New Bedford Harbor Development Commission: Contract No. HDC-FY11-001

NEW BEDFORD
HARBOR DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

EAST COAST MARINE HIGHWAY INITIATIVE STUDY
Contract No. HDC-FY11-001
March 16, 2011

East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study
EAST COAST MARINE HIGHWAY INITIATIVE STUDY

New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
HDC-11-001
March 16, 2011
PART 1. GENERAL INFORMATION
The Department of Transportation (DOT) desires to expand the use of the Nation‟s inland,
coastal and intracoastal waterways in transporting passengers and freight (via containers or
wheeled technologies). The goal is to reduce congestion on landside corridors, lower road
maintenance and repair costs, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. For
this reason, and in response to sections 1121, 1122 and 1123 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, the DOT implemented the America‟s Marine Highway Program. This
Request for Proposal addresses these Marine Highway Corridors and Initiatives.
The organizational relationships and management plan for this effort are described in a
cooperative agreement, dated 28 September 2010, between the New Bedford Harbor
Development Commission (Port of New Bedford), Maryland Port Administration (Port of
Baltimore), New Jersey DOT, Canaveral Port Authority (Port Canaveral), the I-95 Corridor
Coalition and the US Maritime Administration (hereafter referred to as the Awarding Authority).
The Awarding Authority will review and evaluate each deliverable, provide re-direction and
guidance as necessary, and will approve deliverables including the final report, once satisfactory.
It is the objective of the Awarding Authority to better understand the feasibility, benefits and
potential efficiencies of the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative. Analysis and research can
help identify specific opportunities that could advance this Initiative to a regularly scheduled
service. However, expanding existing containerized or wheeled operations, and starting new
services have proven challenging in the current policy and market environment. For a service to
be commercially viable and self-supporting, unique two-way markets must exist, capital and
operating costs must be optimized, and all possible efficiencies must be exploited. The specific
initiatives to receive the awards include the “East Coast Marine Highway Initiative” and the
“New Jersey Marine Highway Initiative”, which can be found at
www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm. The effort has
been merged and referred to as the “East Coast Marine Highway Initiative” This study is
intended to help develop AMH services for the four ports named herein and will be a model for
the M-95 Corridor.
Project: East Coast Marine Highway Initiative (ECMHI)

Owner: East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Awarding Authority
(Awarding Authority).
The Awarding Authority seeks bids for this RFP. Sealed bids (Cost and Technical proposals in
sealed envelopes) will be received at the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, 52
Contract No. HDC-FY11-001 – East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study RFP, March 16, 2011. 2
Fisherman‟s Wharf, New Bedford, MA, 02740 until Friday April 15, 2011, at 11:00 AM, at
which time the bids will be opened and publicly read.
Specifications will be available after March 16, 2011 at 9:00AM. See Part2, Section B.
The Awarding Authority reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, waive any
informality, investigate the ability of vendors to honor a bid, select a bidder who does not submit
the lowest bid, and award all contracts as shall be considered to be in the best interests of the
Awarding Authority.
A. DESCRIPTION
Implementation of the program included designation of a portfolio of Marine Highway

Corridors, Marine Highway Projects and Initiatives by the Secretary of Transportation.
Initiatives are projects that were proposed under the Final Rule, and which offer considerable
promise, but are considered to be in the primary planning stages and do not have a finalized
business plan or action-ready service. Select proposals were designated as Marine Highway
Initiatives because they have the potential to generate desirable transportation and public
benefits. They are candidates for research or other Departmental support as described in
Sections 393.4(d) (1) through (10) of the final rule. Additional information on these can be
found at www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm. Along
the M-95 corridor, the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative is among the initiatives that
received designation, forming the geographic and conceptual framework for this effort.
Subsequent to these formal designations, the Secretary announced three Marine Highway Grants
to sponsors of select projects, and the development of three Cooperative Agreements to further
develop several Initiatives that support select Marine Highway Corridors. The East Coast
Marine Highway Initiative is located within the M-95 corridor.
This solicitation seeks to further advance the America‟s Marine Highway Program by identifying
corridor-specific Marine Highway markets, developing tailored business plans and optimal
operational models for those markets along and related to the M-95 corridor. These markets,
plans and models are those proposed in the East Coast Marine Highway and New Jersey Marine
Highway Initiatives that correspond to this corridor. While there are numerous studies and
reports that describe the benefits and opportunities that Marine Highway expansion can provide
in general, in-depth analysis and business planning specific to particular corridors, port pairs and
individual markets is scarce. This makes it difficult to identify the exact markets, business
models and operational protocols that are most likely to succeed in the current climate. This
project seeks to provide this analysis and build an actionable project for the ports of New
Bedford, Canaveral, New Jersey and Baltimore, as identified in the East Coast Marine Highway
Initiative grant award.
In addition to the aforementioned research, development and analysis, a programmatic NEPA

document will be prepared to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the human
and natural environment associated with new and existing marine highway services as well as
landside support of those services through and along the M-95 Marine Highway Corridor
Region.
Priority Project Goals and Objectives:

