Questions_and_Answers_0002.pdf

Questions and Answers

1. The Bid Submission Document Attachment 6 Price Schedule document asks for the following breakdown of costs:

• Hire conservation team to complete survey work (labor)- is this only for the on-site portion of the work? Use this to identify all labor costs, for both on-site and off-site work (producing the survey).

• Travel – mileage and tolls? This will identify costs for mileage, tolls, fuel, etc. For conservators who are coming from farther away, this cost may also include the cost of a hotel for overnight stay or perhaps renting a car.

• Conduct associated scientific testing - Is this for equipment, testing and analysis costs outside of the sampling work that would be done as part of the survey? Do we distinguish the rate for our time in testing versus the outside lab or scientist costs. We suggest distinguishing the rate associated with the conservator conducting the testing versus any rate that would be associated with outside laboratory testing.

• Produce Survey - Does this include the research and writing time done off-site (i.e. all other project time not included in the on-site portion of the survey) or just the printing and production costs for the deliverables? If you are including your labor costs to produce the survey in the overall labor costs, use this section to identify costs for producing the survey such as printing and formatting.

• Produce one day training session for park staff – Preparation (off-site) and presentation on-site

– yes, this would encompass both of those costs.

• Photography - is broken out as a task but there are no specifics given. Is the photography requested a basic record shot i.e. 1-2 images in situ with an iPad and an NPS scale card? or is the expectation that it will be all sides of the piece with a neutral background and studio lighting which requires pieces to be moved to a photo setup? Basic record shots would be faster and safer requiring less movement of items through the spaces. It would also be safer if we don’t yet know what the potential hazards might be. Basic record shots will suffice for this project. These record shots should be included in the printed survey to identify the objects.

• Equipment – asks for hours and rate/cost as opposed to a cost/unit and number of units e.g. 3 pairs of mercury vapor respiration cartridges @ $28 each. The person who produced this form, likely did not understand that, in this case, supplies/equipment will be tallied in a different format. Ignore the hours/rate cost, unless you plan to use any equipment where these rates would apply, such as a lift or a fume hood.

1. Can you give any guidance on how many are the artifacts located in at each site (i.e. Glenmont v.

the labs?) e.g. roughly 50:50 split or are more at one site or the other (i.e. more historical items or more scientific items?) It is roughly a 50:50 split between the two sites (the Lab complex and the Glenmont estate). All of the items are historical in nature. Roughly half will be scientific in nature.

2. Is there any breakdown on the categories/types of objects that make up the list of 250 objects?

i.e. the SOW lists 22 types of collection items that might be included in the list (Animals skins, Textiles, Mirrors, Furniture, etc.) is the assumption that there are multiples of each of these 22 types? E.g. several taxidermy mounts, a number of hats, gloves, garments, several mirrors, etc.?

Unfortunately, time did not allow us to offer a more specific breakdown of objects. Please assume that there are multiples for most of the items listed. Most objects are of a manageable size (can fit on a six foot long table). However, there could be as many as 25 objects, which are oversized in nature. Some objects, such as the mirrors at Glenmont will be examined in-situ in the period rooms.

3. Should we assume that some baseline testing of rooms/surface where potentially hazardous materials are stored/exhibited should be conducted? E.g. wipes of tabletops, walls, floors in some rooms? The NPS has determined that this type of room testing could not be incorporated into this project because they have a separate division within the NPS that handles this type of testing. This survey, when reviewed and interpreted by park staff, will serve as guidance for the future testing of these identified spaces.

4. Should we assume that the general purpose is to ensure the spaces are safe. What percentage of artifacts actually need testing or merely ID of potential hazards that might be present for that item? Should we assume that the intent is not necessarily to sample/test every item? This is correct. In this case, we will rely on the expertise of the selected vendor to dictate this work.

5. We want to clarify that testing for asbestos testing must be done by a qualified agency. It would be impossible to price out asbestos testing if the items are not yet identified. We can identify items or item types that might be likely to have asbestos to conduct testing after the survey. Is that sufficient? Yes.

6. Can you provide some information on what kinds of chemical analysis/reports already exist or what kind of sampling/testing was done in the past e.g. air sampling, GCMS, Wipe sampling, etc.

Chemical analysis has been conducted on the majority of the chemical bottles that were used by Thomas Edison to house chemicals for his experiments. Any data from this previous testing, which may provide additional information regarding what types of chemicals were used at the site during the historic period, will be made available to you. Some asbestos testing has been conducted in the past, but relates primarily to building components, not objects. This data can also be provided. Select air sampling has been conducted in some of the park spaces and this data can also be provided. Most of the park munitions and ordnances were tested in 2022. This data will also be provided for you. Lastly, some of the taxidermied items at Glenmont were tested for hazardous materials in 2017. This data will also be provided for you.

7. Why is zinc on the list of hazards? Are there particular zinc items that are of concern? Or was it zinc processing that occurred in the labs. Zinc was identified as a hazard by some of the larger museum institutions that are currently investigating hazardous materials. The park has zinc top tables and kitchen objects. The park will rely on the expertise of the selected vendor to determine if these objects are of concern.

8. Are PCBs a hazard of concern? They were not on the list. The park is not familiar with the term PCB. If the potential bidder, with their expertise, believes this should be an area of concern – please include this information in the proposal. Testing that may be associated with PCB can be capped to a certain limit, in order to quantify the bid.

9. In one place on the SOW the Period of performance lists 11 month from date of award and in another 3 months from date of award. Is 11 months correct? Yes.

10. Do tags need to be strung? Or just printed? Stringing adds to the cost. Please include stringing the tags.

11. Should it be assumed that the 5 bound copies of the report should be color printed? Yes.

12. Do we retain the copyright of the presentations that we create for the workshop? I.e. if we use images of TENHP material we would not use that without express permission, and TENHP would have the ability to use the content as needed. But if we use images or content that we have from other projects we want to know that the NPS will not restrict our ability to re-use our content for future educational opportunities. We will not restrict the use of these photos/information for educational purposes. The overall goal is to encourage all historic museums to investigate hazards that may be present in their collection and how to address them. The vendor will retain the copyright to their presentation, for future use.