Project Information

Bid Title

Lumberton Meadow Branch | Addendum 1

Issuing Agency

Lumberton city

Location

North Carolina

Published Date

Dec 12, 2025

Closing Date

Jan 27, 2026

Government Level

State & Local

Status

Closed

Original Source

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Inquiries

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Documents

Join to Access Full Details

Project Description

Bid Title:	Lumberton Meadow Branch | Addendum 1
Category:	Public Works
Status:	Open
Bid Recipient:	Brandon Love

Publication Date/Time: 12/12/2025 12:00 AM Closing Date/Time: 1/27/2026 11:59 PM Contact Person: Brandon Love (blove@ci.lumberton.nc.us) and cc: Leslie Bartlebaugh (leslie_bartlebaugh@ncsu.edu). Related Documents: Lumberton Meadow Branch Design Engineering ADDENDUM 1

Attachment Preview

City of Lumberton

500 N Cedar St, Lumberton, NC 28358

RFQ#: RFQ2025-033

Date of Issue: November 14, 2025

Date of Addendum 1: December 12, 2025

Lumberton Meadow Branch | Addendum 1

DATE: December 12, 2025

POSTED: Available at https://www.lumbertonnc.gov/Bids.aspx

DESCRIPTION: The following information is inclusive of any additional information received and

questions answered during the optional pre-submittal meeting on December 3, 2025 and from

emails received by December 9, 2025 for RFQ#: RFQ2025-033 (Lumberton Loop Meadow

Branch Floodplain Restoration Project). The information within is organized as outlined below:

I.​ Notes from pre-submittal meeting and site visit

II.​ Questions received from pre-submittal meeting and from email inquiries

III.​ Interested vendors (in attendance at the pre-submittal meeting and who emailed

questions)

CONTACT: Please send any administrative questions or comments regarding this addendum or

the RFQ in general to Brandon Love (blove@ci.lumberton.nc.us) and cc: Leslie Bartlebaugh

(leslie_bartlebaugh@ncsu.edu). Any questions regarding scope will not be able to be answered

past the deadline for questions.

I. NOTES FROM PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING: DECEMBER 3, 2025

I.I. PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING:

●​ Introductions. See Item III below for the list of attendees.

●​ The CDDL and the City of Lumberton stated the main goals and deliverables as

listed in the RFQ. Discussion points shared in the meeting that were not

mentioned in the RFQ include:

○​ Community engagement will likely be important since this community has

not been engaged about the project since 2017 - 2020, and some

infrastructure changes may be part of the project (i.e., road crossing

changes). See question below regarding community engagement

responsibilities.

City of Lumberton

RFQ#: RFQ2025-033

Addendum 1

○​ In the Relevant Project Experience section, it will be advantageous to

highlight evidence of crossover on the project team and to include

projects that are similar to the Meadow Branch project regarding design

fee, construction cost, scope, and scale.

I.II. SITE VISIT

●​ The group walked the length of the site from Jerry Giles Park to Fuller Avenue.

Discussion points shared during the site visit that were not mentioned in the RFQ

include:

○​ Park amenities may need to move or shift to accommodate the ultimate

design solution.

○​ Jerry Giles Park is highly utilized by the community.

○​ Walnut Street may be a candidate for removing the vehicular bridge and

replacing it with a pedestrian-only solution. The community is aware that

this is a possible solution, and has voiced in the past the desire to remove

the crossing (as it functions as a vehicular cut-through from adjacent

roads with higher traffic volumes). The linear park space created along

Meadow Branch, as a result of this project, can act as a buffer between

the commercial spaces along Roberts Avenue and the neighborhood.

○​ The City of Lumberton would like to avoid any bridge modifications at the

crossing on Highland Drive.

○​ At the western terminus of the project area, the section of Fuller Avenue

north of the last remaining house on the west side of the street could be

removed/converted to another surface.

○​ Hydraulic modeling associated with this project will likely change as the

adjacent I-95 project progresses and the highway is elevated. There is

some possibility of backwater conditions forming, particularly closer to

I-95..

II. QUESTIONS RECEIVED

Q1. Is this scope inclusive of the actual trail and park amenities design, or does

that come later?

A.​ This scope primarily includes roadway modifications, earthwork, revegetation,

etc. (infrastructure and flood mitigation practices). Concept level layout of park

amenities is desired under this scope of work, however, supplemental funds

beyond the basis of this contract will be necessary for the detailed design and

implementation of park-specific features.

Q2. To what extent is permitting and documentation through construction covered

by this contract? Would construction administration be part of another contract?

Page 2

City of Lumberton

RFQ#: RFQ2025-033

Addendum 1

A.​ As noted in section 2.2.2 of the RFQ, this contract is for design and engineering,

inclusive of permitting efforts and cost estimates, with a final cost estimate to be

formatted as the bid tab. A separate contract will ultimately be pursued for

construction administration, with the desire to utilize the same vendor that does

the drawings.

Q3. Is the selected vendor intended to perform any grant administration?

A.​ No - grant administration will be performed by the CDDL, who will request

relevant information from the consultant for grant management items throughout

the project.

Q4. Will a traffic study be necessary?

