Active SLED Opportunity · NEW JERSEY · CITY OF JERSEY CITY
AI Summary
The City of Jersey City seeks qualified firms for landscape architectural and engineering design services for improvements at multiple city parks. Proposals are due by August 4, 2026.
The City of Jersey City, Department of Infrastructure, is soliciting proposals from qualified engineering firms to provide design for various park projects at La Pointe Park, Leonard Gordon Park – Phase 2, 29 Monticello Ave. Park, and Van Vorst Park. ... **Solicitation Type**: RFP - Request for Proposal (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.MU.USA.2703006.C17860301 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 07/28/2026 04:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Physical Bid Submission **Owner Organization**: DEPT OF INFRASTRUCTURE/DIV OF ARCHITECTURE **Solicitation Number**: RFP_F-38 **Reference Number**: 0000429754 **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Is a NYS licensed Civil Engineer eligible to work on this project? | Answered in Communication 1 | | Section 3.1 of Mandatory Content lists Required Admin. Forms as the last item of the submission. The Required Administrative forms state that the checklist and the required forms should be placed at the front of our proposal. Please clarify where the signed required forms should be placed. | Answered in Communication 2 | | Submitting one bound original. Do you need a copy(bound/unbound) or a flashdrive? | Answered in Communication 3 | | Page 2 of the RFP states that this solicitation is being conducted through a Fair and Open Process. However, the Business Entity Disclosure Form included in the submission documents is labeled for a Non-Fair and Open Process. Could you please confirm whether we should disregard the Non-Fair and Open Business Entity Disclosure Form and proceed with our submission accordingly? Thank you for your guidance. | Answered in Communication 5 | | Is there a preference for an engineer or a landscape architect lead? | Answered in Communication 6 | | Are there any exhibits that can be shared that depict the improvements envisioned for each park? | Answered in Communication 7 | | What is the estimated schedule and duration for each project? | Answered in Communication 8 | | How many community engagement meetings will be required for each project? | Answered in Communication 9 | | Is the “park maintenance and operations plan” a detailed manual including budgets? | Answered in Communication 10 | | Could you please confirm whether the Title Page, Table of Contents, and Page Dividers are excluded from the 30-page maximum for the proposal? | Answered in Communication 4 | | Could you please confirm whether the documents within the Appendices/Other Section (Resumes /Similar Projects / References) are excluded from the 30-page maximum for the proposal? | Answered in Communication 11 | | 1. Are there exhibits showing the project limit of work for each site? 2. What types of amenities are anticipated for La Pointe Park and 29 Monticello Ave Park? 3. Can site and utility as-built drawings be provided to us during this RFP phase? | Answered in Communication 12 | | Section 6 requires "three similar retaining wall restoration projects," Are we to assume this is boilerplate left over from another RFP? | Answered in Communication 13 | | The term "bimonthly" meetings is ambiguous. (Is this actually every two weeks or every two months?) | Answered in Communication 13 | | Is the Section 11 design window of 9/3/26 to 11/30/26 is about 13 weeks for concepts-through-bid-ready for all four parks is this timeline correct? | Answered in Communication 13 | | Is there a budget in place for capital reconstruction of each park, or a budget in place for the design of each park? | Answered in Communication 14 | | Please clarify the extents of topograhic survey required for La Pointe Park, Leonard Gordon Park and Van Vorst. The answers provided to question 6 noted that record plans could be shared for La Pointe and Van Vorst. The topographic survey for 29 Monticello Ave. Park was supplied as part of the previous answers. If new topographic surveys are required, does Jersey City prefer they encompass the full park spaces or be limited to the specific areas of improvement described by the RFP? | Answered in Communication 16 | | The answer to question 3 refers to a redacted copy of the proposal. Please indicate what information should be redacted. | Answered in Communication 15 | | Pages 8 and 10 reference irrigation design. Please confirm if this is required for each park. If required, would performance specifications be acceptable, in which full design is delegated to the installer? Or should proposers include full irrigation design? | Answered in Communication 16 | | Page 9 indicates safety and security improvements. Are security cameras and associated power/data supply included in this scope of work? | Answered in Communication 16 | | Page 11 asks for Record (As-Built) drawings. Is the city looking for proposers to include CAD revisions and final PDF drawings or review/comment on redline markups provided by the contractor? Or is the city looking for a professional surveyor to create accurate post-construction surveys? | Answered in Communication 16 | | Page 12 of the RFP notes a 10% MWBE/Local Business participation goal. Would this goal be fulfilled by either/or MWBE/Local Business? Please also clarify how ‘local business’ is defined. | Answered in Communication 19 | | Page 9 of the RFP lists tasks for Phase III – Design Development. It notes 3 submissions during the DD phase – 30%, 60% and 100% (bid ready). 100% Bid documents are not typically prepared during the DD phase. Please clarify the submissions that should occur during the DD phase and in the CD phase. | Answered in Communication 20 | | Do the required forms that will be placed at the front of the proposal count towards the 30-page limit? | Answered in Communication 17 | | 1. Is the intent for each park to maintain the location of each of the facility improvements? 