The Project executes the goals and objectives of the Parties to the Cooperative
Agreement, Port of New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, Maryland Port
Administration- Port of Baltimore, New Jersey DOT, Canaveral Port Authority- Port
Canaveral and will ultimately build an shipping service for the named Ports. The
awarded project initiatives are available at
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm.
The Project will specifically assess market data that will lead to the development of an
America‟s Marine Highway Shipping Service specific to the East Coast Marine Highway
Initiative and New Jersey Marine Highway Initiative;
The Project will focus on taking trucks off of I-95, provide information on how many
containers, tractor trailers, and other wheeled cargoes are divertible to the sea;
The Project will determine how to build an American Marine Highway Service that is
self-sustainable and define those market parameters requisite to a cost-competitive
service
The Project will determine the infrastructure investments required to build a cost
competitive service;
The Project will serve as a model for the development of future actionable shipping
services for the East Coast
The Project will develop the NEPA review process for American Marine Highway
Shipping
Project Funding:
The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission (Port of New Bedford), Maryland Port
Administration (Port of Baltimore), New Jersey DOT and Canaveral Port Authority (Port
Canaveral) were jointly selected as grantees of the US Department of Transportation.
The fee for the study is not to exceed $310,000. Any proposal that exceeds $310,000 will be
considered non-responsive.
B. PROPOSALS
All proposals are to be submitted no later than the deadline stated in Part 2, “Proposal
Submission Requirements.”
Every proposal must be in clearly marked, sealed envelopes: in accordance with all submission
requirements set forth in Part 2 of this RFP. Late proposals will not be accepted.
The Awarding Authority will consider only responsive proposals from responsible firms for a
contract award. A responsive proposal is a proposal that complies with requirements stated in of
this Request for Proposals (RFP). A responsible firm is one that demonstrably possesses the
skill, ability, and integrity necessary to faithfully perform the work called for in this
procurement. The Awarding Authority will award the contract to the offeror submitting the most
advantageous proposal, taking into consideration the proposals‟ relative merits and prices and all
other evaluation criteria listed in this RFP.
Each responsive proposal from a responsible firm will be evaluated solely according to the
criteria set forth in Part 5 (B) of this RFP, “Evaluation Criteria.” The non-price proposals will be
assigned ratings of highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous, or unacceptable with
respect to each criterion, and the reasons for each rating will be set forth in writing. A composite
rating for each non-price proposal will be set forth in writing, along with the reasons for the
rating. The evaluation committee will determine the most advantageous proposal from a
responsible and responsive offeror, taking into consideration the non-price proposal ratings and
proposal price. The Awarding Authority also reserves the right to waive any irregularity,
informality, or technicality in the proposals, in its best interest, and is not obligated to award a
contract based upon the lowest-priced submission. If terms cannot be mutually agreed upon, the
Awarding Authority will enter into negotiations with the next highest ranking offeror. The
Awarding Authority consists of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission (Chair),
Port Canaveral, Maryland Port Authority, New Jersey Department of Transportation, I-95
Corridor Coalition, and the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.
An offeror may correct, modify, or withdraw a proposal by written notice received in the office
designated herein for proposal submission prior to the time set for the opening of proposals.
After the opening, a firm may not change the price or any other provision of the proposal in a
manner prejudicial to the interest of the Awarding Authority or to fair competition. The
Awarding Authority shall waive minor informalities or allow the offeror to correct them. If a
mistake and the intended offer are clearly evident on the face of the document, the Awarding
Authority shall correct the mistake to reflect the intended correct offer and so notify the offeror
in writing, and the offeror may not withdraw the offer. The Awarding Authority may permit an
offeror to withdraw an offer if a mistake is evident on the face of the document but the intended
correct offer is not similarly evident.
C. RIGHT TO CANCEL
The Awarding Authority reserves the right to cancel this procurement at any time before a
contract is executed and approved, in which event the Awarding Authority will reject all
proposals received in response to this RFP.
D. AWARD/START
The services are expected to be completed within five (5) months from the date of contract
award.
E. INQUIRIES
All inquiries from prospective offerors concerning this RFP must be submitted by email to
Edward Anthes-Washburn, Director of Operations, New Bedford Harbor Development
Commission (e-mail: Edward.Anthes-Washburn@newbedford-ma.gov). Questions may be

delivered via mail, fax or e-mail. Inquiries must be received no later than Wednesday March
30, 2011 at 11:00AM. All responses to questions will be in writing, will be simultaneously
distributed to all recipients of the RFP, and will be made available to all interested parties by
Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM.
End of text for Part 1
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank
PART 2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
A. PRE-PROPOSAL
A pre-proposal conference call is scheduled for March 30, 2011 at 1:00PM. The call-in phone
number is 507-726-4200 and the participant code is 188653. Offerors are encouraged to make
inquiries for any questions by conference call. Participation is not mandatory for a submission.
Questions must be received by March 30, 2011 at 11:00AM. Answers to meeting and written
inquiries will be posted in the form of a written Addendum and sent to the list of offerors by
April 6, 2011 at 5:00pm.
B. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS
Proposal submissions must be made in accordance with Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts
General Laws (M.G.L.) which requires two (2) sealed envelopes; one clearly marked “East
Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study- Proposal” and the second clearly marked " East
Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study -Cost". The HDC assumes no liability for proposals
mistakenly opened due to improperly labeled envelopes and will return same to proposer without
notice.
Proposals must be delivered to the HDC at the address below no later than Friday, April 15,
2011 at 11:00AM. Late proposals will not be accepted.
Submit Proposals To:

Ed Anthes-Washburn
Director of Operations
52 Fisherman‟s Wharf
New Bedford, MA 02740
The following information must appear on each envelope:
Contractor‟s Name:
Project Name: East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study
Proposal #: HDC-FY11-001
Date:
Number of Copies
One original plus twelve (12) copies of the Proposal are required.
Envelopes marked "East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study- Proposal" will be opened on
Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:00AM. The proposal contents will not be disclosed until the
evaluation process is completed, or until the time for acceptance specified in the RFP, whichever
occurs first. At the opening of proposals, the HDC shall prepare a register of proposals for
public inspection.
Envelopes marked "East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study- Cost" will be opened
subsequent to completion of the technical evaluations of all of the “East Coast Marine Highway
Initiative Study- Proposals” offers submitted.
C (1). NON-PRICE PROPOSAL
The non-price proposal, East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study - Proposal must
consist of the following documents:
1. A Statement of Intent focusing on a description of the prime consultant/firm and