A.​ Possibly - there are roadways in the project that overtop in 5- and 10-year flood

events. Specifically, where Walnut street crosses Meadow Branch may need to

be assessed in more detail. In order to make any investment of money for major

infrastructure changes to any crossings worthwhile, it will be imperative to

understand if those infrastructure changes would have flood reduction benefits.

Q5. Is there any further acquisition of properties anticipated along the project

area?

A.​ Unlikely, as the buyout windows have long passed. That said, there is a

possibility that some of the remaining properties along the project boundary may

choose to do a buyout within the timeframe of the project (i.e., stemming from a

separate flooding event).

Q6. How much involvement would be expected of the consultant regarding

community engagement/coordination? Utility coordination?

A.​ Regarding public engagement: The City and the CDDL will lead the coordination

of community engagement efforts, with the consultant providing engagement

materials and possibly participating in co-presenting material with the CDDL and

the City. The consultant will be responsible for utility coordination alongside the

City of Lumberton.

Q7. Will a nationwide or individual permit be required?

A.​ There is a likely possibility for this, as there is approx. 2500 linear feet of stream

frontage within the project boundary. Part of the consultant’s role regarding

permitting is to ascertain the need for a nationwide or individual permit.

Q8. In the Relevant Project Experience section of the SOQ response, can

consultants only include projects that have been constructed, or just through

design?

Page 3

A.​ Listed projects must at least be through design.

City of Lumberton

RFQ#: RFQ2025-033

Addendum 1

Q9. In the possible Jerry Giles Park scope of work, would there be any interest in

including nature-play with the stream?

A.​ Yes.

Q10. We’re seeking clarification on if the Project Understanding and Qualifications

Statement is intended to only be included in the 1 Page Cover Letter, or should we

expect to be able to expand upon these elsewhere as well?

A.​ The Project Understanding and the Qualifications Statement will be included in

the 1-page cover letter. The other sections (Project Team and Project

Experience) are additional opportunities to further demonstrate qualifications and

understanding.

Q11. We understand that while construction of park amenities outside of those

necessary for flood mitigation is not currently in the funding being pursued, can

you confirm that concept level layout of these elements and how that interacts

with floodplain grading is part of core scope?

A.​ Yes, concept level layout of park amenities is desired under this scope of work.

More specifically, it will be the expectation that the selected designer generates

proposals and plans that consider the interplay between flood mitigation and

recreation as being connected (i.e., physically adjacent) but not contingent (i.e.,

scopes of work primarily concerning flood mitigation can be clearly delineated

and funded through a separate source than scopes of work primarily concerning

recreational enhancements).

Q12. Further, would detailed 60, 90, and 100 percent construction drawings of new

passive use spaces and amenity elements (if designed) would be covered under

this or supplemental scope?

A.​ Detailed drawings of these spaces would be covered under supplemental scope.

Q13. Previous modeling has been conducted by CDM Smith – it was stated that

this information would be provided to the selected firm upon selection. Can you

provide the modeling platform the team should be expecting to get this data in?

A.​ To clarify, concept-level modeling was completed as part of a previously

completed CDDL-led effort -- a HEC-RAS model was used in these previous

simulations. CDM Smith was the subcontractor assisting FEMA with the

previously completed environmental review of the project.

Q14. CDDL also mentioned looking at preliminary modeling and potentially doing

some of their own. Is this information that can be provided ahead of the submittal

Page 4

City of Lumberton

RFQ#: RFQ2025-033

Addendum 1

or even outputs for understanding? If not, will this be provided along with original

CDM Smith modeling to the selected firm?

A.​ See response to Q13 regarding clarification of previous modeling work. This work

will be provided to the selected team, but not ahead of the RFQ submittal.

Q15. Can you confirm, as was stated in the pre submittal meeting, that due to the

"jack o lantern" nature of the parcels within the City's control, a traditional

restoration and thereby low flow channel realignment is not anticipated?

A.​ Any scopes of work impacting the channel will need to result in a

limits-of-disturbance that does not exceed the bounds of the parcels within the

City's control. It will be the responsibility of the selected designer to propose

stream and/or floodplain modifications that yield the greatest level of flood

reduction within these conditions.

Q. What is the source of funding for the Design Contract, and is it contracted?

A.​ North Carolina Department of Public Safety. Yes, funds have been awarded

and contracted.

Q. Can you extend the due SOQ date to a date after the holidays?

A.​ The date will not be extended.

III. PRE-SUBMITTAL ATTENDEES

IN ATTENDANCE AT THE PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2025:

NAME

COMPANY

EMAIL

Sarah Bruce

KCI, Inc.

sarah.bruce@kci.com

Ross Perry

Kimley-Horn

ross.perry@kimley-horn.com

Tyler Spring

Kimley-Horn

tyler.spring@kimley-horn.com

Alston Willard

Timmons Group

alston.willard@timmons.com

Colleen Autry

Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) cautry@res.us

Rob Hopper

Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) rhopper@res.us

Daniel Wiebke

McAdams

wiebke@mcadamsco.com

Martha Eberle

Biohabitats

meberle@biohabitats.com

Page 5

* Disclaimer: Government BidHub provides information on bids, RFPs (Requests for Proposals), and RFQs (Requests for Qualifications) solely for convenience and informational purposes. This site is not an official public notice board. For official details, responses, or inquiries, please contact the relevant government agency directly.