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 - Scaled Templates and Tools for Historic Structure Reports and Cultural Landscape Reports

Deadline: September 18, 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 a scaled set of alternative products for providing guidance for historic structures and cultural landscapes. These should include templates, outlines, decision trees and other tools, based on existing NPS Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) and Historic Structure Report (HSR) formats as outlined in National Park Service (NPS) Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. HSRCLR RFP Final (.pdf)

Questions submitted and answers:

  1. Would you please define a “scaled template?” – The developed template should be able to tier-off or scale up or down depending on the complexity of the project. The purpose of this solicitation is to develop alternatives to both a standard Historic Structures Report and a standard Cultural Landscape Report. The alternatives should be reporting templates that “will provide resource stewards and facility managers with guidance for identifying a scope and level of investigation that is appropriately scaled based on a historic property’s significance, historical integrity, and condition, is adequately focused on the proposed treatment, and identifies the current state of knowledge available about the resource.”For instance if only a minor level of physical work is needed to further the preservation of a particular structure or landscape, it would be useful to have a template for how that undertaking could be accomplished without a traditional HSR or CLR. In other words, the RFP is asking for the development of a set of templates, each scaled to guide a different level of intervention while also taking into account differing levels of significance, integrity, etc.   
  2. “Scope of Work” on page 3 references “three landscape-focused and three structure-focused template approaches and corresponding tools.” Does this mean three alternative sets of templates and tools? How would they be differentiated? Would there not be one final template/tool set? – It is not the intent of this RFP to develop new products that would supplant the current HSR and CLR study formats where their application is appropriate. It is rather to supplement those report types with a set of treatment documents that may be utilized when a full restoration or major rehabilitation is not envisioned.” If a less elaborate (and hence less expensive) document can adequately guide preservation treatments, then it makes sense that an alternative to the standard HSR/CLR be developed and applied in those cases. The 3 templates i.e. small, smaller, smallest scenario is not far from what is being sought. A single template that is itself scalable, is product type that would be acceptable if the contractor can demonstrate how it can be effectively applied to situations that require less complete documentation than the HSR/CLR.  Additionally, the contractor can develop templates “intended to possess the ability to be scaled based upon the criteria noted for Component 2, item #5 – significance, condition, and proposed intervention – for each property that the template may be applied to.” Either scenario would be an acceptable end product.
  3. Is there an expected or preferred format for the decision-making tools? Will these be distributed as brochures/guides to resource stewards and facility managers? Or do you expect the tools will be a digital platform that will be made accessible to these individuals? – While there is no set format for the decision-making tools; the goal is for all resulting processes/materials be used in the field both by cultural resource and facility managers and should be in a “plain language” and user-friendly format. These products would be made available both in a printed and digital format.
  4. If a digital platform is expected for the decision-making tools, please describe the contractor’s responsibility to create the final digital product. Or will the recommendations of the contractor be incorporated by NCSHPO or NPS into a platform of their own creation? – See answer 3, the response to RFP should address what functionality a digital platform could provide and how it will correspond to printed materials. Again, there is no set expectation of the final product accept functionality for the field.
  5. The RFP notes that the deliverables include three scaled templates for Historic Structure Reports (HSR) and Cultural Landscape Reports (CLR). Could you explain in more detail how these templates are scaled? Are the three HSR and CLR templates intended to scale based on project size in relation to one another (such as small, smaller, smallest)? Or is each template intended to possess the ability to be scaled based upon the criteria noted for Component 2, item #5 – significance, condition, and proposed intervention – for each property that the template may be applied to? – Please review the above answers which we think are responsive to this question.
  6. The Selection Criteria on Page 7 of the RFP calls for “Successful experience preparing and creating template-based surveys and procedures.” We assume that’s correct, but we ask because #4 on Page 2 describes “prior experience developing templates or tools that facilitate decision making,” which seems somewhat different. Are we correct in providing information to back up the experience as listed in the selection criteria? – We are looking for a template or tool that helps facilitate decision making on treatment AND a survey/procedure. Since HSRs and CLRs both create a history of a site and condition (i.e. survey) and they layout treatment options/decisions for the resource. Therefore providing information that backs up your experience in either way or both is appropriate.
  7. Is there an anticipated budget? – While we have the funds available, given the unique nature of the project we would like to review the approaches and corresponding costs proposed by each candidate.  The project may have some scalability and we would like to evaluate costs relative to our overall goals. 
  8. Under Project Deliverables, Component 1: Assessment #2,   the RFP says that NPS can provide typical facilities projects ranging from simple to complex. May we get those examples now? – Those examples are not currently pulled but will be available at a project kick off meeting when a consultant is selected. However, if a potential consultant were to look at the NPS property portfolio one could start to understand the level of size/variety/complexity that is managed by the NPS and thus could potentially need a tiered HSR or CLR. Additionally, numerous past HSRs and CLRs completed by the NPS are publicly available through an internet search.
  9. Under Project Deliverables, Component 1: Assessment #1, the RFP says we will interview a variety of stakeholders. Who will identify the participants–NPS or consultant? Is there an anticipated number of interviews? – NPS, NCSHPO, AND the selected consultant would create a stakeholder list of interviewees. There is no anticipated number or capped amount however it would be a “reasonable” amount based on project need.
  10. Is there an anticipated schedule? – The goal is to complete the project in 12 months or less however we recognize some of the review periods could extend this timeline. 
  11. The RFP lists 5 deliverables. Each is to have a 30-day review at 75% and 95% submittal. Plus I assume the final report will also need to be reviewed. So at a minimum, there are 12 months of review time built into the schedule in addition to consultants’ work preparing submittals and responding to comments, etc. Is this correct? – Please see the above answer. Since this project will largely involve the review of existing processes the goal is to complete this effort in 12 months or less.

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)