sub-consultant(s) organizational structure, size, capabilities, special qualifications,
and key personnel promoted by the professional port planner (to be referred to as
„consultant‟ from this point forward)/firm as being particularly suited for
undertaking and executing this project.
2. Credentials of key personnel employed by the prime consultant/firm and the sub-
consultant(s) that will be used to substantiate the prime consultant/firm‟s
qualifications for performing the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study. Key
personnel listed in the proposal including sub-consultant(s), are expected to be
those assigned to this project and therefore should be carefully coordinated with
other sections of the submittal document. Changes in key personnel as presented in
the proposal will not be allowed without written approval from the Awarding
Authority.
3. List (if applicable) of Subcontractors, Identify the subcontractor(s) and the function
for which such the subcontractor(s) will be responsible. Provide sub-contractor
qualifications, including prior relevant experience. Failure to include this could
render the Proposal not responsive.
4. A Qualifying Projects List from the prime consultant/firm as well as those of the
sub-consultant(s) should be carefully selected from the most recent history and
should demonstrate relevant experience. This list shall include all-current and
completed projects, including, but not limited to public projects undertaken in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, within the past five (5) years. This list should
be submitted with the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study - Proposal.
5. A Client Reference List with contact person names, addresses, telephone numbers,
and a brief project description for completed municipal work within the last five (5)
years. Each firm listed within the proposal must provide no less than three (3)
references.
6. A Flow Chart for the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study identifying the
major steps, the timetable for completion, and a proposed schedule of public
meetings.
7. A Detailed Methodology Description/ Work Plan for accomplishing each of the

tasks and addressing the issues outlined within the Scope of Work (Part 4 of the
RFP). The proposer should also specifically include a description of methodology
for the following:
o The development of goals, objectives and policies;
o Maximizing public participation;
o Educating the appropriate officials, boards, commissions and community
groups.
8. Proposals should clearly demonstrate an understanding of the Scope of Services for

the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study and should reflect the proposer's
ability to perform the work requested.
9. Proposals must clearly demonstrate an understanding of all the relevant federal,

state, and local requirements.
10. Each proposer is expected to examine all specifications and other instructions
pertaining to this RFP contained herein. Failure to do so will be at the proposer's
risk. Subsequently, the proposer cannot secure relief on the plea of error regarding
the content of this RFP.
11. Certification of financial interest disclosure and of Non-Collusion, signed and

submitted (Attachment 2 and 3).
12. Vote of Foreign Corporations Certificate, signed and submitted. (Attachment 4).
13. Certification that the offeror, if awarded a contract, will guarantee completion of all
work required within five months (5) from the date of notification of award, signed
and submitted.
14. A checklist of all required forms is provided as Attachment 1.
C (2). PRICE PROPOSAL
The price proposal, East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study – Cost, must consist of the
following documents:
1. A fixed price that includes the furnishing of all materials, services, insurance, and
other costs incurred in the performance the contract, signed by an individual
authorized to bind the offeror contractually, and submitted.
Reimbursable Expense Information:
All expenses including reimbursable expenses shall be within the fixed fee amount. The
Awarding Authority shall not be responsible for travel related expenses, long distance
communications or other postage, handling, printing, binding and delivery fees.
Professional Liability Insurance:

The consultant who is selected for this project will be required to submit a Certificate of Liability
Insurance with $1,000,000 General Liability Coverage, $2,000,000 General Aggregate Liability
coverage, and $5,000,000 Excess Liability coverage. A Certificate of Errors and Omissions
Insurance will also be required with $1,000,000 minimum coverage.
D. RFP Policies and Procedures
1. Copies of the RFP are available at:

52 Fisherman‟s Wharf
New Bedford, MA 02740
Canaveral Port Authority

445 Challenger Rd.
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
New Jersey Department of Transportation

Office of Maritime Resources
Main Office Building, 3rd Floor
1035 Parkway Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08625
The documents can also be downloaded from the following websites:

www.portofnewbedford.org
Canaveral Port Authority

www.portcanaveral.com
I-95 Corridor Coalition

www.i95coalition.org
NOTE: The sealed bids MUST be sent to the HDC office at 52 Fisherman‟s Wharf, New
Bedford, MA 02740.
The Awarding Authority has responsibility for maintaining a control list of all potential
Proposers.
2. Reference is made to the Model Agreement (Contract Terms and Conditions) attached (set
forth in Attachment 5) for the terms and conditions of the Agreement to be entered into,
including indemnification and insurance. The Model Agreement is subject to revision
arising out of the terms and conditions imposed by law or deemed appropriate by the
HDC‟s Legal Counsel, City of New Bedford Solicitors Office, the Commonwealth‟s
Attorney General‟s office or the legal counsel of any of the members of the Awarding
Authority.
3. The Awarding Authority reserves the right to amend this RFP. The Awarding Authority
reserves the right to reject any or all of the proposals, or any part thereof, submitted in
response to this RFP, and reserves the right to waive formalities, if such action is deemed
to be in the best interest of the Awarding Authority. The Awarding Authority reserves the
right to request additional information from any Proposer. The Awarding Authority
reserves the right to award negotiated contracts to one or more Consultants/Firms.
4. This RFP is not intended and shall not be construed to commit the Awarding Authority to
pay any costs incurred in connection with any proposal or to procure or contract for any
services.
5. The decision to award a contract shall be based on Consultant/Firm‟s ability to provide

quality services and to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.
6. The award of any contract will be made as judged to be in the best interest of the Awarding
Authority, and the study itself. The final selection of the Consultant/Firm will be made by
the Awarding Authority.
7. Each Proposal will be examined to determine whether it is responsive to the requirements

of this RFP. All responsive proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set
forth herein.
8. While the Awarding Authority is under no obligation to contact companies for

clarifications, it reserves the right to do so. Depending on the number and quality of the
proposals submitted, the Awarding Authority, at the sole discretion of the East Coast
Marine Highway Initiative Awarding Authority, may elect to interview all or some of the
companies during the selection process and to request presentations, including
demonstrations of products and services.
PART 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On April 8, 2010, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the Federal Register
that fully implemented the new America‟s Marine Highway Program. This action was required
by Public Law 110-140, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The final rule
addressed Marine Highway Corridors (and continues to solicit recommendations for Marine
Highway Corridor recommendations), and established eligibility requirements, criteria and
information necessary to apply for designation as a Marine Highway Project by the Secretary of
Transportation. Designation of Marine Highway Corridors and Marine Highway Projects by the
Secretary enable the DOT to:
1) Expand domestic water transportation services as an alternative means of moving

