Menu

Project Opportunities: Requests for Proposals and Expressions of Interest

Through a Cooperative Agreement with the National Park Service, we occasionally have need to seek experienced professionals to complete historic preservation research and other projects.  Please see below for any open Requests for Proposals, or Expressions of Interest.

Request for Proposals - Reconstruction Era National Register Nomination

Deadline: June 22, 2020. The National Park Service (NPS) is seeking the services of a qualified consultant through a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) to prepare a complete National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination for a property associated with the Restored Government of Virginia located in Alexandria, Virginia, from 1863 to 1865, according to requirements specified in this Request for Proposals (RFP). The contract is to be administered by NCSHPO and the work prepared for and completed in coordination with the National Historic Landmarks Program (NHL Program). RFP NHL – FINAL (.pdf)

Request for Proposals - National Park Service Mission 66 Facility Determinations of Eligibility Project

Deadline: June 20, 2020. The National Park Service (NPS) is seeking the services of a qualified individual, firm, or organization (contractor) through a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) to prepare up to eight National Register of Historic Places (NR) Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) for Mission 66 campground properties in the NPS system and develop a simplified DOE “template” for evaluating Mission 66 campground properties for NR eligibility. Depending on project funding availability, the project could also include the development of a report with standardized preservation treatments for Mission 66 campground resources informed by the campgrounds identified in this project scope. These project components must be created in accordance with the requirements specified in this Request for Proposals (RFP). The contract is administered by NCSHPO and the work is prepared, completed, and reviewed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and the National Park Service Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science directorate. RFP NPS Mission 66 DOE Project (.pdf)

Questions Submitted and Answers:

  1. I understand that NPS files related to each campground will be provided to the contracted consultant, but do you know if any of the sites have been surveyed recently?  – The NPS has to compete condition assessments for all park assets every 5 years so some level of resource condition data will be available for each site. Additionally, the NPS has several projects in process around campgrounds and specifically campgrounds in these 5 identified parks; there is some site and survey data available due to those ongoing projects but it will vary park to park. 
  2. What is the expected timeline for this project? The expectation is that the project will be completed by no later than next June with a preference for an earlier completion if possible.
  3. Can you share the budget for the project? – At this stage, while we have funds available, we would like to review what is proposed by potential candidates.  The project may have some scalability – and we would like to be able to evaluate costs relative to our overall goals.
  4. Can you clarify the deadline? The RFP mentions both June 19th and June 20th.  – We apologize for the error in the RFP.  To be fair, we are happy to accept submissions until 5:00 PM ET on June 20th, 2020.
  5. Does the task include detailed treatment plans for the campgrounds surveyed, to be carried out as part of the project? Or is the requirement for a general plan that might be applicable throughout a campground, park, or multiple parks?  – The requirement is for a general plan that might be applicable throughout a campground, park, or multiple parks.  That said, if funding is available, we would like to see a set of standardized treatment recommendations for Mission 66 properties.
  6. Where will the NPS meeting occur? – At this point the plan is for a virtual meeting.
  7. Just to confirm, deliverables for the project will include 8 National Register DOEs completed on National Register forms with eligibility and integrity assessments.  As opposed to DOE assessments being completed on the individual state/SHPO DOE forms like the PIF form in Virginia for instance? – This will somewhat depend on coordination with the each individual SHPO so they should plan on having to complete SHPO specific forms even if that changes as the project goes forward.
  8. If we find in the course of our process that one of the campsites is not eligible we would instead prepare a letter report rather than a National Register form? – That is correct if a site is determined not eligible they would be preparing a letter with support documentation rather than a DOE
  9. Just confirming that the completed DOEs will help inform the process to develop a simplified DOE template process moving forward after the site visits and initial preparation of the 8 DOEs?  – The simplified process can be developed during and/or after the 8 assessments; my guess is it will be an iterative process so it might be helpful to be doing both efforts at the same time with the finalization of the simplified process at the completion of the 8 assessments. 
  10. We assume that treatment plans will only be needed for National Register eligible campgrounds? Is that correct? Can we provide a per-site cost for that option since we don’t know the number of eligible sites? – If funding is available, a set of standardized treatment recommendations for Mission 66 properties is desired. The complexity of those treatment recommendations may depend upon the number of sites that end up being considered eligible for the National Register. Therefore, a cost per campground estimate could be a valid approach.
  11. Will the contract will be awarded on a fixed fee or time and materials basis? – Fixed fee. Though due to the nature of the project, we expect there may need to be some scalability that would end up being informed by the time and materials incurred by the contractor.
  12. Is there a page limit for responses?  – No.
  13. Are there formatting requirements for the response, such as specific font, font sizes, margins, or line spacing? – No.
  14. The RFP does not include a deadline for questions. If questions are received/answered less than seven days before the deadline, will NCSHPO consider extending the deadline? – We do not anticipate extending the deadline at this time.
  15. How many drafts will be required for the DOEs and/or treatment documents submitted to NCSHPO and the NPS for review?  – It will somewhat be dependent on each site’s complexity but we anticipate two drafts are likely before the DOE(s) are finalized.
  16. Will printed deliverables be required for draft DOEs and/or treatment documents submitted to NCSHPO and the NPS? – Most if not all deliverables will be electronic submission only. If the project scope includes design guidelines there might be a requirement for printed drafts to review.
  17. Will printed deliverables be required for final DOEs and/or treatment documents submitted to NCSHPO and the NPS? – See the above answers.
  18. What level of documentation will be required for small-scale elements on contributing sites (e.g., fire circles, picnic tables, etc.)? Minimal—the documentation needs will be dependent on how each element contributes to the overall district.
  19. Will they be documented as individual objects/structures (i.e., one inventory entry for each small-scale object), or will they be documented as character-defining features of the site (i.e., one inventory entry per site, with a field listing all associated small-scale elements)? It could be either depending upon the district and the feature.
  20. Can NPS provide guidance on whether multiple adjacent campsites will be documented as a single site or multiple sites? It will be dependent upon the site.
  21. Will a photo key map be required? Yes on a photo key and likely yes on a map or at minimum updates to existing NPS maps.