RFP/RFQ
Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County Notice of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Advance Delivery Team
Notice is hereby given that the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County, hereinafter referred to as the “RTA,” is soliciting Statements of Qualifications (“SOQs”) from qualified firms to provide technical assistance with identifying, analyzing and resolving key project issues, challenges, concerns, and/or opportunities in order to facilitate future streamlined project delivery as outlined in Appendix A, Scope of Work.
RTA invites interested firms to submit written technical SOQs relating to this project. A selection committee will evaluate the SOQs based on understanding and approach, team experience and familiarity, and relevant experience. Scope of Work and additional information, including the Mandatory Terms & Conditions and/or answers to questions may be found at https://rtamobility.com/who-we-are/rfp-rfq/.
The RTA anticipates selecting one (1) firm to provide Advance Delivery Team services on an on-call basis. Individual task orders may vary in scope and complexity. The estimated aggregate budget for services issued under the initial contract term is between $500,000 and $750,000. Services will be requested on an as-needed, if-needed basis, and the resultant contract(s) shall neither be exclusive nor constitute a commitment by the RTA that any minimum quantity of services will be required.
Questions shall be addressed as identified under Item 3 of “Instructions to Respondents.” Questions may be submitted to Alicia Roberson, Procurement Officer, at info@RTAmobility.com.
Submittal Process
Sealed SOQs shall be received by RTA’s Procurement Officer, by 12 p.m. (noon), Mountain Standard Time (MST) on July 10, 2026.
SOQs shall be submitted to:
Pima Association of Governments
Attention: Procurement Officer
1 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 401
Tucson, AZ 85701
SOQs may be delivered to RTA’s office by U.S. Postal Service mail, private, paid messenger service (such as FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.), or by hand-carried delivery.
SOQs delivered by facsimile or electronic mail or in any format other than paper copies will not be considered.
Submittals must be in the actual possession of RTA’s Procurement Officer at the location indicated, on or prior to the exact time and date indicated above. Late submittals shall not be considered. The prevailing clock shall be RTA’s clock.
Submittals must be submitted in a sealed envelope with the RFQ Title and the firm’s name and address clearly indicated on the envelope. All submittals must be completed in ink or typewritten.
Participation in the Advance Delivery Team does not disqualify a Consultant from related future RTA, Pima Association of Governments, or member-jurisdiction procurements. However, a Consultant may be disqualified from a future procurement if the Consultant obtained material nonpublic information through its Advance Delivery Team work and gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result.
One original shall be bound and single-sided and formatted as described herein. The original must be bound in a single volume and constitute the SOQ in its entirety and clearly marked “ORIGINAL.” A digital copy, saved on a secure (virus-free), read-only USB portable drive (e.g., flash drive, etc.) of the SOQ must be included in the sealed envelope or box. Additional requirements are described herein under INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS.
Publish date: June 12, 2026
Daily Territorial
Questions and Answers
Question #1: The advertisement includes the following statement: “a Consultant may be disqualified from a future procurement if the Consultant obtained material nonpublic information through its Advance Delivery Team work and gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result”. Can you confirm if PAG/RTA will publish the deliverables of this contract in their website? If that’s the case, can you provide examples of material non-public information that would disqualify the consultant from future procurements?
Answer: The intent is to make the results publicly available as needed and appropriate. However, at this time a determination has not been made regarding what forum/format the various deliverables and information will be shared. Also, we have not envisioned what types of information and/or analysis would be considered not suitable for public release but will work closely with the selected team and partner jurisdictions to ensure efforts and activities don’t create situations that may lead to preclusion of firms/team from future procurements.
Question #2: Can you please clarify that the below is correct, regarding what should be included in the response? As well as clarify if we are missing anything.
- SOQ Responses (not to exceed 15 pages in length, not including the front and back cover, table of contents, indexes)
- Appendix 1 – Resumes (not included in page count)
- Appendix B – Addenda acknowledgement form (not included in page count)
- Appendix C – Respondent’s Information Sheet (not included in page count)
- Signature on the SOQ page (not included in page count)
Can you please confirm if a digital copy, saved on a secure (virus-free), read-only USB portable drive (e.g., flash drive, etc.) of the SOQ must be included in the sealed envelope or box, along with the “ORIGINAL” SOQ copy printed single-sided only and bound on the left side with front and back covers? As well as 3 additional copies that may be duplexed? Please confirm if that is correct or if we are missing anything.
Answer: In response to the request for clarification on the SOQ, the understanding stated for items 1-5 is correct.
In response to the inquiry regarding the submission of the digital copy, original version and three copies, the understanding is correct.
Question #3: We are seeking clarification regarding the following statement: “Participation in the Advance Delivery Team does not disqualify a Consultant from related future RTA, Pima Association of Governments, or member-jurisdiction procurements. However, a Consultant may be disqualified from a future procurement if the Consultant obtained material nonpublic information through its Advance Delivery Team work and gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result.” To help ensure alignment and informed participation, we respectfully request clarification on the following:
3.1. Applicability in Contract Documents
Could you please confirm whether this policy is expected to be reflected in the Advance Delivery Team contract or other procurement documents? If so, any guidance on where it will be addressed would be appreciated.