containerized and wheeled freight cargoes;
2) Mitigate the economic, environmental and energy costs of landside congestion;
3) Integrate the Marine Highway into the transportation planning process; and
4) Research improvements in efficiencies and environmental sustainability.
Solicitations from applicants desiring Marine Highway Project designation were subsequently
initiated through notification in the Federal Register later that same month. The final rule also
set forth the manner in which the Department of Transportation will identify impediments and
recommend solutions that will create expanded use of marine highways and provide the
groundwork for outreach and coordination with States, private transportation providers, local and
tribal governments, as well as enable the DOT to conduct research related to marine highway
development.
The Maritime Administration published an interim final rule in the Federal Register on October
8, 2008 outlining the America‟s Marine Highway Program, and requested recommendations for
Corridor designation. More than 60 recommendations for designation were received, then
combined and consolidated into a total of 18 routes, consisting of eleven corridors, four
connectors and three crossings. Because of the legislated purpose to; “...focus public and private
efforts to relieve landside congestion,” the proposed corridors, connectors and crossings are
identified by the land route that could benefit from the increased use of marine transportation.
These corridors represent surface transportation routes that currently experience considerable
challenges (largely in congestion, air quality or maintenance and repair costs) that could benefit
from existing waterways as an alternative to the existing model. This should help the
Department in bringing the sponsors and supporters together to identify and pursue
opportunities. The primary objectives for designating Marine Highway Corridors are to:
Establish Marine Highway Corridors as “extensions of the surface transportation system”
as provided by Section 1121 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Develop multi-jurisdictional coalitions that focus public and private efforts to use the
waterways to relieve congestion-related impacts along land transportation routes for
freight and passengers.
Obtain public benefit by shifting freight and passengers in measurable terms from land
transportation routes to Marine Highway Corridors. In addition, public benefits can
include, but are not limited to, reduced emissions, including greenhouse gases, reduced
energy consumption, landside infrastructure maintenance savings, improved safety, and

added system resiliency. Additional consideration will be given to Marine Highway
Projects that represent the most cost-effective option among other modal improvements
and projects that reduce border delays.
Identify potential savings that could be realized by providing an alternative to land
transportation infrastructure construction and maintenance.
Each of the 18 corridors has a public sector sponsor, and many have several public sector entities
that have demonstrated support for their designation. Each of the grant and initiative sponsors is
also with the public sector. A complete listing of designated corridors, projects and initiatives
along with one page descriptions of each is available at:
www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm
PART 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE EAST COAST MARINE HIGHWAY