2. What level of utility mapping does the city have for each park? 3. Will the public engagement meetings be for each individual park or will they be combined for all 4 parks? 4. How many public engagement meetings are anticipated? 5. Will new lighting be for just the improvement areas or for each entire park? 6. Are there grants that the city received for funding for the park’s improvements? 7. Is the intent to bid all 4 park improvements in one bid or to break them up individually or cluster? 8. Is the intent to have all 4 parks projects under construction at the same time? 9. Which parks have existing topographic and/or boundary surveys available, and when were they completed? 10. What portions of each park require updated survey versus reliance on existing mapping? 11. Will property boundaries need to be verified as part of this project? 12. Will the City provide available utility record drawings for each park? 13. Is ASCE 38 Quality Level B utility designation (GPR/EM) anticipated, or should utility mapping be limited to visible features and available records? | Answered in Communication 19 | | The Evaluation Criteria includes 10 percent for MWBE/Local Business participation. Can you please confirm whether inclusion of an MWBE and/or Local Business subconsultant is required for this solicitation, or whether such participation is optional but evaluated as part of the proposal? | Answered in Communication 19 | | To follow up, does the 30-page limit mean double sided pages, or single sided pages? | Answered in Communication 18 | | Can you please clarify what designations fall under "Local Business Participation" (per 7. Evaluation Criteria, the final bullet point: MWBE/Local Business participation as 10% of the evaluation criteria). Does an SBE firm fall under Local Business? | Answered in Communication 18 | | Conad Phase IV (page 10): There is a periodic site visit task, twice per week. Will this be the only Construction Inspection for the project, or will there be a separate full-time Construction Inspection under a different contract? | Answered in Communication 22 | | On page 15, Section 11. TIMELINE, it lists Tentative Construction Start as Fall of 2026; is this correct? | Answered in Communication 23 | | Do we need to submit copies of PE/LA licenses with the proposal? Or a license number sufficient? | Answered in Communication 21 | | The answer to Q25, answer 10 indicates that the City will provide survey if needed. Page 8 of the RFP lists topographic survey in the Scope of Professional Services. Please confirm that survey should be removed from the scope of services. If survey is to be included in the scope, please indicate the approximate location in Van Vorst for the Portland Loo so that survey scope area can be established. | Answered in Communication 24 | | Are the projects receiving any federal funding? If so, additional documentation (eg: NEPA) would be required. | Answered in Communication 25 | | 1. Please advise if all 4 projects will be awarded to one consultant or may different projects be awarded to different consultants. | Answered in Communication 26 | | 1. Leonard Gord Park: What are the limits of Phase 2? For instance, the master plan shows a community center, stage area, and meadow/orchard area, but these items are not listed in the RFP. 2. Leonard Gord Park: the master plan shows the existing green gazebo to be repaired along with the adjoining lower plaza. Is this structure historic? What is the ultimate use for this structure? For instance, if performances will be held here, we assume upgrades to the electrical system will be necessary. What is housed in the area under the gazebo that is accessed by a separate entrance? | Answered in Communication 26 | | Van Vorst, where do you anticipate placing the restroom, or is that up to the consultant? | Answered in Communication 26 | | Van Vorst Park is a registered historic landmark and within a historic district, has any engagement occurred with SHPO regarding the project? Has an archaeological survey been performed on the project area and is coordination needed with SHPO? | Answered in Communication 26 | | Please clarify the total number of meetings during the Engagement phase, RFP scope states up to four meetings with staff, are these in addition to the two (2) in-person meetings and two (2) virtual meetings? | Answered in Communication 26 | | Van Vorst Park: The RFP requests a new electrical service. Please clarify what equipment will require electrical power. For example, the other parks identify the electrical loads (such as lighting) associated with the new service, but no such information is provided for Van Vorst Park. | Answered in Communication 27 | | The RFP encourages respondents to include MWBE and/or local business participation. Please clarify whether certifications from agencies outside of New Jersey (e.g., New York State MWBE or Port Authority of New York and New Jersey MWBE certification) will be recognized for purposes of demonstrating MWBE participation, or if firms must hold a New Jersey-specific MWBE certification to receive consideration. | Answered in Communication 27 | | 1. Please confirm whether any of the proposed improvements, particularly at Van Vorst Park, will require review by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office or any local historic preservation authority. If so, should those services be included in the base scope? 