Nolensville Pike All-Access Corridor Planning & Project Development Services

Q (Traffic Control): Will this project have opportunity for MTTM to bid on Traffic Control Services, equipment, or engineered Traffic control plans?

A: Task 7.6 – Transit Signal Priority and Other Signal Timing Improvements and Task 9, Traffic Analysis and Modeling, among other aspects of the Scope of Work, provide information about the services that are requested pertaining to traffic control services and related work.

Q (Future Transit Center Design / Conflict of Interest): Will Metro Nashville-Davidson County’s, WeGo/MTA’s, or federal regulations preclude firms involved in this contract from participating in future transit center design projects along this corridor?

A: To the extent that the type of work an entity performed on the Nolensville All-Access Corridor Planning and Development Services project gave that entity an unfair advantage over other proposers in a solicitation for design services for a transit center along the corridor, that entity may be precluded from participating in future transit center design projects along the corridor. WeGo follows guidance suggested by the FTA. For information on this guidance, we suggest you refer to the FTA Best Practices Procurement Manual, section 2.6 and to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, subpart 9.5, with particular attention to the examples in 9.508.

Q (Nolesnsville Pike All Access Corridor RFQ): I am a small business located in Nashville. I pay the local taxes which are being used for funding the CHYM projects. Why is there no small business goal on this project? I understand there is no DBE goal because of the recent Federal rule change. WeGo needs to support local small businesses.

A: Thank you for raising your concern. We value the role small businesses play in our community. In contrast to the agencies that are subject to Title 4 (Procurement) Code of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, WeGo Public Transit does not administer SBE goals on contracts. WeGo encourages the participation and development of small businesses through DBE neutral mechanisms such as outreach events and pre-proposal meetings similar to the pre-bid meeting for the Nolensville AAC project. Please refer to USDOT federal guidelines, specifically 49 C.F.R § 26.39, for more guidance on how small business participation is fostered through our DBE program. Although this RFQ does not establish a numeric goal for small business/DBE participation, the project’s multiple tasks and issues lend ample opportunity for small business participation. The inclusion of small/disadvantaged businesses on the proposing team will demonstrate a project approach that encompasses the broad range of skills, expertise, and perspectives that are necessary for successful project delivery.

Q (No subject): Section 4.3 Proposal Submission Requirements specifies page limits for Parts 1, 2, and 3, and references standard 8.5" x 11" page size for resumes and representative project sheets. The RFQ does not specify a page size requirement for the body sections. Please confirm whether pages larger than 8.5" x 11" (such as 11" x 17") are permissible within the body sections of the proposal, and if so, whether such pages count as one page or two pages toward the applicable section page limits.

A: Please note the statement in Section 2.2 Delivery of Qualification (p. 6), “Proposers should be aware that reviewers of the RFQ submissions may elect to print copies of the response to facilitate review. The use of interactive graphics or other materials that cannot easily be reproduced on an office copier may affect the quality of the response, and hence the evaluation. The expectation is that all pages of the submission will be standard 8 1/2” x 11” page size. Any page submissions larger than 8 1/2” x 11” will be counted as two or more pages. Proposers are also reminded that submissions are to be formatted and use a font size that can be read without the need to enlarge the font or page when reading the electronic submission.

Q (ridership forecasting): Reference is made to "the ridership forecasting consultant"... does this mean that the ridership forecasting is being done through a separate contracting vehicle, and not part of this project?

A: Ridership forecasting is being performed by the program management consultant. The consultant selected from RFQ 2026228 will coordinate with WeGo and the program management consultant to provide corridor-specific inputs such as station locations, BRT service plan, background bus changes, TSP and other ITS assumptions, and guideway assumptions.

Q (No subject): Section 1.2 states that cost information shall not be submitted with qualifications and Form 1 confirms the cost proposal is intentionally omitted at this stage. However, Forms 6-A and 6-D require estimated dollar values and percentage of contract value for DBE participation. Please confirm how proposers should complete these fields given the prohibition on submitting cost information with the initial qualifications response, and whether TBD or placeholder values are acceptable.