INTITIATIVE STUDY
TASK 1: STUDY RESEARCH
Research Framework
The overarching goal of the research effort is to help develop a shipping service for the East
Coast Marine Highway Initiative and the ports and agencies involved in this project statement:
New Bedford Harbor Development Commission (Port of New Bedford), Maryland Port
Administration (Port of Baltimore), New Jersey DOT, Canaveral Port Authority (Port
Canaveral). This will serve as a model for other ports to develop such service. It will also assess
the environmental requirements of a NEPA review requisite to M-95 Corridor shipping services.
Specifically, this study consists of six parts and should address both containerized and trailerized
freight transportation markets. The study should take into account the concepts and information
contained in the relevant Marine Highway Corridor recommendations and the applications by
sponsors of the Marine Highway Initiative named in this Agreement.
The Contractor will, at a minimum, prepare and present progress report briefings that include
review, re-direct, and report milestones at the end of each of the five study parts outlined in this
framework. The Awarding Authority will be convened to conduct these activities.
Part I:
Literature Review – This shall consist of a review of existing analysis, reports and studies
of Marine Highway-related work conducted to date. The intention of this Phase is not to
re-state or repackage existing work, but rather to ensure due diligence in avoiding
duplication of effort, or contradictory studies without prior knowledge of other work.
The Contractor will collect and review analyses and operational reports for existing,
recently defunct, or potential Marine Highway services within the Corridor and other
relevant or comparable services elsewhere and will generate a comparison that will show
the similarities and differences between the service parameters from each of the reports.
The literature review will also identify funding opportunities for AMH projects. All
reports referenced will be footnoted and a bibliography is to be provided that includes
source information. This literature review will be provided to the Awarding Authority at
the first briefing.
Industry Listening Session- The consultant will coordinate listening sessions in key nodes
to determine the issues and concerns of the industry and public regarding coastwise
services. The purpose of the meetings will be to ascertain what shippers and carriers
need/want to get a marine highway program started and successful. In conjunction with
the listening session, the consultant will interview state and MPO state freight planning
staff in the applicable regions (agency list to be provided by Management Team) to
ascertain physical, institutional and/or regulatory issues that impact Marine Highway
services as an option in regional and/or local transportation system models.
Part II: Market Analysis – The sponsors desire a full understanding of the freight that is
moving within the Corridor (both international and domestic that could or would move coastwise
by feeder or ro-ro service), specifically in proximity to the ports that are party to the cooperative
agreement. This analysis is including but not limited to the nature of the freight, its unique
flows, trade patterns and which corridor segments and cargo commodities may be candidates for
a Marine Highway modal shift. The consultant will perform a market analysis to gauge the M-
95 Corridor‟s potential for new or expanded marine highway services. With a focus on new or
expanded services, the analysis shall include identification, understanding, and the requirements
of the following elements (at a minimum):
1. Freight moving within the corridor; volumes, commodities, origins, destinations and
unique flows (i.e. through distribution centers, foreign trade zones and/or other value
added transfers),
a. Origins and destinations may include international goods and markets
2. Shippers; their perceptions, priorities and needs (price, speed, weight/volume and
reliability)
3. Current and potential commodity types that may be economically shifted from highway
to containerized or trailerized waterborne transportation, including containers, break bulk,
liquid bulk, dry bulk, or project cargo; include the potential share of the freight that could
shift to waterborne transportation on a marine highway service.
4. Identify transportation industry and distribution center clusters that may be served by
containerized or trailerized waterborne transportation along the Corridor; clusters under
development may be included if they plan to be operational within two to five years.
5. Identify potential port pairs best suited for the freight and flows identified in this study.
This must include, at a minimum, ports identified by Corridor and Initiative sponsors in
their applications to DOT. This analysis shall extend from Florida to Maine along the M-
95 Corridor, including connectors or navigable tributaries to the Corridor, but should be
concentrated on the ports listed in this document.
6. For goods which may be captured from the other cargo types and/or modes, specific
competing factors may be identified. If time or cost-based, the Contractor may identify
each portion of the complete transit and identify the beneficial vs. competing aspects.
7. Create an inventory of intermodal assets available to support service as well as potential
beneficial improvements in the ports listed in this document.
8. Evaluate and prioritize needed improvements. Include cost information if available.
Create a roadmap of the ECMHI and NJMHI process to be used as a model for the
development of future services.
9. Separate two models of domestic cargo (containerized and trailerized).
10. Create full-scale and detailed suggestions for shipping services, including projected
returns on investment and profitability estimates.
11. Research local or state policies, proposed or already in existence that support the
advancement of the AMH Initiative such as policies regarding VMT reduction or
congestion mitigation.
12. Conduct independent survey/interviews with key logistical interests throughout the
corridor, including shippers, carriers, and receivers to best understand freight flows,
infrastructure, intermodal connections and how to build a service.
A second briefing will be conducted before the Awarding Authority, whereby the Contractor will
present their findings for review and discussion by the Authority.
Part III: Operational Development – In contrast to the market portion of the study, here the
Contractor will discuss the operational aspects of a new or expanded marine highway service.
This part of the project involves the development of operational plans to optimize the efficiency
and competitiveness of Marine Highway service(s) that maximize opportunities identified in Part
I. It is well known that, because of the highly competitive environment across surface
transportation modes, a successful Marine Highway service must maximize efficiency and
minimize cost. This Part must include analysis, modeling and development of plans to address
the following:
Projected transit times for services proposed by the study as compared with current and
future (particularly post 2014) logistics activity
Door-to-door modeling, including drayage distance, cost, efficiencies, terminal
operations, etc.
Labor practices (gang sizes, relevant rules for cargo handling, etc.) and variances
coastwise on handling ships, barges and small boat loadings. The analysis should include
labor models that are appropriate for marine highway operations, and what the costs are
for these models.
Capital and infrastructure requirements and costs.
Terminal availability for marine highway services at the ports identified in Part III.
The Contractor will identify various service options, including lift-on/lift-off, roll-on/roll-off and
what types of landside infrastructure are needed currently or in the future for a viable marine
highway service.
A third briefing will be conducted before the Awarding Authority, whereby the Contractor will
Part IV: Business Plan and Viability – This part provides a thorough analysis of likely revenues,
expenses and price points that result from the service(s) proposed in Part III. At a minimum, it
must contain:
Practical analysis of freight volumes that can be reasonably expected to shift to water
services.
Factors that may affect growth or diminution of marine highway traffic
Thorough and fact-based revenue and expense analysis
Price comparisons across all alternatives shippers have available (rail, truck, water)
Costs may be broken down into capital and operating expenses at a level of detail for a marine
highway operator to understand the viability of a new or expanded service. Further, shipper
costs such as complete port costs, Harbor Maintenance tax, and drayage fees may be provided
for the complete door-to-door move to understand the incorporation of a marine highway service
into the logistics chain.
Inherent and outside market conditions which are risky may be discussed and considered in the
service costs and revenues. Risks may be both operational and economic to understand the
service‟s viability and its incorporation as a new or expanded service into the freight corridor.
Finally, the impacts of the risk factors may be shown on the expected volumes, revenues, and
costs.
A fourth briefing will be conducted before the Awarding Authority, whereby the Contractor will
Part V: Conclusions and recommendations – This part draws on freight, operational and
business analysis to identify whether services are viable, and make recommendations toward
implementation of services.
Based on the market analysis reviewed and completed by the Contractor, expected
operational parameters and service costs and revenues, the Contractor will provide an
overall assessment of service viability; i.e., can services operate today, what are the
infrastructure needs, does it need start-up funding for infrastructure, and what is the
service‟s likely success over the coming years? Are there any factors which might impact
future viability of service (such as decreasing reliability of alternatives with increased
congestion)? The overall ability to incorporate the service into the Corridor‟s,
Connector‟s, or Crossing‟s supply chain will determine its viability. The Contractor
should not allocate public funding for operational subsidies, but may budget public funds
for infrastructure or equipment start-up or expansion costs as a part of the model for
viability. Such allocations should be clearly noted with an explanation of the source of
public funds.
The Contractor will provide recommendations to capture existing freight for start-up in the
Corridor, Crossing or Connector; whether regulatory changes at the Federal and State
levels are necessary; and if new or redeveloped infrastructure is necessary.
The fifth briefing will be conducted before the Awarding Authority, whereby the Contractor will
Part VI: Environmental Analysis – A programmatic NEPA document will be required to

analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the human and natural environment
associated with new and existing marine highway services as well as landside support of those
services through and along the M-95 Marine Highway Corridor Region. The NEPA analysis
should focus on both a local and regional/corridor scale, and should be a programmatic NEPA
review for the participating ports. NEPA analyses may require consultation with state and
federal resources agencies. The Recipient(s) shall make the necessary funds available to conduct
the NEPA analyses and associated tasks involved with preparation of the NEPA documents,
including but not limited to the securing of any contractors necessary to conduct the NEPA
analysis. All NEPA work must be coordinated with and approved by the Maritime
Administration Office of Environment. This analysis will be a model for future NEPA
permitting of America‟s Marine Highway projects.
A sixth briefing will be conducted before the Awarding Authority, whereby the Contractor will
TASK 2: DRAFT REPORT
Develop a Draft of the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study. The The draft shall include
comprehensive GIS mapping of the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative ports. (6 copies plus
electronic file on 6 CDs). The report shall include an Executive Summary not to exceed 5 pages.
Present draft by online webinar.
TASK 3: FINAL DRAFT REPORT
Based on input from the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Awarding Authority, the US
Maritime Administration, the general public and the other pertinent agencies and organizations,
develop a Final Draft of the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study. (6 copies plus 6
electronic files on 6 CDs).
TASK 4: FINAL DELIVERABLE
Following East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Awarding Authority approval, develop
the final deliverable East Coast Marine Highway Initiative Study. (6 copies plus 6
electronic files.)
PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the key findings of the report. Provide 6 hard
copies plus 6 copies on CD.
The Executive Summary (not exceeding 5 pages) shall be at the beginning of the report
and also formatted as a stand-alone document . This document shall be put on the CD
with the final report and PowerPoint. 6 hard copies and 6 CDs shall be provided for each
member of the Awarding Authority.
(The electronic files will include document text in MSWord format and figures, tables and maps
in a format readily compatible with software available on the Owner’s computer system.)
PART 5. PROJECT EVALUATION
A. PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the Awarding Authority as sited in Part 1 Section B.
Proposals will be reviewed according to MGL 30B under the following procedure:
STEP 1: INITIAL SCREENING
An initial screening of all proposals will be conducted by the Awarding Authority. The sole
purpose of this step is to determine a proposal's overall completeness and responsiveness. All
proposals must meet the requirements identified as Minimum Evaluation Criteria, Part 5 (A) to
receive further consideration beyond this step. The Awarding Authority reserves the right to
disqualify proposals, which are determined to be incomplete or non-responsive.
The Awarding Authority reserves the right to waive minor informalities, or allow the proposer to
correct them.
STEP 2: COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
The proposals will be evaluated for each of the criteria listed as Comparative Evaluation Criteria
in Part 5 (B) of this RFP. Based on this evaluation, each proposal will be rated accordingly. The
Awarding Authority will assign each proposal a composite rating.
STEP 3: COST EVALUATION
After completion of Steps 1 and 2, the proposal will be evaluated on overall price and ranked
from least costly to most costly based on the projected levels of effort and costs provided in this
component.
STEP 4: SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT
The results of each proposal will be compared by the Awarding Authority at this step and a final
ranking shall be made considering both the Technical and Cost Proposal.
The purpose of the comparison at this step of the evaluation will be to determine if the ranking of
proposals as to cost should alter the technical rating of the proposals. In making such a judgment,
the review Authority will primarily consider the need to provide a comprehensive array of
specialized services to accomplish the project described in the RFP. The overall goal of the
evaluation process shall be to recommend award of the contract to the firm whose proposal
meets the requirements of the RFP and is at the same time cost-effective.
The Awarding Authority may require the top ranked proposers to appear for interviews as part of
the evaluation.
B. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The final selection of a consultant(s) will be based on the following sets of criteria:
STEP 1:. MINIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following information must be submitted with the proposal to be considered responsive.
These are minimum standards, considered essential for satisfactory performance of the contract.
o Inclusion of all documentation as specified within this RFP.
o Favorable responses on all references provided.
o Evidence that all professional members of the Project Team have directly relevant experience
and their project participation clearly defined. The preferred Project Team would consist of
statistitians, mapping experts, logistic experts and Maritime Engineering, and Port / Maritime
Economic Professionals. The Economic Professional shall have a strong understanding of
maritime businesses and a port economy. The evaluation of this criteria is identified in Step
2, Qualificiations.
STEP 2: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals which meet the aforementioned minimum criteria will be comparatively evaluated
using the following criteria to assist in determining which proposal is most advantageous.
The specific evaluation criteria the Awarding Authority will use to evaluate proposals include:
QUALITY OF PROPOSAL
A proposal will be evaluated based on the quality of its content, and will be rated-as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposal contains strong technical approach (as identified in
Part 2, C1) to the proposal, format and responsiveness to the RFP.
o Advantageous: The proposal contains a clear technical approach (as identified in Part 2,
C1) to the proposal, format and responsiveness to the RFP.
o Not Advantageous: The proposal does not contain a clear technical (as identified in Part
2, C1) approach to the proposal, format and responsiveness to the RFP.
o Unacceptable: The proposal contains no technical approach (as identified in Part 2, C) to
the proposal, format and responsiveness to the RFP.
EVALUATION OF THE PLAN

A proposal will be evaluated based on the quality of the plan and its ability to address the project
objectives stated in the RFP as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposal contains a clear and comprehensive plan (as
identified in Part 2, C1) that addresses all of the project objectives stated in the RFP
o Advantageous: The proposal contains a clear plan (as identified in Part 2, C1) that
addresses most (50%) of the project objectives stated in the RFP.
o Not Advantageous: The proposal does not contain a clear plan (as identified in Part 2,
C1) that addresses most (<50%) of the project objectives stated in the RFP.
QUALIFICATIONS
The experience of the project team will be rated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposer has strong experience (more than 5 projects) in
maritime economics, maritime engineering and comprehensive harbor planning which
includes accommodating the needs of an existing working waterfront, and references
provide satisfactory comments on prior performance.
o Advantageous: The proposer has experience (3 to 5 projects) in maritime economics,
maritime engineering, intermodal shipping logistics and comprehensive port planning
which includes accommodating the needs of an existing working waterfront, and
references provide satisfactory comments on prior performance
o Not Advantageous: The proposer has limited prior experience (1 to 2 projects) in
maritime economics, maritime engineering, intermodal shipping logistics and waterfront
or port planning.
o Unaccepatble: The proposer does not have any prior experience in maritime economics
intermodal shipping logistics, maritime engineering or port planning .
PERFORMANCE DURING INTERVIEWS (If Conducted)

The ability of the consultant team to clearly present ideas in a meeting/interview session,
particularly their ability to articulate their proposed approach to the harbor plan renewal will be
rated as follows (Any interviews will be conducted by conference call with the Awarding
Authority):
o Advantageous: The proposer‟s oral presentation was clear and well organized and
demonstrated the proposer‟s ability to communicate effectively.
o Not Advantageous: The proposer‟s oral presentation was unclear and disorganized and
did not demonstrate the proposer‟s ability to communicate effectively.
EXPERIENCE WITH AMERICA’S MARINE HIGHWAY PLANNING POLICY AND