2. Has the City completed any previous historic preservation reviews, HPO correspondence, or cultural resource studies for these parks that will be provided to the selected consultant? | Answered in Communication 27 | | The Q&A clarification states that copies of PE/LA licenses must be submitted with the proposal. Please confirm whether these license copies may be included with the Required Administrative Forms and excluded from the 30-page proposal limit. | Answered in Communication 27 | | Would it be acceptable to scope existing conditions survey after the design contract is awarded, once extents of survey are known following a review of all record plans? This may be a more cost effective approach. | Answered in Communication 28 | | Would it be acceptable to scope utility investigations/pipe cleanouts after the design contract is awarded, once extents of utility investigations and likely utility connection points are identified? This may be a more cost effective approach. | Answered in Communication 28 | | The Leonard Gordon master plan indicates raingardens and mentions permeable paving in the sport courts, though the RFP does not mention stormwater management practices (SMPs). Can you confirm that design of SMPs should be included in the scope? Are any SMPs to be included for the other three parks? | Answered in Communication 28 | | 1. Are there specific playground vendors that must be used? 2. Are there specific fountain vendors that must be used? 3. Will all landscapes be irrigated? o Is irrigation system to be fully designed and documented - or will this be a delegated design item? 4. Is a playground specialist / someone with a CPSI certificate required to be on the team 5. For public engagement - the scope specifies 4 coordination meetings with staff. How many facilitated meetings are to be provided to the community? 6. Will a Maryland MDOT certification count toward some of the minority/WBE goals or does the firm have to have a NJ certification and/or be local in Jersey City? | Answered in Communication 28 | | What is the extent of the site lighting required? E.g., full illumination of the entire park, lighting for walking paths, sports / playing field lighting, etc.? | Answered in Communication 28 | | The new lighting for this park is well defined in the RFP. Since the RFP does not call for a new electrical service at this park, it appears that the new lighting be fed from an existing electrical service – can you confirm? If that is the case, has it been verified that the existing electrical service has adequate capacity to serve the new lighting? | Answered in Communication 28 | | What is the extent of the site lighting required? E.g., full illumination of the entire park, lighting for walking paths, sports / playing field lighting, etc.? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Will the electrical for the new Portland Loo be fed from an existing electrical service, or is a new electrical service required? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Will the four park projects be bid and constructed under a single construction contract, or as separate bid packages and/or separate construction schedules? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Can the City provide the anticipated number of public/community engagement meetings for each park, or should proposers establish reasonable assumptions as part of their fee proposal? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Will the selected consultant be expected to implement the approved Leonard Gordon Park Master Plan as provided, or should the consultant anticipate revisiting park programming and overall layout through the community engagement process? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Should proposers assume all required permitting (including NJDEP and Hudson County Soil Conservation District, if applicable) is included within the base scope? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Will existing utility mapping be provided for all four parks, or should proposers assume additional utility investigation and coordination where record information is unavailable? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Hello to the evaluating committee, we would like to request an extension of the dues date by 1 week if possible, we would be very appreciative. Thank you in Advance. | Answered in Communication 28 | | Several outstanding questions may impact the scope of work and fee proposal. Does the City anticipate extending the August 4, 2026 proposal due date to allow proposers time to incorporate responses into their submissions? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Is the existing conditions summary memorandum to be a master document for all four Parks, or is there to be a separate existing conditions summary memorandum per Park? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Are the project coordination meetings with City staff per Park, or will all four Parks be discussed per meeting? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Are the construction drawing package and specifications to be a master set that includes all four Parks, or is there to be separate packages Park? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Are any existing lighting fixtures to be upgraded at any of the Parks? Are nighttime surveys required to determine dark areas of the Parks, or will the City be providing layouts of dark areas for each Park to be addressed? Is new lighting to match existing manufacturers and model numbers used at each Park? If so, what are the current manufacturers and model numbers for the lighting fixtures? | Answered in Communication 28 | | Could an inside panel picture be included with the bid so we can determine if the service and panel is adequate and if there is enough slots are available for this upgrade? | Answered in Communication 28 | | What amenities are being requested? Is all of the paved/concrete surfaced to replaced or refurbished or a combination of both? Please clarify. Should the handrailing be analyzed to make sure it is in compliance with the new handrailing requirements that were recently released? Should the wooden benches be upgraded to match the metal benches? For the concrete that