A: DBE participation is encouraged but not required. Forms 6 A, 6 B, and 6 C are not required to be submitted with the response to the RFQ. If including DBE participation in the project team, the prime proposer should submit form 6 D with an approximate percentage of work that the DBE will perform on the project. If selected to submit a cost proposal, the invited prime proposer will submit a revised form 6 D that will indicate the dollar value and percentage of work that the prime is committing to the DBE. All proposers must submit Form 16, Subcontractor Utilization Form, with their RFQ response.

Q (No subject): Please confirm which required forms must be completed and signed by subcontractors as opposed to the prime proposer. Specifically, please clarify whether subcontractors are required to complete any forms beyond Form 6-A, Form 10, and Form 11.

A: Form 10 is required for first-tier subcontractors. Form 11, References, is not required for all subcontractors. Subcontractors’ references are to be included at the discretion of proposing prime proposer. Any subcontractor references that are included must be specific to the work that the subcontractor will be performing on this project. Form 6A, Letter of Intent, is not required at this time.

Q (No subject): Given the temporary pause on DBE goal-setting and the resulting 0% contract goal established in Section 3.2, please confirm in writing which DBE forms among Forms 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, and 6-D are required for submission with the qualifications response.

A: Please see response to Question # 6: DBE participation is encouraged but not required. Forms 6 A, 6 B, and 6 C are not required to be submitted with the response to the RFQ. If including DBE participation in the project team, the prime proposer should submit form 6 D with an approximate percentage of work that the DBE will perform on the project. If selected to submit a cost proposal, the invited prime proposer will submit a revised form 6 D that will indicate the dollar value and percentage of work that the prime is committing to the DBE.

Q (No subject): Form 11 requires proposers to submit separate references for subcontractors performing 'key elements of the scope' but does not define this term. Does 'key elements of the scope' refer to the major task categories identified in the scope of work — such as Public Involvement, Alternatives Analysis, NEPA Clearance, Conceptual Engineering, Preliminary Engineering, Traffic Analysis and Modeling, and Service and Operational Planning? If not, please clarify what subconsultant roles trigger this requirement.

A: The roles and responsibilities assigned to a subcontractor, along with the determination of a key scope element, will be specific to each prime proposer’s approach to the project and the way the prime organizes the project team. In preparing their proposal, it is anticipated that each prime proposer will determine which references, as well as representative projects, they will choose to present that best highlights their team’s skills and expertise.

Q (No subject): Section 5.1 references the Professional Services Federal Transit Administrative Clauses and Tennessee State Contract Clauses as components of any resulting contract. The links provided for these documents in the RFQ appear to be broken. Please provide accessible copies of both documents.

A: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Addendum 4 will include a pdf of the FTA and State of Tennessee Contract clauses.

Q (No subject): Can proposals include section dividers that will not count towards a section’s overall page limit?

A: Yes, as long as the dividers include only the reference to the section. Divider pages that are used to include text, project photos, graphs or other materials that constitute part of the proposer response will count toward the overall page limit for each section

Q (No subject): To allow space to depict the number of staff resources necessary to deliver the scope, will firms be allowed to use 11x17 sheets for the organizational chart?

A: Yes, however, the organizational chart is limited to a chart of the planned project organization. It may not include explanatory text, biographies, project references or any other information.

Q (No subject): Please confirm which forms are required for subconsultants.

A: Form 10, Certification of Lower Tier Participants, is required for first tier subconsultants.

Q (No subject): Can firms include a front and back cover as well as a Table of Contents that do not count toward the page limits?

A: Yes, as long as the front and back cover and Table of Contents contain no text, photographs, or other data that constitute part of the proposer’s response.

Q (No subject): Please confirm whether “Part 4 Representative Projects” on pg. 44 is asking for 10 total projects for the team or 10 projects for each firm on the team?

A: The Representative Projects Section should be used by the project team to highlight past or current work that demonstrates the team members’ experiences, acumen, and skills that will lead to success on this project. The representative projects may be work from the prime proposer or subcontractors that will be participating in the project team. The selection of representative projects is solely up to the proposing team. There should be no more than 10 pages in the section, and no more than 10 projects in total, included in this section.

