REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Revised Request for Proposals: Hancock County Comprehensive Plan Update

The Hancock County Board of Supervisors (the “County”) is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified planning and consulting firms to provide professional services for the update of the Hancock County Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this RFP is to identify a responsive and responsible consultant capable of delivering high-quality planning services in accordance with applicable public procurement requirements. The scope of the contracted services may include within the County’s discretion the addition of amendments to or drafting of other related ordinances, including without limitation those related to zoning and subdivisions.

The comprehensive plan was last updated in 2010. The County seeks to create a new, implementable, comprehensive plan that will serve as a guide for policy changes, land-use planning, budget preparation, zoning and related ordinance updates, and capital improvements.

The purpose of this plan is to communicate a community vision through the year 2045 and establish specific goals, policies, and actions needed to achieve that vision.

Proposals are due by 10:00 AM. on Monday, June 1, 2026.

To obtain the full RFP, click the link below:

Submitted Questions & Responses

Question #1: Could you provide additional guidance on the expected level of detail for the Housing Needs Assessment (e.g., policy-level analysis versus more detailed market or site-level evaluation), particularly as it relates to informing implementation strategies?

Answer: We would want this to be on the level of a standalone study. Our organization is asked frequently by companies about available housing stock and future housing developments. We also want to have a 3rd party evaluation of current subdivision regulations and provide recommendations.

Question #2: For the transportation component, is the intent to develop a high-level mobility framework, or are more detailed analyses (e.g., freight movement, access to industrial and employment centers, or traffic modeling) anticipated?

Answer: This would be a high level mobility framework.

Question #3: With respect to coastal resilience, what level of analysis is expected (e.g., policy guidance, vulnerability assessment, or scenario-based planning), and are there existing resilience or hazard mitigation efforts the Commission would like directly integrated?

Answer: The county has an existing hazard mitigation plan that the state requires all counties to keep active and updated. The county is tasked with maintaining the public beaches, pedestrian pathway, and seawall. This section can be policy guidance.

Question #4: How does the Board of Supervisors envision integrating hazard mitigation, disaster recovery, and coastal resilience considerations into the Comprehensive Plan, and are there existing efforts or priority initiatives the selected consultant should build upon?

Answer: The consultant should review and build upon existing plans, policies, data, and initiatives that are relevant to these topics, including the current Comprehensive Plan, applicable hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts, floodplain and drainage considerations, and other local, regional, state, or federal planning efforts that affect Hancock County. The consultant should also coordinate with the Hancock County Board of Supervisors and other relevant partners to identify priority resilience issues, vulnerabilities, and opportunities for implementation that should be reflected in the updated plan.

Question #5: Could you clarify the decision-making structure for the project, including how direction will be coordinated among the Port & Harbor Commission, Board of Supervisors, and participating municipalities?

Answer: The Board of Supervisors will be the primary agency for the comprehensive plan update with Port & Harbor Commission having a supporting role in the process.

Question #6: Will a steering committee or advisory group be established to guide the planning process and support intergovernmental coordination?

Answer: No. The intention of this section is for the consultant to evaluate current intergovernmental and agency coordination and provide an assessment of the current environment. Are there any potential shared services or efficiencies that can be realized through further intergovernmental coordination or cooperation?

Question #7: What level of staff support will be available to assist with public engagement activities such as meeting logistics, outreach, and communications?

Answer: The county and Port & Harbor Commission will help the consultant with the public engagement part of the project.

Question #8: Are there expectations regarding the number, type, or geographic distribution of engagement activities across incorporated and unincorporated areas?

Answer: Our expectations would be that there would be a mix of in-person workshops and online surveys that would gather public input and engagement. The local municipalities have completed updates to their comprehensive plans within the last 5 years.

Question #9: What GIS datasets, planning documents, and technical studies will be made available to the selected consultant at project initiation?

Answer: We can provide any technical studies that are available from the county. I know a road study and stormwater assessment study have been completed since 2018. The county board of supervisors used these studies to guide their decisions in capital infrastructure projects.

Question #10: Are there any recent or ongoing studies (housing, infrastructure, resilience, or economic development) that should be incorporated beyond those listed in the RFP?

Answer: No

Question #11: Is there an anticipated budget range for this project, or guidance on expected level of effort?

Answer: We do not have a budget set for this project. Port & Harbor has funds allocated for FY26 to kick off the project and we plan to budget the rest of the funds over the next fiscal year. We were leaving the budget formation to each proposer.

Question #12: Would the Board of Supervisors prefer that optional or supplemental services be identified as add-alternates, particularly for items such as enhanced engagement, scenario planning, or implementation support?

Answer: Yes, you can provide add-alternates services in your proposal that you think could be of interest to Port & Harbor and Board of Supervisors.

Question #13: For the Fee Proposal, if we provide an estimate of potential reimbursable items (such as printing, meeting materials, venue rentals & logistics, translation services, etc.), can we list such estimated expenses "below the line" of our fee proposal? In other words, will any estimated reimbursable expenses be considered a part of the consultant's total Estimated Fee when evaluating its reasonableness against other proposals?

Answer: We would consider these expenses as part of the overall fee proposal budget.

Question #14: When was the zoning ordinance and official zoning map adopted, or what was the date of the last comprehensive update of both?

Answer: The current comprehensive plan was adopted in 2010. I believe the zoning ordinance would have been adopted around the same time period.

Question #15: Do resumes/count toward the 10 double-sided page limit?

Answer: No. Resumes are excluded from the page limit.

Question #16: Is there a preferred format or level of detail for the fee breakdown (by task, by staff, etc.)?

Answer: You have the freedom to break down the budget as you see fit. We are most concerned with the top-line number for the entire project.

Question #17: Are there expectations for the number of on-site visits or key milestones requiring in-person attendance?

Question #18: The RFP states that resumes do not count toward the proposal page limit. Would it be acceptable to include team member resumes in an appendix?

Answer: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question #19: The RFP requests descriptions of at least three projects completed by the team and allows additional pages for previously completed projects. Would it be acceptable to include project sheets for relevant projects that are currently in progress, in addition to completed projects?

Answer: Please only include completed projects to satisfy the RFP's stated requirement.

Question #20: With the Board of Supervisors now being the primary agency for the RFP, are there any shifts in the overarching vision or priority areas for the comprehensive plan that we should ensure our proposal addresses?

Answer: There have been no shifts in the overarching vision based on the Board of Supervisors assuming primary agency over the comprehensive plan update.

Question #21: With the Board of Supervisors now being the primary agency for the RFP, are there any updates to the required administrative forms, insurance requirements, or standard contract terms that differ from the Port & Harbor Commission?

Answer: Since the Board of Supervisors and Port & Harbor Commission are both public entities, all contract terms and insurance requirements should remain the same.