got lifted by the tree, would you prefer to raise the concrete or cut the root back if it can be cut back without damaging the tree? Should the table with the broken checker board be replaced? Other than outlets at the top of the lighting poles, will additional convenience outlets be required? | Answered in Communication 28 | | o What items would you like listed separately as bid alternates? o Should the handrailing be analyzed to make sure it is in compliance with the new handrailing requirements that were recently released? o Other than outlets at the top of the lighting poles, will additional convenience outlets be required? o Will additional active recreation courts be installed? o A lot of the paved surfaces looked very new, will this project be replacing only the older surfaces? o Other than water and lights, what upgrades are being requested for the dog run? o Should tree pruning be included by the back courts (they were in the back and locked)? o For the green chain-link fences, would you like the doors and damaged fence areas replaced? o For the retaining walls, even through they are not over 4 feet, would you like railing added? o What should be done with the statues that are falling apart? | Answered in Communication 28 | | o What amenities are being requested? o Is all of the paved/concrete surfaced to replaced or refurbished or a combination of both? Please clarify. o Should the wooden curbs be replaced with concrete curbs? They appear very damaged. | Answered in Communication 28 | | o This park has CCTV cameras. Will additional cameras be required? o What is the new electrical for? Will this be a whole park upgrade or localized upgrades? | Answered in Communication 28 | | • Is there known contamination at any of the site? • Are any of the current lead piping at any of the sites? | Answered in Communication 28 | | a- Is there a stormwater management plan for the entire park (all phases) that addresses the stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and recharge requirements of the City’s stormwater management regulations? b- Anticipating that the total improvement for the entire park exceeds an acre of disturbance, the construction of the park improvements would be considered a Major Development per the City’s stormwater management regulations. Are the Phase 2 improvements to be designed to address the stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and recharge requirements of the City’s stormwater management regulations specifically for the Phase 2 improvements only? | Answered in Communication 29 | | a- Will the construction of the anticipated improvements for the Van Vorst Park disturb an acre or more of the site or result in ¼ acre or more of new impervious coverage making the project a major development pursuant to the City’s stormwater management regulations? b-If the project is a major development, the design will need to address the stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and recharge requirements of the City’s stormwater management regulations, correct? | Answered in Communication 29 | | a- Will the construction of the anticipated improvements for the for La Pointe Park result in ¼ acre or more of new impervious coverage making the project a major development pursuant to the City’s stormwater management regulations? b- If the project is a major development, the design will need to address the stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and recharge requirements of the City’s stormwater management regulations, correct? | Answered in Communication 29 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/28/2026 03:07 PM EDT | | **Communications**: - Communication No.29: answers to questions 68-70 — Q&A Document 29.pdf - Communication No.28: answers to questions 43-67 — answers to questions 43-67.pdf - Communication No.27: Answers to Q39-42 — Q&A Document 27.pdf - Communication No.26: Answers from 34 to 38 — Q&A Document 26.pdf - Communication No.25: Answer the question, 33 — Q&A Document 25.pdf - Communication No.24: Answer to question, 32 — Q&A Document 24.pdf - Communication No.23: Answer to question 30 — Q&A Document 23.pdf - Communication No.22: Answer to question 29 — Q&A Document 22.pdf - Communication No.21: answer to question 31 — Q&A Document 21.pdf - Communication No.20: answer to question 23 — Q&A Document 20.pdf - Communication No.19: answers to questions 22, 25 and 26 — Q&A Document 19.pdf - Communication No.18: answers to questions 27 and 28 — Q&A Document 18.pdf - Communication No.17: answer to question 24 — Q&A Document 17.pdf - Communication No.16: answers to questions 17, 19-21. — Q&A Document 16.pdf - Communication No.15: answer to question 18 — Q&A Document 15.pdf - Communication No.14: answer to question 16 — Q&A Document 14.pdf - Communication No.13: answers to questions 13-15 — Q&A Document 13.pdf - Communication No.12: answer to question 12 — Q&A Document 12.pdf - Communication No.11: answer to quesion 11 — Q&A Document 11.pdf - Communication No.10: answer to question 9 — Q&A Document 10.pdf - Communication No.9: answer to question 8 — Q&A Document 9.pdf - Communication No.8: answer to questio 7 — Q&A Document 8.pdf - Communication No.7: answers to question 6 — Q&A Document 7.pdf - Communication No.7: answers to question 6 — 2015-007 LGP Master Plan.pdf - Communication No.7: answers to question 6 — 12496.011 BoundaryTopographicSurvey (2021-09-24).pdf - Communication No.6: answer to question 5 — Q&A Document 6.pdf - Communication No.5: answer to question 4 — Q&A Document 5.pdf - Communication No.4: answer to question 10 — Q&A Document 4.pdf - Communication No.3: answer to question 3 — Q&A Document 3.pdf - Communication No.2: Answer to question 2. — Q&A Document 2.pdf - Communication No.1: answer to question 1 — Q&A Document 1.pdf
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
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.