Answer: The disqualification statement is intended to provide awareness to prospective submitters and do not anticipate needing to incorporate this into the responses, proposals, or future contract documents.
3.2. Understanding “Material Nonpublic Information”
It would be helpful to better understand how RTA is generally interpreting “material nonpublic information” in this context, including any typical examples or criteria used to evaluate materiality.
3.3. Evaluation Approach
We would appreciate any additional insight into how determinations may be made regarding:
Whether such information has been obtained; and
Whether it could result in an unfair competitive advantage.
Any information on the general approach or process would be helpful for planning purposes.
3.4. Role of Public Information Sharing
If information developed through Advance Delivery Team activities is later shared broadly (for example, through published assessments or reports), could you provide guidance on how that may factor into considerations of competitive advantage?
3.5. Coordination Across Jurisdictions
Since the statement references RTA, PAG, and member jurisdictions, any information on how this approach is coordinated or applied across agencies would be appreciated.
Answer: In response to items 3.2 through 3.5: The intent is to make results and products publicly available as needed and appropriate. However, at this time a determination has not been made regarding what forum/format the various deliverables and information will be shared. Also, we have not envisioned what types of information and/or analysis would be considered not suitable for public release but will work closely with the selected team and partner jurisdictions to ensure efforts and activities don’t create situations that may lead to preclusion of firms/team from future procurements.
Question #4: Regarding the RFP-Mandatory-Terms-Conditions document, related to the Indemnification details found in the paragraph in third box at the bottom of page 11 –
Is there any flexibility to adjust the terms and conditions in the RFP? Specifically, we’d like to request consideration to adjust the indemnification provision to make the consultant responsibility fault based. Instead of being responsible for all willful acts, consultant should be responsible for reckless or willfully wrongful acts.
Answer: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the indemnification provision. We are researching this item and the associated request and will provide a follow-up response as soon as we have completed our assessment.
Answer Follow-up: please note the revised language that replaces the previous Indemnification clause in the Mandatory Terms and Conditions document.
To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Contractor, its successors, assigns and guarantors agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the RTA and its Board, officers, officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all allegations, claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, damages, liabilities, or penalties (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or litigation expenses) of any kind arising out of the Contractor’s activities, including the negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful acts or omissions of its officials, agents, employees, subcontractors or volunteers, in performance of its obligations under this Agreement, regardless of how such claims are worded or styled or the specific cause of action asserted. The Contractor’s obligation under this section shall not apply to any damages caused by the negligence of RTA or its employees. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement.
If a court of law determines that this section is void because the language used does not comply with A.R.S. § 34-226, then the words or phrases that cause the provision to violate the statute will be deemed to have been retroactively modified in a way that complies with the statute but retains Lead Agency’s indemnity obligations to the fullest extent not inconsistent with the statute.
Question #5: Does the page titled SOQ (page 15) of the Instructions to Respondents (RFQ-Advance-Delivery-Team-Solicitation-Instructions-and-Appendicies) document need to be signed and completed by both the prime and subconsultants or just the prime?
Answer: Appendix C, 3-page form must be filled out by all team members (prime and subs).
Question #6: After careful review of the RFQ we have the following questions:
Section REQUIRED SUBMITTAL INFORMATION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA, Page 10, Paragraph 2 states “Larger sheets may be used for visual representations such as organizational charts, flow charts, project grids, and tables (etc.), if they are folded to not larger than 8.5 X 11 inches”.
Can you confirm that the use of a sheet larger than 8.5 x 11 is limited to graphics and images only? Would it be permissible for text directly related to a graphic or image to be included on the same page?
Answer: Accompanying text elements and/or descriptions and statements can be included in support of any graphics, tables, charts etc.
Section REQUIRED SUBMITTAL INFORMATION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA, Page 10, Paragraph 5 states that a part of the Evaluation Criteria is “Professionalism of Written Statement (0-10 deductive points for deficiencies).”
Can you define deficiencies that would cause a deduction in points?
Answer: Examples include but are not limited to; typos, mislabeled references to figures and/or graphics, incorrect project references, formatting errors, etc.
Section REQUIRED SUBMITTAL INFORMATION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA, Page 10, Paragraph 2 states that Appendix I – Resumes are excluded from the page count.
Can you confirm that detailed resumes are required only for personnel indicated as Key in the organization chart?
Answer: Resumes for team members that are not designated as ‘key’ but are still part of the team, can be included.
The RTA operates its programs without regard to race, color and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We invite you to complete our voluntary self-identification survey (English/Spanish). If you need translation assistance, please call (520) 792-1093 and ask for Zonia Kelley. Si necessita ayuda con traducción, llame por favor al (520) 792-1093 y comuníquese con Zonia Kelley.