Q (No subject): Please confirm that the representative projects in Part 4 (pg. 44) can include local projects delivered for WeGo or CHYM, and that only the references within Form 11 cannot include WeGo or CHYM experience.

A: Correct, proposers may include local projects in Representative Projects but cannot include WeGo or CHYM projects as references to be contacted. Proposers are reminded that work for WeGo and CHYM should have been previously disclosed, prior to the RFQ submission, in the Conflict of Interest Disclosure form, which was due March 10, 2026. This date was not extended

Q (No subject): Please confirm if the Appendix to Part 3 (Resumes) described on pg. 44 does not have any page limits.

A: While there is no page limit to the number of resumes submitted, resumes are limited to one 8 ½” x 11” page per person. Resumes should only be submitted for the personnel that will be working on the project and will be included in the cost proposal if the proposer is invited to submit same. Proposers should not include resumes for individuals in the firm that will not be working on the project, are not already employed at the firm, or have executive roles in the firm but will not take an active part in delivering this project.

Q (No subject): To allow space to show our team’s ability to deliver the project in the 24-month timeframe noted in Section 4.1 “Scope of Work,” will firms be allowed to use an 11x17 page for the schedule to count as a single page?

A: The submission of the schedule as an 11 x 17 page will be accepted as one page.

Q (Question 2026228): Part 1. Cover Page and Cover Letter, page 41 of the RFQ states, “All proposals shall be accompanied by one cover letter of introduction and an executive summary of the proposal that shall not exceed ten (10) consecutively numbered (1-10) pages. Pages that contain charts, graphics, or appendices count toward the total ten pages.” Can you please confirm that proposers are allowed a one-page cover letter of introduction, and 10 pages of an executive summary?

A: Yes, the cover letter of introduction is to be a one page cover letter followed by a maximum 10-page executive summary.

Q (Nolensville Pike Preliminary Corridor Assessment for Bus Rapid Transit Document ): May procurement please provide a link to the “Nolensville Pike Preliminary Corridor Assessment for Bus Rapid Transit” document listed in Appendix A?

A: Please refer to: https://www.wegotransit.com/about-us/ and under the column labeled, "Projects," select the nMotion strategic plan.

Q (Org Chart): Given that the Schedule graphic is allowed an 11x17 page to count as one page, can the Org chart as 11x17 be counted as one page?

A: Yes, provided the schedule graphic does not include additional text or explanations beyond the schedule graphic

Q (No subject): Part 3 asks for “A disclosure of any other work the proposer, key individuals, or proposed subconsultants and subconsultants’ key individuals may be conducting related to any private sector, public institution, or transportation-related projects in the Nashville metropolitan region, including but not limited to any ongoing work with any Metro government agencies, BNA, TDOT, NDOT, GNRC, or WeGo.” Can this be submitted in the appendix to Part 3 along with the resumes since it will include information from the prime and all subconsultants?

A: Yes. This information should be presented in a matrix or table form and should be separate from the resumes so that the work of the team is presented as a whole and not by individual persons. This information is for ongoing, current work, not work that is completed.

Q (No subject): Can the Agency clarify the PMT’s scope versus the Consultant’s responsibilities for value engineering, constructability review, and risk mitigation, including expectations for re‑work following PMT recommendations?

A: The current Program Management Team will lead overall CIG coordination. Proposers should assume responsibility for all CIG-related deliverables that are directly associated with and necessary to support the scope of services defined in this solicitation.

Q (Form 6-d): Should Small Businesses be included in Form 6-d DBE Utilization Plan?

A: DBE certified businesses are to be included in Form 6-d. All subcontractors must reported on the Subcontractor Utilization Form.

Q (No subject): In reference to questions 11 and 14 of Q&A, can you confirm what is permissible text to include on cover and divider sections? Can unaltered imagery of the Nolensville Pike AAC be included on cover and divider sections without counting towards the page limits?

A: Any page that includes text, charts, graphics, photographs or other materials that the proposer is using to explain how it is qualified to perform this project, that describes past work relevant to this project, that demonstrates its approach and schedule for this project, that describes its proposed subconsultants’ and any personnel qualifications, will count toward the page count limitation in each section and the overall proposal response. A single divider page that introduces a section, for example, “Resumes” will not count toward the page count. Proposers should not use divider pages or section headers/footers to add additional text that exceeds the page limits.