INITIATIVES
Experience with relevant America‟s Marine Highway planning, policy and initiatives will be
rated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposer has strong experience (more than 5 projects) with
relevant AMH planning and initiatives.
o Advantageous: The proposer has experience (3 to 5 projects) with relevant AMH
planning and initiatives.
o Not Advantageous: The proposer has limited prior experience (1 to 2 projects) with
relevant AMH planning and initiatives.
o Unaccepatble: The proposer does not have any prior experience with relevant AMH
planning and initiatives.
EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS WORK
Proposals must include examples of previous experience and must be reflective of each firm's
work. Such documents may be maps, brochures and/or studies relating to the scope of work
contained within this RFP. All materials submitted will be collectively evaluated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: Examples excel with respect to graphics, format, writing style,
understanding of subject matter, and relevance to the scope of work described herein.
o Advantageous: The examples are clear and complete with respect to graphics, format,
writing style, understanding of subject matter, and relevance to the scope of work
described herein.
o Not Advantageous: The majority of, or all of the examples are not clear and complete
with respect to any of the aforementioned areas.
o Unacceptable: No examples of previous work are provided.
EXPERIENCE WITH GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) OR OTHER

RELEVANT MAPPING APPLICATIONS
The project requires the consultant(s) to work with and expand the current mapping schematics
of the ECMHI. Expertise in this area will be rated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposer has strong prior experience (more than 10 projects)
with with GIS or other relevant mapping applications
o Advantageous: The proposer has prior experience (5 to 10 projects) with with GIS or
other relevant mapping applications
o Not Advantageous: The proposer has limited prior experience (1 to 4 projects) with with
with GIS or other relevant mapping applications
o Unaccepatble: The proposer does not have any prior experience with with with GIS or
other relevant mapping applications
COORDINATION SKILLS
As mentioned in the RFP, this project consists of a great deal of coordination between many
different interest groups, agencies and projects. Coordination skills will be rated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: The proposer has strong past experience (more than 5 projects) in
performing coordination activities between several different groups
o Advantageous: The proposer has past experience (3 to 5 projects) in performing
coordination activities between several different groups
o Not Advantageous: The proposer has limited past experience (1 to 2 projects) in
performing coordination activities between several different groups
o Unaccepatble: The proposer does not have any prior experience in performing
coordination activities between several different groups
MEETING PROJECT SCHEDULE

Proposer‟s demonstrated ability to complete projects on a timely basis will be rated as follows:
o Highly Advantageous: All of the proposer‟s references indicate that the projects were
completed on schedule or with minimal, insignificant delays.
o Advantageous: Only one of the proposer‟s references indicates that the project was
completed with substantial delays attributable to the proposer, and no current project or
project completed in the last three years experienced substantial delays attributable to the
proposer.
o Not Advantageous: Two of the proposer‟s references indicate that the project was
completed with substantial delays attributable to the proposer, and no current project or
project completed in the last year experienced substantial delays attributable to the
proposer.
o Unacceptable: More than two of the proposer‟s references indicate that the project was
completed with substantial delays attributable to the proposer.
ATTACHMENT 1- CHECKLIST
1. STATEMENT OF INTENT
2. CREDENTIALS OF KEY PERSONNEL
3. LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS (IF APPLICABLE)
4. QUALIFYING PROJECTS LIST
5. FLOW CHART
6. DETAILED METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION/ WORK PLAN
7. BID FORM (ATTACHMENT 2)
8. CERTIFICATE OF NON-COLLUSION AND TAX COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATION (ATTACHMENT 3)
9. OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FORM (ATTACHMENT 4)
10. REFERENCE FORM (ATTACHMENT 5)
11. CHAPTER 803 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (ATTACHMENT 6)
12. VOTE OF CORPORATION (ATTACHMENT 7)
13. CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION (ATTACHMENT 8)
14. GUARANTEE OF COMPLETION (ATTACHMENT 9)
15. MODEL CONTRACT (ATTACHMENT 10)
16. W-9 FORM (ATTACHMENT 11)
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
BID PRICE SHEET (Submit in Sealed Envelope)
The undersigned propose to furnish the goods/services required per bid specifications to the City
of New Bedford for the amount listed below
Bid Amount $_______________________(numerical)
Bid Amount _______________________________________________(words)
Name of Vendor:
______________________________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________ Tel: ( )
City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________ Fax: ( )
By: ____________________________________________________
Date: __________________________
(Type or Print Name of Person Signing Quotation and Title)
(Signature)
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD

MASSACHUSETTS
NON-COLLUSION AND TAX COMPLIANCE FORM
CERTIFICATE OF NON-COLLUSION
The undersigned certified under penalties of perjury that this bid has been made and submitted in good faith and
without collusion or fraud with any other person. As used in this certification, the word “person” shall mean any
natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club or other organization, entity or group of
individuals.
Signature of individual submitting bid
Name of business/organization
TAX COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 62C, §49A, I certify under the penalties of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, I am in compliance with all laws of the Commonwealth relating to taxes reporting of employees and
contractor, and withholding and remitting child support.
Signature of person submitting bid
ATTACHMENT 4
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FORM
PLEASE FURNISH FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING BIDDER:
(1) If a Proprietorship:
Name of Owner______________________________________________________________
Business Address____________________________________________________________
Zip Code _____________ Telephone No. _________________
Home Address_______________________________________________________________
(2) If a Partnership, Full names and addresses of all partners:

Name ______________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________
Name ______________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________
Business Address___________________________________ Zip Code____________

Tel. No. ________________
(3) If a Corporation
Full Legal Name:_______________________________________________________
State of Incorporation:______ Qualified in Massachusetts? Yes _____ No_____
Principal Place of Business

__________________________________________________
Street / P.O. Box
__________________________________________________
City/Town State Zip
Telephone No. ________________
Place of Business in Massachusetts _____________________________________________

Street / P.O.Box
_______________________________________________
City/Town State/Zip
Telephone No. ________________
ATTACHMENT 5
REFERENCE FORM
Bidder: _____________________________________________
Bidders must submit a list of five (5) professional project references. At least two (2) of these
references must relate to jobs performed in the past two (2) years that are similar in size and
scope to this project.
• Reference: ______________________________________
Address:________________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________
Phone:__________________________________________
Description and date(s) of supplies or services provided:

