it?

A: Optional Task 1.11 will be authorized by the County upon the consultant's identification and written justification of the need for additional biological studies, based on their review of the biological report provided as an attachment to this RFP. If the consultant determines that supplemental biological work is warranted, they should present their findings and rationale to the County for review and approval prior to proceeding. If authorized, this optional task will be funded from the 10% contingency allocated to the project budget.

Q (CCT): The planned CCT alignment runs adjacent to the site – is coordination or design related to the CCT connection expected as part of the scope?

A: Coordination or design related to the California Coastal Trail (CCT) connection is not part of this scope of work. The main CCT alignment in this area is along Highway 1, which will be a separate future project. Trails developed on the property as part of this project may be added to the CCT network and database as secondary unpaved trails connected to the primary CCT route; however, the on-site trails are not expected to serve as the primary CCT alignment. Consultants are not expected to include CCT-related tasks or coordination efforts in their proposals.

Q (Text Cut off in PDF): I see this question was asked previously, but the PDF available for download still appears to have text cut off to the right-hand side on pages 16-20.

A: I have resized the text and the download that I am seeing appears to have corrected the issue. If you are still encountering the issue, please email me at Shauna.Soldate@santacruzcountyca.gov and I can provide you with a copy with the tables resized properly. You can also review the tables on the internet using the project documents link: https://procurement.opengov.com/governments/831/projects/239840/sourcing/document