Q (CIG): Can the Agency clarify which specific CIG‑related deliverables are expected under this contract versus any separate or later-procured contracts?

A: The current Program Management Team will lead overall CIG coordination. Proposers should assume responsibility for all CIG-related deliverables that are directly associated with and necessary to support the scope of services defined in this solicitation.

Q (No subject): Can WeGo clarify the role of the proposed Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Lead? Is this an advisory role or should additional CIG support and staff be assumed to support the review and execution of CIG deliverables? Task 10 notes that CIG work is to be by a separate consultant, and the scope of CIG work within this contract is limited to coordination and providing draft/final supporting meeting materials only.

A: This is an advisory role. The selected Ccnsultant would support WeGo, the CHYM Program Office, and partners in coordination with FTA related to the Alternatives Analysis and NEPA process, including communicating progress; identifying and clearly framing issues requiring FTA guidance; responding to FTA advisement and direction; and preparing meeting materials, technical inputs, and documentation. The Consultant may provide limited support to components of the project’s CIG application as requested; however, overall CIG strategy, preparation/packaging of CIG application materials, and CIG financial modeling will be performed under separate contract(s).

Q (No subject): Was it WeGo’s intention to have the 10 representative projects identified in Part 4 connect or overlap with the 4 references requested in Form 11? Or can a consultant use four unique project references from the 10 projects previously identified in Part 4?

A: A proposer may use four unique project references on Form 11. The references provided in Form 11 do not have to be from the 10 representative projects. References listed on Form 11, however, should be relevant to this project’s scope of work and be reflective of the work the proposer will perform on this project. All references listed on Form 11 will be contacted during the evaluation process. When submitting a reference, the proposer should verify that the contact information for the reference is current. References that cannot be contacted due to missing or outdated information may reflect in the proposer’s overall evaluation.

Q (Nolensville Pike Preliminary Corridor Assessment for Bus Rapid Transit Document): May procurement please provide a link to the “Nolensville Pike Preliminary Corridor Assessment for Bus Rapid Transit” document listed in Appendix A? The nMotion document linked in Addendum 4 appears to be a different study that was completed 2017. Appendix A states the Nolensville Pike Preliminary Corridor Assessment for Bus Rapid Transit was completed in 2025 by NDOT.

A: For background information concerning the project, please refer to the previously provided nMotion document. The NDOT assessment is not intended to formulate the response to the RFQ and will be shared as background information with the selected proposer.

Q (No subject): In reference to Question 22, will WeGo hold consultants to a page limitation if we choose to include the Disclosure of Work in the Appendix to Part 3? Should we infer that we have five-pages to address evaluation criteria in addition to an Appendix that is not page constricted for both Resumes and Disclosure of Work?

A: The disclosure statement regarding ongoing work may be included as an Appendix to Part 3 of the RFQ response. Proposers are cautioned that the appendices for resumes and ongoing work are to be concise and provide only the information requested. Proposers are cautioned against using Part 3 appendices to avoid the page count limitation or from using the appendices to embellish their responses.

Q (Schedule clarification): Please confirm that, due to the one-page (11x17) limit for the project schedule, a high-level graphical bar chart schedule depicting major tasks, deliverables, and review periods is acceptable, and that a fully logic-linked CPM schedule (e.g., P6 or Microsoft Project) is not required for this submission, since it would require multiple 11x17 pages to fully depict the scope as specified in the RFQ.

A: Please review Proposal Submission Requirements, Part 2, Project Approach and Schedule starting on page 42 of the RFQ and submit the schedule document in the manner requested in the RFQ, which does not call for a fully logic-linked CPM schedule to be submitted with the RFQ response but which does require the proposer to provide an estimate of resources needed for each task, interdependencies among tasks and within the section page submission requirements, a thorough demonstration for the evaluation committee that shows how the proposer will successfully complete the project within the 24 month planned project schedule. Proposers should be aware that if they are selected for consideration for contract award, a fully detailed schedule will be required at that time.