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________
• Reference: ______________________________________
Address:________________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________
Phone:__________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________
• Reference: ______________________________________
Address:________________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________
Phone:__________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________
• Reference: ______________________________________
Address:________________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________
Phone:__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________
• Reference: ______________________________________
Address:________________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________
Phone:__________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________
Attach additional sheets if necessary
ATTACHMENT 6
CHAPTER 803 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
In compliance with Chapter 60, Section 77B of the Massachusetts General Laws as
amended by Chapter 803 of the Acts of 1985, I hereby certify, that I have never been
convicted of a crime involving the willful and malicious setting of a fire, or of a crime
involving the aiding, counseling, or procuring of a willful and malicious setting of a fire,
or of a crime involving the fraudulent filing of a claim for fire insurance; nor am I
delinquent in the payment of real estate taxes in the City of New Bedford, or being
delinquent, an application for the abatement for such tax is pending or a pending petition
before the appellate tax board has been filed in good faith.
This statement is made under the pains and penalties of perjury this ______ day of
_______________, 2011.
(Signature)
ATTACHMENT 7
City of New Bedford,

Massachusetts
VOTE OF CORPORATION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of __________________________ duly called and held

on ______________________________________ at which a quorum was present and acting
throughout, the following vote was duly adopted.
VOTED: That ________________________ ________________________ of the
corporation be and hereby is authorized to sign the contract and deliver in the name and on
behalf of corporation a contract with:
The City of New Bedford, MA

For performing services, all in such form and on such terms and conditions as he/she, by the
execution thereof, shall deem proper.
A true copy:
ATTEST:
If the vendor accepts this contract and then fails to supply the commodity/service as ordered by
the City of New Bedford, and if the City decides to legally pursue this non-supply, then the
vendor agrees to the jurisdiction of the appropriate court in the of Massachusetts.
(Affix Corporate Seal)
Clerk of the Corporation
Name of business
ATTACHMENT 8
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
As evidenced by the signature of the Contractor‟s Authorized signatory below, the

Contractor certifies under the pains and penalties of perjury that the Contractor
shall not knowingly use undocumented workers in connection with the
performance of any City contract; that pursuant to federal and state requirements,
the Contractor shall verify the immigration status of all workers assigned to such
contracts without engaging in unlawful discrimination; and that the Contractor
shall not knowingly or recklessly alter, falsify, or accept altered or falsified
documents from any such worker(s). The Contractor understands and agrees that
breach of any of these terms during the period of each contract may be regarded as
a material breach, subjecting the Contractor to sanctions, including but not limited
to monetary penalties, withholding of payments, contract suspension or
termination.
_____________________________
Contractor Authorized Signature
__________________
Printed Name
__________________
Date
Title_______________________ Telephone:_________________
Fax:________________________Email:____________________
ATTACHMENT 9
GUARANTEE OF COMPLETION
CERTIFICATION THAT THE OFFEROR, IF AWARDED A CONTRACT, WILL

GUARANTEE COMPLETION OF ALL WORK REQUIRED WITHIN FIVE MONTHS (5)
FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF AWARD.
_____________________________
Contractor Authorized Signature
__________________
Printed Name
__________________
Date
Title_______________________ Telephone:_________________
Fax:________________________Email:____________________
ATTACHMENT 10
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

MODEL
AGREEMENT
HARBOR PLAN RENEWAL

NEW BEDFORD/FAIRHAVEN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this_________ of _________________________________

between the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission and ___________________
______________________________________________________________________ (herein
called the Consultant).
WITNESSETH, that the parties to this agreement, each in consideration of the agreement on the
part of the other herein contained, do hereby agree, the New Bedford Harbor Development
Commission for itself and said Consultant for itself and its successors and assigns, as follows:
The Consultant agrees to perform all work under Contract No. HDC-004, Harbor Plan
Renewal/New Bedford/Fairhaven New Bedford Harbor Development Commission Consultant
Agreement, in strict conformity with the provisions herein contained. The Bid Forms
Attachments A and B and related documents are hereby specifically made a part of this Contract
as fully and to the same effect as if the same had been set forth at length herein.
IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing premises, the New Bedford Harbor Development

Commission agrees to pay and the Consultant agrees to receive as full compensation for
everything furnished and done by the Consultant under this Contract, including but not limited to
attendance at all meetings and production of all documents and materials as set forth in the Bid
Form and also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid or from any
delay or form an unforeseen obstruction or any difficulty encountered in the prosecution of the
work, and for all risks of every description connected with the work, and for all expenses
incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work as herein
specified, and for well and faithfully completing the work, and the whole thereof as herein
provided, such prices as are set out in the accompanying Bid Form, and for all work required, for
which there is no item in the Bid Form, such compensation as is provided for in the aforesaid
documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Consultant has caused these presents to be signed in its name
and behalf and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed by__________________
____________________ its ___________________________ (Title) and __________
____________________its ___________________________ (Title) thereto duly authorized, and
the said New Bedford Harbor Development Commission has executed these presents by its
authorized representatives on the year and day above written.
Consultant:______________________ By:_______________________
Title:______________________
New Bedford Harbor By:________________________

Development Commission: Title:_______________________
ATTACHMENT 11
W-9 Form
(Begins on next page)

New Bedford Harbor Development Commission: Contract No. HDC-FY11-001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Bedford Harbor Development Commission: Contract No. HDC-FY11-001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEW BEDFORD

HARBOR DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

March 16, 2011

EAST COAST MARINE HIGHWAY INITIATIVE STUDY

PART 1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project: East Coast Marine Highway Initiative (ECMHI)

Implementation of the program included designation of a portfolio of Marine Highway

In addition to the aforementioned research, development and analysis, a programmatic NEPA

Priority Project Goals and Objectives:

Commission (e-mail: Edward.Anthes-Washburn@newbedford-ma.gov). Questions may be

End of text for Part 1

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank

PART 2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit Proposals To:

The following information must appear on each envelope:

C (1). NON-PRICE PROPOSAL

1. A Statement of Intent focusing on a description of the prime consultant/firm and

7. A Detailed Methodology Description/ Work Plan for accomplishing each of the

8. Proposals should clearly demonstrate an understanding of the Scope of Services for

9. Proposals must clearly demonstrate an understanding of all the relevant federal,

11. Certification of financial interest disclosure and of Non-Collusion, signed and

C (2). PRICE PROPOSAL

Reimbursable Expense Information:

Professional Liability Insurance:

D. RFP Policies and Procedures

1. Copies of the RFP are available at: